Sitting of 5 April 1877

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ROYAL PALACES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Prisons (Scotland) [4]; Parliamentary Electors Registration [53], and committed to the Select Committee on the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Bill.
Committee—Prisons (Ireland) [3]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Prisons [1]; Judicial Proceedings (Rating) [77]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Orders [108]; Game Laws (Scotland) Amendment (re-comm.) [92–122].
Third Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue (Duties on Offices and Pensions) [91], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  THE CANADA RAILWAY LOAN ACT, 1867—GUARANTEE—QUESTION.
  MR. MONKasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any guarantee has been given by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury under "The Canada Railway Loan Act, 1867; "and, if so, whether the Accounts have been laid annually before Parliament in accordance with the provisions of that Act?
  MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, that a guarantee had been given by the Treasury, under the Canada Railway Loan Act, 1867, for a loan amounting to £3,000,000. The loan had been raised, half in 1869, and the remaining half in 1873. In June, 1869, a correspondence was laid before Parliament under the Act showing the steps the Treasury had taken. No accounts had arisen under the guarantee in any shape whatever, and, therefore, none had been laid before Parliament.

  CATHOLIC INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
  MR. OWEN LEWISasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been called to a letter from Mr. Mulhallen Marum, a magistrate of the Queen's County, which appeared in the "Leinster Express "of March 24th; and if it is true that the Queen's County grand jury refuse to pass any present-

  615
  meat for the maintenance of destitute children who have been sent by the magistrates to the Catholic Industrial School at Artane, although a presentment has been passed by the same body in favour of a Protestant Industrial School; and, if it is the case that magistrates have been obliged to give up sending destitute children when Catholics to an Industrial School in consequence of the grand jury's refusal to provide the necessary funds?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: I have received from the hon. Gentleman a copy of the letter, but I have not any other knowledge of the circumstances, nor have I any control over the action of the Grand Jury in the matter. It appears from the letter sent to me that although the Grand Jury have refused such a presentment in the case of a single child at the Assizes last year, the application was not renewed at the last Assizes, and consequently I do not think it would be at all fair to imply, as the hon. Member does in the Question, that the Grand Jury of the Queen's County are not willing to provide the necessary funds for sending Catholics to industrial schools.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE PROTOCOL.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can give the House any information as to the present position of the negotiations on the Eastern Question; also, when he will be able to lay before the House a copy of the Protocol which is stated to have been signed; and whether he can accompany it with any Correspondence explaining the views of the Russian Government especially in regard to the question of demobilisation?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, Sir. The Protocol was signed, I believe, on Saturday last, and a Copy has already been presented to the House, together the procès verbal and some Correspondence which will throw light on the circumstances and conditions under which it was signed. It will be distributed to hon. Members tomorrow morning, and I believe the copies will be in the hands of the Vote Office in the course of the evening.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    PRISONS BILL.— [BILL 1.]
    (Mr. Assheton Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
    COMMITTEE. [Progress 26th March.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. PARNELLmoved, after Clause 9, to insert the following clause: —
    (Treatment of prisoners convicted of treason felony, &c.)
    "The Prison Commissioners shall see that any prisoner under sentence inflicted on conviction for treason felony, sedition, or seditious libel, shall be treated as a misdemeanant of the first division within the meaning of section sixty-seven of The Prisons Act 1865,' notwithstanding any statute, proviso, or rule to the contrary."
    The hon. Gentleman described the object of the clause as being to insure that in future the treatment of prisoners confined for political offences should not continue, as it had been in this country, to be the same as the treatment of convicts convicted of gross crimes, such as manslaughter, &c. On former occasions the Home Secretary had stated that he had no power to alter the treatment of convicts of one or the other character, and the discipline of the prison would not permit of such a distinction; therefore, it appeared that it was a suitable time to bring forward the subject of the treatment of this class of prisoners now that the Committee were discussing the provisions of the Bill governing those prisons over which the Home Secretary would have control. The clause sought to secure in the treatment of political prisoners that they should not be subjected to personal search, being stripped, and in the presence of other prisoners; that they should not suffer the harsh treatment and the degrading punishments inflicted on ordinary convicts; that their food should not be coarse and insufficient, or their work hard; that they should not be restricted from writing letters to their friends, or be compelled to associate with degraded criminals, or subjected to the various punishments which, however necessary they might be to reform the minds of ordinary criminals, were unjustly inflicted on men convicted only of a political offence. Up to the passing of 11 & 12 Vict. c. 12, political prisoners were

    617
    punished in an exceptional way. For instance, O'Connell, in 1844, was convicted of a political offence, and while a prisoner was treated in an exceptional manner from ordinary criminals, and to a great extent with forbearance. He was allowed to sit with his family, who were allowed to visit him during the day; but the Act just referred to re-pealed certain portions of these Acts which governed the crime known as high treason. Many of these crimes were by that Act denominated treason felony. It was, doubtless, thought desirable to get rid of the extreme penalty attached to high treason; and also, perhaps, that the offence might appear a degraded one — it was denominated a felony. But, still, the political prisoners convicted after the passing of that Act continued for a time to be treated with leniency. Such was the case with his Predecessor in the representation of Meath, Mr. John Martin; of Mr. John Mitchel, who was returned a Member of that House, but who did not live to take his seat; and of Thomas Francis Meagher, who had subsequently distinguished himself fighting for liberty in the American Civil War. The present Sir Charles Gavan Duffy, who had since been Premier of the Government in the Colony of Victoria, was also tried for his life three times. If he had been convicted and the capital sentence corn-muted he would have been subjected to the same treatment as Martin and Mitchel. These men, whose names were known in Irish history, were convicted in 1848 of treason felony, but in their treatment there were none of the degrading associations such as were met with in convictions of a more recent date. John Mitchel had given a description of his treatment, and he mentioned that he had a separate cabin or cell, and was not compelled to associate with other criminals. When he arrived in Australia he was allowed a sort of liberty on parole. He and his friends were allowed to live together and to labour for their own advantage. The abolition of transportation, however, had brought about a different state of things, and under the existing prison regulations in this country there was no power to treat political prisoners differently from other convicts. In 1869 a Question was asked in the House of Commons by the late Sir John Gray as to the treatment of Mr.
    618
    O'Donovan Rossa, confined in Portland Prison for treason felony. The Question asked was if it was true that this convict had been handcuffed for 33 days. The then Home Secretary (Mr. Bruce), speaking upon information furnished him by the prison authorities, promptly denied that the prisoner had been so treated. The matter, however, was pressed by the hon. Gentleman who asked the Question, and further investigation compelled the Home Secretary to admit that there were some grounds for the allegation. A Royal Commission inquired into and reported upon the treatment of prisoners in Chatham, Portland, and other prisons. In their Report the Commissioners remarked upon the case of O'Donovan Rossa that he had been handcuffed for 34 days, and for at least five of those days he had been handcuffed with his hands behind his back, and he had been obliged to eat his food on his hands and knees like a dog. The Commissioners made some very sensible observations with reference to the labour imposed on prisoners confined for treason felony, and they said it was probable that many persons, though not weakly enough to be exempted from labour, did actually suffer from the labour imposed on them, and to such an extent as to reduce their weight. With reference to the power of ordinary handcuffs to be used, the Commissioners reported that, in their opinion, there was not that uniformity of practice, nor that unanimity which they deemed to be desirable in so important a subject. The Commissioners also referred to the use of dark cells, and pointed out the different periods for which prisoners were confined in different prisons, and they recommended that such a punishment should not be resorted to without a written order from the governor or deputy-governor, and that it ought not to be inflicted for longer than 12 hours, and that while so confined the prisoner should be allowed to retain his bed and his blanket. All these observations had as much bearing on the treatment of treason felony prisoners as on that of ordinary convicts. Then complaints were made in the matter of searches, and in the case of treason felony prisoners to whom he had referred, they were compelled at night to place their clothes outside their cells so as to prevent the slightest possibility of their escape. When those men were

    619
    taken to prison the cold was very severe, yet they were deprived of their flannels, and some of them contracted consumption. Such a rule as this he desired to get rid of. Another complaint of the treason felony prisoners was that they were associated with other prisoners who were guilty of the most horrible and heinous crimes. If it was not now possible to separate the prisoners it would be possible for the Home Secretary in future to set apart a prison or prisons for the special treatment of State or political prisoners, where such rules might be practised as would keep the men out of harm's way and nothing more. The reason why O'Donovan Rossa was handcuffed was because he had committed an assault of rather an aggravated nature upon the governor. Rossa, it appeared, was a man of a high and excitable temperament, and he considered that he had been especially ill-used by the governor and warders, because he was a leading man in the conspiracy. He (Mr. Parnell) did not wish to excuse the assault, but it was one which inflicted no injury on the governor. The Commissioners paid a very high tribute to O'Donovan Rossa, and expressed their sense of the candour and straightforward manner in which he gave his testimony.
    THE CHAIRMANobserved that the extracts which the hon. Member had been reading referred entirely to the treatment of prisoners in convict prisons, and the present Bill had no reference to the treatment of prisoners in convict prisons, and, therefore, any matter affecting such treatment was outside the present Bill.
    MR. PARNELLremarked that there was power in a clause of the Bill to set apart any prison for the confinement of treason felony prisoners; and therefore he considered he was in Order in referring to the extracts from the Report of the Commissioners. He had no desire to detain the Committee.
    THE CHAIRMANasked the hon. Member to point out the section to which he referred.
    MR. PARNELLreplied that he referred to Clause 21, by which the Secretary of State had power to remove any convicted person from one prison to any other prison.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that "criminal prisoner" was a technical ex-
    620
    pression with a meaning defined in the Gaol Act; but this Bill could not apply to convict prisoners.
    MR. PARNELLwas sorry that the clause had been altered, and was proceeding to repeat his statements of the ill-treatment of the treason felony prisoners, when —
    THE CHAIRMANagain called the hon. Member to Order, and pointed out that his arguments and extracts had reference to the treatment of prisoners in convict prisons.
    MR. PARNELLsubmitted that if prisoners in convict prisons had been treated in the way he had mentioned he was not precluded from showing how they had been treated, and that they ought not to be treated in that manner in other prisons. After bearing testimony to the candour of O'Donovan Rossa, the Commissioners proceeded
    THE CHAIRMANwas unwilling to interrupt the hon. Member; but he had already indicated that the clause as proposed would not produce any effect on the treatment of the prisoners in convict prisons. The references of the hon. Member were not germane to the question under consideration.
    MR. PARNELLwished it to be understood that the principle for which he was contending was simply this—that political prisoners, when confined in prisons under the operation of the present Bill, should not be treated as ordinary criminal prisoners, and in order to show that these men ought not to be treated in that way he was reading extracts from a Report of a Royal Commission to show that these prisoners were guilty of no moral crime, and that their offence was not of a degrading kind. The prisoners to whom he had referred were men of excellent moral character.
    THE CHAIRMANruled that the hon. Member was not in Order in referring to this question.
    MR. PARNELLreplied that the ruling of the Chairman had not been the same up to the present moment. [Cries of "Order."] Instances of persons confined in prisons had been brought forward as instances in support of clauses in Committee on this Bill, and no objection had been taken hitherto. He thought he was entitled to call attention to the cases of all prisoners under confinement in either England or Ire-

    621
    land in order to prove the necessity for the clause he was proposing.
    THE CHAIRMANstated that previous discussions had reference to previous clauses, and his desire was to point out to the hon. Member what was or was not in Order with regard to particular clauses.
    MR. PARNELLnext proceeded to call attention to the cases of Rossa, O'Connell, and others, who died of consumption in gaol; of Murphy, who complained of the indignity to which he was subjected; and of Burke, who, although he was of unsound mind, was accused of malingering. Some of these prisoners complained of weakness in the chest, but no proper attention was shown them, and the consequence was they had since died of consumption.
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: Irise to Order. I ask you, Sir, whether the hon. Member is not persevering in that course which you have ruled to be out of Order?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Ihave on several occasions endeavoured to intimate to the hon. Member the course of Order in regard to matters before the Committee. I have been reluctant, as on previous occasions, to stop him from adducing illustrations of his argument; but I am bound to say he is repeating those protracted referrences to matters not pertaining to the particular clause before the Committee, to which I have already called his attention as being out of Order.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the prisoners who had been hitherto convicted of the offences alluded to had been confined in convict prisons, and, therefore, he was bound to draw his illustrations from convict prisons. Although he thought the Chairman's ruling thoroughly wrong[" Order, order !"]—he would not persevere.
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member thinks my ruling entirely wrong, he should challenge it before the House. I do not think the observation he has made is one which will commend itself to the Committee.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he would withdraw the expression, and if he thought it necessary to do so, he would take another opportunity of noticing the matter. He would, however, remind the Committee that the Act of 1848, which constituted the offence of treason felony, was passed to meet the case of the Chart-
    622
    ists, who flourished from about 1833 to 1848. Their creed included universal suffrage, and we had now reached the point next to that—vote by ballot, which was now the law—and the abolition of property qualification, which was now abolished; and yet Chartists, for advocating those doctrines, with others of a like character, were liable to imprisonment—and some were imprisoned—as felons. He trusted the Committee would now decide that the rules under which such persons were imprisoned should be at once produced by the Home Secretary; or otherwise to enact that all such prisoners should be treated as first-class misdemeanants, under the Prisons Act of 1865. It was high time an attempt was made to remove from England the reproach that she treated her political prisoners worse than any other country in the world. In France even the Communists who half burnt Paris, and to whom were attributed the most atrocious designs, were treated exceptionally. They were not sent to the hulks or the galleys, but simply expatriated. When history came to be written there was nothing for which the children of Englishmen now living would blush so much as for the treatment of the men convicted in 1865. Had it not been for the ruling of the Chairman he could have made a much more powerful case than he had done by adducing details of the manner in which these men were treated. He had actually a letter from one of his constituents in which he stated that he had been sent to break stones, and had been kept at breaking stones for several hours in the course of the day. If men were treated so badly in English prisons, what would have been the treatment these men would have received in Irish prisons —the treatment of men to the like of whom England now owed a great part of its present liberties. He hoped that this Bill, when it went from that Committee, would be so framed that political prisoners would not be treated as murderers, demons, and culprits, of the worst order. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the adoption of the clause of which he had given Notice.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had not wished to interrupt the hon. Member, but he was bound to state that a great deal of what he had said was irrelevant to the subject-matter of the Bill. He even doubted whether the

    623
    question raised by the hon. Member could be raised on the present Bill at all. The Committee were discussing a measure regulating the treatment of prisoners sent to a certain class of prisons for a certain class of offences, and it had nothing to do with the general criminal law of the land; but the proposal of the hon. Member was, in fact, as much a change in that law as if he had proposed that, in future, no culprit should be executed within the walls of a prison. He agreed with the hon. Member that the old laws as to treason were in these days unnecessarily severe, and the Act of 12 Vict. made a distinction between what he might call treason proper and treason felony. The first was confined to acts against the person of the Sovereign, and all the rest to the smaller offence of treason felony. The Act distinctly laid down that all persons guilty of such acts should be regarded as guilty of felony, and being so found guilty, might be transported or imprisoned with or without hard labour, at the discretion of the Judge. But the Amendment said that although a man might be convicted of felony he was, by this Prisons Bill, to be treated as a first-class misdemeanant. But it would not only change the treatment of the prisoner, it would change the character of the offence and alter the punishment to be inflicted. If a prisoner were convicted and sentenced to penal servitude, the Bill would not affect him, as his punishment would be inflicted in a convict prison. The hon. Member, however, said that these who were technically guilty of treason felony and might be sentenced to imprisonment with or without hard labour should be treated as first-class misdemeanants. To adopt such a proposition would be to interfere with the function of the Judge who tried the particular case, and who was best able to form an opinion whether the prisoner should or should not be condemned to hard labour. The question before the Committee was a serious one. If this Amendment were accepted it would not simply change the treatment of certain prisoners in the gaols, but it would change the criminal law. If that was what the hon. Memintended he ought to bring in a Bill to amend or repeal the Act of Victoria, and then the whole question would be thoroughly discussed. The Committee should remember who the persons were
    624
    on whose behalf the clause was submitted by the hon. Member. They were described in the Act of Parliament as persons who combined and conspired to levy war against the Crown, to depose the Sovereign, and to stir up foreigners to invade the United Kingdom or other possessions of the Crown. Such persons should surely be called, not first-class misdemeanants, but first-class criminals.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, the objections of the right hon. Gentleman to the clause of his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) were merely technical. In point of law, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman was right; but the substance of the question was—how were those persons to be treated who were convicted of political offences. No one, of course, wished to extenuate these offences; but it should be remembered that these who were guilty of them might have been misled by strong political feelings, and ought not, therefore, to be placed on a footing with ordinary felons. There was once a discussion in that House whether or not Oliver Cromwell should have a statue in Westminster Hall, and yet he thought he remembered that Oliver Cromwell cut off King Charles's head, which was something more than treason felony. But if Charles I. had been successful Oliver Cromwell would have been hung, drawn, and quartered. Opinions differed greatly on these matters—there were people who greatly admired Oliver Cromwell, and thought him the greatest Sovereign this country ever had, while he (Sir George Bowyer) thought him a murderer of the worst description. Then, again, Washington was a rebel, and was guilty of treason felony, and he remembered a statesman in office once saying to him that if Washington had been caught he would have been hanged. Everybody now honoured Washington. Many Members of the House remembered the case of Pœrio, the Neapolitan Prefect of Police, who was convicted of attempting the life of King Ferdinand II., and sentenced to imprisonment. Well, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) wrote a pamphlet on the subject, which stated that Pœrio was treated as if he were a murderer. The country rang with execration of the King of Naples, and the feeling that was aroused led finally to the overthrow of the Bourbon

    625
    dynasty in Naples. But the fact was that the King of Naples was an extremely humane man, and he bought a palace at Palermo in which to confine as first-class misdemeanants persons convicted of treasonable offences. Thus Pœrio, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's indignation, never was in prison at all, and an Italian Prince, a friend of his (Sir George Bowyer) told him that he had been to see Pœrio, and found him in a very nice and comfortable position. Ought they not, then, to look at home and to act in the case of political prisoners on the principle laid down in the pamphlet of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich? A person who had been convicted of a political offence ought to be treated in a manner very different from that which fell to the lot of a man who had been guilty of an offence against the person, or a crime such as burglary or larceny. Allowance ought certainly to be made for the circumstances under which offences were committed; and in this view political prisoners were certainly entitled to more consideration than they received at present, the fact being that their treatment was not consistent either with justice or with the common laws of humanity. He therefore hoped the proposed new clause would be adopted. If it were pressed to a division he would vote in its favour.
    MR. BUTTsaid, he was anxious to state the reason why he should endeavour to support the clause, and more especially so, because the clause had not been taken in exactly the same way as it struck him. The clause embraced two things, which were perfectly distinct—namely, the prisoner under sentence convicted of treason felony, and committed for sedition or seditious libel. These two things were distinct, and admitted of different considerations. As to the persons convicted of treason felony, it had been pointed out by the Chairman that this clause could only apply to persons who had been sentenced to two years or under, and whatever improper treatment political prisoners were subjected to this clause would not remedy it. He understood that they still had power over the manner in which political prisoners sentenced to two years' imprisonment were to be treated; but this would only touch the treatment of a small portion of the political offenders, and would not be
    626
    equal in its results to a declaration of the House of Commons as to their proper treatment. He thought that he might say that the whole common sense and conscience of mankind revolted against treating political prisoners for a political offence exactly in the same manner as common thieves. He could speak of his own knowledge of men who had been tried for political offences, and yet afterwards attained distinctions under the Crown. There was the case of Thomas D'Arcy M'Gee, who became Prime Minister of Canada, and no man had done more service to the Crown in that Colony. Then there was the case of Sir Charles Gavan Duffy, who was tried for treason felony, and though the prosecution failed no one denied that he was implicated; yet the Crown made him Prime Minister of one of our great Colonies with the distinction of knighthood. Those two instances were sufficient to show the broad difference that must be made, and that they could never obliterate the distinction between the men who revolted against the Government under, it might be, an imaginary sense of wrong, and the person who committed a crime. The man who committed the political offence would refuse to associate with criminals, and he need only mention the case of the late Member for Meath (Mr. John Martin) to illustrate the difference between political prisoners and other offenders. Mr. Martin was convicted and imprisoned, but still no Member of that House would have been ashamed to have met him at an evening party. He was not prepared to say that political offenders should be treated as first -class misdemeanants. They were only reading the clause a second time, and whether that would be the proper way of dealing with political offenders was a question for the Committee; but he did think that they ought to say there should be a distinction made between a man who had only committed a political offence and a man who had committed an offence disgraceful to his family. It existed and was carried fully into effect in the case of Mr. O'Connell, who was allowed while in prison to see his friends, to provide his own table, and in every other respect was allowed to do what he pleased, and only deprived of his personal liberty. That was in strict accordance with the common law of the realm. The same course was followed

    627
    in the case of Mr. Cobbett, who, though convicted and sent to prison for a seditious libel, was allowed to edit his newspaper while in prison. And so it was in the case of Sir John Cam Hobhouse for a similar offence; but the rules and regulations now in existence prohibited all such liberty, although drawn up and acted on without the sanction of that House or the authority of an Act of Parliament. Political prisoners were now subject to have their hair cut, to wear the prison dress, to partake of prison fare, and wash and clean out their own rooms, or, more properly speaking, the cells which they occupied. In England, he would remind the Committee, there was a distinction made between first-class misdemeanants and other prisoners, but no such rule existed in Ireland. If a man in Ireland were convicted of a seditious libel, he only escaped the common punishment by the indulgence of the prison authorities actually departing from the law. Therefore, to a certain extent the criminal law' had been changed, not by an Act of Parliament—for if it had been attempted the whole country would have been in revolution —but without the sanction of Parliament by rules made by officials. Now, they were taking away the control of the prison justices, and they were vesting it in the Secretary of State, and he did not see any reason why they should not revert to the old Common Law right of prisoners convicted for seditious libels being leniently treated. With these views he supported the clause. He was not prepared to say that all political prisoners under the Treason Felony Act should be treated as first-class misdemeanants; but he was prepared to say that the honour of the country required that they should make a distinction between political offenders and other offenders, and it was quite time to strike against the vigorous discipline imposed upon them by officials of the gaol.
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGwas about to refer to the case of O'Donovan Rossa, when—
    THE CHAIRMANobjected that it was not the question before the Committee.
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he was about to say that a party convicted of treason felony might be sentenced to imprisonment for two years in any of the prisons under this Bill, and
    628
    therefore he thought he was in order in referring to the case of O'Donovan Rossa, who was treated in a certain manner in a convict prison.
    THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Gentleman that he was out of Order in referring to convict prisons.
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he would bew to the decision of the Chairman, but he contended that the treatment of prisoners in some of the county gaols in Ireland was more severe than in any convict prison. He had inspected the prisoners in the county which he had the honour to represent (Cork), and if hon. Members knew what was suffered by the prisoners in those gaols —which he believed were model gaols—they would be glad to alter the system. In the punishment cell he found there was no light, no air, and that prisoners confined in that cell were not allowed to leave it for 72 hours at a time, even to attend to the calls of nature.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSremarked that the rules relating to Irish gaols were entirely different from these in force with respect to gaols in England.
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING: Are there no punishment cells in England?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Not of that kind.
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGwas glad to hear it, and hoped that when the Irish Prisons Bill came on for discussion he would have the support of the right hon. Gentleman in endeavouring to get rid of the system to which he had called attention in Ireland. He would. in the meantime, give his cordial support to the clause of his hon. Friend.
    MR. J. COWENsaid, he offered no opinion on the technical point that had been raised by the Home Secretary. That was a matter for the lawyers, and not for a plain Member of Parliament like himself. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), however, was an acknowledged legal authority, and he gave it as his opinion that the Amendment could be accepted without any of the confusion arising that was feared by the Government. The point to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee was not the mere phraseology of the clause, but the great principle that underlay it. It proposed to make a distinction between the treatment of ordinary criminals and men convicted of political offences. They all

    629
    acknowledged the difference in actual life. If a man stole another's purse he inflicted upon the individual robbed a distinct injury; but if an enthusiastic, though, possibly, not very discreet, politician strove to alter the Constitution of his country by means that were scarcely legal, he only offended against the laws of the State. In the first instance, the advantage was a selfish and a personal one. A man strove to benefit himself at the expense of his neighbours. In the second case, men were usually moved by the most generous and self-sacrificing sentiments. They staked their property, their liberty, and sometimes their lives on achieving a change in which they would only participate as a member of the community, but for which they sacrificed more than the mass of their countrymen. There was, to his mind, a clear difference between one class of offence and the other. And, indeed, society recognized that distinction. In the House there were 10, if not 12, hon. Gentlemen who had at one or other period of their lives been called political prisoners, or incarcerated for Press offences. They recognized all these Gentlemen without distinction as their Colleagues and their equals. Some of them were men of marked ability, of great attainments, and much popularity in that Assembly. Let them realize the difference of feeling that would be manifested towards them if, instead of being imprisoned for political reasons, they had been detained for embezzlement, or any description of dishonest conduct. If persons of the latter character had been returned to the House of Commons, he ventured to say that, whatever might be their other qualifications, they would have been shunned and not courted by the Members. In this difference of treatment he contended that they unconsciously, but very emphatically, marked the measure of censure they passed upon a man guilty of a political offence and a person guilty of a moral crime. What his lion. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) wished to do was to recognize, in prison life, the same difference that they recognized, and acted upon in Parliament and public life. The request was a reasonable one, and he could not understand what objection there could be to the course proposed. It was a remarkable fact—and no more remarkable than true—that while the treatment of ordinary crimi-
    630
    nals in this country had been softened and mitigated, the treatment of political prisoners had been hardened and rendered more irksome and degrading. His hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) had referred to the manner in which Pœrio and his compatriots were treated in Italy. It was quite true, as had been said, that Englishmen in this manner acted very inconsistently. They had all manner of sympathy for political prisoners in other countries. Distance to them lent enchantment to the view; but their insular egotism would not permit them to perceive that in England harder measures were dealt to politicians who made themselves amenable to the law than were meted to these whose cases had excited interest in other countries. The right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister had earned a world-wide and deserved renown for the chivalrous manner in which he had pleaded the cause of the men who were confined in Italian dungeons. He (Mr. Cowen) was not there to detract, even in appearance, from the fame that the right hon. Gentleman had won. He might, however, say that he knew some of these Italian prisoners, and had heard from their own lips a recital of their sufferings and their struggles. He knew two honest, but perhaps mistaken Irishmen, who had been confined for their adhesion to Fenianism, and he had listened to their prison tales also. He felt bound to say that the treatment of the Italian captives was in no sense worse than that meted out to the Fenians by the Government of which the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) was the head. It was easy to see the defects in other people's characters and modes of procedure; but it was not quite so easy at all times to discover the shortcomings of their own. It was remarkable that, while we had rendered the gaol life of ordinary criminals smoother and easier, we had heaped hardships upon erring politicians. They had no end of philanthropic pity for pick-pockets; there was no want of sentimental commiseration for common thieves; but the enthusiastic patriot, who staked his all upon an issue which he believed to be for the welfare of his fellows, had only a small measure of kindly feeling shown him. It was a disgrace to England, but it was nevertheless true, that it was the only country in Western or civilized Europe whose

    631
    political prisoners were not separated from, and treated differently to, regular convicts. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick had referred to the case of Mr. Cobbett. With the permission of the Committee, he would refer to other instances—for facts illustrated a point better than all arguments. Not many years ago the late Mr. Leigh Hunt was sent to prison. He had commented on certain influential personages in terms that were more correct than courtly. During his detention he edited his newspaper, carried on his literary work, and directed his business without restraint. The only loss he sustained was through the fine inflicted and the imprisonment imposed. Contrast such treatment with that to which his (Mr. Cowen's) late friend, Mr. Ernest Jones, was subjected. Mr. Jones, like Mr. Hunt, was a poet, a man of letters, and an editor. The offence of which he was proved guilty was declared by the Judge at the trial to be one of the mildest of the kind he had ever had to adjudicate upon. Yet notwithstanding this, Mr. Jones was compelled to consort with thieves, burglars, and highwaymen. The severity of the punishment inflicted upon a delicate man amounted in his case to little less than torture. Through the intervention of the late Mr. Joseph Hume and other Members of that House the severity of the punishment was relaxed. If it had not been so, Mr. Jones would have been killed in prison. As it was, it laid the seeds of a disease that led to premature death. The British Bar thus lost, in the prime of life, a distinguished advocate, and English literature one of its most brilliant votaries. Take another case. The late Mr. Richard Carlisle was imprisoned for 10 years for political offences. Six of these he spent in Dorchester Gaol. The offence he was charged with was one that ran counter to the prejudices of Englishmen. It was none other than insisting upon the publication of the political and theological works of Thomas Paine. So vigorously did Mr. Carlisle pursue his agitation, that at one time not only himself, but his wife, some members of his family, and 20 of his shopmen were all in custody. Yet, during his prolonged incarceration, Mr. Carlisle carried on his business, edited his publication, and fulminated his denunciations against the Government. The very name of his paper
    632
    was almost an incentive to a prosecution, as it was called The Republican. Contrast his treatment with that of Mr. Charles Kickham. That gentleman was a poet, a pleasing novelist, and a literary man of ability. He threw himself with all the ardour of his nature into the Fenian cause. Being arrested and condemned, he was sent to London with the vilest criminals, and to undergo the most oppressive labour. Although a weakly man, and in delicate health, no sympathy was shown him. Mr. Kickham was a gentleman by birth, by education, and, what was better, by nature also; but none of the consideration that was extended to Mr. Hunt or Mr. Carlisle fell to his lot. Take another case, which brought the question home even more closely to the present day. A fortnight ago the London workmen buried their leader. They did it reverently and kindly. Round the open grave of the Brompton Cemetery there were gathered the flower of the metropolitan artizans, some Members of the House of Commons, and not a few of the most distinguished literary men of the time. Mr. Odger was what was known as an "extreme politician." A few years ago he was threatened with a prosecution for sedition. Accident alone prevented his arrest. Had he been taken, he would assuredly have been condemned; because, although murderers and thieves sometimes eluded the meshes of the law, it was rare that a politician was allowed to escape. If Mr. Odger had been tried and found guilty he would have been treated in the same way as Mr. Kickham and Mr. Ernest Jones. Compare the treatment that would have been meted out to him to that given to another gentleman. He had no wish to refer to a painful and unfortunate case, but it was in the recollection of the House that a brave, able, and distinguished man had by a half hour's folly blasted a brilliant reputation as a soldier. When that gentleman was being sentenced by the Judge, he was told that his offence warranted the Court in sending him to penal servitude, and that, under ordinary circumstances, such would have been the sentence; but owing to his having been brought up as a gentleman, and educated with delicacy and refinement, he was during his detention to be treated only as a first-class misdemeanant. He wished to know from the Government

    633
    and the House what justice or sense of fairplay there could be in thus treating such a man as he had referred to, and at the same time punishing political prisoners, as they had done the Fenians? What was there in the character of Mr. Jones, Mr. Kickham, and Mr. Odger to deprive them of the consideration that had been extended to the Cavalry officer he had just referred to. It was against this injustice, as well as against the folly of punishing so greatly political offenders, that he protested. He knew Englishmen did not like to be reminded of the fact that they had amongst them men suffering for political offences. It was quite true that there were not many, and that the liberty enjoyed in this land was as large as that enjoyed by the people of any other country; and that, in addition to the freedom they possessed, they had the power in their hands to achieve further liberty if they required it. Remembering that, he was willing to admit that nothing but the most serious considerations could warrant any illegal pressure upon the Government. But still, although political prisoners were not common in England, they were to be found. It was not probable that they would have many in the future; but still it was possible. England, however, was not the only part of the United Kingdom, and in Ireland he feared the existence of political prisoners for years to come would be both possible and probable. They should remember that the greatest part of Ireland was under martial law; that a state of siege existed in that country as completely as it did in France two years ago; and that every man's liberty was at the mercy of an ignorant police constable, or the caprice of an officious Jack-in-office. The coercive laws in existence in Ireland were—so far as they appeared upon the statute book —as repressive and arbitrary as the laws of any country in the world. The only reason why they were tolerated was because the Government for the time being administered them with moderation. As long, however, as these repressive enactments existed they must look for conspiracies, and plots, and insurrections. Ireland in this respect re-acted upon England. There were not hundreds, but thousands of Irishmen living in this country. In some of the larger manufacturing centres, one-fourth, almost one-third of the population was Irish. They
    634
    brought here all the feelings of bitterness that had been generated by long years of misrule in the sister Isle. Indeed these feelings were intensified in England, because Irish workmen felt that here they had greater liberty and larger privileges than they had in their own land, and that embittered them against English rule. They saw that in the state of the national party. In Ireland the prevalent feeling was in favour of a system of Home Rule. In England the feeling among the Irish people was in favour of Fenian principles. Like it or not, as they chose, such were the facts, and it was for them to deal with them. The very severity of the punishment the Government inflicted produced the result they complained of. It was a maxim as old as Christianity that the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the Church, and the Irish nationalists sympathised with the sorrows and emulated the example of the prisoners who were treated with such barbarity. There was no wisdom in attempting to disparage the character of ardent but sometimes unwise politicians. The history of that House and of this country was a record of what had been achieved by so-called seditious writings and treasonable proceedings. The proudest chapter in the history of distinguished members of the British aristocracy was that which recorded their efforts after successful sedition. He hoped the Committee would abandon their prejudices on the subject, and assent to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, that the sufferings of prisoners, however much people might sympathise with them, did not touch the question before the Committee. He objected to this attempt to alter the criminal law by a side wind. It should be remembered that the Treason Felony Act mitigated the punishment for treason, except in certain cases of the deepest atrocity, altering it from death to penal servitude. The offence, however, still remained a felony, and he considered that persons convicted of treason felony should continue to be treated as felons, and not as misdemeanants. He therefore opposed the proposition of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell).
    CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, that after hearing the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr.

    635
    Cowen) he was of opinion that the preceding speakers had done well not to enter into the merits of the question. It was said they were using a side wind to raise a false issue by stating that the question of the treatment of political prisoners ought not to be introduced into a discussion on a Prisons Bill. They were, in fact, treading in the footsteps of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If they looked at Clause 34 they would find it empowered the Home Secretary to make rules to reduce the punishment of prisoners in for three months with hard labour, from the first to the second class of hard labour for a portion of their time. True, this was a small question, and it might merely depend upon the behaviour of the prisoner; but the Home Secretary took a power precisely similar to that asked for by the hon. Member for Meath. Then in another clause—namely, Clause 35—it was stated that—
    "The Secretary of State may from time to make, and when made repeal, alter, or add to rules with respect to the classification and treatment of criminal prisoners before conviction, and of prisoners imprisoned for non-compliance with the order of a justice or justices to pay a sum of money, or imprisoned in respect of the default of a distress to satisfy a sum of money adjudged to be paid by order of a justice or justices, so that such rules are in mitigation and not in increase of the effect of such imprisonment, as regulated by the Prison Act, 1865."
    In other words, he could mitigate the rules of the prison so as to treat them as first-class misdemeanants. Thus the Home Secretary had enacted for one class of prisoners what the hon. Member for Meath proposed for another class, and therefore how he could make alterations in prison discipline and object to similar alterations for another class of prisoners he could not explain; and he wished the Government or some one on the other side of the House would explain at some future time. He certainly allowed that the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Meath was somewhat larger, and extended to more important cases than those already dealt with in the Bill; but in Clauses 34 and 35 it would be seen that the Home Secretary had put before the House substantially the same principle.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he had by chance, in 1848, in a visit which was made to the Metropolitan Prisons in company with Sir Peter
    636
    Laurie, Mr. Williams, and his near relative the late Mr. Hume, seen in a cell of Millbank the late Mr. Ernest Jones, who had just completed his daily task of tearing oakum, to which he had been sentenced, with two years' confinement to prison, and was shocked at the manner in which that gentleman was treated. No doubt Mr. Jones was tried and condemned by the Judges, but it was for expressing political opinions which, though then condemned, had since been applied in practice by the Conservative Party. It was then decided that Mr. Hume should appeal to the Home Secretary of State for better treatment of a gentleman of education, and, as his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle had stated, Mr. Hume's appeal was successful in freeing Mr. Jones from his sentence of hard labour. He heard him make the speech at Kennington Common on 10th April, 1848, for which he was punished, and judging at the present time by the lights which we had lighted by the Conservatives, who had given effect in part to the demands of the Chartists of 1848, did not believe he was guilty of any political offence. The law was obeyed in a remarkable manner by the people assembled at Kennington Common on that occasion, and he thought their conduct ought to have induced the Government to abstain from political prosecutions. It was worthy of observation that the reforms advocated by Mr. Ernest Jones and his friends had since been carried out by a Conservative Government. He appealed, therefore, to the Home Secretary to take measures that political prisoners should not be punished in future with that severity which had heretofore been observed towards them.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONobserved, that there were many misdemeanours infinitely graver than any felony short of murder, and because an offence might be technically a felony that was no reason why the prisoner should be treated with greater severity than if he were convicted only of misdemeanour. The late Mr. Ernest Jones was a member of his circuit, and a more high-minded man or one of more refined character he had never met. He was a gentleman by birth and station, his father having been aide-de-camp to the late King of Hanover, who was his godfather; yet because that gentleman, led away by

    637
    strong views as to popular rights, made what was called a seditious speech, he was subjected to punishment of a severe and degrading character. Turning to the Amendment before the Committee, although it might not be perfect in form, he must vote for its principle. After the many cases of gross and infamous ill-treatment which had been detailed of political prisoners both in England and in Ireland, it was time that the Legislature should interfere. He was amazed that such things could have gone on with a Liberal Government in office. He thought that they ought by the present Bill to prevent the possibility of their recurrence in future.
    MR. MUNTZrecommended the hon. Member for Meath to accept the proposition of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing), by which his Amendment would be made to apply to prisoners committed to gaols governed under the provisions of the Bill now before the House.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he would adopt the suggestion.
    Amendment proposed.
    SIR HENRY JAMESpointed out that the clause as proposed to be amended converted a person convicted of treason felony into a misdemeanant. If the hon. Member for Meath would strike out the words "treason felony," and confine his clause to persons convicted of "sedition and seditious libel," he would support his clause.
    DIR. NEWDEGATE,remembering that the Treason Felony Act—on which he now expressed no opinion — was deliberately passed by the Legislature, could not vote for reversing that Act by a simple clause in the present Bill. He therefore hoped that the hon. Member for Meath would adopt the alteration in his clause recommended by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James). Persons convicted of sedition and seditious libel ought not to be herded with the common class of criminals in the gaols of this country.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had not quite caught the grounds of his speech. They could not deal in that Bill with the general question of political prisoners, except only as far as they were confined in those gaols. He had ad-
    638
    dressed himself almost entirely to the Amendment as he had found it on the Paper, where it had stood during the Recess, and if it was persevered in he could not go into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). He had said nothing of any other Amendment of which no Notice had been given, and which he had not seen. Irish Members seemed to entertain the notion that the rules of English prisons were laid down at the will of the prison officials; but that was not so. The rules were laid down by statute, and that would virtually be the case in the present Bill, as he would have to submit the rules to Parliament.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he would withdraw from his Amendment the words "treason felony," because the number of persons liable to be confined for that offence would be so few and insignificant that it was not worth while to persevere in insisting on the insertion of the words in the clause.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, his objection was now at an end, but he should prefer to deal with the case of common law misdemeanants on the Report, as he wished all such misdemeanants to be treated in the same way.
    MR. BUTTsaid, that as there was nothing in the clause to which the House would object, the better way seemed to be to pass the clause as amended, and for the Home Secretary to amend it on the Report.
    MR. HENLEYregretted that the discretion now vested in the Judges to say whether a prisoner should be treated as a first-class misdemeanant or not was to be taken away and made a prison rule. That discretion had hitherto been wisely exercised by our Judges, according to the circumstances of the case.
    On the Motion of Mr. PARNELL, the words treason felony "were struck out.
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS (for Sir HENRY JACKSON)moved, after Clause 11, to insert the following Clause:—
    (Visits to prison by any justice.)
    "Section fifty-five of The Prisons Act, 1865,' is hereby repealed, and instead thereof the following enactment shall take effect, viz.:

    639
    —"Any justice of the peace, having jurisdiction in the place in which a prison is situate, may, when he thinks fit, enter into and examine the condition of such prison, and of the prisoners therein, and he may enter any observations he may think fit to make in reference to the condition of the prison or abuses therein in the visitors book to be kept by the gaoler; and it shall be the duty of the gaoler to draw the attention of the visiting committee, at their next visit to the prison, to any entries made in the same book; but he shall not be entitled, in pursuance of this section, to visit any prisoner under sentence of death, or to communicate with any prisoner, except in reference to the treatment in prison of such prisoner, or to some complaint that such prisoner may make as to such treatment.'"
    MR. RODWELLmoved to add to the clause that any justice
    "having jurisdiction in the place where the offence in respect of which any prisoner may be confined in prison was committed"
    should have the same power of entering a prison and of examining the prisoners.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
    MR. PARNELLmoved the insertion of the following clause after Clause 35:—
    (Special rules to be submitted to Parliament in case of suspension of Habeas Corpus Act.)
    "The Secretary of State shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Bill, make and submit to Parliament special rules for the treatment of prisoners who may be arrested under any suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act."
    It might be said to be in the recollection of the Committee, but when the question of the treatment of untried prisoners was first brought before them the Home Secretary agreed to bring up a clause which would govern that case; and in reply to a Question which was put by him (Mr. Parnell)—whether there would be any objection to extend to the case of prisoners not accused of any offence, but detained in prison under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act—the right hon. Gentleman, after some consideration, was understood to promise that such prisoners should be included. When, however, the clause came under consideration, an hon. and learned Member (Mr. Serjeant Simon) gave it as his opinion, but it was not quite certain, that the case of these prisoners would be covered by the words proposed, and an Amendment was therefore moved ex-
    640
    pressly including them. The right hon. Gentleman then objected to the Amendment on the ground that it would be necessary, in the event of a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, to make special rules for the treatment of prisoners arrested under the provisions of the Suspension Act. It was objected to with great force by some Members on the Opposition side that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act was generally carried in a great hurry, with very little consideration, and in fact when the country was in a sort of panic, and that the proper time to make rules for the treatment of prisoners was when the House was in a calm state of mind. He should be sorry to look forward to any probability of another suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, which had been suspended in times of great commercial pressure, when large bodies of men were out of employment, and, as was natural in such circumstances, the attention of the people was directed to the grievance under which they suffered in a more forcible way than was likely to be the case in time of prosperity. England had enjoyed unexampled prosperity by reason of the proximity of her coal and iron to water carriage; but it was plain she was not to continue to supply the world with iron to the same extent as formerly, and the consequence might be to bring about, in a few years, a problem which statesmen might find it difficult to deal with without having recourse to coercive measures. He did not say that such a thing was probable, but it was possible; and it behoved them to make rules while their minds were calm for the treatment of persons who might be arrested under such measures. The case with regard to Ireland was even stronger. It was only so recently as 1867 that the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended in Ireland, and it remained suspended for four years. The power of the Lord Lieutenant to make rules for the treatment of prisoners was not conferred till the suspension had been put an end to, and this had reference only to prisoners confined under the Peace Preservation Act, which referred only to Westmeath, Meath, and certain parts of the King's County, whereas the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act affected the whole of Ireland. The Committee had heard from the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) an account of the suf-

    641
    ferings he had undergone in his local prison. He stated that when he was transferred to Mountjoy he was treated with much more consideration; but there was reason to believe that this was due to an exceptional mode of treating him, as a person of some standing in his neighbourhood. Hon. Members would, no doubt, have read the letter of Dr. Robert M'Donnell, in which he spoke of the treatment of prisoners confined in Mount-joy Prison under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. In that letter it was stated that those prisoners were treated far worse than untried prisoners, and were subjected to the strict, close, cellular discipline and solitary confinement in the same way as convicted prisoners. There was once an interesting libel case tried at his (Mr. Parnell's) native town, the case of White v. Sullivan. The Sullivan of the action was the now hon. Member for Louth. The action was brought by Mr. White for libel, said to be contained in Mr. Sullivan's newspaper, in which certain statements were made having reference to a coroner's inquest on the death of a prisoner held by Mr. White. In the course of that action Dr. M'Donnell was called, and gave evidence as to certain suppressed Reports made by prison authorities to Government, which were kept not only from the public, but from Parliament. In these Reports Dr. M'Donnell said there were then 53 persons confined under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and that they were submitted to a course of treatment even more severe than that of convicts undergoing their probationary term. Dr. M'Donnell gave many particulars of the treatment, and it was, in fact, in consequence of his persistent reports upon this treatment that he was asked to resign. There was a letter that morning in The Times, written by Mr. Fisher, which was of peculiar value, because Mr. Fisher had been one of the members of the Board of Superintendence of County Prisons in Ireland, appointed by the Grand Jury of the county to visit and make inquiry as to the treatment of prisoners during the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. He was a gentleman of position and property. In his Report he recommended a different course of treatment, but the reply was that it could not be done; and the Report was set aside. He hoped the Home
    642
    Secretary would see his way to accept the clause or some modification of it, and he begged to move the clause standing in his name, with the slight alteration, namely—
    "The Secretary of State shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Bill, frame and. submit rules to a Resolution of both Houses."
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that there was already in the Bill a clause relating to rules for the exceptional treatment of unconvicted prisoners held to be presumably innocent, and asked whether the hon. Member intended by his clause to go further, and have a separate treatment for prisoners under arrest in consequence of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act? If not, the clause now proposed would be unnecessary.
    MR. PARNELLexplained that he had brought forward this new clause in order to remove some legal doubts which had been thrown on the application of the clause already in the Bill to the class of prisoners he now proposed to deal with.
    MR. NEWDEGATEcontended that these Habeas Corpus prisoners ought to be placed in precisely the same position as unconvicted prisoners; but he suggested that the hon. Member should withdraw his proposal for the present, and bring on the question again when the definition of the rules came under consideration.
    MR. BUTTsaid, they must be all agreed that the things mentioned in Dr. M'Donnell's account should not occur again. He had a strong objection to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act being discussed as coming within the ordinary jurisdiction of the country, That it had entered into the nominal government of Ireland was too true; but he hoped the time was coming when that would be the case no longer. He appealed to the hon. Member for Meath to rest satisfied with the clause now standing in the Bill. For his own part, he believed that persons arrested under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act would come under the provisions of the Bill. If there was the shadow of a doubt, the introduction of some such Amendment as "prisoners not under the sentence of the jurisdiction of the country," or some such provision, whenever the question of the suspension of

    643
    the Habeas Corpus Act was again discussed, might be inserted.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the words already inserted in the Bill would meet the case in point; and if over it should be found necessary to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, that would be the proper time to consider the matter. He hoped, therefore, the Amendment would not be pressed.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that he desired to say a word in reply to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. In the case of an ordinary prisoner a primâ facie case was made against him before he was committed. But this was not the case in regard to a further imprisonment under a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. No evidence was adduced against him, and his case, therefore, was entirely an exceptional one, and was not affected by the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that if it was understood that the rules as to untried prisoners should apply to the Habeas Corpus prisoners, and that the Home Secretary would consider the propriety of making some further rules with regard to the latter prisoners, he would assent to the course proposed.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANrose to move the insertion of the following clause:—
    (Detention prior to trial not to exceed three months.)
    "No person shall be detained in custody in any prison longer than three months without being brought to trial, and if at the expiration of such time the trial of such person shall not have commenced, such person shall be discharged from custody unless upon an application to a judge of the High Court of Justice such judge shall be of opinion that it has been impossible to proceed with such trial for want of evidence expected from abroad which could not by any possibility be obtained within the three months before mentioned, or from the illness of the prosecutor or prisoner, or important witnesses, then and in that case the judge shall make such order as to further detention as he may think fit not exceeding a further term of two months, such person having the right to show cause against such application."
    MR. RODWELL,rising to Order, submitted that the proposed clause was not within the scope and spirit of the Bill, inasmuch as it interfered directly with the administration of the criminal
    644
    law with regard to warrants of committal, and as to the time at which an assize should be held or a gaol delivery ordered, neither of which was touched upon in the Bill; and, therefore, he maintained that it was not competent for the Committee to deal with the clause.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANheld that it was competent for the Committee to consider the clause, and that the Bill did deal with the custody and treatment of prisoners, beth before and after commitment. The clause might not be workable; but he asked the Committee to approve of its principle, as it attempted to remedy a crying evil.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid that the Bill dealt with the ownership and management of prisons, and was not intended to alter the general criminal administration of this country, and therefore the clause could hardly be considered as coming within the scope of the Bill. He therefore, felt it to be his duty not to put the clause to the Committee.
    SIR HENRY JAMESasked, whether the clause could be discussed if it was so shaped as to affect the prisoner only between his commitment and trial?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he did not consider that such a change would remove all the objections.
    Clause withdrawn.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSrose to explain an apparent difference between a statement which he had made respecting the number of prisoners punished by whipping in gaol, and a statement made by the hon. Member for Stoke (Dr. Kenealy) on the same subject. The hon. Member had said that, between the 21st of July, 1864, and the 14th of April, 1871, the number of such prisoners was 1,398. He (Mr. Cross) had the judicial statistics before him, which showed that the number in each year was from 150 to 160. As it very often happened they were both right and they were both wrong. If the hon. Member would deduct from the number of 1,398 which he gave, these whippings which were given by order of the quarter sessions, and which formed part of the actual punishment awarded, he would arrive at the number which he (Mr. Cross) laid before the Committee as showing how many persons had been whipped by order of the visiting justices for offences committed in gaol.
    DR. KENEALYsaid, he had done all he possibly could to ascertain the accuracy of the figures, and might be wrong in his statement. He was now glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to see that the figures were set right, and he was extremely obliged to him.
    Bill reported, as amended; to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 121.]

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 4.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Assheton Cross.)
  PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 4.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he did not now propose to enter upon the principle of the Bill—his object was simply to explain the course he proposed to take with regard to it. The English Bill having now gone through Committee, what he proposed to do with the present Bill was to read it the second time now, and then place it on the Paper for Committee pro formâ. It was then his intention to introduce into the Bill all the Amendments which had been made in the English Bill, in order that they might be placed as nearly as possible pari passû, any discussion that might be necessary being reserved until the House went regularly into Committee upon the Bill after it had been reprinted. He would, therefore, simply move the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Assheton Cross.)
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, the course which the right hon. Gentleman proposed would be satisfactory to the Representatives from Scotland—that was, provided the right hon. Gentleman would undertake that an opportunity would be afforded for a full discussion of the provisions of the Bill before the House went into Committee upon it.
    MR. ANDERSON: Imust confess that it is rather an extraordinary mode of procedure to introduce a Bill and read it a second time, without any discussion whatever taking place upon it; but it is very much the course that has been
    646
    adopted in regard to Scotch legislation for the past few years, and of which we have been always complaining. Indeed, we have been systematically told that if we are to get any legislation at all for Scotland, we must accept it without discussion. That has been the process going on every year, and for some years past we have been obliged to accept all our legislation in that way. I hope that if we assent to the second reading of the Bill to-night, it will be on the clear understanding that there is to be an opportunity for a full discussion at some future stage. The Bill requires to be discussed. There are many things in the system of prison administration in the present Bill that I do not at all like. We may feel ourselves constrained in Scotland to accept the measure as England has accepted hers; indeed, I do not think there is much more to be said in favour of the Scotch measure than that the English Bill has been accepted. We should have liked very much to have had some information as to the principal thing which it seems to mo can be offered in favour of this—namely, the amount of saving which the right hon. Gentleman expects to make by the measure. My own opinion is, that that saving is the most utter delusion ever passed off on the House. In the first instance, there would be a large increased expenditure, and I want to know what surplus the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got to pay the extra cost. Whether it is raised by local rate or Imperial taxation, the money will still have to be paid. The economy shown in the English Bill is extremely small, and I am quite satisfied that when the measure comes to be analyzed, in place of this economy it will be found that there will be a much greater expenditure under the new system than under the old. Seeing that the money has to be raised somehow, either by Imperial or local taxation, I do not think it matters three straws to the country whether it is raised by one or the other. There are many points in connection with the Bill on which I should like to say a few words, but seeing that the English Members have accepted their Bill, and that the maintenance of the English prisons is to be henceforth paid for out of the Imperial Exchequer, it follows as a matter of necessity that the Scotch prisons should be paid for in the same way. We cannot

    647
    undertake to take the Scotch prison expenditure all upon ourselves, and pay a share of the English also, and therefore the adoption of the Government proposals by England renders it necessary that we should accept the same principle in Scotland. I will not take up more of the time of the House, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give a distinct undertaking that full opportunity will be afforded for discussion upon a future stage of the Bill, at a time when the Scotch Members can be present to take part in it.
    MR. W. HOLMSsaid, he believed that throughout Scotland this Bill was regarded with a considerable amount of dissatisfaction. The transference to the Home Secretary of the powers and jurisdiction hitherto vested in local prison authorities was looked upon as a marked advance towards a bureaucratic, as opposed to a local system of government. In the debate on the English Prisons Bill the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department said that the prison authorities should be glad to get quit of their prisons, as they would be saved the cost of maintaining them. He (Mr. Holms) could assure the right hon. Gentleman that in that part of the country with which he was more immediately connected there was no such feeling. On the contrary, these who took an interest in this question believed that Imperial would be more costly than local management, and that consequently taxation would not be diminished, but increased. It was true that local rates would be reduced; but as those prisons must be maintained at the cost of the public, we should have increased Imperial taxation. As a similar measure for England had passed through Committee in this House, he did not intend to oppose the second reading of this Bill. He wished, however, to call the attention of lion. Members to the unsatisfactory mode of legislating for Scotland, of which the measure was a good example. It was, ho thought, most desirable that, as far as possible, the laws of England and Scotland should be assimilated, and instead of having one Act for England and another for Scotland, they should, in the words used on a recent occasion by the Home Secretary, be "rolled into one," when practicable. Now, he ventured to think that a Prisons Bill might have been passed for both countries, with
    648
    such modifying and explanatory clauses added with reference to Scotland as might be found necessary. Such a course was successfully adopted in the Employers and Workmen Act of 1875; but if this course could not be followed, then it appeared to him that we should endeavour to make the two Acts precisely the same in every respect, except in so far as the difference in the laws and customs of the two countries rendered it absolutely necessary that they should be different. He found, however, that instead of this having been done, the two Bills were different in many cases in which the circumstances of the countries were precisely the same. For example, in England Commissioners were to have the management of prisons under the Home Secretary; in Scotland they were to have managers, and as they were to have the same duties to perform, why not call them by the same name? In Scotland a prison manager might, under pains and penalties, require the attendance of persons and the production of papers. He could find no such claim in the English Bill, or in the unrepealed Acts to which it referred. In England, too, an officer of a prison who had been in the service for not less than 20 years might receive a retiring allowance not exceeding two-thirds of his salary, while in Scotland, in order to become entitled to this allowance, he must serve at least 40 years. In England the Secretary of State might relax the law relating to hard labour; there was no such provision in the Scotch Bill. Again, in England the Home Secretary might from time to time repeal or alter rules with respect to the classification and treatment of debtors; there was no corresponding clause in the Bill for Scotland. On the other hand, juveniles under 14 years of age might be whipped in Scotland in accordance with regulations made by the Lord Advocate; there was no such provision in the Bill for England. When the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary introduced the English Prisons Bill, one of the strongest arguments which he used in its favour was, that it would ensure uniformity in the treatment of prisoners and the management of prisons. It was, he (Mr. Helms) confessed, difficult to see how, in the face of such a declaration, the condition of prisoners in the two countries should be different, and why offi-

    649
    cers of prisons when discharged should be treated differently. He had to ask whether there was any reason why this opportunity should not be taken to assimilate the laws of the two countries? Such a course would not only be just, but he believed would give general satisfaction. In connection with this question he had received a number of letters and suggestions from parties in Scotland well qualified to give an opinion on the subject, and these suggestions had invariably been in favour of Amendments which, if carried out, would remove those differences to which he had alluded.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he was quite satisfied with the course which Her Majesty's Government had taken on this Bill. Throughout the discussion on the English Bill he had had it in his mind that we were at the same time discussing the Scotch Bill; and he had entertained the hope that when they came to the Scotch Bill there would be very little discussion except upon a few matters of detail. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow in the reasons he stated for introducing this change—namely, putting them on economical grounds. These were important grounds certainly, but he thought there were other grounds to be urged for the change of law—namely, the grounds of the great variety of prisons without the power of classifying them. This ground applied in a far greater degree in Scotland than it did in England, and he believed there was a strong necessity for a change. There was one point to which he desired to refer—namely, the absolute necessity that there should be some "doubling" of counties, in order to introduce some better administration than existed at present. Then, as to the mode of administration, the prisons of Scotland had hitherto under the Act been under the management of the Commissioners of Supply. This anomaly arose from the circumstance that hitherto the Commissioners of Supply were the only bodies dealing with the "grievances" of the counties; but as they were now relieved from this obligation, he submitted it would be better to assimilate the law of Scotland to that of England, and to commit the duty to the justices of the peace instead of to the Commissioners of Supply.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHbegged to ask whether, as there were a great many Amendments to be moved to the Bill, when the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary reprinted the Bill, would he reprint the Amendments on a separate paper?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONdesired to say on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he felt it to be his object to meet as far as he could the views of the Scotch Members generally, and at the same time to assimilate as nearly as possible the Scotch law to the English law. His right hon. Friend desired not only to introduce those Amendments which had been made in the English Bill, but to consider how far other Amendments might be introduced which would apply more especially to Scotland. He had only further to say that should the Bill be read a second time now, his right hon. Friend would take care that the Committee on the Bill should be taken at such an hour as would give ample opportunity for a full discussion of its provisions.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  PRISONS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 3.]
  (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 22nd February.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHstated that he desired the Amendments agreed to in the English Bill to be inserted in the Irish Bill before it was proceeded with in Committee. However, there were some difficulties in the way, seeing that the Bill had already gone into Committee. The Speaker had already left the Chair, and he doubted whether he could insert Amendments in in the ordinary course. He would make further inquiry, and of course take care that due Notice should be given of the course to be adopted. He proposed now to report Progress, and to adjourn the Committee on the Bill until Monday.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

      DEPARTMENTAL STATEMENT.
      MR. SPEAKER: Before the hon. Member (Mr. W. H. Smith) rises to make his Statement with regard to the Civil Service Estimates, it is right that I should point out to the House that the course proposed to be taken is a departure from the ordinary practice by which the House is precluded from discussing Estimates about to be referred to the Committee of Supply. The House, however, having on a recent occasion, upon a discussion raised by the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid), manifested a desire that there should be a Ministerial Statement with respect to the Civil Service Estimates, I am bound to give effect to the wish of the House by allowing that Statement to be made. At the same time, although the proceeding will be a departure from ordinary practice, it will no doubt be for the convenience of the House and the progress of Public Business that such a Statement should be made.
      MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that, in moving that the Speaker do leave the Chair, he had to ask permission of the House to make a short Statement with reference to the Civil Service Estimates, and he must ask for indulgence while making the Statement, which, he feared, would not be an interesting, although it might be a novel one. The only precedent for such a Statement was that made by Mr. Wilson, who was his Predecessor in 1857 in the office which he had the honour to fill, when there had been a very considerable apparent increase in the Estimates from a period with which Mr. Wilson compared them. On that account it was thought expedient to offer more detailed explanations than it was possible to give in Committee on the several classes of Votes. The Estimates now to be considered showed an increase for 1877–8, as compared with 1876–7, of £399,146, including the Revenue Departments. The Estimates for 1876–7 amounted to £21,356,369, and the Estimates now submitted to £21,755,515; but from the increase must be deducted the growth of what were called extra receipts, amounting to £105,996, which left the net sum of £293,150, and that
      652
      was almost the precise equivalent of the net increase of grants in aid of local taxation and the automatic growth of the Education Votes in Great Britain. The Estimates were submitted in their usual form, with very slight variations; but additional information in reference to the non-Effective Services was attached to each Vote in italics. Among the causes which had largely contributed to the increase of the Estimates was the legislation of 1876, including the Merchant Shipping Act. In 1877–8 would have to be faced a considerable increase consequent upon the transfer from the Mercantile Marine Fund of the whole charge for the survey of ships conducted by the Board of Trade. Provision had also to be made for the new office and Court for the Wreck Commissioner. But, notwithstanding the increase of duties and of charges which legislation was constantly imposing upon the Government, he might congratulate the House that the saving effected in other ways more than counterbalanced the increase, except what was due to the growth of the Votes for Education and the relief of local taxation. The Votes in Class I. included those for parks, palaces, pleasure gardens, public buildings, Courts of Justice, post offices, Inland Revenue buildings, and those devoted to Science and Art, and by this class provision was made for the rates which were paid in respect of Government property, amounting to £203,991. It also provided for the surveys of the United Kingdom, which up to 1870-1 were charged to the Army Votes. In Class I. the only notable increase was that of £40,000 for the building of the New Courts of Justice. The view which Her Majesty's Government took of their duty with regard to public buildings was that when a great work was undertaken, it was the soundest possible economy to push it on to completion as rapidly as possible. There was a decrease in the provision for rates of £30,000. It was not due to any diminution in the proportion which would be contributed by the Government in respect of Government property; but experience had shown what the claims would amount to, and the sum surrendered as not required last year was £48,451. There was a decrease of £10,000 in the Vote for the Natural History Museum, which was due to the fact that the progress made

      653
      with the building had not been so rapid as could have been wished. The Estimates included about £165,000 for Post Office and Telegraph buildings, of which one-half were new buildings, being about an average requirement. They also comprised nearly £31,000 for Customs and Inland Revenue buildings, as well as £133,500 for surveys of the United Kingdom. The amount asked for in this class was £1,402,904, and in 1876–7 it was £1,452,098, showing a decrease of £49,194. In Class II., which provided for the Salaries and Expenses of Public Departments, there was an increase of £41,170. The Estimate in 1876–7 was £2,568,703, and in 1877–8 it was £2,609,873. It was in this class that provision had to be made in part for the consequences of the legislation of last year. The increase in the Vote' for the Board of Trade was £35,451, which was due to the fact that provision had to be made for the staff of surveyors to survey ships that were detained as unseaworthy. The estimated outlay was £60,168; but that sum would be reduced by the amount of the grant formerly made in aid of the Mercantile Marine Fund, which was £10,000, and by a reduction of £13,500 in the law charges of the Board of Trade, as well as certain other savings. There would, therefore, be a net increase in the Board of Trade Vote of £35,451; but against that increase would have to be placed extra receipts, payments made by shipowners and other persons by way of fees for the measurement of ships, which it was estimated would amount to £35,633, so that the actual charge to the taxpayer would be very small indeed. In another class, but as a consequence of the same legislation, would come a considerable charge for the Office and establishment of the Wreck Commission. There was an increase of £9,906 for the Foreign Office, which was due to the fact that the increase of work during the past two or three years had necessitated the appointment of a new Assistant Under Secretary at £1,500 a-year, to a necessary increase of the provision for foreign telegrams of £6,750, for travelling expenses of £600, and for other salaries of £1,056. The most notable increase in the class was £19,699 for the Local Government Board. Of this, £10,500 was due to the provision
      654
      rendered necessary by the legislation in regard to vaccination. Public vaccinators were paid by local authorities, and they were entitled under the Act to be paid for successful vaccinations, so that they were entitled to be paid twice for the same work. The Act had been in operation some years, but the pressure of the demand had been comparatively recent. The inspection had been more constant and vigorous, and the demands upon the public vaccinators had been put forth to greater effect, and the consequence was that in these days of small-pox epidemics we had to pay an additional £10,500 for successful vaccination. There was an increase of £3,000 for half the salaries of Poor Law Medical Officers and of £7,000 for the increased provision required for pauper lunatics. There was also ad increase of £800 for vaccination in Ireland, under the Irish Local Government Board; an increase of £3,100 for pauper lunatics in that country; and an increase of £1,550 in the salaries of sanitary and medical officers. Against these increases he might place the reductions effected by the Stationery Office. The hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) expressed some doubts as to the reality of these reductions; but, thanks to the great assistance he had derived from his hon. Friend the Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn), who had devoted his special attention to this matter, the Committee would believe him when he said that very considerable reductions had been made in the Stationery Office. Fresh contracts had been made for printing, binding, and miscellaneous services which had altogether effected for the same work an apparent saving of £41,700 and a net saving of £31,900. The actual cost of the paper, printing, and envelopes had been very largely reduced, and there was reason to hope that the figures presented in the Estimates of 1877–8 represented a real saving in the cost of stationery. He would express this hope with the greater confidence, as it would not be necessary as in former years to ask for any Supplementary Estimate. It was only right to call attention to one point in justice to a very able public servant whose duty it was to superintend the printing of the patent specifications, who had also secured for the Exchequer cash receipts for the registration of designs and trade marks

      655
      amounting to £9,000, collected by the Patent Office, which went on the other side and swelled the extra receipts to which he had alluded. The Public Works Loan Board also brought in £8,000 which formerly went into the pockets of the solicitors of that Corporation. There had been an increase of £90,461 in Class III. (Law and Justice). It required last year £4,948,813, while the total Estimate during the coming year was £5,039,274. Of that increase £12,292 might be set down as the provision necessary for the Wreck Commission appointed under the Merchant Shipping Act to inquire into shipping casualties. There was also an increase of £52,000 in the moiety paid by the Treasury in aid of local taxation for the pay and clothing of the county and borough police. There was also an increase in the payments on account of industrial schools in Great Britain and Ireland of £6,000, and an increase in the Vote for Law Charges (Ireland) of £5,000. The latter was not a real increase. For some years past there had been a deficiency in the amount voted for law charges, which had been met by an excess Estimate. It was thought better to alter this system, and provision for the average cost of these charges had been made in the Estimates for the present year. While there was an apparent increase of £90,461 in Class III., there was an increase of cash receipts of £40,890; so that if that sum was deducted from the increase of £90,461 it would be seen that the increase was really confined to the increased charge in aid of local taxation for the county and borough police, and that all the rest was met out of the increased receipts under this head. Class IV. showed the largest increase, and it included Votes which were increasing year by year, apparently to the satisfaction both of the country and of Parliament. This increase was due to the automatic increments in the Votes for public education in England, Wales, and Scotland. He confessed he did not altogether regard it with unmixed satisfaction, because it did not appear certain when this large increase would close. He could only express a hope that they had nearly reached the limit of the expenditure which it would be necessary to provide out of Imperial funds for education. The total Estimate for Class
      656
      IV. (Education, Science, and Art), was for 1876–7 £3,292,969, while for 1877–8 the Estimate was £3,546,935, showing an increase of £253,966. Of this sum £203,774 was due to English education, £50,555 to Scotch education, and £12,500 was put down to the Paris Exhibition, the total cost of which was estimated at £50,000. This would leave a sum of £37,500 to be provided for in future years. The grant for Learned Societies showed a reduction of £3,000, because the Vote of last year for Commander Cameron's Expedition in Africa did not, of course, recur. Class V. included the Colonial, Consular, and other Foreign Services. In 1876–7 this Vote was £578,669; in the present year the Estimate was £550,280, showing a net decrease of £28,389. This was due to the shifting and uncertain character of the demands made upon this class. The chief causes of the decrease were a reduction of £17,693 on special missions in the Diplomatic Vote, due chiefly to the cessation of the Seistan Boundary Commission, and a reduction of £5,000 in the grant in aid to the Fiji Islands. The most important increase in this class occurred in the Vote for the suppression of the Slave Trade, owing to the provision of £3,780 for one moiety of the Muscat subsidy of 40,000 crowns per annum, the remaining moiety being paid from the Indian Exchequer. There was also an additional £2,000 for slave and tonnage bounties, owing to the successful activity of the guardship London on the East Coast of Africa. The Vote for Consular Services was increased by £2,148 owing to the restoration of grants to chaplains at Leghorn and Montevideo, and the appointment of Vice Consuls at Sebastopol, Havannah, Mostar (Herzegovina), and Philippopolis. No very considerable changes had been made in Classes VI. and VII. The Revenue Departments showed an increase, especially in the Inland Revenue. The Estimate for 1877–8 was £1,788,850, against £1,732,453 last year. This increase of £56,397 was due partly to the increased scale of salaries and allowances for horse keep and subsistence recently granted to the Excise Surveying Branch. The Government had considered the claims of these officers with great care, and had come to the conclusion that their salaries were insufficient. The increase also consisted of charges for stationery (£16,940),

      657
      incurred on behalf of the Post Office, which would be wholly recovered from that Department. This was a mere matter of account, and the real increase was about £40,000. The Post Office exhibited an increase of £74,055. The Estimate included £128,000 for sites for post offices and telegraph offices. The increase arose in part from increase of business and partly from automatic increase in salaries and wages, which added £38,196 to the charge for provincial establishments, £15,521 for conveyance of mails, and £10,410 to that for Savings Banks. The last charge would, however, be recovered from Savings Bank Funds. As long as the business and revenue of the Post Office increased it would be impossible to prevent the growth of the expenditure of the Department. It was now doing a vast business and a very considerable payment for labour was inevitable. The charge for conveyance, of course, increased with every additional pound weight which the Post Office carried, so that if hon. Members saw a considerable increase in the Post Office revenue they would expect to see a corresponding outlay. There was a decrease in the Post Office Packet Service, which was last year £850,730, and was for 1877–8 £767,877, being a decrease of £82,853 for the coming year. It was now the policy of the Department to pay for the conveyance of the mails by handing over a proportion of the postage to the owners of the steamers which carried the letters, instead of entering into costly and very onerous contracts. The increase under the head of Postal Telegraphs was the last to which he would have to refer. The Estimate for 1876–7 was £1,161,148, and that for 1877–8 was £1,232,814, showing an increase of £71,666. He was happy to say that that was not an increase which he believed would be continued. There was every reason to believe that the increased charge for the establishment of the telegraphs had been stopped, and if there were an increase it would be an increase due to the development of the traffic and business of the telegraphs, and not by any means to the very large automatic growth which had existed since the telegraphs had been transferred to the State. He might state that the changes which the Postmaster General had thought it right to introduce, and which
      658
      would be introduced, would prevent the very large expenditure which had been in excess of the absolute requirements of the service and which grew up at a period of great excitement when officers, zealous in the public service, thought it necessary to recommend provision for the proper conduct of the business, which experience had proved to be unnecessary. For this year provision had been made for a sum sufficient to pay the whole of the arrears due to the railway companies, amounting to £73,622, and they had every reason to hope and believe that that figure would disappear from the next account, and that the cost of the working of the telegraphs would be next year considerably lower than it was this year. He had now gone through the main features of the Estimates which had been submitted to the House for this year. He could not, however, refrain from saying a word or two on what appeared to be a very large increase in expenditure on Civil Services during the past few years. His right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) said in 1873 that the system adopted of voting gross expenditure had the effect of swelling both sides of the account, 'and he explained to how great an extent this was the case in regard to legal establishments, of which the fees were taken in stamps, and in regard to the Revenue Departments, the Post Office, the Packet Service, and the Army and Navy. The right process, he added, was a very simple one—
      "We should take in each year the gross expenditure as furnished by the official accounts, and set off against it the receipts which are not in the nature of taxes.…. The net result will be the true criterion of the energy and success of Governments in dealing with the public expenditure."—[3 Hansard, ccxv. 934.]
      He had referred in the course of his remarks to the extra receipts which went into the Exchequer on the one side, while the whole gross expenditure was voted on the other; and he was prepared to contend that those extra receipts were in the nature of payments for work done, and were not charges upon the taxpayer apart from the individual who paid for that work. Following the lead of his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, he would detail to the House the progress of the Civil Service Estimates as they had appeared, including Revenue Estimates,

      659
      for some years. He would go back to the year 1853. In that year, Estimates which were then called miscellaneous were submitted to the House amounting to, in round figures, £4,802,000; this year those Estimates amounted to £13,726,000. It would be interesting that he should compare the several classes as they appeared then and as they appeared now. Class I., in 1853–4, amounted to £928,000; this year to £1,402,000. Class II., Salaries of Public Departments, amounted, in 1853–4, to £1,100,000; this year the Estimate was £2,600,000. Law and Justice, in 1853–4, amounted to £1,400,000; this year the Estimate was £5,000,000. Education, Science, and Art amounted, in 1853–4, to £578,000; this year the Estimate was £3,546,000. Foreign and Colonial Service in the former year amounted to £379,000; the Estimate for this year was £550,000. Superannuations stood as £280,000 to £548,000; miscellaneous as £102,000 to £28,000, showing a total of £4,800,000 for the year 1853–4, as against £13,726,000, the amount of the Estimate for the year 1877–8, showing an apparent increase of £8,900,000 less the increase in miscellaneous receipts of £1,639,000, leaving a net apparent increase of £7,284,000. This was due almost entirely to the total change which had been instituted in the course and conduct of public business. Mr. Wilson showed that in 1856, when the Estimates had grown to £6,724,000, one of the causes of the apparent increase was the transfer from the Consolidated Fund to Votes of Parliament in 1854 of 34 items of expenditure, amounting to £977,600; and a further cause was the transfer to the Votes of Parliament of the cost of collecting the revenue. In 1853–4, there was a very large amount paid by fees to a number of public officers, who were now paid by salary. He wished now to call the attention of the House to a Return of the public expenditure (Exchequer issues) and charges upon taxes, which was moved for annually by his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract. It would be seen that the Civil expenditure of all kinds, including the charges on the Consolidated Fund, had grown very considerably. In 1857–8, the gross Civil expenditure of all kinds, exclusive of Debt and Votes of Credit, amounted to £14,340,000. It went up to £15,368,000
      660
      in 1861–2. It was £15,346,000 in 1866–7; £18,787,000 in 1871–2; £21,330,000 in 1874–5; it was £22,259,000 in 1875–6; and £22,846,000 in 1876–7, and it promised to be £23,355,000 in 1877–8. He might say that while the figures he had quoted were the figures actually ascertained, generally speaking, up to the year 1875–6, these which he now gave for 1876–7 and 1877–8 were stated only from the Estimates. Experience had shown that the Estimates presented to the House in the first instance were the measure as nearly as might be of the expenditure of the year, notwithstanding that Supplementary Estimates were subsequently voted. He would now proceed to analyse the Civil Service expenditure of all kinds, including the Consolidated Fund charges. He found that in 1857–8, when the Civil Service expenditure of all kinds was £14,340,000, the actual charge upon the taxpayer for the government of the country, so to speak, apart from public education, grants in aid to local taxation, and from Customs and Inland Revenue charges for collection, was £5,921,000; in 1861–2 the actual charge upon the taxpayer was £5,740,000; in 1866–7 it was £5,595,000; in 1871–2 it was £6,157,000; in 1873–4, £5,730,000; in 1874–5, £5,613,000; in 1875–6, £5,903,000; in 1876–7, £5,557,000; and for 1877–8 the estimated charge was £5,608,000. It would, therefore, appear that the cost of Government, properly so-called, apart from those subventions, had not increased upon the taxpayers as it appeared to have done. To a large extent it had been a question of account, a question of statement, but although the current cost of the government of the country had largely increased the money necessary to meet the enhanced expenditure had not passed wholly out of the pockets of the taxpayers. Amongst the charges which had increased were these for public education. In 1835 the Government paid £32,250, but in 1875–6 the amount had increased to £2,455,918. In 1835 they paid £169,378 in aid of local taxation—that was to say, the Imperial Treasury contributed that sum in aid of local rates and taxes, and they paid £3,972,008 in 1875–6, which was the last account accurately made out. But the provision for public education this year was £3,015,000; in aid of local taxation £4,195,000; and the charge for

      661
      the collection of the Customs and Inland Revenue was £2,664,000. Upon that point he had ascertained a very curious fact. It must be admitted that there had been a very considerable increase in the charge for the Customs and Inland Revenue, and, as regarded both those services, he was obliged to admit that the increased rate of pay to the officers employed was really necessary, and could not be longer postponed; but the present percentage of the cost of collecting the revenue, after that increase, was precisely the same as it was in 1853. They were now paying 4·8 per cent for the collection of the Customs as against 4·8 per cent in 1853; and for the Inland Revenue they were paying 3·8, which was precisely the same as they paid in 1853–4. The percentage of the cost of the Post Office had fallen, notwithstanding the great reduction which had taken place in the rates of postage and the very large amount of additional work which was done by the Post Office for the public service. It was 56 per cent on the gross receipts in 1853–4, and in 1877–8 it was 53·7 per cent. The Telegraphs showed, he was sorry to say, a very different account, for the estimate of the cost of the service for 1877–8 was more than 100 per cent of the gross receipts, owing to the necessity of providing for certain arrears already mentioned. He was confident, however, that, through the progress of the revenue, and the economical administration of his right hon. Friend the Postmaster General, the estimates of future years would show a more favourable result. He thought he had shown to the House that though there was the greatest possible ground for vigilance and economy, and whilst he desired always to raise his protest against increased expenditure, under the present circumstances the estimates of Civil Service expenditure were not so unsatisfactory as they would appear from their simple statement. If the whole of the Imperial service of the country, exclusive of the Army and Navy, exclusive of the cost of public education, of the contributions to local taxation, of the cost of the collection of the Customs and Inland Revenue amounted to a less sum now by £313,000 than it did in 1857–8, he did not think there was any very serious ground for complaint. Very large additional duties had been thrown upon the Government by the course
      662
      which the legislation had taken within the last few years. Demands were being continually made upon the Government for further inspection, control, and direction in some shape or another; in fact, pressure was constantly brought to bear by the country and by Parliament upon the Executive for the time being to undertake something very like a paternal government. For his own part, he could not help protesting strongly against this growing tendency. He thought it most dangerous for the character and reputation of the country, and also for the spirit of the Government for the time being, no matter which Party might be in power, that it should interfere with the performance by the community of the duties appertaining to social and civil life locally considered. It would be unfortunate if men should ever come to feel that they could get rid of their personal responsibilities to their neighbours by stating that they relied upon a Governmental system of inspection, direction, or supervision, and that they had kept strictly within the bounds of an Act of Parliament. There was one other remark which he might venture to make, and that was with regard to the checking of the public expenditure. It was a remarkable thing that the attacks were generally made against the gross Estimates or against a particular class; but when the discussion ceased it was not uncommon for hon. Gentlemen to get up and remark that, however desirable it might be to effect economy, England was not a poor country, and there were great works which ought to be carried out. Some time ago the Government of the day were pressed to undertake the erection of a large building, the cost of which would have been enormous if the recommendation had been carried out; but the fact was that the Government of the day required to be assisted by hon. Members as much in their abstinence from pressing expenditure as in their condemnation of expenditure which they thought the Government ought not to undertake. Since he had had the honour of holding office his greatest difficulty had been not to restrict the expenditure so far as the public Departments were concerned, but in the expenditure which was pressed on the Government by the country; and he appealed to hon. Members to do all in their power to keep the expenditure within such limits as were

      663
      necessary for the transaction of public business.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
      MR. GOLDSMIDcongratulated the hon. Gentleman upon the extremely clear statement which he had made—a statement which had been rendered the more valuable by the interesting comparisons of income and expenditure which it contained. The great fault to be found with the usual discussion on the Civil Service Estimates was that the subject was not looked at in a large point of view, and that, in the discussion of minor details, they lost sight of the general policy which ought to guide the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman had pointed out that the growth of the cost of collection had been considerable; but that it had been compensated for to a great extent by the additional receipts which had accrued to the Government. Last Session he (Mr. Goldsmid) had obtained a Committee to inquire into the management of the Telegraph Service, and how necessary it was was shown by the fact, as stated by the hon. Gentleman, that the cost of maintaining that Service amounted to 99 per cent of the revenue derived from it. He thought this a very unsatisfactory state of things, and one which proved that there was still great need of care and attention on the part of those who had charge of that Department. One point had been explained which was of very great interest — the largely- increased expenditure which had occurred in the matter of public education, which was a subject of sincere congratulation, because it showed that the country was determined to keep its position among the nations of the world, and no longer to submit to the reproach that its people were badly educated. Another increase was in respect of assistance to local taxation, an item of increase popular with the country, as no Imperial tax ever came home to the taxpayer as local rates did; and it must be remembered that the local budget came to some £30,000,000 a-year. It was well that the House should have possession of those remarkable figures which had been stated by the hon. Gentleman, as they showed clearly what the tendency of modern legislation had been. He repeated that the hon. Gentleman
      664
      had made the explanations which were desired with great care and accuracy. They afforded material for much consideration, and the statement of the hon. Gentleman would form a useful precedent for the future.

    EXPENSE OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.—RESOLUTION.
    MR. GORST,in rising to call attention to the great and increasing loss inflicted on the ratepayers of counties and boroughs by the system at present practised by the Treasury of paying a part only of the costs of criminal prosecutions, and to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, no part of the costs of criminal prosecutions, after taxation by proper officers, should be charged on local rates,"
    said, he doubted whether it would be convenient for the House that a statement like that to which they had listened should lead to a long discussion, and he would, therefore, as having the first Notice on the Paper, at once intervene. When the present Government came into office they made a new arrangement with respect to the payment for criminal prosecutions in counties and boroughs, and as the experiment, which was to last for three years, would expire in June next, he thought he was justified in calling attention to the matter. He would just remind the House of the system which the plan of the Government was intended to improve. In former times the administration of justice was a local matter. In 1835 part of the costs were made a charge on the Exchequer, and in 1846 the whole. The system adopted was for the clerk of arraigns to tax the bill of costs, and then an order of the Court was made on the local treasurer for payment, and that order was afterwards sent up to the Treasury, and the amount was repaid. The local system was thought to give rise to extravagance, and two attempts, one lawful and one unlawful, were made to check that extravagance. The first was that the Secretary of State laid down rules as to the costs of witnesses, &c., to be allowed; and what he called the unlawful attempt was made by the appointment of two functionaries called Examiners of Criminal Law Accounts. These gentlemen re-taxed in London the bills of costs which had been already

    665
    taxed in the country. Naturally they could not tell so well as the officials on the spot what ought or ought not to be allowed; but they struck off items here and there, and payment to the counties of the items thus struck off was refused —a process which it was not surprising gave rise to much unpleasantness and dissatisfaction. At length some of the counties went to the Courts of Law, and the Court of Queen's Bench expressed a strong opinion against the legality of these Examiners, and also that the amounts they disallowed ought to have been allowed. It was, however, decided that these officials were not amenable to the Courts of Law, and an appeal was made to the House of Commons. A Motion was made by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes), and very strong language indeed was used. He called these disallowances acts of "petty larceny" on the part of the Executive, and he spoke of the conduct of the Treasury as "pettifogging" and "pernicious," and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) said, that it was a robbery on the ratepayers of the counties and boroughs, but correcting himself affirmed that although he had called it robbery it really seemed more like swindling. The then Home Secretary (Mr. Bruce) admitted that it was the duty of the Imperial Government to bear all the costs of prosecutions, and that no part ought to be thrown on the ratepayers. Nothing more, however, was done till the present Government came into office; they proceeded to redress the grievance, and the system they introduced was this. The costs of prosecutions at assizes, which formed about a fourth of the total amount, were to be paid in full; but as regarded the costs of the sessions a new method was adopted. The aggregate costs of the previous three years was to be taken and divided by the number of prosecutions, giving the average cost of each, and for the next three years that average price was to be paid for each prosecution. Objections were made at the time to this plan — first, that this average being struck upon years during which the costs had been unlawfully taxed it would perpetuate that injustice for three years longer; secondly, that it made a distinction between the assizes and the sessions by accepting the taxation of the clerk of
    666
    the Crown and rejecting that of the clerk of the peace; thirdly, that a fixed payment for so long a period as three years would be unsatisfactory, as in the more populous counties the actual costs were continually increasing; but the worst feature of the whole was the reason given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that it was the duty of the local taxpayers to provide for the administration of justice, and that the sums from the Imperial Exchequer were granted by grace and favour to relieve the local funds. He should like to know if the Chancellor of the Exchequer really held the opinion that the administration of justice was a local affair; because, if so, he must refer him to the speech of the Home Secretary in 1872 for an answer to that doctrine. He (Mr. Gorst) was in a position to tell the House what was the actual result of the new arrangement in the case of one county—Lancashire. That was a large county and greatly interested in the due administration of justice. During the five half-years preceding the new system the amount taxed off the bills for prosecutions was £120, the whole cost of prosecutions in that time being £31,000. In the next five half-years during which the Government plan was in operation the loss to the county was in each half-year respectively, £220, £292, £260, £274, and £409, or a total loss in the two and-a-half years of £1,458. The Home Secretary rejoiced in 1872 that there was going to be no attempt to charge the counties and boroughs what ought to be borne by the country; but in 1877 there was a charge in this one county which ought to be borne by the country to the extent of £1,458 in the last five half-years. If, on the other hand, there were counties which made a profit out of the administration of justice, that was quite as flagrant an abuse. No county had a right to receive money it did not expend; and although he might be told that it was carried to the general county rate, there could be no legal authority for such a step.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, no part of the costs of criminal prosecutions, after taxation by proper officers, should be charged on local rates," —(Mr. Gorst,)
    —instead thereof.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURobserved that the appeal recently made by the Secretary of the Treasury in favour of economy had been met by the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken, and who was an earnest and an efficient supporter of the Conservative Party, making a proposal to throw on the Imperial Exchequer a large increase to a charge now sustained by the Exchequer, but which would have been left to be borne by the various localities, where, instead of grants in aid from the Treasury, it would have been far preferable to have assigned taxes such as the dog and gun tax, which were so difficult for the Board of Inland Revenue to collect. The course adopted by the Treasury with respect to the costs of criminal prosecutions had, he believed, caused a great reduction of expense. This was effected by the Treasury enforcing an independent examination of all charges claimed for criminal prosecutions, amongst which were the payments to lawyers, which were not easily checked; the claim of the hon. Member would, if complied with, free these charges from even the trifling control now exercised, and thereby allow of these fees being largely swelled up. But he hoped that the Secretary of the Treasury would persevere in the good efforts he had made in that check. The hon. and gallant Baronet was proceeding to urge that the useful information which the Secretary of the Treasury had given them that night ought to be printed, together with the Estimates, for the use of hon. Members, when—
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that his remarks were not relevant to the Amendment then before the House.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was afraid that, notwithstanding what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst), he could not recede from that position he had taken up when that matter was discussed some time ago. He thought his hon. and learned Friend had somewhat exaggerated the obligation of the State in this matter. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had always understood that the old Common Law principle was that the expenses referred to were paid out of local funds, and that it was by what he ventured to call an act of grace and favour that some 30 years ago the
    668
    State undertook to defray the whole of these charges. He did not quite understand, if that was a burden which always belonged to the State, how his hon. and learned Friend explained the Act of 1846, brought in by Sir Robert Peel, placing, for the first time, on the State a duty which his hon. and learned Friend said was always incumbent upon it. For himself, he still thought it was a fair and proper thing that the State should, upon a general statement of the amount of the cost of criminal prosecutions, recoup to the local authorities the amount which had been so expended by them. But, if it was to do that, surely the State must protect itself by seeing that it was not improperly charged. That, however, was really all that the State had been trying to do in that matter. Before 1846 he thought the State bore one-half of that charge and the localities bore the other half; and then there was a certain protection, because the local officers, being anxious to save for the sake of the localities, would seek to keep that expenditure down. But when the State took the whole of that expense upon itself, the cost of prosecutions ran up in a most remarkable way, and a much heavier burden was imposed upon the Imperial Exchequer than was contemplated at the time it was assumed. Well, what was then done? His hon. and learned Friend had called it an unlawful action, and he would not dispute with him about the word "unlawful;" but, at all events, it was a measure of self-defence adopted by the Treasury of that day to provide for the taxing of these costs, in order to see that they were not asked to pay more than they ought to pay. The effect of that taxation was greatly to reduce charges which appeared to be exorbitant. Then a complaint was made by the local authorities that the operation of the taxing officer was an operation of an annoying, unfair, and vexatious character. His hon. and learned Friend had referred, as an instance, to the case of Lancaster, from which some of the most serious complaints came years ago; and he thought his hon. and learned Friend told the House that out of £30,000 or £31,000 only £120 was disallowed under the old system. Well, if only 120 were disallowed out of £30,000 or £31,000, clearly it was not a very great pecuniary grievance. It was

    669
    the annoyance of officers in London looking into and disallowing charges which had been passed by local officers. Well, the Government endeavoured to meet that by providing that, as regarded sessions cases, they would pay according to the average cost of three years' prosecutions. But, said his hon. and learned Friend, the effect had been to make counties pay greater expenses than before. He supposed his hon. and learned Friend's figures were correct; but he understood that, as regarded assize cases, taking the whole country together, the effect had been greatly to reduce the disallowances. It was quite possible that when they came to review the system as a whole they might find it desirable to revise to some extent the working of it; but his hon. and learned Friend asked them to cast aside this experimental system and adopt a general principle that the whole of the costs of criminal prosecutions, after taxation by proper officers, should be defrayed by Parliament. Whom did his hon. and learned Friend mean by "proper officers? "Did he mean that the costs were to be taxed by officers appointed by those who were expected to pay the costs? That would be a system which his hon. and learned Friend condemned. If, on the other hand, neither that system nor the average was to be adopted, he was asking the Treasury to pay without examination whatever might be demanded by the officers of the local jurisdictions. That was a demand which ought not to be made. It lay on Parliament to vote this money under such conditions as it was pleased to impose. He desired that those conditions should be as little onerous as possible on the counties; but ho hoped the House would not be induced to give a blank order to be filled up by the officers who had incurred these costs. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir George Balfour) said, they paid too much attention to the claims of local taxpayers. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not think they did. He thought they ought to pay attention to them, knowing what they had done as to local finance. He had no fault to find with his hon. and learned Friend for having brought forward his Motion, or with the language he had used; but this, after all, was an experimental system, and the time for considering
    670
    the proper averages of payment would shortly arrive; and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not ask the House to set aside that system unless he was prepared to put before the House a better alternative than one couched in rather ambiguous language.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

  DISTRICT REGISTRARS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. GREGORYrose to call the attention of the House to the functions and duties of District Registrars as provided by the Judicature Acts and the rules and orders made under the same. He reviewed the provisions of the Judicature Act in reference to the appointment of District Registrars, 70 of whom were to be appointed. Of that number 40 had actually been appointed, and their duties were of the most important description. They had absolute jurisdiction, subject, of course, to appeal to the High Court of Justice, over all questions which came before them up to the time of the cause going to trial, and under the Acts the Judges had power to refer to them all accounts and inquiries consequent upon such trial. He thought that gentlemen who exercised this great jurisdiction should be absolutely free and open from all suspicion, he would not say of fair dealing, but of any influence whatever, and that they should be in the same position as Masters in the Supreme Court of Judicature or of the Judges' clerks sitting in Chambers, as they did every day. But, unfortunately, by some slip in the Judicature Act of 1875, no provision was made that the parties appointed to these offices should not carry on private practice, and some 26 out of the 40 were really carrying on private practice in the places where they exercised their jurisdiction, so that they might have before them cases from their own chambers or offices or in which their partners had an interest. As a matter of principle it was not right or proper that a man having judicial functions to perform should be permitted to carry on private practice. He had intended to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it would be desirable that provision should be made for

    671
    the discontinuance of practice as barristers or solicitors of persons holding those offices during their tenure of the same."
    He was precluded by the Forms of the House from doing so; but ho hoped to hoar some satisfactory explanation from the Government on the subject.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, no doubt that, as an abstract proposition, it would be better if the Registrars who had to perform judicial functions of considerable importance were not allowed to engage in private practice. That was a good rule in the abstract; but if the Registrars were not allowed to practice, the new system under the Judicature Act could not be carried out, as a few details would show the House. Under that Act some 26 Registrars had been appointed, out of the 75 mentioned in the Act—that was to say, in Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Hull, and in some smaller places—and they had to perform important duties, but with the exception of a few places they were remunerated by fees and not by salary. It would be found that the annual amount of the fees received by these gentlemen for discharging their very important judicial functions ranged from £5 or £6 or £8 or £10, to £100, £200, £300, £700, and £800. If, therefore, the District Registrars were prohibited from continuing their private practice, it would be impossible to get gentlemen possessing the requisite knowledge to undertake the duties of those offices. Of course, if Registrars of the High Court were to be prohibited from practising privately, it would be necessary to place a similar restriction upon the Registrars of County Courts. [Mr. GREGORY: Those Registrars are liable to a fine of £50 if they practise in the County Courts.] But those Registrars were not prevented from carrying on practice in other branches of their Profession — as, for instance, conveyancing. This, however, might be done. In large towns when District Registrars were appointed a stipulation might be made that they should accept the duties and the salary, if they were paid by salary, and enter into stipulations that they would not practise. The recent appointment at Manchester had been made on the payment of salary, and not by fees, and one of the terms in all future appointments of the kind would be the payment by salary and not by fees, In
    672
    reference to a remark which had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman, he begged to say that if a Registrar were to make an order in a matter in which he was concerned privately for some client, it was clear that such order would be bad, and it would at once be set aside on appeal.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that if the Registrars were not to be allowed to carry on their private practice it would be absolutely necessary that they should be paid a larger salary. It was a subject that deserved the serious consideration of the House and the Government. One great evil of our provincial system was that too much important work was entrusted to underlings. In fact, a great deal of the work done by Judges' clerks ought to be performed by the Judges themselves. There was danger of abuse when District Registrars were allowed to practise, from their being directly or indirectly concerned for someone interested in the matter, in which case he might act on knowledge that was not judicially before him.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that in these matters there must he compromises, as in almost everything with which they had to deal. There was no principle in our system of judicature. It was an agglomeration of inconsistencies and contradictions from beginning to -end. All our Courts ought to form one entire system. Every action in the High Court of Justice might be brought in London; but in the County Courts they could only be brought in the district where the parties resided or the cause of action arose. It was impossible to amend the present system with the information they possessed, and there-fore he suggested the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole matter.
    MR. NORWOODsaid, there was great force in what the hon. and learned Attorney General had stated, and his reply to the hon. and learned Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) was as satisfactory as could be expected. He hoped that the view which had been put forward by the Attorney General would remain fixed on his mind, as well as on that of the Lord Chancellor, and that some definite rule would be laid down in regard to District Registrars which would place matters on a more certain and satisfactory footing. In his own com-

    673
    mercial experience he knew a case where the Registrar was interested for a client. He handed the case over to a junior, who argued it before the interested Registrar. He thought that in the great towns the gentlemen appointed to be Registrars of the County Courts should have a competent salary fixed by the Lord Chancellor, and should receive their appointments on the condition of withdrawing altogether from private practice.
    MR. HERSCHELLsaid, the practical point was that populous and non-populous districts should not be treated alike, and that in the large places where the Registrars received sufficient salaries they should have great powers; but in districts where they could not provide a sufficient salary by means of fees their powers should be more restricted.
    MR. MONK,who had the following Motion on the Paper:—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient that any money, not specially voted for that purpose, should be expended in the removal of the mounds which have recently been erected in Hyde Park,"
    said, that as, in point of Order, it could not be put from the Chair, he would take another opportunity of bringing it before the attention of the House. He congratulated the Secretary of the Treasury on the clear statement he had made that evening, and he regretted that there had been no one present on the front Opposition bench to listen to him. He also regretted that the Estimates showed an enormous increase, and feared there was no chance of a reduction.
    MR. DILLWYN,referring to the statement of the Secretary of the Treasury, that the increase was occasioned by the demands that had been made for what was called paternal government, considered it an extraordinary statement to come from a Government which had just passed such a centralizing measure as the Prisons Bill.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

    SUPPLY— CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    (1.) £34,105, Royal Palaces.
    MR. DILLWYNasked for an explanation of the large sum of £3,000 for
    674
    improving the accommodation of the Queen's Guard at St. James's Palace.
    MR. MELLORcalled attention to a proposed outlay on the stables at Hampton Court, and asked for some explanation with respect to the sale of the yearlings.
    SIR WILLIAM FRASERcomplained that the dilapidated state of Kensington Palace was not creditable to the country.
    MR. GERARD NOELexplained that £3,000 was all that it was proposed to expend this year on the guard-house, and the remaining £2,000 next year. Complaints had been made of the sanitary condition of the War Office, but it was a paradise to this guard-room. The stables at Hampton Court were in a most dilapidated condition, and scarcely suited to a breeding stud. He agreed with the hon. Baronet with respect to the state of Kensington Palace, and regretted that the Vote was not larger, so as to make a complete repair, as there was very little true economy in patchwork.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURprotested against the mode in which the Royal Palaces not in use for the comfort and happiness of the Sovereign were occupied. He believed that a small portion, or, at all events, only one-half of the sum that was expended in maintaining Hampton Court, St. James's, and Kensington Palaces, and in making additions, improvements which occurred every year, would provide the persons who now occupied them with better and more suitable accommodation than that which these big buildings afforded. As the Crown had transferred to Parliament the buildings which were not needed for the personal use of the Sovereign, it was only fair that Parliament should have the right of disposing of their occupation. It would be better for the House to come to an agreement as to the money value of the right of the Crown to bestow residences in these palaces, and to place the amount at the disposal of the Crown for distribution to the classes who were now selected to live in those palaces. Besides, when Royal visitors came to this country there was only one palace, and that one retained for the personal use of the Sovereign, which could be used. This was objectionable in many ways. This country ought to have palaces capable of receiving visitors in a Royal manner, and not require

    675
    them to be put into Buckingham Palace. Public buildings set apart for the Crown ought to be maintained for the Crown, and not for residences for private individuals. But as respected palaces not used for the Crown, other persons ought not to be occupying these buildings and putting the nation to expense.
    MR. DILLWYNwas of opinion that the whole of the expenditure on palaces not in the occupation of the Sovereign was very unsatisfactory. He inquired whether Bushey Park was still occupied by the Duke d'Aumale?
    MR. GERARD NOELstated that Bushey Park was occupied by the Duke de Nemours. As to Hampton Court, that was very much devoted to the recreation of the public, thousands of whom went there. It was necessary that these palaces should be kept in proper repair. With regard to the persons who occupied them, about £800 was all that was spent in repairing the rooms occupied by gracious favour of the Sovereign, and most of those rooms were occupied by persons who had served under Her Majesty.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £117,645, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
    MR. MONKmoved the reduction of the Vote by £250, the sum which, he understood, was required for the levelling of the mounds in Hyde Park. Considering that the mounds had been erected only a year ago, the proposal to demolish them reminded him of the extravagance of the Augustan age. The facts were simply these—In 1875, the present Government expended £400 in erecting these mounds. In 1876 a Vote of £350 was taken to complete them, and now the First Commissioner of Works proposed to undo the work of his Predecessor. A more direct censure upon the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox) could not be conceived. He neither defended nor condemned the mounds, but he protested against so reckless a waste of public money.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £117,395, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge
    676
    which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."—(Mr. Monk,)
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, he had already stated that after the opinion expressed in the House last year he thought there was no other course open to him but to propose the removal of these mounds, and from what he had since learned he believed it was the general wish that they should be removed. For his own part, he did not think they were adapted to the locality. They obstructed a most beautiful view over the Serpentine, and they were planted with shrubs, which, being unsuited to the atmosphere of London, were likely to become more and more unsightly. The sum required to effect the improvement in question was only £200, and he expected to be able by judicious economy to obtain that amount without asking the House specially for money for the purpose.
    MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he had expressed an opinion at the time the mounds were formed that plants put into the ground in the month of April would not grow, and he found they had not done so. It was for the House to decide whether the First Commissioner of Works should expend £200 in rendering the mounds sightly, or in getting rid of them entirely as a nuisance; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the determination which he had expressed—namely, get rid of them.
    MR. T. E. SMITHcomplained of the present state of Rotten Row. Accidents, he said, were of daily occurrence there; and altogether the condition of the drive was most unsatisfactory. Did the right hon. Gentleman intend to take any steps to improve that part of the Park?
    SIR WILLIAM FRASERasked if another path was to be constructed near the top of Rotten Row?
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, that constant requests had been received by the Department to make a good walk from the top of Rotten Row to Kensington Palace, a route which was very much used at all times, but with great discomfort in wet weather, and it had been determined to comply with those requests. The path, however, would not be a broad one; and, instead of being an eyesore, it would be an improvement. He must admit that he was very much disap-

    677
    pointed at the state of Rotten Row; but this was attributable principally to the unprecedentedly wet weather which had latterly prevailed. Perhaps the steamroller had been used too much, so that the water could easily get through the surface of the road, while the gravel itself might be of too absorbent a character—other gravel would have been too costly. All kinds of suggestions had been made to him to deal with the Row; but the expense of adopting such suggestions would be enormous, and such as he could not entertain. He had done all he could to improve it, and he hoped it would be better with a change of weather. In Paris the ride from the Arc de Triomphe to the Bois de Boulogne was impassable, and it was generally believed that that ride was kept in as good condition as it was possible to keep such a place, so that we were not alone in suffering from the effects of the rains.
    In reply to Mr. T. E. SMITH,
    MR. GERARD NOELstated that no Vote was taken for the Row last year. What was done last year was taken out of the maintenance money by strict economy.
    MR. DILLWYNregarded the Vote of £2,963 for the maintenance and expense of keeping up Greenwich Park as very large as compared with that for other Parks. It exceeded the amounts for Bushey Park and Hampton Court combined. He would also like to know who lived in the Ranger's house at Greenwich Park. A large portion of the Park was shut out from the people by the Deputy Ranger's house, and of this he must emphatically complain. He should also like to have some explanation with regard to Richmond Park. He had heard many complaints of the way in which that Park was being taken up by game preserves; and he thought it was much to be regretted that any portion of that beautiful recreation ground should be wrested by degrees from the people in that way.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that he had recently observed on passing through the Park, a new building close to the Guard Room adjoining the house of the Ranger in the centre of Hyde Park, but he considered it most objectionable that any Minister of the Crown should allow encroachments on
    678
    the Parks, without previously obtaining the permission of Parliament by express Resolution. In his opinion, private individuals had no right to encroach upon the commons, and he denied the right of the Government to interfere with and encroach upon the people's Parks, and the erection of this new building in the very centre of Hyde Park was in disregard of the rights of Parliament, and of the convenience of the people who used that Park.
    MR. MUNTZremarked, that so long as there was a concrete 'foundation for Rotten Row it would be perfectly impossible to have a good road there.
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, the items for maintenance of Greenwich Park would be found in the Estimate. Lady Mayo occupied the Ranger's house. In regard to that portion occupied by the Deputy Ranger, it was a very small plot, only about half an acre. The Deputy Ranger had always had a right of grazing there, and it could in no sense be called an encroachment. In regard to Hyde Park, no new buildings had been erected; but a Superintendent's Lodge had been built near the Deputy Ranger's house in substitution for that which formerly stood in Kensington Gardens.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) in regard to Richmond Park. He entirely concurred in all that had been said in regard to that Park, as he had frequently received complaints from his constituents. It was swarming with game, and the public were on this account excluded from paths which they were formerly allowed to use. He protested against a Park so near London being converted into a game preserve; and if the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee how much was expended in feeding the game, he would move to reduce the Vote by that amount.
    MR. BARINGsaid, his kitchen garden adjoined Richmond Park, and if it were swarming with game he believed his garden would have suffered, and as it had not, there could not be much game there.
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, he was not aware that there was a large amount of game in Richmond Park. In regard to plantations, as the old trees were cut down they were obliged to plant new

    679
    trees. This accounted for the new plantation. The cost of the feed of the deer during the winter was not a very large item.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that perhaps the hon. Gentleman opposite had wire round his garden. [Mr. BARING: No, I have not.] He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had seen swarms of rabbits in Richmond Park. He thought that the Ranger of that Park had no right to call upon that House to pay for keeping up the game for him to shoot.
    MR. MAURICE BROOKShoped that the game in Richmond Park would not be destroyed, because the people who flocked there from London looked upon the deer and the other game as their own property.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, the question was whether the lowest figure had been put down in each of the items in the Vote. He expressed no opinion whether the amounts charged were too large or not; but he should vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend, because he objected to money being voted on general grounds when it was to be expended upon a particular piece of work.
    MR. GERARD NOELthought that it would be inconvenient for the Committee to prescribe how many loads of gravel or how many yards of turf were to be laid down in the public Parks. Something ought to be left to the discretion of the First Commissioner.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 70: Majority 52. — (Div. List, No. 56.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEmoved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £155, the amount asked for the purpose of feeding the deer in Richmond Park.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £117,490, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he could not vote for the Amendment, as the Ranger had now enjoyed the right of shooting in the Park for many years, and the amount
    680
    expended in feeding the deer was exceedingly small.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, it was not at all a question of renewing the privileges of the Ranger, but one of paying a certain sum of money for feeding game of which nobody knew what became.
    MR. DILLWYNwished to know the amount received from the sale of the game?
    MR. GERARD NOELreplied that game was not sold, but given away. Question put.
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 21; Noes 68: Majority 47. — (Div. List, No. 57.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. William Henry Smith).
    MR. PARNELLopposed the Motion, and explained that his reason was to prevent a most important Bill affecting Ireland (Public Health) being read a second time, at an hour when the measure could not be properly discussed. He had seen recently a letter written by an anonymous scribbler in The Times, who signed himself "M.P."—
    THE CHAIRMANcalled the hon. Member to Order. The Question was that the Chairman now leave the Chair.
    MR. PARNELLwould not proceed with the topic. The Government had done a great deal to got through the other business in order that the second reading of the Public Health (Ireland) Bill might be taken at a time when there were few Irish Members in the House to discuss it. He should be quite willing to have the House divided into two portions, one sitting by night and the other by day, and he was willing to take his share with either portion; but under the present arrangement he really did not see how the House was to get through its business.
    MR. BUTTrequested his hon. Friend to withdraw his opposition. He agreed I with him that it was very desirable not to have discussions at a late hour on Bills with respect to which there was likely to be any dispute. The Bill, however, which his hon. Friend wished to obstruct was simply a Bill for consolidating the

    681
    sanitary laws in Ireland, and it was the universal opinion of those who administered those laws that the Bill should be passed. If it were not now read a second time the result would be that it could not pass this Session, and he thought anyone who prevented sanitary legislation would not find his conduct approved of by the people of Ireland.
    MR. CALLANwas proceeding to make some remarks criticising the Public Health (Ireland) Bill, when—
    THE CHAIRMANcalled him to Order.
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, ho regretted that the obstruction had been thrown in the way of the Bill. He was not aware that a single Irish Member was opposed to the measure; and, on the contrary, he thought the Government were entitled to thanks for introducing a measure which gave an instalment of Home Rule.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the hon. Gentleman could not have read the Bill. [" Order, order !"]
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he would not press his opposition, in deference to the wish of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick, but he must object to the way in which Irish business was transacted.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the hon. Member for Meath had by his Motion attempted to obstruct the measure.
    MR. PARNELL: Irise to Order. The right hon. Baronet has made an inaccurate statement. He said that I made a Motion. I have made no Motion.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I should have said, "by his speech on the Motion for reporting Progress." I was proceeding to state the course that I had taken in respect of this Bill. It was as follows:—On the last day before the adjournment for the Easter Recess I stated publicly to the House that I hoped to be able to take the second reading of this Bill to-night, which, as has been said, is really a Consolidation Bill. This evening I met many hon. Members connected with this Bill, and I stated to them that it was my intention to proceed with the Bill, having the further intention of referring it to a Select Committee in order that it might be thoroughly discussed. Considering that this was merely a consolidation of an existing
    682
    law, with certain amendments of some importance, but which I have always represented as inferior to the great object of the consolidation; and considering that I was anxious to have it discussed before the Select Committee, and that, therefore, the second reading would be merely a formal stage, I leave the House to judge of the conduct of the hon. Member.
    MR. BUTTthought the Bill ought to have been read a second time, for it could easily be discussed by his hon. Friend the Member for Meath after it came from the Committee, if necessary. He protested against a good Bill like this being stopped from passing simply because it came on at that hour.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he had not prevented its passing the second reading; but if the Bill was such a very good one, and no time was necessary for its discussion, why did not the right hon. Baronet bring iton at an early hour of the evening?
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.
    House adjourned at One o'clock.