Lords Sitting of 29 July 1898

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter-past Four of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  KEIGHLEY CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  WEY VALLEY WATER BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  PAIGNTON IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  The consent of the Prince of Wales in right of his Duchy of Cornwall signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
  CLONTARF AND HILL OF HOWTH TRAMROAD BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAIL- WAY (WALES) BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  ST. DAVID'S RAILWAY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  GLASGOW CORPORATION (SEWAGE, ETC.) BILL.
  Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  BOLTON, TURTON AND WEST- HOUGHTON EXTENSION BILL.
  Read the third time, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  KNOTT END RAILWAY BILL.
  Read the third time, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  RHYMNEY AND ABER VALLEYS GAS AND WATER BILL.
  Read the third time, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  METROPOLITAN COMMON POOR FUND BILL.
  Brought from the Commons.
  VIGORS DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  CLACTON-ON-SEA GAS AND WATER BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  MALDON WATER BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  SOUTHAMPTON GAS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PRO- VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment to be printed [No. 188] and to be considered on Tuesday next.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  ISLE OF WIGHT RAILWAY (BRADING HARBOUR AND RAILWAY) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  LEICESTER FREEMEN BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  PAISLEY CORPORATION (LOANS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  SAINT MARYLEBONE CHURCHES BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  GENERAL POWER DISTRIBUTING COM- PANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have suspended any further proceedings on the General Power Distributing Company Bill in the
  396
  House of Commons until the next Session of Parliament, because the delay in the proceedings on the Bill was caused solely by the action of Parliament in referring the questions of principle involved in this and other Bills to a Joint Committee; and to request that their Lordships will concur in such suspension.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COPYRIGHT BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee (with the Minutes of Proceedings) made, and to be printed. [No. 189.] Minutes of Evidence, with an appendix, laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.
  COPYRIGHT (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee (with the Minutes of Proceedings) made, and to be printed. [No. 189.] Minutes of Evidence, with an appendix, laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.
  TRADE REPORTS, 1898.
  Annual Series: Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance: No. 2,166. Turkey (Angora).
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP.
  Annual Report of the chief inspector of factories and workshops for the year 1897.
  RAILWAYS.
  General Report to the Board of Trade on the capital, traffic, and expenditure of the railway companies of the United Kingdom for the year 1897.

  COMMERCIAL INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
  1. Minutes of Evidence taken before the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into and report upon the dissemination of commercial information, etc., etc.; with appendices and index.
  2. Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into and report upon the dissemination of commercial information and the collection and exhibition of patterns and samples:
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY.
  Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, and the number of patients seen, by the several Commissioners in Lunacy, during the six months ended on the 30th June, 1898: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
BILLS ADVANCED.
  METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (EAST SHEEN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order); further Amendments made; and Bill to be read the third time on Monday next.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time on Monday next.
  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Read the second time (according to order): Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time on Monday next.
  TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
  Read the second time (according to order): Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time on Monday next.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
  HABITUAL INEBRIATES BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read the third time on Thursday next.
  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION (BORDER COUNTY COUNCILS) (No. 2) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time on Monday next.
  PAUPER CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  INDIA OFFICE (STORE DEPOT) BILL.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, this is a small Bill to empower the Secretary of State in Council to acquire compulsorily certain land on which the

  399
  Store Department of the India Office is now built. Part of the land is freehold and part leasehold. The tenure of the latter part is far from satisfactory, the lease having nearly expired. Powers are sought by this Bill to enable the Secretary of State to acquire that part of the land which is not freehold. I move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Question put.
  Bill read a second time.

  UGANDA.
  LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government whether any further Paper with, regard to the state of affairs in Uganda will be laid upon the Table of the House before the close of the present Session. During the four or five months that have elapsed since this subject was last mentioned in your Lordships' House many very interesting private letters have been received by every mail from that country. I have no doubt that the dispatches received by Her Majesty's Government have contained equally interesting and more authentic accounts of the events which have taken place there, and I wish to know whether, before the end of the Session, any Papers will be furnished to the House which will carry the history of events in Uganda down to a more recent period than that which was the subject of discussion in the month of March last. The dispatches must contain information of interest, and information, which I can see no reason for withholding from this House and the public; and if my noble Friend will continue the new departure which was contained in the Parliamentary Paper circulated this morning, no doubt they will be still more interesting and very much more entertaining. It would be unreasonable to expect that by this time we could have received the Report of the inquiry which, in the month of March, Her Majesty's Government announced that they were about to order to be made into the origin of the disturbances in Uganda. That Report, of course, without extreme diligence, could not have been presented to us by this
  400
  time. I very much regret that that is so, because by the time we meet, again next year many other subjects will have arisen to drive Uganda—the disturbances, their origin, and their suppression—altogether out of our thoughts. At one time I was inclined to think the incredible diligence to which I have, referred must have been exercised, and that the Report must have already arrived, for, if it has not, it appears to me that Her Majesty's Government have in one respect somewhat anticipated its result or possible result. I wish the Report had been made, as in Sierra Leone, by an independent Commission. I have, however, the fullest confidence in Mr. Berkeley's integrity and ability to carry out the inquiry, and I also trust in the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the inquiry should be Ml and certain. Now, there are three possible classes of reasons which may have given rise to the disturbances. They may have arisen from a fortuitous combination of circumstances for which no individual can be said to be to blame. I speak in no spirit of irony when I say that I believe that that is the origin of disturbances and misunderstandings far more often than very clever people, who want to see something hidden in everything, imagine. Again, it is possible, though at the same time it is excessively improbable, that Her Majesty's Government may have given such strict directions as to what was to be done in certain events in Uganda as to remove all responsibility from those on the spot. That is not likely, but it is conceivable. And, again, the disturbances may in a greater or in a less degree have arisen from the blundering of officials on the spot. No inquiry can be efficient which altogether excludes this last category. The events may or may not be due to any one of those causes, or to a combination of them, but I say no inquiry can be efficient which does not include them all. The chief officials who would be concerned in that matter were Mr. Jackson, Colonel Ternan, and Major MacDonald. Major MacDonald and Mr. Jackson are in Uganda still, and I have not a word to say with regard to their proceedings. Major Ternan is in England, and able to speak for himself. The conduct of Colonel—then Major—Ternan, who succeeded Mr. Berkeley as Commissioner, especially, I think,

  401
  ought to form an item in the inquiry. Mr. Berkeley left the country in entire peace, and reported that no disturbance of any kind was likely to arise. But during Major Ternan's administration the country fell into a state of general disturbance1—disturbance so great that the English residents at Kampala could not go down to the lake for fear of being murdered, not by rebels, but by the peasants. I will not go further into detail, my Lords, at the present moment. I merely say that Major Ternan's conduct in this matter must form an item in the inquiry. I trust he will be able to perfectly justify every step he took, but I contend that his conduct must form one of the subjects for inquiry. I think it might be expected that during such inquiry, while you in no way prejudge the case as regards any officer, while you would not deprive him of any advantage or any promotion which naturally fell to him, you would hardly go out of your way to give him a special promotion for that special service which must become the subject of inquiry. That is what has been done in the case of Major—now Colonel—Ternan. I trust Her Majesty's Government may have cause to be satisfied, but I do not think that satisfaction can be said to be completely justified until the inquiry has taken place. If the news which is in the papers to-day—which I believe is correct, and has been received by the Church Missionary Society—is true, it shows that Uganda is still in a very serious condition. The last news received from Uganda was to the effect that there was fighting everywhere. This shows what terrible and frightful mischief has been worked, from some cause or other, by means of the recent disturbances, and the necessity for an inquiry into the cause of those disturbances being one of a complete and searching character, and including in its scope the conduct of individuals as well as other circumstances. I conclude by asking Her Majesty's Government whether any further Papers with regard to the state of affairs in Uganda will be laid upon the Table of the House before the close of the present Session.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY):
  402
  My Lords, if I could have ventured to make any suggestion on such a subject, I should have recommended my noble Friend to divide his speech into two parts; first, the question whether Papers were to be laid on the Table, which might suitably have been asked to-day; and, secondly, the observation on what those Papers contained, or were likely to contain, which I think would have been more suitably postponed until he has had those Papers in his hand. I hope these Papers will be laid on the Table to-night—I have passed them—and that they will be in the hands of the noble Lord in a few days—Bank Holiday may intervene. But I certainly shall not follow his example in discussing what they contain or what they might not contain. I do not at all understand the doctrine that he lays down with respect to the treatment which servants of the Crown ought to receive. He has grounds wholly unknown to me for suspecting certain dark things of a very distinguished servant of the Crown, Major Ternan. I do not for a moment presume to pronounce upon evidence which I have not seen, and indeed upon charges of which I am wholly ignorant. I entirely demur to the doctrine that because some persons, may entertain the opinion my noble Friend does in respect to Major Ternan we should therefore in the slightest degree dispense with that recognition or interfere with the bestowal of that promotion which undoubtedly for his general conduct he deserves. He is a very distinguished man, and, like so many others, has compromised his health in that ungrateful country. I am bound to say, as far as my knowledge goes, I know nothing but what is good of him, and I certainly cannot pay any attention to views founded on evidence which I have not seen, and which I know nothing about. Therefore I cannot admit that we have in the least degree prejudged any inquiry that may take place. I hope that shortly we may have the opinion of Mr. Berkeley upon the events which took place in his absence. I do not think that grounds so abundant as my noble Friend suspects will be found for blaming any officers of the Crown. Naturally the disturbances which occurred, and which were terribly successful, had a contagious effect, and induced other troops of similar race and

  403
  position to consider whether something was not to be got by following the example that had been set. At such a time a disturbance of that kind is generally very contagious, and I have no ground for taking the gloomy views my noble Friend takes of the present condition of Uganda. I am afraid it will be in a more or less disturbed condition for some time, for it is a country we are holding comparatively with a very small force, but I have heard nothing to cast the slightest doubt on the probability of a speedy restoration to complete peace, and nothing to cause the slightest anxiety as to what is going on. My optimism may, in the view of my noble Friend, be excessive, but I can only say I speak from the impression that has been left upon me by the documents, undoubtedly somewhat imperfect in their extent, but of which my noble Friend will shortly be able to judge as well as I. I hope he will not find that there is any serious cause for complaint in regard to the conduct of officers who have had to perform a task of stupendous difficulty in the face of extreme obstacles, and with very few of the advantages which in more civilised countries those who conduct warfare of this kind would obtain. I can only say that I think the result of the Papers will be to make my noble Friend prouder of the conduct of English officers when they are placed in a position of extreme difficulty, and have to serve their country under circumstances of signal disadvantage.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I do not rise to make any comments whatever upon this matter. I think we may well wait to see the Papers that are to be laid on the Table. I simply wish to ask the noble Marquess one question. I desire to know whether there has been any confirmation of the reports which have been published in the newspapers to the effect that there has been a severe engagement between the Indian troops in Uganda and the Soudanese, and that the Indian troops have suffered severe losses.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: My Lords, no such information has reached the Government, but the noble Earl must
  404
  remember that the telegraph does not extend more than a third of the way up, and that between that point and the area in which these events are said to have taken place there is a distance of 400 miles. It is therefore possible that different accounts of the same event may arrive at the same time, and it is possible that others may have anticipated the official communications; but my impression is that it is probable that the reports in the newspapers are unintentionally exaggerated. I will not, however, pledge myself to that statement, because with the difficulties of communication I have not the power of doing so.
  LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I should like to say that the noble Marquess has misunderstood me. I specially disclaimed any wish to interfere with ordinary promotion. What I said was that to give special promotion for special service in connection with a matter into which an inquiry was being held appeared to me to be prejudging to a certain extent that inquiry.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: If I understand the doctrine of my noble Friend, it is that it would be legitimate to reward for seniority, but not for merit. I am afraid I cannot accept that.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
  Read the second time (according to order); Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time on Monday next.

  PRISONS BILL.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, the Bill which I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to is one of some importance. It deals with the regulations which govern the discipline and management of the whole of the convict and local prisons in the country; and it also introduces some important Amendments in the administration under which the prison population live. I think, my Lords, before I make a few remarks with regard to the provisions of the Bill, it would be convenient for me to remind your Lordships that the present regula-

  405
  tions under which the prisons are governed date back as far as 1865. It is quite true that in 1877 an Act was passed which transferred the management of the prisons from the local authorities to the Commissioners of Prisons. There have also been subsequent small Acts, but as a matter of fact the regulations under which the prisons are now managed are practically contained in the Act of 1865. The convict prisons date back to even earlier Acts. I think, therefore, my Lords, it is not surprising that there should, a few years ago, have been some feeling that probably the present management of these prisons required investigation, and that there were some people who brought rather strong criticisms against the system which had been in force so long. It was under these circumstances that in 1895 a Committee was appointed by the Home Office, of which Mr. Herbert Gladstone was a member, and, in fact, chairman. I think I ought to remind your Lordships that that Committee was in no sense an official Committee. The whole of the members, except Mr. Herbert Gladstone himself, were independent members, who were not in any way wedded to the official view of the prison question, and who were, from their position and from, their experience, perfectly qualified to take an independent view of the question. The result of that Committee was that a very considerable number of suggestions for the reform and amendment, of our prison law were proposed; but, at the same time, I think it is only fair for me to say that the Report of that Commission practically stated that the management of the prisons under the commissioners and under the directors of the convict prisons had been an administrative success. The Committee said nothing which confirmed the very wholesale condemnations of our prison system, which, had been levelled at it from some quarters. My Lords, since the issue of that Report a large number of the recommendations contained therein have been carried out by the Secretary of State, and this Bill is for the purpose of giving Parliamentary sanction to those proposals which require statutory powers. This Bill, my Lords, has already passed through the other House of Parliament. It there met with very full dis-
  406
  cussion, and I may say I think that with regard to some of the details of prison management it even met with minute criticism. I only refer to that because I think the course which the discussion took in the other House somewhat tended to make the public who had not read the Bill carefully, or who had not followed the whole of the discussion, somewhat lose sight of the important administrative changes which this Bill introduces into the law governing our prisons. With the permission of the House, it is to those administrative changes that I will principally address my remarks. I will not venture, at all events on this occasion, to go into any minute discussion of the details of the rules of prison management which are made under regulations which the Home Secretary has to lay upon the Table of this House, The first part of the Bill deals principally with the convict prisons. In future they will be managed by the commissioners under the same conditions as our local prisons. They will be subject to the same system of inspection as has always taken place in local prisons, and the inspectors will have their powers extended so as to enable them to visit the convict prisons as well as the local prisons. The regulations governing the convict prisons will be under the cognisance and control of Parliament. Hitherto the regulations with regard to the convict prisons have been made by the Secretary of State. The regulations with regard to the local prisons are, as I said before, contained in the Act of 1865, but the present proposal will make a very important change with regard to those prison regulations, because it will enable the Secretary of State to introduce a system of much, greater elasticity with regard to the rules of prisons, and to accommodate those rules to the age, the sex, and the different conditions of the different classes of prisoners; and it will also enable him from time to time to make any alterations that he may deem necessary with regard to those regulations. As I have said, those rules will have to lie upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and therefore they will be under the cognisance and the control of both Houses. Another important alteration with regard to convict prisons affects the visiting committees. Hitherto there have been no visiting committees, as in

  407
  the case of local prisons. There have lately been certain visitors appointed, but those visitors have no special legal powers. It is thought desirable that the course which has been pursued with regard to local prisons should be extended to convict prisons, and that they should have the advantage of similar local management by people interested in prisons in the neighbourhood. It is hoped that by this means something will be done to decentralise the management of our convict prisons, and bring a very important independent element to bear upon the discipline and upon the management of these prisons. My Lords, with regard to the local prisons, there are three or four important proposals which, I think, I must call the attention of the House to. In the first instance, under clause 6, it is proposed to make a new classification with regard to prisoners convicted of offences, but who are not sentenced to penal servitude or hard labour. At the present time, unless a convicted person is sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour, there is only one other classification in which he can be placed—that of a first-class misdemeanant. This Bill proposes to make a second, or intermediate, division, which will comprise those who, in the discretion of the court, can properly not be subjected to the treatment meted out to ordinary and habitual criminals, yet whose offences are too serious to allow of their inclusion in the first class. It is impossible to say how largely this power may be made use of. That depends upon those who sit on the bench, but I think it will be recognised by all who have had any experience of a judicial character that there are many cases where it is desirable that this power should be possessed. The Bill also makes an important change with regard to the power that is conferred as to the remission of sentences owing to good conduct in prisons. Under the present law no prisoner, unless he is sentenced for a long period, and suffering penal servitude, is entitled to the advantage of a remission of part of his sentence owing to good conduct. In clause 8 it is proposed that prisoners who are sent to ordinary prisons under a shorter sentence shall be able to gain some remission of their sentence after a certain period,
  408
  which will have to be specified and laid down in regulations by the Secretary of State; and it is hoped that this will be valuable, that it will be a very high incentive to good behaviour on the part of those prisoners who serve for shorter periods in the ordinary prisons, and that it will have a good effect on the general conduct in those prisons. There is also a provision with respect to the cases where an offender is committed to prison for the non-payment of a sum which is adjudged to be paid upon conviction. At the present time, if he cannot pay the whole of that sum, he has to serve whatever imprisonment is put upon him as an alternative. This Bill proposes that if he can pay a part of the sum he shall be able to divest himself of part of the sentence passed upon him. It will be admitted that this is a fair provision, and will meet the cause of those who are bonâ fide willing to pay, but who are not able to do so because they do not possess a sufficient sum necessary to purge them of their imprisonment. Those, my Lords, are some of the principal and important general provisions of the Bill. The power of making regulations for the discipline of prisons is given to the Secretary of State, but I will not now embark on that subject. It is sufficient, I think, if I point out that before the Bill becomes law a copy of those regulations has to be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and that the Act will not become operative until those regulations have been approved of by both Houses, There is one clause—clause 5—in the Bill which raises the question to which a great deal of attention has been paid in the other House and in the country—namely, the question of corporal punishment in prisons. Undoubtedly there is a considerable body of people in this country, who are also to some extent represented in Parliament, especially in the other House, who would wish not only to modify the present regulations with regard to corporal punishment, but to do away with it altogether in prisons. I may say there is no question which the Secretary of State has given greater attention to, and has considered more carefully, than this question, and, after the very fullest consideration, he has decided that it is not possible or desirable that he should get rid of the power of giving

  409
  corporal punishment in certain cases. No doubt those cases may be very few, and, in fact, that they are few is shown by the returns. In 1897 there were only seven cases in the convict prisons, and 48 in the local prisons in which corporal punishment was inflicted. This power of inflicting corporal punishment is a power which it is desirable to retain. In the case of the most violent and most brutal class of prisoners it acts as a very useful deterrent against serious attacks on the warders. It is believed that if corporal punishment were abolished it would be necessary to have more stringent rules and regulations. But what the Secretary of State has agreed to is that the occasions when corporal punishment is to be used shall be very clearly laid down. The Bill provides that corporal punishment shall not be used except in the case of a prisoner under sentence of penal servitude, or convicted of felony, or sentenced to hard labour; or except for mutiny or incitement to mutiny, or gross personal violence to an officer or servant of the prison. A very long discussion has also taken place with regard to what the tribunal shall be who shall have to decide on the cases in which corporal punishment is to be inflicted. At the present time that is in the hands, in the case of local prisons, of the boards of visitors, or the visiting committees; but a strong suggestion, which was rather powerfully backed, was made that the tribunal for this purpose should be a judicial tribunal sitting in the ordinary way in open court, with all the ordinary procedure of a full judicial tribunal. My Lords, that was a suggestion that the Home Secretary was not able to agree to. It would be a perfectly new departure to introduce a judicial tribunal with regard to the internal management of a prison, which is really a question of prison discipline. It would probably give rise to very great inconvenience, and I think that before long the only result would be that corporal punishment would have to be done away with, rather than that in every case the question should be tried by a judicial tribunal in full open court, with all the ordinary procedure of such a court. A judicial tribunal of that sort, unless it was a court of summary jurisdiction, would lead to delay, which is very undesirable in these cases; and it is felt that
  410
  the board of visitors, or the visiting committee, if it is strengthened as is proposed, and is specially summoned for the purpose, so as to ensure a good attendance, would be a stronger and probably a more satisfactory tribunal than the chance justices who might be trot at a court of summary jurisdiction. It is proposed, therefore, in this Bill that the infliction of corporal punishment shall not be authorised except by order of the board of visitors or visiting committee of the prison, after inquiry on oath held by them at a meeting specially summoned for the purpose, and consisting of not less than three persons, two of them being justices of the peace. Power is taken for the Secretary of State, if he thinks fit, to appoint a metropolitan magistrate or stipendiary magistrate to take the place of the board or committee, and the magistrate, in any such case, has the same power as the board or committee. There may be cases where it would be impossible to get a satisfactory board of visitors or committee at the moment. It is also laid down that an Order under this section shall not be carried into effect until it has been confirmed by the Secretary of State, to whom a copy of the notes of evidence, and a report of the sentence, and of the grounds on which it was passed shall be furnished. My Lords, I think these proposals with regard to corporal punishment fairly carry out what all reasonable men think desirable, and that they meet to some extent the views of those who wish to see corporal punishment less frequent than it is, because, at all events, they lay down strictly and clearly the particular cases for which corporal punishment is to be inflicted. There is only one other point to which I think I need refer, and that is with regard to the visiting committees in local prisons. I think—in fact, I know from my own experience—that in some districts, since the management of the prisons has been taken over by the Government, there has been a feeling that as the magistrates have nothing to do with the management of the prisons, it is not very important whether they serve or not on these visiting committees. On the other hand, I understand that there are a great many places where there are most excellent boards of visitors, whose members

  411
  take very great interest in the work. I would only like to say that it is now proposed, under prison regulations which are already in force, that the powers of boards of visitors and visiting committees shall be very much strengthened. They will have a great deal of discretion given to them which they did not possess before, and it is hoped that as a result the State will gain the advantage of having more good men of local experience, who take an interest in the prisons, serving on these boards and committees than at the present time. The Secretary of State regards this as a matter of very great importance, and thinks that the independent views of a visiting committee are very useful in questions, which will arise with regard to prison discipline. My Lords, as I said before, I will not go further into the details of this Measure. I think I have succeeded in pointing out to your Lordships what the Bill proposes to do. The Bill will enable Parliament to have cognisance of the whole of the regulations as to prison discipline; it will ensure an amount of elasticity in those rules that has never been possessed before; it will enable the rules to be adapted to the age, sex, character, and special circumstances of the particular classes of prisoners; it will give a much more satisfactory classification of prisoners; and it will carry out many other reforms in prison discipline which have been recommended by the Prisons Commission. I hope, my Lords, that I have said enough with regard to this Measure to commend it to your Lordships' favourable consideration, and that your Lordships will consent to give it a Second Beading.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I quite agree with the opening remark of the noble Lord opposite, who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill, that the Bill is one of considerable importance. This is much more the case than would appear at first sight, because it is a Bill of details, but the details really involve principles of considerable magnitude. The Amendment as to the rules is a most excellent Amendment. As the noble Lord pointed out, hitherto the rules of both convict and local prisons have to a great extent been statutory rules, which could not be varied by any
  412
  authority without going to Parliament. By this Bill, for the first time the Secretary of State is empowered to alter any rule that might be in existence, and make any new rules he may think desirable. The provision that these rules shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and shall lie for 30 days on the Table, seems to me to be an excellent and perfectly sufficient safeguard as regards the powers entrusted to the Secretary of State. I attach very great importance to this change in the law. It has been, I believe, a great misfortune that there has not existed in the past a power of making the rules elastic, which this Bill will now give. The next point to which I attach, and to which the noble Lord has also properly attached, much importance is the provision as to visiting committees in convict prisons. My Lords, about 20 years ago I was chairman of a Commission appointed under the auspices of Lord Cross, who was then the Home Secretary, for inquiring into the convict prisons in this country and in Ireland, and amongst the many recommendations we made, which I am proud to think were nearly all adopted by Her Majesty's Government at that time, was one recommending that certain persons should be appointed from outside to visit the convict prisons. That, I have no doubt, has been found to be a useful provision, but I think it should be enlarged so that there should be regular visiting committees, as provided by this Bill, to inspect the convict prisons, and to make independent reports to the Secretary of State upon anything that appeared to them to be deserving of notice. There is nothing more prejudicial to the working of prisons than that suspicion should arise in the public mind owing to the amount of secrecy which naturally attaches to the management of prisons, and especially to convict prisons. There get abroad all kinds of stories, very often many of them unfounded, as to the manner in which the convict prisons are managed, and it seems to me that, to reassure the public mind, it is most essential that there should be free access to the prisons by certain persons, quite independent of the administration, of the prisons, and quite independent of the governor, who, as it were, represent the outside public, and who can report upon

  413
  anything which may appear to them to be deserving of notice. That, to a certain extent, supplies that outside element, without which there will be continual difficulty and complaints from time to time with regard to the management of our convict prisons. It is a rather curious thing that the usual period which elapses before the discontent of the public manifests itself in any marked manner is about 20 years. Twenty years elapsed between the Commission which was appointed to examine into convict prisons and the Commission of which I had the honour to be chairman. At the time that the Commission of which I was chairman was appointed very grave accusations had been brought against the management of the convict, prisons, but the result of our examination, which was most carefully conducted, went to show that upon the whole the administration of the convict prisons was a success, and that there were no serious abuses connected with them. Many improvements were, however, suggested. One improvement we suggested, I am happy to say, has been a marked success. I refer to what is called the "star" class, by which first offenders, or men who have only committed one offence so far as is known, and who by their antecedents are qualified for such class, are placed together, and not mixed with the other prisoners. I learn from the Report of the Commissioners, and from correspondence, that that improvement has turned out a very great success. The separation of these prisoners, who by no means belong to the regular criminal class, from the other prisoners is a humane provision as regards the prisoners themselves, and has, I learn, teen found to act well in preparing these prisoners to return to society again. They feel that they have been treated throughout with a certain amount of consideration, and that they have not been compelled to herd with prisoners of a deep dye. In speaking of the visiting committees in local prisons, my noble Friend alluded to the fact that visiting committees have, in some cases, regarded their duty as of minor importance, and have not exercised that influence that it was desirable that they should have. I must say I was one of those who, on the whole, regretted the change that was
  414
  made by the Act passed by Lord Cross to remove the management of prisoners from the justices of the peace, and to place it under the central Government. I am perfectly well aware that there were some exceedingly strong reasons for the change, one of which was that there was a want of uniformity in the prisons, and that there were advantages in central management which no one could deny. But, on the other hand, I always foresaw that there would arise a considerable amount of public dissatisfaction—which I hope this Bill will tend to remove—on account of the prisons being entirely under the Government, and there being no access to them from without. It is a wholesome thing, on the whole, that there is in this country a salutary jealousy of the Government. We do not like that the Government should be able to do anything which is not open to the public eye. I believe that by giving, as the Home Secretary now most wisely proposes to give, larger powers to the visiting committees, and a larger interest in the prisons, this suspicious, temper on the part of the public will, to a considerable extent, be removed, and confidence will be felt in the management of the prisons. I therefore welcome heartily the change contemplated by the new rules. I do not think there is any other provision in the Bill upon which I need trouble your Lordships with any remarks, except upon the one which the noble Lord spoke of last—namely, the new provision with regard to flogging. For my own part I think that the Home Secretary was right in refusing to relinquish altogether the power of flogging, either in convict or local prisons, but at the same time I hail with great satisfaction the concessions which have been made after discussion in the other House, by which the offences, for which flogging can, be inflicted are strictly limited to very grave offences indeed. Above all, I welcome the latest concession, wisely made, I think, by the Home Secretary, by which there is to be a quasi judicial inquiry by the visiting committee1, summoned for the purpose, two of whom are to be justices of the peace, into all sentences of flogging. I believe that to be a most salutary change, which will tend to prevent the possibility of flogging being inflicted except after due

  415
  and full examination, and without a fair and just view being taken of all the circumstances by those who would look upon the matter necessarily with a more impartial eye than those who are daily concerned in the management of prisons. I say this without implying the least reflection on the prison authorities. It would also tend, I think, to reduce the amount of flogging, already by no means large, to such a minimum as may be indispensable to the maintenance of proper prison discipline. My Lords, this Bill cannot—and I think my noble Friend indicated that—give by any means a true view of the reforms that are contemplated, because this Bill is confined only to such matters as require the sanction of Parliament before changes can be made. I gather from the discussions in another place, and from information I have had the opportunity of obtaining, that the whole system is likely to be in a wise manner examined and overhauled by the Home Secretary, and that under the new rules the treatment of prisoners will be adapted to the present condition of feeling in this country with regard to prison discipline. This is a matter upon which you cannot, as it were, lay down hard and fast rules never to be altered. The management of prisons is a most difficult and serious matter, and one upon which we are continually gaining fresh experience; and the condition of society and the temper of the people and public opinion have to be considered. Therefore I believe this Bill will introduce a wise and sound system by which the Government can exercise discretion in making changes, whilst Parliament may review those changes, and public opinion can, in that way, be brought to bear on any of the changes proposed. I repeat that I believe this to be a very salutary and useful Bill.
  Question put.
  Bill read a second time.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: There are several drafting Amendments, which I move be agreed to.
  Question put.
  Amendments agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I now move that the Bill do pass.
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to.

  EXPENSES OF HIGH SHERIFFS.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to ask what alterations have been made by the Treasury in regard to the payments to be made by high sheriffs in connection with their office, and whether such alterations extend to high sheriffs in Ireland. Some little time ago, I think it was in the year 1896, the Government undertook that there should be an inquiry by the Treasury into the payments which are made by high sheriffs in connection with their office. That inquiry took place in England, and I believe a similar inquiry took place in Ireland; and in the other House of Parliament in the present year the Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned that certain changes had been made in regard to some of those payments. My Lords, I have not seen that the details have been published or laid upon the Table of either House of Parliament, and I think your Lordships will agree with me that it is desirable that they should be made public in a form which will be seen, not merely by the persons holding the office of high sheriff, but by the public generally, and more especially by those who are liable to be called upon to serve in that office. My Lords, it is, of course, the expense which is connected with the office of sheriff which has occasioned so many persons to be unwilling to be named for that office, and it is, quite possible that if these reductions are considerable, there might be

  417
  some difference in the amount of unwillingness which persons generally display when their names are put forward. I wish also to ask whether the reduction in the expenses of the high sheriff extend to Ireland as well as to England. Some years ago I served upon a Committee which was appointed at my instigation to inquire into the payments made by high sheriffs both in England and Ireland, and we arrived at the conclusion, which was based upon facts laid before us, that the hardship was at least equal in Ireland. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be only just that whatever alterations are made in England should also extend to Ireland. I hope that may be the case.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I have had a correspondence with the Treasury and with some of Her Majesty's judges with respect to the expenses incurred by the high sheriffs in connection with their office. The Treasury inform me that they have directed certain payments to be made out of public funds in relief of the necessary expenditure of high sheriffs at assizes in England, and that a circular to that effect was issued to the high sheriffs in February last. If the noble Earl desires to have a copy of the circular, I am sure there would be no difficulty in obtaining one. The Treasury state that the change does not apply to Ireland, but I may add that that matter is under consideration.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, the noble Earl who has asked this question said that he believed the difficulty was as great in Ireland as in England. Well, I have a very close and intimate knowledge of this question, officially and otherwise, and I gay that the difficulty is far greater in Ireland. The noble Lord has understated the case. Owing to the expense attending the office of high sheriff, the difficulty of getting gentlemen to undertake it is far greater in Ireland than in England. The difficulty in Ireland is a great and steadily increasing one, for the office of high sheriff entails so much expense to country gentlemen.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I am glad to hear my noble Friend
  418
  say that, because there is no one who ought to be able to do more than the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to have this grievance attended to in Ireland, and I hope he will bear it in mind during the Recess. With the permission of the House, I will move that a copy of the circular, to which the noble Lord on the Woolsack has referred, be laid on the Table.
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE FUND) BILL.
  To be read the second time on Tuesday next. (The Earl of Dudley.)
  METROPOLITAN COMMON POOR FUND BILL.
  Read the first time, and to be printed. [No. 190.]

  LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments to be considered on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at 5.45.