Sitting of 7 June 1877

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Irish Land Act, 1870, Mr. Downing disch., Sir Joseph M'Kenna added.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — First Reading — Emly Cathedral, &c. [189].
First Reading —Solicitors Examination, &c. * [190].
Second Reading—Removal of Wrecks * [181].
Select Committee—New Forest * [150], nominated.
Committee—Report—General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act (1862) Amendment [164].
Considered as amended — Prisons [121], debate adjourned.
Third Reading—Reservoirs * [132], and passed.

QUESTIONS.
  JOINT STOCK COMPANIES—LEGISLATION—"TWYCROSS v. GRANT."—THE HUMBER IRONWORKS COMPANY.

    QUESTIONS.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the opinion expressed
    1436
    by the Lord Chief Justice of England and to the words he used in the hearing of the case of Twycross v. Grant, reported in the "Times" of May the 18th, as to the practice of producing an artificial premium, by purchases on the Stock Exchange before allotment, upon bonds, shares, and stocks issued under prospectus, and of thereby inducing the public to apply for the securities offered—the words reported to have been used by the Lord Chief Justice being—
    "The fact that the practice was usual does not affect its morality. What I allude to is not anything in the nature of bona fide dealings, but purchases on the Stock Exchange for the purpose of raising the shares to a fictitious value, and in order to induce others to buy them, and then when they have bought, they find the shares worthless in their hands. That is really getting money by means of false pretences;"
    and, whether it is his intention to advise Her Majesty's Government to take legal proceedings against any of the parties to the transactions disclosed in the Report of the Select Committee on Foreign Loans, and who were guilty of obtaining money from many thousand persons by means of the "false pretences" described by the Lord Chief Justice?
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: I will also ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the opinion expressed by the Lord Chief Justice of England, and to the words he used in the hearing of the case of Twycross v. Grant, reported in the "Times" of May 18, as to the practice of producing an artificial premium by purchases on the Stock Exchange before allotment, upon bends, shares, and stocks issued under prospectus, and of thereby inducing the public to apply for the securities offered, the words reported to have been used by the Lord Chief Justice being—
    "The fact that the practice was usual does not affect its morality. What I allude to is not anything in the nature of bona fide dealings, but purchases on the Stock Exchange for the purpose of raising the shares to a fictitious value and in order to induce others to buy them, and then when they have bought, they find the shares worthless in their hands. That is really getting money by means of false pretences;"
    and, whether it is his intention to advise Her Majesty's Government to take legal proceedings against any of the parties who have been guilty of obtaining money from many thousand persons by means of the "false pretences" described by the Lord Chief Justice, more particularly

    1437
    with reference to transactions disclosed in the "Railway News" of March 24, 1876, with respect to the Humber Ironworks Company, capital £1,000,000, E. W. Watkin, Chairman, on behalf of which scheme the promoters appealed to the public through the Stock Exchange, promising a dividend of 20 per cent and upwards to the shareholders, the shares of the Company being quoted 1½ to 2 premium before a single share had been allotted; whereas in a few months the whole of the money subscribed by the public disappeared except a trifle?
    SIR EDWARD WATKIN: Sir, before the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General answers my Question I am sure the House will allow me the indulgence of a few words in reference to the Question of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. I only arrived from Ireland early this morning, and did not see the Question of the right hon. Baronet till some time this afternoon. Therefore, I received no Notice of the right hon. Gentleman's intention to put his Question, which I am sure I am within Parliamentary language in describing as not a little offensive. I therefore had no opportunity of showing the right hon. Baronet that he was grossly in error, that he had done me great injustice, wasted the time of the House, and extended a practice which I think you, Sir, will see is not entirely to the credit of the House—namely, that of bringing forward personal matters and arousing personal animosities in the shape of asking Questions. Now, Sir, the facts are very simple, and they are perfectly well known. If any hon. or right hon. Member will do me the favour of going to the Library and inspecting The Times of the Autumn of 1869, he will find the report of the trial, extending over three days, to which the right hon. Baronet refers; that a jury was empanelled to try whether I, the Member of this House alluded to, had done anything dishonourable, or fraudulent, or unfair; that after three days' examination I positively refused to allow the case to go to a referee, and insisted on my right to have the case tried by a British Judge and a British jury. The jury were unanimously of opinion that no case whatever had been made out, and the person who pursued me — a small attorney in Yorkshire—preferred to be non-suited rather than take the
    1438
    verdict of the jury. If the right hon. Baronet will do me the further justice of referring to the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice, who tried the case, he will find that his Lordship distinctly stated that no imputation rested upon me, and that the misfortunes of the undertaking—for unfortunate it was—were in consequence of no fault of mine, but happened mainly because the advice which I gave was not taken; and I think he will do me the justice of admitting that the Question is not fair, is not well founded, is libellous—that it is such a Question as a man would not put to me out of this House without receiving such a reply as the forms of this House will not permit me to make.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: My attention has been called by the Question of the hon. Member for Hythe, as well as by that of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, to the observations of the Lord Chief Justice in the case of "Twycross v. Grant." I understand the Lord Chief Justice, in the words made use of, to condemn the practices referred to as dishonest and immoral; but I do not think he commits himself to an opinion that persons resorting to these practices are in all eases liable to criminal prosecution. It is no part, I conceive, of my duty as Attorney General to initiate criminal proceedings against the promoters of Companies. In the cases referred to by the hon. Member for Hythe and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, my advice has not been asked by Her Majesty's Government, and unless it is asked I have no intention of volunteering a communication of my opinion.
    SIR EDWARD WATKIN: I beg to give Notice that on going into Committee of Supply I will call the attention of the House to this very important question and move a Resolution.

  ARMY—THE ROYAL MILITARY ASYLUM—QUESTION.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary of State for War, To explain whether any and what changes have been made in the rules regarding age for the admission of boys into the Royal Military Asylum, and as regards their selection from the sons of men after their fathers have left the Army, also in the cubic space for dormi-

  1439
  tories, which was accepted on the recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1870 on Military Education; and, whether he would lay upon the Table of the House the documents which will show on whose advice, and for what objects or reasons, these changes have been made?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: The minimum age for the admission of boys into the Royal Military Asylum has been raised from seven to ten years of age. When boys were admitted at the earlier age a large proportion remained at the school from six to eight years, to the prejudice of many deserving cases, excluded owing to the slow rate at which vacancies occurred. No change has been made in the rules regarding the selection of boys; but, as the result of the change in age above referred to, the Commissioners have been able to extend the area of selection. The cubic space afforded to boys in the dormitories is as follows:-120 boys, 590 cubic feet each; 364 boys, 468 cubic feet each. Certain alterations in the system of school management having admitted of large reductions in the working expenses, I deemed it advisable to utilize the savings in enlarging the scope of the institution, without imposing any additional burden on the Exchequer. Want of sleeping accommodation has hitherto prevented the proposal being carried out in its entirety; but the Commissioners having inspected the dormitories and satisfied themselves that they were well ventilated with louvre panes and air-shafts, sanctioned the addition of one bed in each room of 13 boys, whereby an increase of 26 boys was effected without alteration of the buildings, raising the total strength from 458 to 484. The object of these changes is clear—namely, to educate at the public expense, without exceeding the Parliamentary grant, as many children of deserving soldiers as possible; and they have been effected with the knowledge and concurrence of the Commandant of the Asylum and of the Commissioners, under my sanction. I do not propose to lay any documents on the Table of the House.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—THE GAMBIA—APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE.

    QUESTION.
    MR. HOPWOODasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If
    1440
    he would state what was the date of the appointment of Mr. Adolphus as Chief Justice of the Gambia; whether the merchants and residents in that Colony had not in a Despatch or Letter, as far back as April 1876, strongly expressed the necessity for a properly qualified lawyer to fill the appointment; whether he would lay any such Despatch or Letter as exists upon the Table of the House; if he would state the nature of the judicial experience of Mr. Adolphus referred to by Lord Carnarvon, in his Despatch of 27th February last to Governor Kortright, and what was the legal appointment held previously by Mr. Adolphus; and, whether, as judge, he would not now have the highest powers over liberty, life, and property in the Colony?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: As regards the first of the Questions put by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I must point out that there is no such appointment as Chief Justice of Gambia, but that the post held by Mr. Adolphus is that of Chief Magistrate, to which he was appointed by a despatch dated October 16, 1876. Now, as to a communication from the Colony on the subject, a letter was received bearing the date of April 29, 1876, in which complaint was made of the Settlement of the Gambia being made a dependency of Sierra Leone, and among other matters objection was made to the judicial business of the Colony being left in the hands of a Chief Magistrate, and that an appeal lay to Sierra Leone, instead of the Court of Queen's Bench. I shall be glad to show the hon. and learned Gentleman a manuscript copy of the letter in question, and if he thinks it worth while incurring the cost of printing it, I shall be ready to carry out his wishes. Mr. Adolphus occupied for 12 years the position of Magistrate of the Northern Division of British Honduras, during which time he discharged his duties to the entire satisfaction of the Colonial Government. As to whether he will now have the highest powers over liberty, life, and property, I find that no sentence exceeding 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour can be carried out until approved by the Administrator of the Government, and in capital cases a further reference must be made to the Governor in Chief and Executive Council at Sierra Leone. In any case, moreover, of exceptional im-

    1441
    portance there is power to substitute for the Chief Magistrate a Judge or barrister specially commissioned for the occasion. There is also an appeal to the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone in civil cases above £50.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—CASE OF DANIEL FORAN.—QUESTION.
  THE O'DONOGHUEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he will place upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Memorial presented to the Lord Lieutenant praying for a mitigation of the sentence passed upon Daniel Foran by Mr. Justice Keogh at the last Assizes held at Tralee?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: No, Sir, I do not feel able to lay on the Table of the House the Memorial asked for. It would be contrary to the rule of the House to do so, and its publication would give an entirely erroneous impression.

  DOMINION OF CANADA—EMIGRATION OF PAUPER CHILDREN.—QUESTION.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to a Report from Miss Rye, in reply to a Report of Mr. Doyle respecting the emigration of pauper children to Canada; whether he has received any further communication from Mr. Doyle upon the subject; and, whether, if so, he will lay a Copy of such communication upon the Table of the House?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, his attention had been called to Miss Rye's Report, which was of a voluminous character, and which had been printed, but, he believed, had not been published. He had also received some observations from Mr. Doyle in answer to that Report. It was not his intention to lay that document on the Table of the House; but if it were true, as he had been informed, that Miss Rye's Report had been circulated among Guardians in this country, there would be no objection to its production if the hon. Member moved for it.

  ARMY—TRANSPORT AND HOSPITAL SERVICES.—QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it
  1442
  is the case that trained soldiers, in considerable numbers, are being taken from the Infantry and Cavalry for Transport and Hospital purposes, that is, to be instructed as drivers and sick-bearers; and, whether he will consider the advisability of directing the Committee of General Officers on Commissariat Organization, now sitting, to consider and report upon a normal establishment of transport and sick-carriage in proportion to the requirements and numbers of all arms; and on the best mode of expanding that nucleus on emergency by volunteering from the Militia, or other sources arranged beforehand, without diminishing the Line?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: A certain number of men of infantry battalions are being trained as drivers of regimental transport for their own regiments only, and not for hospital purposes. With regard to the second part of the Question, Committees have already reported upon a normal establishment of transport and sick-carriage and on the best mode of expanding that nucleus. I may add that certain Infantry battalions at Aldershot have been ordered to select men at the rate of two per company to be instructed as regimental stretcher-bearers in connection with the Army Hospital Corps.

  THAMES AND SEVERN NAVIGATION.

    QUESTION.
    MR. MARLINGasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he intends to place before the Lords' Committee now inquiring "into the operation of existing Statutes in regard to the formation of, and proceedings by, Commissioners of Sewers, Drainage and Navigation Boards" any evidence as to the non-navigable condition of the Upper Thames, and the consequent closing of the water communication, created at great cost in the last century, between the Thames and the Severn, and with reference to which a communication from the County and City of Gloucester was made to the Board of Trade in February last?
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said the best answer he could give to that Question was, that the engineer of the Thames and the Severn Navigation had been, or would be, summoned to

    1443
    give evidence before the Committee of the House of Lords.

  INDIA—THE FULLER AND LEEDS CASE.—QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETTasked the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the University of London, Whether, as he has given Notice of his intention, on going into Committee of Supply, of calling attention to the Fuller and Leeds Case, and moving a Resolution upon it, he will, considering the great interest which is taken in the subject, undertake not to bring forward the Motion without previously informing the House on what day he proposes to do so; and, whether, as it is desirable that the House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on so important a Motion, he will also undertake not to bring it forward at a time when a Division cannot be taken upon it?
  MR. LOWEsaid, he had put down a Notice of Motion on that case on going into Committee of Supply, because it was his hope and his belief—which he had by no means abandoned—that the Government having raised that question, would give them a whole night for its consideration. At any rate, he could assure his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney that he would do everything in his power in order that the matter should be fully and fairly discussed, and would not take any course which would at all tend to burking or slighting the question in any way. He took that opportunity also of saying that he should be obliged to expand his Motion a little, not altering it to any material extent, but adding to it words of which he would give due Notice.

  RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE WAR—THE SUEZ CANAL—QUESTIONS.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government, whilst declaring to the Government of Russia their resolve to resist the exercise of the ordinary belligerent rights which Russia might be entitled to employ against Egypt as part of the Ottoman Empire, have taken any measures to restrain the Porte and the Government of Egypt to the same extent in respect of the Suez Canal from the exercise of belligerent
  1444
  rights against Russia; and, whether the statement in Lord Derby's Despatch to Mr. Layard of May 16th
  "That Her Majesty's Government will expect that the Porte and the Khedive will on their side abstain from impeding the navigation of the Canal,"
  is intended to apply to the free use of the Canal by the public and private ships of Russia for the purposes of "innocent passage" in like manner as to the ships of other States? In point of fact, the Question is whether the Canal is to be neutralized against Russia, or is to be neutralized also against Turkey for belligerent purposes?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In the intimations which Her Majesty's Government have made, both to the Government of Russia and to the Porte, as set forth in these despatches, they have expressed no wish to prescribe the particular limitations which either of the belligerent Powers place on its rights. Their object is simply to protect the Canal from injury or obstruction by either offensive or defensive measures on the part of either belligerent. I do not anticipate that any such measures will be resorted to; but the Government think it inexpedient to enter more minutely into the question at present.
  MR. WHALLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the intimation to Russia that an attempt to blockade or otherwise interfere with the Suez Canal or its approaches will be deemed a menace to India, and be incompatible with neutrality on the part of Her Majesty's Government, Whether, in thus restricting warlike operations by Russia, otherwise than in accordance with the common rules of International Law, they are prepared to act upon such intimation without co-operation or consent of the Powers who were parties to the recent Conference at Constantinople?
  MR. BOURKE: An intimation such as that referred to in the Question would not have been given unless Her Majesty's Government were prepared to act upon it. I may say, however, that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has not the slightest apprehension that any occasion will arise for so doing. With regard to the "co-operation or consent" of the other neutral Powers, those Powers are interested

  1445
  like ourselves in the keeping open of the Suez Canal, and we have every reason to believe that the course which Her Majesty's Government have adopted meets with their approval.
  MR. WHALLEY: I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I will ask the hon. Gentleman, whether this course is consistent with the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire?
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: beg to ask the hon. Member for Sunderland, when he proposes to bring forward the Motion which he stated his intention of moving with regard to the Suez Canal?
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he would be ready to bring the subject forward tomorrow night, but, on looking over the Business Paper for to-morrow, he found that there were six Notices before his own, and therefore he saw little prospect of his being able to call the attention of the House to the question on that occasion. He appealed, therefore, to the Government, seeing the urgency and importance of the question to afford the House an opportunity for its full discussion. He now gave Notice that as soon as he got an opportunity of bringing the matter forward he would move a Resolution to the effect
  "That Her Majesty's Government be requested to enter into friendly negotiations with Russia and the Porte for the purpose of obtaining guarantees that the free navigation of the Suez Canal shall not be interfered with during the continuance of the present War, and that in order to avoid future complications affecting British interests in the route to India through Egypt, Her Majesty's Government shall adopt such measures as they deem necessary for the purchase of the Canal, its approaches, and adjoining property."
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether "blockade" mentioned in the Papers upon Egypt is not an act of a belligerent directed against neutrals and not against the other belligerent? An act directed against the other belligerent, I understand, is bombarding a harbour and burning the ships, or taking the ships when they come out. I wish to ask, whether a blockade is not an act of a belligerent directed against neutrals, and, therefore, whether all Her Majesty's Government have said in this Paper, No. 1, Egypt, is not this—"You shall not be at liberty to exercise your belligerent rights as against neutrals so far
  1446
  this country is concerned; "but they say nothing whatever as regards the belligerent right of one belligerent against the other?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That is a question into the discussion of which, in conformity with the intimation I gave just now, I cannot enter.
  MR. E. JENKINSgave Notice, that when the hon. Member for Sunderland brought forward his Motion, he should move, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after the word "Government," in order to insert the words—
  "Can enter into no arrangements with regard to the Suez Canal at once satisfactory to Europe and protective of British interests without the concert of the Powers of Europe; and that, before taking any steps with regard to the future status and regulation of the Suez Canal, Tier Majesty's Government should endeavour to secure, in regard to their permanent settlement, the co-operation of the Powers interested in its navigation."

  SUPPLY—THE NAVY ESTIMATES.

    QUESTION.
    MR. GOSCHENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the absence of the First Lord of the Admiralty, on what day it would be possible to take the Navy Estimates again? No progress, he remarked, had yet been made with the Shipbuilding Votes, and the matter was of such urgent importance, especially looking to certain recent events on the Danube, that it was desirable for the House to discuss it before any great progress was made with the ships now in hand.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not fix a day for again bringing forward the Estimates referred to by the hon. Member. They could not be taken immediately, because it would be necessary to go on first with Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, in order to avoid the necessity of taking a Vote of Supply on account.

  SUPPLY—THE ARMY ESTIMATES.

    QUESTION.
    MR. J. HOLMSasked the Secretary for War, Whether the Army Estimates would be taken on Monday?
    MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, referred the hon. Member to the state-

    1447
    ment just made by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in accordance with which the Civil Service Estimates would be proceeded with on Monday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PRISONS BILL— [BILL 121.]
  (Mr. Assheton Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  PRISONS BILL— [BILL 121.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, resumed.
    DR. KENEALYmoved the insertion of the following clause after Clause 10:—
    (As to solitary confinement.)
    "It shall not be lawful to confine any prisoner in solitary confinement for more than twelve hours, and, when he is so confined, the ordinary diet of the prison shall not be withheld from him."
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsupported the clause proposed by the hon. Member. He had witnessed, he said, instances of lunacy arising from solitary confinement. Persons who possessed some degree of moral and intellectual culture did not require such a punishment. Only the lowest and most debased class of prisoners were subjected to it, and they were the very last to whom, in his opinion, it ought to be applied. He hoped he would not be considered a mere sentimentalist in supporting the clause. It was, on the contrary, because, while acting in a judicial capacity, as a Commissioner of Assize, it had been his duty, to consider the nature of the punishment to which he was sentencing prisoners. He had visited prisons at home and abroad, in order to form an opinion from the actual operation of the system, and it was only from what he had seen and heard that he supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, there seemed to be some misapprehension on the subject. Solitary confinement was not inflicted for breaches of prison discipline alone. In many gaols he knew it was the rule to keep prisoners in solitary confinement
    1448
    from the time they went in till the time they came out. The separate system, moreover, was very much in the nature of solitary confinement.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he thought the hon. Member who moved the clause should have told them whether he meant it to apply to solitary confinement as a punishment for prison offences. In that case he thought something was to be said against extending solitary confinement beyond a certain time—he thought 12 hours too little. If, however, it referred to all classes of prisoners, it was not a clause which he could support. For one thing, all the new and all the best prisons in the country had been designed with a view to what was called the separate system, and to abandon that system would be to undo the work of years and to incur great expense. Moreover, he ventured to say that the system was of advantage to the prisoner, and not at all likely to injure him in his health. Speaking from the experience of 20 years as a visiting justice, he could say that he never heard of a case in which a prisoner confined on the separate system had suffered in health. In Belgium, where life imprisonment was sometimes inflicted on the separate system, there were prisoners who had been kept in solitary confinement for 14 or 15 years without injury to their health.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had placed the matter in the correct light. The system carried out in the gaols of recent construction had worked well. With regard to prisoners who were placed in solitary confinement as a punishment for offences against prison discipline, the period of such confinement was strictly limited by Act of Parliament, and it was the duty of the surgeon and of the gaoler to visit them once a day. A record was kept of such punishments, and the visiting justices saw this record every time they went to the gaol. It would be of very great advantage, both as a safeguard to the public and as a means of insuring discipline, if the visiting justices continued to perform that duty.
    In reply to Sir WILLIAM FRASER,
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the punishment of solitary confinement could not be applied to untried prisoners.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, it would be convenient if some one on the

    1449
    part of the Government would state what was the actual state of the law at the present time, and how many days or hours the gaoler was allowed under the existing system to inflict solitary confinement. He should certainly vote for the Amendment.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, if there was any doubt as to the scope of the Amendment it could very easily be amended.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 311: Majority 276.—(Div. List, No. 155.)
    DR. KENEALY,in rising to propose an Amendment relating to the punishment of prisoners, said, he believed that no such horrible punishments were inflicted either in Turkey or any other country in Europe as were inflicted in some of the prisons in this country, and he was desirous of rescuing this country from the disgrace of inflicting such punishments. He was assured that in many cases the practice of compelling prisoners to wear iron chains, 16 or 18 pounds in weight, was constantly resorted to in our prisons, and that in many cases they were obliged to sleep in them at night. It was constantly the habit at Woking to put these chains round the waists of prisoners, and being obliged to sleep in them on a cold winter's night was a punishment repugnant to humanity and Christianity. It had been proved conclusively that O'Donovan Rossa had been handcuffed for 35 days with his hands behind his back, and was obliged to eat his meals like a beast, and yet the fact had been denied by the prison officials. This proved that acts sometimes were done in the prison without coming to the knowledge of the Secretary of State. To remedy the evils which at present existed he begged to propose the following clause:—
    (Punishment of prisoners.)
    "It shall not be lawful to compel prisoners to wear masks, or to attach heavy weights to their limbs, or to use handcuffs, leg-irons, or body-belts, or to inflict any tortures or punishments other than the hard labour imposed by statute, and if any such shall be imposed upon a convict in prison he shall be entitled, without giving notice, to bring his action against the governor for damages, by himself, when discharged, or by his next friend if he should be in prison."
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, the proposed clause was very important, and worthy the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He thought no weights ought to be attached to prisoners, and that no leg-irons or body-belts ought to be used. He had never heard of their being put on prisoners in county and borough gaols, and if they were used in convict establishments he thought the practice ought to be stopped. He admitted, however, that a necessity might arise for using handcuffs in prisons. He was not prepared to support that part of the clause which empowered a prisoner to bring an action against the Governor of a prison.
    MR. EVANSreminded the House that sometimes prisoners were so violent that it became necessary to impose additional restraints upon them. He admited, however, that the things in question ought not to be used by way of punishment, but only for the purpose of restraint. He decidedly objected to the use of masks.
    SIR WILLIAM FRASERobserved that it would be satisfactory to the House to hear authoritatively from the right hon. Gentleman whether the tortures referred to were inflicted upon our prisoners or not. He was very much against any punishments of the kind being inflicted unless they were authorized by the law. The strictest surveillance ought to be exercised, not only by the visiting justices, but by the Home Secretary, over the acts of the officials; we had heard of benevolent and malevolent Governors, and Governors who entertained peculiar views with respect to discipline, which they carried out with great stringency. Instead of confining the inspection of gaols to the visiting justices, every magistrate in the country should possess similar powers, and have the right of inspecting gaols at any hour that he might think proper.
    SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENdesired to ask the Home Secretary, was it the fact that in county prisons in England wearing of masks was used as punishment? In Ireland, as far as he was aware, such a punishment was not resorted to in county prisons. He was quite aware that they were used in con-

    1451
    vict prisons, for he had seen 20 persons at a time wearing them in Spike Island. He thought it a cruel punishment, and if it was used in county prisons, about which alone this Bill was concerned, he thought there was good ground for the clause now proposed to be added to the Bill. One hon. Member had stated that masks were used as a punishment in county gaols in England, and he desired to know if this was correct?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought that it was better before this discussion proceeded any further, that hon. Members should know how the law upon this subject stood at present. If the hon. Member for Stoke wished to know what his opinion was upon this matter, he would say that he believed that in some of the exercising grounds in certain prisons the prisoners did wear masks, but not as an actual punishment, but for the purpose of carrying out the system of separation; but that was a practice to which he was extremely opposed, and he should certainly provide by a rule against the continuance of such a practice. He entirely agreed with those hon. Members who objected to any form of torture or punishment beyond the hard labour imposed by law being inflicted. Hon. Members, however, must remember that gaolers had to deal with a very determined set of people, whom it was necessary to keep under control by means of punishment of some kind. None, however, but the most unruly of the prisoners were ever put into irons. Under the law as laid down by the Gaol Act of 1865, no prisoner could be put into irons or subjected to any mechanical restraint except in case of urgent necessity; and where such punishment was inflicted, the particulars of such case was to be entered forthwith in the "Gaoler's Journal," and notice of the fact was to be given to one of the visiting justices; and it was further provided that no prisoner should be kept in irons, or under other mechanical restraint, for more than 24 hours, without an order in writing from the visiting justices. He supposed that the House would not desire that unruly prisoners should be subject to no restraint whatever, provided sufficient care were taken that the power of inflicting punishment was not abused. Under the Bill, as it now stood, every magistrate would have the power to inspect any gaol, and under the existing law all county magistrates
    1452
    could inspect any gaol in their county The use of heavy weights, leg-irons, and body-belts, was absolutely illegal at the present moment; and it was, in fact, illegal to inflict any other punishment than that of hard labour. He did not think that any mechanical restraints, except that of the handcuffs, which was sometimes absolutely necessary, were resorted to in county or borough gaols.
    MR. BIGGARobserved, that in the case of O'Donovan Rossa it was clearly proved that cruelties were practised in most prisons without the knowledge of the Secretary of State. He thought that no punishment should be inflicted upon any prisoner until he had been proved to be guilty of an offence by some judicial proceeding, in which he would have the opportunity of showing cause why he should not be subjected to additional punishment.
    MR. SHERIDANrecommended the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to accept the words of the clause, for there was abundant evidence to show that prison officials were not always guided by the provisions of an Act of Parliament.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he could not consider the reply of the Home Secretary satisfactory. The powers of the visiting justices under the Act of 1865 were entirely taken away under this Bill. That Act said that the visiting justices should be the visiting justices of all purposes for the punishment of prisoners; but now in this Bill the power of the justices was confined to cases where prisoners were put in irons for 24 hours. In section 59 the gaoler had power to put the prisoner in irons without any order or direction from the visiting justices.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSwas understood to say that that was provided for by the gaoler being bound to enter the fact in the book.
    MR. PARNELLobserved that there was nothing to prevent a prisoner being frequently at intervals kept in irons for 24 hours at a stretch. They knew that O'Brien had been kept in handcuffs for six months, because he made an attempt to break the stonework to get ventilation into his dark dungeon and when all this was done under the direct control and with the sanction of the Home Secretary, they might reasonably urge that placing a man in irons came under the

    1453
    operation of the Bill, and that a man should not be placed in irons excepting in cases of violence, or where the safety of the officers of the gaol was involved. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State evaded the latter part of the Amendment which provided that where any tortures or punishments other than the hard labour imposed by statute should be imposed upon a convict in prison he should be entitled, without giving notice, to bring his action against the Governor for damages, by himself, when discharged, or by his next friend, if he should be in prison. That was a most important part of the Amendment.
    MR. MILLSthought the 14th section of the Bill carried everything that the hon. Member for Stoke wished, without depriving the gaolers of those powers which were really necessary if discipline was to be maintained. The hon. Member had spoken as if a prisoner wore now precluded from bringing an action for ill-treatment; but that, of course, was not the case at all.
    MR. BUTTsaid, the hon. Member for Stoke had made a mistake in mixing two things up in one clause. They all seemed to be agreed that it should not be lawful to compel prisoners to wear masks, or to attach heavy weights to their limbs, or to use handcuffs, leg-irons, or body-belts, or to inflict any tortures or punishment other than the hard labour imposed by statute. But with reference to the rest of the clause, giving a right of action to the prisoner against the Governor or officials, there was not the shadow of a doubt whatever that in the present state of the law if a gaoler were cruel to a prisoner he was both criminally and civilly liable, and he was liable civilly in an action. The only new thing in this clause was giving the prisoner the right to bring his action by his next friend. That would be introducing a totally new principle, and he had grave doubts as to its propriety, and would prefer leaving the prisoner to the common law remedy. The Home Secretary had said that there should be an absolute prohibition of the use of masks, and with that assurance he was perfectly satisfied; but the part of the clause that might be needed was with reference to putting handcuffs on the prisoner, or putting him into irons. As to the use of body-belts, which he
    1454
    supposed to be strait-waistcoats, and handcuffs, it might be absolutely necessary to use them in certain extreme cases. As the law stood at present, it was only in cases of absolute necessity that they could be used. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: The words are—"urgent necessity."] That was the only case of using handcuffs, and the moment he did it he must report it to the visiting justice. He was not to be 24 hours about it. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: Hear, hear!] He must report it instantly to the visiting justices, who, if he did his duty, would go straight to the gaol. What were they to do under the circumstances? They must leave it in the hands of the justices, although he should prefer it in an Act of Parliament. He was quite willing to leave it in the hands of the Secretary of State, with the understanding that he would frame his rules in accordance with the feeling of the House. If the Home Secretary would give them an assurance, which he (Mr. Butt) thought he had done, by intimating assent, he would be prepared to vote for the clause.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, the Act now under consideration was likely to last for a considerable time, and it was therefore desirable to make it as clear and as perfect as possible. Some provision should be made for punishing the wrong-doing Governor, independently of the action which the prisoner might take, for where was a man leaving gaol without money, character, or friends, to go for redress? He characterized the suggestions of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick as being fallacious in the highest degree. He (Mr. Macdonald) preferred dealing with the matter by a clause to leaving it to be dealt with by the Home Secretary.
    MR. BUTTsaid, he wanted the Under Secretary, as the Home Secretary could not speak twice, to assure the Committee that rules should be made against the infliction of these punishments. That was his suggestion.
    MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENremarked that in aiming at putting an end to possible cruelties, they must take care that they did not go too far, and prevent the repression of outrages by prisoners. He could not admit the force of the argument that this and similar clauses ought be passed because gaolers did not obey that which was the law at

    1455
    present. If that was true, it would be useless to pass another Act of Parliament, and they should rather look to some improved supervision over their gaolers to secure obedience to the law. He appreciated the motives with which the hon. Member for Stoke had brought forward the clause, but said that they must trust somebody to carry out the details of prison management. The use of handcuffs, leg-irons, and body-belts might be necessary at times to prevent prisoners from injuring themselves as well as others; and with regard to the use of masks, and the infliction of unnecessary indignities upon prisoners, the Home Secretary had undertaken to frame rules under which these things should be forbidden, and the House might rest assured that any such rules framed in the direction of leniency by a Home Secretary would never be repealed or reversed. The discussion that had taken place would have a good effect in showing the Home Secretary that the feeling of the House was very much opposed to anything being done to prisoners beyond that which was absolutely necessary for the good government of a gaol, and he trusted that the hon. Member might be satisfied with the discussion.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, no one doubted the sincerity of the Home Secretary's humane sentiments, but that simply amounted to this—that the Home Secretary was personally opposed to having masks put upon prisoners, and the Home Secretary was not aware that such a practice had even appeared in any of the prisons in this country. But that did not destroy the fact spoken to by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), that this did obtain in the county in which the city of Belfast was situate. The Home Secretary was opposed to leg-irons and body-belts, and the hon. and learned Member for Limerick had assured him that it was illegal to impose heavy weights upon the limbs, and that any Government who imposed this might be proceeded against. But if the right hon. Gentleman believed that masks and leg-irons and body-belts were unnecessary, and that the use of handcuffs would be a sufficient means of mechanical restriction, then why should he refuse to express it in the statute? It had been said that gaolers bad violated the Act of
    1456
    Parliament, and the Home Secretary had then adduced the argument of what use was it to pass new Acts of Parliament. But if gaolers were bold enough and rascally enough to inflict illegal punishment against the law, what would they not do if they did not confront them with the law? He was not at all ready to trust to the humanity of the ordinary officials, because he was well acquainted with the facts of O'Brien's case, who, under the administration of a humane Home Secretary, was, as a political prisoner, kept in chains in the dark cell for six months. The answer was very plain. They could trust Nobody. Home Secretaries had such multifarious duties to perform that prisoners who were unable to seek redress would suffer. He trusted, therefore, that the House would consider carefully the proposition before it, and endeavour to lay down in plain terms that it should be illegal to use masks, or body-belts, or to attach heavy weights to the limbs. He must assure the Home Secretary that nothing would satisfy him in the absence of satisfactory provisions against the recurrence of outrages of a character of which the House was perfectly cognizant.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYobserved that the argument that they must trust somebody had been used in the case of the lunatic asylums, where atrocious acts had been committed which had excited public indignation. There were many prisoners in our gaols who could easily be goaded into insanity by cruel and inhuman punishments. The most humane prison officials in time might, from the very nature of their calling, forget their humanity; and there was no doubt that aggravating prisoners were being subjected at this moment to tortures which the House would never sanction. They ought on that occasion, which would not recur for years, to take care that their prison discipline was made as humane as the regulations of their lunatic asylums.
    MR. HOPWOODobserved that the common law was very elastic, and they ought to be cautious lest, by declaring that such and such practices were forbidden, they should seem to suggest that other practices, which might be equally objectionable, but which were not specifically prohibited, were lawful. He thought it would be unwise to adopt the clause.

    1457
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 309: Majority 261.—(Div. List, No. 156.)
    DR. KENEALYthen moved the following clause:—
    (Prisoners complaining of sickness.)
    "Where a prisoner complains of ill-health, and the medical officer of the prison does not think the complaint well founded, it shall be permitted to him to write forthwith to his friends, and it shall be compulsory on the governor or the deputy governor to allow him or her to be visited by a medical man sent by the relatives or friends of a prisoner to examine him or her, as often as need be, until he recovers his health, or until it has been established to the satisfaction of the visiting justices that there are no good grounds for such visits."
    He said that he could not doubt that this clause would be accepted. Medical men were often mistaken in their diagnosis; and it would only be reasonable that a prisoner suffering from some disorder in which the medical officer did not believe, should be allowed to communicate with his friends. There was a practice of "malingering," or shamming ill, no doubt, in prisons, and the knowledge of that practice made the medical officers less inclined to listen to the complaints of prisoners.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not accept the proposed clause, though he gave every credit to the hon. Member for his wish to secure the health of prisoners. Ample provision was contained in the Gaol Act of 1865 for the regular appointment of gaol surgeons, and he could assure the House that those who were so appointed were not young men of no practice, but men in reference to whose capacity full inquiries were made, and men who enjoyed good salaries. Special provision was made in the Act of 1865 for cases where additional medical advice was desirable, and every gaol surgeon could call in another surgeon to consult with him in cases of difficulty. If this clause were adopted, the discipline of gaols might be seriously interfered with.
    MR. WHALLEYsupported the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Stoke,
    1458
    and took occasion to condemn the whole Bill as the most objectionable and unconstitutional measure which had ever been introduced into Parliament. the Home Secretary had been spoken of as a humane man—as a man of peculiarly gentle qualities; but he would remind the House that though the right hon. Gentleman was at the head of the Home Office, there was still in prison a man [Cries of "Name!"]—he referred to the person whom he called Tichborne—who, on the authority of Lord Rivers and other gentlemen of position, had been more than once in a dying state. The gentlemen to whom he referred had described the appearance of that man in gaol as most unsatisfactory, and had testified to the fact that his neck, face, and so forth were attenuated in their proportions. He ventured to say that the sufferings which that man had endured had excited an agony of mind amongst the British people such as he could not describe. They were sufferings to which he could scarcely refer without some emotion himself. The Judge who tried that man had some doubt as to his case, and it was notorious that there were some amongst the jury who were beginning to change their mind.—["Order."]
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the case to which the hon. Member was alluding was certainly not relevant to the subject-matter of the proposal before the House.
    MR. WHALLEYsaid, he was so frequently prevented from bringing the matter forward in a regular way that he must be excused if he had deviated a little from the exact point of Order. He earnestly hoped the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Stoke would find favour with the House.
    CAPTAIN NOLANsupported the clause, and that on grounds the hon. Member for Stoke had not touched. He believed it would have good effect upon the medical men themselves. From his experience of the Army, he found that sometimes the wives and children of soldiers preferred to pay for the attendance of a civilian doctor, and often an officer would prefer to call in another medical attendant in preference to the military surgeon, and on some occasions wives of privates and non-commissioned officers attended local hospitals. He had often heard opinions expressed by military surgeons, These had a good effect,

    1459
    although in some cases they might laugh at the attempts of the civilian, yet others cheerfully admitted that it was an inducement to competition, and awakened a useful interest in new and different methods of treatment. The Army surgeons were men of ability; but an infusion from outside made them thoroughly alive to new ideas and improved systems of treatment. The talk among them as to this or that treatment of an officer for any particular illness naturally tended to keep them out of a narrow medical groove, and was of immense advantage to the Army surgeons. He did not pretend to have much knowledge of the internal economy of prisons; but it appeared to him that the medical men there would be even more liable to get into a narrow groove than the military doctors, and exactly the same good result would follow the working of the clause that he had indicated in the Army. The clause would do good, although he was prepared to admit that it might be modified. "Medical man" was rather a wide term, and the Government might accept an Amendment of the wording, and substitute the words, "Properly qualified physician or surgeon," and give to the visiting justices the power of objecting to any particular man. It would be impossible that they could object to any well-known man of skill in his profession. Clearly it would prevent the prison medical service becoming a hermetically sealed service, and if the Amendment wore pressed, he should vote for the clause as it stood.
    DR. CAMERONopposed the second reading of the clause, which, he believed, would offer opportunities for malingering, which it would be extremely undesirable to afford. The outside poor of large towns did not enjoy such privileges as the clause would confer.
    MR. EVANSsaid, that surgeons in gaols very frequently had a large private practice. The gaol authorities had to place the greatest possible confidence in them, and it would not do to have strange surgeons put in a similar position. He hoped the clause would not be pressed.
    MR. PARNELLsaw the objection to the clause in the danger there was that a prisoner guilty of "malingering" or shamming might get a medical man to humbug the Governor; but, on the other hand, there were cases in which
    1460
    prisoners had been dangerously ill, and yet neglected, simply because the gaol surgeon believed them to be guilty of "malingering." He could not help thinking that the Home Secretary should accept the clause, modified, perhaps, to meet the exigencies of the position. On several occasions he had adverted to the case of Daniel Reddin, the manner in which that unfortunate man was for years subjected to a cruel neglect and to torture while in prison, so that now he was helplessly paralytic. The prison surgeon subjected him to the various cruel tests which were applied to supposed malingerers. Red hot irons were applied to his body, and an instrument of torture, known as "Corrigan's button," was used. It was a difficult part of a surgeon's duty to discover when a man was really ill, and when only shamming; but it should claim the attention of the Legislature as a fact that medical men had not discharged that part of their duty with the humanity which ought to distinguish them. Another case to which the Home Secretary had made allusion was that of a boy who was confined in Walton Gaol, Liverpool, for seven days, in default of paying a fine of 58. In that case the lad was sent to work on the treadmill when he was really suffering from symptoms of malignant small-pox, of which disease he died immediately after his discharge from prison. If such a provision as that suggested by the hon. Member for Stoke had been in force that would have been prevented, and a life would in all probability have been saved. He appealed to the Home Secretary to accept the Amendment, and render it more easy for a prisoner to defend himself from the treatment dealt out to a malingerer when he was really ill.
    MR. D. DAVIESthought it should not be forgotten that Nobody was obliged to go to prison. If prisons were to be converted into palaces we should have persons doing mischief in order that they might get there. At present he was told there was sufficient protection for a prisoner if he behaved himself, and if he did not it was only right that advantage should be taken of him in order to compel him to do so. He also wished to point out that the clause was decidedly a class clause. It would afford no relief to the poorer class of prisoners. There was no cause for com-

    1461
    plaint against the prison doctors; they were always first-class men.
    DR. WARDregarded the Amendment as one of utility, although objectionable in some respects. In the first place, it would be an assistance to the official medical men of the establishment, who, from their knowledge of the medical profession engaged in large concerns, were liable to fall into a routine, and were more likely to suspect malingering, and thus fall into fatal errors which the presence of an outside surgeon would tend to prevent. So, too, it would tend to repel all charges which were falsely made against the gaol surgeon; and in too many cases those charges had been substantiated by the evidence of other than official surgeons. In that very case at Mountjoy Prison which had been mentioned, where the medical officer had ventured to lay his objection to certain prison discipline before the prison authorities, it was considered most inconvenient to them, and the officer was dismissed because he would not become a mere mean official such as was then engaged, with the result that, within three months, by being treated as a malingerer, the death of a prisoner suffering from consumption was hastened. As to the use of "Corrigan's buttons," and other instruments, they were well known to medical men, and were really not so terrible as they seemed, but still they would be much less likely to be abused. If such a clause were adopted with that view, he should support the clause.
    MR. M'LARENexpressed his deep sympathy with the object of the clause. He thought it advisable that prisoners should be allowed to seek the advice of medical men who had special knowledge of their cases. He did not approve of the clause as it stood; he thought it went too far. He would leave out the words,
    "As often as need be, until he recovers his health, or until it has been established to the satisfaction of the visiting justices that there are no good grounds for such visits."
    If the clause went to a division he should feel bound to vote against the Government upon it.
    SIR WILLIAM FRASERpointed out that the surgeon of a prison was not an officer who lived within its walls, but a medical practitioner in practice outside. He objected to the clause on the ground that it would produce a divi-
    1462
    sion of responsibility in the medical department of a prison.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that the opinion of medical men of the conduct of the eminent man who was dismissed from his position in Mountjoy Prison was shown by the fact that, within the last few days, he had been elected to the Presidency of the Royal College of Irish Physicians. The only real objection to the clause he had heard, and that had been met by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan)—the medical attendant should be defined as a properly registered medical practitioner, approved of by the Secretary of State—further, some restriction should be placed upon the number of visits a prisoner should receive from his doctor. An hon. Member (Mr. D. Davies) had spoken of attempts to convert prisons into palaces. All he could say to that was that the hon. Gentleman could have had no knowledge of prisons, or he would know what a great difference there was between the prison as it was and the happy home he conceived. Nor could he have seen the affidavits filed in the Queen's Bench on the case of Daniel Reddin and the treatment he received at the hands of the medical man, Dr. Burnes, all the harder treatment, because he happened to be a political offender, instead of being a murderer, a garetter, or a thief. He supported the clause, because it would secure an independent inquiry in such a case; and hoped that the clause would be modified in the manner he had suggested, as it would then have his support.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the doctor of the gaol had denied the statements made by Reddin when the latter, having been released from prison, had brought the matter before a Court of Law; and Mr. Justice Blackburn had come to the conclusion that the allegations were exaggerated and many of them untrue, Mr. Justice Quain and Mr. Justice Archibald being both of a similar opinion. It was entirely against the practice in any public Department to allow an independent medical man to correct or set aside the decision of the official medical officer.
    MR. BIGGARstated that the result of Reddin's case was that the unfortunate man was suffering under paralysis, and the fact was that the Judges gave

    1463
    their decision on perjured affidavits. ["Oh, oh" and "Order."] They were as much perjured as were the affidavits in the case of O'Donovan Rossa. ["Order, order."]
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSrose to Order, and wished to know if the hon. Member could impute perjury to persons in the way he had?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will feel that unless he has strong proof of his assertions that these persons have committed perjury his language is not permissible.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the proof was in the books which contained the evidence given. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary made a great protestation that he wished the prison rules to be moderate and fair, and yet he was invariably ready to support the present system.
    MR. MACDONALDobserved, that although he did not go the whole length of the clause, he trusted that the Home Secretary would give it full consideration. If a medical man was called in he would at once consult the prison surgeon. That would be a security to the prisoner, and prevent many unnecessary charges from being trumped up.
    MR. RODWELLbelieved the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) was labouring under some misapprehension as to the effect of the clause. He (Mr. Rodwell) considered it wholly unnecessary, the visiting justices having at present all the power to protect prisoners which it proposed to give them.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONtrusted that if the Home Secretary did not accept the clause in its entirety he would give it full consideration, and introduce some relaxation of the rules for the purpose of meeting the difficulty which at present existed.
    Question put.
    The House divided: —Ayes 26; Noes 120: Majority 94.—(Div. List, No. 157.)
    DR. KENEALYthen moved the following clause:—
    (As to interviews and correspondence with prisoners.)
    "Every prisoner shall be entitled, as a matter of right, to be visited by his relatives or friends once every three months, and one hour shall be allowed for the purposes of such visit. Every prisoner shall also be entitled to write and receive a letter once at least in every three months.
    It shall not be lawful at any visit, nor in any letter written by a prisoner, to prohibit him or her from making a complaint of prison rules or prison treatment as affecting such prisoner. It shall not be lawful to exhibit prisoners to visitors in iron-barred cages, cells, or dungeons, unless there is reason to believe that such a precaution is necessary for the safe custody of the prisoner, or against the machinations of his visitors."
    He was perfectly certain that if they treated men as beasts, they would in the end turn them into beasts. There was no reason to think that everyone who visited prisoners was in league with the prisoners to assist in their escape or attempt to break the prison rules.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he had a son who was unfortunately convicted of a political offence and sent to Millbank for nine months, and then was removed to Portland, where he remained over two months. He wrote to the Governor to have an interview with his son, and the Governor replied that he could not visit him till he had been there six months. He, however, got a friend of his to get an order from the Home Secretary, and that order he got, not as a right, but as a compliment to his friend; and when he arrived at the prison he was only allowed to see him through some iron bars, he was not allowed to shake hands with him, although he had not seen him for 12 months. He had occasion to write to the boy on family affairs; but because the boy had received a letter within four months previous the letter was returned. Thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, his son was amongst the first who was released from his odious confinement. He would ask the Government what good they would do by keeping up this petty tyranny? Did they think that it would make men more loyal to the Crown of England? He knew from experience that those who were subjected to such petty tyrannies were ready to crush the laws when they were released. The next part of the proposed clause was "that every prisoner should be entitled to write and receive a letter once at least in every three

    1465
    months." He had stated that these letters of his were returned; but what he thought most humiliating in his interview was that his son was kept in an iron cage, and between father and son was a warder. Why should he have been placed five or six yards away from his son? The Home Secretary might be anxious that no harm should be done and no cruelty practised; but the House had no idea of the petty vindictiveness of these gaol officials—the scowl that a warder occasionally put on was enough to frighten a prisoner; but when religion was brought into play, as was the case in some gaols in Ireland, the House would scarcely believe the amount of petty vindictiveness practised. He recollected on one occasion sending his boy a religious book which his son had particularly asked for, but the book was returned. The boy was not allowed that simple book, though it had been recommended to him. He also sent a certificate from the doctor that the boy, who was only 19 years of age, was delicate and required flannels, but these flannels were also returned. He merely introduced these experiences to inform the House of what actually occurred in prisons, and he asked the Government for what reason could they object to the clause of the hon. Member for Stoke? The clause could do no harm to anyone. Then, as to the latter part of the clause, that it should not exhibit prisoners to visitors in iron cages, he could not see what objection could be raised to it, when there were plenty of warders about. He hoped that the Government would see their way to adopt the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Stoke, and he trusted that he had shown that there was nothing dangerous or unreasonable about it.
    SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adopt at least the first two paragraphs of this Amendment. Every prisoner should be allowed to receive a visit from his friends every three months, and it should be made, not a matter of goodwill on the part of the Secretary of State, but the law of the land. The second point, that a prisoner might write and receive a letter every three months, ought to be conceded. He was not so clear as to the third point—that prisoners should be allowed to complain of their treatment in those letters, for
    1466
    statements might be published which were not true. But then some means might be adopted which would prevent such abuse. Permission, for instance, might be given to make a statement of grievances to be submitted necessarily to the visiting justices, or to some board or tribunal which would have power to refer it to the Secretary of State. As to the fourth part of the clause the expression "exhibited in iron-barred cages" was unhappy. But what he understood the hon. Member for Stoke to mean was that not the prisoner merely, but the relations who visited him ought not to be humiliated. There were abundant means of preventing the passing of an instrument to enable the prisoner to escape without maintaining the present system. He was glad that the Bill would place such great powers in the hands of a responsible Minister. The way to prevent abuse was to have a Minister responsible to this House and the country.
    MR. WHALLEYhoped that some concession would be made by the Government in the direction indicated. For about seven years he was a member of a very zealous committee acting in this City for the protection of the public against the malpractices of the police. There was such a strong feeling against the police from the organized system of perjury existing among them. ["No, no!"]
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I cannot allow that charge to be made without protesting against it.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to withdraw the statement.
    MR. WHALLEY: I will withdraw it, Sir; but I must be allowed to repeat it with a proof. It is part of what I once addressed to the right hon. Gentleman. The police are in the habit of combining, when their conduct is assailed, in such a manner that it is almost impossible—
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I must protest again, Sir, for the sake of the time of the House. We are discussing prisons.
    MR. WHALLEY: What can be plainer than this?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House has reference to certain concessions to be made to prisoners; the hon. Member does not appear to be referring to them.
    MR. WHALLEYasserted that he could not depend on the discretion of whoever might happen to preside at the Home Office, and that the abolition of the ancient common law protection that constables should be ratepayers and heads of families exposed the public to ill-treatment at the hands of the police. ["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to arguments having relation to the Question before the House.
    MR. WHALLEYsaid, his observations were relevant, and of great importance.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: It appears to me, Sir, that the hon. Gentleman's speech has no relation to the subject under discussion.
    MR. WHALLEYsaid, he was discharging his duty to the best of his power, and was not responsible for his deficiency. He did not understand that he was saying what was irrelevant. The question was whether we should protect prisoners by such regulations as were now proposed, or should depend on the discretion of a gentleman at the Home Office. Speaking on the authority of a pamphlet which had been published, he maintained that there was a power in those individuals to combine in their own defence, so as to prevent a knowledge of what had happened reaching the Home Secretary.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must call the attention of the House to this matter if the hon. Member insists in pursuing a line of argument which I have more than once told him is irrelevant.
    MR. WHALLEY: I will sit down, Sir, with the strongest protest that I can make against being prevented by the Rules of the House from discharging my duty.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that he would endeavour to recall the House to the point under discussion. Many speakers had complained of the injustice and hardship of a system of which they were somewhat ignorant. He was far from wholly disagreeing with the hon. Member for Stoke; but his Amendments were almost in accordance with the rules which regulated many of the existing prisons, and which he, for one, did not wish to disturb. Indeed, the latest rules and regulations went further than the hon. Member seemed to wish to go, and
    1468
    in some respects gave the prisoner more liberty than, perhaps, he would approve. He had himself sanctioned a regulation by which prisoners were permitted without order to receive one visitor each during the hours allowed by the visiting justices; and that, so far as he knew, was the principle upon which county and borough prisons were worked. Very possibly the system of rewards might in some cases operate as well as the system of punishment in promoting good conduct, and he hoped the giving of marks would have that effect. He would say a word on the paragraph of the Amendment which allowed complaints of prison discipline. He would remark that one of the very first rules of justice was that a complaint should be made and disposed of as early as possible. But the result of the Amendment would be that a prisoner might complain of (say) a warder, and the complaint might not be heard of for a long time, when the warder might very possibly not be able to answer it. The present practice was that the visiting justice should go round once a week, all the prisoners knowing well enough that they had a right to see him alone. It was a good plan always to see prisoners out of the presence of the Governor. He thought that the visiting justice acted as a check upon the prison officials, and did not see how grievances could be brought before a better tribunal. As for the iron-barred cages mentioned in the Amendment, all that was wanted was that nothing improper should be passed from a visitor to a prisoner. He had known cases where not merely money and tools, but dangerous weapons, had passed from visitors to prisoners, and where the officials had been wounded by these weapons. They must remember that they were dealing with some of the worst of human kind, and that they must have their rules drawn in such a way as would protect their officers. These iron bars were really necessary in some cases; though, on the other hand, he had no wish to degrade the prisoners, many of whom were, perhaps, capable of reforming. The true theory of punishment was that it should be at once penal and reformative, and he hoped that his views would satisfy the House, though he could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that they were simply wasting the time of the House by asking for promises from the

    1469
    Home Secretary of which they would not he able to exact the fulfilment. It was the rules to be framed under this Act with which the House must deal.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERconsidered that no real objection had been offered to the Amendments of the hon. Member for Stoke.
    MR. MORLEYsaid, he was anxious to vindicate the honour of the police with reference to the charges made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley). He had lived in London all his life, and had mixed in all classes of society, high and low. Nine-tenths of his fellow-citizens believed that the London police were as a body above suspicion. No doubt among 10,000 men—
    MR. SPEAKER: I am unwilling to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but his remarks are not relevant to the question before the House.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the object of the Amendment was to protect the prisoners from ill-treatment, and to enable them to send out complaints.
    MR. PARNELLhoped that in some way or another means would be found to enable prisoners to make their complaints known to the outside world—to the Prison Commissioners, and through them to Parliament. He thought it was not unreasonable to ask the Government to insert a clause in the Bill that would ensure these complaints being brought under the notice of Parliament.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 163: Majority 127.—(Div. List, No. 158.)
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONmoved, after Clause 11, to insert the following clause:—
    (Use of treadwheel, &c., abolished.)
    "That the use of the treadwheel, and the practice of the shot drill, and flogging for breach of discipline, shall be discontinued, and abolished, and so much of 'The Prisons Act, 1865,' section nineteen, relating thereto shall be and is hereby repealed."
    He objected to these punishments not only on the ground of humanity, but because they failed to produce any salutary effect. They were simply the relics of barbarous times, when a savage spirit pervaded the whole of our criminal legislation. As a punishment, the treadwheel was unjust and
    1470
    positively dangerous. Practised criminals could work it very easily, while new comers found it positive torture and ran great risk of having their legs broken, or of sustaining other injuries by it. It was said to be used for grinding corn; but corn might be ground in another and better manner. Shot drill, again, which consisted of carrying shot about the prison yard, was said to produce swimming in the head and other painful effects on prisoners. The sole end and purpose of these punishments was to inflict bodily pain upon the criminal, and not to effect any improvement in him. The crank, he had been told, was used for drawing water, and as it was not an instrument of torture, he had not included its prohibition in his clause. With respect to the punishment of flogging, they had the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on flogging, and it was only after that and a very strong expression of this House on the subject that it was re-introduced in the case of "garotting." Were they to allow men's backs to be lacerated by the order of two visiting justices for a breach of prison offences? Could anything be more horrid and more shocking to human feeling than to tie a man up and set another man to flog and lacerate his back? Why it was a disgrace to civilization, and a violation of the feelings of humanity. The single effect of all these punishments was to excite a bitter feeling of revenge in the criminal, to harden his heart, and confirm him in his vicious course.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. EVANSsaid, his impression was that shot drill was a bad sort of prison labour. As to flogging, he thought the time had come when it might be abolished as a punishment for prison offences. In his own county (Derby) the visiting justices had found that other punishments were sufficient to maintain discipline; and if flogging was not necessary for that purpose he thought there was no justification for it whatever. He could not, however, join in the condemnation of the treadmill, which was a very ready method of punishment, inasmuch as it

    1471
    required very little learning. As to working on it, it was no more torture than digging or mowing, and it was not correct to !say that it was misapplied labour. In his county it was used for the purpose of grinding corn. The treadwheel was a much better means of doing some kinds of work than the crank. On the banks of the Rhine goods were raised by means of a treadmill, the only difference being that the workers walked inside of the wheel instead of outside. He thought the best thing to do was to vote for the second reading of the clause, and he would then move to leave out that portion of it which referred to the treadmill.
    MR. HARDCASTLEdesired to point out that if flogging in prisons were abolished the persons inside a gaol would be in a better position than those outside. Garotting in the street, for instance, was punishable by flogging; but if this change were made, a prisoner in gaol might garotte a warder—not an unlikely thing—without the risk of being flogged for his offence.
    MR. SULLIVANpointed out that in the one case the punishment was the result of a trial before a jury and a Judge, while in the other case it was inflicted at the will of administrative officers. He did not see the objection to the treadmill which had been urged by the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon). The difficulty was this—that they must put the prisoners to some kind of torment that would not make the prison a comfortable home. The prison must not be made a workhouse or a refuge for poverty or distress. There must be some severity in that treatment. If they introduced an industry such as brush-making, the brush-makers were up in arms against them. If they adopted any trade, they would find an outcry against interference with the trade. So long as there was a useful result from prison labour, he cared not whether it was the crank or the treadmill. It was but right that the prisoner should pay the penalty of outraged justice, whether it was by means of the crank or the treadmill; but in regard to carrying shot from one side of the yard to the other, there was hardly a brute who was sensible in some degree to such a brutalizing punishment. Warders were not worse than other men in the same
    1472
    position; but the House could never be too careful to remember that the whole influence of prison life on the human mind was to cramp it, and he had known cases in which a few years of such influence had reduced kind-hearted soldierly men to mere gaolers, whose sole idea was to grasp their prisoner, not for the sake of exercising severity, but of keeping him secure. He hoped, therefore the House would not be disposed to place too much faith in the complaints of warders. As to flogging in our gaols, he was in favour of its abolition; but he was of opinion that it would not be desirable to do away with the treadmill or any other useful occupation. It was thought that society was deteriorating when there was an outbreak of garotting a few years ago; but he thought that it was Parliament that was deteriorating by resorting to such a babarous mode of punishment as flogging. That abominable crime had been abolished—so far as it had been abolished—not by the use of the lash. It was one of those epidemics which, from time to time, attacked the best ordered communities. The Governor of Dublin Gaol was a humane man, who conscientiously discharged his duty, and was as disposed to treat his prisoners kindly as any other Governor in Ireland. This Governor having to deal with a most incorrigible fellow put him in the blackhole. The doctor took him out, the Governor put him in again, and the doctor again took him out. He remembered remarking that he believed the doctor was imposed upon; but it was better to err on the side of the doctor than to err on the side of being with the Governor. That was a case in which if they could have ordered the lash it would have been ordered, but they had no power to do so. He was, generally speaking, entirely opposed to flogging; but he would retain the treadmill and any other useful mode of punishment.
    MR. BEACHmentioned an instance within his own knowledge in which a prisoner, in whose case all other means had failed, had, after the punishment of flogging had been inflicted upon him, become perfectly amenable to the prison discipline. He was therefore in favour of retaining the use of the lash, not to be ordinarily employed, but only in the last resort. He cordially concurred, he might add, with the last speaker in

    1473
    thinking it undesirable that the treadmill should be abolished. He should oppose the clause.
    MR. COLEregretted that the HOME Secretary had not dealt with the whole question of industrial labour in prisons by this Bill. It was one of the most important questions for the future. He did not think any one could be found to support shot drill. He would support the treadmill if it was a punishment which could be readily utilized; but it was not so. He thought every prisoner should be put to industrial labour. Was it reasonable that a man should go into gaol to be supported by the ratepayers Experienced gaolers had stated that it was quite as much punishment to a man to make him earn his own living as to make him perform unremunerative labour. He should like to see the Home Secretary deal boldly with the question of industrial labour that was left untouched by the Bill before the House.
    MR. HIBBERTpointed out that it was hardly correct to say that under the Act of 1865 first-class hard labour must consist exclusively of the treadmill, shot drill, and crank drill. Other labour of a similar kind might be substituted, and in the Lancashire gaols labour of an industrial character had been introduced. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Cole) that when they could have industrial labour it was better to use it than resort to the methods of punishment referred to; but there were many large prisons where it was impossible to find industrial occupation for all the prisoners, and therefore it was necessary to retain the treadmill and the crank. Speaking from his own experience, he thought the treadwheel could easily be utilized, as it could be employed in pumping water and turning machines. He could not see his way at present to the abolition of flogging in our prisons. He wished he could. It must be retained to be used as a last resort. Visiting justices tried every means of punishment before resorting to flogging; and it was necessary that it should be retained, to let criminals know that if all other modes failed it could be resorted to. He was unable to support the proposed clause; but, at the same time, he trusted the Home Secretary would, when this Bill became law, increase the amount of industrial labour in prisons.
    MR. P. A. TAYLORexpressed his disappointment that when the Home Secretary brought in a Bill dealing with the prisons he should have retained the barbarous punishment of whipping, which was obsolete as far as other countries were concerned. A few years ago a Prison Conference was held in this country, consisting of delegates from all parts of the world, and the delegates were perfectly astonished to find that England still retained a system of brutalizing punishment which every other nation of Europe had abandoned. Yet such was the temper of the House of Commons, that one of the most humane Ministers who had ever held the office of Home Secretary had felt himself compelled to retain this punishment, which Mr. Frederick Hill, who had had a lengthened experience as an Inspector of Prisons, had declared to be as unwise as it was brutal. It could not be said that flogging was at all necessary. It was no deterrent, and was simply a degradation, and it certainly could not inspire in the prisoner's mind that sense of justice which was the object of his punishment. When brutal punishment was inflicted on a man, he became henceforth an enemy of society. The remedy was work—good wholesome work, but not profitless hard labour. Short rations, too, in certain cases, had been found efficacious. He trusted the Home Secretary would see the wisdom of not retaining a system of punishment which had been abolished in every other country in the world.
    MR. HOPWOODwished to call attention to the effect of the system of whipping. In 1874 and 1875 there had occurred 166 cases; but in many gaols there had been no whippings inflicted, and that justified him in saying that it was a dangerous power to be entrusted to any man. Then with regard to the use of irons, he found there were 84 cases; that the cases of solitary confinement in dark cells amounted to 17,800. The cases of stoppage of diet, which in some cases amounted to a moral torture, amounted to 39,482. Now, what had been the result of a change in system, on punishments inflicted in Manchester Gaol? In the years 1875–6 there had been 23 whippings, 752 cases of solitary confinement in dark cells, and 3,269 stoppages of diet; the total number of punishments amounting

    1475
    to 4,056. But last year the total number had been reduced to 900. Now, how had that change been effected? It was owing to the fact that the Governor at Manchester felt a sympathy for those under his charge, and to the system of marks for good conduct there adopted, which enabled a man who worked hard to earn 2d. per day. At the end of his term of imprisonment he would sometimes be entitled to receive £2 10 s. on leaving gaol; but out of that sum 10 s. were given to him and the rest handed over to the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society for his benefit. The Governor had been informed that of those taken in hand by that society, a large percentage were working creditably. The system which had thus been adopted reflected great credit not only on the Governor, but also on the magistrates.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would not detain the House more than a minute. He entirely agreed with almost every word that fell from the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert). He (Mr. Cross) was in favour of introducing industrial labour, so far as it could be done. Under the Act of 1865 the prisoner had to undergo hard labour for the first three months; but this Bill provided that by a careful adoption of this system the prisoner might be let off the hard labour after the first month. With respect to shot-drill, they must have some readily accessible punishment for insubordination, and so far no other punishment had been found so effective for minor offences. As to flogging, they had so recently discussed that question fully in the House that he hoped he should be excused from entering again into the question. But he must say that he could not agree to the proposal to give up the power.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 229: Majority 157.—(Div. List, No. 159.)
    MR. PARNELLthen moved the insertion after Clause 12 of the following Clause:—
    (Return to Parliament of complaints by prisoners.)
    "That the Prison Commissioners shall make a yearly return to Parliament of all complaints by prisoners of ill-health, distinguishing those cases where the medical officer of the prison does not think the complaint well founded, and giving the names of the prisoners and of the prisons."
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSopposed the clause on the ground that it would be utterly impracticable, because, if they were to have the complaints of prisoners made every year laid before Parliament, a mass of papers would be so accumulated that it would be impossible to deal with them. All complaints now made were attended to, and a remedy afforded whenever they were well founded.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERexpressed his regret that the Home Secretary had throughout the discussion of the evening shown his hostility to Amendments that had been dictated purely by a spirit of humanity.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 238: Majority 209.—(Div. List, No. 160.)
    MR. BUTTmoved, after Clause 40, to insert the following Clause:—
    (Persons not sentenced to hard labour shall be treated as misdemeanants of the first class.)
    "The Prison Commissioners shall also see that any person confined in any prison under a sentence of imprisonment not including hard labour, shall be treated as a misdemeanant of the first division within the meaning of the seventy-seventh section of 'The Prisons Act, 1865,' and that no order of the judge before whom such prisoner shall have been tried shall be requisite or necessary to entitle him to be so treated."
    The object of the clause was simply to sweep away the aggravations of punishment which magistrates and Prison Commissioners had engrafted upon the criminal law of the country.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped that the clause would not be pressed. He had admitted when the question was raised in Committee that prisoners convicted of seditious libel should be treated as misdemeanants of the first class, and he thought also that persons committed for contempt of Court should be put in the same category. But further than

    1477
    that he could not go. If they were to enact that unless a prisoner was sentenced to hard labour he should be treated as a first class misdemeanant, the Judges, in the exercise of their discretion, would probably sentence a great many prisoners to hard labour who were not so sentenced now.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. BUTTthen moved the following Clause:—
    (Persons committed for contempt of court shall be treated as first class misdemeanants.)
    "Any person who shall be imprisoned under any rule, order, or attachment for contempt of any court shall be in like manner treated as a misdemeanant of the first division within the meaning of the said section of the said Act."
    Clause brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
    Further Consideration of Bill, as amended, adjourned till To-morrow.

NEW FOREST BILL.

  NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Select Committee to consist of Six Members to be nominated by the House and Five to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
  Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Sir WILLIAM VERNON HARCOURT, Mr. RODWELL, Lord EDMOND FITZMAURICE, and Sir HENRY WOLFE, nominated Members of the Committee.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Cowper-Temple be one other Member of the Committee.
  LORD HENRY SCOTTcalled attention to the publication of several letters relating to this question in the public journals, and in particular to a letter of the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), taking objection to the right hon. Member for South Rants (Mr. Cowper-Temple) as a Member of the Committee, on the ground that he was an interested party. The noble Lord proceeded at some length to comment on the conduct of the noble Lord the Member for Calne, both in respect of certain objections he had raised in the debate on the second reading of the Bill, and to the nomination of the right hon. Member for South Hants (Mr. Cowper-Temple) to serve on the Select Committee on that Bill, on the ground of the large interest the right hon. Gentleman had in the subject-matter of the Bill; and also in respect
  1478
  of the noble Lord's participation in a Correspondence which had appeared in various newspapers relating to the same subject:—and complained that the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was not now in his place to raise his objection openly to the nomination of the right hon. Gentleman as a Member of the Select Committee.
  MR. FAWCETTjoined the noble Lord the Member for South Hants in condemning the course taken by the noble Lord the Member for Calne, who was not now in his place to support what he had said.
  MR. J. COWENmoved the Adjournment of the House to enable the noble Lord the Member for Calne, who was not present, to give an explanation.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Joseph Cowen.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped the Motion would not be pressed, and pointed out that if the noble Lord the Member for Calne was desirous of defending himself, he would have the opportunity of doing so on the Motion for the Nomination of the Committee.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. COWPER-TEMPLE nominated one other Member of the Committee:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Three to be the quorum.
  Ordered, That all Petitions presented against the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on the Bill, provided such Petitions are presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee; and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard, by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard upon their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against the said Petitions.—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)

  EMLY CATHEDRAL, &c. BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ARTHUR MOORE, Bill to amend "The Irish Church Act, 1869," so as to enable the Irish Church body to sell the Cathedral Church of Emly, in the County Tipperary, or any other ecclesiastical structure vested in them which they may not require for religious worship, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR MOORE, Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, and The O'CONOR DON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 189.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Felmingham, &c.) * (96), and referred to the Examiners; Quarter Sessions (Boroughs) * (99); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3) * (100), and referred to the Examiners.
Second Reading—Law of Evidence Amendment * (63); Marriages Legalisation, Saint Peter's, Almondsbury * (85); Bar Education and Discipline (69); Metropolis Improvement Provisional Orders Confirmation * (72); Metropolis Improvement Provisional Orders Confirmation (Great Wild Street, &c.) * (81); City of London Improvement Provisional Orders Confirmation (Golden Lane, &c.) * (82); Greenock Improvement Provisional Order Confirmation * (83); General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Dumbarton) * (68); Customs, Inland Revenue, and Savings Banks. *
Committee—Game Laws (Scotland) Amendment (44-97).
Committee—Report—General School of Law * (31-98); Consolidated Fund (£5,900,000) *.
Third Reading—Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation (Holywood, &c.) * (62), and passed.
Withdrawn—Inns of Court * (30).

GAME LAWS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 44.)
(The Earl of Rosebery.)
GAME LAWS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 44.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill."—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that as he did not address their Lordships on the second reading of the Bill, they would perhaps permit him to say a few words before going into Committee—by doing so he hoped he might save the time of the House when in Committee. The Bill was one of considerable importance, and deserved attention both with respect to its principle and its details. Although, as their Lordships were aware, it referred immediately and solely to Scotland, it affirmed a principle of considerable importance, and one which, if accepted, was not unlikely to be extended to England. In this case a very important subject was dealt with by a Bill originated by a private Member of Parliament. There were occasions on which it was convenient that important subjects should be dealt with by private Members, because that course tended to withdraw them from the arena of Party politics, and such measures were more likely to receive their due consideration when there was an entire absence of Party feeling; and he thought that the Government had acted wisely in allowing this Bill to pass the House of Commons at the instance of a private Member (Mr. M'Lagan), who for many years had given great attention to the subject, and who had produced a Bill with which in general principle all were agreed. The great object of the Bill was to make the principle of the existing law of Scotland with reference to damage done by game more easily workable, and the law more easily adjudicated upon by the

  1417
  Courts. The principle of the Scotch law with regard to damage by game was that a tenant might claim for damage if he could prove that there was an excess of game upon the land during his tenancy over what was upon it when he took the lease; and the object of this Bill was fair and equitable—namely, to establish that principle, and to enable Courts of Law to adjudicate upon disputes between landlord and tenant in respect to damages caused by game upon their farms upon that principle. It was obvious that when a man took a farm, he formed a certain notion of the amount of game there was upon it; and when he agreed to give a certain rent for that farm, he offered that rent knowing that a certain equivalent of rent would be paid according to the amount of game upon the farm. It was clear that if' those conditions between landlord and tenant were seriously altered by any large quantity of game coming upon the farm subsequent to the date of the contract, the contract would not be an equitable one; and therefore the justice of the principle which gave to the tenant a claim for damages caused by such excess could not be disputed. But in the present condition of the law in Scotland, it was extremely difficult to carry into effect that principle, because there was no basis laid clown in the lease by which to compare the amount of damage at one time with the amount at another. The tenant might say—"When I took the lease the question of game never entered into my consideration. The thing was not in my mind when I entered into the contract, and I am entitled to the full amount of the damage done by the game." Under the Bill, in future no tenant would be able to say that, because at the time of granting and taking the lease, both landlord and tenant would be obliged to take into consideration the amount of damage estimated to be caused to the estate by the game, and a clause would be inserted in the lease which would form the basis on which increased damage, if any, could be assessed. Without some such basis it was impossible for either landlord or tenant to estimate the amount of the excess damage. The principle, therefore, of the Bill was simply to establish the basis, and make it legally applicable for the future; and both landlord and tenant would be entitled in future to make terms for the
  1418
  payment of the excess of damage on that basis. In respect of this part of the Bill there was no departure from the general law of Scotland—it simply placed the matter in such a form that the Courts could adjudicate whenever the question arose, and gave a basis on which to assess the compensation. He desired to say a word upon what was termed freedom of contract. It had been represented that this Bill interfered with what was termed freedom of contract. Nobody was more in earnest than he was in supporting freedom of contract in any matter, and he would not give his consent to any measure which in the least degree interfered with it. But there was an important distinction here. It was one thing to say to the landlord and tenant—"You are bound to so and so in regard to game," and quite another thing to say to them—"You must make your bargain in such a manner and in such a particular form, in order that the amount of compensation may be ascertained;"—it being strictly within the purview of the law to grant compensation for the excessive damage done by game, it was no abandonment of the principle of freedom of contract to prescribe that this contract should be in a specified form. There was, however, another point in the Bill which was more a matter of detail, and. in respect to which he had given Notice of an Amendment. He referred to the change in the presumption of law. At present the presumption of Scotch law was that the game belonged to the owner, unless there was a distinct contract that it should not. Now, the 4th clause of the Bill reversed that principle, and declared that in future the presumption of law should be that unless there was an express reservation it belonged to the tenant. Now, his objection to that proposition was that it was wholly unnecessary to the Bill, and that it appeared to give the tenant a right which, under the system of freedom of contract, had been invariably reserved to the owner; and it would raise in the minds of the tenants in Scotland a presumption that in future they would possess some rights which they had not now, but which their landlords had; and lie considered that it was very inexpedient to lay down any such principle in an Act of Parliament. But beside his objection on the point of principle, he objected to the manner in which the clause was drawn,

  1419
  inasmuch as it would render nugatory the substance of the contract; because where the lessor reserved to himself the winged game, and left the ground game to the tenant, the lessor did, in fact, retain to himself the sole right of killing game. Another objection as to which much might be said, was in regard to mountains and moors—where the whole side of a mountain was let in sheep farms; the presumption of law being in favour of the tenant, the effect would be that the landlord could not shoot his own grouse. In that way they would deal with a very large part of Scotland. He knew many large estates in Scotland where agricultural pasture land was comparatively small, and where the right of shooting was very large. He thought it only reasonable that where a man held a square mile of land he should still have the right of shooting over it. Again, there were many cases, as of lands owned by corporate bodies, where, although the lessors had no power of shooting, there was no intention of giving the right of shooting to the tenants; but this clause would transfer it to them. In his view there was a very great objection to that portion of the 4th clause which proposed to introduce a change in the Scotch law of presumption of ownership in this respect, and he proposed in the Committee to move an Amendment reserving to the landlord the presumption of ownership by common law. That was the only Amendment he proposed to move. The general scope and object of the Bill he considered very valuable, and in his opinion it was not inconsistent with the general law of Scotland.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEapproved the principle of the Bill, which he thought would prove a very valuable measure. At present the tenants in Scotland had so much difficulty in establishing a claim for compensation, that it amounted to a denial of justice. The difficulty, of course, in proving to what extent the damage done by game had increased during 15 or 16 years, when the damage done at the earlier period remained an unknown quantity. This difficulty the Bill would remedy. He did not agree in the observations of his noble Friend who had just addressed their Lordships as to the reversing of the presumption of law provided in the 4th clause. In England, by the common law—and he
  1420
  believed by statute law also—the game was the property of the tenant, and the landlord had no right to shoot on land let by him unless in the letting he reserved that right. What the Bill proposed in that respect was, therefore, to put the Scotch tenant in the same position with respect to game as the English one, and of keeping the presumption of law as at present in favour of the landlord. He did not see why the landlord should reserve the whole of the game or none at all: he thought that it should be allowed to the landlord to reserve either a part or the whole. In respect to the damage done being limited to 40 s., he thought it might operate rather hardly on some tenants.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he should resist the proposed Amendment of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll). He considered the apprehensions expressed by the noble Duke were unsubstantial bogies.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHwas of opinion that the Bill as it now stood would, if carried, take away a very valuable right from the landlord and give it to the tenant. The Amendment of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) was a most reasonable one. He did not think the tenantry of Scotland generally entertained any feeling on the subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYdeclared that in the heart of Scotland, from which he came, the feeling on this question of the presumption of law was very strong, and he should vote for the Bill as it stood.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONconsidered that it would not tend to create good feeling between landlord and tenant; to interfere would be presumption of law in favour of the landlord's ownership, and he therefore hoped the noble Earl who had charge of the measure (the Earl of Rosebery) would not resist the noble Duke's (the Duke of Argyll's) Amendment.
  THE EARL OF MINTOpointed out that the word "game" was defined in the 4th definition of the 3rd clause to be "all the animals enumerated in the Game Acts, or any of them." The Schedule, however, only gave the titles of a number of Statutes—so that those who turned to the Schedule would be very little wiser than before as to what "all the animals" were. He thought a distinct enumeration of the animals that

  1421
  were to be considered "game" should be given in the Bill.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Interpretation clause).
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHtook exception to the definition of the word "crop" including "grass, whether intended for hay or pasture," pointing out that if it so defined the definition would include all the moorlands in Scotland.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsuggested that "crop" should be defined as "cultivated grass land."
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHagreed with the noble Earl; but, at all events, some words should be inserted by which it should be taken out of the category of permanent pasture. It might be restricted to enclosed land perhaps; but, at all events, it required explanation.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONpointed out that there were large quantities of land in Scotland under cultivation, with a rotation of crops, and. were not enclosed at all. He knew several farms in which there was not a single fence to be seen; and therefore his noble Friend who had charge of the Bill must be careful that there was no mistake made in this respect.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLrather understood from his noble Friend that it was not intended to include mountain or moorland, but there was a great deal of both enclosed in Scotland, and therefore it would not do to restrict it to enclosed land.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHintimated that he would consider the matter, and introduce seine Amendment on the Report.
  LORD ABINGERsaid, he should like to know from the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill whether it was really intended to include the Highland moors, or whether land cultivated with grass and crops in rotation? As the words appeared in the clause in question they were liable to be interpreted in more than one sense, and it was desirable that upon such a subject as this they should be perfectly clear.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he did not suppose that any moor in Scotland was ever intended to bear crops, but that the provisions of the Bill would
  1422
  certainly apply to some portions of the borders of moors.
  LORD ABINGERsaid, that as the clause stood it really did include moors, and therefore he hoped that some plain words would be put in to imply that it meant grass under cultivation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsuggested that there should be words introduced into the clause defining it to be grass land for pasture in "open cultivated ground."
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, he did not think that it would be advisable to use the words "upon open ground," because it might include the very land which it was wished to exclude.
  LORD ABINGERwas, on the contrary, of opinion that the words "open cultivated ground" would answer very well.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he would introduce an Amendment on the Report.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHassented, and said that would give the noble Earl an opportunity of exercising his ingenuity.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Right of killing game, &c., to be in the lessor, unless reserved by the lessor.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLmoved an Amendment, having for its object to reverse this proposition, and of retaining the presumption of law as at present in favour of the landlord.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out all the words down to ("of"), inclusive, line 21, and insert ("Where under any lease made subsequently to the commencement of this Act, or where by presumption of common law upon any land occupied under a lease made subsequently to the commencement of this Act, the lessor shall reserve or retain,")—(The Duke of Argyll.)
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYwas desirous of stating the reasons why he thought the Amendment both inexpedient and unnecessary. In the first place, he did not see the dangers which the noble Duke had shadowed forth, because the noble Duke knew very well that in 99 cases out of 100 the right of killing game would be reserved by the lessor, and therefore the right which the clause conferred on the tenant would be merely nominal. Therefore, he thought the bogies raised by the noble Duke

  1423
  were as unsubstantial as could well be imagined. When they went further, and looked at the condition of things in England, they found in that country, where the presumption was that the tenant was the owner of the game, no particular evil resulted; and he could not see how in Scotland, where the tenant invariably obtained the security of a 19 years' lease, there could be reason to suppose that any inconvenience could arise from the change. Beyond that, there was some little advantage in having uniformity between England and Scotland in this respect; and, moreover, if the noble Duke's Amendment were carried, he did not think the measure would be at all successful in allaying that irritation and soreness which were felt by the tenant-farmers of Scotland on this subject. It must be recollected that the Scottish farmers were an intelligent and enlightened class—at the same time, they had a strong feeling on this question. What, then, would be their feeling when they saw a Bill come up from the House of Commons with a clause giving the tenant the presumptive ownership of the game, and which placed them on an equal footing with English tenant-farmers, if the House of Lords rejected that clause, and left them, so far from being placed on a footing of equality, in a position inferior to that of the English farmer? Did their Lordships think that a Bill which contained no such provision as this would be ever likely to satisfy the tenantry of Scotland? He assured them that this was a great grievance to the farmers in Scotland, and he should ask their Lordships to divide on the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, that he was very sorry to find that his noble Friend opposite objected to the very reasonable Amendment of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll). He seemed to think nothing whatever of taking away a very valuable right from one body of men and giving it to another. Now, he (the Duke of Buccleuch) was inclined to think that such a proceeding was not in the least likely to promote good feeling between the two classes. He thought the Amendment of the noble Duke extremely fair, and one that would commend itself to their Lordships, because there was nothing whatever in it to prevent the tenant from going to a Court of Law for the purpose of obtaining
  1424
  compensation for any damages sustained by him from his landlord's game.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYassured the House that in the district from which he came the tenants were very loud in their complaints that by the presumption of law the right to kill game was with the landlords, and they asked why they should not be placed in the same position as the farmers of England. He thought that by making this concession they would do away with much of the agitation which existed in Scotland. With reference to the lessor not having a right to shoot upon the land, he thought that many instances existed where owners of common pasture land had not the right to shoot over it; and he could give the noble Duke some strong instances where even lords of manors, or as they were called in Scotland "superiors," did not possess the right. He thought that could easily be remedied by inserting a rider to the clause, to show that where the landlord had not the right of shooting on his own land, some exception might be made, and that could be done on Report.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Huntly) had based his argument upon the statement that the feeling amongst the tenantry in his part of the country on this subject was very great; but he thought he could show his noble Friend that no such agitation existed in that part of Scotland with which he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) was acquainted. The noble Marquess must, therefore, forgive him for asking him to confine his remarks to that particular portion of the country with which he himself was acquainted. The noble Marquess also said that his friends complained that they were not placed upon a position of equality with their friends in England; but he would remind the noble Marquess that in England there was no such Bill at all, and therefore if the Scotch tenantry were legislated for, they would be placed in a better position than their friends in England. He entirely agreed with the Amendment, and he hoped their Lordships would pass it. In his opinion, the tenants would have nothing to be grateful for in respect of the provision against which the Amendment was directed; because the boon which it professed to give with one hand it immediately took

  1425
  away with the other, by giving power of reservation to the landlord. He thought it would be far better to leave the presumption of the law as it stood. There was no necessity for making any such alteration. Neither did he think it would have any effect upon the Bill. If it did he should be sorry to vote for it; because, as he said before, the Bill was an honest attempt to remedy an evil that at present existed. He hoped that the noble Earl would assent to the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsupported the clause as it stood, on the ground that the presumption of law ought to be in favour of the tenant—it being but natural to suppose that where a landlord let his land he let it for all purposes whatever, and that if he did not, he would make a special reservation. The merit that the Bill presented in his eye was that it took away the principle of uncertainty which at present existed about the damage caused by the game, and reduced it to a matter of agreement between the landlord and tenant. Under this Bill the tenant would know exactly what he had to expect, and on what ground he could obtain damages for the compensation committed by game. It appeared to him to be very desirable both for the landlord and the tenant that the basis of the agreement should be distinctly stated in the contract.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was glad his noble Friend in charge of the Bill had admitted that it would make no great difference whether the presumption of ownership was in the landlord or in the tenant, because in Scotland it was the universal practice for landlords to reserve the game. Therefore, so far as the operative part of the Bill went, it would make no difference whatever. There might be something to be said for the presumption of ownership being in the tenants in respect of arable land, and that they should have the common law right to kill ground game on that description of land; but in regard to the great districts of the country where the mountains were let in sheep runs, it was only fair and proper that the presumption of law with respect to game should be that it belonged to the landlord. For his part, he should prefer the question of the presumption of the law not being dealt with at all by this Bill, but being
  1426
  left entirely to the landlords and tenants is a matter of contract.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that as a matter of expediency it would not be well for a House which was often described as a House of landlords to reverse a decision conic to by the other House of Parliament in favour of the Scotch tenant, which only extended to him a legal presumption long enjoyed by the English tenant.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that though the provision was not vital to the Bill, he had again to express a hope that the noble Duke would not press his Amendment, because if it were carried it would be calculated to excite a discontented feeling on the part of Scotch tenants. The question involved was one of principle, and therefore he felt bound to take a division upon it.
  On Question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 34; Not-Contents 73: Majority 37.

  CONTENTS.

  Devonshire, D.

  Aberdare, L.

  Beaumont, L.

  Bristol M.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork & Orrery. )

  Ripon, M.

  Carysfort, L. (E.Carysfort. )

  Airlie, E. [Teller.]

  Coleridge, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Dorchester, L.

  Pucie, E.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Fortescue, E.

  Granville, E.

  Hammond, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Keane, L.

  Lovelace, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Minto, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Morley, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery. ) [Teller.]

  Cardwell, V.

  Halifax, V.

  Selborne, L.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster. )

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Powerscourt, V.

  Truro, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor. )

  Belmore, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Cadogan, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Cowper, E.

  Richmond, D.

  De La Warr, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Hertford, M.

  Northampton, M.

  Haddington, E.

  Harrowby, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Jersey, E.

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Mansfield, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E

  1427

  Morton, E.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Nelson, E.

  Powis, E.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Foley, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Strange, E. (D. Athol.)

  Sydney, E.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Wilton, E.

  Hampton, L.

  Harlech, L.

  Eversley, V.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Hawarden, V.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Templetown, V.

  Lovat, L.

  Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.) [Teller.]

  Abercromby, L.

  Abinger, L.

  Sackville, L,

  Balfour of Burleigh, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Blantyre, L.

  Bolton, L.,

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Sinclair, L.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Cloncurry, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.) [Teller.]

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  de Ros, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Digby, L.

  Words struck out; then Amendment put, and agreed to; words inserted.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONinquired what was the meaning of the words in the clause "harboured on the lands of the lessor?" Was the phrase known to Scotch law?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYexplained that the words were put in for the purpose of providing a remedy for the case where the lessor who had reserved the game kept up a large head of game in the woods and coverts which came out and fed upon the crops of neighbouring farms which did not belong to him.
  After some discussion and explanation—
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that after the discussion he really did not understand himself what interpretation to put upon the word. It seemed to him to have been put in for the purpose of enabling the landlord to protect himself, and he suggested whether the better way would not be in such a case that he should give the tenant leave to shoot the game.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, that he understood the word in the sense intended
  1428
  by the promoter of the Bill; but it was quite clear that educated and sensible men entertained quite a different opinion upon it.
  After further conversation,
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he would attempt to make the matter clear on the Report.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Lessee being of opinion that damage to his crops exceeds the sum mentioned in his lease, to intimate same to lessor) agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Provision as to actions for damage between lessor and lessee).
  LORD LOVATmoved, after line 16, to insert as sub-section 2—
  "No such action shall be competent in regard to damage done to turnips or other root crop between the thirtieth of November and the first of April in any year, or clone to crops of ally kind which with ordinary diligence might have been reaped, raised, or removed before the damage was done."
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXpointed out that in the North some crops had to be of necessity left out in the fields till very late in the year.
  LORD ABINGERsupported the Amendment. He thought that those who left crops out, which might with ordinary diligence have been got in. should not be paid compensation if damage was done to them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORalso thought that if crops were left out longer than was necessary the occupier should not be compensated for damage.
  THE EARL OF DUNMOREthought the principle of the Amendment was a good one, but that it might operate very hardly upon the farmers of the North of Scotland, and there were portions of the Highlands where they could not get the crops in early.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause amended and agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Provisions as to arbitration for settling claims of damage between lessors and lessees).
  THE EARL OF SELKIRKmoved to transpose Clauses 6 and 7, page 3, by placing Clause 7, as amended, in place of Clause 6.

  1429
  Clause 6 (now 7.) to be amended by leaving out—
  ("When a lessor and lessee agree in writing to refer to arbitration any claim of damage arising under this Act") and inserting ("In all cases where there is a clause in a lease providing for the settlement of disputes by arbitration the case shall be at once referred to the arbiters, as pointed out in the lease; and where no such clause exists in the lease it shall be competent for a lessor or lessee to refer such claims for compensation to arbitration, in which case.")
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYopposed the Amendment as quite unnecessary, and contended that it would be better that all cases should be dealt with under the one uniform system of arbitration provided by the Bill.
  On Question? resolved in the negative.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYmoved, at the end of the clause to add as new subsection—
  "5. Any notice under this section shall be in writing and may be served on the person to whom it is to be given either personally or by leaving it for him at his last known place of abode in Scotland, or by sending it through the post in a registered letter addressed to him there; and if so sent by post it shall be deemed to have been served at the time when the letter containing it would be delivered in ordinary course, and in order to prove service by letter it shall be sufficient to prove that the letter was properly addressed and posted and that it contained the notice to be served."
  Motion agreed to; sub-section added.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 12 (Leases or agreements about game existing at passing of this Act not affected by it) agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHmoved, after Clause 12, to insert the following Clause:—
  "Nothing in this Act shall prevent a landlord and tenant from entering into and carrying into effect any such agreement as they think fit, or shall interfere with the operation thereof."
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLhoped that his noble Friend would not press his Amendment, as it was really not necessary for the purpose of securing the rights of landlords, and if agreed to it might make the Act useless.
  THE EARL OF MINTOquite agreed that the integrity of freedom of contract ought not to be touched. He should, however, vote for the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that if the Amendment were carried the Bill would be useless, for it would cut away the very purpose of the Bill, which was to establish some fixed and known basis on which claims for compensation might be made.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that Nobody held more sacred freedom of contract than he did, but, as the noble Duke opposite had explained on going into Committee, this Bill really did not interfere with it. At present farmers were entitled to a certain amount for damage done to their crops by game, and this Bill only established a basis on which they could assess the damage. He joined the noble Duke opposite in urging his noble Friend not to press his Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, that in deference to the opinion of his noble Friend he would withdraw the Amendment; but still he was not quite satisfied with the clause, nor did he think that under it freedom of contract would be safe.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Schedule I., which sets forth the titles of the various Acts relating to game in Scotland from the Act passed in the year 1587 "Aganis slayeris of deir and utheris wyld beastis," to the Act for the Prevention of Poaching, 25 & 26 Vict., c. 114.
  THE EARL OF MINTOsuggested that the animals intended to be included in this Bill should be set forth in a Schedule.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLwished for some explanation about the Schedule, which was merely a list of Acts of Parliament, some of which were obsolete.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYexplained that he was anxious that there should be a list of game in the Schedule, but it was extremely difficult to obtain a good definition other than in the Acts referred to; which had been retained, because there were some provisions under them they wished to continue.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORpointed out that the Acts in question would remain in force though not in the Schedule.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday the 22 nd instant; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 97.)

BAR EDUCATION AND DISCIPLINE BILL—(No. 69.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
BAR EDUCATION AND DISCIPLINE BILL—(No. 69.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its purpose was to supply two great wants in the present system—the first, the want of a uniform system with regard to legal education for the Bar and admissions to the Bar; the other, a better regulated mode of applying discipline to those who had been already called to the Bar. The Inns of Court had, of late years, made great advances towards instituting a system of legal education. They yearly contributed considerable sums for that purpose, and they had voluntarily chosen a Committee from the various Inns, on whom they had imposed the duty of superintending the education for the Bar. But that had all been done voluntarily; there was nothing to compel the continuance of that system—nothing to prevent anyone of the Inns from withdrawing from it—nothing to make contributions compulsory; the system depended entirely on the voluntary action of the Inns of Court. The Inns of Court were willing that that state of things should be improved; and what they proposed was that, following in some degree the example of the Medical Profession, there should be a general Council of Education chosen from the Inns of Court and partly nominated by the Crown, to consist of 30 Members — six appointed by the Crown and 24 by the Inns of Court — each Inn sending six members. Provision was made for the nomination and election of those Members and for their retirement by rotation. It was proposed that the Council should have cognizance of, and jurisdiction in, the following matters: —the legal education and examination of students
  1432
  of any of the four Inns of Court desiring to be called to the Bar or to practise under the Bar;—the censuring and suspending from practice of barristers or persons practising under the Bar, and the disbarring of barristers—all matters which might be referred to them by the Bench of any of the Four Inns of Court for advice or decision. With regard to the education, it was provided that the Council should cause examinations to be held of all Members of the Inns of Court desiring to be called to the Bar, and should appoint Examiners for that purpose; and the Council was to grant a certificate to every person who should pass a satisfactory examination; it would not be lawful for the Benchers of any Inn of Court to call to the Bar any student admitted after the year 1871 who had not obtained a certificate from the Council that he had satisfactorily fulfilled the conditions required by their regulations to qualify him to be called to the Bar. As to debarring or censuring existing members, that power was taken from the Masters of the Bench of the several Inns and vested in the general Council, with an appeal to the Supreme Court of Judicature. The Council would have power to take evidence on oath, if they thought fit, and to require the attendance of witnesses, and the production of documents. This, however, was not to interfere with the internal jurisdiction of the Benchers within their several Inns. With regard to the funds which would be at the disposal of the Council, they would be derived in the first instance from contributions from the several Inns, in settled proportions, but not to exceed in the aggregate £4,600, and of fees on admission of each student; secondly, from fees and payments received by the Council under any rules or regulations to be made by them. These fees on admission, taking the year 1876 as an average, would amount to £1,465, and the fees for lectures, taking the same year, would be £2,063; so that the Council would have an income of £8,128; which would be sufficient for the present system of the Professors and examinations, and for the expenses of the Council, secretary, &c., leaving £1,500 for prizes. He thought such an arrangement would place the system of legal education for the Bar on a satisfactory footing for the present; and, judging from what had

  1433
  happened in the past, he had no doubt, if a still larger sum than that he had mentioned could be usefully expended, the Inns of Court would be willing to supply further funds. Such were the provisions of the Bill. As their Lordships would see, there stood on the Notice Paper two other Bills which his noble and learned Friend (Lord Selborne) had introduced, and had carried through the most important stage, which dealt with the same subject, and went much further than this Bill. With regard to those Bills he would only say, even if he took the view which his noble and learned Friend took, and desired to see a measure going so far ultimately become the law of the land—and he did not go quite so far—he should still be glad to see a limited measure, such as the present, adopted. It was a step in the direction in which his noble and learned Friend wished to go, and it would do much to add to the arrangements which now existed for improving legal education and the discipline of the Bar. He moved that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now road 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, he certainly did regard this Bill as falling very far short of such a measure as, he was convinced, must be adopted, at some time or other, for the promotion of legal education. But if he was unable sufficiently to interest the whole of the Legal Profession in a larger, wider, and more liberal scheme than the one now proposed, he thought the wise course for him to adopt would be to acquiesce, for the present, in what could now be obtained, trusting to the insight and liberality of the great Profession to which he belonged to carry forward hereafter the measures which he had proposed — provided the views he entertained were right. In the present Bill it was a great advantage that the functions now exercised by the Inns of Court, with regard to the admission of students to the Bar, their education and examinations, and also with regard to the discipline of the Bar itself, were at once and for ever to be placed under the guarantee and security of public law. Still, he was disappointed that the Inns
  1434
  of Court, when making up their minds to this great step, had not gone further, and placed themselves in the honourable and great position of a Legal University, as was recommended to them by his noble and learned Friend himself some years ago, as well as by the Royal Commissioners, and which measure he had no doubt would, at some time, follow upon this first step. It was also satisfactory that not only nominees of these four Bodies; but, in addition to them, independent persons to be nominated by the Crown, would henceforth constitute a Council of Legal, Education and Discipline. He must protest against the extreme narrowness of the view expressed in the provision that the business of the Council should only be to attend to the legal education and examination of such students of any of the Four Inns of Court as desired to be called to the Bar, or to practise under the Bar. The great point of difference between this scheme and his own—a difference which he hoped would be finally decided in favour of his own—was that he desired a system of legal education that should be open to all Her Majesty's subjects, whether intending to be called to the Bar or any other branch of the Legal Profession, and whether members of the Four Inns of Court or not. That he considered was the only system of legal education worthy of this country, and calculated to do great good. But in the meantime he was willing that this Bill should pass, and the experiment of its working be tried. The consequence was that he must with reluctance leave to others who might come after him to carry out the larger scheme that he had proposed. The two Orders of the Day in his name—the Inns of Court Bill and the General School of Law Bill, for Committee—must be immediately dropped as the necessary consequence of the second reading of this Bill. He, however, should ask their Lordships first to allow the General School of Law Bill to pass through Committee pro formâ, in order that he might introduce Amendments, so that it might remain on record in the shape he desired to submit it to their Lordships' House.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (FELMINGHAM, &c.) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Education Department under "The Elementary Education Act, 1870," to enable the School Boards for the United District of Felmingham and Kelvedon Hatch to put in force "The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845," and the Acts amending the same—Was presented by The LORD PRESIDENT; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 96.)
INNS OF COURT BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee read, and discharged; and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

GENERAL SCHOOL OF LAW BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; amendments made; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 98.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.