Commons Sitting of 4 April 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (PENSIONS) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  CHIPSTEAD VALLEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  CRANBROOK AND PADDOCK WOOD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  GREAT ORME TRAMWAY AND TRAMROAD BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  EDINBURGH AND DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  GUY'S HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  PATRIOTIC ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  SWANSEA GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  WATERFORD CITY GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL.
  Prince of Wales's consent, as Duke of Cornwall, signified.
  Read third time, and passed.

  LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY BILL.
  Read third time, and passed.
  ANDOVERSFORD AND STRATFORD-UPON-AVON RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read third time.
  HARTLEPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read third time.
  KNOTT END RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read third time.
  TOTTENHAM AND EDMONTON GAS BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read third time.
  SOUTHEND-ON-SEA GAS BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read third time.
  ABERDEEN CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read second time, and committed.
  ABERYSTWYTH GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read second time, and committed.
  BELFAST CORPORATION (HOSPITALS) BILL. [H.L.]
  To be read a second time upon Tuesday, 26th April.
  LANARKSHIRE AND DUMBARTONSHIRE RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read second time, and committed.
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read second time, and committed.
  NORTON AND HALTON ROADS BILL.
  Read second time, and committed.
  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL.
  Read second time, and committed.
  WINDSOR DOCK (CARDIFF) BILL.
  Read second time, and committed.
  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Report [1st April] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read; Bill ordered to be brought in by General Goldsworthy, Mr. Richards, and Mr. Atherley-Jones.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under The Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1890, relating to Airdie, Brechin, Hamilton, and Rothesay: Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury; Presented, and read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 172.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under The Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Dartford, East Ham, Ilfracombe, Ossett, Rawmarsh, and Rotherham: Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury; Presented, and read the first time; Referred to the Examiner's of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill printed. [Bill 173.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under The Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Batley, Hereford, Hornsey, Ilford, Leigh-on-Sea, and Lewes: and Mr. Hanbury; Presented, and read the first time; Referred to the Exabiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 174.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under The Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Barnes, Chichester, Doncaster, Hove (Aldrington), King's Norton, and Leatherhead; Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. H. Hanbury; Presented, and read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 175.]
  DIVORCE BILLS.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee on Divorce Bills do consist of the following Members:—Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. J. B. Balfour, Mr. Hemphill, Mr. J. Lawson Walton, The Lord Advocate, Sir Robert Reid, Mr. Solicitor General, and Mr. Wodehouse.—(Sir William Walrond.)

  HARTS DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That a Message, be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to the House Copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with Documents deposited in the case of Hart's Divorce Bill [H.L.].
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, that they do hear Counsel and examine Witnesses for Hart's Divorce Bill [H.L.], and also that they do hear Counsel and examine Witnesses against the Bill, if the parties concerned think fit to be heard by Counsel and produce Witnesses.—(Sir William Walrond.)

PETITIONS.
  ARMY PENSIONS.
  For weekly payment, from Cambridge, Wirral, Upton-upon-Severn, Penzance, Ashton-under-Lyne, Malton, Wareham, and Frome; to lie upon the Table.
  CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  From Motherwell, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  From Edinburgh, against State Regulation; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  In favour, from Dundee and Aberdeen; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  From Croydon, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  In favour, from Fravod, Westminster, Wynnstay, Kiveton Park, Grangetown, Nailstonewood, Hoyland, Rylands Main, Monckton Main, Stanhope Silkstone, New Oaks, Monk Bretton, Manor Pit, Little Hulton, Deepcar, Springfield, Old Mills, and Birley Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  OLD AGE PENSION SCHEME.
  From Bradford, for adoption; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour, from Irvine, Stirling, Aberdeen, and Dumfries; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour, from Poplar, Exeter, Middlesbrough, Lydd, Finchley, Thornley, Montrose, Sheffield, Northwich, Newlyn East, and Helmsley; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour, from Oakenshaw-cum-Woodlands, Dirkhill, Brownroyd, Bradford (2), Great Horton, Horton Bank, Low Moor, Battersea (2), Stirling, Brighton (2), Rothwill, Lewes, Blackpool, Northwich (2), Sennen, Whitby, Mansfield, and London; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2044 to 2048 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 5. 1898).
  Copy presented, of Agreement between the United Kingdom and Portugal, modifying the Postal Money Order Agreement of 17th January, 1883. Signed at Lisbon, 3rd February, 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  METROPOLITAN CATTLE MARKET.
  Accounts presented, for the year 1897, with an Account of extraordinary Works executed other than the general Repairs for the same period [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE.
  1. Building Societies, Copy of Third Annual Report by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies of the Proceedings of the Registrars under the Building Societies Acts, etc. [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 149.]

  9

  2. Friendly Societies, Industrial and Provident Societies, and Trade Unions, Reports of the Chief Registrar for the year ending 31st December, 1897 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 150.]

  3. Thames Conservancy, General Report and Accounts of the Conservators for 1897 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 151.]

  QUIT AND CROWN RENTS (IRELAND) (REDEMPTION).
  Return Ordered, "showing all sums received for the Redemption or Purchase of Quit and Crown Rents in Ireland since 1863, and how the capital sum has been disposed of."—(Mr. Lecky.)
  REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1898, (1) the Amount contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively to the Revenue collected by Imperial Officers; (2) the Expenditure on English, Scottish, and Irish Services met out of such Revenue; and (3) the Balances of Revenue contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively which are available for Imperial Expenditure (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 266, of Session 1897."—(Mr. Lough.)
  IMPERIAL REVENUE (COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE) (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "relating to Imperial Revenue (Collection and Expenditure) (Great Britain and Ireland) for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1898 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 403, of Session 1897)."—(Mr. Lough.)
NEW BILLS.

  CHARITABLE LOANS (IRELAND) BILL.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,)asked for leave to bring in a Bill, entitled "Charitable Loans (Ireland) Bill," and explained that the Measure has for its object the making of provision with respect to certain promissory notes made to charitable loan societies in Ireland; to provide for the recovery of loans made before the 1st March, 1898, by loan societies constituted under the Charitable Loan Societies Act, 1843, because it has been held that, in certain cases, enumerated in the Memorandum to the Bill, owing to defects in the securities these loans could not be recovered in the manner provided by the Act of 1843. That Act, which was for the regulation of charitable loan societies in Ireland, authorised any number of persons in Ireland, subject to certain restrictions and regulations, to form themselves into a society in any district or place, where required, to raise a stock or fund for the purpose of granting loans to the industrial classes resident therein, and recovering repayment of the same by instalments and interest. But certain defects had been discovered in the working of that Act. Loans had been made to persons outside the district of the loan fund society, renewals were given for these loans, loans were made to persons who, at the time they were made, were in debt to the society, loans were made to persons whose sureties were themselves debtors to the society, and interest was allowed to stand; and, consequently, in the Irish courts these debts were not recoverable, and the present Bill was to make them recoverable. But the Bill enacted that the loans shall only stand for the original amount, together with the authorised interest, and that any sum paid by the borrowers in consideration of claims should be set off against their debts.
  Read first time; to be read a second time on Monday, 25th April, and to be printed. [Bill 176.]

  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,)asked for leave to bring in a Bill to appoint additional Commissioners for executing the Acts for Granting a Land Tax, and other Rates and Taxes.
  MR. F. STEVENSON: Although I do not desire to offer any opposition to the Introduction of this Bill, I must make one or two words of protest against its present form. In spite of the fact that the attention of the Government has been so repeatedly called during the last few years to the anomalies existing in regard to our present Land Tax, the only remedy proposed is a small Measure brought in in what used to be called the usual form, for the purpose of appointing additional Land Tax Commissioners. A justice of the Peace is an ex-officio Land Tax Commissioner, and this Bill is to enable additional Commissioners to be appointed by Members of this House; but the discretion of Members of this House is to be limited by the property qualification, which is very considerable in amount. The fact that it is very considerable in amount has been recognised by the Legislature in the past, when certain of the Welsh counties were exempted from that property qualification for its Land Tax Commissioners. Now it seems to me that, after the discussions which have taken place, if it were necessary for the Government to bring in a Measure of this kind, it might have been without the property qualification, which is introduced into this Bill. In view of the experiences of the past, I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have taken this opportunity of dealing with a very strong desire on the part of many counties throughout England to remove this property qualification, especially in those counties which have suffered from agricultural depression.
  Read first time; to be read a second time on Monday, 2nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]

QUESTIONS.

  LADYSMITH CAMP.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the single battalion of infantry now in camp at Ladysmith, along with the 9th Lancers and three field batteries, is, like those batteries, at war strength; and what is its establishment, and what was the number of men actually fit for service at the date of the last Return received?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): The regiment is not up to war establishment, but a draft of over 100 men has recently been sent out to it. Without this draft it had 650 men fit for active service.

  PREVENTION OF POLLUTION OF RIVERS.
  SIR JOHN T. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he will introduce or favourably regard the introduction of a Bill to empower the Scottish County Councils immediately north, of the border to act with the English County Councils immediately south of the border for the purpose of the formation of Joint Committees for the prevention of the pollution of rivers?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The Government cannot undertake the introduction of such a Measure; but the Secretary for Scotland would be favourably disposed to the introduction, of such a Bill as the hon. Member seems to contemplate, if its terms were satisfactorily adjusted.
  SIR J. BRUNNER: Does that mean that a Bill may be introduced in another place?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: No, Sir; it refers to a Bill by the hon. Member or any other private Member.

  ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE.
  MR. T. HERBERT ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that there are no lifts to any of the three floors of offices connected with the Royal Courts of Justice; and whether he will take steps to remedy this deficiency?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. A. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): In reply to my hon. and learned Friend's question, it is quite true that there are no passenger lifts at the Royal Courts of Justice. The fixing of such lifts would involve a heavy and initial outlay; and their maintenance, with the pay of the requisite staff of attendants, would be very expensive. The matter is of some importance, and will, therefore, receive further consideration.

  BRITISH TRADE WITH TUNIS.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether his attention has been called to the diminution of the export trade of the United Kingdom to Tunis; (2) whether recently impediments and delays have been placed on British exports by the custom house authorities of Tunis, and have in consequence deterred the importation of British goods into that country; and (3) if he will cause inquiries to be made by our Consul General in Tunis on this subject?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): We have not received any information to the effect stated in the first and second paragraphs of my hon. Friend's question, but we have written to Her Majesty's Consul General to inquire.

  KEW GARDENS.
  MR. J. H. YOXALL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he can now arrange for the Royal Gardens at Kew to be opened to the public at an earlier hour than noon;

  14
  and on what date the grounds surrounding the Queen's Cottage are to be formally added to the Kew Gardens?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS: I have decided to admit the public to Kew Gardens (not including the plant houses) at an earlier hour than noon on weekdays in the ensuing months of June, July, August, and September. I shall thereby be in a better position to judge of the extent of the demand by the general public for this earlier opening. There are many details involved in this proposal, into which I am having inquiry made; and I hope to give further information in a few weeks' time. I hope that the Queen's Cottage Grounds may be formally added to Kew Gardens about the 1st of June, but cannot absolutely bind myself as to date.
  MR. YOXALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state at what hour in the morning the Gardens will be opened?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS: That is really a question on which the Committee are now sitting. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer him in a few weeks' time.

  ARMY AND ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY RECRUITS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has any objection to state the precise conditions and pay upon which service in the Army was offered, or proposed to be offered, through the Irish Government, to 995 candidates for the Royal Irish Constabulary in December, 1896; and whether he can say if the proposals of the Military authorities were conveyed either by the Irish Government or the Military authorities to the candidates themselves; and, if so, how many were willing to join?
  MR. BRODRICK: I fear I can add nothing to my answer of the "9th ultimo. The latter portion of the Question should be addressed to the Chief Secretary.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: In view of the fact that this is the third time I have asked the Question, I must press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer.
  MR. BRODRICK: I said on the 29th that certain proposals were made to the Irish Government which did not prove acceptable. I referred the hon. Member to the Chief Secretary for further information.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Precisely; but what were the conditions offered?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question has been answered.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: But, Sir, on the point of Order, I protest against the insinuation of the hon. Gentleman, that another Minister could have answered, but did not. When I asked the Chief Secretary he referred me to the Under Secretary for War. What course am I to take in order to get the information I seek? Apparently the two Ministers are conspiring together to withhold it.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I rise to Order. Is the hon. Member justified in accusing two Ministers of conspiring together?
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to give notice that I will endeavour by every means in my power to get this Question answered.

  GRAND JURY CHARGES IN COUNTY WICKLOW.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under what statute or legal authority are charges for official forms levied upon contractors by the Grand Jury of County Wicklow?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,): I am informed by the Secretary to the Grand Jury that the fee of 6d. charged for tender forms in his office is in accordance with Section 22 of the Grand Jury Act of 1836. The Secretary also states that it forms no part of his duty to fill any form, except the Bond, for which a charge of 1s. is
  16
  fixed by Section 24 of the Act, and that, in order to meet the convenience of contractors, or other applicants, who may desire the Secretary to fill the forms for them, the Grand Jury have fixed the charge for such additional work at 6d. In cases where the forms are filled in distant towns in the county a further charge of 6d. is made to contractors who may employ the Secretary, or his Clerk, in order to defray the car hire or other cost of locomotion. The employment of the Secretary in filling these forms is purely optional on the part of contractors.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Will the power to make these charges, or such of them as are legal, be continued under the Irish Local Government Bill?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I presume that the Local Government Bill will permit any charges that are legal to be continued.

  WATER ANALYSIS AT MAIDSTONE.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, in view of the fact that the chemical officers of the Inland Revenue are appointed referees in disputed cases of adulteration under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, and that water is specially excluded from the operation of that Act under Clause 3, will he state whether it is in any way the duty of the chemical officers to undertake the analysis of water for sanitary purposes and act as referees in disputed cases, and under what authority the chemical officers of the Inland Revenue recently analysed the water taken from a well at Maidstone known as Prosser's Well, and in their Report expressed the opinion that the water was not liable to contamination.; whether, as a consequence of such Report, the application to the Court to close the well was refused; is he aware that this well is in close proximity to houses in which no less than 14 cases of enteric fever occurred during the recent epidemic; and whether, seeing that the Report was not signed by the chief of the laboratory, the action of

  17
  these chemical officers was sanctioned by the President of the Local Government Board?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): This Question should be addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury.

  REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the teachers of National Schools are unable to obtain copies of the 63rd Report of the Commissioners of National Education, and that, on the matter being brought before the notice of the Commissioners, they stated that the supply originally printed being exhausted, the Report could not now be reprinted without the express sanction of the Lords of Her Majesty's Treasury; and (2) whether, in view of the fact that this publication contains the Inspectors' Reports, and is therefore required by the teachers for their guidance, Her Majesty's Treasury would give the necessary sanction?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are generally as stated in the first paragraph. The practice in past years has been to publish the Inspectors' Reports as an appendix, apart from the Report of the Commissioners, but on the occasion of the publication of the 63rd Report the Commissioners transferred the Inspectors' Reports to the volume containing their own Report, with the result that the demand for the Inspectors' Reports was greater than the supply. The Commissioners have explained the facts to the Secretary to the Teachers' Organisation, and stated that before making application to the Treasury for a reprint it would be necessary to give a guarantee that there would be an adequate demand for the Report when reproduced, and that the Commissioners could not themselves give such a guarantee. No intimation has since been received as to the extent of the demand, and, therefore, the Commissioners have not felt warranted in bringing the matter before the Treasury.

  BONDS FROM POST OFFICE OFFICIALS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, notwithstanding his statement in 7th March that the question of bond-giving in the Post Office was under the consideration of the Treasury, boys receiving 12s. per week and girls 10s. per week in the telegraph service are being called upon to furnish bond for £100; and, if so, will the Postmaster General consider the desirability of waiving further action pending the decision of the Treasury?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The persons to whom the hon. Member refers do not give bond to the Crown, and, in the absence of particulars, the Postmaster General is unable to say whether or not they give bond to their head postmaster. As regards bonds given to postmasters, the rule is as follows—
  "Subject to the decision of the Postmaster General as to the amount, the postmaster may require the clerks, sorting clerks, telegraphists, and other officers at his office to give bond to himself, and, if he does so, he should enforce in their case the rules laid down for his own guidance."
  The Treasury have now received the opinions of the other Departments concerned in this question, and will announce their decision very shortly.

  BELFAST POST OFFICE STAFF.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for North Belfast I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a memorial was received from the officers in the clerk class regarding the appointing of additional assistant superintendents at Belfast, in which it is stated that three officers, in that class were performing constantly duties analogous to those performed by assistant superintendents; that some of these officers have been performing these duties for 15 years without promotion to the class of assistant superintendent; and that the number of assistant superintendents at

  19
  Belfast is much lower in proportion to the staff than at any other large office; and whether he will make inquiries into the case?
  MR. HANBURY: A memorial has been received from the clerks on the telegraph establishment at Belfast to the effect described by the hon. Member, but it is not the case that some of these officers have; performed the duties of assistant superintendents for 15 years. They may possibly have done so from time to time for short periods on emergencies, but this would be in accordance with the common rule of the service. The duties of the telegraph staff at Belfast were thoroughly revised six years ago, when the number of assistant superintendents was raised from three to seven, to correspond with the number of duties proper to that class. The number of assistant superintendents at Belfast is not, as stated, much lower in proportion to the staff than at any other large office; indeed, it is higher than at some offices. I may state, however, that the question of the number of the supervising officers at Belfast is at present under consideration in connection with the general undertaking by the Postmaster General and myself to ascertain whether an adequate number of supervising officers are employed on the telegraph side of provincial offices.

  AUDITS OF SCHOOL MANAGERS' ACCOUNTS.
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether school managers of any school not provided by a school board will be allowed to pay any fee and charge it in their school accounts to any member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants or of the Society of Accountants or Bank Managers, by whom their accounts must be annually audited, by the addition which has been made to Article 85d in the New Day School Code?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. E. GORST,): The answer is in the affirmative.

  MILK IMPORTS.
  MR. A. F. JEFFREYS (Hants,): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state whether the foreign fresh milk imported into this country is inspected at the port of entry for the purpose of analysis; if so, how many samples have been taken; whether any information has reached him of illness arising from the use of this milk; and whether there is any sanitary inspection of the dairies where this milk is produced, similar to that which is enforced in this country?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: There is no system of inspection for the purpose of analysis such as that suggested, but I am informed that some samples of milk imported from France were taken for analysis in the months of December and January last, at the request of the Board of Agriculture. I have not received information as to illness arising from the use of this milk. I am not in a position to state what are the arrangements for the sanitary inspection of dairies in the different countries from which milk is received in this country, but I believe that information bearing on this question has been collected by the Royal Commission on tuberculosis, and this will, no doubt, be published in connection with their report.

  ROSCREA, NENAGH, AND BIRR MAILS.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can now state if the contemplated arrangement has been come to with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company regarding the increased facilities for an earlier delivery of the daily mails to the towns of Roscrea, Nenagh, Birr, and districts; or, if not, what is the cause of the delay; and when may the people of the districts named hope for the improved service so much needed?
  MR. HANBURY: This matter, which affects a great many services, and therefore involves much local inquiry, has been under consideration in Ireland, but as

  21
  the Reports have only just reached London, it is impossible at present to give the hon. Member any further answer.

  BATOUM SHIPPING RETURNS.
  MR. J. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will grant a Return showing the amount of British tonnage entered and cleared from the port of Batoum for the last 30 years?
  MR. CURZON: I can supply the hon. Member with the figures that he asks for from the year 1881 to 189k. We have no earlier information; and my impression is that, before the Treaty of Berlin there was next to no British trade with Batoum. But I shall be glad to receive any further communication on the subject that the hon. Member cares to make to me.

  SHEFFIELD GUARDIANS ELECTION.
  MR. F. MADDISON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board (1) whether he is aware that in Parliamentary and Municipal Elections it is usual for the returning officers to allow voters to see the nomination, papers which have been handed in, and that the same practice prevails with regard to guardians elections; (2) whether the returning officer in the Sheffield Union refused to inform voters of the names of those nominated until many hours after the time for nominations had closed; (3) whether he refused to disclose the names of proposers and seconders of candidates until after the time for withdrawals had passed; and (4) whether such refusals were according to the regulations governing guardians' elections; and, if so, whether he would issue a further regulation authorising returning officers to consult the public convenience in such matters?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: There is no obligation, so far as I am aware, on the part of a returning officer, either at a Parliamentary or Municipal Election, to allow voters to see the nomination papers
  22
  which have been handed in. The returning officer of the Sheffield Union informs me that he received 174 nominations, of which 50 were handed in within a quarter of an hour before the expiration of the time for receiving nominations; that an application was made to him for the list of the candidates nominated when he was engaged in adjudicating upon the nominations, and that he declined to give this until his examination was completed. The returning officer was entitled to refuse to furnish the list at the time it was demanded. The answer to the third paragraph is in the affirmative, and in this case also the returning officer did not contravene the regulations. The regulations provide for the publication of a list of the persons nominated, and I have not previously received any suggestions that further provision in these matters should be made by the regulations. I shall, however, be happy to consider any representations which may be made on the subject.

  CASE OF MARIA ALBONS.
  MR. C. FENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Spilsby Petty Sessional Court, held on 14th February last, ordered Maria Albons, a domestic servant, to contribute 1s. a week towards the support of her aged parents, although in a letter addressed to the chairman of the Court she stated that she was too poor to go to Spilsby to defend her case, and that if the order was made she would be compelled to discontinue her allowance of between £4 and £5 per annum towards the rent of her parents' cottage; and whether, under these circumstances, he can see his way to advise the Court to withdraw the order?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY,): I have made inquiry about this case. The defendant's letter did not contain either of the statements mentioned in the Question, and I am informed she had absolutely refused to give the Guardians any information as to her ability or

  23
  inability to contribute towards the support of her parents. I have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the magistrates; but the order has not yet been enforced, and I understand it is not likely to be, if she shows she has paid the rent mentioned in the Question, or shows inability to comply with the order.

  CLIFDEN INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, considering the great benefits conferred on the poor in Ireland by the industrial schools, he will provide the small sum necessary to enable the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to extend the benefits of the Industrial School, Clifden, county Galway?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): I have had no application from the Irish Government on behalf of the particular school referred to, for the reason which has, I am informed, been already stated to the hon. Member by the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Will the Chief Secretary reconsider his answer the other day to the effect that he had no money at his disposal for the purpose?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I must ask for notice of that.

  SAILORS AND THE SHAMROCK.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether others in the same watch with Pilkington on St. Patrick's Day were wearing the shamrock without interference; and, if so, why was Pilkington singled out by the officer of the watch and ordered to remove the shamrock from his cap? I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether H.M.S. Retribution, to which Seaman Gunner Pilkington belongs, returned to England on the 12th March, after a voyage exceeding three years; whether, seeing that during that voyage Pilkington's conduct was such as to earn for him a good conduct badge, and that
  24
  for his first offence—namely, wearing the Shamrock on St. Patrick's Day last, he was punished by 14 days' confinement to cells, with deprivation of his good conduct badge and reduction to second class, he will inquire into the case and endeavour to learn on what grounds the officer of the watch singled out Pilkington for punishment while others also were the shamrock on that occasion; whether he is aware that Pilkington's father spent 21 years in the Service as master-at-arms; and whether he will hold out some hope of the revision of this sentence, with the prospect of restoring to Pilkington his good conduct badge and his class?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square): No report of the occurrence mentioned has been received at the Admiralty. The hon. Member seems to think that this man was punished for wearing the shamrock, though I gather from the Question itself that he was punished, not for wearing the shamrock, but for disobedience of orders on being told to remove it.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Where is the distinction?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: There is a very great distinction between the two. In the Navy disobedience of orders lawfully given by a superior officer is regarded as a very serious offence. I am not prepared to interfere in the matter.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Why was this man singled out from a number of others for punishment?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I have already told the hon. Member that I have received no report on the matter. I am not aware he was singled out.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this young man's hair was cut without order, and cut for the purpose of mutilating and degrading him?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I am not aware of it.
  MR. W. H. K. REDMOND: Arising out of this Question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in

  25
  view of the severe punishment received by this man—namely, 14 days' confinement to cells, deprivation of his good-conduct badge, and reduction to the second class—all this taking place over the wearing of the shamrock—and in consequence of very strong feeling in Ireland on this matter, he will make some representations with a view to reducing the punishment?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I am afraid I cannot interfere in a matter of discipline of this kind. It is for the officer in command to judge the whole circumstances, and there is no presumption whatever that the officer has been either harsh or partial. The presumption in the question is that the man refused to remove the shamrock when ordered, and on board ship the lawful orders of the commanding officers must be obeyed.
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as there is a good deal of feeling about this matter, whether, in view of the fact that some time ago soldiers were declared to be at liberty to wear the shamrock—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is entering upon a discussion of the Question.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Then I beg to give notice that I will occupy more time—
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not an orderly way of dealing with the matter.
  MR. W. REDMOND: On a point of order, Sir—
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
  MR. W. REDMOND: But I desire to give notice, Sir, that—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to give notice now, especially in the terms he has employed.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Well, I do give notice that I will call attention to—
  MR. SPEAKER: I must request the hon. Member to conform to the ruling of the Chair.
  MR. W. REDMOND: It is simply scandalous.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. W. REDMOND: I will not be put down like—
  MR. SPEAKER: I shall be bound to call the attention of the House more seriously to the conduct of the hon. Member if he persists in his interruptions. The conduct of the hon. Member is becoming grossly disorderly.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Well, at the risk of being grossly disorderly, I denounce this as an outrage. It is scandalous to inflict 14 days for wearing the shamrock.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have to call the attention of the House to the fact that the conduct of the hon. Member is grossly disorderly. He has repeatedly disregarded the ruling of the Chair.
  MR. W. REDMOND: The conduct of the Government is grossly scandalous.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw forthwith from the House for the remainder of the Sitting.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I shall do nothing of the kind.
  MR. SPEAKER: Then I call upon the Serjeant-at-Arms to see that the order is obeyed.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I sha'n't go.
  [Upon the Serjeant-at-Arms approaching him the hon. Member rose from his seat and left the House, saying as he walked out—]
  This is a most outrageous scandal. Fourteen days for wearing the shamrock! It is an outrage; it is a scandal to give a man fourteen days for wearing the shamrock. I wish to ask what the hon. and gallant Member for York thinks of such a proceeding?
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: In connection with the second Question on this subject I wish to point out that a portion of it has been suppressed. When I handed it in at the Table it inquired whether the First Lord of the Admiralty thought that conduct like this was calculated to attract men, and especially those of good character, to the Service, and whether—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now asking as to a matter of opinion, and I must ask him to put the Question as it appears upon the Paper.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I merely want to ask that part of the Question which has been suppressed, namely, whether this sort of thing is calculated to attract good men to the Service?
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I should like to ask the hon. and gallant Member for York [Lord C. Beresford] whether he ever punished a man like this?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: But part of my Question has been suppressed, and that is what I want to ask. I wish to inquire whether what has occurred is calculated to draw men of good character into the Service? Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Hon. Members must conform to the Rules of the House, which do not allow questions on mere matters of opinion.

  TALIENWAN AND PORT ARTHUR.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether on 16th March on assurance was given by the Russian Government that, in the event of the Chinese Government consenting to lease to the Russian Government Talienwan and Port Arthur, both ports would be open to foreign trade like other ports in China; (2) whether there was a further assurance on 29th March, in which the Russian Government declares that Port Talienwan will be open to foreign trade and that the largest measure of hospitality will be extended there to the ships of all friendly nations; and (3) whether there is reason to suppose that the omission of Port Arthur from the circular dispatch of the Russian Government on 29th March was merely a clerical error?
  MR. CURZON: The answer to the first two Questions is in the affirmative, with the exception that the later assurance was in a note dated March 28th, not March 29th. The attention of the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs was at once called to the omission of Port Arthur from this note, and he replied to Her
  28
  Majesty's Ambassador that he held to the assurances which he had given on 16th March.
  MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary whether the recent acquisition of Port Arthur by Russia as a fortified naval base modifies to any extent the assurance the right hon. Gentleman recently gave the House as to the right of free access to that place of British warships?
  MR. CURZON: I think the hon. Gentleman had better—if he will allow me to say so—wait for the answer to that Question for the full discussion which will take place to-morrow.

  RUSSIA AND KOREA.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Government have formally withdrawn the pledge which they gave to Great Britain, on the evacuation of Port Hamilton, that Russia would not occupy any port in Korea, or any port in China west or south of Korea?
  MR. CURZON: The pledge was given not to Great Britain, but to China, as the then suzerain of Korea. It was to the effect that if the British Government evacuated Port Hamilton the Russian Government would not occupy Korean territory under any circumstances whatsoever. The pledge has not, so far as I am aware, been withdrawn. There was no mention of any port in China west or south of Korea.

  WEI-HAI-WEI.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is able to confirm the statement published in the Times this morning that a usufructuary lease of Wei-hai-Wei has been granted by China to England?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think, perhaps, any statement with regard to the policy of the Government in the Far East had better be deferred till to-morrow.

  POSTMEN'S PARK.
  MR. H. C. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, with regard to the Postmen's Park, provided the obligation to pay £100 yearly for certain rights of light acquired with regard to the new Post Office buildings be cancelled, and that a sum of £100 yearly be paid by the Trustees of the London Parochial Charities, the Treasury will consent to pay £5,000, and the amount of £2,500 to be received from the Commissioners of Sewers, under condition that it should be devoted to the purchase fund of the land to be added to the Postmen's Park; and whether, in addition, the Treasury will consent to pay £75 annually towards the cost of maintenance of the park?
  MR. HANBURY: I have this morning received a communication which renders a detailed reply to my hon. Friend's Question unnecessary. I shall be glad to show it to him.
  MR. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that workmen are at present, and have been for the past three weeks, engaged in disinterring human remains in the land adjacent to the Postmen's Park; and whether, in view of the fact that the question of building upon the site will not be determined until the meeting of the London Parochial Trustees on the 26th inst., he will direct that the remains of former parishioners of St. Botolph shall be left undisturbed until after that date?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I understand that work is proceeding under the licence granted in 1894, which I am advised is still in force. I am not aware that I have any power to suspend its operation.

  CORRUGATED IRON CELLS FOR CONVICTS.
  MR. M. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in how many convict prisons are corrugated iron cells still retained for the incarceration of prisoners undergoing sentences of penal servitude; (2) whether the average width of such cells is under five feet, the average length about seven feet, and the average height under eight feet; (3) how many of such cells are in use at the present time in Portland and Dartmoor Prisons; and (4) whether these cells have been condemned by competent medical authority as detrimental to the health of prisoners?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The answer to the first paragraph is three—Borstal, Dartmoor, and Portland; to the second in the affirmative, except with regard to the Borstal cells, which are longer; to the third, 901. The cells at Borstal number 500. Steps have been in progress for some time for replacing these cells by stone cells, which will come up to modern requirements in all respects. Meanwhile, when possible, two cells are being converted into one. Some delay, which is to be regretted, has, owing to various causes, occurred in carrying out the work, but it will be pushed on as rapidly is possible.

  CONVICT DIETARY SCALE.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the dietary scale in the convict prisons of England and Wales, for penal servitude prisoners at hard labour, has been increased in recent years; and, if so, could he state to what extent, in ounces of bread or meat, or both, in the week; whether penal class diet has been increased; and, if so, to what extent; and whether punishment diet is still restricted to 16 ounces of bread per day and a pint of water?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The diet per week has been increased by a pint of soup, containing four ounces of pork, four ounces of peas, and some other ingredients.

  31
  There is no such thing as a penal class diet. The diets for ill-conducted and idle convicts will be found in the draft rules. No. 1 diet is as stated by the hon. Member, but cannot be given for more than three days at a time.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: With regard to No. 1 diet, when a prisoner gets that for three days, how long must elapse before it is again inflicted?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: That will appear in the Rules on the Table of the House.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is it not a fact it can be re-imposed after the lapse of only one day?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: That is not the case.
  MR. J. BURNS: Is the additional pint of soup granted an additional pint per day or per week?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: It is an addition to the Sunday dinner.
  MR. BURNS: Then am I to gather that the prisoners have less food on Sundays than on ordinary working days?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I must not be taken to admit that the amount of food is inadequate or unsatisfactory, and I shall have something to say on the point in the discussion on the Prisons Bill. On inquiry I thought it might be fair to add something to the Sunday dinner, and this was done.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is not this Sunday dinner a quarter of a pound of cheese and half a pound of bread?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I think the hon. Member will see that this Question is out of order, and that it is undesirable to discuss the question of prison dietary when the whole question is before the House on the Prisons Bill.

  TREADWHEEL AT NORWICH PRISON.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the inquest on a boy named William
  32
  Cooper; (2) whether he is aware that it was proved at the inquest that, on his admission to Norwich Prison, he was examined by the medical officer and certified as strong enough to be placed on hard labour, and was kept to the tread wheel until 10th October, when he complained of being unwell, but was compelled to resume the task of treading the wheel; and, on further complaining of illness, his bed was taken from him, and he was subsequently found dead, in a naked condition, on the cell floor; and (3) whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the particulars of the inquiries which he has instituted into this case?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The hon. Member is, perhaps, unaware that I answered a Question about this case on the 21st February, when I stated there was no reason for supposing that the prisoner's death was the result of his work on the tread wheel. The evidence given at the inquest does not altogether bear out the statements in the second paragraph of the Question, and the coroner expressed the opinion that there did not appear to have been any undue violence or unkind treatment. I see no sufficient ground for laying on the Table the particulars of my inquiry.
  MR. DAVITT: Is it not the fact that the prison doctor certified that the boy on entering the gaol was in good health and fit for hard labour?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I believe that was so, or he would not have been put to hard labour. But some occult disease, unfortunately, led to the lad's death.
  MR. DAVITT: Is it not the case that the boy was kept at the treadmill after he complained of the effect on his health?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: No details appear in the puiblished reports, but I have stated what the opinion of the coroner was upon the inquiry.
  MR. DAVITT: I will ask whether, after what has occurred, the working of the treadmill in this prison will be discontinued?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: There is no reason to believe that it will be, but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, the use of it in prisons generally is being discontinued as far as possible.
  MR. J. REDMOND: With reference to this boy Cooper, who was certified as fit for hard labour by the prison doctor, and was subsequently found dead in his cell, the right hon. Gentleman says he died from some occult disease. What was that disease?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The hon. Member will have the opportunity of seeing the newspaper report.
  MR. J. REDMOND: I do not want the newspaper report.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I am not able to give full details at the present moment; but the coroner was satisfied that the death was not due to any unkindness or ill-treatment on the part of the prison officials. I had an inquiry made on the spot by the chief medical inspector, and I am fully satisfied with the result of the coroner's inquiry.
  MR. J. REDMOND: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think me discourteous in refusing to accept a newspaper report when I have the responsible Minister to give an answer. I want to know what the boy died of.
  DR. C. K. D. TANNER: What was the determining cause of death as given in the medical certificate?
  [No reply.]
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Are the treadmills being used by any of the numerous members of the aristocracy who are now in our prisons?
  [No reply.]

  INSANE CONVICTS AT BBOADMOOR.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many insane prisoners are at present confined in Broadmoor (Convict) Lunatic Asylum; (2) how many of those were suspected of being insane
  34
  when sentenced originally; (3) how many have been transferred to this asylum from convict and other prisons during the past five years; and (4) how many prisoners are at present under observation in convict find local prisons in England and Wales through exhibiting symptoms of mental weakness?
  THE SECRETAKY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: There were 477 males and 164 females in Broadmoor on the 27th March. The number transferred from prison during the last five years was 74. The number of cases under observation in convict prisons is 22, in 48 local prisons 125. The Returns from the remaining 8 local prisons have not been received. It has not been possible for me to collect the information asked for in the second paragraph of the Question.

  SHERIFF IN CHANCERY OF SCOTLAND.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Sheriff in Chancery of Scotland has recently delivered a series of political party addresses in a Scottish constituency criticising the views and conduct of its representatives in this House; and whether it is in consonance with usage and with the office of such a judicial functionary to pursue such a course of action?
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: My attention has been drawn to the facts stated only by the hon. Member's Question, and I have not thought it necessary to ask for further information, because such a course of action is not out of consonance with usage or with the office of the Sheriff in Chancery.

  COLWYN BAY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
  MR. J. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention, has been drawn to the delay which has taken place in announcing his decision in reference to the question of the representation of the Colwyn Bay Urban District

  35
  Council upon the Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water Supply Board; and whether, in view of the fact that a Local Government Board inquiry was held upon this point in December last, and that a speedy decision will be of importance to the Council referred to, he will give his reply without further delay?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): The Local Government Board arrived at their decision in this matter some time since, but to give effect to it a Provisional Order is necessary. A Provisional Order has been prepared, and drafts will shortly be sent to the authorities interested. With regard to the statement that a speedy decision would be of importance to the Colwyn Bay District Council, the hon. Member is, no doubt, aware that the Provisional Order must be confirmed by Parliament before it can come into operation.

  AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. MAURICE HEALY), I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Local Government Board, in determining, for the purposes of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, the amount which, for the purposes of the Act, is to be taken as having been raised during the last year before the passing of the Act, by each spending authority, by any rate, took into consideration any balance in the hands of the spending authority at the beginning of that year which would lessen the amount of the rate actually levied; and whether such, balances were treated as having been raised, within the meaning of the Act, during the year in question, and the amount of the agricultural grant calculated as if they had been so raised?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: The Local Government Board were empowered, in determining for the purposes of the Agricultural Rates Act the amount which was to be taken to have been, raised during the year ended 31st March, 1896, by a spending authority, to take into
  36
  consideration any special circumstances affecting the amount so raised; and, when it was brought under the attention of the Board that a balance in hand had lessened the amount of rates to be raised, the amount by which the rates were so lessened was taken into account in fixing the Grant.

IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL MAP.
MR. D. SULLIVAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. MAURICE HEALY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he could arrange, with a view to the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill, to place in the Tea Room a map of Ireland, showing the boundaries of counties, ridings, baronies, and poor law unions?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A map of Ireland, showing the boundaries referred to in the Question, is being prepared, and will be found in the Tea Room when the House re-assembles after the Easter holidays.

IRISH COUNTY TREASURERS.
MR. D. SULLIVAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. MAURICE HEALY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in how many counties in Ireland there are now county treasurers other than banking companies?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There are five such counties, namely—Carlow, Londonderry, and Longford, and the counties of the cities of Galway and Kilkenny.

CORK POST OFFICE.
MR. D. SULLIVAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. MAURICE HEALY), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Vote for the Post Office in the Estimates this year includes

37
any sum for carrying out the alterations and additions to the Cork Post Office; and when it is expected that the works will be commenced?
MR. HANBURY: The Post Office Estimates for the ensuing financial year include provision for the purchase of some of the interests in the properties which are being acquired for the enlargement of the head post office at Cork. As, however, owing to legal difficulties, it has not yet been practicable to obtain possession, no provision for building has been made in the estimates of the Board of Public Works, and it is not possible to state at present when the works will be commenced.

IMPORTS OF ARMS INTO PERSIA.
MR. F. W. LOWE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government is yet in a position to state the result of its inquiries into the question of the importation of arms into Persia; or, if not, whether, at a later date, further information will be given on the subject?
MR. CURZON: A full report on the Question is on its way from, Her Majesty's Consul General at Bushire; and upon its receipt I shall hope to be in a position to convey to hon. Members who are interested in the matter the further information that they desire.
MR. LOWE: Arising out of that reply, may I be allowed to ask whether, for the satisfaction of British gun manufacturers whose trade with Persia has been stopped, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to lay on the Table of the House Papers showing the reasons for the action which the Government thought it necessary to take in this matter?
MR. CURZON: I am afraid I can give no pledge at this moment, as, obviously, it is impossible for me to promise to lay before the House Papers I have not yet seen or read. I hope, however, to have an opportunity of explaining to hon. Members who are interested in the matter the reasons for the action of the Government.

IRISH PROBATE DUTY GRANT.
MR. P. O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Northern Division of Dublin County, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Bill provides for the future disbursement of the Probate Duty grant; if so, by what section; and, if not, whether it is intended to supply in Committee on the Bill this omission, and in doing so to take care that urban as well as rural localities will continue to share in the grant referred to?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have already more than once stated that the Local Government Bill does not interfere with the grant provided for by the Probate Duties Act of 1888, and that this grant will continue to be distributed on the same basis as heretofore.

INDIAN CURRENCY.
MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when the Government expect to be able to lay upon the Table the proposals for the reform of the Indian currency in India lately received from the Government of India?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): As soon as the Committee which is to consider and report upon the proposals of the Government of India has been appointed I propose to lay on the Table of the House copies of their recent dispatch, and of a preliminary reply which I have addressed to them.

WAZIRISTAN.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Tochi Valley, in Waziristan, is regarded as within the British frontier; and, if so, how, when, and by what authority the transfer was effected?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The Tochi Valley is within the external frontiers of India, and its inclusion was recognised by the Kabul Convention of 1893.

GWALIOR, GATEWAY AT SOUTH KENSINGTON.
MR. J. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is intended to make any use in the new buildings to be erected at South Kensington of the so-called Gwalior Gateway, presented to the Museum at South Kensington, or to provide in the new buildings a place where it may be properly seen?
SIR J. GORST: It is not possible to give an answer to this Question until it is known what form the new buildings will take.

GOVERNMENT STATIONERY CONTRACTS.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what steps the Treasury propose to take in order to carry out the recommendation of the Committee on Government contracts, that in every contract the words which already appear in all stationery contracts should be inserted—namely, that the contractor shall undertake that in the engagement and employment of workmen and others required for the execution of the work no preference shall be given as between unionists and non-unionists?
MR. HANBURY: The Controller of the Stationery Office informs me that, although this condition has been inserted in all Stationery Office contracts since 1893, and no objection has been taken to it by contractors, it has, in the majority of cases, been practically inoperative owing to the action of the men themselves. Such a condition, if enforced, must shut out, for instance, firms which engage trades unionists only, which is not, I think, the desire of the hon.
40
Member. What Sir John Hibbert stated on the 3rd August, 1893, was that the Government would be justified in refusing to enter into contracts with contractors who were shown to have dismissed certain men while, as I understand, the contract was running because they had become trades unionists—a promise which must also be held to apply to dismissing men because they have ceased to be unionists. The Treasury have been in communication with the other Departments on the subject, and the conclusion at which they have arrived is not favourable to the adoption of such a condition.

SALVATION ARMY.
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the splendid results of the social work of the Salvation Army in reclaiming criminals and reducing the statistics of pauperism; and whether, having now an unprecedented surplus from the Revenue Returns, he will consider the desirability, either by a donation of £50,000 or an annual grant of £10,000 to the funds of the Salvation Army Social Scheme, of aiding, as the Australasian Colonies all do, in this work?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I fear I cannot see my way to do as the hon. Member suggests, neither do I think the Salvation Army ask for it.

MINERS' PERMANENT RELIEF FUND.
MR. T. BURT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether, in case the Northumberland and Durham Miners' Permanent Relief Fund should enter into an arrangement with the employers to accept responsibility for all claims (whether of members or non-members) under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, and the rules of the society are altered accordingly, it would be legal for the society to administer the provisions of the Act to persons who are not members, provided a mutual arrangement under the Act is made with the

41
employers in the general interests of the workmen; and (2) whether a contribution by the employers to the Miners' Permanent Relief Fund under such arrangement would be equivalent to a contribution by the workmen for whom it was paid?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The information before me as to the arrangement is hardly sufficient to enable me to answer these Questions definitely. I see no legal objection, however, to a scheme under the Act being administered by the Fund, both for its own members and others—of course, there must in every case be a contract to accept the scheme between the employer and the individual workman—or, on the other band, if that is the arrangement proposed, to the Fund insuring an employer against his liability under the Act in respect of workmen not included in the scheme. I do not quite understand the second paragraph.

MILITARY PRISONS.
MR. M. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War how many soldiers serving in Great Britain and Ireland have been sentenced to imprisonment by courts-martial and commanding officers during the year 1897; and how many of these military prisoners were punished by bread and water, by irons, and by flogging, respectively, during their sentences?
MR. BRODRICK: The Returns are not sufficiently advanced to separate the sentences passed at home from those abroad; but of the two together 3,858 were by courts-martial and 3,704 by commanding officers. The punishments of prisoners, at home only, were dietary punishments (not necessarily bread and water), 800; irons or handcuffs, 15; flogging, by cat or birch, 7.
MR. M. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War in how many of Her Majesty's military prisons are cranks and treadmills still retained as instruments of punishment; whether all soldiers sentenced to terms of imprisonment are subjected to this
42
form of treatment; and whether such methods of correcting conduct in military prisoners are to be retained as part of the discipline of such prisons?
MR. BRODRICK: There are no treadmills in military prisons; cranks are in use during the first 14 days of a sentence to hard labour, as a form of penal labour in prisons where facilities do not exist for stone-breaking or other bodily labour. It is not proposed to discontinue the existing practice.

COLONIAL OFFICE AND THE GERMAN EMPEROR.
MR. R. MCGHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether his attention has been directed to a statement made by the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, at a public meeting held recently in Reading, to the effect that the Colonial Office had said to the German Emperor "Hands off!" and that the German Emperor did take his hands off because he knew he had a resolute Government to face; (2) whether any dispatch containing such a demand had been addressed from the Colonial Office to the Emperor of Germany or to the German Government; (3) what reply, if any, had been received; and (4) whether he will lay the correspondence in connection with the matter before the House?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have not seen the statement referred to in the Questions. In answer to the three last Questions, I have to say that any correspondence with foreign Governments is conducted by the Foreign Office.

BELFAST FOOTPATHS.
MR. D. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) with reference to the requirements of the Belfast Town Council to have the footpaths in the extended portions of the borough flagged and square set, whether he will

43
state the number of owners of property in the added area and the number of those whose plans have been passed by the Town Council; and (2) if he is aware that in addition to the Belfast Corporation Hospitals Bill there is also a Belfast Harbour Bill now before Parliament?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Town Clerk of Belfast that he has no means of procuring the number of owners of property in the added area of the borough. He states that the number of owners whose plans for new streets have been passed by the City Surveyor is eight, while 60 owners have submitted plans for new buildings. Of the latter, 26 have had their plans approved of, and others are still under consideration. The fact is as stated in the second paragraph. I stated on the 24th ult. that the Belfast Corporation had only one Bill before Parliament. The Harbour Bill is promoted by the Harbour Commissioners, a distinct and different body.

OMAGH LUNATIC ASYLUM.
MR. G. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory condition of the Omagh Lunatic Asylum; (2) whether he is aware that, out of less than 700 inmates, 96 died within one year; (3) whether those responsible for the health of the inmates have been careful as to the sanitary precautions; and (4) if the inspector of lunatic asylums, whose duty it was to inquire into and report on the condition of the institution, has discovered the cause of the high death rate?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has been directed to the unsatisfactory condition of the Omagh Lunatic Asylum. I am aware of the fact mentioned in the second paragraph; a considerable proportion of these deaths were due to consumption or other diseases of the respiratory organs. The Omagh Asylum was in a very insanitary condition owing to the serious defects in the drainage and sanitary appliances. After inquiry and consultation with the
44
Board of Governors, a contract was entered into in 1895 for large additions to the buildings, and for the thorough remodelling of the drainage and sanitary arrangements. These works, I am informed, are now far advanced towards completion. In consequence of an epidemic during 1897, the Board of Control, at the suggestion of the Inspectors of Lunatics, sent down, in October last, a sanitary expert of high repute to make a minute inspection of the works. He reported that they were being carried out in a satisfactory and approved manner. The inspectors made full inquiry into the condition of the asylum, and the results of their investigations have been communicated to the governors of the institution. The inspectors have also made from time to time suggestions for the improvement of the asylum, most of which have been adopted by the governors.

INDIA OFFICE (STORE DEPOT) BILL.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will put the Second Reading of the India Office (Store Depôt) Bill down on the Order Book at such a time as will give the House an opportunity for adequately discussing it?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: When the hon. Gentleman has read the Bill to which his Question refers he will see that it does not require discussion.

DISTRESS AT CANDIA.
MR. F. S. STEVENSON: In the absence of the hon. Member for the Leigh Division of Lancashire, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what steps are being taken, or will be taken, by the Government to relieve the dire distress at present existing in the neighbourhood of the town of Candia, where the British troops are stationed, by the distribution of food; by the suppression of raids and disorder at the outposts, so that the peasants

45
may be enabled to cultivate their land; and by the supply of sulphur for the vines without which this year's vintage must inevitably be lost?
MR. CURZON: A proposal has been made for the institution of markets upon neutral ground, under the safeguard of the European troops in the neighbourhood of the cordon, so as to facilitate communication between the town of Candia and the interior. But the leaders of the Christian villages who have recently been visited by Her Majesty's Consul seem to be divided in opinion as to the advantage of the proposal, some of them representing that they already enjoy facilities for importing and exporting all that they need without payment of customs or tithe. Sulphur has been asked for by them, and may, it is to be hoped, be provided from charitable sources, the funds allocated by Her Majesty's Government being spent upon food supplies in the more necessitous cases. On a cordon 25 miles in length I am afraid that, in the present embittered feeling of the two sections of the population, raids will continue to occur. The European forces are not sufficiently numerous to prevent them.

MISSION HOSPITAL AT NUSSEERABAD.
MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the United Presbyterian Missionary Society has for 25 years rented a Government building at Nusseerabad as a mission hospital; whether the new regulations in reference to venereal disease amongst the troops in India, were recently sent to Dr. Huntly, who was in charge of the hospital, and was asked if the mission would carry out the rules; whether Dr. Huntly replied that the mission hospital had been treating all natives, including women, affected with the disease in question, and was prepared to continue such treatment, but that any examination of women for a purpose similar to that of the Contagious Diseases Act was out of the question; whether shortly afterwards six months' notice was served that Government would
46
take away this building from the mission; and whether he proposes to take any action, in the matter?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I have not received any report on the subject, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with the information on which his Question is based I will make inquiries.
MR. STUART: I will furnish the noble Lord with the information.

INDIAN EDUCATIONAL SERVICE.
SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether there are any appointments in the Indian Educational Service which are specially reserved by the new scheme for persons appointed in this country, and which persons appointed in India are precluded from holding; will the Secretary of State give a list of these appointments; and was there any rule or regulation precluding persons appointed in India from holding these appointments previous to the adoption of the new scheme in 1896?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: As I stated on the 3rd of this month, the effect of the new scheme upon the Indian Educational Service has been to transfer to the Provincial Service certain high appointments hitherto filled by nomination in this country, thus practically reserving them for natives of India. As regards the appointments reserved for persons selected in this country (who, as I explained, may be natives of India), I regret that I cannot give a complete list; but, subject to the deductions of those posts which have been transferred to the Provincial Service, they remain practically as they were before the introduction of the new scheme.
SIR W. WEDDERBURN: Is the number of these appointments so large as to make it inconvenient to furnish a list of them?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: That is not the reason.

METROPOLITAN GAS CHARGES.
MR. D. H. COGHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is aware of the very grave dissatisfaction that is felt on the north side of the Thames with the Gaslight and Coke Company's charges for gas, as compared with those prevailing on the south side of the Thames; and if he will grant a Committee to inquire as to the prices charged by the Gaslight and Coke Company for gas for the last 10 years; the profits earned during the same period; and the difference in the price of gas supplied on the north and south sides of the Thames?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): It does not seem to be necessary to appoint a Committee to inquire into the matters specified in the hon. Member's Question. They are matters of fact, which can be shortly and clearly stated. If the hon. Member will put down a Motion asking for a Return covering the information he has asked for in his Question, I will ask the Company to supply it.

SPAIN AND THE UNITED STATES.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of war unfortunately breaking out between the United States and Spain (and the United States not being signatory to the Declaration of Paris), the United States would have the right of search in all neutral vessels, including the British?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Question whether the United States, who are not signatories to the Declaration of Paris, might, in the event of war, give effect to the provisions of that Declaration with regard to the searching of neutral vessels, raises an important point of international law, upon which I think that a Question might be addressed with advantage to my learned Friend the Attorney General.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: I do not know whether the First Lord of the Treasury will find it convenient or possible to give the House
48
any information as to the grave situation between the Government of Spain and the Government of the United States. I need hardly say that we are awaiting information with great anxiety.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not know that I can say more than that the question is, of course, causing anxiety in every capital on both sides of the Atlantic, and that I believe there is a very great desire on the part of the Governments chiefly concerned to preserve peace. Anything that we can do to attain so desirable an end, of course, will be done; but I do not know that anything more can be said with advantage at the present time, or that the right hon. Gentleman would desire more to be said.
MR. DAVITT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can confirm the report published in the afternoon papers that His Holiness the Pope has been asked to mediate between Spain and America on the Cuban difficulty?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have received from Madrid a report dealing with the subject of the hon. Gentleman's Question, though not exactly bearing it out in its full details. If he will defer any further Question till to-morrow I shall be able to give him a complete answer.

EX-MINISTERS PENSIONS.
SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether an ex-Minister of the Crown, having received a pension on making a declaration to the effect that his means are insufficient to maintain the dignity of his position, is ever required to renew the declaration; and, if not, whether, having in view that such a pensioner, recently deceased, left upwards of £350,000 of personal estate, he will consider the propriety of ex-Ministers in receipt of State pensions periodically renewing their declarations of insufficiency of means?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: During the last 15 years the

49
rule has been to require the recipient of a Ministerial pension to give an undertaking that if, subsequently to the receipt of the pension, he should have an accession of fortune, the pension is to be relinquished.
SIR J. LENG: How was it that this rule was not enforced in the case to which my Question has reference?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I imagine it was because the pension referred to in the Question was of much older date than the period subsequently to which the new rule has been in force.

AUSTRALIAN NAVAL STATION.
SIR JOHN C. R. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state approximately the total annual cost of maintenance of the squadron on the Australian Naval Station; and what proportion of that cost is borne by the Mother Country and British Australasia respectively?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The total cost of the squadron is £300,000 annually, and the contribution of the Australian Colonies is £91,000.

TELEGRAPHIC CHARGE ANOMALIES.
MR. J. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, (1) whether he has yet come to a decision on the question of charging in telegrams compound words of names and places as one word; (2) whether he is aware that Kentish Town, a postal and telegraph office, is charged as two words in a telegram, but Woodford Green is charged as one word; that Charing Cross is charged as two words, but Newcastle-on-Tyne as one word; that in a foreign telegram arriving here Saint John's is charged as one word, but St. John's as two words; and that in Great Britain and Ireland Saint John's
50
is charged as two words, but St. John's as one word; (3) whether his attention has been directed to a column of telegraphic regulations of this kind recently published: and (4) whether he will direct that clear and definite rules, embodying one intelligible principle, shall be substituted for those on the subject in the Post Office Guide?
MR. HANBURY: It is difficult to say what are compound names; whether, for instance, my hon. Friend would treat even his own name as one word or two, on 21st May last year my hon. Friend was then, as now, concerned about the same three places—Kentish Town, Charing Cross, and Woodford Green—mentioned in the Question. I then explained that Kentish Town and Charing Cross are charged as two words, while Wood ford Green is charged as one, because, like Newcastle-upon-Tyne, it is a separate town or village, and neither of the other two places is. Similarly the abbreviated St. John's is charged as one word in inland telegrams as being the name of a village. There is apparently no town or village which spells the word "Saint" in full. My hon. Friend is wrong in thinking that in foreign telegrams the longer form is charged as one word and the shorter as two. It is clear that without a rule such as I have mentioned any group of houses might describe itself by a name as long as an ordinary sentence and claim that it should be treated as one word. If my hon. Friend can himself suggest any more "intelligible principle," such as the Question proposes, the Post Office will, I am sure, be glad of his assistance. But his suggestions (including the letter to The Times of August 27th last, which is referred to in the third paragraph) have, in fact, created instead of decreased anomalies. He recently proposed that "all right" should be treated as one word by dropping one "I" and running the remaining letters together, which he implied was the proper and ordinary method. It was on his urgent appeal that mother-in-law was allowed to be charged as one word, while father-in-law was left to count for as many as three. The Post Office, however, has since redressed the grievance thus created by my hon. Friend.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: May I be allowed to explain that no personal motives influenced me? I obtained the reform at the earnest request of hon. Members on both sides, who said that they would prefer facing a Turkish battalion led by the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield, than these mothers-in-law.
MR. E. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, if any change is made in the charge for inland telegrams in the names of places, he will favourably consider the desirability of charging respectively as one word the following: Kentish Town, Camden Town, and Somers Town, all of which are large and important localities in London?
MR. HANBURY: From the answer given to the hon. Member for Canterbury it will be seen that the Postmaster General does not see his way to propose any change in the method of charging the names of places in inland telegrams. It may perhaps be pointed out, however, that it is not necessary to give the name of the locality except when there is more than one street of the same name in the Postal District. In other cases the initials of the Postal District, which count as one word, are sufficient.

CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, (1) whether some 3,000 telegraph clerks have to be provided with refreshments daily at the Central Telegraph Office; and, if so, whether he will state what steps have been taken to give effect to the promise made last September that additional accommodation should be given for this purpose; (2) whether he will undertake to conduct a personal inquiry into the management of this branch; and (3) whether he is prepared to allow the staff the option of obtaining refreshments outside the office until the necessary enlargements take place?
MR. HANBURY: It is the fact that about 3,000 telegraphists have to be provided with refreshments daily at the Central Telegraph Office. Steps have been taken to acquire adjoining premises, which will come into possession at Michaelmas next, and plans for utilising them to the best advantage are under consideration. In the meantime authority has been obtained for a considerable expenditure on immediate improvements in the arrangements for serving the meals, and these will be carried out as speedily as possible. The Postmaster General is not prepared to allow the staff the option of going outside the office for the purpose of obtaining refreshments.
MR. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman grant an inquiry into the charges made?
MR. HANBURY: I cannot undertake to make a personal inquiry such as is asked for in the second paragraph of the Question.
MR. LOUGH: I mean the Postmaster General.
[No reply.]

SHIPPING RETURNS.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can explain the discrepancy between the Board of Trade Return, showing the progress of British Merchant Shipping (No. 258 of 1897), which gives the total tonnage of the Merchant Navy of the British Empire for the year 1894 as 10,512,272 tons, and the Admiralty Return of September, 1895, (460, Session 2 of 1895), which gives the aggregate tonnage of the Mercantile Marine of the British Empire for the same year, 1894, as 13,227,185 tons; and which of the two figures is correct?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The chief cause of the difference is that in the Admiralty Return of 1895 the gross tonnage of vessels belonging to the United Kingdom is given, while in the Return of "Progress of Merchant Shipping" the net tonnage is taken, which is the register tonnage by the Act of

53
Parliament. There are one or two other minor causes of disagreement between these two Returns. I may add that in the recent Return (416 of 1897) of "Naval Expenditure and Mercantile Marine" the net tonnage figures are given, so that there is now no disagreement between the two Returns.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it a fact that in the Returns referred to no total at all is given for the British Empire?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The figures are not carried out, if that is what the hon. Member means. Speaking from memory, I think the reason is that the figures do not all relate to one year.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why there should be a total to one Return and not to the other?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: No; I cannot.

FOREIGN EXPORT OF COAL.
MR. R. MCKENNA: On behalf of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydyil, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will grant the Return which stands on to-day's Notice Paper relating to the Foreign Export of Coal, and if, before printing the Return, he will consult some practical coal exporter as to the best form of presenting the particulars to the House?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I shall be prepared to grant the Return desired by the hon. Member; but it must, of course, be prepared and laid according to the form of Motion. If the hon. Member desires any modification from the form in which it was presented last year, and will call at the offices of the Board of Trade, I will endeavour to meet his wishes as far as possible.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. JOHN MORLEY: On the point of business, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman after what hour to-night the Scotch Private Bill Procedure Bill will not be
54
taken, and whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what business will be taken on Monday and Tuesday after the Recess?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: On the first Monday after the Recess we shall take Supply, according to a convenient and, I think, almost immemorial rule.
DR. G. B. CLARK: What Supply?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We shall take the Civil Service Estimates, Class I. As to the Tuesday's business, I believe I have indicated an intention, although I gave no pledge, to devote the day to the consideration of the London University Bill. I think, however, that that Question must be left open for the present, for I must see how we shall stand when we separate to-morrow. If a question is put to me on the subject tomorrow, I shall be in a position to give a definite answer to it. With regard to to-night, I do not suppose it will be of any use to proceed with the Scotch Bill after half-past Ten o'clock; but if we reach it by that hour, as I think we ought to do, I hope we shall be able to complete the Debate. When we consented to the adjournment on Thursday, it was not understood that there was any general desire to extend the Debate.
MR. T. C. T. WARNER: Is it the intention of the Government to put the Reserve Forces Bill down again to-morrow?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir; it will not be put down.
MR. J. H. LEWIS: With regard to the Land Tax Commissioners' Names Bill, will the usual rule be observed of granting a long interval between the First and Second Readings?
MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
CAPTAIN YOUNG, introduced by Mr. W. G. MOUNT (Berks, Newbury) and Mr. A. K. LOYD (Berks, Abingdon), took the oath and his seat for the Wokingham Division of Berkshire, in the room of the late Sir G. Russell, deceased.
EASTER RECESS.
  NOTICE OF MOTION.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Perhaps it will be convenient if I state that I shall move at the beginning of the Morning Sitting to-morrow that, at the conclusion of the Sitting, the House do adjourn until Monday, April 18th. In moving that Resolution, I shall make a statement to the House with regard to Eastern Affairs.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PRISONS BILL.
  Debate on Second Reading resumed.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I feel as if I must almost apologise to the House for intruding in this Debate, because the speech—I may say the historic speech—delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo dealt with so many of the points that I shall deal with, that I feel it is almost superfluous for me to enter into them. I congratulate my hon. Friend upon his being able to take so noble a revenge for the many years of suffering which he went through. I think I may say that his speech upon this Bill will have the effect of destroying for ever the system of scientific suffering in our prisons. The treatment of our prisoners is a subject upon which I have thought and upon which I have felt for a good many years, and I feel so strongly upon it that I consider it my duty to take part in the discussion upon this Bill. First of all, I desire it to be distinctly understood that in the course of my observations I am dealing with the system only, and not with individuals, and, above all other persons, I have no desire whatever to assail the present Home Secretary; I am perfectly certain that a no more humane man has ever occupied the position which the right hon. Gentleman now occupies than the present Home Secretary, who, I believe, follows out all the
  56
  traditions of the Home Office and its humanity. In fact, I look upon the right hon. Gentleman as being the ally of my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo, and others of us, who, in this matter, are going to make an attempt to render this Bill the basis of what we consider to be a most necessary and far-reaching Measure of reform. Now, the greatest difficulty with which one has to contend in discussing a Measure of this character is what, if I may be allowed to say so, one may call the admitted lack of imagination in the English Government. I am perfectly certain that this assembly contains as many humane men as any other assembly in the world, but, if I may say so without offence, this assembly in dealing with this subject has the great misfortune of a large majority of the English people, of being unable to put themselves in the position of other people, and look at the subject from their point, of view. I know no man who is less able, as a rule, to put himself in the position and take up the standpoint of another person than the Englishman; therefore, I am sure that what I may venture to call the tortures which are incorporated into our present prison system are not in any way owing to the lack of humanity in that system, but are the result of a lack upon the part of Englishmen to put themselves in the position of other people, and feel the sufferings which those others have to support. Now, I have one observation to make as to the English national character, and it is more flattery than anything else, and that is the supreme passion of the Englishman to whitewash his institutions. If he can say a good thing of a bad system he does so, and, while we have the Report drawn up by what is called the Gladstone Committee, which was one of the most severe reprobations of a system ever pronounced by a public body, yet we have members of the Commission getting up in this House and giving their blessing and approval to this Bill, the main feature of which is the rejection of the most important recommendations of the Committee. What did that Committee report? That Committee confessed that in some respects, and in one most important respect, the new prison system was not an improvement upon the old. They reported that the best prisons under the old system

  57
  were managed on lines more likely to produce a more healthy moral effect in the prisons than the present system. They reported that—
  "The general prison system is open to the reproach that it not only fails to reform offenders, but in the case of the less hardened criminals, and especially of first offenders, it produces a deteriorating effect."
  I think that is a strong condemnation of the present system, and the one which is going to take its place. Now, Sir, the Committee set forth the principle that the object was to give better prison treatment, and we are obliged to confess that the present prison treatment has, practically, disastrously failed in carrying out the object. In the first place, the Committee reported that recidivism has largely increased, or, in other words, the prison treatment, instead of showing a deterrent and reformatory effect, has produced the opposite result of increasing the number of persons who return to prison after the first conviction. These are the figures given to me, and, so far as I can investigate them, they appear to be correct. The number of reconvicted prisoners in 1872 was 26,863, whilst in 1893 they were 43,320, or nearly double what they were in 1872. Now I know various opinions are given with reference to these figures. It is said that, under the partial adoption of the Bertillon system of identification, the means of recognising old prisoners has been improved, but those are small points; the broad fact remains, that recidivism is double, or nearly double, what it was. If I turn to the figures as to this particular point, and contrast the state of the English prisons with the Continental prisons, I find the result is nearly as disastrous. In Austria it is 28 per cent., Germany 29 per cent., Italy 36 per cent., France 47 per cent., and in England, taking the year 1895, it is 55 per cent., or nearly double what it is in Austria. I say the system which produces results as startling as these is a bad one, and one to be condemned. I am not going into the ethics of criminal responsibility: I have my own opinion on that subject, which I do not think it would be wise of me to express here. I know very well what the official contention is, but I take my ground upon admitted facts, and
  58
  these are the admitted facts, that most of those prisoners—fully half of them—are children deserted by either one or both of their parents, and that according to medical testimony prisoners are, for the most part, persons of a neurotic taint, and upon that point I would advise hon. Members of this House to read the very instructive evidence of Dr. Shaw, the Principal of Banstead Asylum. Another doctor also points out that criminals are really the degenerate offspring of a degenerate stock; but here is an important and startling fact: the average prisoner in height, weight, strength, and mental capacity is markedly below the average population of the country. That statement is backed up by these remarkable figures: the average height of the London criminal is five feet four and a half inches, and of the free man outside, five feet seven inches. In dealing with our prison population we are dealing with a population whose end in the gaol is foredoomed and pre-ordained by that fact, and those unhappy beings are entitled to be considered when they are in gaol and have committed offences. For a moment I wish to point out that, according to medical testimony and statistics, and according to the Report of this Committee, the inmates of the prisons are inferior, mentally and physically, to the general average of the outside population. I mean my observations to be an indictment of our whole prison system, and I first indict it in its treatment of political prisoners, upon which point I do not intend to dwell at great length; in the first place, because my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo has dealt with it far more effectually than I can profess to do, and, secondly, I do not do so because it might be supposed that I am approaching this Bill from an Irish point of view. I am not approaching it from an Irish point of view, but from the point of view of a Member of this House, and I am dealing with it as an Englishman more than anything else, because it deals more with the English than any other part of the United Kingdom, and I believe the prison system of England is worse than the prison system of Scotland or Ireland. I at once deprecate the suggestions that the opinions expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo and myself are opinions from an Irish point of view.

  59
  They are the opinions of members of humanity and of Members of this House. As regards the treatment of politicai prisoners, I should like to say a few words. I have been reading a book called "Side-lights on Siberia," written by a Mr. Simpson, and I desire at this moment to explode the favourite idea of Englishmen, which is that if you wish to get the greatest horror of prison treatment you must go to Siberia. All I can say is that, having read the work of an impartial man, if I had to make up my mind as to where I would commit a political offence, and if my choice lay between England and Russia, and my place of imprisonment was Siberia or Dartmoor, I would take care that Russia should be the scene of my exploits, and that Siberia should be the home of my imprisonment. I know nothing can destroy the idea of the Englishman that his own institutions are the finest, but I say the treatment of a prisoner in Siberia is far more humane than it is in England. In Siberia some of the men charged with the darkest and most violent crimes are employed as schoolmasters and as newspaper editors. I read of one man who was a curator in a museum, who, while he was in charge of the room, was visited by the present Czar, and that was a Nihilist who was convicted of murder in the streets of St. Petersburg. Yet the Czar shook hands with him at parting. There are several other instances. I could give the instance of a man who was employed as a meteorologist, and got a salary from the Government in that position, and I could give you an instance of the editor of a newspaper. Compare them with the wrecks in mind and body of Irishmen who have been sent out from English prisons after punishment for less violent crimes than these Nihilists have committed. I could say a great deal about the treatment in prisons, but my hon. Friend has dealt with that already, and, as I desire not to make this appear an Irish Debate, I will leave these facts, which are familiar to everybody, to speak for themselves. So far with regard to the treatment of political prisoners in this country as compared with their treatment in Russian Siberia. I go on to the treatment of non-political prisoners. My first charge against your
  60
  present system is that it is a system of deliberate, calculated, scientific, cruel starvation. I repeat that, and the Home Secretary will have an opportunity by-and-by of referring to the subject. I have my witnesses here beside me. Let them bring up any amount of medical reports; let them bring any amount of reports from prison governors or prison inspectors. It may be a hard thing to say, but I put the evidence of the men who have endured this prison treatment as far higher and more worthy of credence than the evidence of prejudiced officials. What are the facts? My hon. friend beside me was between seven and eight years in penal servitude. He assured this House that never for one day was he free from the pangs of hunger. Everybody in this House has read the startling and striking poem written by a prisoner recently liberated, entitled "The Ballad of Reading Gaol," in which he gives a most touching account of the starvation he endured. My hon. Friend the Member for Meath was also in penal servitude for a considerable number of years, and he will say that, not being a man of very large appetite, he cannot speak of having suffered starvation in his own person, but he will tell this House, if necessary, what he has witnessed. It is 25 years ago since I had the pleasure of making my hon. Friend's acquaintance, and though it is 25 years since he made this statement to me, it has remained in my memory ever since. My hon. Friend was in prison in Portland. There were some Fenian prisoners there; they had keener appetites than himself, and they suffered chronically from starvation. Any of my hon. Friends can corroborate that statement. These men suffered from starvation, and he himself went round and saw these men gathering snails, so terrible were the pangs of hunger. My hon. Friend has given some terrible examples of the things that men in prisons do when driven to it by the stress of hunger's pangs. They eat candles, and those candles are specially prepared by some noxious fluid to be disagreeable. They eat the grease that is put in their cells for their boots. My hon. Friend told me the story of how he saw men cat filthy and rotten offal. What answer is there to this? Here are men, whose veracity no man will

  61
  doubt, who are speaking of what they saw, what they endured in their own persons, saw with their own eyes, or heard with their own ears. I put their testimony against the testimony of prison officials who are bolstering up this wicked and cruel system of prison treatment. I have been told by chaplains of gaols stories of how men try to get their food to save them from horrible starvation. Not only is the food insufficient, but it is of a very disagreeable and inferior character. Again, I appeal to the testimony of the Prisoner of Reading Gaol. He speaks of a painful disease as almost the immediate result of the form of food that is given, and then he goes into a description. It will be scarcely decent that I should repeat in this House what physical suffering men endure from the painful internal disease produced by insufficient and bad food. I will sufficiently indicate the evidence by saying that he has seen warders sick in the morning in consequence of the malady from which these prisoners suffer. My second charge against the treatment of prisoners is that you cultivate sleeplessness amongst them by the plank bed, and sleeplessness becomes a chronic prison disease. My third charge—and I give it from the writer from whom I have already quoted more than once—is that the prison system seems almost to have for its aim the wrecking and the destruction of the mental and physical faculties of the prisoners. If you try to make them insane, I congratulate you upon the magnificent success of your efforts in that direction. Let me first take the system of giving nine months' solitary confinement. During these nine months the prisoner, spending 23 hours out of the 24 in his cell, thinks of what? Here is a man in a most depressed condition of mind, having gone through all the misery, anxiety, and suspense of a trial, having lost his liberty, with anything but pleasant memories and nothing but gloomy anticipations—very often a man of intelligence, but more usually a man of unformed intellect—and you stick him down for 23 hours in this small cell, giving him no food, nothing except the brooding thoughts of his own disastrous life and his hopeless thoughts of the future. If you want the means of destroy-
  62
  ing what little remnant there is of self-control left in this man, this nine months is the best instrument for doing so. There are things you cannot speak plainly upon, but I will sufficiently indicate my meaning by saying that these nine months of solitary confinement inculcate habits and vices which produce loss of self-control and melancholia. I assert, as the result of my reading upon this question, that whatever good was left in a man at the beginning of these nine months was destroyed at the end. What makes this more remarkable is this, that this period of solitary confinement was originally started as a means of reform and improvement, and even of hope. It was started, I believe, by Sir James Grey, and with the report, I may say, I do not agree: it is open to the objection I have stated, of being a whitewashing report. I hope the Home Secretary will remember that observation of mine. In a very curious memorandum I read that the convict was to undergo 18 months' solitary confinement, which has since been reduced to nine months, and he was to be freely visited by the chaplain and prison officials. Let me say here that I do not regard the ministrations of the chaplain as the best way of reforming the character of a prisoner. It is just as bad as the goody-goody lectures which are stuffed down their throats. He was to be trained in a productive industry. He was to be subjected to a progressive system of education. Lectures were to be given him by the prison chaplain. He was to be kept in a state of cheerfulness, which was done by confining him in his cell with a Bible, a prayer-book, and a hymn-book as companions to his own brooding thoughts, by way of carrying out the maxim that he was to be kept in a state of cheerfulness. Hope, energy, resolution, and virtue were to be imparted to him. He was to be trained to be fully competent to earn his own living, and become a respectable member of the penal settlement. I say that these nine months' solitary confinement are far worse than, say, the cases of fraudulent pretences for which many of these poor wretches were convicted. Having got your man into this cell for 23 hours out of the 24, and having starved his body, you commence starving his mind.

  63
  For the first three months he is allowed a Bible, a Prayer-book, and a Hymnbook. After that he is allowed a book a week. But we have improved since my hon. Friend has been in gaol. Soup has been added to the Sunday dinner; and during the humane and enlightened progress that has taken place during the last 30 years since my hon. Friend was in gaol, we have actually got to two books a week, instead of one a fortnight. What right have you to deprive him of that? Is it not torture to the mind as well as torture to the body? Is it more humane and more civilised to torture a man's mind than to torture a man's body? I have not done with this question of books. When you get these books, of course, you have to go to the prison library. I do not know who is responsible for the position of prison-librarian. I believe it is due to the progressive, broad, and enlightened view of the chaplain of the gaol. What do you get there? A series of mawkish, goody-goody Sunday-school literature, such as "Foxe's Book of Martyrs," "The Proceedings of the Missionary Society in the Polynesian Islands for the Years 1847 and 1849," Dr. Young's "Night Thoughts," etc. I do not know whether any Member of this House has read "Night Thoughts" — I very much doubt it—but it has a second title, "Meditations among the Tombs." No, Sir, you manage to starve the body, and now you starve the mind. But, in spite of this literature in the shape of Dr. Young's "Night Thoughts," prisoners might get some consolation by talking to each other. But the prisoner is not supposed to speak at all. When my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo was first at Dartmoor he was allowed to speak, I think, on Sundays and at exercise, during an hour every day. Subsequently, however, that right was taken away, and for all the remaining years of the sentence he was supposed never to open his lips, except to one of his companions. Is not that torture? What is the justification of it? Contamination! Contamination! Just fancy the miserable position to which you have brought these prisoners. If they happen to whisper a word to another man they are liable to punishment—just whispering! Well, Sir, having starved
  64
  the prisoner, deprived him of literature, deprived him of even that modified form of conversation with his lips, what is the result? I have read a great many letters on this question, and some of them are very painful, some of them are very striking; but I do not think I have read any letter which produced a greater effect upon me than a letter written by a gentleman named David Nicoll, who was sentenced to 18 months' hard labour for an article in the Commonweal, of a very menacing character, and an article for which I have not the smallest sympathy. But this man, who was sent to 18 months' hard labour, describes his sufferings in the prison, and he gives a most graphic and a most painful picture of what the prisoner feels in gaol. He says—

  "Modern prisons have been built by humane men, therefore you cannot look out of the window, for the window is made of thick opaque glass, and you are shut up in the cold whitewashed walls of your cell to brood for ever. There is no relief; you might be in a living tomb for all you hear of the outside world. Crimes and follies rise again and again before you. What anguish must be endured by one whose life has been nought but crime!"
  Then we come to this passage, which produced a profound impression on my mind—
  "The effect of this is so terrible that after a few months of it the strongest man will tremble like a leaf at a rough word."
  Now, that is the effect of the prison system. Probably most of those who go into these prisons are strong and stalwart, but in nine months—sometimes half that time—you have so broken them, body, mind, and soul, that they "tremble like a loaf at a rough word." Well, Sir, what has been the result of all this? If it had produced reform, and acted as a deterrent to crime, it would not be justified, for nothing could justify such cruelty and torture; but we know that this system, besides its brutality to humanity, is a disastrous failure. But I have now to go on to a more startling chapter in the story. Sir, I have spoken in vain if I have not proved to the Members of this House that the prison system is directly calculated to produce insanity. We need not go to à priori reasons for it; I will read the words of the Report. Page 88 of the last Prison Blue Book shows

  65
  15 cases of insanity in convict prisons in the course of the year 1896–97. The convict prison population averaged about 3,000. This gives a ratio of 50 cases of insanity per 10,000 of the convict population. The ratio of insanity in the outside adult population is 12 per 10,000. In other words, the rate of insanity, according to the returns, is four times higher in the convict prisons than in the general adult population. But, Sir, I would draw attention to the fact that all the insane cases are not included in the returns, and if the Home Secretary will look to page 48 of the last Report of the Commissioners, March, 1897, he will find these words:—J 462, T. G.; date of reception, 7th April, 1883; date of release, 27th of August, 1896." The second entry is, "J 463, A. W.: date of reception, 19th April; date of release, 22nd August, 1896." I think everybody will recognise, "T. G." as Thomas Gallagher, and "A. W." as Albert Whitehead; and, Sir, we know all about Gallagher and Whitehead now—they are both raving mad. But it apparently took an awful time to discover their condition. But what do I find is the disease which is reported by the medical officer? Let it be understood that I am making no charge or insinuation against the Home Secretary. I hope I have said nothing all through my speech which is contradictory to the policy which I aimed at in the beginning, when I said I was going to attack the system, and not individuals. But in the cases of both Gallagher and Whitehead. I find that the disease on account of which they are released described as "debility." As a matter of fact, Sir, they were released because they were stark, staring mad. I dare say there was some debility as well, but it was mental debility as well as physical debility. But here is a remarkable case, in which a false entry is made in a Blue Book presented to this House, and insanity hidden away within the prison. I believe the Home Secretary has admitted that two of the remaining prisoners are under observation in Portland at this moment, and I suppose they will be released on the ground of debility, and that a few weeks afterwards they will be found stark, staring mad, too. [The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT: I have not made
  66
  that statement.] I am sorry if I have misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman, but I have certainly heard the statement made by someone. But, Sir, with these facts before us, what is the use of asking the opinions of governors and doctors on the effect of penal servitude on the mental health of the prison population? Passing from the convict to the local prisons, I find that the Prison Report for 1897 shows that there was a total of 362 cases of insanity in the local prisons in 1896–97. Of these cases 98 were unconvicted prisoners and 164 convicted. With regard to these unconvicted prisoners. I have one observation to make. These prisoners are unconvicted because they are innocent. But if I take out the unconvicted prisoners, and take only the convicted offenders, the result is that among the convicted population in local prisons there are 117 cases of insanity per 10,000 of the prison population, while in the adult outside population these cases are only 12 per 10,000. In other words, insanity is, at the lowest estimate, nine or ten times higher than in the general adult population. Well, Sir, I know very well that these figures will be contested. Reports are presented by which it is shown that the prisoners became insane a short time after admission, and, therefore, it is argued that they were insane when they were admitted. Well, Sir, I will read some of the ghastly records. "M.; aged 19; case of congenital, weak mind; removed on discharge to N. Asylum." Why is such a man as that put into gaol at all? Again, "M.; 32; discovered to be in second stage of general paralysis," which had probably begun before the committal of the offence. He may have been mentally unbalanced when he went in, but you had not had him long before you changed that want of mental balance into paralysis. Take another case. "M.; 38; no sign of insanity for 55 days; acute mania." Here is another: "M.; obtaining money by fraud; deaf mute of low type; congenital disease." Now, Sir, I take this case: "No sign of insanity for 55 days after imprisonment," and then an attack of acute mania. What is the defence to that? The defence is that the prisoner must have been suffering before he went in, and, therefore, must not be put in the

  67
  statistics of insanity. What a ridiculous rule this is! No, Sir, if they are insane when they go into prison or not, the conclusion I draw is that 55 days is quite sufficient to do the work of the prison and make a man lose his mental balance. There is a very painful and terrible case in which an unfortunate woman, who was sentenced to seven days for fowl stealing, becomes a raving lunatic. Well, Sir, of course her lunacy is largely the result of starvation, which is more acute in the case of short terms than long terms. In the Report of the Departmental Committee on Prisons there is a very remarkable memorandum by Dr. Bridges, who takes up the point that the prisoners are insane when they go in. Yes, very often they are, because they have served previous terms of imprisonment. Dr. Bridges makes this deduction—
  "We have thus to accept the fact that among the prison population the ratio of insanity arising among persons apparently sane on admission is not less than three times as great as that amongst the general population."
  Well, Sir, if I had only to rest my case upon that admission, I think I have said enough to condemn the present system. But how is this insanity produced? It is produced by starvation, by solitude, and by punishment. I wish to say one word on the question of starvation. I have alluded to Siberia, and in the book to which I have referred I find this reference:—
  "At Tehita the men were said to receive one-third of a pound of meat daily; the soup, with a great variety of vegetables cut up into it, was as good as one had tasted anywhere, and the bread was quite of the same standard."
  How would the English prisoners in humane England like to be treated as well as these convicts in the prisons of Siberia under the bureaucratic rule of the Czar of Russia? The other night my hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Durham gave some figures which he has been kind enough to hand to me, and I give them on his authority. He says—
  "In the last six years the number of floggings in English gaols were 796, in Scotland 16, and in Ireland 2."
  And he tells me that in Ireland there were no floggings for the last four years,
  68
  and in Scotland there had been none in the local prisons during the last six years. I have been informed by a Scotch official that flogging is not allowed now by the Scotch prison rules. Is it allowed in English gaols? [An HON. MEMBER: Certainly.] Then what a blessing it is to belong to the "predominant partner" if you are entitled to a flogging which you cannot get in any other part of the Kingdom. Well, now, Sir, will this Bill remedy these evils? I say no, unless it is very much modified and amended. I hope, when we get the Measure upstairs, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will consent to the modifications we are proposing, so as to make this prison treatment a little more humane. Now, what is the evil of the present system? Why, it is a bureaucratic system from head to tail and top to bottom, and it is a retrograde system. The life of a prisoner is one that requires careful attention; in fact, there is no life in the world that requires more special care. It is, of course, necessarily inevitable that you have to put enormous powers in the hands of the prison officials; but I do not mean to say that you can always have a prison official, with members of a Visiting Committee on his back, examining and interfering with him as to how he should deal with the prisoners. Such a thing as that would prevent prison discipline altogether. But look at the power these officials have. To some extent, I may say, they have the power of life and death over a prisoner. Therefore, I say that these officials ought to work and act under the supervision and control of public opinion and a judicial body, which every other public official had to work and act under. Now I do make this statement: the House must remember that there are such things as prison tragedies. As an example, I may mention the case of the boy Cooper, referred to by the Member for Waterford in a supplementary question, and which was referred to publicly in the newspapers. The Home Secretary had been very cautious in the answers he had given with regard to this case. Sir, I have here the published reports, and more shameful treatment I never read of in the whole course of my life. This unfortunate boy was, I think, 18 years of age, and he was sent to gaol. He was put on the treadmill, and he complained. [An HON.

  69
  MEMBER: He was certified by the doctor.] Yes, that is so. He complained of being ill, and he was sent to the doctor, who said, "He is all right; there is nothing whatever the matter with him." And he was sent back to the treadmill. He was afterwards taken ill, and he was evidently delirious, for he destroyed some of the things in the cell. Then he was put into the padded room. The doctor saw him again, and again he declared that there was nothing the matter with him, and practically said that he should be put on two treadmills instead of one. The wardens asked him to get up from his bed, but he couldn't. They took away his bed, and tried to get him to put on his clothes, but he could not dress himself. They pulled him up several times, and put on his clothes, but he fell down exhausted. The warders visited him two or three times between that time and 11.15, but at 12.15, when they came to the cell, they found him dead on the floor of the cell, and practically naked. And the doctor in charge—I won't mention his name—made a post-mortem examination, and he was forced to say that on this unfortunate boy, after he had opened the body, he found an ulcer which had perforated the stomach, and that the body was full of food. Of course, this poor unfortunate boy was suffering from an ulcerated stomach all the time, and he was suffering from it when he was put on the treadmill, and the treadmill and the doctor killed him. Nothing was more calculated to aggravate an ulcer of the stomach. I think this justifies my statement that there are such things as prison tragedies in the present system in England. The prison system of England should be under constant and close judicial supervision, but have we any guarantee of this under the present Bill? In bureaucratic France and Italy they have a much, better form of independent supervision. We ought to have a judicial body consisting of well-known public men to supervise prison administration. For my own part, I would like to see an independent Member of this House at the head of this judicial body, to be asked questions in this House with regard to prison treatment, just as the Charity Commission is represented here. Now, Sir, our present system, as I have said, is bad from top to bottom. We require a vast and a revolutionary change, and not the
  70
  small petty reform given to us by this Bill. Finally, Sir, the system contrasts with the reformatory system by increasing its evils. If you go to Redhill—I know there is a difference, because they are young people—you will find that 90 per cent. of the children are reformed. We have heard loud guffaws over the American system, which claims to reform 80 per cent. of those passing through their reformatories. I was reading an account, the other day, of the eighteenth century criminal law, and it reminded me very much of the present treatment in the nineteenth. I do not know whether I have the passage here or not, but it describes what a traveller to London saw in the eighteenth century. Here it is—
  "No matter by what approach the stranger then entered London, he had the fact of the stringent severity of English criminal law most painfully impressed upon him by a sight of the gallows, if he enters the metropolis by its northern suburbs, he could have passed Finchley Common, and have beheld not one, but perhaps five or six gibbets, standing at a short distance from each other. If he travelled outside or inside a stage coach that ran through the western quarter of the metropolis to Holborn or Piccadilly, he passed within sight of the notorious gallows at Tyburn. If, hailing from some foreign shore, he sailed up the River Thames to the Port of London, his gaze would have been certain to have fallen on some of the skeletons of those who had paid with their lives the penalty of mutiny or piracy on the high seas, suspended in chains from numerous gibbets erected in the marshes below Purfleet on the Essex side, and Woolwich on the other. If he traversed on foot any of the numerous heaths or commons in the vicinity of the metropolis he would, unless possessed of universally strong nerves, never fail to be terrified by the sudden creaking and clanging of the chains, on which the corpse of some gibbeted highwayman or footpad was slowly rotting away."
  We know very well that there were statements of Ministers, who declared that England would be ruined if criminals were not treated in the manner described in this paragraph. I hold that our system of to-day, in a century or half a century hence, must appear just as much an anachronism and a barbarism as the gibbets which surrounded London in the 18th century, described in the extract I have just read, are considered now. For these reasons, my hon. Friends and myself think it is our duty to do our best to amend and reform every line almost of this Bill.
  MR. H. H. ASQUITH: I think it must be admitted in every quarter of the House that this Debate has been conducted under conditions extremely unfavourable to anything like continuous or consecutive argument. We have had the fragments of three evenings, separated by considerable intervals of time, allotted to the discussion of a topic which, I venture to say, is far more important in the magnitude of the interests which it involves than any other subject of legislation that has been, or is likely to be, before the House in the course of the present Session. Bur I am glad to see, by many indications that public interest in the matter, and indeed in the whole series of problems connected with prison administration, is not to be measured by the few scattered hours which are apparently all that this House can afford to devote to it. For my part, I say at once, in the few observations I will inflict upon the House, that I do not approach this question with any disposition to look at it through what are called the spectacles of official optimism. When it was my duty, as it was for some years, to be responsible for prison administration, I had been but a very short time confronted at first hand, and at close quarters, with the actual facts of the position before I discerned some things that excited in my mind great anxiety and uneasiness, and others as to which I thought searching, impartial, and dispassionate inquiries were absolutely necessary. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds—who was my colleague at the time—shared my feelings, and the result was that, backed up as we were, and stimulated by the outside expressions of opinion—I do not see why one should grudge that admission, because it is a perfectly just one—I appointed a Committee in 1894, the report of which has been the subject of so much discussion to-day. My hon. Friend who has just addressed the House in a powerful and interesting speech, which I am sure all who have listened to it, and I wish there were a great many more, must admire, has spoken of the report of this Committee as a white-washing report. Now, I do not understand in what sense he uses that expression. It embraces one of the defects of our national language,
  72
  and I am not quite sure whether I entirely appreciate the exact scope of the term. If he means, by calling this a white-washing report, that this Committee was appointed with the object of vindicating the existing system, then I am obliged to traverse his statements.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: What I meant was that the condemnations of the system are by no means proportionate to the justice of the case, or to the findings of the Committee itself.
  MR. ASQUITH: My hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to differ from the conclusions at which the Committee has arrived.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I cast not the slightest doubt upon the good faith of my right hon. Friend in appointing the Committee.
  MR. ASQUITH: That I believe but let me point out that I think I must say, not in justice to myself, but in justice to the Committee, how it was constituted. Its chairman was my right hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds, and I venture to say that there is no man in this country who has given closer attention to prison administration, or who approaches it in a greater spirit of sympathy and humanity. Upon that Committee there was not a single person connected with the official administration of our prisons. I was careful to select people as to whose impartiality there could not be a shadow of suspicion. Again, I was fortunate enough—knowing how strongly views had been expressed by hon. Members below the Gangway—to be able to put on this Committee my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal, who signed its Report. Now, Sir, what did this Committee—which, I think it is generally admitted, in its constitution was an unimpeachably just tribunal—report; what was the conclusion at which it arrived? It disclosed a very large number of what I consider to be very grave and serious defects in our prison administration, but when I hear that system held up, as it has been held up in this Debate, to public reprobation as an organised system of torture—["Hear, hear!"] Well, I do not agree with hon. Members who say "Hear, hear!"

  73
  When I am told it cannot compare for a moment in point of humanity with the prison system of any other civilised country in any part of the world, I must enter a protest. I turn to the Report of the Committee, which I may remind hon. Members was subscribed to by the hon. Member for East Donegal, and I rind in paragraph 17 this general statement;
  "If the condition and treatment of prisoners at the present time are compared with what they were 60, 40, or even 20 years ago the responsible authorities can justly claim to have effected a great and progressive improvement, and that there was no reason for a general condemnation of the system."
  I think, Sir, it is impossible in the face of that conclusion not to feel that some of the language used in the course of this Debate—language of sweeping condemnation—is not supported by the authority of the gentlemen who examined the question closely for themselves, who heard all the evidence tendered, not only by officials, but by prisoners, and as to whose competency and good faith. I am certain no man in this House will utter a single word of doubt. But, while I therefore cannot associate myself with these large and sweeping statements, I do not in the least deny that this Report does disclose a state of things which calls for both administrative and legislative improvements of a wide and far-reaching character. I suppose in any given day of the year we have in this country—in convict and local prisons together—a prison population of not less than 18,000 persons. That is a most heterogeneous body. It is drawn from many different sources, and it has got where it is from the most diverse causes. Some of them, not an inconsiderable number, of whom we have heard too little in this Debate, are what may be called trained and professional enemies of society. Some of them, again, no insignificant fraction, belong to that class which has been so eloquently described by the hon. Member who has just sat down; they are people of a morbid, neurotic, and ill-balanced physical and nervous system, to whom it is very difficult to apply with anything like justice and humanity the ordinary canons of moral responsibility. Others again—and I believe these to be a very large class in our prisons—are
  74
  men and women who, without any ingrained criminal instincts and habits, are paying the penalty of some sudden and perhaps unpremeditated act, an act committed in a gust of passion or during a bout of drink. Finally, there are among the inhabitants of our prisons what are called juvenile offenders; children, for the most part, of cruel or careless parents, who from their earliest years have spent their lives on the boundary line between poverty and professional crime. This is our prison population, and these are the ingredients of which it is composed, and when the House bears that state of things in mind let me ask, what is the impression it ought to create in the mind of any humane and intelligent administrator who believes that the object of punishment is not merely to be the expression of the vengeance of society against those who have transgressed its laws, but that it is, as far as possible, to destroy, or at least to weaken, the criminal propensity, or, where that is impossible, at least to prevent further contamination? What are the reflections, or suggestions, that ought to present themselves? It appears to me, ever since I had the opportunity of studying the question, that the first principle of a wise system of prison administration is the recognition of the principle of discrimination. Under a wise and intelligent system you cannot treat these people, who have been brought into prison by such an infinite variety of moral and, indeed, physical causes, as though they all belonged to a single class. You cannot act on the principle that rules which are good for one are necessarily good for all. But there are practical difficulties of the most serious kind in the way of an effective application of the principle of discrimination. In the first place we must avoid at all hazards the risk of anything like partiality or favouritism. Again, it is very difficult, almost impossible, to judge, by simply knowing the particular crime of which a convict has been found guilty, as to which of the various classes he really by antecedent and temperament belongs. Here I must say the difficulties of discrimination of treatment are largely aggravated by causes for which the administrators of prisons are not themselves

  75
  responsible. We have heard a good deal in those discussions of overcrowding, and I trust, so far as overcrowding arises from defective accommodation or defective structure, it will be finally put an end to by this Bill. But there is another cause of prison overcrowding. It is this. There is every day in every prison in this country a number of persons who ought to have ceased to be there, and a number of persons who ought never to have been there at all. The first and foremost cause is the excessive length of the sentences which are still passed. Sir, I am not going into that matter in any detail, because it is a frequent subject of discussion in this House, and only the other day was debated at considerable length, when the Bill for establishing a Criminal Court of Appeal was under review. But there is one question in reference to this matter which I should like to put to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I hope he will be able to give us a satisfactory answer. When we were in office we were so much impressed—Lord Herschell, the late Lord Chancellor, was also—with the gravity of this question of the duration and inequality of sentences, that we were on the point of recommending, I think we did recommend, to Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter, and to see what steps were possible to secure a better scheme for the punishment of offences. That was, if I remember aright, in 1895, but from that day to this nothing has been done, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman now whether it is the intention of the Government to pursue that inquiry. Until you have dealt with this matter you cannot solve the other difficulties. But there is another circumstance equally outside the purview of direct prison administration which accounts for overcrowding in prisons—I mean the persistent, inveterate, and incurable indisposition of a large number of magistrates in this country to grant bail to persons remanded for further inquiry. When I was at the Home Office I was so much impressed by the innumerable cases which came before me that I caused a circular to be sent to every bench of magistrates pointing out the powers which the law gave them of letting out
  76
  on bail persons whose guilt had not yet been determined, and strongly urging them to use those powers. I have not had any responsibility in the matter for some time, but I never read a report of an assize without finding one or other of Her Majesty's judges inquiring how it is that a man, sometimes an innocent man, has been detained in prison awaiting trial for months, and not let out on bail. If our magistrates would only use their opportunities, I would go further and say perform their obligations, a large number of persons kept in prison would not be in prison at all. The cases of young persons and children present, no doubt, in some of their aspects, peculiar difficulties. When a child is charged with an offence and has to be remanded it is very often most undesirable to send him home to his parents, because it is probable they are either indifferent, or have connived at the crime. What are you to do if you cannot send him home to his parents? There are only three places to which a child of that kind can be sent—the workhouse, the police cell, or the prison—and it is very difficult to say which of the three is the least objectionable. I do not doubt myself that if provision were made for complete segregation of persons—particularly of young persons—on remand, if they were treated on an entirely different footing, so that they might come in and go out without having acquired any of the stigma of prison life, if they were allowed association, recreation, and instruction, I think on the whole it would be better to send them to a prison rather than to a workhouse, or shut them up in a police cell without association. But, Sir, I am perfectly certain—the conviction has been forced upon me, as I am certain it has upon the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary—that until we get a more rational system of sentences, and a much wider use by magistrates of the privileges of the law, our prisons will be crowded with persons who ought not to be there at all. I welcome this Bill because, subject to those observations with reference to Clauses 2, 4, and 5, it appears to me to enable the principle of discrimination, which ought to lie at the root of prison reform, to be applied with far greater flexibility than was hitherto possible in our rigid system

  77
  of prison administration. Some of my hon. Friends who have spoken did, I think, underrate the powers which this House will have under the Bill to criticise and disallow the rules drawn up by the Home Secretary. What is the scheme of the Bill? At present we are bound by the cast-iron regulations of an Act of Parliament which only legislation can change. When this Bill comes into operation the Home Secretary will have power to make rules of his own. He will be able to provide for modifications in the mode in which a sentence shall be carried out, and to take into consideration sex, age, and other matters. I do not hesitate to say, if we take the very dark and over-coloured picture just presented to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool as actually and faithfully representing the prison system, that under the present Bill the Home Secretary will be able to get rid of, or certainly largely mitigate, every one of the evils mentioned by my hon. Friend. He will be able, if any reason shows it to be necessary, to modify the term of solitary confinement, to diminish the amount of time which convicts have to serve in solitude in local prisons before they are sent to penal servitude prisons, and, in fact, to lay down any variation he may see fit as to diet, exercise, reading, recreation, and association.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Are the rules to be debated rule by rule, or taken as a whole?
  MR. ASQUITH: I understand rule by rule. The second sub-section of Clause 2 provides that the draft of the new rules must lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for 30 days, and if either House carries an Address to Her Majesty objecting to the rules—or any part thereof—no further proceedings can be taken. Sir, I have served in the office now held by the right hon. Gentleman, and I certainly, as a Member of Parliament, would not give the Home Secretary these large and drastic powers without Parliamentary control. But it is because I believe that it will on the one hand enable the Home Secretary to carry out such relaxations
  78
  and modifications in that which is now rigid and possibly cruel, as humanity and experience may suggest, and on the other empower this House to keep a persistent and vigilant supervision over prison administration, which is now altogether outside its scope, that I welcome this clause, and if I had any doubt that it would not have that effect I would not approve of it. Let me just take, by way of illustration, two or three other points just referred to by my hon. Friend, and also referred to by the hon. Member for South Mayo, in a very remarkable speech, which produced such an impression on the House the other night. We have heard a great deal said on the question of diet, and it has been stated by my hon. Friend and other Members that the existing system of prison diet is, as I understand, for an average prisoner in normal health and strength, starvation diet, which is injurious to health, and, at any rate, may be a contributory cause of insanity. The Report of the Committee to which I have referred recommended the abolition of "No. 1 diet," but I do not observe that they made any recommendation whatever as to the other diets.
  MR. M. DAVITT: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Prisons Commissioners refused to carry out that recommendation.
  MR. ASQUITH: That is a point which must be addressed to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. Although I have great confidence in the Prisons Commissioners and in the very distinguished public servant who stands at their head, whom I myself appointed, and whom I know to be a man, not only of very remarkable ability, but of a fine and sensitive humanity, with the strongest possible disposition to utilise what the experience of other countries teaches for the amelioration of prison life; still, as a matter of fact, the Report of the Committee was only presented a short time before I left office, and I, therefore, was not able to supervise the carrying into effect of any of its recommendations. But, although I do not find in the Report any evidence in support of the statements that the present diet is

  79
  a starvation diet, I must say, only speaking for myself, that the statements which have been made on the subject, both inside and outside the House, in the course of the last few weeks call, in my judgment—without for a moment expressing any opinion on the justice or injustice of the charge—for an inquiry by impartial men, in order to quiet the public conscience, if for no other reason; and I should advise, in view of the allegations, that the inquiry should be conducted expeditiously, and with an authority that will be recognised in every quarter. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool gave us a humorous description of the typical contents of the ordinary prison library. I have seen a good many prison libraries in the course of my visits to prisons. It is a subject which always interested me very much, and I always sampled the books in those libraries. I am bound to say that, whatever may be the case here and there, there are certainly two or three prisons which contain a large mass of most interesting reading. [Mr. DAVITT: They differ very much.] I dare say, as the hon. Member says, the libraries differ, but I do not think I should be at all sorry myself, nor do I think that even my hon. Friend, with his larger literary resources, would be sorry to be shut up for a few months in these libraries, and able to browse at large among their books. I remember at one of the prisons—I forget which—being told of a prisoner who, I am afraid, belonged to the professional enemies of society—a very ingenious and skilful imitator of other people's handwriting—who taught himself from the resources of the prison Greek and Hebrew during the course of imprisonment. I do not know what sort of an examination he would pass if he were sent up to the London University or elsewhere, but the prison chaplain, who assisted this man in his studies, assured me that he made considerable and satisfactory progress in both of these languages. I do not assent to the view of my hon. Friend that the prison libraries are quite such terrible things. But I feel, and have always felt, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite will agree with me, that it would be desirable to very much relax the rules which at present restrict the reading of
  80
  prisoners, at any rate during the time they are not engaged in labour. There are some things which the imagination shudders to contemplate, and among them is the picture of the state of mind of a man—particularly a man of education who has been accustomed to books—shut up for many hours, during which he can neither work nor sleep, absolutely alone with his own thoughts and deprived of the consolations which literature affords. I do think that is a part of our existing prison system which might very well be changed for the better, and I do not think the Prison Commissioners themselves will interpose any effective objection to considerable reform in that direction. Then there is the question of association. The hon. Member for South Mayo, in the course of this Debate, has drawn a very moving and impressive picture of the awful mental tortures which result from the absolute disuse of what I may call articulate companionship among prisoners. We know what the difficulties are which stand in the way of a change in the system. If we could have a complete system of discrimination, such as I have advocated earlier in my remarks, the dangers of association would greatly dwindle. But so long as you have a large number of men banded together, criminals of very different degrees of guilt and of physical and moral condition, there can be no doubt that association might prove, as it has proved, extremely contaminating and demoralising. I know quite well that the skilful prisoner, the old hand, the professional criminal, may even now, by taking advantage of all sorts of devices and opportunities, communicate his ideas to his fellow-prisoners, and corrupt those who are not already sufficiently corrupted. But all the same, while I would be glad to see a relaxation in the present rigid system in that respect, I think association is a thing that requires to be carefully guarded; but, subject to proper safeguards, I am certain it is a thing as to which the Prison Commissioners and the Home Secretary are most anxious, as far as they can, to promote a more elastic system. I also agree that it is very desirable, as far as possible, to introduce an outside element of inspection and supervision not associated with the

  81
  official body or with the central authority at Whitehall. If the Boards of Visitors to be appointed under Clause 3 are well and wisely chosen they will have very good results. Finally, there is one other clause which will have almost as far-reaching an effect for good as any, and that is the clause enabling remission of periods of imprisonment to be made. It is most important to introduce some element of hope. The convict at present can by good conduct earn a remission of one-fourth of his sentence; but local prisoners are not able to look forward to any such remission, and I hope that the minimum term entitling to remission—namely, nine months' imprisonment—will be further reduced. I am in favour of doing all that is possible in the way of enabling prisoners to earn relaxation and additional comforts, physical and intellectual, in order that they may make the best of their time and prepare themselves so far as they can for a better and more useful life outside. I have only one word more. Prisons are not intended to be comfortable places, and punishment must not, in becoming reformatory, cease to be deterrent. But, subject to that over-ruling condition, it should, in my opinion, be the first end of an enlightened system of prison administration not to add to the loss of liberty any superfluous degradation, or to quench any flickering sparks of self-respect. And it is because I believe that this Bill, although it does not cover the whole ground, and is capable of extension and amendment, yet will be a first and most important step in that direction, that I shall vote for the Second Reading.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY,): I think that on the whole this Bill has been received very favourably by the House; but some Gentlemen, mostly sitting on the Irish Benches, have used rather exaggerated language in speaking against the English prison system. Before I deal with particular criticisms, or come to speak of these particular attacks, I desire most emphatically to repudiate, on behalf of the authors of that system and of those who carry it out, the charge that the present system is conceived in a
  82
  vindictive spirit, in a spirit of what I think the hon. Member for East Mayo called lex, talionis; that it is inhuman or treats prisoners other than as human beings. I do not think that that can fairly be said of our prison system, and I am sure that not even those who bring the charge will apply it to the officials who direct the system. I was surprised to hear the violent and exaggerated language of the hon. Member for East Donegal in reference to the prison system; the hon. Member used language more exaggerated than any that has been used in the course of this Debate about the prison system in England. Yet the hon. Member was invited by the right hon. Gentleman opposite to assist in the inquiry which he instituted. The hon. Member put his name to the Report of the Committee, which is entirely and absolutely contradictory of almost everything he said in his speech to the House the other night. And I am astonished that, having put his signature to this Report, the hon. Member should use in this House language entirely at variance with the opinions he himself expressed in the Report. The Committee did not consist of persons pledged at all to the existing system; several of them were of a philanthropic turn of mind, and not wanting in sympathy for the prison population. But after their inquiry, before which a great deal of evidence was taken, including that of the hon. Member for South Mayo, the Committee came to the conclusion that bad prisons had disappeared, and saw no reason for a general condemnation of a system which had been "successfully designed to put an end to many glaring evils." It was open to the hon. Member for East Donegal to give a dissenting Report, if he had wished to do so; but after the hon. Member signed the Report of the whole Committee, there is some ground for complaint that in this House he should express opinions so very different. The hon. Member made allusion to the punishments and to the warders. The Committee say on these points—
  "Prison life necessarily means severe discipline. But the number of those who receive no punishment is a remarkable tribute to the discipline maintained, and to the tact and forbearance of the prison staff .… The warders as a body discharge their difficult and responsible duties with forbearance and kindness."

  83
  These words were subscribed to by the hon. Member for East Donegal. As the right hon. Gentleman opposite has said, there must be discipline in our prisons; and discipline is not always pleasant. We must not forget, however much we desire to improve the humane side of our system and to make it more reformatory, the deterrent and punitive side of it. We desire to keep our prisons empty, and not to make them full, and there ought to be in no stage of prison discipline any inducement to any part of the population to come under it. I believe it to be perfectly true that there has been a greater decrease in criminality in this country than in any other within recent years, and at the proper time I shall be able to argue the figures with the hon. Gentleman. Therefore, if the prison system be attacked on that point, the attack fails. With reference to the Bill, the Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite proposed certain sweeping changes. I may fairly claim that a great proportion of those changes have been carried out, and this Bill is introduced to carry out those which could not be effected without legislation. I am, therefore, astonished to find any opposition to this Bill from gentlemen who strongly urge the necessity for increasing the humanity of our system, because, although they may think that this Bill has shortcomings, it is, at all events, all in the direction of enabling more discrimination and greater humanity to be exercised towards the prison population. The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the rejection of this Bill objected to the treatment of this subject by rule, and quoted Sir George Grey as saying that he would not be responsible for the making of rules which ought to be settled by this House. But Sir George Grey was not averse to making all the rules under the Convict Prison Acts. The effect of this Bill is to bring under the control of this House, and subject to its revision and disallowance, any particular portion not only of the rules which may be made for local prisons, but of others which are now for the first time brought within the cognisance of the House. Under the present system the rules made for convict prisons are made by the Executive without submission to the House; by
  84
  this Bill they will be brought within the cognisance of the House; so that the effect of getting these extra powers is really to increase the control of Parliament. The hon. and learned Member for Bethnal Green spoke of a desire for secrecy on the part of the Home Office. I cannot understand the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have given such an amount of information to the House that I feared I might be blamed for it, but the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks I ought to produce all the standing orders. It is impossible to produce all the mass of details to the House, but so little do I desire to keep back information that, to satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am willing to consider whether all the standing orders affecting prisons could not be published annually. There is nothing in the world to conceal in the matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the rejection of this Bill spoke about the treatment of debtors, and the hon. Baronet the Member for one of the divisions of Glasgow said the Bill was a most retrograde measure, because it put some hardships upon debtors from which they are exempt under the present law. Now, it is certainly intended by the words of the Bill that all those persons who go to prison because they cannot pay—as, for example, School Board cases, vaccination cases, Salvation Army cases—should, for the first time, be treated as a separate class, and not classed with ordinary prisoners. The object is, in fact, to provide under this Bill a treatment less severe and degrading for persons convicted of offences not involving any moral turpitude or criminal intent. I have, however, reports from the Visiting Committees of Birmingham and other places to the effect that they very much desired to have some means of providing occupation for debtors in our prisons. The House will recollect that now debtors can only be committed when they have means to pay and refuse to pay. [Sir R. T. REID: That is not the practice.] The practice may be wrong, but if the law is properly carried out, at the present moment no person ought to be sent to prison as a debtor unless he refuses to pay that which he can pay. But the evidence shows that Visiting Committees, though they do not want to

  85
  class debtors as ordinary prisoners, still think there should be some means of imposing upon them some industrial occupation in prison, and that is the extent to which the clause goes. I am entirely in accord with what the right hon. Gentleman said with reference to the inequalities and severity of sentences which are sometimes passed in this country, and with reference to using the power of bailing out more frequently, and, of course, with reference also to the segregation of prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman asked me why we were not appointing a Commission. I believe the right hon. Gentleman knows I am not averse to considering that question, but certain difficulties occurred in the formation of the Commission, and diverse opinions were offered as to whether a Royal Commission was the proper way of dealing with the matter. I may say, however, that I think it very desirable, and the Government think it very desirable, that some means should be taken, if possible, to secure that sentences should be passed on a more uniform scale. As to the question of bail, I have a little Bill before the House now which goes some way in the direction advocated, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give me his assistance in carrying that Bill through the House. Generally, it may be shortly said that the Bill now under discussion is an amending Bill preliminary to a consolidation of the whole of our Prison Code. It amalgamates the government of local and convict prisons, and it gives power to modify from time to time the rules for prison labour, and to have regard to sex, age, industry, and character—a very important matter. It extends classification, does away with punishment cells, gives power of earning remission of sentences in local prisons in the same way as in convict prisons, and if there be objection taken to the period of nine months I am quite ready to consider whether this should not be extended to sentences of six months and upwards. One of the great difficulties of prison administration since the passing of the Act of 1877 has been to sustain the interest of those who formerly had more power over local prisons. It is my desire, and that of the Commissioners, as far as possible, to increase—subject to the responsibility of
  86
  the Commissioners, which is, be it remembered, the responsibility of the Secretary of State—the powers of the Visiting Committee, and, as far as possible, to interest them in the administration of our local prisons. A few words about the general charges which have been brought against the prison system. The hon. Member for East Donegal says that our prison system gives no hope, and is intended to give no hope, to convicts. I cannot understand anyone who knows so much about prison administration as he does making such a statement. Our whole prison system proceeds upon the idea that no prisoner is absolutely incorrigible. We have not got that system of indeterminate sentences which is advocated by some persons, and though we know that a large portion of our prison population—40 or 50 per cent.—is apparently incorrigible, still, we do go on, not adequately, perhaps, but genuinely, applying the educational improvement system to all classes of convicts. On the First Reading I cited figures to show the success which has followed the introduction of the "Star" class in convict prisons. We intend to extend that class to local prisons; and as to juvenile members, I would point out that a great deal is being done, even without legislation, to secure that they shall be separately located. I was rather astonished to hear a criticism about the supply of books, because, although there may be some libraries not so good as others, yet I know there is a very large discretion on the part of the governing authorities to allow the use of books to prisoners almost to any number they like, provided they make a satisfactory use of them. I know there are some prison libraries by no means devoid of interest. I remind the House how much has been done to consolidate and help the prisoners by various charitable agencies throughout the country, and to increase the assistance given to them by the Government, so that they might lead an honest life hereafter. I need hardly—or, rather, I think I ought to remind the House how much has been done to consolidate and help the various Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies throughout the country, and analogous societies, by the Government, with a desire in every way to secure that

  87
  through these agencies there should be found some means by which men and women leaving prison should lead honest lives afterwards. Sir, it has been said that our prison system brutalises our convicts and our prison population. Of course, no doubt, it may be the case in some instances, but to make such a charge generally against our prison system is grossly unfair. Let me take the "Star" class to which I have alluded. There were comprised in that class a great many men and women under long sentences, and if, after their discharge, they have not come back again to prison, and, so far as we know, have led honest lives afterwards, it cannot be said that they have been brutalised by the prison system.
  MR. J. BURNS: You let them out too late. If you let them out two years sooner, they might become very good citizens.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: That is a matter for the courts of this country to determine, and not for the Home Department. Well, then, Sir, let me take another instance. For a certain time past we have been pursuing a practice at the Home Office of making investigations into the lives of those who have served long sentences, and if it appears, from the general history of the released convicts, and their behaviour subsequent to their release, that they are not likely to relapse into crime, we are able, after police inquiry has been made, to relieve them from the necessity of reporting themselves periodically. That is a provision which I am sure will commend itself to the House generally, because everybody desires that when men and women have served their sentences they should, as fair as possible, be relieved from the prison taint. I find that in the six months from February to July, 1896, there were 41 cases of this kind into which the police were directed to make inquiry, in order to ascertain if it would be possible to remit the obligation of reporting themselves, and out of 41 cases, 39 were reported favourably upon, and released altogether from the obligation of reporting themselves. Now, these are
  88
  something like test cases. They included persons between the ages of 18 and 60, and persons who had been under very long and under short sentences of imprisonment; and I say that if there had been in our penal system a brutalising influence, as has been stated with so much exaggeration by some hon. Gentlemen, then we should have found that no such a remission as that would have been possible. A word now on the question of starvation—what is called "scientific starvation." Sir, I have only to say that this does not exist. I do not dispute the genuineness of the belief entertained by hon. Gentlemen in making the sweeping allegations they make, but I say this: to the Home Office there come every year a large number of complaints from prisoners—between 4,000 and 5,000 complaints. I have gone, to a great extent, into these complaints with the view of seeing what proportion of them had anything to do with the question of diet, and it is astonishing how few complaints are made about diet. It is not that prisoners are afraid to petition the Home Office on the subject. If they were at all afraid they would shrink from making complaints as to their treatment by the warders. Yet complaints by prisoners on the question of diet are very rare. A great number of prisoners leave our prisons in the course of the year—something like 105,000 are discharged—and I should like to know how many Members of this House have received any authentic complaints that they have suffered from this so-called "scientific starvation" in either our local or convict prisons. Sir, I have an open mind on the subject, and I am not averse to considering the point; but I say I have no evidence before me, none whatever, of any complaints from prisoners in this matter, nor was there any in the Report of the Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend opposite, except on one little point, to which I shall have occasion to refer later on. But there is not even the shadow of a foundation for the complaints and accusations as to "scientific starvation" made by some hon. Members. The hon. Member for South Mayo gave us a very harrowing account of certain painful cases which he had witnessed either at Dartmoor or Portland. The hon. Member made this statement

  89
  before the Royal Commission of 1879, and he gave the same evidence before the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. As to how that evidence was dealt with by them, all I can say is that the decision the Committee came to—I need not read it all—was to the effect that, while it was true, as stated in the evidence, that some of the prisoners did eat candles, they did so because of their desire for more fat than the dietary supplied. Since then there has been some improvement in the diet. But what is, after all, the main fact shown in the evidence put before the Committee of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is that out of 180 prisoners who were discharged, I think in one year, 97 had gained weight averaging 7lb., and 80 had lost weight. Now, Sir, is it possible to conceive, looking at the character of the men who go into our convict prisons—and I am referring now only to the convict prisons—that there could be anything like "scientific starvation," when you find that out of 180 prisoners no fewer than 97 gained in weight an average of 7lb.?
  MR. DAVITT: Is it not the fact that the Royal Commission, presided over by Lord Kimberley in 1879, recommended an increase in the prison diet?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Yes; and what they recommended, no doubt, was carried out. But I am referring now to the inquiry which established this fact, that out of a large number of convicts discharged in one year there was a very large percentage, more than one-half, who had absolutely gained 7lb. in weight.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Were these heavy-weight men?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Many heavy-weight men would probably be all the better for the loss of some weight.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: The light-weight men get plenty to eat, while the heavy-weight men do not get half enough.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: All I can say is, there is not that general complaint of starvation which is made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. And although
  90
  I do not wish to shelter myself behind the Committee of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I must point out that they state in their Report that, though they have had the evidence of the hon. Member opposite before them, and have gone into the facts of the case, they think it is not necessary to say anything about the diet, with the exception of No. 1. With reference to that No. 1 diet, I have looked into the matter and taken some medical evidence, and I am inclined to think there might be some improvement made. But I wish to remind the House that this diet is only for seven days, and it is not desirable to make a change, especially in the earlier and short sentence period of imprisonment, which shall compare favourably with the unfortunate outdoor circumstances, the out-of-prison circumstances, in many cases, of persons who might thus be tempted into our prisons. It ought not to be a period of comparative luxury. The prison authorities have full power to increase the diet, and from year to year there is a constantly increasing disposition on the part of the medical officers to see that no prisoner is injuriously affected by this diet. Sir, with regard to the other diet, I am not at all averse to looking into the matter. I understand hon. Gentlemen to suggest that I might usefully do so, and I shall be perfectly prepared to consider the matter with an open mind; although, at the same time, I have to say that on the first blush of the matter there is no evidence before me to substantiate the very strong charges made against either our convict or our local prisons. Sir, the hon. Member for Waterford made a statement as to a matter about which I think I am a little better informed than he is. He gave a very graphic description of the searching of a gang of convicts in one of our convict prisons who were going from or coming from their work. As I understand, he said these prisoners were searched with their clothes off in the presence of their neighbours; but he is quite mistaken. The search of a gang of convicts going to work is conducted exactly in the same way as it is in the case of a set of free labourers in one of Her Majesty's dockyards. The warders have to feel in the pockets and clothes of the men to see that they are not concealing any articles which they have no right to have, and if there is any suspicion that

  91
  they have got such articles they are taken to their cells and a proper search is made there, as it ought to be made. Again, with regard to exercise, the hon. Member made a great point of the small amount of outdoor exercise which is given to the convicts who are engaged in indoor and sedentary pursuits in our prison shops. I have inquired into that matter since he spoke, and I desire to correct the hon. Gentleman, for I find that, although he is generally very fair in these matters, he is quite wrong here. I find that the invariable practice with regard to such convicts is to give them daily exercise of from 40 minutes to two hours when employed in shops inside the boundary wall. When employed outside, they are out of doors at least one hour, and get exercise at and in going to and from their work. Well, I think that is a matter on which the hon. Gentleman is not right in making such a charge against our system. The hon. Member for South Mayo said he wished that the duties of the Commissioners should be more clearly set out, and I understand that he wanted what he called an independent inspection. Now, Sir, the Commissioners are appointed to assist the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the administration of our prisons, and the inspectors are the officers of the Commission. They are the persons from whom the Commissioners get to know whether their rules and the rules of the Secretary of State are being properly carried out, and they are not engaged to interfere to protect the prisoners in our prisons. The independent security for the proper treatment of our prison population lies in the Visiting Committees, and I am anxious to extend that outside influence. I gladly welcome the strengthening of our Visiting Committees, but with reference to our convict prisons, what I am afraid of is that it would be difficult to get gentlemen to serve. It is not a very pleasant task, but I should like to secure the services of those gentlemen who are likely to give their time—representative men and properly qualified—to inspect our convict prisons, in order to carry out those duties which are carried out with great efficiency by Visiting Committees in our local prisons. I cannot avoid mentioning how extremely satisfactory has been the assistance which some ladies have given us in this work, and how very much we are indebted to
  92
  the Duchess of Bedford and others. I desire to extend by this Bill such authority of inspection as I think ought to be given to the Board of Visitors. Something has been said about plank beds. They are the old guard beds introduced on the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and I do not think it would be possible to dispense with them in the first stage of imprisonment; but that there might be some relaxation of the plank-bed rule—and there has already been considerable—after the first short period of 28 days, I am not at all prepared to dispute. Sir, there are several other points upon which I might have spoken, but I am unwilling to keep the House much longer engaged. The question of keeping children out of prison is hardly a subject for discussion in connection with this Bill; but we are doing everything we can, consistently with the requirements of administration, to keep children out of our prisons. They must, unfortunately, be confined somewhere; but I am confident that the state of things so graphically described by the hon. Member for Mayo, as to what he had seen in an Irish prison, is not now possible. The hon. Member spoke of the industrialisation of our prisons and the abolition of the treadmill. We desire to do away, as far as we possibly can, with unproductive labour in our prisons, and if the hon. Gentleman will look at the Report of the Committee, and one or two of the recommendations of that Committee, I think he will be satisfied that a great deal has been done in that direction. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be desirable, so far as we could, that prisoners should be employed in work in the open air, in agriculture or in gardens; but it is not very easy to remove our prisons from the great centres of population. There is, first, the question of expense, and the friends of the prisoners who desire to visit them would probably be the first to complain of the removal. I think, even if it were desirable on other grounds, it would not be possible to remove them to any great distance from those centres where they are easily accessible. Sir, something has been said about political prisoners. Well, Sir, for the purposes of prison administration, I confess I do not know what a political prisoner is. A prisoner sent under sentence to prison has to be treated in

  93
  accordance with that sentence. The nature of the sentence is a question for the court which tried the case, and not for the prison administration. Sir, I should like to say one word about corporal punishment.
  MR. DAVITT: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible to insert a clause in this Bill providing that the treatment of political prisoners here should be similar to that which they receive in other countries.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I should like to know, in the first instance, what a "political prisoner" is. He is a person sentenced under a particular Act of Parliament, but that, of course, is a matter for the consideration of the court which tried the case, and has nothing to do with prison administration. What concerns the prison authorities is that, if a man is sentenced, as a first, second, or third class misdemeanant, or sentenced to hard labour, he must be treated in strict accordance with his sentence. But, as I have said, I do not know exactly what is meant by a "political prisoner." Now, as so many observations have been made about corporal punishment, I desire to say a word or two on that subject. It is quite true that in Ireland and Scotland there is less corporal punishment in local prisons, certainly, than there is in England. I believe, in fact, that in Ireland and Scotland there is no corporal punishment in local prisons; and in the Irish convict prisons there has been no case for several years of corporal punishment inflicted for insubordination. I am not here to give the exact reasons why that has been the case, but the fact remains. Possibly, the reason may be that in Ireland the convicts are not of the same violent character as some of those in England. In Scotland the figures relating to corporal punishment in convict prisons are about the same as those in England. In our local prisons it is .07 per 1,000, and in our convict prisons the figure is 4.0 per 1,000, while in Scotland it is 4.4 for the latter, so it comes to pretty much the same thing. I know that some hon.
  94
  Members desire to abolish corporal punishment, but I do not think it would be safe to do so, especially in the case of grave offences. I do not think we are ripe for that yet. The House will observe that the rules have been very considerably modified with reference to corporal punishment, and the new rules provide that corporal punishment shall only be inflicted for mutiny or inciting to mutiny, for personal violence to an officer of the prison, and for any act of gross insubordination requiring to be repressed by extraordinary measures. That is a considerable reduction of the offences for which corporal punishment can be inflicted; and, with reference to the last point, I have strictly intimated to the Visiting Committees that refusing to do work is not an act of gross insubordination. I do think it would be a very good thing if we could manage our prisons without corporal punishment, but at the same time we must remember what great advances we have been making, and I think that if we carefully guard against abuses, we shall find that corporal punishment discourages a great many of our criminal population from acts of violence. I hope I have now sufficiently intimated to the House my reasons for speaking so long. I do not think our present system is open to the very grave charges which have been made against it. I do not say that the system is perfect, but I do say that, after an examination by sympathetic persons, only two or three years ago, and on their proposing some sweeping changes, our prison administrators have shown themselves willing to carry these changes out to a surprising extent. We believe that we can carry out these changes, and I am proposing legislation to enable still more changes to be made, and I believe that if the House will pass this Bill, and give to the Secretary of State this power, it will be doing a great deal to promote a more humane administration of our prisons, while at the same time it will be maintaining that discipline which is so necessary to the efficient control of the prisoners. I hope that the House will not be disposed to continue the Debate much longer, and considering that really there does not appear to be any substantial objection to the Second Reading, I trust that the Bill will be now

  95
  given a Second Reading with a view to its being discussed upstairs.
  MR. J. BURNS: Whatever sweeping charges may have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House as to the present system, I think the speech of the Home Secretary has justified them: both the sweeping charges of the hon. Member for Mayo and the hon. Member for North Devon. It is an advantage to the community that men like the hon. Member for Mayo should be in the House to give the other side of the official prison system in England, and to put before it the convict system from personal experience, and as we have had a personal view of the convict system, I ask the indulgence of the House while I give the experience of a local prisoner in a local prison in London. But, first of all, let me say that I must dispute one or two of the statements made by the Home Secretary. He was inclined to challenge the growth of recidivism. I have only to refer him to page 10 of the Departmental Committee's Report, and he will find that the number of recidivists ranges from 47 to 79 per cent. That fact in itself warrants all the wild charges that have been made. Then I come to the question as to the existence of a great deal of insanity in our prisons, and I take the evidence of Mr. Ruggles-Brise, and what does he say? In answer to Question 10,235, he says this—
  "You would say that a large proportion of the prison population was mentally weak. I think that is so with the bulk of the recidivists. I think I should call it 'moral imbecility.' They are called 'half-sharps.'"
  So much for the wild charges about insanity. I now come to the concessions made by the Home Secretary, and I am rejoiced to hear that there is to be no secrecy as to the prison rules, and that everything is to be laid upon the Table, and when I say "Table," I interpret that as being the Table of this House. But that only applies, I apprehend, to general rules. Are the special rules drawn up by governors, and sometimes objected to by Visiting Committees, also to be tabled; if not, why not? At any rate, I sincerely trust that the tabling of the general rules will lead to the
  96
  tabling of the special rules. Well, Sir, criticism of our prison system, I am glad to say, has induced the Home Secretary to interpret one of the clauses of this Bill as creating a new class of misdemeanants, such as Salvationists and anti-vaccinationists. [The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT: It does nothing of the sort. It was the original intention of the Bill.] Very well, I am glad, as other Members are, that that clause now makes clear what some of us have had a doubt about. Then the Home Secretary justified the criticism which has been made by saying that he is disposed to give a remission of sentences down to six months, instead of 12 and nine, as originally intended; and then we come to one of the most important matters in connection with this Bill, and that is the Visiting Committee. I know something about the way in which Visiting Committees do their duty. At Pentonville, when I had the honour of Her Majesty's hospitality, a warder would come in advance, open the door, throw it back, and up would come a military-looking gentleman, who would put his head in and say, "Any complaints?"—and before you could give an answer he was at the next cell. I think, Sir, that a magistrate, or any member of a Visiting Committee, ought to be able to go to any cell, unaccompanied by any prison officer, and with the governor standing at least six cells away, and then, perhaps, the question as to "any complaints" may not prove so abortive a farce as it is at present. Although the Home Secretary has justified the outside clamour for prison reform, and some of the sweeping charges made in this House as to the necessity for still further humanising our prison system, curiously enough, he does not see it in the same light as I see it in. But he told us that out of 2,000 prisoners under the "Star" class, 20 only have come back after they have been put into that class. Well, Sir, I am very grateful indeed to the Home Secretary for having done in that statement more to condemn, our present prison system of treatment than all the wild and sweeping charges that have been made from this side of the House, because what does it prove? It proves that humanitarianism pays, and that kindness, even at the

  97
  eleventh hour, is better than no kindness at all. But I say let us have the kindness at the third and fourth hour, and if more men are put into the star class, and if it were applied to misdemeanants undergoing shorter terms of imprisonment than it is now applied to, the Home Secretary will find that men will not come buck as they do now. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that there are very few complaints as to food and shortness of diet. I will tell him the reason for it. As a rule, short-sentence prisoners are under the impression that the less they grumble, and the less they worry the warders, the better it will be for them in every respect, and besides that, there is an inherent disposition on the part of the prisoners to take their gruel like men. I must say that was my view, I did not complain, and I found that, as a rule, the prisoners did not care about worrying and cavilling at the warders too much. No, they do not complain, but they are carried from the prison ward to the infirmary hospital through shortness of diet, and that is why there are so few complaints. Take the percentage of men who have been discharged from the prison infirmary, sent there because they were suffering from weakness and debility brought on by shortness of food, and then you will see, Sir, where the complaints come in. We are asked to look at the number of prisoners who gain weight whilst in prison. But the weight that a man puts on while in prison is not a healthy weight. It very frequently takes the form of swelling of legs and dropsy. I repeat it is not a healthy gaining of weight. Besides, you must differentiate. Take the case of a half-starved man sent to prison, even the starvation diet they get there is better than the no diet he had outside. It is most unfair to say that these men are evidence of the fact that prison diet lends to gaining weight. You might as well put a chicken in solitary confinement, put a small portion of gruel and stir about down its throat with a force-pump, and point to that as a triumphant example of the beauties of such a diet. I am very glad that we have moved the Home Secretary to say that No. 1 Diet will be considered. What is No. 1 Diet? I have had it. It is six ounces of bread and two ounces of oatmeal. I went into prison
  98
  with a strong constitution, and I was there for six weeks. I never made any complaint; but what is six ounces of bread? It is just about as much as hon. Gentlemen take with their chop and potatoes, and cabbage or spinach; but I had the bread only—six ounces at 5.30 at night, and nothing from then until 7.45 next morning, an interval of over 14 hours. I am not ashamed to say that at one or two o'clock in the morning I have wetted my hands with my spittle, and gone down on my hands and knees on the asphalted floor in the hope of picking up a stray crumb from the meal I had had ten hours before. I made no complaint; no other prisoner made complaint, because they did not want to get into trouble by worrying the warders and being looked upon as fractions prisoners. That, Sir, is not the way to reform men. If I had not had the Bible to read I do not know what I should have done—and it wants a certain amount of intelligence to find consolation even in the Old Testament. But if that was so with me, what about those prisoners who can hardly read and write, and who look upon the Bible as being the embodiment of prison life, because many of them only see it there, and they do not look upon it from the literary and historical and religious side; they only regard it as being associated with bad treatment. I say, Sir, that you have no right to put a strong man into prison and break down and enfeeble his constitution, perhaps permanently, by No. 1 Diet. Take a man who has done, we will say, three years in the Brigade of Guards—a six-footer—who afterwards goes gas-stoking at 6s 6d. a day, and who is, perhaps, getting his Reserve pay as well. Well, he gets drunk, and gets a sentence of seven days' imprisonment. During that time he is put on this diet—this big, strong man—and the result is that after he comes out he is prevented for two or three weeks from going back to his gas-stoking. What right has any system to do that? The Home Secretary says that he will consider No. 1 Diet. I would advise him to take 24 hours under the Governor of Pentonville Prison, have this six ounces of bread and two ounces of oatmeal made into gruel, and then he will alter it at once—not consider it; and if that will not convert him and the Home Office, may I suggest

  99
  three days' solitary confinement, with the Under Secretary in the next cell. The right hon. Gentleman has promised to look into it, and I sincerely trust he will do it. Now, Sir, to pass from the diet to the Visiting Committees and Commissioners, I was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman said he would welcome outside help—and I am pleased to see so many distinguished ladies taking an interest in our prison population—and I believe that the sympathetic desire expressed by the Home Secretary to extend that will induce more ladies to take an interest in the same direction, and I sincerely trust that the Home Secretary will allow them all the liberty he can, and, above all, I do plead to him not to allow any of the Prison Commissioners to do anything to prevent these ladies from freely going into the prisons and tempering the brutality of our prison system by the kindly visits of angels in disguise. Then the Home Secretary referred to the plank bed. Well, Sir, the Home Secretary is a bulky person, and I am not a thin one, and the plank bed is not particularly objectionable to a man from 13 to 17 stone; but take a lean and hungry man—a modern Cassius, weighing from 8 to 10 stone—who is particularly thin and has not much to lie upon. A person of that sort finds a plank bed particularly uncomfortable. In this respect we find that the present system is worse than the old system. Up till 1878 every prisoner used to have a hammock, and the allowance of clothes that he had then for his covering was certainly larger than it is now. Every prisoner now is practically one blanket short, because he puts a blanket on top of the plank, whereas under the old system he had his two blankets and his hammock underneath. I appeal to the Home Secretary to abandon the plank bed altogether and to revert once more to the hammock. I cannot, Sir, allow this Debate to go by without giving my views about Prison Commissioners, and in so doing I say that the modern tendency to remit legislative duties to permanent officials is increasing in the most disastrous way. We had an instance of that under the Scotch Private Procedure Bill the other night. Now, I do not want to say anything against the Prison Commissioners, but I think already they have too much power, and the Governors are too much
  100
  in their hands. It is true it is said their reports will be supervised by the Home Secretary, but the Home Secretary has not time, even if he has the desire which I credit him with, to supervise their reports. Who are these Commissioners? Are they independent people? No. Are they impartial? No. They are nothing more nor less than the highly polished links of the official chain of the Home Office. Two of them are officials of the Home Office and two of them are old soldiers, of whom we are not enamoured as prison officials. In that view I am not alone, because I find that Mr. Tallack is against the employment of military men in the prison system. The Commissioners ignored the overcrowding in 1894, although it was proved before the Commission. They were against the abolition of Diet No. 1. They are very reticent upon our silent system, and they gave no new, useful, or suggestive evidence before the Commission, and, above all, although three years have passed since the Committee reported, yet the Home Secretary has been obliged to tell us that there are still 900 small corrugated cells to three prisons. What have these Commissioners been doing in the meantime? Let us go farther, and judge what the Commissioners have done since the report of the Committee. What have they done with regard to punishment? I will quote one case. A man named Cox was sentenced at Gloucester to 12 months' imprisonment, and that sentence expired in 12 months, and he was discharged in December, 1897. Owing to bad treatment, the local people say owing to insufficient diet, he was so brutalised and demented that four days after the expiration of his sentence he went upstairs to the bed in which his three little children were asleep, and, having kissed them, went downstairs and cut his throat. I believe, as the people of Gloucester believe and as his wife believed, that that was the result of insufficient diet, and the solitary system, and the bad treatment which the Prison Commissioners ought to have revised, but did not. Then I will take the case of Edward Callock. Discharged from Wandsworth in May—he was a lunatic, but was treated as a criminal—two days after he was released he killed two women in Deptford by cutting their heads off.

  101
  Now, you have no right to liberate lunatics in this way. You ought to send them to an asylum and give them proper treatment, and not give them solitary confinement. I feel very strongly on this point. What recommendation have the Prison Commissioners made in matters of this kind? Take, again, one of our greatest offenders; take the case of Jane Cake bread, convicted 250 times where she ought to have been convicted not more than twice, and then sent to an asylum. She has been to prison 250 times, and she is a lunatic to-day, and has been for the last 15 years. What have they done with regard to William Onions? I was in Pentonville with this man; he has been in prison 175 times. He comes, to see me every time he comes out of prison, and if he would go and see the Home Secretary once I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman would see that he should never go to prison again. There is a kindly relation between Onions and myself, because on one occasion, when at exercise, he pulled an eight-ounce leaf of bread from out of the seat of his trousers, and I ate it. Ah! and so would you have done, gentlemen, if you had had the chance. Now, I know the man, and I venture to predict that if he is constantly treated as he has been treated, and is being treated, in prison—this man has never once committed any theft; his convictions have been generally for drunkenness or assault a upon the police—if this treatment is continued towards him this man will become so maddened and brutalised that there is a strong probability, in my opinion, that he will follow the examples of the other two prisoners I have referred to and commit some horrible crime. Then there is the case of Gilbert, the Covent Garden porter. Never once has he committed any theft, yet he has been in prison for 15 years. Those are three instances. I want to know what representation the Prison Commissioners have made to the Home Secretary as to these persons, and I find they have made absolutely none. I say those gentlemen are unfitted for the post they occupy, and I would suggest to the Home Secretary that he should nominate a Prisons Board, such as there is in France and other countries, composed of scientific men, who would have an opportunity of
  102
  revising the reports of the Prison Commissioners. Why do I say that? Look at this case. In Wands worth Prison, in my own district, on the 3rd February, 1898, was a lad sentenced to seven days. It was a first offence, and the poor lad, going to chapel, forgets his Bible, and for that he is sent back to the punishment cell to three days' bread and water. Now, I see no sense in this Bill; no evidence of change on the part of the Commissioners. I sincerely trust the Home Secretary will do everything in his power to create an independent Prisons Board, which would strongly supervise the Prison Commissioners. If you go to Holloway Gael to-morrow morning you will see from 16 to 20 lads exercising there. Now, in the first place, those boys ought not to be there at all; they ought to be in a reformatory, but you send them there and look at them after they have been there a week or a fortnight; look at the dark line under the eyes, and look at the hanging lip and the vacant look. You do not want to go to the prisoners and ask them. Go to the first warder that you see, and he will tell you that stone walls do a prison make, and iron bars a cage. These boys by their own hand are slowly but surely making themselves physical wrecks and mental imbeciles. Go to Denver and see the same class of boys there working contentedly and happily under a matron. One of the most pleasant things that I have seen in my life was boys, saved from crime by the better system in force at Denver Prison, coming back to their old matron with large bouquets which they had gathered on the mountain side and brought as a testimony to her for having been treated differently to the way in which boys are treated in an English prison. I have been speaking to various warders and prisoners, and those who work amongst prisoners, for the last two months upon this Bill, and the universal opinion is that the centralised system as carried on in our prisons is the least humane of all. The Visiting Committees are more formal, and take less time and less interest in the prisoners. I hope the Visiting Committees in the future will have more power; what is the use of them if they are only to say "Yes" or "No" to what the Government does? What is the use of

  103
  having a Board of Prison Commissioners in the Home Office? What we want is an independent Prisons Board that shall keep the Home Office authorities in check where they are wrong. Let me ask the Home Secretary what he proposes to do upon the subject of the diet. Unimpeachable medical testimony says that the diet, in the first place, is not sufficient, and, what is worse, is unnutritious, and we all know that 60 or 70 per cent. of our prisoners die of tuberculosis, and all doctors agree that an unnutritious diet will make for that disease. The Prison Commissioners are not inclined to alter that themselves, because on the Commissioners' Report they pledge themselves against the abolition of the No. 1 Diet. How is the Home Secretary going to deal with the silent system? I do not ask that with regard to the prisoners alone, but to the warders also. You have no right to take men from the outside ranks of labour and subject them for 10 hours to the silent system to the extent they are now subjected. Then take the prisoners. I think it is extremely brutal to put a man to a long term of imprisonment, as you do subject them to by this silent system. Involuntarily they break the rule. One of the premonitory symptoms of imbecility is to chatter. Go to Holloway and Pentonville, and you will see them do so, and then they are taken up by a warder and put on punishment diet. That ought to be stopped. I believe the difference in the condition between the outside population and the prison population can be traced, where it is not due to the food, to the silent system. The tread-wheel is still at Wands worth. The crank is still at work, mentally and physically injuring the men at work upon it, and until the mill and the crank are done away with, the number of immature boys and invalid men who are in our prisons ought not to be allowed to work upon them. The Home Secretary has said that prisons should not be made too comfortable. I do not want to see the prisons in England like that of Denver; that is going a little too far, but the diet should be altered. Look at the diet there; it is ¾lb. of meat, 1lb. vegetables, and 1lb. bread, and occasionally that is varied by a fruit diet. Contrast that with the diet of the convict at Dartmoor.
  104
  It is no wonder that he should go mad, because there in that bleak place they have not enough to keep body and soul together. There are two ways of deterging crime at Elmira. Eighty per cent. of the prisoners who go out on parole never come back to that or any other penitentiary. I find at the great industrial school at Redhill that 90 per cent. of the lads do well, and never come back. When I visited the Iowa Penitentiary I found that 91 prisoners let out on parole never came back at all. We find these things done in other countries, but the Prisons Commissioners ignore that altogether, and we have not the slightest humane suggestion from them upon the subject. Take the case of the prison buildings. There is no country in the world where they have such depressing and monotonous prison buildings as here. The outside is bad enough; but I will deal with the inside, as it affects the prisoner. I think that the old cell was better than the new one. In the old cell you had something like decent sanitary accommodation provided for the prisoner. I am sorry to talk about these details, but we must. In Pentonville Prison you have a cell 10 feet by 8, and you have no light coming in at the back and no light at the front. In the winter time there is a little gas jet in front of your cell. What do you find at night time? At night time those sanitary conveniences that a prisoner ought to have access to outside his cell are denied him. Under the old system the convenience used to be inside; and if the convenience is properly trapped and there is plenty of water, that is a system I would advise the Home Secretary to revert to. In a warm night in July or August, when the diet affects a man with chronic diarrhœa, these poor prisoners are confined for 12 or 14 hours in their cells, which, as Oscar Wilde says in his splendid poem, makes the prison cell a foul, dark latrine. I now come to exercise. I believe they are insufficiently exercised, especially the young. Some say you cannot have too much exercise. If it is wanted you might get your warders, line them up in the corridor, and give the prisoners an hour's physical drill. The warders would like it, and you would mentally and physically do a lot of good

  105
  to the prisoners. Now I come to the chapel. What do I find? I don't know what the general experience of chapel is, but I will tell you mine. I have been to sea, and I know what the language of the forecastle is. I have heard swearing, but never did I hear language such as I have heard come from prisoners in the chapel of one of Her Majesty's gaols. You don't get the typo of man who can talk to a prisoner, but rather a man who will talk at them. The language I have heard is something terrible. There are more punishments for talking than for any other thing in all the previous week's work. My advice is to dispense with some of the duller parsons. I hope also that the Home Secretary will provide the prisoners with as much labour as possible. The old-fashioned prejudice on the part of trades unions against prison labour has died out. Nothing gave me greater pleasure than the decision at Belfast some years ago that prison labour was necessary for prisoners and should be extended. There need be no fear on that point. I have seen in the exercise ground of the prison these professional enemies of society, as they have been called—these derelict human beings—and they have been there often because society has been cruel and unjust to them, first making them criminals, and then punishing them. What do you find: Instead of men being educated, robust, and healthy, as in some of the American prisons, they are perpetually put on punishment diet and subjected to brutal monotonous confinement. You find in the Report of your Committee that—
  "The fact that the great increase of the general population does act carry with it a further addition to crime suggests at once that the spread of education, improved dwellings and sanitation, and more favourable conditions of living have reduced crime."
  That is true. But why not give the prisoner the benefit of that spread of education which is now denied him? Why don't you appeal to his better self; why don't you improve the dwellings in which he is housed; why don't you abolish this loathsome sanitation which is in every prison in London? I am one of a body that looks after 16,000 pauper lunatics and 1,000 industrial schoolboys, and what do we find? We find that in proportion as we have changed our modern lunatic
  106
  asylums from the old prison-like Bastilles in which lunatics used to be treated, and erected buildings on healthy sites, and given them entertainments and museums, the proportion of patients dismissed as cured has increased. The result of this progressive treatment in the treatment of lunatics has been that in nine years there has never been an abuse brought to the notice of the London County Council regarding the management of those 16,000 pauper lunatics on its hands. If this can be done for lunacy, why cannot it be done for prisoners whose crime is only a phase of lunacy? But it cannot be done under your present system, because it is a cruel system imposed upon us by old-fashioned ideas, based upon cruelty and repression, a system carried out by military men, who, however good soldiers they may have been, are bad doctors and worse reformers. I ask the Home Secretary to recognise that he will never get rid of crime until this is radically reformed. He will never reduce crime by substituting four ounces of gruel for two ounces of gruel. You will never morally improve a criminal by first dehumanising him, and then starving him into the condition of a brute. I have seen the effects of this brutalising system upon the poorest of this country. I am glad I went to prison, because men like myself and the hon. Member for South Mayo can give another side to the aspect of things presented by the optimistic reports that are carried to the Home Office, and which I trust the House will not take for gospel. I hope that every rule made by the Government will be subjected to Parliamentary criticism, and that every rule shall be laid upon the Table; that this Bill—weak and insignificant skeleton of a Bill though it is—is the first instalment of a radical change in our prison system, and that the House will say once and for ever that no good can be done by appointing military men who have made prison a curse, and made every man miserable who has come under their domination.
  MR. H. J. TENNANT: I should like to point out that in the statement which has been drawn up and circulated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite it is stated that the recommendation of the Committee of the right

  107
  hon. Gentleman the Member for West Leeds as to association has been carried out. Without absolutely controverting that, I may say that there are three ways in which the recommendation may be avoided, in regard to the possibility of the prisoners associating: first, in the prison van; then, after arrival, while waiting for examination by the doctor; and again, when waiting for the bath. We may be right or wrong in desiring to prevent prisoners associating one with another, learning signs, and making assignations for meeting when they come out. I believe the system is right that tries to avoid that, and it seems to me a great pity that, with all your arrangements to prevent prisoners communicating one with another, you should leave these three large gaps by which prisoners may escape from your control. Most hon. Members will recognise and welcome the fact that the new code of rules will be of a less unyielding character than was the old code, and I am glad to see that the Government speak of the "unyielding character" of the old rules. Sir, I should like to make a special plea in favour of more useful work being given to the prisoners. I should also like to say that Prisoners' Aid Societies do not seem to be sufficiently in communication with the governors of gaols. Would it not be possible to increase the facilities for communication, so that governors would be told what would be a useful industry to teach prisoners? They might make recommendations to the prison governors, and thus some industry for which there is a particular demand outside might be taught to the prisoner. It would be useful to have some system of organisation among the various Prisoners' Aid Societies. For instance, there is one in York and another in London, and others in different parts of the country, and they have no communication one with another. Would it not be possible to have some annual conference of these societies, similar to the Poor Law Conference of Boards of Guardians? They might, by taking counsel together, learn what would be the most useful course to pursue. What do you find now? Ton find industries being
  108
  taught in gaols which are not only useless in themselves, but are most hurtful. Take the case of women who are in gaol for drunkenness. In the first place they ought not to be in gaol; but that, I admit, is another question. They are put to laundry work; and it is well known that habits of drunkenness are contracted with great case in laundries, as the supply of beer is commonly a part of the pay. Owing to the great heat of the laundry, habits of drinking are most common among the women, and to teach women, who are in prison for drunkenness, laundry work seems a form, of madness. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the work of the lady visitors is of great value. I should like to ask him if he would consider the advisability of adding to the Prison Inspectors a woman inspector. I am sure cases have arisen in which women inspectors would be of great advantage. Matrons and female warders often feel that when the inspector comes round it is difficult to talk to him about many little things; and these little things are often really important. I should like to mention also the importance of the treatment of women with infants. In that respect the recommendations of the Committee have not been carried out, and for a reason that seems to be a very paltry reason. Women who have infants are sent into cells which are made for one person, and not for two; consequently the area of space is insufficient, and the sanitary conditions are bound to be unsatisfactory. Then those women are not allowed to join with others in their work. They can have no exercise except that of trailing round an asphalte path—which is no exercise at all. If a woman cannot get sufficient exercise it stands to reason she is not in a fit condition to nurse her infant, and the result of the present system is that infants are half-starved on account of the ill-health of the mother; and because also of the fact that inhuman mothers, in prison sometimes for cruelty to the very child with whom they are locked up, take themselves the supplementary basin of milk ordered for the infant. Again, it seems to be a wrong system, whether the mother is good or bad, under which a child is cooped up with its unfortunate mother for eight or nine months, and then, the

  109
  medical officer suddenly says that the child must be taken away. Sir, that seems to me to be a very distressing thing. If the right hon. Gentleman considers the distress of the good mother, who is denied the consolation of work: who is not allowed to go to church; who has been with the child so long that she must necessarily have become absorbed in it-if. I say the right hon. Gentleman considers it, the distress of the mother must be something terrible to contemplate. If you want to make the prison system a preventive as a curative system you ought to make the children healthy. There ought to be a crêche, and a nursery warder to look after the children, so that the woman can go to her work and to church. She could see her infant at regular periods. Larger cells are required, as well as better food: and if you wand to make your system really effective you ought to ensure that the children grow up strong, because if the body is not fit to cope with the struggle for existence it stands to reason that the child, in its turn, will become a criminal, and will swell the already alarming proportion of criminal population.
  Read a second time without a Division.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STAFF FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): I beg to move that the Bill he referred to the Grand Committee on Law.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: Before the House adjourned the Under Secretary for the Home Office and moved that this Bill which the House has just read a second time should be committed to the Grand Committee, and I desire to explain to the House the pounds of my objection. In the first place the Grand Committee is as rightly beyond by rules of procedure as this House is and the rules are substantially the space. That is to say, it would be only open to many of us on this side who feel strongly in regard to this
  110
  Bill, to move formal Amendments to the text of the Bill, and the discussion would of course be rigidly confined to the substance of the Amendment. Now, Sir, it does seem to me that if these things are so, then the Grand Committee is not the proper Committee to which to commit this Bill. Sir, this Bill, as the late Home Secretary said in some weighty words a few moments ago, is one of the most important Bills that has ever come before this House, and, therefore, I think that the Committee to which it is to be referred ought not to be bound by strict technical rules, but to have what, perhaps, I may describe as a free hand in dealing with this Bill. Mr. Speaker, if this Bill goes before the Grand Committee there will be no opportunity to take any evidence. Now, I do think that the Committee to which this Bill is committed ought to have power to take evidence, and to collect information from any source which in the opinion of the Committee may be likely to afford it assistance. In particular, Sir, I should like an opportunity to be given to the Chairman of the Prisons Board to appear before the Committee to which this Bill will be committed, and to explain the system which he represents. It may be that we have unjustly formed unfavourable impressions of what that system is. If that is so, I think nothing but good would result from giving the Chairman of the Prisons Board an opportunity of explaining and defending himself, in face of what would be, I may say, a courteous, but at the same time a critical body. But there is a still more important consideration which, I think amply justifies my opposition to this Bill going before the Grand Committee. If this Bill goes before the Grand Committee there would be no opportunity of dealing with the rules. The rules are referred to in the Bill, but they are not part of the Bill, and it must be obvious to the House that the main effect which the Bill will produce will depend upon the rules. What does the Government propose to do with regard to those rules? It proposes to lay them on the Table of the House for 30 days, and if within those 30 days either House of Parliament presents to Her Majesty an address against the rules then no further proceedings

  111
  will be taken thereon. This is no new proceeding, although, perhaps, to inexperienced Members of the House it may appear plausible. But we know what it means. It is by no means unusual to provide in an Act of Parliament that rules shall be laid on the Table for 30 days, and Members who are interested in them have to find, as best they may, some opportunity of discussing them. In practice, however, the only opportunity is after Twelve o'clock at night. But it would be monstrous to ask the House of Commons to discuss such rules as these after Twelve o'clock. The late Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Fife, seemed to think that there was some opportunity of discussion presented to the House of Commons by this Bill, and he drew attention to the fact that the House of Commons may object, not only to the rules en bloc, but to any part of them. It is true the House of Commons might object to any particular part of these rules, but what the House of Commons will not be able to do, as I understand, will be to introduce anything into the rules. The House may object to what appears in the rules, but it will have no opportunity, according to this plan, of introducing anything. Many improvements have been suggested by hon. Members with experience, and the inference is that there are many provisions they would desire to introduce into these rules. I think, also, that it would not be practicable for the House in its corporate capacity, or even in a Committee of the whole House to deal with these rules. What the House of Commons cannot do directly, however, it can do by legislation, and I think this is a proper occasion to delegate the duty of going through these rules to a Select Committee. Of course that will take time, but time does not seem to be a very precious commodity with the Government this Session. I am sure, however, there are Members on both sides of the House who would not begrudge any time or any labour which might result in the improvement of our present system. After all, for whatever is wrong in the present administration, the real responsibility rests, not with the Prisons Commissioners, but with this House. Those who support the Bill have spoken
  112
  of what they describe as its quality of elasticity, by which they mean that, whereas the old rules were part of the Statute and could not be altered without the consent of Parliament, it is now proposed that the rules shall be made by the authority of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I do not wish to incorporate these rules in an Act of Parliament. I think there is a good deal in what has been said by hon. Members in favour of the supposed elasticity of this proposal, but I want the House of Commons, through its Committee, to have an opportunity of going carefully through the whole of these rules. This is an entirely exceptional occasion. What is the House to be asked to do by the Home Secretary? The House is about to be asked by the Home Secretary to adhere to rules which were originally framed in 1860, and have undergone substantially very little alteration. The very statement of that proposition shows how absurd and how fantastical it is. It is obvious that in the 33 years which have elapsed—equivalent to the lifetime of a whole generation—we have made great progress in every other Department of the State. Why, then, should we be content with stagnation in our prison system, and in that alone? I think if the House is really, and not merely nominally, to discharge the responsibility which lies upon it, it must accept the Amendment which I propose to make to the Resolution which has been submitted from the Treasury Bench, and refer this Bill to a Select Committee as against a Grand Committee. I, therefore, move—
  "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee, and that the draft Prison Rules also be referred to the same Committee."
  MR. J. H. YOXALL: I desire to support this Amendment, but I feel sure that the admirable spirit shown by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs in all that regards the treatment of prisoners will ensure that the proper course is taken. It is only by sending this Bill to a Select Committee that the House can give effect to the general good-will that has been shown upon both sides towards this proposal for prison reform. I have a

  113
  special reason for supporting this proposal, and that is that I do not find in the Bill itself, or in the rules, anything like an adequate treatment of the great question of education in the prisons. I hope I am not out of order—
  MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Member is speaking on the Bill, and not on this Motion.
  MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICK: May I draw attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present?
  [The necessary number of Members having returned—]
  MR. YOXALLresumed: I desire that this Bill shall go to a Select Committee in order that those rules which refer to the scholastic treatment of prisoners shall receive that attention which they cannot receive from a Grand Committee.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I find that the Prisons Bill of 1877 was discussed in a Committee of the Whole House, and I think the House ought either to follow that example or adopt the suggestion that this Bill should go to a Select Committee. If the Bill goes to a Select Committee it will take up too much time, and the rules will not be improved in accordance with the intention of the Home Secretary. I trust the Under Secretary of State for Home Affairs will accept the Amendment and allow this Bill, which has been unanimously accepted in all parts of the House, to go to a Select Committee.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: This is a Bill which is specially suited for a Grand Committee, and to send it to a Select Committee would be a mistake, because after the procedure there it would have to go through the Committee of the Whole House. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green admitted that the Bill would occupy a great deal of time, and if it is to go through the process the hon. Member advocates, I fear there will be a great danger as to whether it will pass. Seeing, therefore, that there is no necessity
  114

  to send the Bill to a Select Committee, and seeing that it is specially suited for a Grand Committee, and, moreover, as the Government wish to get it passed as speedily as possible, I think it should be sent to a Grand Committee. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green seems to have lost sight of the fact that the Bill and the rules are founded on the report of a Committee that has sat for a long time, has given most of its attention to this subject, and has made a most exhaustive inquiry. The Bill is founded on that report, yet, as far as I can gather from the speech of the hon. Member, he wishes to have another inquiry of the same kind, and one which will occupy a great deal of time. With regard to the "quality of elasticity" to which reference has been made, it is certainly intended that the rules can be changed as often as experience shall show to be necessary, and whenever there is a change it will come before Parliament, which would thus have not a shadowy but a real control over the rules. I hope the House will allow the Bill to go to a Grand Committee, so that it may speedily become law, and may not be subjected to the danger of going to a Select Committee.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Before the House disposes of this question there is one consideration to be kept in mind. We seem to have for gotten the purpose for which Grand Committees, as they now prevail, were first instituted, or, at all events, the purpose which was in the minds of Members when the present system of Grand Committees was established. Nobody ever pretended that a Grand Committee was anything more than a necessary evil in the then circumstances of the House; nobody ever pretended that a Grand Committee was a better tribunal for discussing a Bill than a Committee of the whole House; and on all sides of the House the admission was made, when Grand Committees were established 10 years ago, that the devolution of business absolutely by the House to a Committee of the House was a procedure not unattended with dangers, examples of which can be found in America, and in every State of that confederation. What I wished to

  115
  point out, however, is that there is no excuse in the circumstances of the present Session for referring any Bill whatever to a Grand Committee. I have no particular love for the alternative proposal of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bethnal Green to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, and I do not think there is any excuse in the circumstances of the present Session for withdrawing the Bill from the Committee of the whole House, and referring it to a Grand Committee, as proposed by the Government. Where is the flood of business this Session? There is plenty of time for dealing with this Bill in the ordinary way, and I would suggest that a compromise might be resorted to. Let both Motions be withdrawn. If my hon. and learned friend withdraws his Motion, I understand the Government will withdraw theirs, and the Bill will then be left to the consideration of the whole House. I urge the House to be true to the principle upon which Grand Committees were originally established, and only send Bills to a Grand Committee when the Committee of the whole House has no time to deal with it.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Under Secretary that the Bill of 1865 was, upon the responsibility of the Government of that day, relegated, so far as the rules were concerned, and, therefore, so far as the Bill was concerned, to a Select Committee. I cannot help expressing my entire concurrence with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, that it is desirable that the Bill should be sent to a Committee of Members of this House, chosen on account of the interest they take in this Measure, and their knowledge—their special knowledge:—of matters dealing with prison discipline. Now, if this Bill goes before the Grand Committee on Law, it will, it is said, go before a body specialty constituted for the consideration of this subject. I entirely deny that. It is nominally a strong body, but, as a matter of fact, it is always difficult to secure the attendance of a quorum of the Committee. A large number of members
  116
  of the Committee are members of my profession, and are precluded from attending the Committee owing to the time at which it is held. The public spirit of not one of them, unless it be the Attorney General, is influenced by pecuniary considerations. [Cries of "No, no!"] I am simply speaking of the Attorney General as an officer of the Crown, and not with any disrespect. He is one of the most public-spirited representatives of this House. It is his duty to attend the Committee, but we find that the other members of the Committee are conspicuous by their absence. My point is, that the Committee on Law consists of between 20 and 30 members, that there is the utmost difficulty in securing the attendance of members, and that the men who do attend, with the exception, perhaps, of a few who may be extremely interested in the Measure before the Committee, are goaded there by the greatest pressure, so as to secure a quorum. Over and over again you hear the Chairman of the Committee entreating members to remain, in order to prevent it collapsing. I say that that is not a satisfactory tribunal to refer this Bill to, and that it should come before a Committee of the whole House.
  MR. B. L. COHEN: Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the arguments by which the Amendment of my hon. and learned friend the Member for Bethnal Green has been supported, and I have been astonished at the irrelevance of those arguments, which seem to me to go rather in the opposite direction. The hon. Member for Dundee has suggested that this Bill had better go before a Committee of the whole House, as distinguished from the proposal of the Government that it should be referred to the Grand Committee on Law, and the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend opposite is that it should be sent to a Select Committee. I do not think the question before the House is the Committee to which the Bill should be referred; the question is, Does the House desire that the Bill should pass? If the House does desire that it should pass, then it seems to me that the only hope of its passing is to refer it, as the Government propose, to the Grand Committee

  117
  on Law. I have not the honour of being a member of that Committee, but I am a member of the Standing Committee on Trade, and I do not acknowledge that it is the particular duly of on member more than another of any Standing Committee to abroad that Standing Committee. It is the duty of every member to attend, and I do not think the argument that some members do not attend is at all against this Bill being referred to the Grand Committee on Law. The hon. and learned Member opposite said there is nothing in the rules referring to education. That is not a grievance which could or would be redressed by its being referred to a Select Committee. The rules will come before Parliament, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty's Government finding fault with any part of these rules, clearly it will not be more the duty than it will be the interest of the Home Secretary to take care that the new rules shall redress those grievances. I believe that, unless the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Law, there is not a ghost of a chance—absolutely no hope—of it passing into law. I, therefore, hope the Government will stand firm to their decision in the matter.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid there is some danger of our confusing two separate issues in this discussion. There is a good deal to be said in favour of a Select Committee, and also in favour of a Grand Committee, but the reason which I understand has been given by the hon. and learned Member for Bethnal Green for the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee is that, if that course is adopted, it will enable the rules to be discussed. My hon. and brained Friend knows that the Select Committee would have exactly the same rights as the Grand Committee with regard to the discussion of the rules, unless the second Amendment is carried. That is, I understand, the position. If the Select Committee were agreed upon, without the second Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend being adopted, the Select Committee would have no more right to discuss the rules than the
  118
  Grand Committee. Very well, then, the point at issue between the Government and ourselves on these Benches is whether she rules should come before the Committee or not. I do not know how far the Under Secretary for the Home Department is authorised to speak for the Government at the present moment in the absence of his Chief, but I suppose he is in a position to deal with this matter. Anybody who has listened to the Debate must know that the Debate has been directed very largely, at, any rate from these Benches, not merely to the changes in the law which the Bill proposes, but to the rules. In taking that course, we were followed by both the late Home Secretary and the present Home Secretary, the greater part of whose speeches were devoted to the question of the rules. I put it to the Government: Can we have anything like an adequate discussion of the proposals of the Government as to prison management unless the rules are also discussed? I understand, from the little conversation which is taking place between the Under Secretary and the Attorney General, that they will urge that the Bill in its present term does bring the rules before the House of Commons. But that is not our point. These rules will not come up for discussion in the present Session of Parliament; they cannot come up for discussion until next Session. We contend that this Bill ought not to be passed into law until we have had an opportunity of introducing into the Bill a change in the rules with regard to the treatment of convicts. What I suggest, therefore, is that the Government should agree to refer to the Grand Committee the rules as well as the Bill. If the Government will undertake to do that, I would strongly urge my hon. and learned Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKER: I may point out to the hon. Member that the only method of referring the rules to a Committee would be that suggested by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green. The Standing Committees are only the creatures of a Standing Order, and are expressly created for the purpose of considering Bills, and nothing else.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: In that case, I can only support my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment. I cannot understand why the Government should resist this proposal. I am sure that, if the Government will meet us in this matter with regard to the rules, we shall be only too delighted to facilitate the passing of this Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. Member who has just spoken that there is sufficient opportunity for discussing the rules in principle on Clause 4, which provides that rules shall be made. Amendments could be moved there declaring that special regard should be had to questions of diet, punishment,
  or employment. After the Grand Committee has dealt with these general principles, the House would be in a position to see whether they were embodied in the rules submitted to the House. The Bill ought not to be hung up for another Session by being referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: The course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman is an extremely ineffective method of criticising the rules. If the rules were referred to a Select Committee they could be discussed thoroughly. Under these circumstances, I shall support the Amendment.
  The House divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 41. See Division List, No. 58.

  AYES.

  Aird, John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lafone, Alfred

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Digby, Jno. K. D. Wingfield-

  Lambert, George

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

  Lawrence, Sir Ed. (Cornwall)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'nsea)

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Finch, George H.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (L'pl)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Lowe, Francis William

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lowles, John

  Bill, Charles

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fry, Lewis

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Bond, Edward

  Garfit, William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  M'Arthur, Charles (L'pool.)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  M'Calmont, Mj.-Gen. (Antr. N.)

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  M'Killop, James

  Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Carlile, William Walter

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.)

  Greville, Captain

  More, Robert Jasper

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

  Heath, James

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'rd)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Helder, Augustus

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Grhm (Bute)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hill Rt. Hn. LordArth. (Down)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Howell, William Tudor

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Hozier, Hon. Jas. Hv. Cecil

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Ed. T. D.

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Penn, John

  Cox, Robert

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cross, Herbt. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Kimber, Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Knowles, Lees

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin)

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Purvis, Robert

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Wodehouse, Edin. R. (Bath)

  Round, James

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jno. M.

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Strauss, Arthur

  Young, Commander (Berks., E.)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray

  Sir William Walrond and

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Allen, Wm. (Newe.-under-L.)

  Harwood, George

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Knox, Edm. Francis Vesey

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

  Leng, Sir John

  Smith, Samuel ((Flint)

  Billson, Alfred

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Brigg, John

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Burns, John

  MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn's. C.)

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Caldwell, James

  Maddison, Fred.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Clough, Walter Owen

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williams, Jno. Carvell (Notts.)

  Colville, John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Pirie, Captain Duncan

  Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal)

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Davitt, Michael

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Mr. Pickersgill and Mr.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Atherley-Jones.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Second Reading resumed.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I think I may venture to repeat, with reference to this Bill, the complaint made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fifeshire, with reference to the Bill which has just passed from the House. My right hon. Friend complained that the Prisons Bill had been discussed in a discontinuant way, in scraps is of time which prevented its proper consideration by the House. Well, Sir, that is the position in which we find ourselves with reference to this Bill, one which is not less important than the Bill we have just discussed. We are now at a late hour of the evening resuming the discussion of the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not know whether the discussion will finish this evening, but if not, we shall have spread it over three nights in dealing with this Measure. I think that, so far as the result of the first night's discussion is concerned, there is one fact which
  122
  stands out in a perfectly clear manner, and that is, that while the House at large has expressed its sympathy—I will not say with the principle of the Bill, because I fail to find a principle in it, but with the object at which the Bill professes to be aimed—nearly every hon. Member has agreed in condemning the manner in which the Government seeks to attain that object. On both sides of the House this candid criticism has prevailed, and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Measure has admitted as much himself, because, he told us, the other night, that the only recruit he had made was the right hon. and learned Member for Clackmannanshire; and it is a singular and significant fact that the only voices raised in praise of this Bill have been the voice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, the present Lord Advocate, and the voice of the late Lord Advocate. Whether that coincidence is a mere coincidence, or whether it is traceable to the origin and home of the Bill, is a matter upon which the House can form its own opinion; but, Sir, it appears to me that the opinion of the House, so far as it has, been expressed, is a faithful reflex of public opinion in Scotland upon the

  123
  matter. So far as the great public authorities have spoken, their voice also is in favour of the object which the Government seek to attain, but in condemnation of the method by which they seek to reach that object. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate spoke in terms which I thought hardly worthy of himself, or of the occasion, with reference to the Memorandum or Report of the Town Clerk of Dundee, Sir Thomas Thornton. I do not think the language which the right hon. Gentleman applied to that document was justified by anything contained in the document, nor, considering that not one of its arguments has been answered, did it seem to me a suitable way of dealing with the subject. I would invite those hon. Members who have not seen that valuable Report to read it before coming to a conclusion on this Bill. They will find a most serious and severe indictment of the Government proposal, and, after all the criticisms contained in that Report, I will venture to say that neither the Lord Advocate in charge of the Bill, nor the late Lord Advocate who supported it, has said anything to weaken the force of Sir Thomas Thornton's argument. Now, Sir, I have this difficulty in dealing with this Bill, that I doubt whether it is proper or prudent to introduce the element of nationality into this problem at all. I doubt whether you are dealing fairly with the subject in attempting to nationalise the private Bill procedure of this House. There is no element of Home Rule in this proposal. Whatever may be thought in some parts of Edinburgh about this Bill, there is no question of nationality in the grievances that are complained of. And I do hope that my hon. Friends the representatives of Wales, who are understood to be in favour of extending this Bill to Wales, will pause before they press the question, and deliberately consider whether the scheme of the Government is one that ought to be set up in any part of the United Kingdom. They will think twice, and three times, I am sure, before wishing such a Bill to be extended to Wales. Sir, in the Memorandum, the most candid and fair Memorandum, which the right hon. Gentleman has prefixed to the Bill, the objects are specified in four paragraphs; and I call the attention of the House tot his most remarkable fact,
  124
  that the Memorandum does not pretend for a moment that either of the two great evils of the present system is to be remedied by this Bill. What are all these evils? Everybody knows them. The present system is too expensive; the present system is dilatory. When you have said that. I think you have said all that can be said in condemnation of the Bill, for while the right hon. Gentleman specifies what this Bill does, there is not a word in the Memorandum to show that this Bill will either cheapen private Bill procedure in this House, or expedite the proceedings of private Bill Committees. The two main objects which ought to be aimed at by the Government are not pretended to be accomplished by this Bill. Now, Sir, following the same line of argument, I venture to say that before beginning to deal by legislation with this problem the House has powers of its own—not by Bill at all, but powers of its own—to deal with its own affairs, which ought to be exhausted before you invoke an Act of Parliament to remedy that procedure. Why, Sir, there are many things we could do, and which we ought to do, before we attempt to set up a separate nationality for private Bill procedure for any part of the United Kingdom. To begin with, we can, by a more order of the House, reduce the exorbitant expense attending the present system. We can, by an order of this House, assented to by an order of the other House—and as to the assent, I do not for a moment doubt that it would be given—we can establish one Joint Committee of both Houses, instead of two Committees; and so get rid by one blow of half, or very nearly half, the cost, and half the causes of delay in the present system. We can by order of this House withdraw the exemption, of which I do not myself complain, because I have often enjoyed the advantage of it, by which a very largo section of the House is permitted to abstain from service on private Bill Committees, thereby throwing the burden on the other section, and adding to the causes of delay. We could make service on private Bill Committees, if we so thought fit, compulsory, on the whole House; and that, again, we could do without invoking the aid of legislation. And, further, if we must have legislation, why should we not face this problem,

  125
  this question: whether among the powers which must now be sought by private Bills in both Houses, there are not some which, could be devolved directly upon the public authorities which seek them, without, compelling them in come to this House at all, or compelling them to go to any other tribunal whatever. Surely we ought to begin by discriminating between what the Bill calls Parliamentary powers, and set aside, if we can, these which ought to devolve automatically upon the great public authorities, and those which cannot be given without some sort of Parliamentary sanetion. Well, Sir, if we did all that, we should then be in a position to consider what should be done as to parts of the United Kingdom, whether in Scotland, Wales, or Ireland, and I do no know why we should not say pails of England, because if a grievance exists it is common to the extreme south-west and the extreme north of England, in extent equal to that to which it exists in Scotland. If you took these preliminary proceedings, then, after first cleaning our own House, we could sit down and consider whether a proposal such as the right hon. Gentleman now makes is necessary or desirable. My belief is, that when that has been done, we shall find that most of the grievances have been removed, and that very little remains for an Act of Parliament in do. Looking at the question from that point of view, and with perfect sympathy with those who complain of the grievances existing under the present system of procedure, I do not find anything in the Bill but a proposed system which must be dealt with on its own merits, and the merits of that system appear to me to be so doubtful that I do not think, so far as I am concerned, and I speak only for myself, that I could give this Bill my support on the Second Reading. Sir, there is a certain amount of odium which, is pretty certain to be exercised against those who do not accept this Bill—those who cannot accept it will be said to be false to their constituents and to Scotland—but I will ask my hon. Friends from Scotland not to be led into voting for the Second Reading by fear of that sort. We know perfectly well from what sources these menaces come,
  126
  and by what people they are inspired, and I will give the House an example of a proceeding which we can easily apply to this Bill. Many Members opposite are in favour of old ago pensions. How many voted for the Bill which was discussed here the other day? How many voted against it? We are no more bound—we who desire reform in this matter—to give a Second Reading to this Bill than him. Gentlemen are bound, who are in favour of old age pensions, to vote for any miserable Bill that may come before the House bearing that title. I wish for a few minutes to direct the attention of the House to three of the main points of the main points of the Lord Advocate; and it is simply the merits of that proposal, and not the merits of the bodies at which it is aimed, that I propose to discuss. There are three main points which challenge attention in the scheme which, the right hon. Gentleman has laid before the House. One is the position of the Secretary for Scotland, the second is the confusion in the system of private Bill procedure which this Bill seeks to establish, and the third is the new tribunal which is to take the place in part of the tribunal with which we are all familiar, consisting of delegated Members of this House. These are the only three points as to which I shall trespass upon the indulgence of the House, and I shall only deal briefly with each in turn. A good deal has been said about the views of the Secretary for Scotland, but I do not feel that the measure of the power proposed to be conferred upon him by this Bill has been realised by the House. As I read this Bill, the Secretary for Scotland has an absolute veto in the future upon the proceedings under this Bill, and I will proceed to make that plain by a reference to the sections of the Bill, and if hon. Gentlemen will turn to Sections 3, 5, and 7 they will see what I mean. Now, the other night the Member for Clackmannanshire was defending the Bill, and I therefore call his attention to the words which I am now going to ask the House to consider for a moment. Section 3 declares that after the Chairmen have reported the Secretary for Scotland shall take the petition for a Provisional Order into consideration, and, subject to that Report against any part of the Order

  127
  that they may make, may, if he thinks fit, direct inquiry as to the propriety of assenting to the prayer of the petition. What is the natural meaning of that language? Docs it not mean that, if he chooses, he need do nothing? The Chairmen report. The Secretary for Scotland shall take the Report into consideration, and he may, if he thinks he will, direct an inquiry into the prayer of the petition, and then nothing more need come of it. There is, I repeat, an absolute veto placed in the Secretary for Scotland in all procedure under this Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend went out of his way to suggest to the Lord Advocate a road out of this difficulty, and he repeated to us the old legal suggestion that "may" and "shall" have the same meaning. "May" sometimes may mean "shall," but "shall" never means "may." The Lord Advocate accepted that suggestion, and promised that, if there was any doubt, words should be introduced to make it clear. I challenge him here now, and say that the proposal made by the Government in these words is this, that, if the Secretary for Scotland thinks fit, he may order no inquiry, no proceedings will be taken, nothing will be done, and the proposal will altogether be lost. That gives him an absolute veto upon every proceeding under this Bill. It is no use telling us that "may" means "shall." Turn to Section 5, and you will find a further proof of what the original scheme of the Government is, because it begins thus—
  "When the Secretary for Scotland determines a Commissioner shall be appointed."
  That is on all fours with the previous words, which give him power to order an inquiry if he thinks fit, and therefore gives him power not to order an inquiry if be does not think fit. That is the scheme of the Government, and I challenge the Lord Advocate to say it is not. If the right hon. Gentleman stands by the interpretation suggested to him by his predecessor in office, I have no hesitation in saying that the Government on this as on other occasions has changed front in the course of the discussion in this House.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The view of the Government in drawing the Bill was that there might be occasions where, the Chairmen not having reported against any petition, the powers asked subsequently might be granted without any inquiry. That is the meaning of the "may" and "shall."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have gone through the Bill very carefully, and I find nothing in it bearing out that suggestion. So far as I can see, there is nothing especially provided for, except as the result of inquiry; the inquiry is what follows from a Report of the Chairmen, and it is left entirely to the goodwill of the Secretary for Scotland; and as to "may" meaning "shall," that may be so in ordinary cases, but to say that "may if he thinks fit" can have any other meaning than the one I have given it is a conclusion to which I cannot bring myself. Besides, if the view of the Lord Advocate is adopted, and if "may" does mean "shall," then you will only be getting out of the frying-pan into the fire, because the result of that will be, in the case of an unopposed Bill or a Provisional Order, that there will be a local inquiry even in that case by the Commissioners. That appears to me to be rather worse than the original proposal, and worse a good deal than the existing system, and I cannot reconcile the explanation given when the Bill was last before the House, and that which is given now by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. Further, if hon. Members will look at Section 7, the same difficulty occurs there, because—
  "After the conclusion of the inquiry the Secretary for Scotland shall refuse to issue a Provisional Order if the Commissioners in their Report shall advise that the allegations of the petition have not been established to their satisfaction, or may issue an Order as prayed, or with such modifications as, having regard to the recommendations of the Commissioners, shall appear to be necessary; but before making and issuing an Order, if any modification has been made in the draft Order origipally deposited, the Secretary for Scotland shall cause a printed copy thereof to be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and in the Private Bill

  129
  Office of the House of Commons, and also at the Office of the Treasury and of such other public departments as shall be prescribed, and shall not for such time as may be prescribed issue a Provisional Order."
  There, again, as it appears to me, the Secretary for Scotland is left with absolute control of the proceeding from beginning to end. He need not order an inquiry unless he likes, and after the inquiry is finished he need not take proceedings upon that inquiry. Well, Sir, that, in my belief, is the scheme of the Government, so far as the Secretary for Scotland is concerned. I am only enlarging upon that, because others have been assailed by hon. Members who have preceded me; and, taking their objections in connection with this one, it is not going too far to declare that this Bill simply proposes to substitute Dover House for the House of Commons. The Secretary for Scotland is a mere name. He must do things by his clerks and deputies, and the proposal to which you now come is that the permanent officials of Dover House, of whom I desire to speak with all respect, are to take the place of a Parliamentary Committee. The candid Memorandum of the Lord Advocate states that this Bill enables Parliamentary powers to be obtained without coming to Westminster. What does that matter? Not coming to Westminster does not enable Parliamentary powers to be obtained without coming to London. This Bill asks you to go to Dover House, and not to Westminster, and if the choice is between these two places I am mistaken in my countrymen very much if they do not prefer that which they have to that which this Bill wishes to set up. The second point was what appears to me, subject to any explanation that may be made, to be the confusion set up in this Bill in all matters which are not governed by the rides of private Bill procedure. I believe that anyone who looks at Clause 1 will see that it is true about that clause, that, if this Bill passes, in all matters you must begin by a Provisional Order—by petition for a Provisional Order. Now, the right hon. Gentleman told us the other day that his great object was to divide Parliamentary
  130
  powers into two classes, one of which might be called the important class, which must be dealt with by private Bill, and the other, the less important class, which ought to be dealt with by Provisional Order. I accept that. All proceedings which now may be taken by private Bill are in future to be taken by petition for Provisional Order, and it is only when you come before the Chairmen, whether they sit together or not, that they determine that your petition for a Provisional Order belongs to the more important class, and then the proceedings by way of Provisional Order are to drop, and it is to be available for a private Bill in the next Session of Parliament. Mark, first of all, the uncertainty of many cases as to whether you are to have a Provisional Order or a private Bill. Assuming that a proposed scheme is of such a character that obviously it must go to a Private Bill Committee, just see where this proposal of the Government will take us. Take a great railway scheme, or any case in which it is perfectly manifest from the very beginning of the proceedings that you must go by private Bill and not by Provisional Order, and then what does this preposterous Measure propose? You must begin with a petition for a Provisional Order. The Chairman says it is not a matter for a Provisional Order, but for a private Bill; and, having done that, you are to be left with your notice in your hand till the next succeeding Session of Parliament. In every important matter a private Bill must in future take two Sessions instead of one. It must begin by a deliberately abortive petition for a Provisional Order, and in the succeeding Session of Parliament it must proceed by way of private Bill. Surely that is a most extraordinary proposal for a Government to make. I think now I have dealt with that sufficiently. In the next place, I am strongly of opinion that the attention of the Lord Advocate ought to be drawn to the very loose language of the first two sections of the Bill. He has himself almost acknowledged the looseness of these two sections; and whether it is a lawyer or a layman who looks at the language

  131
  employed in them, he will find it extremely difficult to realise what the Government actually mean by the language used. I pass from that. I think I have made it clear to the House that this new proposal, so far as the system is concerned, introduces confusion into the existing system, which, at all events, is simple in principle, however defective it may be in execution, and involves, the absurdity of compelling all the great Measures to be spread over two Sessions, and begins with a procedure which is known at the time to be futile. Then I come to my last point, and that is the nature of the tribunal which is to take the place of the Private Bill Committees in this House. Now, the panel itself I do not care to dwell upon, because that has been dealt with most fully in many of the speeches which have preceded mine, but I would like to ask my hon. Friends as to the meaning of the proposals of the Government as to the authority which is called a panel. I refer to Clause 4, sub-section 2 (a) (b) and (c). I will not read them again, because it would only weary the House if I did; but here is a line or two which I am afraid has led many people wrong—
  "The Secretary for Scotland shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, convene, and if need be re-convene, at such time and place as he shall think fit, a meeting consisting of two representatives of the conveners of counties in Scotland nominated as hereinafter provided, and two representatives of the lord provosts and provosts of the burghs in Scotland hereinafter mentioned, and shall preside at such meeting."
  I understand now that the Lord Advocate has explained that this meeting is to consist of four people representing each category of official persons. [The LORD ADVOCATE: And the Secretary for Scotland.] Yes, and he is to convene the meeting, and that meeting is to consist of these persons. If that is the true meaning of the words, I am glad of it; but certainly in any Order dealing with this Act the thing must be made abundantly more clear than it is at present. I will tell the House and the right hon. Gentleman that I asked a lawyer of distinction equal to his own, and of a rank equal to his own, to look at these sections, and to
  132
  answer this question: Supposing there are 30 lord provosts and conveners in Scotland, what is to be the size of the meeting? He read the clause over, and said, "One hundred and twenty." That is a mistake which, I observe, has been made by other persons. No doubt the Lord Advocate is right in his interpretation of the ideas of the Government, but a great deal must be done before we consider the clause at all satisfactory. The Deputy Clerk Registrar, in the case of an equality of votes, is to decide. Yes, but there may be an equality of votes of an extraordinary kind. You might have 30 persons nominated for the four seats, or 30 for the two belonging to each category. Is the Deputy Clerk Registrar to take the place of the constituency, and to decide then in the case of an equality? Is that a satisfactory way to arrive at the final authority which is to select the panel which is to take the place of the House of Commons? I do not think that the authority is constituted even in an intelligent manner, and when we come to the work which the authority is given to do, I am bound to say that I agree with the criticism that has been made almost universally on both sides of the House as to the unsatisfactory character of the language. I will not dwell upon that criticism. I will call the attention of the Lord Advocate to this very singular feature: in this Bill you have got your State Commissioners, you have got a panel of 20 persons, and you have a reserve panel of 10, from which the Secretary for Scotland can draw. Will that be more satisfactory to Scotland than the Committee which sits upstairs? Nobody can guess what will be the nature of the panel itself as to men of affairs, and, when you have got 30 men together, no mortal man knows how the officials at Dover House are going to make their selection. Is that a tribunal which any man in his senses will attempt to set up in comparison with the elected Members of this House, working under its eye, and according to its traditions? Will anyone accept it? In what respect does it resemble a Parliamentary Committee? It imitates it in one respect

  133
  alone, and that is its weakness. A Parliamentary Committee is weak, because it is a fluctuating tribunal, and consists of so many men one week, and of so many other men another, but it deals with a paramount authority, which is far more authoritative than the tribunal here set up. Now mark what this Bill does. It selects, in imitation of that Committee, a panel of a fluctuating character. It goes out of its way to make a fluctuating tribunal. It selects these panels, and leaves the Secretary for Scotland to take out two men for one week and two men for another, and produces as near an imitation as you can possibly make of the Parliamentary Committee. It is an extraordinary result, and I invite someone in the Government who may speak upon this Bill to explain why they have gene nut of their way to have a fluctuating tribunal. What value is there in the mobility of it? What good does it do to give this power to one set of men one day and one set another? That is a point upon which I should like to have some explanation in justification of the action taken by the Government upon this important Measure. Now I should like to give a summary of what I should like to see this Bill contain if I had charge of it. I see it first establishes two svstenis—that of the Provisional Order, and that by way of private Bill, without giving any option. Secondly, it leaves it quite uncertain as to which system is to be adopted in a particular case. Thirdly, it makes it possible, after the Provisional Order system is adopted, to have subsequent procedure by private Bill. Fourthly, it makes it impossible to get a private Bill through in less than two Sessions; and, fifthly, it empowers the Secretary for Scotland to stop private Bill legislation altogether. It establishes a fluctuating tribunal—a foolish and unnecessary imitation of the Parliamentary Committee. Now, that is as accurate a summary of the scope of the Bill as can be found. What is to become of the Measure I do not know. I see the First Lord of the Treasury is now in his place, and I am sure he will not mind my saving that in the course of the present Parliament there has only been one other Bill which has been so universally
  134
  condemned even by those who professed to be believers in the principle of the Bill. He knows the Bill to which I allude. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: Indeed, I do not.] I allude to the first educational Bill of the Government. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: Oh, no; that Bill passed the Second Reading.] It passed its Second Reading, true, and there may be a majority for the Second Reading here. I was comparing the destructive criticism passed on the Education Bill two years ago to the criticism that has been passed upon this Bill on both sides of the House. I remember very well the day when the right hon. Gentleman came down to this House, and, to use his own phrase, destroyed his own Bill. He said, "I have come here to destroy this Bill." I hope he will say so now with regard to the Measure before the House. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: What was the phrase?] I remember it perfectly well; it was a most apt and masterly phrase. He said, "I have come down to destroy this Bill," and he did so by moving to report Progress; but, whatever he said, I hope that he is in the same happy frame of mind to-day and will do the same thing to-night. I do not care how it is done; whether it be referred to a Select Committee, which can do nothing in the way of legislation, but which can only inform the mind of the House upon this important question, or whether it is done in some other way. But whatever course the Government take, I say I cannot support the Bill, and I urge my Scotch colleagues on both sides of the House to give every scope to their real opinions, because the condemnation has come from both sides of the House, and I invite English Members of this House to consider that the efficiency and the integrity of Parliament itself is attacked in this Bill. It is not a Bill which interests Scotland alone. It is a Bill which deals with the entire field of Parliamentary activity. No doubt it relates to Scotland in the first instance, but it affects the whole of the three kingdoms, and I hope that English Members—none of whom would accept it for themselves—will not inflict upon Scotland this Measure. Much as

  135
  Scotland may feel the effects of the present system, she has never asked for, and never would willingly accept, such proposals as are contained in the Measure now before the House.
  MR. J. PARKER SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down appears to me to have developed more false points in his speech against this Bill than I could have conceived possible. I think the Bill is open to a great deal of criticism, but to develop false points against it is merely to strengthen the hands of the astute debaters who have charge of the Measure. I agree, however, with his closing words, in which he expressed the opinion that the Bill ought not to be treated as a Scotch matter at all, but as one directly affecting the three kingdoms, and from what has taken place in this Debate, I think it has been so treated. We have not been limited in the discussion to Scotch Members, but English Members have also taken part in it. The right hon. Member for Bodmin came in and took part in the discussion, and showed how, in his opinion, it affected England. The argument of my right hon. Friend appeared to go farther than he stated. He argued in favour of a strong permanent court, outside this House altogether, to deal with private Bills in their preliminary stages. Now my hon. Friend did not say anything about that, but it seems to me obvious that you cannot have a strong court merely to deal with Scotch business. If you have it at all, it must be a court to deal with the private Bill procedure not only for Scotland, but for England, Wales and Ireland, like the Railway Commission. Hitherto all the strong arguments in favour of this have not been Scotch, but general arguments. They apply with greater force to England. The objects of the Committee of 1888 were declared to be three—the interests of suitors, the economy of the time of Parliament, and the reduction of cost. These apply not only to Scotland, but to the whole of
  136
  the three kingdoms. The Scotch Bills are only a small fraction of the private Bills. In the 10 years up to 1890 only one-ninth of the private Bills were Scotch Measures, and it is obvious that the relief brought about by taking away Scotch Bills would be very small indeed. The serious part of the question is obviously to deal with England and not Scotland. In the Report of the Committee of 1888 no special proposal was made by the Committee as to Scotland. It was stated that the objection to the expense was greater there, but the Report dealt generally with the three kingdoms. The question has been intensified in Scotland by local feeling, but it does not seem to me that the local feeling in Scotland is sufficiently strong to justify the change, unless it be made applicable to the other parts of the kingdom. The present Bill goes much further than the proposals which were made by the Committee in 1888, or in the Bills which followed. The Minority Report which this Bill professes to be based on did not go so far as the Majority Report in that respect, because the Minority Report of 1888, which was, moved by Lord Balfour, the present Scottish Secretary, went on the principle of giving option to the promoter in all cases of saying whether he would proceed, as at present, by private Bill, or whether he would go in for a Provisional Order. This is what the Minority Report says—
  "The Committee are of opinion that it is by no means certain that any saving of expense would be effected by local inquiries, except in the case of comparatively unimportant Bills and of Bills which affect a very narrow locality. By an extension of the Provisional Order system many of these Bills could be inquired into on the spot by an inspector from a Government Department, and in more important cases these Departments might be empowered to conduct an inquiry by a small Commission appointed for the purpose, which would any greater weight than any single official."
  The whole idea of the scheme was that there should be option given to the promoters. Lord Balfour himself, in the Amendment which he moved to the Majority Report, put the whole ground as to the change on the difficulty of finding a sufficient number of Members

  137
  to serve, and after stating that difficulty strongly he went on—
  "Except for this consideration, the Committee are of opinion that the present system of private Bill legislation is open to as few objections as any system which it has been proposed to substitute for it, and that the complaints made, against it could be obviated by changes being made in matters of practice and of detail, and by reasonable extension of facilities for granting Provisional Orders with local inquiries in matters which may be held to be of purely local concern."
  Now, Sir, I think that the extension of the Provisional Order system is most undoubtedly desirable, and I should like to do that. I do not cure how far you do that, so long as you give promoters the option of coming here. The system of Provisional Orders undoubtedly suits less contentious cases. There are many inquiries that can be settled locally, and that are settled locally. I asked the President of the Board of Trade what the figures were in regard to Provisional Orders, and he said that in the last five years his Department had introduced, under Confirmation Bills, 326 Provisional Orders, of which only 11 had been opposed and only two rejected. But, Sir, the cases that are chosen for Provisional Orders are the cases where no strenuous opposition is expected. Otherwise you do not go for a Provisional Order, but come straight to Parliament. In many cases an option exists at present. In the Index to Statutes, 1896, for instance, you will see that there are 19 classes of local and private Acts, besides the class of Provisional Orders Confirmation Acts. Provisional Orders are granted under an enormous number of heads. There are 22 heads under which Provisional Orders are granted; they are under 10 different Departments; and out of the 19 classes of private Acts you can proceed alternately in 11 classes, either by Provisional Order or by private Bill. The promoters are guided by considerations of economy and convenience, and their hands are the safest in which to leave that choice. In this Debate we heard a great deal about the poor opponent, and the danger that the poor opponent might be crushed; but the real protection for a poor opponent is not anything in a private Act, but it is the Land Clauses Act. He is almost never opposed
  138
  to the preamble of the Bill. He wants to get the best terms for himself, and those terms he gets from the Land Clauses Act more than from clauses in the private Bill. The real fight upon the preamble is almost invariably between rival corporations or between men with large interests. A great deal might be done for the poor opponent in the way of reducing fees, enabling clauses to be discussed in the first House, and otherwise making it more easy to oppose a clause. There is more danger to the poor opponent in making the promotion of schemes unduly easy by eating away the provisions of the Land Clauses Acts. Accordingly the principle that has been hitherto accepted has been the principle of granting the option to suitors to take whichever course they like. That course was approved by the railway companies, and it was approved by the Corporation of Glasgow. The Report of the Corporation of Glasgow should be considered, not merely as the Lord Advocate was inclined to treat it, as being the utterance of one very able gentleman, as in the case of Dundee, but as the utterance of the Parliamentary Commit tee of the Town Council, who have had a Report before them, and have endorsed it. The Glasgow proposal was this—
  "While the Parliamentary Bills Committee offer the above suggestions with an earnest desire so to improve the Bill as to make it a really valuable Measure, and so to further the object which the Government are desirous to serve, they are strongly of opinion that, even when so amended, it would not be wise to make it compulsory in the first instance. An effort should therefore be made to have the Bill amended, and to provide that if should be in the option of promoters to proceed under the existing private Bill system whenever they consider, for example, that such a coarse would facilitate the obtaining in one Measure of powers to effect a variety of public objects, or when it would secure dispatch. A scheme such as is now proposed, if amended as suggested, would in a large number of cases enable beneficial measures to be obtained at reduced expense. The experience so gained would also be available with a view to perfecting a more extended scheme."
  Now, Sir, this point of option is one to which I attach very great importance. I think that private Bills, whether opposed or unopposed, should at some stage of their proceeding's come before Parliament. I agree with, the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen that private

  139
  objectors to a Bill can, in general, take care of themselves, but that where no private interest is concerned, it might happen that public interests might suffer. Various instances were given by the right hon. Gentleman when he spoke. Granted that there are few cases in which it will be the duty of the House to interfere, you will very seldom interfere, but ought to reserve the right. I do not think that the charge of this ought to be given to a Department. Take the case of procuring adequate dwellings for working men. No Department, out of its own head, could have started the question. It was started in this House. After a standard was laid down, and a rule of thumb adopted, the Department was perfectly capable of imposing that rule of thumb. I do not think it would be the duty of the Department to start, out of its own head, that such precautions were necessary, and to enforce such precautions upon any corporation or any body that was destroying a large number of workmen's houses. Sometimes such rights have no technical locus, and therefore cannot be listened to in the Committee Room, or in inquiries elsewhere. We are guided, and rightly guided, in our Committees by locus standi. Therefore, in all cases, Bills ought to come here at some of their stages. There is another point in regard to unopposed Bills, and that is with reference to the various Departments. The Lord Advocate the other day laughed at the idea of the Scotch Office flouting the Treasury. I think there is more difficulty in the matter than he realises. I have experienced it in this way. I sit on a good many Committees on unopposed Bills, and there you always have a Report from the various Departments—from the Board of Trade, from the Local Government Board, and other Departments—and these Reports make a large number of recommendations. Many of the recommendations are accepted by the promoters; other recommendations they decline to accept, and they give reasons why those recommendations ought not to be enforced; and we, as a Committee of the House of Commons, exercise our discretion as to whether we will enforce those recommendations, or whether we will not. We are subject only to an appeal to the House, and our decisions
  140
  are accepted as a matter of course by the Department. But it would not be accepted at all in the same spirit if one Department were being overridden by another. On the other hand it would not be satisfactory if the Secretary for Scotland was to consider that he was bound to adopt every suggestion made by one of the Departments. Let me turn, to the provisions of the Bill. There is too much of the Scottish Office and too much of the Chairmen, too much private discretion and not enough judicial discretion in the matter. I do not want to go through the Scottish Office point; that has been discussed very fully. In the first place, there is the composition of the panel, then the choosing of the Commission, the dealing with reports of the Department, and the dealing with unopposed Bills. Those are far too great powers to give to any Department. They ought to remain in our own hands, or the hands of people responsible to us. In regard to the Chairmen, I do-not feel satisfied in regard to their action. The position is this: The petitioner is bound to proceed by petition for a Provisional Order, but he may make representations to have a private Bill, and it, is for the Chairmen to decide whether it is suitable for a Provisional Order, or whether it is to go as a private Bill. I should like to know what the view of the Government is. Are the petitioners to be heard when they wish to proceed by private Bill? and if the petitioners are heard, are the opponents to be heard also? Again, supposing there is no representation, can anyone else—can any opponent petition that the proceedings shall be conducted by private Bill and not by Provisional Order? and if he can petition, will he be heard? The question whether any particular scheme is specially suitable for a private Bill or a Provisional Order is not one that can be determined by simply looking at the Bill and the petitions. It requires some further information. I do not see how you can convey that information to the Chairmen, except by their hearing the two sides. I have the honour to sit on the Board of Referees, and it is our business to decide questions of locus standi—to decide whether any

  141
  petitioner has a right to be heard. The Referees hear a single counsel on each side. They scarcely ever ask for evidence, though they are entitled to do so if they please. Their decisions are, I believe, usually approved, and lead to considerable saving of expense. The question whether a matter is suitable to be inquired into here or at a local inquiry is of a very similar nature, and could be satisfactorily dealt with in a similar manner. Now, Sir, I think that without assistance of that kind it will be hard work for Chairmen to decide on all the schemes, and it will be very invidious work, because the cases they will have to determine will ex hypothesi be very contentious cases. It is true that they are at present able to dispose of a great many non-contentious points in private, but I think the lighting points ought to be decided in public, after giving both sides the opportunity of saying anything that can be said. That can be done in two ways—either by an outside tribunal, which would be perfectly capable of deciding whether it should keep a question under its own jurisdiction, or whether it should remit, it for the decision of Parliament: or it might be done by a Joint Committee on the lines of the Court of Referees. I say that the more confidently because it was the scheme of one of the previous Bills. It was the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury in the Bill for Scotland and Ireland that he introduced in 1892. That Bill proposed to establish a Standing Joint Committee composed of the two Chairmen, two Members of the other House, and two Members of this House. A Joint Committee of that kind, working under the same kind of rules as these of the Court of Referees in dealing with questions of locus standi, would be a very satisfactory Committee, which would give a speedy determination of questions submitted to it, and at small expense. I am glad to notice, in the course of this Debate, that all speakers have agreed in approving the proposal of a Joint Committee. Certainly
  142
  it would be absurd to have two inquiries by Parliament after the preliminary inquiry, and I believe a Standing Joint Committee would in every case dispense with that. I will not detain the House by going into minor matters, but generally, Sir, my objections to the Bill are these. The scheme is too provincial; it looks to Scotland alone. I think it ought to be made to fit into the three kingdoms. Then it is too compulsory; I think you might to give more option to the parties. And further, it removes Bills too much from Parliament. I think it should be a condition of any scheme of this kind that all Bills should, at some stage or other, pass under the direct cognisance of this House. It any man comes to Parliament asking for special privileges, the very least he can do is to submit his scheme to the judgment of the House. Now, Sir, the problem of private Bill legislation is a very difficult one, but it is not insoluble. We certainly need great changes in our present system, and, as far as I know, almost every speaker has agreed in that. But in regard to this Bill the Government has declared that it intends that it shall be discussed on the floor of this House. I think the changes required in the Bill are too great to be made on the floor of this House. I believe that to attempt to introduce them would lead to the destruction of the Bill; and I hope the Government, after hearing the opinions that have been expressed in all quarters, will be prepared to adopt the suggestion which was made first by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney) of appointing a Select Committee. That Committee could, if necessary, take evidence—I do not think much evidence will be wanted after all that was taken in 1888; at any rate, the inquiry need not be a long one; but the Committee could discuss and change the scheme far more freely than could be done on the floor of the House, and I should hope that, as the result of that, the Government will be able to bring in a scheme which will be much better than this, and will meet with a more favourable reception from the House.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not pretend to conceal from the House that the reception given to our proposals is one which has greatly disappointed us—at all events, it has greatly disappointed me. The object which the Bill has in view is one which has occupied, or, at all events, occupied at one time a great deal of my attention. I was myself responsible for one solution, as I thought it, of the question, and I have had occasion, from time to time since then, to consider Scotch opinion on the subject, and to consider also the objections that were brought against particular methods of solving the difficulty. I think no one can have listened to this Debate without feeling that while almost all Scotchmen are agreed, or profess to be agreed, that some change in our existing system is necessary, they cannot bring themselves to agree as to any solution by which that desirable end is to be accomplished. Of course, unless some such agreement is arrived at, that end which I believe all Scotland, speaking broadly, is desirous of seeing accomplished really cannot be accomplished by this House. I heard almost every conceivable scheme, discussed by gentlemen sitting on both sides of the House with a happy independence, advanced as the one which they would support if they had the chance. Some gentlemen are in favour of a permanent tribunal, some are in favour of a fluctuating tribunal; others are in favour of dealing with these subjects through the instrumentality of Members of Parliament travelling about the country, and dealing in localities with the various problems in which the localities are interested; others, again, regard that—and I admit, practically, that I regard it—as a most chimerical and impossible scheme, and are prepared to support the Government so far in suggesting that, at all events, it would be absurd to restrict your choice of a tribunal to the gentlemen who compose this House. Again, there are those who desire to see the tribunal which deals on the spot with the questions in dispute nominated by an official; others would desire them to be
  144
  selected by an electorial body; other gentlemen would wish that any scheme which this House adopted for devolution in the matter of private Bill legislation should be of a character applicable, not to Scotland alone, but to England, Wales, and, presumably, to Ireland—applicable, I do not mean on general principles merely, but in its terms. The Government—following, I believe, in this respect the general trend of Scotch opinion—holds the view that for Scotland, at all events, it would be better to have a panel in which Scotchmen should have a preponderating influence. There was one gentleman who holds that this Bill should be open to municipalities, but should not apply to individuals. This is, I believe, the view of the hon. Member for Fife, who is not in his place now, but who seconded the Amendment to this Bill. We, on the other hand, hold that if this Bill has any merits at all, as we think it has, those merits are as much concerned with giving the right of appearance to private individuals as they are to wealthy corporations, whether municipal or otherwise. Again, there are gentlemen who hold that this Bill should be optional; there are others who hold that it should be compulsory; or, to put the same view in different language, there are gentlemen in this House who hold that the wealthy corporations should have the power of determining whether the Bill should come before a costly tribunal or whether it should be left to a cheap tribunal. This is a variety of opinion with which I admit it is very difficult for us to deal. Let the House remember that it is the practice of Scottish Members, especially of Scottish Members on the other side of the House, to say that Scotch opinion in relation to Scotch matters is overridden by the general opinion of the Imperial Parliament, and especially by English opinion. Here is an example in which what no Scottish Member will deny to be the general view of the Scottish public is overridden, not by English Members, but by Scotsmen. The general public of Scotland is, without question, desirous of seeing some Measure adopted by which private Bill legislation shall be rendered more local and cheaper. All

  145
  Scottish. Members are prepared to vote for that abstract Resolution, but they are doing their best to defeat it when any particular plan which is brought before them is opposed by a majority—I will not say of Scottish Members, but of these who claim to speak on their behalf. I do not in the least wish to minimise the reception given to this Measure, in which the Government believed, by Scottish Members of this House. Amongst these who have addressed the House on this subject we have had but one cordial supporter—no, we have had two cordial supporters, the hon. Member for Peebles and Selkirk and the late Lord Advocate; they have been, so far as I know, the only two Scottish Members who have spoken cordially in favour of this Bill. I do not deny it, I do not attempt to minimise it; but I say that so long as the temper of Scottish Members remains as it is, and so long as their diversity of opinion remains as it is, there is no Bill that can be brought forward by any Government which would not have the same reception in this House. [Mr. CALDWELL: The reception is from your own side too.] I am not drawing a distinction between one side or the other: I say Scottish Members. I make no Patty attack. But on a subject so difficult as this, in which so many conceivable alternatives can be presented and arguments of undoubted force can be brought forward in favour of any particular alternative, I say unless Scottish Members can come to same kind of agreement it is impossible that the wish of the Scottish people as a whole can be carried into effect. This is not a Party objection; it is wholly irrespective of Party, and it is directed to the solution of a question, the full complexity of which I, who have endeavoured to solve it myself, am quite willing to recognise. Now, I challenge any Scottish. Member, to whatever side he belongs, in say Scottish opinion is inclined to any particular solution of this question. Every gentleman is prepared to end his speech with a
  146
  peroration to the effect that Scotsmen are desirous of seeing private Bill legislation modified in the direction aimed at by this Bill. They are all ready to make eloquent remarks upon that subject, but I say that if the Scottish Members, irrespective of party, had shown any inclination to one solution rather than to another of this vexed and difficult question, to that solution the Government would have been prepared to incline a ready ear. But no such trend of opinion has made itself manifest; no solution, backed by a solid phalanx of opinion, has been proposed. All that the Scottish Members are prepared to do is to get up and say, "We wish this question to be settled; we do not agree amongst ourselves as to how it should be settled; all we agree upon is that the particular solution the Government proposes is open to many objections, and we should be sorry to see it adopted." I think the House will agree that I have not misrepresented or exaggerated the attitude the Scottish Members have taken up on this subject. They, and they alone, are responsible; not Englishmen, nor Irishmen, nor Welshmen, but Scotsmen alone are responsible if this Bill, or a Bill carrying out its objects, is not carried into law in the course of the present Session. I have to admit—I was going to say as an old Parliamentary hand, but I have no claim to that title—as a person of some experience of Parliamentary ways I admit, that when a Bill, intended to meet the views of the Scottish constituencies, is dealt with by representatives of the Scottish constituencies as this Bill has been, dealt with, it is impossible that we should proceed with it in a Committee of the whole House until some preliminary measures have been employed in order to enable my countrymen to arrive at some common agreement. Therefore, if the House will consent, as I hope it will, to the Second Reading of this Bill, embodying a principle upon which I understand, whatever our diversities of opinion, we are all agreed, then I for my part, on behalf of the Government, am prepared to consider the propriety of referring it to a Select Committee. I am

  147
  afraid—and I wish to be perfectly candid with the House, with the public, and, above all, with the Scottish public—that the conclusion to which we have been driven by the Scotch representatives on both sides of the House may end in preventing the Bill becoming law in the course of the present Session. That is not absolutely necessary; but, as the House knows, the period succeeding the Easter holidays will be largely occupied with the principal Measure of the Session—the Irish Local Government Bill. I think it is possible, I venture to hope that it is even probable, that sufficient time will be given for the threshing out of this Measure by a Select Committee before the opportunity arises for the Bill to be considered by a Committee of the whole House. I hope that is so for many reasons; but, whether it is or is not so, I, on the part of the Government, disclaim all responsibility for driving the Bill through in the course of the present Session. I repeat that the action of Scottish Members, and the action of Scottish Members alone, renders it necessary to take the course I am now indicating; but, in face of a necessity which I deplore, but which I admit, I am prepared, on behalf of the Government, to allow this Measure to go to a Committee, either a Committee of this House, or a Joint Committee of the two Houses. Whether it should be discussed and thrashed out by a Committee of this House, or whether, the subject being one eminently pertaining to the business of both Houses, it should be dealt with by a Joint Committee, I do not yet say. That is a matter which the Government will take into consideration. But I am prepared at the present time to say that, if the House will read the Bill a second time, I shall be prepared to refer it to a Committee, and have it thrashed out before that Committee, leaving the House to determine its subsequent chances of success.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Some years ago I was a Member of a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons which had to deal with the subject dealt with in the Bill
  148
  now before the House. At that time I formed certain opinions with which, I am bound to say, I do not think the present Bill is in harmony. But that is not my only reason for rising to say a word. The right hon. Gentleman admits that the hostility with which this Bill has been met has not been a Party hostility. He candidly admits that from both sides the Scottish Members, with two exceptions, criticised very sharply the Second Reading of this Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman forgets that some of the most powerful criticisms directed against the Bill did not come from Scotch Members at all. For example, I may remind him of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin and the experienced Chairman of Committees, the Member for Sowerby. Then there were the speeches of the Members who sit behind him, the hon. and learned Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for Norwich. These are all English Members, speaking, most of them, from a very large experience of the subject with which this Bill deals, and they were even more hostile to this particular method of solution than any Scotch Member who addressed the House. Therefore, we have two propositions which may safely be advanced. The first is that there has been no Party attack on the Bill, and the second is that English Members have been even more hostile to the solution proposed in the Bill than Scotch Members have been. But for my part I have been prepared from the first to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, because, imperfect and defective as it must be held to be, and as I think it to be from my own knowledge, whatever that may amount to, of the subject, in spite of the skilful defence of the hon. Member for Clackmannan, I still feel that there are defects of the very gravest kind attaching to the procedure of the Bill as it now stands. I listened to, and admired, the skill with which the Lord Advocate dealt with the most hostile attack made upon it. I am not such an old Parliamentary hand as the First Lord of the Treasury, but I have never heard a Bill exposed to

  149
  so damaging an attack as this Bill was when the Second Reading was moved the other night. But, though I admired the skill and courage with which the Lord Advocate dealt with that attack, I still feel that, though we must agree with much that has been said about the Bill, we must welcome all attempts at devolution, especially dealing with private business. Now, the First Lord of the Treasury has announced the willingness of the Government to refer this Bill, criticised as it has been, with the holes that have been made in it by that criticism, to a Select Committee. I do not know whether I am speaking for my brother Scottish representatives, but I am bound to say that that is a proposal which I think we should incur a very grave responsibility if we rejected. Therefore, for my part, I for one shall certainly vote for the Second Reading, on the understanding that the Bill is referred to a Select Committee. I repeat that the criticism to which the Bill has been exposed has not been a Party criticism, but a genuine criticism from the Scottish point of view, and that some of the most experienced Members of the House have pointed out defects in the Measure.
  MR. J. CALDWELL: The peculiar position in which the House finds itself is owing, not to any fault of the Scottish Members; it is owing entirely to the nature of the Bill which the Government has introduced to the House. It is all very well for the Government to say that they did not expect opposition to the Bill. I would like to ask the Government, did they take the slightest precaution, before they brought forward a Bill of this kind, to ascertain the feeling in Scotland, or to ascertain from their own supporters even that a Bill of this kind would give satisfaction? If the Government do as they invariably do in the case of Scotch legislation—if they take no notice of Scottish opinion, and take no pains to consult Scottish opinion on the subject, what else can they expect than that their Bill
  150
  should be criticised on both sides? It is the fault of the Bill, not of the Scotch Members. Now, it is proposed that this Bill, with all its defects, is to go to a Select Committee. I venture to ask this House upon what principle a Bill of this kind, criticised as it has been, should be sent to a Select Committee? What will be the effect of that? If the Bill goes to a Select Committee, you will have a repetition exactly of what has occurred on the Second Reading. Members of the Committee will differ just as much as Members of the House have differed in the course of this Debate. I cannot see that any possible good can result from sending the Bill to a Select Committee. Of course, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, it is hardly worth our while to go further into the Bill; but I would say that, so far as the Bill goes, there are certain points in it that I greatly admire. In 1891, following upon the Report of the Committee of 1888, the then Lord Advocate brought a Bill into this House, and what was the nature of that Bill? It substituted one local inquiry for the joint inquiry of the two Houses. There was only to be one inquiry, and that was to be a local inquiry, and in every other respect the Bill was to pass through the two Houses on the strength of that local inquiry. There is nothing unusual in the idea of local inquiries. We have had them already under the Provisional Order system. One advantage of the Bill of 1891 was in regard to cheapness; it provided for only one local investigation, whereas this Bill provides for two—one in Scotland—and then, if the Bill is opposed, there is to be an inquiry before a Committee of this House. The Bill of 1891 proceeded on Unionist lines—the supremacy of this Parliament as regards legislation for the whole of the United Kingdom. That was the foundation of the Bill of 1891. But this Bill proceeds upon purely Home Rule lines, and, of course, we on this side welcome a Bill upon those lines. It proceeds on the

  151
  assumption that this Parliament is overwhelmed with business, and that there ought to be devolution, and devolution on national lines. What more, it may be asked, could we on this side of the House desire than that? Well, our great objection to the Bill is that you may have private Bill legislation applicable to Scotland which may never come before the Imperial Parliament at all. The finding of this Committee is to have the full force of an Act of Parliament; it does not even require the Queen's assent. The Bill will take away the control of private Bill legislation from Committees of this House and the other House, and give it to a Commission which can in no sense claim to be representative of the people of Scotland. So far as the Bill makes for Scottish Home Rule, of course we on this side welcome it. Our only objection is that you do not go one step further. Probably, if we have a Bill introduced next year dealing with private Bill legislation, you will find it will go to the full extent, and then Scottish private Bill legislation will be determined in Scotland locally, by Scottish opinion, and it will not be necessary to come to this House at all. If you once admit that principle with regard to private Bill legislation, depend upon it it will not be a great while before you apply the same principle to Imperial legislation.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKE: I suppose it is certain that this Bill will now be read a second time, whatever may be its subsequent fortunes. But I cannot help thinking that we have a rather curious Parliamentary position. A Bill is usually sent to a Select Committee because it has been approved by the body of the House, and only amendments of detail have to be dealt with; but, so far as one can gather from the trend of the Debate, and even from the very candid speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, this Bill is to go to a Select Committee, because everybody agrees that it is a bad Bill, and because there has been
  152
  no indication in the course of the Debate of the way in which the House generally desires the Bill to be framed. I think my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate is deserving of our sympathy, because, while year after year the cry has been raised, especially by Scottish Members, that they must have some scheme of devolution, some local treatment of their private Bills, the moment this Bill is introduced no sort of sympathy is extended to his desire to meet that national wish, but hon. Members on both sides of the House, one and all, fall upon the details of this unfortunate Bill. I am bound to say that I do not think this Bill will, at any future stage, come under the consideration of the House, and that being the case, I should like to say a word upon one or two of the larger aspects of this question. I should have very willingly supported the Second Reading of this Bill, or, indeed, of any Bill embodying the principle of devolution, provided the Bill were capable of being moulded into proper shape either in Committee of this House or by a Select Committee. I should have supported it because it is painful to see how incompetent this House appears to be for carrying out any practical reform at all. If a practical reform is proposed that is very large, its very magnitude is a drawback. If a practiced reform is proposed, dealing with only a part of the subject, then the objection is raised that this is piecemeal legislation. Now, if there be a question with regard to which piecemeal legislation, separate legislation for the different nations, would be injurious, it is, I think, this question. Suppose we passed this Bill now, dealing only with Scotch private Bills. This mischief, which we are all at one in lamenting, the extravagance, the uncertainty, the inefficiency of the private Bill work of this House, would be remedied so far as Scotland is concerned. But what would be the result suppose the Measure were not successful? The failure of the Bill would have thrown a great obstacle in the way of any legislation for England or Ireland, and the reform is wanted even more for Ireland than for

  153
  Scotland, for Irish schemes generally need some assistance from English capital, and England itself is almost equally interested. If the plan succeeded in Scotland we should have lost the assistance of Scottish Members in any energetic efforts to get the same advantage for England or Ireland. Therefore, I should like to see this question dealt with upon principles common to all three countries. There should be devolution, not to a shifting tribunal elected For the purpose, but to something in the nature of a judicial tribunal which should be permanent and fixed, above the risk of corruption, and above the imputation of being chosen for the purpose by an official of the Crown, a tribunal which should give satisfaction to the people of the three countries. I confess that, after what has happened to-night, we shall probably have to wait some time for any new scheme applying either to one country or to the three countries. But there are certain things which can be done by the House without any legislation at all. For instance, the excessive fees that have been maintained by the House in respect of private business might be reduced, although the House fees are the smallest of the pecuniary burdens that fall on the promoters of private Bills. Then there is another change which might be made. I think nearly all the gentlemen who have taken part in this Debate have expressed themselves in favour of the substitution of a Joint Committee of both Houses for the two Committees which now sit. No one can have watched the course of a Bill before the two tribunals to which it is now referred without seeing that that procedure involves the most extravagant waste of time, hearing over and over again the same thing, even to the repetition of the technical evidence, the mere delays of which throw an enormous burden upon those who come for private Bill legislation to this House. But there is another suggestion I should like to make to the House. Why not apply to private Bill legislation that proposal which I have more than once urged, and which I shall continue to urge on
  154
  the House and on the country, and that is the abolition of the stupid and mischievous rule that we cannot take up in one Session the work which we have partly done in the preceding Session? Of course, in regard to public business, there may be objections to this course, the force of which I can appreciate, though I may not think them overwhelming, but I can conceive none that would apply to private Bill legislation. The effect of our present rules is to cram the discussion of private Bills into some four months in the year, and when time is pressing, when it is getting late into the summer months, and many Bills are before the Committees, promoters have to submit, in clause after clause, to the burden of making payments in satisfaction of clause interests, not from any recognition of real public justice, but because, unless the opponents can be "squared" in time, all the expense and trouble will be thrown away, and the whole thing have to be gone through over again in the next Session. All these things fall on the public. There is no burden which is borne by a company or a corporation which does not, in the long run, have to be discharged by the public, and I confess that I think if these three things were done, if expenses were reduced, if a single Joint Committee were substituted for the two Committees, and if we allowed Bills to be dealt with in one Session and then resumed at the stage at which they were broken off at the beginning of the next Session, before new Bills had engaged the attention of the House, we should have done a great deal in the interval which, I am afraid, must elapse before we have a large Measure dealing with the whole question to remedy the evils which are so justly lamented in the present system. After the reception which this Bill of the Government has met with it is hardly likely that the experience of this Session will encourage further attempts in the same direction; but I do hope that the Government will consider whether, without the cumbrous machinery of an Act of Parliament at all, some amendments

  155
  cannot be made that will remove, at least, some of the objections made against the present system.
  MR. J. COLVILLE: We have listened to some severe strictures passed by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury upon "his countrymen," but I may remind him that some sturdy supporters of his, sitting for English constituencies, were also among the critics of the Bill. The one public body in Scotland which supported the Bill—namely, the Convention of Burghs—pointed out several matters in which it was defective, and themselves proposed no less than seven definite amendments. I have referred—as I have no doubt other Scotch Members have done—to a memorial from the premier County Council of Scotland, the Council of Lanarkshire. They very unanimously denounce the present Measure. While they, of course, hold strong views, as do all hon. Members who have spoken, as to the desirability of local inquiry, and as to the vital necessity of reducing the cost of private Bill procedure, they find at least six distinct and serious defects in this Bill. In the first place, the cumbrous and complicated machinery it sets up, instead of reducing expense, will in all probability lead to increased expense. It will be necessary to appear before the Chairman of Committees by counsel, and to follow that up by evidence before the local inquiry in Scotland. The Lanarkshire County Council also take special exception to the panel, pointing out that the method of election of the panel is cumbrous, and gives no certainty as to the class who are to be elected, or that it will be a desirable panel. They further point out that the powers to be given to the local Committees will be in serious derogation of the powers now enjoyed by the Secretary for Scotland. The two hon. Gentlemen who supported the Bill from the other side of the House could not say that any strong feeling existed in Scotland, in favour of the Measure. If there
  156
  be a considerable feeling in its favour in Scotland, it is remarkable that we should have had no memorials from public bodies in support of the Bill. The only one that has been produced is a Resolution from the Edinburgh Town Council. For my own part. I could hardly wish for any better weapon to use with my own constituency than that of hostility to this Bill, which aims at withdrawing from Parliament its legitimate powers and conferring them upon an irresponsible panel, giving the Secretary of State powers which belong rightly to the High Court of Parliament, and establishing tribunals which do not claim to be popularly elected. For these reasons I feel bound to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, and I will have no hesitation in answering for that opposition to my constituents.
  MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICK: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has expressed great surprise that so many Scottish representatives have been found to oppose this Bill, and he gave as a reason for that surprise what he called the "universal feeling" in Scotland in favour of a Bill to confer on Scotland the management of its own private Bill legislation. I confess that I do not think the right hon. Gentleman drew a correct inference from his facts. I do not deny that there is a great desire in that direction, although I do not think it can be described as "universal." I think it will be found on inquiry that there is a considerable section in favour of the present system. It seems to me that the true inference to be drawn is that the present Bill in no sense satisfies the desires of the people of Scotland, and I think the reason is not far to seek. In my opinion, it is to be found in Clause 4, which sets up the panel which is to take the place of the present Committees of the two Houses. Now, if there is one thing about which there is no doubt whatever, it is this, that, whatever may be the change which is required, the Scottish people have absolute confidence in the

  157
  fairness of the present tribunal; and, therefore, unless the Government are prepared to offer to the people of Scotland a tribunal which shall equally command confidence in its impartiality, they will be very slow to accept any Measure, from whatever quarter it comes. What is the tribunal proposed by the Government? You are to have two men nominated by the conveners of the counties of Scotland, and two men nominated by the provosts of burghs containing more than 15,000 inhabitants. These four men, and the Secretary for Scotland, are to put their heads together and appoint a panel of 20, and reserve panel of 10; and when all that is done, if the Secretary for Scotland sees fit to direct a local inquiry, he is to nominate two men from this panel, and the Lord President is to appoint a Chairman in the person if a sheriff. I think a more preposterous scheme never entered the mind of man. I confess I am at a loss to understand who concocted this scheme. I do not for a moment suppose that it can be the emanation of the unassisted mind of the Lord Advocate. Looking at its strange and carious ingredients, I am tempted to fancy that the Lord Advocate must have encountered the weird sisters on some blasted heath in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, and invoked their aid in the compounding of this strange and remarkable hotchpotch. Are my unfortunate follow-countrymen to be forced to swallow this unsavoury mess. I trust not; but if they should be, it scarcely requires the gift of prophecy to predict that the compulsion will be regarded as an out-range upon throats accustomed to fare of a very different and superior quality. Sir, I do not intend to go further into the provisions of this Bill, because the Debate is dead. I will only add that we appear to have now reached this extraordinary position that the Bill is to be referred to a Select Committee, on the ground that only two Members of this House had a good word to say for it. If it is to go to a Select Committee—and I suppose we shall all vote for that now—I hope that the Lord Advocate will see his way, at any rate, to substitute for the provisions of Clause 4 something in the nature of a tribunal, which will command the confidence of the people of Scotland.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I would throw the responsibility for the disappointment of what I believe to be the sincere wish of the people of Scotland on the gentlemen on my own side who have addressed hostile criticisms to this Bill, from the point of view, largely, of the large interests opposed to it, and also quite as much on those gentlemen on the other side who have joined in the hue and cry, nothing unwilling to have a hand in doing what they believe to be a mischief to the present Administration. In my view the Government have made a bold attempt to deal with a very important and difficult question. I hope that in spite of the opposition which has been manifested to it in the course of this Debate, the Government will have no idea of dropping the Bill, but that they will do their best to expedite the proceedings of the Select Committee, so that we may not have heard the last of it in this House when we have given it a Second Reading.
  DR. G. B. CLARK: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  MR. CALDWELL: On the question that the Bill be committed, I understood the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord to say that it was to be referred to a Select Committee. I should like to ask why that course is not to be adopted. When a Minister in the responsible position of the First Lord of the Treasury says that if a Bill is read a second time it shall go to a Select Committee, it is rather extraordinary that it should be committed in the ordinary way.
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: My right hon. Friend said that the Bill should be sent either to a Select Committee of this House or to a Joint Select Committee of the two Houses. Until it is determined which course is to be adopted, the only thing to do is to commit the Bill formally.
  Bill committed.

  CUSTOMS OFFICES (SOUTHAMPTON) [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)
  Question again proposed—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Works, under any Act of the present Session, for the acquisition of Land at Southampton as a Site for Customs and other Offices connected therewith."—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  TELEGRAPHS [GRANT].
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of sums not exceeding £1,000,000, for the purpose of the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1897, and to authorise the Treasury to borrow such sums by means of terminable annuities payable out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office, and if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Debate arising—
  And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again.
  House resumed.

  BATHS AND WASHHOUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  To amend the Baths and Washhouses Acts: Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bigwood and Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland;

  160
  Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 21st April, and to be printed. [Bill 178.]

  LONDON BUILDINGS ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. F. G. BANBURY: Mr. Speaker, on rising—
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I object.
  MR. B. L. COHEN: May I ask the hon. Member not to press his objection?
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I object.
  MR. BANBURY: I may say that the London County Council have communicated with me, and they say that they have no objection to this Instruction.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I am not responsible to the London County Council. I am a Member of this House, and I object.

  VACCINATION BILL.
  Order of the Day for Vaccination Bill read.
  DR. C. K. D. TANNER: I should like to ask the Government when they really propose to go on with this Bill. There are a number of hon. Members on this side who take considerable interest in it, and we should like to have some definite notion when it is likely to be put down effectively.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): It will only be put down formally for the 19th April.
  DR. TANNER: But when is it really coming on for discussion?
  MR. HANBURY: I cannot say.
  House adjourned at 12.10.