Sitting of 1 June 1876

MINUTES.
Public Bills—Ordered—First Reading—Prisons [180]; Army Corps Training* [182]; Metropolitan Commons (Barnes)* [181].
First Reading—Statute Law Revision (Substituted Enactments)* [183].
Select Committee—Waterford, New Ross, and Wexford Junction Railway (Sale)* [148], nominated.
Committee—Commons [51]—R.p.
Committee—Report—Tramways Order Confirmation (Wantage)* [157]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation* [158]; Poor Law (Scotland)* [130–179].
Considered as amended—Small Testate Estates (Scotland)* [145].

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Order 131 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, be extended to Thursday the 8th day of this instant June.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—MR. HERBERT'S PICTURE.—QUESTION.
MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the First Commissioner of Works, If he would state to the House when Mr. Herbert, R.A., received his commission to paint a companion picture to the "Moses Delivering the Tablets of the Law" in the Peers' Robing Room; what is the sum he is to receive; what money on account has been paid to him; what are the dates of such payments; and, what progress has Mr. Herbert made with the work?
LORD HENRY LENNOX, in reply, said, the picture had been ordered in 1866, and the sum to be paid was £4,000. Since that time Mr. Herbert had received three instalments of £1,000 each. When he received the last in-

1515
stalment the work was three-fourths finished. Mr. Herbert then moved from one studio to another, and in the course of the transmission of goods from one studio to the other the picture was so seriously injured that this distinguished artist had to put it by and begin to paint another. The hon. and learned Gentleman he (Lord Henry Lennox) was sure would agree with him that it did not behove his Office to be too severe with regard to time. He might say that Mr. Herbert had, within the last year, rendered him much valuable time and service with regard to the preservation of the frescoes in that House, and he had rendered these services gratuitously. He hoped that towards the close of the year, notwithtanding all these delays, the work of this great artist would be completed.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS—TIDESWELL GRAMMAR SCHOOL.—QUESTION.
MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Vice President of the Council, If it be true that the Grammar School at Tideswell has been closed for three or four years past; and, if so, to state to the House why it has been closed, and whether any steps are being taken to have it re-opened?
VISCOUNT SANDON: I have referred the hon. Gentleman's Question to the Charity Commissioners, and I am informed that it is true the Grammar School at Tideswell has been practically closed for three years and some months. I am also informed that it is understood it has been closed principally on account of dissensions between the master and other members of the Governing Body. A scheme for the future administration of the school has been framed by the Charity Commissioners and has recently been passed by the Lords of the Committee of Council on Education, so that I trust after a short time the school will be re-opened.

INDIA—INDIAN GAOLS.—QUESTION.
MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If it is true, as stated in a letter published a few days ago, that prisoners in many of the Indian gaols are locked up at night in scores together, in single rooms; that the prison officers are in most cases convicts themselves, and that the prisons in India are
1516
manufacturing criminals through a general neglect of moral instruction, and of the simplest provision for separation, at any rate, by night; and, if the statements referred to be true, whether any steps have been taken to remedy the evils complained of?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: There is no doubt that overcrowding is an evil which has been complained of in Indian gaols, but in the new gaols steps have been taken to remedy this evil. The prisoners are, however, classified with great care. In certain prisons convicts are employed as gaol servants, but never in greater proportion than 12 per cent of the average strength of the prisoners. The various Governments in India have done much during the past few years towards improving gaols, both as to accommodation as well as to moral instruction and superintendence, and the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that this important subject will still continue to occupy their attention.

MALAY PENINSULA—THE BRITISH RESIDENT IN SALANPORE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to Despatches from and to the Governor of the Straits Settlements, lately published—viz. No. 19, of March 18th, 1875, and No. 23, of May 17th, 1875, and also with reference to a previous Despatch, No. 74, of January 30th, 1875, and enclosed letter from Mr. J. G. Davidson, Whether Her Majesty's Government has permitted an officer holding the appointment of British Resident in Salanpore to remain interested in private financial transactions with the Chief of that State, and to obtain commercial concessions from him?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: There has been a good deal of correspondence of a confidential character upon this subject, which in the interest of the public service it has not been considered advisable to publish. I may mention, however, that it was suggested to the Governor by the Secretary of State that, in consequence of commercial arrangements with the native officials, it would be preferable that some employment should be found elsewhere for Mr. Davidson, who is believed to be a most efficient public servant. I regret, however, to hear that

  1517
  this gentleman's state of health is such that his return home is expected very shortly.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL—SCHOOL FEES.—QUESTION.
  MR. RICHARD (for Mr. COLMAN)asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, under Clause 24 of the Elementary Education Bill, it is intended to give the different local committees authority to decide the ability of the parent to pay the ordinary school fee; and, whether it is the duty of such committees, if satisfied of the inability, to give the parent sufficient money to pay the said fee?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: It is certainly intended in the Elementary Education Bill that Boards of Guardians only should have the power of deciding as to the ability of parents to pay the school fee and of paying such fees, and not the committees which they or the Town Councils may appoint. If there is any uncertainty as to the wording of the clause, I shall take care to set it right in Committee.

PUBLIC HEALTH—MEDICAL OFFICER TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. WADDYasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he is prepared to state the intentions of the Government in regard to the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr. Simon as Medical Officer of the Privy Council? He also wished to ask the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is prepared to state the intentions of the Government in regard to the vacancy caused by the resignation of the Medical Officer of the Board, Mr. Simon?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: It is not proposed to fill up the post of Medical Officer to the Privy Council which has lately become vacant owing to the resignation of that most distinguished public officer, Mr. Simon. Any advice which the Privy Council may require upon medical questions will be obtained from the Medical Department of the Local Government Board.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply to the second Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, said, he had ap-
  1518
  pointed Dr. Seaton, the second Medical Officer, to be Medical Officer of the Local Government Board in the room of Mr. Simon. The office would not be exactly the same as that held by Mr. Simon, which was constituted by an Act of Parliament.

RAILWAY ACCIDENT COMMISSION—CASE OF FREDERICK HARCOMBE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M. A. BASSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the case of Frederick Harcombe, a goods guard lately dismissed from the service of the Taff Vale Railway Company, without the usual recommendation of character, in consequence of having given evidence before the Railway Accident Commission; and, whether he can suggest a remedy for such a proceeding, or any means by which Harcombe can be compensated for the loss he has sustained?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that he had received a complaint from this man, who said that he was dismissed by the railway company in consequence of the evidence that he gave before the Commission which was appointed to inquire into the question of Railway Accidents. It was quite clear that, as Secretary of State, he had no power to say what coursethe man ought to take in order to procure compensation if he had been wrongfully dismissed, nor had he the slightest power to inquire whether the railway company had sufficient justification for dismissing him. All he could say at the present moment was that he represented the man's case immediately to the railway company. Their statement was that they dismissed this man because he gave untrue evidence. That was a question which must be decided elsewhere, but he (Mr. Cross) thought it his duty to write a letter to the railway company, which, with the permission of the House, he would read—
  "The Secretary of State, while he is unable to give any direction, or offer any opinion as to the merits of a matter which is not within his jurisdiction, feels it his duty to point out the evil results which will follow if the notion were to get abroad that the fact of a servant in the employ of a railway company having given evidence before the Railway Commission, even if not quite in accordance with the views of his

  1519
  employers, were deemed a sufficient ground for his not being employed any longer by the company. The Secretary of State must further remark that in his judgment the responsibility incurred by any company adopting such a course would be serious, unless the grounds upon which they acted were very strong. It is obvious that a serious obstruction would be thrown in the way of the proper investigation by the Railway Commissioners of the questions brought before them if servants were to be under the dread of dismissal for the discharging faithfully a public duty, even though something might come out in evidence which was distasteful to their employers."
  He must throw the whole onus on the railway company; but they ought to be able to make a very strong case before taking such a proceeding as this.

NAVY—CONDEMNED PROVISIONS—THE RETURN.—QUESTION.
MR. PLIMSOLLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, When the Return showing the sales, &c. of Condemned Provisions by the Admiralty, which was ordered by the House at the commencement of the Session, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
MR. HUNT, in reply, said, that he could not say when the Return would be ready to be made public. Its preparation involved a great many inquiries, not only among Admiralty officials, but among auctioneers and others, and therefore he feared it would not be ready for some time.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—GRAIN CARGOES.—QUESTION.
MR. PLIMSOLLasked the President of the Board of Trade, If it is true that the order given last year to the Consul at Alexandria to expend a sum not exceeding two pounds per vessel, in seeing that sufficient shifting boards were used in British ships loading grain cargoes, has been withdrawn; and, if so, for what reason; and, if the same order has been withdrawn from any other port in the Black Sea or the Baltic?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: The order given to the Consul at Alexandria was withdrawn for a short time but renewed. The order has been withdrawn from Kertch and Taganrog on the Black Sea, because of the impracticability of any constant or general system of inspecting ships lading grain from thence, and from St. Petersburg, Memel, and Stettin,
1520
on the Baltic, because the grain export to England is very inconsiderable from those ports.

THE VICAR'S RATE AT HALIFAX.

  QUESTION.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention to introduce during the present Session a Bill in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Vicar's Rate, Halifax?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, the evidence had only lately appeared, and he had not as yet had time to go through it.

THE FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS ACTS—LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
MR. SAMPSON LLOYDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any steps this Session, or early next Session, to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the working of the Factory and Workshops Acts?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, it was not the intention of the Government to bring forward a measure founded on the Report of that Commission during the present Session. The Government were of opinion that it was necessary the country should have time to study all the recommendations of that Report, which was very voluminous. The question would have to be dealt with in the next Session of Parliament.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT, 1870—SCHOOL BOARDS.—QUESTION.
MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he can lay upon the Table of the House, Returns showing, by Counties, the number of School Boards which have and which have not schools under their management; also showing the number which have appointed visitors for such schools, and in the girls' schools lady managers, together with the cost of the staff of such schools?
VISCOUNT SANDON: I will put at the disposal of my hon. Friend the various Returns which we have bearing

1521
upon the subject of his Question, and I will at once lay upon the Table those which he thinks are likely to be of public interest.

THE SUEZ CANAL SHARES—PAYMENT OF THE INTEREST.—QUESTION.
MR. EVELYN ASHLEYasked, Whether it is true, as reported, that the half yearly interest on the Suez Canal shares has been paid to the credit of Her Majesty's Government?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I believe that it has been paid. I received a communication that the money had been ordered to be paid, and I sent to the Financial Department of the Treasury.—[Mr. W. H. Smith made a remark to the Chancellor of the Exchequer]. The money has been paid to-day.

TURKEY—MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether, before the House rises for the Whitsuntide Recess, it would not be convenient for the public service that he should give us some information as to the present state of affairs in Turkey?
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I have nomaterial information to give as to the present state of affairs in Turkey, beyond that which was communicated to the House on Tuesday by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I have, however, received a telegram from Constantinople since I came into the House, but it contains nothing interesting except this—that everything is tranquil there, and apparently the population is quite content. The Note described generally, I believe, as the Berlin Memorandum, has not yet been brought before the consideration of the Porte; and I should express a hope that it may not be necessary that it ever should be so brought. There is no doubt that the state of affairs is critical in that quarter; it would be affectation to deny it. Her Majesty's Government have taken such measures of precaution as they thought were necessary to maintain the honour and the interests of this country; and that policy of precaution they intend to
  1522
  pursue. At the same time, I wish most decidedly to state, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that it is their opinion that the interests of the country will be most studied by maintaining peace, and that the honour of England can never be more efficiently vindicated than by taking a leading part in contributing to the accomplishment of that object.

PARLIAMENT—THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
MR. DISRAELI: moved that the House, at its rising, should adjourn till Thursday next.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONasked what business would be taken on Thursday next, and also whether the Government intended to proceed with the second reading of the Education Bill on Monday, the 12th, as had been previously intimated?
MR. DISRAELIsaid, they would proceed on Thursday with the Commons Bill, if it was not finished to-night, and after that either Supply or the Poor Law Amendment Bill. On the Monday he hoped to be able to give further information as to the order of Business. It had never been formally announced that the Education Bill would be brought on on Monday, the 12th. There was other business which was still more pressing. He should feel it his duty, as he had stated on a former occasion, when they had concluded the Committee on the Commons Bill, to ask the House to consider the second reading of the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill—an important measure which ought not to be delayed; and after that he thought they ought to proceed with the University Bills, and then with the Education Bill.
In answer to further Questions from Mr. W. E. Forster and Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT,
MR. DISRAELIsaid, it would not be convenient to fix the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill for the first night after the holidays, but if the Commons Bill was concluded they would then take Supply.
Motion agreed to.
House at rising to adjourn till Thursday next.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
Ordered, That the Orders of the Day subsequent to the Commons Bill be postponed until after the Notice of Motion for leave to bring in a Bill for amending the Law relating to Prisons.—(Mr. Disraeli.)
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  COMMONS BILL— [Bill 51.]
  (Mr. Assheton Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 29 th May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  PART I.—LAW AS TO THE REGULATION AND INCLOSURE OF COMMONS.
  Applications in relation to Commons.
  Clause 4 (Explanation of adjustment of rights).
  MR. STANTONmoved, in page 4, line 11, after "land," to insert—
  "(4a.) The confirmation of any exchange of any portion of any Common for any adjoining land of equal or greater value, or any sale of any portions of any Common for the purpose of purchasing adjoining land of equal or greater value out of the proceeds of such sale: Provided, the Commissioners are satisfied that such exchange is beneficial to the interests in the Common affected by such sale or exchange, and that such exchange has been or shall be approved by the vestry or vestries of the parish or parishes in which such Common is situate, and provided that, in the case of any such sale as aforesaid, land of equal or greater value adjoining the Common has been or shall be purchased and thrown into the Common, or an equivalent improvement or benefit to the Common carried out."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSdid not object to the principle of the Amendment, but said there were certain legal difficulties in the way which he did not at present see the way to overcome, but he would give the matter further consideration.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WHITWELLmoved, in page 4, line 22, after "Common," to insert—
  "Provided always, That no such adjustment of rights shall prohibit the use of any Common or uninclosed land for the free passage of a person or persons thereupon for the purpose of going from place to place, or for the enjoyment of air, exercise, or scenery on foot or on horseback, in such, manner, freedom, and extent as such person or persons or other persons have heretofore been accustomed to enjoy."
  His object was to prevent any person from being deprived of any privilege
  1524
  which had been enjoyed from time immemorial, and he trusted that nothing would be done to prevent the free enjoyment over the broad expanse of mountain tracks which had hitherto existed.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSobjected to the Proviso, and said he thought it would be better to leave the matter as it now stood in the Bill.
  MR. LOPEShoped the Amendment would not be pressed. At present no express right was enjoyed by the public, and he did not think it desirable to confer upon them a right which did not now exist.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREapprehended that there was danger of those rights which had been acquired by custom being withdrawn in the absence of legal sanction, which the hon. Member for Kendal aimed at obtaining.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Explanation of improvement).
  MR. GREGORYmoved, in page 4, at end, to add—"5. The appointment from time to time of Conservators of the Common for the purposes aforesaid."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 ("Inclosure" means inclosure in manner provided by the Inclosure Acts) agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Provisions for the benefit of a neighbourhood applicable alike to orders for regulation and orders for inclosure).
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREmoved, in page 4, line 40, to leave out "may," and insert "shall."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Suburban Commons.
  Clause 8 (Sanitary authorities to be represented in the case of commons in the neighbourhood of towns).
  MR. A. MARTENmoved, in page 5, line 22, after "situate," to insert "either wholly or partly in any town or towns or."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. LOPESmoved, in page 5, line 22, after "Common," to insert "or any part of a Common."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEmoved, in page 5, line 38, after "aforesaid," to insert—
  "Provided that after the passing of this Act the Commissioners shall not entertain an application for the inclosure of a suburban Common."
  He thought there was no valid public reason for facilitating the conversion into private property of common land that was furnishing health, recreation, and enjoyment to the weary inhabitants of smoky towns. The powers of regulation would enable lords of manors and Commoners to improve waste lands for pasture without shutting out the public by fences, or transforming them into villas and streets; but if the alternative of inclosure or of regulation was given, the pecuniary profit of the former to individuals would outweigh the advantages to the public of regulation.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 38, after the word "aforesaid," to insert the words "Provided, That after the passing of this Act the Commissioners shall not entertain an application for the inclosure of a suburban Common."—(Mr. Cowper-Temple.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSopposed the Motion, urging that there were a great many commons to which the Amendment would not apply, and that it would be a very unjust, very injurious, and very inconvenient course to take, to decide by a hard-and-fast line, that no commons within a certain distance of a town should be inclosed. Every case must be judgedon its own merits; and there were several strong provisions in the Bill to enable the local authorities to prevent these commons being inclosed if they ought not to be inclosed. In his opinion, they had very much better leave this matter to the discretion of the local sanitary authorities.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsupported the Amendment, which he thought an extremely important one. He felt satisfied that unless they drew a cordon round the large towns and said these commons should not be inclosed, there would
  1526
  never be any application for their regulation. There might be an absolute prohibition of the inclosure of commons within a certain distance of populous towns. The principle in this clause had received the sanction of both Houses of Parliament, and although the different Bills on the subject had been lost, the clauses they contained embodying it had been agreed to.
  MR. GOLDNEYurged that some latitude should be allowed to corporations, who should be empowered to appropriate portions of their funds to the preservation of suburban commons in cases in which they thought it desirable to adopt that course.
  MR. WALTERpointed out the difficulties that would arise if a hard-and-fast line were drawn which should apply to commons within six miles of towns having 5,000 inhabitants equally with those which were within that distance from towns having 500,000 inhabitants, and stated that in his view the Committee should not hastily lay down an arbitrary rule of that character, which would disregard all local peculiarities and requirements. It being difficult to argue a point of this kind without having some particular case in view, he would take that of Windsor and Eton in illustration of his contention. Windsor and Eton contained some 14,000 or 15,000 inhabitants, to whom Windsor Forest, with its beautiful scenery and everything that conduced to their enjoyment, was always accessible, and could the Committee suppose that any great hardship would be inflicted upon those persons by some small and almost unknown common six miles away being inclosed? A similar observation might be made with reference to the commons near Richmond, the inhabitants of which town, also had the enjoyment of a fine park. For these reasons he was unable to support the Amendment.
  MR. FAWCETTdid not attribute the same importance as the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) did to the argument founded upon Windsor Forest and Richmond Park. For his own part, he preferred to walk over a common, because he could go where he liked and felt as if it was his own property. Words could be inserted in the Amendment which would restrain it from applying to small towns in the same way that it would to large ones. He hoped

  1527
  it would be pressed to a division. It had twice been accepted by both Houses of Parliament so far as its principle went. Without the Amendment it would be impossible to work the scheme of the Home Secretary, because the proposal to improve a common would be vetoed, and when nothing else could be done application would be made to Parliament to have the common inclosed.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEregretted the proposal had been made in so short and crude a form. He suggested that it should be withdrawn; but if it were pressed he must vote in its favour, as a protest against the inclosure of suburban commons.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 135: Majority 44.
  MT. STANTONmoved, in page 6, line 34, after "expedients" to insert—
  "Where any Common (whether situate within six miles of any town or not) is situate within six miles of any village or villages, or other populous place or places, containing in the aggregate not less than five thousand inhabitants, but not constituting a town, notice of any application under this Act in relation to such Common shall be served as soon as may be on the urban sanitary authority or authorities, or the rural sanitary authority or authorities having jurisdiction over any such village or populous place, and all or any of the powers conferred by this section upon the urban sanitary authority having jurisdiction over any town may be exercised by any urban sanitary authority or rural sanitary authority having jurisdiction over any such village or populous place.
  "When more than one sanitary authority is entitled to exercise the powers conferred by this section in respect of the same Common, the Inclosure Commissioners may consign the future management of such Common, under any order for its regulation, to a body composed in such proportions as they deem advisable, of representatives of all or any of such sanitary authorities, and may decide that certain parts of the parish or parishes in or near which such Common is situate shall be a contributory district for the purposes of this Act, and may make such rules for the election or nomination of such representatives by such sanitary authority as they think fit."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSobjected to the proposed Amendment, on the ground that it was not necessary. With respect to the mention of villages and places comprising 5,000 inhabitants, he might say there were no such places. This question had been discussed two years
  1528
  ago, and he was very sorry he could not now assent to it.
  MR. BRISTOWEsaid, he was sorry to have heard the Home Secretary express himself so. He could not understand how the inhabitants of a village, or place, or places in the neighbourhood of a common, and not having 5,000 inhabitants, should not have a right to appear as a representative body. It seemed to him altogether wrong, and he should certainly support the Amendment.
  MR. LOPESconsidered the Amendment unnecessary.
  MR. MARLINGsaid, there were many places having populations amounting in the aggregate to 5,000 and upwards, and it would be right that they should have a voice in the matter. The object of the Amendment was to give those somewhat scattered inhabitants the benefit they would have if more densely situated. They were anxious to have their commons regulated and improved, and were willing to bear their share of the expenses.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, if there was one thing which was more necessary than another, it was to give the scattered rural populations the same advantages as were given to the populations of towns, and on those grounds he should certainly vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend; but if the Government would bring up a clause having a similar object he should support it.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that hon. Gentlemen opposite, in the many Bills they had brought in on this subject, never introduced any such provision. What were rural sanitary authorities? They were here to-day and away to-morrow. He had no intention of doing what he was certain would lead the ratepayers into endless litigation.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREremarked that it was no answer to say that this provision had not been contained in former Bills which were introduced when people were ignorant of the extent of the common lands in England. He was ready to admit that it was a defect in former Bills that they did not contain this provision. He thought if there were several villages and places, the inhabitants of which amounted to 5,000, that they might apply to the Commissioners.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDsuggested that application might be made to the Guardians. He considered them a proper body through whom representations should be made, and he hoped the Home Secretary would give to all Boards of Guardians the power to make representations, and to have a voice in the matter. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to take the Guardians by the hand.
  LORD HENRY SCOTTcontended that if this Proviso were adopted they would be opening up a frightful source of public expenditure on the part of Boards of Guardians.
  MR. A. BROWNthought nothing more than was reasonable and desirable was asked.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, the Government had so much time at its disposal as to introduce a Bill that never was asked for. He was surprised to hear the Home Secretary speak of the Guardians in the manner he had described them—as "here to-day and gone to-morrow"—thus indicating that they were a body not to be trusted. He (Mr. Fawcett) submitted that the Guardians were the official persons; and if it was proposed to inclose a common they were the proper authorities to whom power on the question should be given. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary addressing the Members who sat on the front Opposition bench, used the tu quoque argument, saying—"Why did ye not bring forward a measure of this kind when ye were in power?" He maintained that the course taken by the Home Secretary was singularly unfair; and the moment they proposed anything that was not in the Bill of 1871, the Home Secretary said—"Oh, but that was not in the Bill of 1871."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSexplained that the object of the clause was to empower the rural sanitary authorities to contribute to the funds for the improvement of the commons, and give compensation for the rights of the commoners. The question of notice would be dealt with in Clause 10.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, he was surprised that the Home Secretary should treat the Board of Guardians with contumely. In the Education Bill he had not treated them as bodies that were "here to-day and gone to-morrow," but had entrusted them with the
  1530
  permanent administration of the educational affairs of the rural parishes.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOTcongratulated the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) on the change of his views in regard to the rural authorities, and inquired of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) his authority for saying that there were only 1,500,000 acres of common in England. He hoped the Home Secretary would stand to his guns and not make the concession asked for, because the more concessions he made the more were required.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDtrusted the Committee would insist upon the carrying out of two objects—first, that notice should be served upon the rural sanitary authorities as authorities, and not merely as individuals; and, secondly, that they should have the power to do certain things which at present they had not the power of doing for the benefit of those whom they represented.
  MR. PELLexpressed a hope that the Government would adhere to their proposition, for he was quite convinced that the sanitary authorities had quite a sufficient number of matters to attend to at the present time.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREexplained that he had taken his figures from Doomsday Book, and judging from the Returns given for the Home Counties, with which he was personally acquainted, he was induced to think the total correct. The Inclosure Commissioners who, in 1870, stated that there were between 8,000,000 and 9,000,000 acres of uninclosed common land, now stated that there were only 2,500,000 acres; but he thought their estimate was still too large and that the Doomsday Book was nearer the mark.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 79: Majority 24.
  MR. WHITWELLmoved the insertion of the word "three" instead of "five" in page 6, line 41, the object being that the word "town" in the clause should be held to mean a place with 3,000 inhabitants, and not the greater number.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 41, to leave out the word "five,"

  1531
  in order to insert the word "three."—(Mr. Whitwell.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought that by adopting the number of 5,000 the Government had gone quite far enough.
  Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 46: Majority 18.
  MR. SANDFORDmoved, in page 7' at end of line 4, to add—
  "The powers conferred by this section upon the urban sanitary authority of acquiring by gift and holding any suburban Common, and any rights in such Common, and of purchasing and holding any saleable rights of Common or any tenement of a commoner having annexed thereto rights of Common, may be exercised by the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses acting by the council of any borough constituted such either before or after the passing of this Act (whether they are the urban sanitary authority or not), with respect to any Common within seven miles of such borough, whether the borough have a population of not less than five thousand inhabitants or not."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHpointed out that the Amendment might have the effect of giving these burgesses power to charge rates outside of their district, but promised that it should be considered before the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, "That the Clause do now pass,"
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked why the urban authority should be compelled to purchase the land as well as the rights of common in respect to such places within a certain distance of towns? Why should they not have power to purchase the rights of common and hold them for the benefit of the people?
  MR. GOLDNEYobserved, that any right whatever could be purchased under the Bill as it stood; and he thought that it would be sufficient to meet everything that was required.
  Clause agreed to.
  Procedure.
  Clause 9 (Issue of forms by Commissioners) agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Rules as to application to Commissioners) agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Rules as to local inquiry) agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Rules as to provisional orders).
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREmoved an Amendment, the object of which was that whilst the assent of two-thirds of the commoners should be required before any common could be inclosed, and while the lord of the manor should have a veto on that transaction, that the assent of one-half of the commoners should be sufficient to regulate the common, and the veto of the lord of the manor should in the case of mere regulation be abolished.
  Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 25, after the word "order," to insert the words "for the inclosure of a Common."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not see why the veto should not apply to regulations, considering that the same rights were involved as in inclosure, and he objected to reduce the proportion of assents because liability to be rated for improvement would follow.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEobserved that regulation would not deprive the the lords of manors of their rights in the soil, nor the commoners of their use of it, as inclosures did.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsupported the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 74: Majority 31.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREmoved in page 14, line 42, after "Commons," to insert "with such modifications, if any, as to Parliament seem fit," the object being to enable such defects as might be found in the original scheme to be amended.
  Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 24, after the word "Common," to insert the words "with such modifications, if any, as to Parliament seem fit."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSScould not accept the Amendment. The scheme would be drawn up after certain consents had been obtained. If a power of

  1533
  altering it were given, the scheme might become altogether different from that to which the consents had been given.
  MR. A. BROWNsupported the Amendment, on the ground that in the original scheme some minor points might have been overlooked which it would be desirable to provide for.
  LORD HENRY SCOTTopposed the Amendment.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the original design of the Home Secretary was to bring all the details of a scheme under the review of Parliament. As the Bill stood the Standing Committee, no matter what the defects of the scheme, would not be able to add a single acre to the recreation ground of the public or the allotment grounds of the poor. They must either accept or reject as a whole the Provisional Order. Considering that the very essence of the Bill was to bring these schemes under the review of Parliament, the measure would be a perfect farce without such provisions as he had proposed.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, under the existing law when Provisional Orders were passed by the Inclosure Commismissioners, the Home Secretary had to bring in a Bill for their confirmation, and he did that with the whole strength of the Government in the House of Commons at his back. It was to that he objected. He therefore fell back upon a Standing Committee who would go through all the details and see whether those schemes were such as in their opinion ought to be presented to Parliament. The bringing in of a Bill in that case would be purely a Ministerial act. But if they were to say that this Standing Committee might alter what had been agreed upon that would be quite another thing.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDopposed the Amendment, on the ground that if they passed an Act saying a scheme should be dependent on certain consents, they should not turn round when those consents had been obtained and allow something else to be done. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that the measure should be so altered as to provide for schemes being adopted which had the assent of all the persons interested in the commons to be dealt with.
  MR. KNIGHTsaid, if the Amendment were adopted, it would be unsafe
  1534
  for persons to apply for an inclosure, as they would be completely in the power of the Committee.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEpointed out that Committees on Private Bills had power to alter the schemes submitted to them. It was possible that as this Amendment was now worded, the parties would not be able to withdraw from their proposal if they disapproved of the changes made; but that difficulty could easily be met by an addition to the Amendment.
  MR. FAWCETTbelieved the Home Secretary would have met with stronger opposition at the earlier stages of the Bill, if it had been understood that he meant to leave everything to the Inclosure Commissioners, whose decisions the Standing Committee could not revise.
  MR. DODSONsuggested that the Home Secretary should bring up a clause which would place the parties to an inclosure before the Select Committee in the same position as the promoters of a private Bill, and enable them to withdraw the scheme if they did not like any change which was made in it. If the right hon. Gentleman would not assent to that course, it would be desirable that the hon. Member for Reading should divide the Committee on his Amendment, though it did not fully solve the difficulty.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary proposed to give to a Standing Committee powers which he objected to confer upon the House. For his part, he objected to any such power being given to the proposed Committee, and he hoped the proposal would be rejected.
  MR. GREGORYthought the clause as it stood proposed a convenient as well a reasonable mode of procedure.
  MR. BRISTOWEobjected to the method proposed by the Home Secretary, that these Provisional Orders should be submitted to a Standing Committee of that House, simply for acceptance or rejection, without giving such a Committee the power of going into details, and making such alterations as they might think reasonable. A doctrine of that kind, if acted upon, would furnish a very unsatisfactory precedent for the conduct of Select Committees, and one which, so far as he knew, was altogether foreign to the practice of the House of Commons.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the object of the Bill was to put the Select Committee in the place of the Secretary of State, who at present could make no alteration in schemes and could only refuse to bring forward the Bill embodying them. If the Select Committee had power to alter the particular schemes, it could only be after hearing the parties; but the result of such an arrangement would be much in favour of the rich man, for the poor persons interested could not afford to appear. A local inquiry, where all parties could be heard, was the cheapest and simplest way of making any changes in a scheme. Sir George Grey, when at the Home Office, would not allow alterations to be made in an inclosure scheme even in this House, because the parties interested had consented to the scheme as it stood, and it would be unjust afterwards to alter the scheme without hearing them. In the same way he proposed when the Bill embodying these schemes went before the Committee that they should have before them the documentary evidence and say whether a particular scheme was one which, in their opinion, Parliament ought or ought not to accept. He was willing to confer with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) before the Report; but he could assure the Committee that there were practical difficulties, and meanwhile he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  MR. DODSONsaid yes; the subject was one of difficulty, and here was a defect in the measure to which there were great objections. The observations which the right hon. Gentlemen addressed to the Committee were an argument against the whole Bill. It seemed to be a Bill for relieving the Secretary of State from responsibility and throwing it upon the Standing Committee. It was going very far to say that a Select Committee, of this legislative body, should have no power to alter and modify a scheme because the Secretary of State, who was an Executive officer, had no such power.
  MR. GOLDNEYopposed the Amendment.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREstill retained his opinion that a Parliamentary Committee ought to have power to deal with the details of schemes. He had always understood until now that the intention
  1536
  was that the Committee should have the power of making modifications.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 99: Majority 43.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 13 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.
  In reply to the Marquess of HARTINGTON,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Commons Bill would be taken as the First Order on Thursday, after which Supply would stand next if the Bill was got through in sufficient time. Then on the following Monday the First Order would be the second reading of the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, and if there was time afterwards they would proceed with the University of Oxford Bill. On Thursday, the 15th, they hoped to take the second reading of the Elementary Education Bill.

PRISONS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill for amending the Law relating to Prisons, said: In a paragraph of Her Majesty's most gracious Speech it was intimated that a measure would be introduced into Parliament, in the first place, for promoting economy and efficiency in the management of Prisons; and secondly, at the same time for effecting the relief of local burdens. I therefore now rise to lay before the House the measure we have to propose in regard to England. Of course, some analogous measures will follow in due time, both with regard to Ireland and to Scotland, which will be brought in respectively by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland and by the Lord Advocate. I shall confine my observations to-night entirely to the case of England. The subject resolves itself into two questions; first, the condition of our prisons, and, secondly, the expense of their management. Both of

  1537
  these matters have been brought before my notice not only as a Member of Parliament, but as a magistrate of some standing. They were specially brought before my notice in 1874 by a deputation which waited on me at the Home Office from the Social Science Association. That deputation pointed out that, although the Act of 1865, which has done so much to improve not only the discipline of our prisons, but their entire management, has worked very well—and in its main features we do not propose to interfere with it, subject to certain exceptions—still there was a great want of uniformity of discipline in the prisons throughout the country, a great want of efficiency in many of those prisons, and a great amount of unnecessary expense, owing to the excessive number of our prisons. Further, that there was a great mistake made in having regard too much to penal labour as opposed to industrial labour; and perhaps the result of that may be traced and may be seen very visibly, not only financially, but also morally, as far as our prisons were concerned. Therefore, this matter demands our attention with the view to two objects—first, to secure more uniformity of discipline in prisons, and secondly, if possible, to reduce expenditure on their management. The subject was brought forward in a different shape in 1872 by my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon(Sir Massey Lopes) when the celebrated Resolution upon Local Taxation was passed by the House. And one of the main points that was insisted upon by my hon. Friend at that time was the fact that all the expenditure incurred for prisons, and which amounted, as he gave it, on an average of the previous four years, to £590,000 a-year, less, of course, the sum which must be deducted as being the grant from the Treasury—namely, about £99,000 per annum, was fairly an Imperial and not a local charge—that is to say, that our prisons and our whole system of gaol discipline were kept up for the safety not only of real property, but of personal property, which did not pay its share, and not for the safety of property simply, but for the protection of life. The great aim of my hon. Friend's speech was to show that many charges were Imperial charges and not local ones merely, as they had been hitherto regarded. Now, both of those considerations must be
  1538
  borne in mind when we come to deal with the question of prisons. I have certainly no wish to squander public money in any way that is not useful, neither would I ask the House to consent to give any money from Imperial funds except for Imperial purposes. I do not think that money ought to be granted from the Imperial Exchequer, unless there be good reason for granting it, and unless it can be shown that not only will it improve the discipline in our gaols, and also reduce the expenditure upon them generally, but likewise that some substantial advantage will accrue to the country from the Imperial Exchequer giving greater aid than it now gives. Now, what is our system of gaols in England at present? We have 116 county and borough gaols. That gives one gaol to an average of 22 square miles, and one to about every 200,000 of the population. The average cost, I think, this year or in some previous year, for all the gaols, is about £27 2s. per head for the prisoners. The greatest number of prisoners in gaol in England at one time was 52,500, while the daily average number in gaol was 18,500. But when you come to look at the question of gaol accommodation you will find it very unequally distributed throughout England. I will take, in the first place, the distribution and proportion of prisons that exist to the population. I find that in Rutlandshire there is one gaol to 20,000 inhabitants. In Lincolnshire there are seven gaols, or one for every 48,000. In Worcestershire there is one gaol for 338,000. In Lancashire there are six gaols, or one for469,000. In Middlesex there are five gaols, or one for 507,000. In Surrey there are two gaols, or one for 445,000. In Stafford there is one for 858,000. But the distribution does not quite stop there, because I find that in some places the proportion is different. In Leicester there are two gaols, one for the borough and one for the county. The county gaol is for 174,000 inhabitants, the borough gaol for 95,000. There is sufficient room in the county gaol for the whole of the prisoners, so that there is a great waste in respect of the gaols in Leicestershire. In Northampton the county gaol is for 199,000, and in the borough for 5,000. Therefore, all the borough prisoners could be accommodated in the county gaol. In Lincoln there are not less than three prisons—

  1539
  one for the county, one for the city, and one for the parts of Lindsey; but the county gaol at Lincoln is capable of accommodating all the persons in the other two prisons. If we look at the distribution of the gaols you will find a very great difference in the way they are accommodated according to the population and the number of prisoners in those gaols. Take another test as to whether the gaols are well distributed or not at the present moment. Take the average daily population of prisons; there are only 12 which have an average population of more than 400. On the other hand, there are 12 which have an average population of 12 or under 12, and there are about 49 of the small prisons whose daily average varies from 49 to 2. We find that some of the prisons are very large. In Coldbath Fields there is room for 1,674; in Liverpool for 1,016; in Wakefield for 1,253; whereas in Rutland the average proportion is 5, and in Tiverton 2. Therefore, when we have to consider this matter and compare the large gaols with the small ones, it is evident that there must be a great waste about our gaols. In 40 gaols there is a daily average of 15,000 persons. As you might expect in this state of things, the expense of the prisoners in the different gaols must vary very much, and it could not be expected to be otherwise. Take some of the larger of these 40 gaols and the average number of prisoners, the expense of each in Stafford is £22 19 s. 8d.; in Manchester, £17 1s. 5d.; in Salford, £15 1s. 1d.; whereas, in the smaller prisons—as, for instance, in Tiverton—the cost per head is £104 11 s. 7d., in Lincoln it is £114 11 s. 7d., and in Oakham it is £150 4s. 2d. You have not to go very far before you find the reasons for these heavy charges. You have, first of all, a staff of officers for the small prisons which must be more expensive in proportion to the population than those for the large prisons. I find that in Tiverton there are five officers for the daily average of less than two prisoners; in Lincoln there are nine officers for a daily average of 11 prisoners; in Oakham there are six officers for a daily average of five prisoners. That is to say, in 30 small prisons there is one officer to every two prisoners, and in the large prisons there is one officer to every nine prisoners, and in the Lancashire gaols there is one officer to every 12 prisoners.
  1540
  The result of this difference in the proportion of the staff to the number of prisoners is that there is a corresponding difference in the amount of the cost of each prisoner. Another reason why the expenses are so great in some gaols is that in the smaller gaols it is necessary to keep a larger staff to provide for the fluctuations in the number of prisoners than is required in the larger gaols. It is also quite clear that the smaller prisons cannot command the services of such an efficient staff as the larger gaols, and it is also self-evident that from want of occupation the staff of the former must occasionally be subject to deterioration. I think that I have, at all events, shown the House that there is room for improvement, and that if we are to make any grants of money, we must expect to see a better prison system established. But there is another matter as important—that which regards the discipline of the gaols. Every one knows that the Gaols Act of 1865 was most carefully drawn, and that its provisions were very carefully considered, and that it has worked well in every way. But there is no doubt that the subject of discipline is a difficult one. There is a conflicting jurisdiction given to the Secretary of State as opposed to the Justices. In some instances the Justices have too many restrictions imposed upon them, and in some cases the Secretary of State does not possess sufficient power. It is, however, difficult to draw the exact line. There is a very great difference in regard to the sentences on prisoners. When a man is sentenced to 12 months' hard labour the Judge supposes that he will receive the same treatment as other prisoners. But the contrary is the case, for what is hard labour in one gaol will be found easy for the prisoner in another. So far as regards the tread-wheel, the ascent at Carlisle is 14,000 feet per day. At Edinburgh it is only 9,600 feet. At Derby it is not more than 7,500 feet. In some prisons the hard labour is three hours per day. In others I find it to be 10 hours. In the case of stone-breaking in some gaols, a prisoner has to break 10 cwt. daily, whilst in others he has to break 20 cwt., whilst in other gaols there is no particular fixed quantity. In some prisons a prisoner is allowed an interest in work, whilst in others he is allowed nothing of the kind. Then, with respect to another kind of

  1541
  work—the crank—there is a great difference in the way in which the prisoners are treated. In 36 gaols they are employed in this manner, and in 75 they are not employed at all, in some cases only for a few days, and in others for a few months. The result is that anyone who examines into the subject will find that what is called hard labour is not uniformly carried out in our gaols. Then again in the matter of diet there are great differences. It is true the dietaries are sent to the Secretary of State, and they are drawn up by the Visiting Justices, guided it may be by the supervision of the medical officer; but anyone who goes through these dietary tables will find great differences which have escaped the notice of the Secretary of State. Then in the case of discipline; in some cases there is entire separation; the men work in masks, and no speaking at all is allowed; in some the labour is done in association; in some there is imperfect separation. There are just the same differences in education, punishment, and supervision. I do not for a moment contend that all gaols should be carried on according to one stereotyped pattern; but I think there should be a greater approach to uniformity in our gaol management throughout the country. On the whole, it is pretty clear that the public pay more for their gaols than they ought to do; and it is equally evident that they do not get the best article for their money. But the great difficulty of dealing with this question arises from the fact that these prisons are maintained mainly out of the local rates raised under local jurisdiction. It would be very easy for us to do what we are often asked to do—namely, to pay the Treasury allowance for convicted prisoners, which amounts to 4s. a week, for unconvicted prisoners, and to increase that allowance. Such an increase, however, would in no way increase the efficiency of the gaols, although no doubt it would tend largely to increase the expenditure. It cannot be doubted that great waste results from the maintenance of the smaller gaols by the local authorities, and that that waste is so great that the Government would not be justified in asking Parliament to grant a further charge upon the Imperial revenue, unless they stated their intention to adopt a course which will materially improve the discipline of the gaols, and will reduce rather than in-
  1542
  crease the expenditure upon them. The Government have seen these great discrepancies in the numbers of the populations for which the prisons are built. They have seen that it is perfectly impossible in the present state of things to alter this, because you cannot expect one district to build with a view of accommodating its neighbours. It would be absolutely impossible, as things are now, to bring the expense of each prisoner to the same level, and it is therefore better to make considerable changes. It is proposed, therefore, that the Government itself, instead of supplementing local rates for the purposes of prisons, shall take the whole expenses of all prisoners from the moment they are committed, and take the management of all the gaols into their own hands. That, of course, would give the Government this power. It would enable the Government so to arrange that there would not be waste in the first instance in building prisons where they are not wanted; it will enable the Government so to arrange the prisons that they shall be adapted to the populations in which they are situated; it will enable the Government to save all the waste of staff appointments, and practically enable them to carry out a system of discipline equally in all the goals in the country. Besides that, there would be a great saving of expense, and I think I shall be able to show that by this proposal there will be saved to local jurisdictions a much larger sum than will be charged by the Government to the Treasury. The first item in which saving would be effected is the closing of unnecessary prisons. This was done to a limited extent by the Gaols Act of 1865; but the Secretary of State had no power under that Act to order them to be closed. If the measure which I am now explaining to the House is passed, we shall be able to close over 50 of the 116 prisons now in existence, the remainder being quite ample for the reception of the prisoners we have lately been in the habit of having in gaol, or we are likely to have for some time to come. This would effect a great saving of money in many ways, and, among others, in reference to the staff of officers it will be necessary to maintain. We have considered the question very carefully, and we do not think that the abolition of the prisons to which I have alluded will

  1543
  materially increase the cost of conveying prisoners from the places at which they are committed to the prisons in which they will have to serve their sentences. The next item on which a saving would be effected is the earnings of the prisoners. I find that in one prison the earnings of prisoners are close upon £10 per head per year; in another the sum is a little over £6; in a third the average earnings amount only to 6s. 9¾d. per head per annum; whereas in the Convict Prison at Pentonville each prisoner earns, apart from the labour on buildings, which would materially increase the amount earned, on an average £9 a-year. We have no reason to doubt that if all these prisoners were under the same discipline and properly grouped together the amount of money they earn would not be as large as is now earned in the best managed convict prisons, and we believe also that it would go on continuously increasing. Again, it is quite obvious in the small prisons they cannot afford to pay for instructors to teach the prisoners. The third item of saving which will arise from doing away with 50 prisons will be considerable—that is to say, in the cost of repairs. The result of all this, if the House sanctions the scheme, will be that we shall not make any serious inroad on the Imperial Exchequer, and we shall save very much more to the local jurisdictions than the present charge. The total average cost for 1872, 1873, 1874, and 1875 of the county and borough prisons is £592,390; and deducting from that the interest on the loans obtained for building prisons—namely, £42,472—it will leave the actual cost of the prisons at £549,918. Now, the funds that have hitherto been made have run as follows:—The profits upon prison labour amount to £50,312, and some small contingent receipts, in round numbers £8,000. From the rates there have been paid £392,000; from the public revenue £99,100. We propose that the gaols shall be handed over to the Government, and it will be carried out in this way. We have no doubt that by closing superfluous prisons we should be able to effect a saving at once of £50,000 or £60,000. We have no doubt also that there will be an increase in the value of labour of £50,000. This, therefore, would only leave a charge upon the public revenue of £385,000. Taking the small contingent receipts into
  1544
  account, this will be somewhat increased, so that practically there would be a saving from local rates of £392,000, and only an additional charge upon the public revenue of £285,000. In doing this, therefore, we should, in round numbers, save to the local jurisdictions something like £100,000 more than the expenditure which we propose. I think that this alone would be a satisfactory result, taking into consideration the improvement which will, no doubt, be brought into existence in discipline and good management, and also in the good conduct of the prisons and of the prisoners themselves, for we should go much more into the question of industrial as against penal labour, and this would practically be a great matter, and would, we believe, tend very much to the diminution of crime. Of course, two or three questions will be asked, and I would very shortly state the provisions of the Bill that have been framed to carry out our scheme. We propose that this Act shall come into operation at the commencement of the next financial year. It will be quite impossible that in undertaking this scheme you should take immediately all these things over. You must have a certain number of months for carrying out your scheme of reduction, therefore we do not propose to take the matter into our own hands until the end of March, 1877; but from that day all the expenses incurred on prisons and for the prisoners therein will be defrayed out of monies to be provided by Parliament. As to local jurisdictions, from the time of a man going to prison as a committed prisoner they will practically cease. Of course, we have no notion of buying the gaols, for if we did that we should have to pay a very large sum of money; and therefore we say that the prisons and the furniture and effects belonging thereto shall be handed over to the Secretary of State for the purpose of keeping prisoners there. Although I say that they are to be handed over to the Secretary of State, and he shall act in reference to the appointment of all officers, and shall have the control and custody of the prisoners and all the power of the Quarter Sessions and the Visiting Justices shall be primarily vested in the Secretary of State, I do not mean to propose that the Secretary of State should administer a matter of this kind. I propose—following the recom-

  1545
  mendation of the Commission that sat a long time ago—that there shall be established Prison Boards, which shall practically carry out all the details of this question. I propose that there should be Prison Boards composed of a certain small number of members for this purpose, and to be called Prison Commissioners, and that they should have the general superintendence of prisons under this Bill vested in them, but subject to the control of the Secretary of State. One question to be considered will be the appointment of officers, for the question of patronage will, no doubt, be considered. As Secretary of State I have no wish to have the slightest amount of patronage more than I can help, for nothing more encumbers a Minister or gives him more trouble and anxiety; but I propose that the appointment of the superior officers should be in the Secretary of State, of course taking the opinion of the Visiting Boards, but all the rest of the subordinate officers shall not be appointed by the Secretary of State, but by the Prison Commissioners themselves. This will take a vast amount of patronage from the Secretary of State, and the Boards would administer it more satisfactorily than he could. One advantage of this will be that, by being all together, there will be a much greater flow of promotion in the service, and a much greater inducement to officers to work well than there is at present, and practically you will get a much better staff of officers than you have had down to the present. I do not, however, find any fault with the existing officers, who I think are exceedingly satisfactory. But there is another question which hon. Members will be asking—What are you going to do with your Prison Inspectors? It is quite clear that there must be Inspectors. You cannot well work even 50 gaols from London without some one to visit them. We propose not to keep up the Prison Inspectors as at present, but to give the Prison Commissioners certain assistants, who will visit periodically the gaols, reporting to the head quarters in London. There is also one valuable body that I should be very sorry to lose, I mean the Visiting Justices. It is absolutely necessary when dealing with prisons of this kind that there should be that supervision and constant visiting that you cannot get except from the Visiting
  1546
  Justices. You must have an army of Inspectors without this; and although the whole control of the prisons and officers will be in the Prison Commissioners, or Assistant Commissioners, yet I do propose that in the counties and boroughs there should be, though in a somewhat different way, appointed by Quarter Sessions, Visiting Justices, as heretofore. I propose that this committee should not have the same extended powers of actually ruling the prisons as at the present moment; but the Prison Commissioners should visit from time to time any prison and report upon it. It is also quite necessary that prisons should be under the constant action of the visiting Justices, so that the public should be satisfied that the prisoners were properly taken care of, and that there should be an independent body of Justices, who would inform the Secretary of State if there was anything wrong. There is another point, and that is about the prisoners themselves. The House must know very well that counties are divided for prison purposes, that there are for this purpose boroughs, cities, and divisions of counties, and in every such case the Prison Board is bound to provide by the Act a prison. Most counties have built their prisons; but many places not having prisoners enough to build a prison for, have very properly not thought of building a prison, but have put their prisoners out in some neighbouring jurisdiction, paying a certain sum, not merely for their board, but also for the accommodation they have in the prisons. We propose that this Bill shall not come into operation until the end of the financial year, and we shall have time to see how this work is performed. We should then say to these places that if it could be shown that they had provided accommodation fit for the daily average of prisoners for the last five years, when they had done all that the law required of them, that the Government should take possession of the gaols. Those places which have not provided this accommodation, but have put out their prisoners into other jurisdictions, we should say this to them—We would take the daily average of prisoners for the last five years and that they should pay the equivalent of the cell accommodation that they would require. I would, however, also say that we should not propose that they should

  1547
  pay in cash, but that we should be perfectly ready to lend them money from the Public Works Loan Commissioners and that they should pay interest upon it at a certain rate. There are, of course, some jurisdictions which have provided prisons, and some which have not. Yet the latter have practically done so by contributing to the prisons of their neighbours. Where that course has been followed we propose to take that into consideration. When the prisons are discontinued we shall, of course, be perfectly ready to let the jurisdictions have their prisons back again under specified conditions. Or if it be preferred, we shall sell the prisons for them, and any surplus that may be received we shall hand over to the jurisdictions. I do not think I need trouble the House further with the provisions of this Bill. All I can say is that I believe if it is carried out we shall do exactly what was stated in the Queen's Speech—namely, produce a measure which will undoubtedly "promote economy and efficiency in the management of Prisons, besides being a measure which will largely relieve local burdens."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for amending the Law relating to Prisons."—(Mr. Assheton Cross.)
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, that, in so far as the Bill would secure greater uniformity in the management of prisons, and would enable them to shut up many costly and practically useless gaols, he thought it was a good measure. He was delighted to think that the Government were inclining more towards industrial than towards penal labour. He admitted that there would be a difficulty in shutting up these prisons and grouping them unless the Government took the matter up. The localities would not easily agree to a proposal for grouping the small prisons, and he really believed they would make a harder fight before giving up their gaols than in parting with one of their Representatives. The right hon. Gentleman had certainly bid high for the surrender; but he must enter his protest against the way in which he was dealing with this question of local government. He did not intend that the taxpayer should not be called in to the relief of the rate-
  1548
  payer. That must be the case; but when he was so called in he was entitled to make conditions that the relief given should be accompanied by such reforms that he should not be called upon for further contributions. He against rendering all these gifts from the Imperial Exchequer without insisting on those reforms which could be made palatable and possible by means of those gifts only. The right hon. Gentleman was proceeding in a very dangerous course in thus touching the question of local government here and there, and fragmentarily, instead of dealing with it in a statesmanlike and comprehensive manner. The Government gave largely out of the Exchequer last year, but had there been an equal corresponding diminution of the rates? He was afraid that an attempt was to be made to pass a Highways Bill without even that Valuation Bill which had a little modicum of reform in it, and without which it would only intensify the inequality between one Union and the other. He trusted that if the House surrendered the public money in proposals of this kind, it would insist on some useful reforms as part of the consideration.
  MR. PELLsaid, he agreed with a good deal that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman, but he had omitted to apply his remarks to the Bill. The Home Secretary had clearly shown the enormous waste in prison management and the inequality and want of uniformity in the treatment of prisoners. The scheme of the Government would, he thought, effect an enormous saving of expenditure on local funds by means of a comparatively small contribution from the Imperial funds. He had himself reckoned up from 55 to 60 small prisons that might be disposed of, and which had only 1,600 prisoners among them, although they had a staff of 487 officers. This gave an average of three officers for 10 prisoners, a number for which in larger prisons one officer would be sufficient. The reduction in the number of prisons proposed by the Government would leave an adequate proportion of prisons to the population. In some prisons the prisoners were maintained for 1s. a-day, and their earnings still further reduced their cost from £16 to £10 a-year; but at Lincoln the cost was 6s. 3d. a-day and there were no earnings

  1549
  at all. No Government could rightly permit this state of things to continue without making an effort to change it, and if it involved any charge upon the Exchequer it was for purely national purposes. There could be no valid objection to the principle of the Government assuming the cost of maintaining prisons. So far as he understood the proposal of the Home Secretary, it appeared to be good, proper, and timely.
  MR. WHALLEYcomplained that the Home Office did not co-operate with the Justices in matters of this kind, and hoped the House would not be deluded by statements such as those made by the Home Secretary, for the design seemed to be to carry out further the system of centralization. The practical effect of centralization had been to disqualify the local bodies from managing their own affairs, and the right hon. Gentleman was now seeking to carry the system further. He never heard such a weak and inefficient case put forward for centralizing the management of matters which were now regulated by the magistrates, and of all business taken in hand by the Government there was none that, according to his experience, they administered so unsatisfactorily as that relating to prisons, so that there was the greatest danger in the transfer of authority which had been proposed that evening. The perversion of central government, in some cases, where the management of prisons was under the control of the Roman Catholic party was notorious. The Home Secretary had exercised most unwarrantable strictness in respect to a certain remarkable case, and he could only attribute that to special influences brought to bear upon the right hon. Gentleman outside the House. In the three counties in which he took part in the management of prisons he had heard of no complaint which could not be remedied by local action.
  SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEYremarked, in answer to an observation made by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) that the proposal of the Government was to relieve certain rate papers from the exceptionally unjust contribution they had hitherto been required to make. There was no reason why owners of real property should be required to contribute more than other classes to the maintenance of prisons.
  MR. DODSONsaid, the financial proposals of the right hon. Gentleman offered what was per se a distinct advantage; but the price they would have to pay for it was centralization; and, without committing himself now to a final criticism upon the scheme, he must say that he should have liked to see relief given to local rates by some measure which, instead of weakening, would have strengthened and extended local self-government. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would not only weaken, local self-government, but would actually lead to the suppression of a branch of it that was by no means an unimportant one. It was true that the Visiting Justices would be retained, but a great deal of their present power would be taken from them and they would be in reality unpaid Inspectors. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he had reduced the number of prisons from 116 to 66, what he was going to do with the surplus staff of those prisons—governors, gaolers, chaplains and other officers. Were they all to be absorbed under the now system, or were they to be pensioned off; and, if so, at whose cost? A great fear was that the maximum of the existing salaries would become the minimum of the future salaries, when the officials now employed by the different local authorities were taken into the service of the Government. He foresaw that the right hon. Gentleman would find it more difficult than he supposed to reduce the number of prisons to 66, because considerable pressure would be brought to bear upon him on all sides to induce him to maintain existing prisons. He gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for having made his calculations with the greatest care and skilfulness; but recollecting what had been the result of the Government undertaking heavy responsibilities of this nature in the past, bearing in mind particularly what had happened in the case of the Telegraphs, he doubted whether, without the exercise of the greatest caution, the experiment would prove a financial success. He hoped the suggestions he had thrown out would be carefully considered by the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill before the House was asked to proceed further.
  MR. J.B.YORKEsaid, he thought there was point in the observations which the

  1551
  right hon. Gentleman opposite had made in reference to the question of compensating officials in existing prisons whose services would be no longer required if the Bill which had been described by the Secretary of State for the Home Department became law. In his speech, the right hon. Gentleman had only given a slight sketch of the Prisons Commission which was to have the management of the prisons after they had passed into the hands of the Government. It would be satisfactory to know whether the members of the Commission were to be paid for their services, and, if so, where the money was to come from. On the whole, he was much pleased with the statement which the right hon. Gentleman had made, in that it was a redemption of promises contained in the Speech from the Throne with which the Session commenced, and was, moreover, a continuation of the policy which in the past had worked well. Nothing was more thoroughly national than the making of provisions for the security of life and property; and, if one branch of the public was more interested than another in a measure of the kind, it was that branch which owned personal as distinguished from real property. It must be clear that if the Commission to be appointed did their work as well as the local authorities who at the present time had charge of the administration of prisons, the whole cost must be much less than if the existing number of prisons was maintained. This was undoubtedly a very bold measure, especially when they considered that it was brought in on the 1st of June. He did not know whether they could look forward to its being carried this Session. He foresaw the usual block of Business, and Heaven only knew which of the measures now before the House would be carried. He hoped the Government would not be dismayed by the denunciation of the principle of centralization which they would hear from the other side. He was quite ready to accept the centralization with all its drawbacks, when it was accompanied by a substantial pecuniary benefit. On the whole, he believed the Bill would largely improve the management of our prisons, and the Government had done well to introduce it.
  MR. WHITWELLthanked the Government for having introduced the Bill.
  1552
  It would, he believed, contribute to the better management of our prisons, and that was an object of greater importance than the mere saving of money—though, of course, if the two things could be combined, so much the better.
  MR. PAGETsaid, there was no doubt that the principle and details of the Bill carried centralization still further than it had been. The question was whether it was a good or bad direction. As far as he understood the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, though it might be exceptional in some respects, it was a step in the right direction. They could not have an Imperial grant without at the same time submitting to Imperial interference. He did not approve of the management of the prisons as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, as he had a strong objection to the administration of public affairs by Commissioners.
  CAPTAIN NOLANconsidered it would be unfair to take the second reading of this Bill before the Irish Bill was in print. In fact, unless the Irish Bill were printed in time the Irish Members would be voting in the dark.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, he did not object to the measure on the ground of centralization, or because of the transfer of the cost from the local to the general taxpayer; but he did regret that the Government did not undertake to reform the whole system of local self-government, especially as the present Administration was, from its experience in such matters, peculiarly qualified to deal with it. Every day's delay would create a greater chaos, and render the work a more difficult one.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTregretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not gone further, and taken the matter entirely out of the hands of the Visiting Justices, who, under the Bill, would be reduced to the position of mere Inspectors. They had a precedent for it in the case of the convict prisons, which were entirely administered by the central Government. He entirely approved of the principle of the Bill.
  MR. EARPsaid, he thought it scarcely fair, Session after Session, to transfer the local charges to the Imperial Treasury. To that portion of the Home Secretary's scheme which dealt with prison reform he did not think there could be any objection; but the other portion, which

  1553
  dealt with financial re-adjustment, would be unpalatable to the country.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, expressed his conviction that when hon. Gentlemen came to consider the Bill they would find all the objections urged against the measure entirely vanish. As to the question of centralization, even now the local justices had very little power in the management of prisons. If a prisoner were sentenced in Liverpool, it did not at all follow that he should serve out his sentence in Liverpool Gaol. He might, according to the circumstances of his case, be sent elsewhere, but be brought back and discharged there at the expiration of his sentence. The Government proposed that when the Bill became law the prison officers should come under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. Any officer whose office would have to be abolished would, of course, be pensioned, very much in the same way as those officers were pensioned who belonged to the prisons that were discontinued by the Act of 1865. Practically, however, few of them except those who were aged would be deprived of their employment. The new prisons which might be required would be built with Government funds, but with prison labour. The Prison Commissioners would be in direct communication with the Home Secretary; their number should not exceed five, and he would be responsible for them. He did not propose to take the second reading of the Bill until the 22nd of June; and he had no doubt that before that date the analogous Bill for Ireland would be in the hands of Members.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary CROSS and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 180.]

  ARMY CORPS TRAINING BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary Hardy, Bill to facilitate the assembling and training of certain Army Corps, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Hardy, Mr. Stanley, and Mr. William Henry Smith.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 182.]

  METROPOLITAN COMMONS (BARNES) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Bill to confirm a scheme under "The Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866," and "The Metropolitan Commons Act, 1869," relating to Barnes
  1554
  Common, ordered to be brought in by Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson and Mr. Secretary Cross.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 181.]

  WATERFORD, NEW ROSS, AND WEXFORD JUNCTION RAILWAY (SALE) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee on the Waterford, New Ross, and Wexford Junction Railway (Sale) Bill do consist of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House, and Two to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered, That all Petitions presented against the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on the Bill, subject to the decision of the Court of Referees on questions of locus standi if any objection be raised to the locus standi of any Petitioner, and provided such Petitions are presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee; and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or agents, be heard upon their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against the said Petitions:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Three to be the quorum.
  Ordered, That Mr. Ridley, Captain Hood, and Mr. Blennerhassett be Members of the Committee.—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  House adjourned at half One o'clock till Thursday next.

MINUTES.
Public Bills—First Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Hornsey)* (104); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Carnarvon, &c.)* (105); Bankruptcy (106).
Committee—Report—Trade Union Act (1871) Amendment* (98); Tramways Orders Confirmation (Bristol, &c.)* (60); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Order Confirmation* (86); Salmon Fisheries* (72).
Third Reading—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (Chapel-en-le-Frith, &c.)* (59); Treasury Solicitor* (76), and passed.
Royal Assent—Customs and Inland Revenue [39 Vict. c. 16]; (£11,000,000) Consolidated Fund [39 Vict. c. 15]; Burgesses (Scotland) [39 Vict. c. 12]; United Parishes (Scotland) [39 Vict. c. 11]; Drugging of Animals [39 Vict. c. 13]; Chelsea Hospital Accounts [39 Vict. c. 14]; Poolbeg Lighthouse [39 Vict. c. 18]; Local Government Provisional Orders [39 Vict. c. 13]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) [39 Vict. c. 14]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) [39 Vict. c. 15]; Local Government Provisional Orders, Briton Ferry, &c. (No. 4) [39 Vict. c. 16]; Local Government Provisional Order, Skelmersdale (No. 5) [39 Vict. c. 17].

BANKRUPTCY BILL.

  BILL PEESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to allow me to call attention to a subject

  1497
  which I am afraid will not appear to be one of much interest, but which really is of great importance to various classes in this country—particularly to the mercantile and trading classes. I do not propose to go into the history of the Law of Bankruptcy in this country, or of the various changes which it has undergone; but I may remind your Lordships that the course of legislation on bankruptcy in this country has shown very remarkable fluctuations between extremes. Up to 1832 to a great extent the control of proceedings in bankruptcy was left to the creditors or those who directly represented the creditors in the bankruptcy. That system was thought to result in considerable evil and disorganization:—a change was called for, and in 1832 commenced a period of what may be described as "officialism"—that is, bankruptcy proceedings were, to a greater extent than had been the case previously, intrusted to the Court of Bankruptcy, and to officials paid by salary was confided the task of winding-up estates in bankruptcy. That continued from 1832 until 1861. In the latter year the tide had set in a different direction, and an advance was made towards giving the creditors once more the control of bankruptcy proceedings. That movement was consummated by the Act of 1869—the present Law of Bankruptcy—which to a greater extent than perhaps had ever before been contemplated, handed over to the creditors of the bankrupt the control and administration not only of the bankrupt's estate, but of all arrangements in the nature of bankruptcy. But, my Lords, this produced evils which are now greatly complained of. Great complaints were made before 1832; but from 1832 to 1869 there were other complaints—namely, complaints that the creditors of a bankrupt were not allowed to manage the bankrupt's affairs. I am sorry to say that since 1869 the discontent has not ceased—on the contrary, there are now great complaints of the working of the last Act relating to bankruptcy. Those complaints were laid before me in the course of last year, and I determined to appoint a small Committee of those who were best qualified to judge of the matter, in order that such Committee might consider and report whether any change by legislation, or by means of General Orders,
  1498
  was necessary to abate the evils which have arisen in the working of the Bankruptcy Act of 1869. I should like to mention the names of the members of that Committee. First there was Mr. Kettle, a County Court Judge, who has great practical knowledge of the working of bankruptcy proceedings. Then there was Mr. James R. Brougham, the experienced Registrar in the London Court of Bankruptcy; next, Mr. Mansfield Parkyns, the Controller in Bankruptcy, who makes an annual return as to the expenses of bankruptcy; then Mr. Henry Nicol, an officer of the Treasury, to whose care the details of the finances of the County Courts are intrusted; and, lastly, Mr. W. Hackwood, who, perhaps, more than any other professional man, has practical experience of the working of the bankruptcy system. The Committee made a Report which is now before your Lordships, and which is not the less valuable because of its conciseness. Before calling your Lordships' attention to some of the statements in the Report, it may be well that I should state that, in point of fact, the cases in which actual bankruptcy occurs in this country are rare. There are various ways in which, when a man becomes unable to meet his engagements, he and his property may be dealt with. In the first place, he may be made a "bankrupt" in technical form, and remain so until he has been "discharged" and his property has been divided among his creditors. In the second place, a man may be made a bankrupt, but that proceeding may be displaced by a composition or deed of arrangement with his creditors, which would put an end to or supersede the bankruptcy. In the third place, without a technical bankruptcy, a debtor's property may be made the subject of a deed of arrangement and distribution among his creditors. In the fourth place, the creditors, without making the debtor a bankrupt, may agree to a composition, and liberate the debtor from the full amount of his debts. Now whether there is an arrangement with bankruptcy or a composition without bankruptcy in all cases action in the matter proceeds on a resolution by the creditors, and the minority of the creditors, whether they like the arrangement or not, are bound by that which is decided by the majority. Your Lordships might like to know the comparison in point

  1499
  of numbers between the cases in which bankruptcy results and those in-which there are arrangements or compositions. I have got a Return for the year 1875, and I find that there were in that year adjudications in bankruptcy, 965; liquidations by arrangement, 4,233; and compositions with creditors, 2,691—so that there were as nearly as possible7,000 arrangements and compositions, as against 965 bankruptcies, or, in other words, the bankruptcies were only about one-eighth of the whole number of cases. When I came to the property dealt with, I found the results still more curious. In the same year the liabilities in the case of the bankruptcies were £6,981,240; those in the case of the liquidations by agreement no less than £12,443,999, and those in the case of compositions, £6,068,405. The assets realized were in the case of actual bankruptcies, £960,755; in that of liquidation by arrangement, £4,598,473; and in those of composition with creditors, £1,773,551. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that the interests involved in the case of liquidations and compositions are, one might almost say, infinitely larger than those involved in the case of bankruptcies proper. As these liquidations and compositions appear to be so largely favoured by creditors, it might seem that there ought to be no reason to be dissatisfied with the result. If, indeed, they were in all cases freely entered into, without compulsion or restraint, there would seem no reason for interfering; but when I lay before your Lordships a few more facts, I think you will come to the conclusion that in very many cases these liquidations and compositions are not freely entered into, but that great pressure is brought to bear on creditors in order to make them consent to such arrangements. Before I go further I will ask your Lordships' attention to this passage in the Report of the Committee—
  "We find a general concurrence of opinion that the Act of 1869 has not in its working satisfied the expectations of the public, inasmuch as it affords great facilities for a debtor to relieve himself of his liabilities, while there is great extravagance in administering and long delay in winding up estates."
  Now, to show your Lordships how the system works, I will first take the case in which the debtor is actually made a bankrupt. The principle of the Act of
  1500
  1869 is that in this case the creditors should choose as their trustee a person in whom they have confidence, and that the trustee should undertake the responsibility of getting in and realizing the property of the bankrupt and dividing it among his creditors. In theory nothing can be more plausible than that; but it is not found to work at all well in practice. In the first place, your Lordships will find that which is not to be wondered at in a body which has no harmony—namely, that it is impossible to get all the creditors to work together. In general, only one or two would occupy themselves with the matter, but by far the greater number would interfere very little in the business, and what ought to be done by the body at large is generally left to one or two persons. It is necessary that the body of creditors should be allowed to vote by proxy, and there is scarcely a case in bankruptcy where the person who desires to become trustee does not obtain proxies from the creditors sufficient to his own appointment. The way in which trustees are appointed is thus described by the Committee—
  "It happens, not occasionally, but so frequently as almost to form the rule, that a stranger, so far as appears on the face of the proceedings, is enabled, by the proxies he has obtained, to vote himself trustee, to fix his own remuneration, to nominate the committee of inspection, to order the payment of his costs, and finally to vote, in liquidation cases, the debtor's discharge. We report, both upon our own experience and upon the information we have collected, that nearly all the evils which have led to so much dissatisfaction with the working of the Act of 1869 can be traced to the direct or indirect effect of the proxy system; and that in our opinion no effectual check can be given to these evils so long as remunerative employment is the prize for which proxies can be used."
  My Lords, that is a very serious and solemn censure of the mode in which trustees are appointed; but, turning to the Report of the Controller in Bankruptcy (Parl. Paper 210), I find this further information—
  "The total number of estates pending on the 31st of December, 1875, was 3,191….In 98 of these pending cases the trustees cannot be found. The number of reports made by me to the Courts on the conduct of trustees, during the year was 446. In 228 cases the trustees complied before the hearing of the summons; in 181 cases orders were made against the trustee, 162 of which have been complied with; in 30 cases the trustee could not be served with the summons; and 7 cases are still pending."

  1501
  Thus, my Lords, out of the whole number of persons entrusted with the most important of duties in connection with bankruptcy one-sixth of the whole were in default in the execution of their duties, and this in one year. But there is even worse than that, my Lords. I ask your Lordships' particular attention to these facts, which are stated by the Committee—
  "In one case where the receipts were some £700, received by the trustee in one cheque, the costs allowed to him and to the solicitor greatly exceeded the £700. The Controller has a list of 25 bankruptcies, in which the same person was trustee, the remuneration voted to him by the creditors—i.e., by himself as their proxy—was in every case most excessive, in some instances exceeding the receipts. In only two instances did creditors personally attend, and in one it was stated by one of them that he was promised payment for attending. In another case, where the trustee had been allowed some hundreds, he claimed a further sum of £130 for closing the bankruptcy; the solicitor, who had also been allowed some hundreds, claimed £50 odd for the same six months, and an examination of the bill showed that not a dozen of the items were other than charges for doing trustee's work. Among them were journeys to see the trustee to explain his accounts, writing on same, making out trustee's accounts, fair copies of same, entering them in the trustee's books; while the accounts were the receipt of one sum on the debit side and half-a-dozen payments to the trustee and solicitor on the credit. In another, in a County Court, the receipts amounted to £107, paid to the trustees in two sums. Out of this the trustee disbursed £44 in four items, and then persuaded the creditors to vote him the balance, £63, for his remuneration. The Registrar of another Court, having struck off £150 from a solicitor's bill, the trustee called a meeting of creditors—i.e., of himself and solicitor—and voted £150 additional remuneration to the trustee, who handed it over to the solicitor. It is but just to say that where the trustee is an honest man of business the results are satisfactory. I have before me a statement of 20 bankruptcies and liquidations, in which the total receipts were £11,404, and the trustees' remuneration but £565, or 5·1 per cent, and the total solicitors' costs but £750, or 6·6 per cent. The trustee in these cases was for years a chief clerk in a County Court before 1869, when he resigned."
  My Lords, after these instances, your Lordships will not be surprised to hear the views which the Committee take in reference to the expense of this system. The Committee state—
  "It may, perhaps, have been expected that the introduction of the present system of administration by paid trustees would lead to a reduction of expense, on the ground that accountants or other persons experienced in bankruptcy administration would undertake the realization
  1502
  and distribution of the property of debtors for a fair commission to be agreed beforehand; and that being themselves well acquainted with the rules and practice of bankruptcy, they would not need the general and costly assistance of solicitors formerly needed by unpaid and inexperienced creditors' assignees. The great majority of bankruptcies under the present Act have been wound up by professional trustees, mostly described as accountants, but a number sufficient for comparison have been wound up by creditor trustees, who, though generally accepting remuneration, appear to have been at least as dependent on their solicitors as if they had been unpaid assignees. Ninety-four bankruptcies with assets between £500 and £5,000 (averaging £1,112) which have been wound up by creditor trustees, have cost on an average £244 per estate, which seems a very large average for the class of bankruptcies, and considering that heavy Court fees are no longer levied for the expenses of the Judicial establishment. This amount, however, includes about £100charges and expenses for which the trustee is not responsible, the expenses referable to the creditor trustee being £43 for his remuneration, and about £101 for his solicitor's charges and incidental expenses. In 204 bankruptcies of the same classes (averaging £1,258), which have been wound up by professional trustees, the expenses averaged no less than £321, or (deducting £100 as above) the expenses referable to the professional trustee were 55 per cent greater than those of the creditor trustee, being £106 for the trustee's remuneration and £115 for his solicitor's charges and incidental expenses. It appears, therefore, as a rule to which there have been two or three, but only two or three, striking exceptions, that neither the experience of the professional trustees nor the large sum paid them for realizing the estate, has prevented their incurring at least as heavy solicitor's charges as when the solicitor's bill included nearly the whole charges of realization."
  My Lords, that is the manner in which we find that bankruptcies proper are dealt with by the trustees; but now I will refer to what appear to me to be even greater evils than those which the Controller and the Committee describe in the extracts which I have just read to your Lordships. In actual bankruptcy, abuses in the administration of the estate may be corrected if brought before the Court; but I am now about to refer to the much larger number of cases in which the control of the trustee is much greater, because in liquidation or composition the trustee is absolutely master of the situation. He is chosen, in the first instance, in the way I have described, and he decides as to debts which ought to be proved, and, in fact, as to everything which ought to be done in the liquidation of the estate, or the payment of the composition. Here is an extract from a letter addressed to me in

  1503
  January last by the Secretary to the Mercantile Law Amendment Society—
  "A debtor can now file a petition, for liquidation by arrangement, and convene a meeting of his creditors at any time within a month, and almost at any place he pleases, and if at such meeting a majority in number, representing three-fourths in value of the creditors there present, or represented by proxy, pass a resolution agreeing to a composition, and such resolution is afterwards confirmed at a second meeting, by a bare majority in number and value of the creditors present, or represented, such arrangement is binding on all the creditors. As a rule, the chief creditors rarely attend such meetings, and the result is that the debtor, by the aid of proxies of friendly, bribed, oftentimes of full-secured, and sometimes of fictitious creditors, can get released from his debts upon almost any terms he thinks fit. The Controller of the Bankruptcy Court in the annual Reports to Parliament states that there has been a continued and regular decrease in the rate of composition allowed by debtors to their creditors in each year since the commencement of the Act."
  My Lords, that is a serious statement coming from a body of that kind. Allusion is then made to a remarkable fact commented on by the Controller in his Report of last year—namely, the increase in the number and the increase in the value of compositions. The Controller says—
  "I have again to call attention to the increase in number and decrease in value of compositions paid to creditors under Section 126, which, continuing year by year since the commencement of the Act, can hardly be attributed to temporary causes, or explained in any satisfactory manner. The number of compositions registered has increased from 1,616 in the year 1870 to 2,691 in the year 1875, the additional 1,075 cases being thus accounted for:—Increased number of compositions—not exceeding 1s. in the pound, 465; from 1s. to 2s. 6d. in the pound, 434; from 2s. 6d. to 5s. in the pound, 300. Increase in number of compositions at the lowest rates, 1,199: decrease in number of compositions at higher rates, 124—total, 1,075."
  My Lords, I am sorry that what you have heard does not represent the whole of the evil, because I find that there is too much reason to believe that even those small compositions which the minority of the creditors are forced to accept are not paid. The Controller says—
  "The loudest and most general complaints against the present system are against these arrangements and compositions, and yet practically everything is drawn into them. Out of £5,432,000 assets declared by debtors in the year 1874, £4,946,000 (or more than 90 per cent) were under these two sections. In the same year, out of 2,549 compounding debtors
  1504
  (under Section 126) only 162 were able to pay their creditors more than half they owed them, while 1,803 were unable to pay more than one-fourth, and 1,059 of these not more than one-eighth, including 501 debtors whose compositions averaged a few pence in the pound. The trustee, who is not unfrequently the debtor's agent, can generally, by proxies held by himself or his solicitor, resolve his own release and make his own terms with the debtor for a discharge from his debts; and as the trustee's accounts are, for some reason, specially exempted from official supervision, nothing is officially known of the results of administration except that general rules requiring the taxation of charges and other important matters are disregarded, and that the trustees appropriate the undivided balances and unclaimed dividends, which may be very largely manufactured in liquidations by arrangement, and that they can employ the funds in hand to their own advantage. The same agents practising in both, it cannot be doubted that they who profit too much in bankruptcy profit much more in liquidations, or that unless there is some hidden advantage to creditors sufficient to more than balance the many and manifest disadvantages, the surprising preponderance of liquidations by arrangement may be more reasonably attributed to the influence of agents than to discriminating preference on the part of creditors. In the year 1874 there were 4,400 liquidations by arrangement, with assets amounting to £3,462,000, against a total of 930 bankruptcies, with assets amounting to only £485,000, and the assets in the liquidation were of the class that would bear a very much larger amount to be abstracted from them by expenses or otherwise, and yet pay very much larger dividends to the creditors, there being on an average £31 assets in liquidations, and only £13 in bankruptcies, to every £100 liabilities."
  Now, my Lords, I have, I think, stated enough to satisfy your Lordships that there is justice in the complaints made by these creditors who are in the minority as to the way in which those liquidations and compositions are worked. I have now come to another class of serious evils which have been pointed out. In the case of liquidation by arrangement under the present system there is no audit. The creditors might be able, perhaps, by a process of law to call the trustee to account; but there is no audit that the trustee must submit to, or which any Court, by summary process, could compel him to pass. Under the old system of insolvent estates there was a very large sum of money paid into Court in the shape of dividends which were never called for. I think I am not wrong in stating that it accumulated until it amounted to some millions sterling. Some years ago that money was, by the authority of Parliament, taken for public uses—of course, on a

  1505
  guarantee that payment would be made out of the public funds to any persons who could prove a claim against any portion of the money so taken. But since 1869 there has been no control whatever over unpaid dividends; and this presents a serious and important question, the magnitude of which startled me when I came to consider it. There are now about 3,000 open bankruptcies—bankruptcies not closed under the Act of 1869; and between 16,000 and 17,000 arrangements and liquidations open—that is, 20,000 estates in which dividends have been declared. In this state of things the Controller has adverted to this question of unpaid dividends. He says—
  "Under the present system, the funds collected are not paid into any public account, but left practically in the control of the trustees. The large and continually increasing balance in hand, which arises from the excess of aggregate receipts during a given period over payments accruing due during that period, cannot, therefore, be employed for the direct or indirect benefit of the creditors, except in rare cases; though a considerable portion may be employed for their own benefit by trustees who calculate on a continuance of business enabling them to pay dividends on older estates from assets to be realized in newer estates. The balance declared by trustees in bankruptcy proper for the 31st of December, 1875, amounting, with unclaimed dividends to nearly £500,000, it is probable, from the amount of assets given up, and from other circumstances connected with administration under liquidation by arrangement, that the total balance amounts to between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000.
  This may be a very lucrative business to some persons, as we find that one person may be trustee of 25 different estates. A trustee may keep in his hands a very large amount of unclaimed dividends, because demands on the older estates can be more than paid out of the dividends coming in from the newer ones. The Controller says it is probable that the balance amounts to between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000. But that is not the whole, because that calculation only extends to what comes under the Act of 1869; and in a Return to Parliament it is stated that under trust deeds, between 1863 and 1869, principal to the amount of £42,500,000 had been received by trustees, and I believe I am correct in stating that there has been no audit of any of those accounts; and seeing that there is a balance of between £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 since 1869, it would not be easy to speculate as to the
  1506
  portion of those £42,000,000 which may not yet be outstanding. Observe, my Lords, how this works—what a temptation there is to trustees to increase the amount of unclaimed dividends. Any one acquainted with dealings in the estates of insolvents knows how this can be done by a system of making frequent declarations of dividends of very small amounts—paying the money realized from the estate in such driblets that there is the greater chance of creditors not coming forward to claim their dividends. This object may be further promoted by making the declaration of dividend as little public as possible, and also by putting as many obstacles as possible in the way of those who come forward to claim. I have gone through the difficulties of the present system:—and now, my Lords, as to our remedies. I will set out by saying that we desire to preserve, as far as possible, the principle of the Act of 1869, believing it to be good and wholesome, and that the evils arise from the defective manner in which it is carried out. The first improvement we propose to make in the present system is this:—This system on the one hand affords an inducement to creditors, and especially to creditors who are inflamed by temper, to make persons bankrupt who have been guilty of no misconduct, and whose trading has been perfectly bonâ fide. On the other hand, it offers an inducement to debtors who have misconducted themselves and incurred debts without a reasonable prospect of being able to pay them to run a race with them, and force them to a composition, which is agreed to, or apparently agreed to, by a majority of the creditors. We propose that in all cases of liquidation, whether the person initiating the proceedings is a creditor or is the debtor, that application should be made to one and the same Court for what I shall term, in the first instance, liquidation. Security will be taken that the application shall be in the Court of a district where the debtor is known, and where his creditors are to be found. There is no such security now. We propose that the Court should have power in the case of a trader debtor to make a liquidation order nisi; which may be revoked if the debtor shall show that the petition is insufficient, but which, if not revoked within a specified time, shall be deemed an order absolute

  1507
  for liquidation. In case of a non-trader debtor, the Court will make an order nisi in the first instance, but will not make the order absolute, without direct proof. In the case of a non-trader debtor the Court, either in making the order nisi, or afterwards on making it absolute, may appoint a receiver of the debtor's property. When the order has been made absolute the debtor must, within a specified time, file a list of his creditors. All the creditors will be bound by the liquidation proceedings. Then a provisional committee of inspection will be formed to act until the first general meeting of the creditors. We propose that at the general meeting of the creditors a permanent committee of inspection should be appointed for the purpose of investigating the affairs of the debtor, and that the investigation should be held as soon as possible. The committee of inspection will appoint a receiver or trustee of the estate. At the second general meeting of creditors it would be for an adequate majority of the creditors to decide whether they would discharge the debtor or make him a bankrupt. Any proposal for a composition must be made with the knowledge of the committee of inspection; and in the adoption of such a proposal not only will a majority of the creditors be requisite, but the rights of the minority will be protected. We propose that the trustee shall be appointed, not by the creditors at large, but by the committee of inspection, and that he shall hold office at the pleasure and under the inspection of that committee at a maximum scale of remuneration. The use of proxies will be permitted; but if a trustee should use them for his own interest the Court will have a right to deprive him of his trusteeship. When the debtor has not been discharged by the second general meeting of the committee of inspection he, after six months, may apply to the Court for an order of discharge. If this be granted he will be released from all liabilities except debts incurred by fraud or breach of trust, debts due to the Crown, or penalties due to the Revenue, and, should there be any surplus of the estate, it would be paid over to the debtor. With regard to deeds of arrangements, which make over the whole property of the debtor, those will depend on the vote of a majority excluding secured creditors. We
  1508
  propose, further, that all accounts in bankruptcy and in liquidation shall be audited, and that in all cases, whether the bankruptcy or the liquidation be closed or not, the whole of the property remaining in the hands of the trustees shall at the end of two years be paid into Court, so that there may be every inducement to the trustees to close each case, where it is possible, within two years. There are various minor provisions in the Bill to which I need not at this moment refer; but I may be allowed to say that the measure proposes to repeal the Act of 1869, so that the Bill may be complete in itself, containing the entire law on the subject with which it deals. I have only to add that, if the Bill receives your Lordships' sanction, I propose to introduce a Bill making corresponding alterations in the Debtors Act of 1869. I have only now to lay this Bill upon the Table, and ask your Lordships to read it a first time.
  Bill to consolidate and amend the Law of Bankruptcy, and for other purposes—presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR.
  LORD HATHERLEYsaid, that many attempts had been made to deal with the subject of Bankruptcy, and various Bills had been presented to Parliament during a long series of years with the purpose of amending that law; but, notwithstanding these successive attempts at legislation, experience had shown that they had proved inadequate to overcome the difficulties inherent in the subject, and continued complaints from the mercantile classes showed that further amendment was necessary. When he had the honour of filling the position now held by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, he found that no fewer than three successive Law Officers—one of whom was Sir Hugh Cairns—had prepared Bills on the subject; and in the Bill which he himself (Lord Hatherley) brought in he embodied what he considered the most valuable portions of those Bills. That Bill passed the ordeal of the House of Commons after considerable discussion, and when it came up to their Lordships' House it was referred to a Select Committee composed of many eminent and learned Peers. It then came back to their Lordships, and finally became law. The causes to which the failure of the

  1509
  Bill might be attributed were not far to seek—they were to be found, indeed, in the Report made to the Lord Chancellor by a gentleman eminently qualified to give an opinion on the subject. Mr. Mansfield Parkyns, in his Report, said—
  "The special policy of the Act of 1869 was to give creditors the right to administer its provisions with the least possible official assistance. In the few cases where this almost exclusive authority has been prudently and diligently exercised the working of the Act of 1869 has not been unsatisfactory."
  The Legislature endeavoured to give the machinery to the creditors, and left it for them to use it, and in the concluding passage which he had just read, their Lordships had the key to the failure of the Act. What did they find as to the system of proxies? The Report went on to say—
  "It happens not occasionally, but so frequently as almost to form the rule, that a stranger, so far as appears upon the face of the proceedings, is enabled by the proxies he has obtained to vote himself trustee, to fix his own remuneration, to nominate the committee of inspection, and finally to vote in liquidation cases the debtor's discharge."
  This, however, could not be done except by consent of the creditors, because the Act gave the decision to a majority in number and three-fourths in value. There was a point of even greater importance than the abuse of proxies. The Report recommended that the debtor should be at liberty to petition for administration. That would revive many, if not all, the abuses of the present system, and he trusted this point would be re-considered, and that it would still be left in the hands of the creditors to choose their own trustee and their own mode of recovering their debts. He had that morning received from the secretary of a society for amending the law on this subject a statement that the reason why the existing Act worked so badly was because creditors could not be got to attend the meetings. It could not, however, be laid as a fault against a Bill that it did not work when no one would be at the pains to work it. The abuses connected with the system of trustees would be greatly under the regulation of the Court if its powers were properly put in motion. He trusted that the Bill would bring about an improvement in the choice and selection of the persons who were to act as trustees, and that it would also amend the abuses
  1510
  connected with the system of proxies. The Bill should also deal with the large amounts said to be left in the hands of trustees. In all these cases their Lordships would find that the supineness of the large body of the creditors interested in the management of the bankrupt's estate constituted a vast difficulty. In the management of public companies there was the same difficulty in interesting the shareholders, unless some calamity occurred; and in winding-up these companies great scandals had arisen just as they had occurred in bankruptcies, and in a considerable degree from the same cause. Creditors would not bestow that care and attention which the administration of a bankrupt's estate required. If the dividend were very small they wrote it off their books, and treated it as a bad debt; and, on the other hand, when the creditor's debt was very large, he was very unwilling that his name should appear, especially if the bankruptcy threatened to be unpropitious—he did not wish the world to know of his loss any more than he could help, and he therefore abstained from appearing in the proceedings. It was in the power of the creditors to settle the terms on which a trustee should hold property, and the deed had to be enrolled with the registrar, where any creditor might see it. He regretted that the financial portion of the Bankruptcy Law, which was favourably spoken of in the sensible Report of Mr. Parkyns, had not been submitted to the same scrutiny as its other provisions.
  Bill read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday the 22nd instant. (No. 106.)

TURKEY—THE SECOND NOTE OF THE THREE POWERS—THE DESPATCH.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CAMPBELLasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether they object to present the despatch in which they have refused to concur in the proposals recently agreed upon at Berlin? When on Monday last he asked the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether the Government objected to produce this despatch, he did not put the Question because he thought their decision stood in any need of explanation or defence; on the contrary,

  1511
  had they come to an opposite decision, then he would have thought both explanation and defence might have been required, although they would not have been easy to give. The production of the despatch might lead to three desirable effects. One was, that it might tend greatly to reclaim France and Italy from the unhappy course into which they had been hurried; secondly, it might retard the application of the proposal in which Her Majesty's Government were not able to participate; and, thirdly, it would tend to uphold the advisers of the Porte in listening to the counsels of its friends, and in turning a cautious ear to the proposals of its enemies. He would, however, defer to the judgment of Her Majesty's Government, as they must be conversant with this important document. He was perfectly aware that since giving Notice, on Monday last, of his intention to put this Question, events had taken place which might make it imprudent to do now what might have been previously done consistently with sound policy. It would be premature to speak with any freedom upon what had recently happened on the Bosphorus, since to do so would raise a tumult of ideas even in minds the most insensible; but from information that had reached him he was able to assure their Lordships that among the British residents at Constantinople the event was viewed with joy and exultation, and with an increased sense of security. His own impression was that there was but one Embassy at that place by which that event would be bitterly lamented. The immediate and practical effect must be to secure the power of men who alone were able to regenerate the Empire, and whose power, under the late Sultan, would have had, at any rate, so precarious a tenure that it might at any moment have been overthrown. He trusted that what had occurred would tend to strengthen Her Majesty's Government in the determination to avoid any general Conference to which they might be invited—and which, in the present state of Europe, would be nothing but a snare, and in the determination in no manner to depart from the principles they had laid down, or the position they had occupied. The event might tend to increase their firmness in maintaining their present passive isolation, as it was calculated to add to their conviction that those who first endured would ulti-
  1512
  mately conquer. Having weighed this event, he had arrived at the conviction that it ought not to be regarded as the effect of any sudden, impassioned, and unpremeditated impulse; but, on the contrary, that it had been long contemplated, and had been matured and deliberately organized, though rapidly accomplished. He trusted that there would be no objection to the production of the despatch referred to.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My noble Friend asks whether I now object to present the despatch as to which he put a Question 10 days ago. I have already stated the only objection I feel to making public any Papers on this question. I need not point out that it would be impossible to present a despatch containing certain proposals in which we have refused to concur without, at the same time, presenting the proposals themselves. My only objection to that, and the objection which still remains in force, is that these proposals, although agreed upon by the various Powers, have not been laid before the Government of the Porte, and cannot, therefore, be considered as a public document. The proposals are still in the condition in which they were when the Question was put to me previously—that is to say, though they have been agreed upon as between the proposers, they have not been formally placed before the Porte. I am, therefore, still unable to lay these Papers on the Table. With regard to the grave and important event to which my noble Friend has referred, I agree with him that this would hardly be the time to discuss it in all its bearings. It is an event which has arisen, I believe, from the spontaneous feeling of the people of the Turkish Empire, not influenced by any foreign agency. It is an event the consequences of which may be extremely important, but from which I hope we have no reason to anticipate any but good results. When we meet again a fortnight hence, we shall probably be in a condition to speak with more knowledge and with more confidence upon this matter than we can do now.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, events had marched with such rapidity that the Berlin Conference and the Andrassy Note had as much passed out of the domain of diplomacy as the Treaty of

  1513
  Paris. Still, a very large discretion must be left to Her Majesty's Government as to the publication of any details they might have in their possession. There were, however, some details published which he would refer to, in the hope that the Government might be able to give satisfactory assurances as to that which was known only through the public Press. It appeared remarkable that the public Press had been supplied with information that there had been some undercurrent of apprehension communicated from the centre of distrust, Constantinople, to the Government of Servia; and if the public Press had been rightly informed, three measures of a trenchant and decisive character had been under preparation for some months to be ready in case of emergency. The Press was silent, and a general reserve was maintained on the subject; it was understood, however, that a forced loan was to be raised for Servia; that the period for discharge of private obligations was deferred; and that repressive laws on the Press were prepared; and, again, a colourable nationality had been given to an officer who had served with distinction in Central Asia that he might pass into the employment of the Servian Government. He made no comments, but he recommended the matter to the attention of the Government. The public mind was grievously disquieted, and he hoped some satisfactory explanation would be given on the subject.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HORNSEY) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Education Department under "The Elementary Education Act, 1870," to enable the School Board for Hornsey to put in force "The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845," and the Acts amending the same—Was presented by The Earl Cadogan; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 104.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD'S PEOVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (CARNARVON, &c.) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the borough of Carnarvon and the districts of Long Eaton, Saint Neots, Shepton Mallet, Tenbury Wells, Tunbridge Wells, Walton-on-the-Naze,
1514
Withington, and Whitwood—Was presented by The Earl of Jersey; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 105.)
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Tuesday the 13th instant, a quarter before Five o'clock.