Lords Sitting of 28 June 1877

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—New Forest* (123), and referred to the Examiners.
Second Reading—Prisons (116); Public Works Loans* (88).
Committee—Norfolk and Suffolk Fisheries* (104); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Belper Union, &c.)* (87).
Report—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (Abingdon, &c.)* (66).
Royal Assent—Law of Evidence Amendment [40 & 41 Vict. c. 14]; Public Libraries Act (Ireland) Amendment [40 & 41 Vict. c. 15]; Removal of Wrecks [40 & 41 Vict. c. 16]; Quarter Sessions (Boroughs) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 17]; Settled Estates [40 & 41 Vict. c. 18]; Marriages Legalisation, Saint Peter's, Almondsbury [40 & 41 Vict. c. 72]; Local Government (Gas) Provisional Orders (Penrith, &c.) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 73]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 74]; Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cardiff, &c.) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 75]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (Brotton, &c.) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 76]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Altrincham, &c.) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 77].

PRISONS BILL— [No. 116.]
(The Lord Steward.)
PRISONS BILL— [No. 116.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading, read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that he desired in the first place to draw their Lordships' attention to certain statistics, which would show the necessity for the present legislation. It appeared from a Return made to Parliament in the present year, that the daily average number of prisoners in England and Wales in the year 1872 was 17,500, and in the year 1876, 18,986; and the daily average number during the five years ending 1876 gave a total of 18,111. The Bill dealt with prisons 113 in number, which gave on an average one prison for every 22 square miles of area, and for every 200,000 of the population. These figures, however, did not give altogether a correct idea, for the prisons were very unequally distributed in the different counties. Norfolk had as many as five prisons, whilst other counties with a greater population had only one. Rutland, with a population of only 20,000 had one prison, whilst the county of Stafford, with a population of 858,000, had only one. In some prisons the average number of prisoners was 13, in others it was less than 100, and only 11 prisons had upwards of 400 prisoners. The cost of prisons and prisoners in 1876 was £575,380. These statistics showed the necessity for inquiry and investigation. He would briefly draw their Lordships' attention to the course of prison legislation during the last few years. In 1863 the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Carnarvon) moved for a Committee of their Lordships' House, which was appointed, and which included among its number several very able and experienced Members of the House. That Committee made a Report containing 15 recommendations, in conformity with which Sir George Grey in the following year introduced a Bill into the House of Commons. That Bill, however, did not receive the assent of Parliament; but in the year 1865 the Prisons Act was passed. That Act was not only an alteration in, but a consolidation of, the law relating to county and borough
  384
  prisons. It also made some alterations in the matter of prison labour and discipline, into the general principles of which he would not enter. The manner in which these principles were enforced, however, varied according to the discretion of the local authorities. What was known as the "separate system" was provided and enforced by the Act; but with regard to prison labour, prison diet, and other details, the various jurisdictions under which these prisons were administered enforced different principles. Considerable variations existed under the present system in the rules of the different prisons relating to the amount and nature of the labour required to be performed by the prisoners, the quality and quantity of the food supplied to them, the enforcement of separation, and the pecuniary profit which resulted from their labour. Now, he thought their Lordships would agree with him that if there was one matter more important than another it was that all punishment should be uniform. One sentence ought to correspond more than verbally with another, and a man in receiving punishment for his offence ought to be subjected to the same discipline in one county as in another. He thought he had shown that the Prisons Act, 1865, wise and judicious as it was, required to be supplemented by some further provisions, and those of their Lordships who took part in the administration of our local goals would feel that the necessity for some such measure as the present had been fully and clearly made out. This measure was one intended to carry out the proposals indicated in Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne, inasmuch as it was framed with the view not only of effecting improvement in the management of our prisons, but also of relieving local burdens. It was not, however, to be expected that the Exchequer would accept the whole charge for the prisons throughout the country, unless at the same time the Government assumed their management. In 1846 a system was established under which half of the cost of the food and clothing of prisoners was paid for by money voted by Parliament for that purpose; but it was felt that it was impossible to extend the system further without the Government taking, as was proposed they should do under this Bill, the whole responsibility for the manage-

  385
  ment of the prisons. Turning to the clauses of the Bill, it would be found that the 3rd and 4th clauses were the foundation of the measure; the former providing that from the time it came into operation all the expenses of the prisons were to be paid out of moneys to be voted by Parliament, and the latter providing that all prisons should be vested in and all prison officers should be appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. With regard to the number of prisons, their Lordships all knew how difficult it was to induce local authorities to combine for the purpose of economy of management; therefore by this Bill, by the 33rd clause, power was conferred on the Secretary of State to discontinue such prisons as he thought were unnecessary. These were all the clauses of the Bill which he thought it was incumbent of him to advert to specially, with the exception of those which related to the Visiting Justices. It would be seen that when the management of the prisons was transferred to the Government the necessity of local control would no longer exist. By Clause 13, however, provision was made for the appointment of a Visiting Committee of Justices, who would have very high and important duties entrusted to them in connection with the management of the gaols. The rules under which the prisons were to be managed would be laid before Parliament before they came into force. One result that was anticipated from the passing of this measure was, that there would be a better and more efficient classification of prisoners than was possible under the present system. The measure had been denounced as savouring too much of centralization and as being destructive of the ancient jurisdiction of the Visiting Justices, while it would establish an undesirable uniformity in our prisons, and that on the whole it would be subversive of the position of the local gentry, which was a chief element in the power and prosperity of England. He did not think that those allegations could be sustained. The truth was that the so-called ancient jurisdiction of the Visiting Justices was really an invention of modern times, it not having been created until the year 1784, rather less than 100 years ago. Then as to uniformity, it might be a very good thing or a very bad thing,
  386
  according to the subject-matter referred to. Applied to circumstances wholly different, or only having a superficial resemblance, it might be a very bad thing; but if the circumstances were the same it was clear that uniformity must lead to advantage. In reference to the financial aspect of the question-—it might be said that local administration was at least the most economical and efficient. He was prepared to show that it was far from being so. The actual average net cost of prisoners in county and borough in 1874–75 was £21 13 s. 1d.; but it appeared from the Papers in the hands of their Lordships that in the county of York, which contained four county and four borough prisons, there were 2,331 prisoners. The cost of the prisoners per head varied from £15 11 s. 4d. in the county prisons to £34 1s. 2d. The total cost was £56,690, but on the scale of the lowest cost it would be £40,202, or a saving of about £16,400. In the county of Nottingham there were two county prisons and a city prison; in one of the former the average cost per head was £46 15 s., in the other £34 3s. 1d. Again, in the county of Lincoln there were five county prisons, containing accommodation for 472 prisoners—whereas the average number was 194, the greatest number known being 299. The 194 prisoners cost, during the year 1874, £8,430; whereas if they had been maintained at the cost per head of the lowest county prison, that at Lindsey, the cost would be only £4,438; showing a saving of cost on the three gaols—and they were within three miles of each other—of £1,608; or, if taken at the average cost of the whole county—namely, £21 13 s. 1d.—of £3,408. Then, as regarded Cambridge county, there were three prisons—Cambridge county, Ely, and Wisbeach. In the first-named there was accommodation for 107 prisoners, in the second for 48, in the third for 50—making 205; but the average number was 60¼, and the greatest number known was 91. The cost of the 60¼ was £2,947; but if they had been maintained at the same rate as prevailed at Ely—that was, at an average cost, after deductions, of £35 10 s. 10 d.—the total cost would be only £2,141—showing a saving in Cambridgeshire alone of £806; and if at the average cost of the whole county, a saving of £1,648. In face of these facts, he did not think it could be contended

  387
  that local administration conduced to economy or to a saving of the money of the ratepayers. It was calculated that in carrying out the provisions of this Bill, at least one-half of the existing number of prisons might be dispensed with, still leaving one gaol to each county; and it was computed—and he considered the computation a moderate one—that the saving which would be effected by doing away with superfluous prisons would be £50,000. With regard to prison labour, it was estimated in connection with the Bill that the profits of such labour might be largely increased; and for himself he did not see any reason whatever why the work of those who were incarcerated in county and borough gaols should not be as remunerative as that of those who were in convict prisons. At present the annual cost of the county and borough prisons was estimated at £575,380; or, deducting interest on loans, £538,921, of which £110,800 was already contributed by the Treasury; but, looking to the increased profit to be derived from prison labour, the reduction of the number of gaols, and the consequent saving upon repairs, it was estimated that the total cost to the country under the Bill would not exceed £367,500. Deducting from this amount what was paid by the Treasury, there was left to be provided for by taxes a sum of £257,200. There would evidently, therefore, be a considerable saving to the ratepayers as the result of carrying out this measure. The value of labour in the convict prisons was £19 5s. per head, which was more than double the value of the labour in the county and borough prisons, and there could be no doubt that under an improved administration the value of labour in these prisons would be greatly increased. There was no reason why their labour should not be as remunerative as was that of convicts. The profit was taken at the sum of £113,189; there would be a considerable saving arising from the concentration of staffs, and also in the repairs of prisons—indeed, there appeared to be no reason why those repairs should not be effected by prisoners. He could not but think that by effecting greater uniformity in the administration of our prisons they would be giving effect to wise provisions of our prison law, that they would be able to some extent to counteract wicked-
  388
  ness and vice, and thus strengthen the administration of justice and improve the social and moral condition of the people. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª."—(The Lord Steward).
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that this Bill was one to which he felt considerable objection. He admitted that there were considerable defects in our system of prison administration which required to be remedied; but he did not agree with the noble Earl that if this Bill should be passed it would lead to any great benefit to the country. If no remedy could be found, except that proposed by the Bill, then it ought to pass; but he could not help feeling that means could have been found to improve and make better the management of prisons without placing the whole of such management in the hands of a central authority. The noble Earl had referred to the Act of 1865. Now that Act gave additional powers to the magistrates and to the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the management of prisons. There was to be a uniformity of diet and other things done, and he would like to know whether all the powers of the Secretary of State in that respect had been exercised? As to prison labour, were was the difficulty under the existing law of enforcing a uniform system? The Act of 1865 went a considerable way in that direction. He did not see why there should not be more uniformity in all matters without centralizing in the Secretary of State the entire management of all the prisons of the country. There was no doubt a great superabundance of prisons, and that was one of the strong points of the Bill; the number of useless prisons which existed was a positive disgrace to those who had the management of them—but even as regarded them they might have had a Schedule to the Bill, and enacted that those that were unnecessary should be closed, following Tip the example of the Act of 1865. Instead of that, they followed up the principle adopted by the Chinaman who burnt his house in order to roast his pig. He believed that this Bill would, instead of bringing about economy, lead to an increased expenditure. He felt alarmed at the principles on which this Bill was

  389
  based and at the arguments which had been offered to justify its passing through Parliament—they were principles and arguments which might lead to the abolition of local management throughout the country; at any rate, the arguments which had been used in favour of this Bill would equally apply to every branch of local administration. For instance, they would apply to the Poor Law administration, and it might be said to the Education Acts, the administration of which had become of so much importance, and as to which very extensive powers had been placed in the hands of the President of the Council. For his part he regarded centralization not as a bugbear, but as an actual evil. In France nothing was so much regretted by all sensible men as the want of those centres of local administration which they had in this country. No doubt there were advantages in centralization which local administration did not possess; but, on the other hand, there were advantages in local government which a central system did not give; and the question was, whether it could not be shown that there was a large balance of advantages in local administration. It had its advantages and its disadvantages; but what we had to do was to show that the balance of advantages was in favour of change. It must be further remembered that the Government of this country was already heavily burdened; and if Parliament went on placing on the Administration—upon the Heads of the Departments—more and more detailed business, there could be but one result, and that would be neglect in transacting it. The business would be left to subordinate officials, and there would be what would be called Executive Boards—not Boards like the Board of Trade, or the Local Government Board, but Boards that would be responsible to the Minister, who would not have time either to attend to the duties of his office, or to exercise any real control over the proceedings of these officials. Were not the great administrative Departments of the country already overburdened? And he would ask was not the House of Commons overwhelmed with business; and whether if, in addition to their present business, there were to be inquiries into the appointment of turnkeys and other prison officers, the House of Com-
  390
  mons would not find itself neglecting its legislative functions in order to discharge duties which would be much better performed by Courts of Quarter Sessions. He looked with much anxiety upon the economical reasons put forward in support of this Bill. He knew that the Bill held out a bait to the ratepayers—there was to be saved to the whole country the munificent relief of £364,000 from the operation of the Bill. He by no means depreciated such a saving to the ratepayers; but he did not think it worth making so large a change for so comparatively insignificant a saving. He did not undervalue changes which would produce economy; but when they were told that it was likely there would be a large financial gain under this Bill he very much doubted whether that would be so. He did not dispute the noble Earl's figures, but he doubted whether his prophecies would come right. He did not think the central managers would spend less money than the present local managers had done, and as to the large revenue from prison labour which the noble Earl calculated upon, he was afraid his noble Friend would find that a very serious opposition would arise to the employment of prisoners in remunerative labour—and he saw by Clause 11 that it was intended to place some limit on the nature and amount of this labour. The Government had already received a clear warning of the pressure that would be brought to bear upon them, and it furnished another instance of the danger of bringing these matters of local administration under the control of Parliament. With regard to the clauses of the Bill, he would admit that they had been carefully and wisely drawn. If, however, we were to have a centralized system in such matters—which he deprecated—the natural consequence would be to place the lunatic asylums and the constabulary under the control of the Government. Every argument which had been used for taking over the prisons applied equally to the lunatic asylums and the constabulary—and he was not aware, indeed, of a single argument that did not apply with still greater force to those branches of administration. He trusted that noble Lords opposite would turn their attention to the improvement and strengthening of our local administration, and that, so far from doing anything to

  391
  destroy local jurisdiction, they would, by means of County Boards and in other ways, strengthen a system of local self-government from which it would be exceedingly unwise to depart.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEagreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) as to the evils arising from centralization, and hoped that legislation which would attack our system of local administration would form no part of the policy of the Government. At the same time he contended that many of the provisions of this Bill were necessary. The evils of the present system were admitted. For instance, the only way in which the Secretary of State could act under the statute of 1865 was to recommend that certain prisons not required should be abolished; and if the county refused to adopt the recommendation, all he could do was to withdraw the Government grant; but that was a very strong measure. Therefore, looking at all the circumstances, and considering what had been said about uniformity of prison diet, and labour and management generally, he saw no other way of meeting the difficulties than by accepting the measure now proposed by the Government. The real difficulty had always been the extreme jealousy with which such changes had been received by the local authorities. In the county of Kent, not long ago, it was proposed to abolish a small prison in the Eastern Division of the county, and to build a central one, in consequence of the present gaol not having cells of a model character. This raised an immense storm of opposition—indignation meetings were held, and eventually the proposal was thrown out by a large majority. This only showed how difficult it was, under the present system, to effect the changes required. One word as to the suggested saving there would be in prison labour. He submitted that it was not fair to compare what was earned in convict prisons with what was earned in other prisons, as it was quite impossible to teach persons who were sent to prison for short periods—say for three or four weeks—anything that would be remunerative. He was sceptical as to any great saving from prison labour; and as to prison labour not interfering with free labour, he understood that the products of a prison in the northern part of the country were sold in competition with
  392
  the trades of the country. In one northern prison machinery was used, which showed the great want of uniformity of management. He had heard that the Government proposed to lessen more or less the punishment of hard labour; but if the crank, shot-drill, and other things were abolished, it would be a serious matter, because there were some hardened criminals who came to prison very frequently, and hard labour was the only thing to deter them. At any rate, they could not obtain remunerative labour out of them. As to the change which would be made in regard to the Visiting Justices, he thought that they would be perfectly willing to carry out their duties under the new system, but these, he thought, would be somewhat invidious, for their business would be to listen to trumpery complaints and report them to the Home Office. He thought, however, no better system could be devised than that of Visiting Justices, for it was necessary that there should be some authority on the spot in order to prevent various abuses springing up. He would repeat that, though he agreed with the noble Earl as to the great evils of centralization, yet he saw no other means of meeting the difficulties and evils of the present system which everybody complained of than by passing this Bill, and therefore he should support the Motion for the second reading.
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTONwas understood to say he did not share the apprehensions which had been expressed by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley), and therefore supported the Bill without hesitation.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid he did not rise to oppose the Bill, because no one could doubt the expediency of aiming at economy and uniformity in the management of our prisons; but he doubted whether it would not have been better to seek those objects in a way different from that proposed by the Bill. Indeed, he did not see why the Government should not be able to obtain both these results without any Bill at all. He shared the apprehensions expressed by the noble Earl below him (the Earl of Kimberley), and regretted that we were changing local administration with central control for central control and central administration too. He could not see how local authority would remain vested

  393
  in the Visiting Justices under the Bill, for their only power would be that of making complaints to Commissioners and Inspectors, and they would have no power of giving effect to their own recommendations. The governor of a gaol, who was now their responsible servant, would be so no longer; and he could not see what authority would remain to them. The estimated economical saving was £50,000, with an increase in the profit from prison labour; but, on the other hand, there were to be Commissioners and Inspectors, a new Department of the State, and an army of superior and inferior officials, and he doubted whether any great saving would be effected. But it was still a question whether all that was contemplated might not have been attained without transferring administration from the local to a central authority. He did not see why the principle embodied in this Bill should not be applied to the police, for there was little difference between the governor of a gaol and a chief constable or the governor of a workhouse. The principle underlying the Bill went to the root of all local governments. There were advantages in classifying prisoners according to their sentences; but he feared uniformity would be obtained at too high a price. He did not entertain the suggestion that magistrates were jealous of the loss of dignity, for in many cases they would be only too glad to be rid of a by no means pleasant duty. The underlying principle of this and some other Bills—the weakening of local administration—was not a good one, and, as the Government were dealing by instalments with various matters of local administration, it was important to see that it was not carried any further. Therefore, he deprecated the passing of this Bill, because though some good might come from it, that good might be got without undermining that principle of self-government under which the local affairs of the country had hitherto been administered.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, he would not detain their Lordships at any great length in discussing this measure, which had been well thrashed out both in and outside Parliament; but, as a Chairman of Quarter Sessions of some years' standing, he desired to make a few observations on some of its provisions. The most serious opposition to the Bill of last year, as well as to the present, was
  394
  urged on the ground that it would lead to centralization. No doubt too much centralization would be a bad thing; but did this Bill really increase the probability of local affairs being placed entirely under the control of Government? He thought not. There was nothing in the Bill to indicate that the principle would be carried any further. It might as well be said that Government interference of any kind would lead to centralization. Again, it would be almost impossible to conduct local affairs in London. The offices were already overtaxed, and to attempt anything of the kind would bring public Business to a standstill; already a new line of Government offices had been planned for present requirements. Where was it to end if more and more public Business was to be transacted in London? He, for one, should not mind going a little further in the direction of centralization in some matters—the police, for instance; but those who disliked centralization might be sure there was not much chance of the result they dreaded. After all, what power had the magistrates in regard to prisons? Very little. Merely the appointment of officers, their payment and superannuation allowance, and so forth. The Bill gave up no great principle; but even if it gave up the semblance of a principle, what was that when weighed against the good the Bill would do? It had been said that magistrates would no longer take an interest in their business, because their sense of dignity would be offended. He was sure no really useful magistrate would act in that manner. What was the real state of the case? He had said the duties of Visiting Justices were very limited, and on that account they were very little sought after; and it ended in this—that the magistrates residing nearest to the gaol were generally appointed Visiting Justices. He used, to attend the gaol when he lived near his own county town; and when he ceased to reside there, he asked to be taken off the committee in order that some one living near the gaol might take his place. He never thought of any loss of dignity occurring thereby, nor had he ever heard of the intention of magistrates to relax their efforts to perform their duties properly. Under the Bill, probably, magistrates might be less desirous to serve on a Visiting Committee; with less power there would be less desire to serve; but it would not

  395
  cause any magistrates who were really useful, and really took an interest in their district gaols to relax in the discharge of their duties. He did not for a moment suppose that any Secretary of State would frame rules that would have the effect of diminishing in the slightest degree the interest which magistrates took in the discharge of their duties. As to the supposed slur upon magistrates, he ventured to say no one could seriously entertain such an idea. The Bill would provide for a long-felt want. When he reflected on the large economies that could be effected—in such a case as the gaol at Bury St. Edmund's, in Suffolk, for instance, where there were 27 prisoners with nine officers to look after them—when he looked to the spirit of emulation which would prevail among prison officers, when he considered that a uniform system of punishment and a uniform system of management would, in all probability, have the effect of diminishing crime—he could see nothing in all that was urged against the Bill to counterbalance the good it would do. He was extremely pleased to see Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies recognized in the Bill; but the provision which allowed the money belonging to a prisoner on leaving gaol to be handed over to a society was a very important matter. A dole to a prisoner would often take him back to his old friends or his old habits; but these societies were frequently the means of starting men in an honest course of life who, with the least encouragement would have relapsed into crime. He hoped that too large prisons would not be created under the Bill. The experience in Poor Law and other establishments had not been of a nature to encourage the concentration of many persons in the same place. It should be borne in mind that they were not dealing with the convict class only, but more especially with prisoners, many of whom might be reformed. On sanitary grounds, too, it was undesirable to bring large numbers of prisoners together. As to the superannuation of officers, he would have preferred that the Government should have paid these allowances where an officer was dismissed. At all events, it would be wiser to limit the proportion which the local authority was to contribute to the payment of superannuation allowances to officers dismissed within a short period, say, a year, or two years. Under the
  396
  Bill this remnant of the payments at present made by local authorities might, and would, no doubt, go on for years in many cases. In conclusion, he gave his hearty support to the measure, which he believed would be productive of much public advantage.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, that the Bill was a step, and a very decided step indeed, towards centralization. He did not think that anybody could read its provisions without seeing that that was the direct and necessary tendency of the measure. He also thought that the powers and responsibilities of Visiting Justices must, as a matter of course, be seriously lessened by the Bill. But, in his opinion, the arguments in favour of the measure outweighed any consideration which might be urged in favour of the retention of the existing state of things. Those arguments ranged themselves under these three heads—first, the economy of space; second, the concentration of prisoners; and last, but not least, uniformity of discipline. Those were all objects so valuable in themselves and so essential to the good government of prisons, that the fact that they would be practically attained, if that Bill became law, counterbalanced the objections to which he had referred. He knew of an instance of a county prison, with all the ordinary staff attached to it, in which at one time there was not a single prisoner. Nobody could say that that was a state of things which either conduced to economy, or promoted energy or efficiency on the part of the prison officials. Again, in the county with which he was connected (Surrey), there was a prison built about 25 years ago on the most approved principle, in which, he was happy to say, they had 200 or 300 cells ordinarily vacant. He hoped care would be taken not to mix up short-sentence prisoners and convict felons. He thought it was a great pity that when this Bill was introduced, certain powers which Visiting Justices formerly possessed were not renewed. The most difficult class of prisoners with whom Visiting Justices, or he thought anybody else who had to do with the management of prisons, had to deal, was the refractory, and, especially, the refractory female class. With regard to a male prisoner, there was always the alternative of corporal punishment, which generally kept the prisoner in order; but with female prisoners it was

  397
  otherwise. At the present moment there was no adequate check within the power of the magistrates upon a violent female prisoner. With regard to superannuation, he was not sure whether a prison official who had served part of his time in one prison and part in another would be able to count the whole time of his service for the purpose of obtaining superannuation. He had intended to have proposed Amendments in Committee with reference to superannuation; but as he now understood that such Amendments ought to be introduced not in this, but in the other House, he did not propose to submit any Amendment in Committee on that subject. He hoped, however, that his noble Friend would give the point his best consideration.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday, the 6th of July next.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.