Sitting of 1 March 1877

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Tramways (Use of Mechanical Power), nominated.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Consolidated Fund (£350,000).
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Prisons [1]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Open Spaces (Metropolis) [62].

METROPOLIS—KENSINGTON GARDENS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GORDONasked the First Commissioner of Works, If his attention has been called to the neglected state of Kensington Gardens, both as regards the trees and the herbage; whether any steps can be taken for the better preservation of both; and, whether anything can be done to remedy the unsightliness of the chance paths which have been made in various parts of the Gardens?
  MR. GERARD NOEL: The attention of the noble Lord, my Predecessor at the Office of Works (Lord Henry Lennox) was last year called to the unsatisfactory state of Kensington Gardens. He asked for a Report on the subject both from Dr. Hooker and the Superintendent of Hyde Park. Perhaps the House will permit me to read an extract from it, as it expresses in far better terms than I can do the condition of Kensington Gardens.
  1204
  "Kensington Gardens differs from a park in which there are considerable space between the trees. When these fall from old age or other irremediable causes young trees can be planted in fresh and unbroken ground. Kensington Gardens, on the other hand, is practically a piece of forest, and requires for its renovation the same kind of treatment. The trees have, to a large extent, reached the term of their existance on a soil naturally light. The only plan appears to me to totally clear portions of the ground, deeply trench, fence, and replant."
  The House will therefore see that the matter requires care and consideration, and, what is of greater importance, an expenditure of money. During the winter many trees have been cut down; they were merely bare poles, no ornament in themselves, and injuring their neighbours. This has opened out many of the large old trees and given space and light to the more flourishing younger ones; but the only way of dealing with Kensington Gardens is in the manner indicated in Dr. Hooker's Report. With regard to the herbage, many parts of the Gardens will be re-sown and put in order; but this question of the herbage is enough to break the heart of any one who takes an interest in it. The trees stand so thick, the shade from them is so great, and the number of persons walking over the grass is so considerable that it is quite impossible to keep it in tidy order. I hope, when the Estimates come on, to be in a position to propose a Vote for a new broad walk to run from the top of Rotten Row into Kensington Gardens, and this will obviate, to a certain extent, "the unsightliness of the chance paths," of which the hon. Gentleman complains.

ELECTION PETITIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS ACT, 1868.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BUTTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When he intends to introduce a Bill making provision for the trial of Election Petitions after the expiration of the Act now in force on the 31st of December next; and, whether such Bill will be submitted in a form that will enable the House to consider and adopt any amendments that may be deemed expedient in the provisions of that Act?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: The Attorney General has had charge of the Bill; and I have had an opportunity of

  1205
  consulting with him, and I may say that it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill on the subject before long, whether before Easter or not I do not like to say positively. But the Bill will be submitted in a form which will enable the House to consider and adopt any Amendments which may be deemed expedient in the provisions of the existing Act.

METROPOLIS-HYDE PARK CORNER— CONSTITUTION HILL—QUESTION.
MR. EDWARDSasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, as it is now found impracticable to open the approaches at Hyde Park Corner this year, Members of the Legislature may be permitted to drive down Constitution Hill to the Houses of Parliament, at such times, at all events, as Her Majesty the Queen may be absent from London?
MR. GERARD NOEL: In answer to the Question of my hon Friend, I have to say that the authority to permit the carriages of Members of the Legislature to drive down Constitution Hill does not rest with me, and I do not think it would be advisable to make such a proposal to Her Majesty.

THE MAGISTRACY, IRELAND—COMMISSIONS OF THE PEACE.—QUESTION.
MR. MELDONasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If, under the existing state of the law, persons who, holding the Commission of the Peace, are declared by law to be disqualified by reason of their being declared bankrupts, committing offences, or accepting certain offices, nevertheless are at the issuing of the Commission of the Peace next after such disqualification occurs reappointed and become again entitled to hold such Commission; and, if it is not the fact that at the present time there are a large number of uncertificated and absconding bankrupts and other persons declared to be disqualified by law who are named in the Commission of the Peace, and who are entitled to be Justices of the Peace in Ireland; and, if he will take steps to prevent such a state of things in future?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I have no
1206
information which would enable me to give the particulars referred to in the Question. I believe there are some but not a large number of persons disqualified by bankruptcy and other causes now included in the commission. As the subject is one of considerable importance, I have communicated with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who has the power of appointing and superseding magistrates, and who exercises a general jurisdiction over them. I have this morning received a letter from his Lordship's secretary, which states shortly the remedies he proposes to meet the evils alluded to. The system in Ireland of appointing justices is very inconvenient. On each new commission the names of all the other magistrates are inserted. In England, since the time of Lord Chancellor Parker, only the new name is given. The Lord Chancellor proposes to assimilate the Irish system to the English, by introducing a clause in a Bill which is contemplated and which would permit official instruments to be shortened. The Irish mode makes it a matter of doubt whether disqualified persons are not each time appointed, whereas in England no such question arises. To reform the mode of appointment seems the best way of dealing with the difficulty. But, until an improvement in the system of appointment is made, it is intended to omit in any new commissions such persons as information can be obtained about from the Court of Bankruptcy.

NAVY—NAVAL CADETS' COLLEGE—SITE.—QUESTION.
MR. E. J. REEDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the inconsistencies in the Reports of the Committee on the Site for the Naval Cadets' College, as shown by the statement in the text that the Milford Haven (Newton Noyes) site is rejected on the ground of "immoral temptations," whereas the Tabular Report, signed by the chairman, declares it to he "unobjectionable in this respect; "by the Tabular Report stating that the bathing accommodation at Mount Boon is "very good," whereas the text states that it is not so, but would require extension and improvement; and, by rejecting a site (Newton Noyes) which the Tabular Report shows to be suitable in all respects

1207
excepting some moistness of climate, and recommending the Mount Boon site, the climate of which is described in the Report as "a moist one," with an average rainfall "greater than that of any other south-west site visited;" and, what steps he proposes to take in order to furnish the House with correct and consistent information on this subject?
MR. HUNT:I sent a copy of the hon. Gentleman's Question to the Chairman of the Committee (Admiral Wellesley), thinking that was the best way of obtaining an answer to it. In reply I have received a letter from the Chairman, who says—
"The answers in the Tabular Statement must be considered as comparative, and generally as in regard to other sites in the same locality. With regard to Newton Noyes the expression should, perhaps, more properly have been less objectionable,' meaning thereby less so than Castle Hall,' but they are both too near the seaport town of Milford, though it would be easier to restrict visits from Newton Noyes than from Castle Hall. I do not see the discrepancy as regards bathing at Mount Boon. The text says, 'at present the facilities for bathing are not all that can be desired, but might be extended and improved,' and then surely we are not wrong in saying that they will afford very good facility.' I assume facility and capability of being made so are understood as convertible terms, otherwise our Report may mislead, as any site must require a good deal of adaptation, &c. The question as I understood it was as to whether the sites possessed [facilities] or were capable of being made to answer each purpose. Mr. Reed seems to overlook the fact that we objected at the outset to Milford Haven as having the disadvantages, though in a less degree, of the other dockyard ports. The medical men, therefore, have not said their say in regard to climate, &c., which would alone condemn it as being many degrees worse as to rain and damp than Devonport and other places."
The explanation of the Chairman of the Committee appears to me to be satisfactory, and to reconcile the seeming inconsistencies which the hon. Member points out.

POST OFFICE—PRIVATE LETTER BOXES.—QUESTION.
MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Postmaster General, If he will be good enough to state why it has been thought necessary to raise the charge for private boxes in the Leicester Post Office from two to three guineas each; and, if a similar increase is to take place in other towns?
LORD JOHN MANNERS,in reply, said, that the charge for private letter
1208
boxes had been raised from one to two guineas in certain cases, and from two to three guineas in others. The change was adopted some years ago in the larger offices, and it was now thought advisable to extend it, in view of the greatly increased cost to which the country was put in providing new Post Office buildings of a superior description, and of increased charge for the clerks who must be in attendance at the Private Box Office. In some few cases even a higher rate had been fixed on.

ARMY—ANTRIM—BRIGADE DEPOTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'NEILLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been directed to the following statement which has appeared in the public papers:—
  "It has been ruled by the military authorities that Antrim, which was selected for the head quarters of the 63rd Brigade Depot, is altogether unsuited for a military station;"
  and, whether that statement is correct?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: My attention had not been called to this statement until the hon. Member put down his Question. I can find no authority for it in the Office, and no such ruling has been made.

ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS ACTS.—QUESTION.
MR. MONKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to amend the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Acts during the present Session?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, a Committee which sat last Session reported that the Acts required amendment, but they did not at all indicate what amendment ought to be made. Their Report was under the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and he hoped in a short time to be able to announce the decision at which they had arrived.

ARMY—THE FIRST CLASS RESERVE FORCE.—QUESTION.
MR. BRIGGSasked the Secretary of State for War, What was the strength

1209
of the First Class Reserve Force on the 1st of January, 1877?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Six thousand and sixteen.

PRISONS—MILLBANK—THE DIETARY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in reference to representations made to him last year, he has proposed any improvement in the dietary or any reduction in the labour of soldiers sent by verdict of Court Martial to Millbank or any other Civil Prison in which military are confined?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, the Secretary of State for War some time ago appointed a Committee, and, in accordance with their Report, sanctioned certain alterations in the dietary of military prisoners in Millbank. He (Mr. Cross) thought the Report so good that he adopted the same scale for all the other prisoners.

  NAVY—PAY OF ROYAL MARINES.

    QUESTION.
    DR. KENEALYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is a fact that the soldiers and officers of the Royal Marines receive less pay than the soldiers and officers of the Line; and whether it is a fact that the pay and pension of the soldiers of the Line have been recently raised, while no increase has been made in the pay or pension of the Royal Marines; and, if this be so, whether he will state the grounds on which such inequality is based?
    MR. HUNT: The pay of Marine officers is identical with that of Army officers, but the men's pay is different. The soldier now receives 1s. a-day pay, and for the first 12 years of service 2d. a-day deferred pay and free rations; the Marine on shore is paid 1s. 2d. a-day pay and 1d. a-day beer money; but from this is deducted d. a-day for rations. His net pay is, therefore, 10½d. a-day. The Marine when afloat receives free naval rations in addition to the pay of ls. 2d. As the Marine serves half his time afloat and half on shore, his average net pay is 1s. 0¼d., so that as regards substantive pay he has ¼d. more than the soldier throughout his
    1210
    service, but against this is to be set 2d. a-day deferred pay for 12 years of service, which the soldier earns and the Marine does not. The pay of sergeants in the Army is in excess of that of Marine sergeants. It is impossible to make an exact comparison as regards pension between the Army and the Marines. In some respects the soldier is the gainer, but in others the Marine has the advantage. There has recently been au addition to the pay of the soldier in the shape of the deferred pay already mentioned. Whether the pay of the soldier and the Marine should be equalized in all respects would appear to be a matter for a discussion rather than the subject of a Question and Answer across the Table.

  INDIA—RESIDENCE FOR THE VICEROY AT SIMLA.—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that it has been determined to build a residence for the Viceroy of India at Simla; and, if so, whether this and other expenditure at that place are the result of a determination to make it a permanent residence of the Viceroy and his Council?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Lord Northbrook, when Viceroy, sent home a request for sanction to a certain expenditure at Simla to remedy defective drainage and an insufficient water supply. This was sanctioned by the Secretary of State. The residence of the Viceroy at Simla is a hired house, condemned by medical authority as unhealthy, and utterly inadequate in its accommodation. Serious sickness prevailed in consequence during the whole autumn among the Viceroy's household, and I believe it has been determined in India to erect at a small cost a more suitable residence; but the details concerning this expenditure have not yet come home. Lord Salisbury has not in any way altered or confirmed the present optional arrangements of the Government of India by which they annually spend the hot months at Simla.

  EGYPT—BRITISH OFFICIALS IN EGYPT—MR. FITZGERALD.

    QUESTION.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India,

    1211
    Whether it is true that Mr. G. Fitzgerald, an officer of the Indian Financial Department, has been allowed to take service with the Khedive of Egypt, retaining at the same time his place in the Indian service, and his claims to promotion and pension there; and, if so, whether this arrangement does not conflict with the policy announced by Her Majesty's Government last year when the Government refused to allow any British officer to undertake any office in connection with Egyptian finances, without first resigning the British service, and insisted that an officer of the Treasury who had gone to Egypt should elect between the two services?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Mr. Fitzgerald is an officer in the Uncovenanted Civil Service of India, and has been home on medical certificate since September last. Since then he has had an extension of one year's leave, and I believe he is employing this time in the temporary service of the Khedive. There is, therefore, no analogy between the circumstances under which Mr. Fitzgerald is now serving and those under which the Government announced their decision of last year.

    INDIA—ROYAL TITLES ACT—"KAISER-E-HIND."—QUESTIONS.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the case that the new Indian title of Her Majesty has been officially translated "Kaiser-è-Hind;" and, if so, whether he can be so good as to inform the House why the Viceroy has thought proper to use a German title, Kaiser, as unknown to the Natives as the English one, and to set it out in a Persian language, as little known to most of them as the English language?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It is true that the official translation of Her Majesty's new title in India is Kaiser-è-Hind. The second part of the hon. Member's Question is of a somewhat controversial nature. Since it has been on the Notice Paper I have received a large number of communications from distinguished Oriental scholars, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be surprised to learn that one and all express the most indignant astonishment that an hon. Gentleman of such high Indian experience should have fallen into the
    1212
    error of assuming that the title is a German title, or that it is unknown to the Natives of India. From these distinguished authorities I understand that the word "Kaiser" is an old Arabic word, which has been much used for many centuries in the East both in writing and speaking, and thoroughly understood by the educated Natives of India. The Viceroy of India adopted the title after long consultation with his Council, and with their unanimous approval. Amongst the Council were Sir William Muir and Sir Clive Bayley, who are admitted to be most distinguished Arabic scholars. Of course, I need not point out to the hon. Gentleman that India is not inhabited by one nation, and that India is not a country in which one language is spoken; but it is inhabited by many nations speaking different languages, and it was not therefore possible to adopt any one particular title which should be intelligible to all. The Viceroy, therefore, adopted this title because, in the opinion of those who were best qualified to offer any judgment on the question, it was the one most appropriate in a historical sense, and best understood by educated Natives, and most capable of easy and accurate rendering into the various vernacular tongues of India.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: May I ask the noble Lord, Sir, in answer to the latter part of my Question, why the title which he describes as being known in Arabic is set forth in the Persian language?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I believe the word "Kaiser" is an Arabic, a Persian, and a Greek word for it is in fact the Eastern rendering of Cæsar. If my hon. Friend will look into his Greek Testament, I think he will find the word "Kaiser" occurs there more than once.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: May I ask the noble Lord to answer the latter part of my Question. It refers to the latter part of the title — é-Hind.

    INDIA—PROCLAMATION OF THE ROYAL TITLE AT DELHI.

      QUESTION.
      MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will state upon what principle the Viceroy of India regulated the distribution of hon.

      1213
      ours among the Chiefs and prominent Natives at the recent Proclamation of Her Majesty the Queen as Empress of India at Delhi; if it be correct, as reported in several Anglo-Indian journals, that considerable dissatisfaction exists with reference to the distribution of these honours; if he will state how many of the Chiefs attended the Proclamation by invitation, and how many by command; and, whether he can state the cost which the ceremonial will impose upon the revenues of India; and, if he will have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the items of expenditure?
      LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The principle upon which honours were distributed at Delhi was the same upon which honours are given here—namely, that Government selected those who, in their opinion, were best entitled to some mark of distinction. The Viceroy carefully consulted the various local Governments as well as his own Council in making those selections. Disappointment must, I am afraid, always result from any distribution of honours where the would-be recipients are more numerous than the honours given. All the Chiefs present came by invitation. We have not yet the accounts of the cost of the Assemblage, but as soon as we receive them they shall be laid upon the Table of the House. I am able to give the last estimate. The expenditure both in this country and in India is estimated at £65,000, from which £23,000 must be deducted, which has been paid as coming within the ordinary Military Budget of the year, as it relates to the movement of troops. On the other side there must be a considerable increase both in the railway and telegraph receipts in consequence of the Assemblage. We believe that when both sides of the account are considered it will be found that, owing to the judicious arrangements of the Viceroy, a great political object has been attained at small cost to the State.

      NOVA SCOTIA—NULLITY OF LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
      MR. W. JOHNSTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, -Whether the statement is true that the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia had given a decision that, in consequence of the
      1214
      absence of the Great Seal, all acts of the Province, and all marriages contracted since 1869, were null and void; and, if so, what steps are proposed to be taken to remedy the illegalities?
      MR. J. LOWTHERwas unable to say whether or not there was any truth in the statement in question, as no official information had yet been received upon the subject.

      RUSSIA—RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION IN POLAND.—QUESTION.
      MR. OWEN LEWISasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to the following statement in the "Pall Mall Gazette" of last week—
      "We hear again of Russian persecution in the diocese of Chelm. After the massacres which took place there two years ago many of the priests of the United Greek Church were expelled from their parishes, and their places were taken by Russian Popes. The peasants, however, continued, though secretly, to practise the rites of the United' creed: and in several villages of the diocese the inhabitants do not appear at Divine Service and even refuse to allow the Pope to christen their children or bury their dead. At Chulczyce the Pope, finding that his church was always empty, and that his place was a sinecure, complained to the Governor at Chelm, who sent a body of police to the village with instructions to 'persuade' the inhabitants to be more attentive to their pastor. The peasants proving obdurate, a body of troops was sent to enforce obedience; a great number of the malcontents were killed and wounded; and it is stated that the Government has given orders for transporting the whole population of the village to Siberia, as was done in the case of several other villages in 1874. At Lamazy, in Padlachia, the peasants were equally refractory; the church has been closed; and the Roman Catholic curate banished;"
      and, if he can inform the House whether there is any truth in the above statements?
      MR. BOURKE: We have not received any report of the statements mentioned in The Pall Mall Gazette in regard to the occurrences which took place recently at Chulczyce; but we have statements in Reports which were sent to the Foreign Office last year and the year before of a very similar character to those mentioned by the hon. Member.

    INDIA—DROUGHTS OF SOUTHERN INDIA—REPORT OF DR. HUNTER.

      QUESTION.
      MR. E. HUBBARDasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether

      1215
      he will, as soon as possible, lay upon the Table of the House the Report on the Droughts of Southern India, drawn up by Dr. W. Hunter, referred to in the Calcutta telegram of the "Times" of February 26th last.
      LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: We have only heard of Dr. Hunter's calculations by telegraph; but I cannot conceive that there would be any objection to publishing them when we receive them.

    COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL.

      QUESTIONS.
      MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, after the decided expression of the opinion of the House upon the Second Reading of the Colonial Marriages Bill, he will afford facilities for its further discussion? His only justification for this Question was in the fact that the adoption of the Rule which prevented Opposed Business from being started after half-past 12 o'clock precluded the possibility of private Members bringing forward their measures without the assistance of the Government.
      MR. HEYGATEwished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question, of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Whether after the expression of opinion in the House in favour of the legality of these colonial marriages in England he would afford facilities for discussing the question of making valid in England Scotch marriages?
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERpointed out that the effect and operation of the Rule to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred was not confined to measures in the hands of private Members, but also affected the conduct of Government Business; and he was afraid that even if this had been a Bill which Her Majesty's Government were prepared to recommend to the House, he would have found very great difficulty in granting a day or giving other facilities for bringing it forward. As it was a Bill which they did not altogether desire to recommend, it seemed to him the reasons for not acceding to the request of the right hon. Gentleman were peculiarly strong. If the measure came before the House again, he would probably feel it necessary to make some observations on cer-
      1216
      tain of its bearings which he thought had not been yet fully considered. With reference to the Question of his hon. Friend (Mr. Heygate), he must reply to him also that he could not undertake to grant him the facilities he desired.

      PENSIONS TO POLICE CONSTABLES' WIDOWS.—QUESTION.
      MR. PAGETasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will take into consideration the advisability of giving to local authorities power by Statute to grant pensions to widows of police constables who have been killed in the execution of their duty?
      MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not infer from his not giving a direct answer that he did not deem the Question worthy of consideration. A Committee had been appointed the year before last to consider the whole subject of the superannuation of the police, and had since been re-appointed, and he thought it would be the wiser course to leave in their hands for the present the point which had just been mentioned, and to wait for their opinion upon it.

      EDUCATION CODE—NEW CODE OF REGULATIONS.—QUESTIONS.
      MR. FAWCETTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that the Education Code, which was laid upon the Table of the House on the 9th of February, was not circulated amongst Members until the 26th of February; and, whether, as this delay in the circulation of the Code leaves only thirteen days for its consideration out of the thirty days during which it has to lie upon the Table of the House, he is prepared to afford any facilities for the discussion of the Code before the 11th of March, on which day it will come into operation?
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas understood to say that, in accordance with the recognized practice, as the Code was not circulated till the 26th of February, the time left for its consideration would be 30 days from that date.
      MR. W. E. FORSTERinquired whether the same rule applied to schemes with regard to endowed schools?
      VISCOUNT SANDONwas understood to say that last year, when asked the same Question, he replied that it was the desire of the Government that the full time mentioned should be allowed.

    CRIMINAL LAW—ALLEGED OUTRAGE AT STAMFORD.—QUESTION.
    MR. SULLIVANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Press and St. James Chronicle" of the 17th instant, that at Stamford a person named Hammond was recently "watched through a dark unfrequented street, brutally knocked down, and robbed of a parcel which he was taking for special protection to the railway station; whether any complaint or report of this outrage was made to the police authorities; and, whether they have taken any steps or made any inquiries in consequence thereof; and, if no offender has been brought to justice for the outrage, what reason or explanation do the magistrates and the police assign for such failure?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSScould not say whether the report was true or not; but a complaint was made to the police authorities of the town about a similar outrage, and the magistrates said they ordered a strict inquiry to be made into the matter. The police, however, were unable to trace the missing parcel or to find any clue to the perpetrator of the offence. Indeed, they had, it appeared, considerable doubt as to whether any such outrage had been committed at all; but he would order further inquiry to be made.

    PRISONS BILL.— [BILL 1.]
    (Mr. Assheton Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 22nd February.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Visiting Committee of Justices.
    Clause 10 (Appointment of visiting committee of prisons).
    MR. ASSHETONmoved, in page 4, line 10, at end, to add—
    "and the fifty-fifth section of 'The Prison Act, 1865,' shall be read as if the words 'visiting committee' were substituted for the words 'visiting justices.'"
    The county and borough gaols under
    1218
    this Act would become Queen's prisons, under the direct control of the Secretary of State, who was rarely seen in the country, though much believed in. It was essential that the people should had confidence that the law would be properly administered, and it was desirable that all justices should have access at all times to prisons, as they had now, with power to report to the visiting committee. If that safeguard was removed, the time of the House would be taken up with complaints similar to those which had been lately made of the "unfortunate person" who was locked up in one of our convict prisons. It was therefore desirable to prevent cases from cropping up of imaginary ill-treatment, leaving a burning sense of injustice in the minds of the people.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could assure the House that this was not a question of principle, but purely of drafting. He was advised that, as the Bill was drawn, it would secure all that the hon. Member required. He, however, suggested that this Amendment should be withdrawn, and that the Committee should accept that proposed by the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson).
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LEIGHTONmoved, in page 4' line 12, after "under this Act", to insert "and every convict establishment in England." His object was to carry, as far as possible, the principle of uniformity, which was the basis of the Bill, to its legitimate conclusion. The Homo Secretary had applied that principle to 20,000 prisoners, leaving 10,000 outside the provisions of the Bill. If it was necessary for the short-sentenced men to have the protection of periodical visits from independent gentlemen, it was far more necessary that the long-sentenced men should have a similar protection. The acceptance of his Amendment would take away from the Bill the reproach that it was a step towards present government.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSrepeated what he had said on a previous occasion—namely, that he very much agreed with the terms of the Amendment, though he thought it would be inconvenient to introduce it into this Bill. At

    1219
    some future time he should be quite willing to discuss the point.
    MR. PEASEthought the difficulty with regard to the insertion of the Amendment in this Bill might be met by placing all criminals, including those in the convict prisons under long sentences under the surveillance of the local magistracy.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKwas strongly in favour of inspection. We did not know where we were going; but we knew where we had come from. [Laughter.] He meant what he said. It was only 100 years since John Howard published his book, in which frightful disclosures were made on the subject of prison life; and, as far as he could see, we might end there again. Government managed then, and would now.
    MR. PAGEThoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn after the intimation of the Home Secretary that he was not opposed to the principle of the Amendment.
    MR. MUNTZremarked that some of the things mentioned in the book referred to by the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Lusk) were as bad as Bulgarian atrocities. Moreover, within the last few days they had heard of indignities being perpetrated on a well-known person at Dartmoor. If this was not the time to bring forward this Amendment no time would be appropriate. He should certainly support the Amendment if it was carried to a division.
    MR. J. R. YORKEthought that the House ought to be satisfied with the assurance of the Home Secretary on the subject. Ho hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
    SIR HENRY JACKSONsuggested that the necessary clauses to ensure an inspection of convict prisons should be brought up on the Report.
    MR. HENLEYsaid, he could not see that this Bill had anything to do with convict prisons. It was a great mistake to have a divided authority in visiting the gaols with which they were dealing; but it would be still worse if they applied it to the convict establishments. He would like to know whether, from the right hon. Gentleman's reading of the clause; the appointment of visiting justices would be made imperative? It ought to be clearly understood whether they would be appointed with their consent or not.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it would be imperative upon the courts of quarter sessions to appoint certain visiting justices, and it would be imperative on those justices to serve. Of course, the court of quarter sessions, in the exercise of their discretion, might previously ask the justices whether they would serve. Their duties would be confined to the administration of the gaol, and would be analogous to those they had hitherto performed.
    MR. WHALLEYwished to allude to a certain convict at Dartmoor. It greatly increased the anxiety of those persons who were interested in that prisoner that rumours got abroad respecting his treatment in the prison, and that anxiety would be considerably diminished if he were visited by justices, by whom his friends might be assured that he was properly treated. He believed that among the prisoners confined in the convict prisons there were many grievances which demanded inquiry.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that if this proposal was to be carried out it must be in a separate Bill. He was quite willing to consider the question, but not in the present Bill. With regard to the particular prisoner referred to by the hon. Member for Peterberough (Mr. Whalley), he could assure hon. Gentlemen that he had made most careful inquiries into the matter, and had found that every possible care and attention had been paid to him.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WHITBREADmoved, in page 4, line 17, at end to add, as a fresh paragraph—
    "Nothing in this Act, or in any rules to be made under this Act, shall restrict any member of the visiting committee from visiting the prison at any time, and any such member shall at all times have free access to every part of the prison, and to every prisoner therein."
    Amendment agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. ROWLEY HILL, certain words were introduced to save the right of the Worcester Corporation under the Worcester Prison Act to appoint visiting justices.
    MR. FRESHFIELDmoved, in page 4, line 25, at end, to add—
    "Provided, That there shall be on the committee at least one such justice representing the jurisdiction of each prison authority in existence

    1221
    at the date of the commencement of this Act in the county or part of a county or borough to which each prison shall be assigned."
    He said that the prisons in different counties or boroughs might be abolished under the Bill, and as the clause was drawn they might not get that full representation of the justices generally on the committee which was desirable.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not accept the Amendment on the ground that it would lead to considerable confusion. There were a great many prison authorities at present who had no gaols of their own, but sent their prisoners elsewhere, and there was no reason why they should be brought in under the Bill. Besides, as a rule, it would be found that the visiting justices who lived at a distance from the gaols took little trouble about them.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpointed out that in the town which he had the honour to represent there was a borough and a county gaol, and it was probable that one of the two would be done away with, and the prisoners would be placed in the other gaol. There was a strong feeling that those who had had authority in the gaol to be abolished should not be set aside altogether, and he would like to know what were the views of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to dealing with the authorities in such a case as he had suggested.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that no doubt in certain cases where there happened to be both borough and county gaols one or the other must give way. The intention undoubtedly was that if the borough gaol was done away with a number of justices in proportion to the prisoners contributed by the borough should be placed on the visiting committee. In the same way if the county gaol were abolished a certain number of county justices proportionate to the number of prisoners from the county would bejoined with borough justices. He would have no objection to introduce words on a future occasion making it clear that this was the intention of the Act.
    MR. THOMSON HANKEYstated that his constituents were, deeply interested in this question, and were looking forward anxiously to the action of the Home Secretary with regard to it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WHALLEYmoved the following Amendment, which stood on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Rowley Hill), which he proposed to add at the end of the clause:—
    "Provided always, That where the right of appointing visiting justices or visitors of any prison hath heretofore been vested in the municipal corporation of any city or borough, the right of appointing the visiting committee under this Act shall be exercised by such municipal corporation and not by the justices of such city or borough."
    The hon. Member was proceeding to remark upon the regulations of convict prisons, when—
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. Member was out of Order in discussing the subject of convict prisons in reference to an Amendment which related to a different class of prisons.
    DR. KENEALYsubmitted that the hon. Member was quite in Order in referring to cruelties and hardships which had occurred in Government prisons as a ground for vesting the appointment of the visting justices for borough prisons in the town council.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member for Peterberough was travelling be. yond his own Amendment in entering into an argument as to the condition of convict prisons. In answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke, he might observe that the question raised by the Amendment was not as to the appointment of visiting justices generally, but as to who were the proper authorities to appoint them. Of course, if the hon. Member was only illustrating his argument in referring to the management of the convict prisons, the Committee would perhaps be inclined to allow him some latitude.
    MR. WHALLEYwas merely advocating the introduction of a still stronger blast of civil life into the recesses of our prisons. The right hon. Gentleman, to whom special credit was due for the anxiety he had always shown to do what was right, had been misinformed and misled with reference to one case which had occurred in our convict prisons. He could prove this by the fact that the treatment of the prisoner to whom he referred had been totally changed. When the right hon. Gentleman—and such a right hon. Gentleman—had been misinformed and misled it, showed the

    1223
    necessity that existed for securing a proper civil supervision of our prisons as contra-distinguished from mere official supervision. He therefore trusted that the Amendment he now moved would be accepted.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 4, line 25, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That where the right of appointing visiting justices or visitors of any prison hath heretofore been vested in the municipal corporation of any city or borough, the right of appointing the visiting committee under this Act shall be exercised by such municipal corporation and not by the justices of such city or borough."—(Mr. Whalley.)
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The Committee divided:— Ayes 54; Noes 253: Majority 199—(Div. List, No. 20.)
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. PAGETmoved, in page 4, line 27, after "Secretary of State" to insert "shall on or before the commencement of this Act, make and publish and."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 11 (Duties of Visiting Committee).
    SIR WALTER BARTTELOT,in moving, as an Amendment, the omission of the following words:—
    "The visiting committee may from time to time (subject to such rules as to rotation or otherwise as may be made by the Secretary of State) nominate to the Prison Commissioners persons fit to be admitted into the prison service as subordinate officers, and such persons shall, in the event of their possessing such qualifications and fulfilling such conditions as may from time to time be prescribed by the Secretary of State, be appointed to vacancies from time to time arising in the prison service,"
    said, that he wished to have omitted from the Bill the small amount of patronage that had been placed in the hands of the visiting justices. His objection to the Bill was not on account of there being no patronage allowed to the magistrates, but to its principle. In the debate on the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir John Kennaway), the Secretary of State said objected to any stringent words being placed in the Bill, because he might thereby be forced to do certain things which he might not wish to do, and prevented from doing certain things and
    1224
    from appointing certain persons he might wish to appoint. If that objection applied to one portion of the Bill it applied equally to another. If they were not to have that patronage, and if the discipline was to be maintained by the Secretary of State and the Commissioners, let them have the patronage, and let the visiting magistrates have the important work entrusted to them of seeing that prisoners had no complaint to make, but let them not have divided responsibility, even the small amount of recommending persons for this patronage. He observed from the Notice Paper that his hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir John Kennaway) intended to suggest that the Secretary of State for War should have this patronage. Well, he believed that amongst the non-commissioned officers of the Army there would be found as good a class of men to put into prison service as could possibly be selected, and he hoped that the Home Secretary would never lose sight of that fact; but, at the same time, it would manifestly be unwise to say that no other deserving men should be open to appointment.
    MR. NEWDEGATEremarked that the patronage which it was proposed to confer on the visiting committee would serve no purpose whatever, except to disguise the exclusive domination which was to be exercised by the Home Secretary, and to defeat the responsibility he proposed to assume. That patronage could only operate to the deception of the public, and he therefore thoroughly concurred in the request that the Justices in Quarter Sessions might not be encumbered with this small patronage.
    MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, that he hoped his right hon. Friend would announce his consent to the Amendment — which was in the right direction. The words not only possibly created a divided responsibility, but were directly surplusage. Under restrictions to be imposed by the Secretary of State the justices were to nominate persons to certain subordinate appointments. The privilege of recommending persons to such appointments would exist without these words, and any Secretary of State would attend to recommendations coming from such a quarter. As it stood, moreover, the clause appeared to give a power of nomination which it did not give in

    1225
    effect, because the rules regulating the appointments would be in the hands of the Prison Commissioners or the Secretary of State. This part of the clause was an unreality, therefore, to which he objected. Having given the power to the Secretary of State, the less they clogged him the better.
    SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, that he could save time by stating his cordial agreement with the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter Barttelot), which, he thought, was approved of' by the Committee. He thought the justices would decline to be burdened with this patronage, though he had been accused of coveting patronage for them. The object of the further Amendment to which his hon. and gallant Friend had referred was not to tie the hands of the Secretary of State as to the persons he should appoint, but to offer increased inducements to good men to enter the Army. It had been found difficult to find a class of appointments suited to retired soldiers; but if it were known that such appointments existed, it would add greatly to the inducements which the recruiting sergeants had to offer.
    MR. PEASEsupported the Amendment on the ground that a divided responsibility in prison management was objectionable. He hoped the Home Secretary would keep all these appointments in his own hands. The proposal of the hon. Member for Devonshire could only result in confusion. Those who had served in the Navy and in the Civil Service were equally as deserving as those in the Army.
    MR. HENLEYhoped the Committee would strike out the clause. If they wanted a gaol to be well managed they must have undivided authority and responsibility. The Prison Commissioners and the Home Secretary ought to be responsible for everything, and then if matters did not go well the House would know whom to "pitch into." If they wanted to scare magistrates from acting as visiting justices they would give them the duty of inquiring into the doubtful qualifications of A, B, or C for these situations.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought the Committee would believe him when he said that he had not sought for any patronage in this Bill that he could possibly avoid exercising. The clause did not, in his view, create a
    1226
    divided authority. His intention was that the visiting justices might send up the names of any persons whom they thought fit to occupy the position of prison warders, and who, after passing the ordinary Civil Service examination, would be appointed not to any particular prison, but to the general prison service of' the country. He would not, however, press that part of the clause, and would accept the Amendment, as he was quite sure he could get all he wanted without the words being embodied in the Bill. It was obvious that if any body of visiting justices recommended a particular man for the position of prison warder the Home Secretary would only be too glad to avail himself of the recommendation.
    MR. WHALLEYprotested against the withdrawal of this Proviso, and the adoption of the Amendment.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKdid not consider that soldiers would make good warders, and objected to the introduction of military discipline into our prisons.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. LEIGHTONmoved, in page 5, line 17, at end, to add
    "and shall also report as heretofore to the court of quarter sessions by which they have been appointed."
    The intention of the Amendment was to keep the public informed through an unofficial source of the management of the prisons. The publicity hitherto obtained through the quarterly reports of the visiting justices to quarter sessions was taken away by the Bill. He desired to see it restored, so that as far as possible the public might be made cooperators with the Government in the cause of prison reform. Improvements had usually originated from outside. Moreover, the best way of meeting the accusations, frequently unfounded, brought against the Government with respect to the treatment of prisoners, would be to appeal to the report of unofficial persons such as the justices committee. It was the secrecy of the system which gave colour to such charges. As long as a large criminal jurisdiction was imposed upon the local magistrates, they should be kept acquainted with the nature of prison discipline, otherwise they would be scarcely competent to pass just and adequate sentences. Pub-

    1227
    lie discussion on this subject in one of the constituted courts of the country, such as the court of quarter sessions, would strengthen the hands of any Government for good and weaken their power for evil.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 17, at end of the Clause, to add the words "and shall also report as heretofore to the court of quarter sessions by which they have been appointed."—(Mr. Leighton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he quite concurred in the object of the hon. Member for Shropshire; but he thought he had overlooked the circumstance that the visiting justices, who hitherto had been responsible to the quarter sessions, would, under this clause, become instruments of the Secretary of State, as the clause stated that they should only exercise their functions as justices in such manner as the Secretary of State should direct. There was nothing in the clause to limit the control the Secretary of State would have over them. They would be responsible to the Secretary of State, and to him, they would, of course, report. He (Mr. Newdegate) saw that it would be unreasonable to make them report to the court of quarter sessions, to which they would no longer be responsible; but he also saw that the system contemplated by the Bill would be one of secrecy, rendering the prisons that would be retained oubliettes. Hitherto the reports of the visiting justices had been published in the courts of quarter sessions. There might be objections to a double system of reporting; but there would be none to the publication of copies of the reports made by these justices to the Secretary of State. He should therefore move to amend the proposed Amendment by making it provide instead—"and shall also furnish copies of their Reports to the quarter sessions by whom they are appointed."
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "report as heretofore," and insert the words "furnish copies of their report," (Mr. Newdegate,)—instead thereof.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSopposed the Amendment, both as it stood originally and in its altered shape. They had, rightly or wrongly, placed those matters
    1228
    in the hands of the Secretary of State, who was responsible to the House, and reports were to be made annually to Parliament on the state of these prisons. The reports of the visiting justices would be simply complaints against the officers of the prison, but would not contain any answer to those complaints. They would contain the charges, but nothing more. The publication of such reports would be unfair and unjust.
    MR. NEWDEGATEwas of opinion that if the public were to be informed in regard to the conduct of prison officials there was but one way of doing that—by the publication of reports against these officials. If the House had any hope that this Bill would not give dissatisfaction the original report made to the Secretary of State and the answer he returned should be produced, so that there might be no more secrecy than hitherto. Besides, the sentences pronounced at quarter sessions were not always carried out to the full, any more than those pronounced by the assize courts. This was a necessary incident in the present system of prison discipline which severely tried the prisoners health. There had grown up a system of political trading in the remission of sentences, which this Bill would increase.
    MR. ROWLEY HILLwas in favour of the visiting justices being required to report to the authority by whom they were appointed.
    SIR WALTER BARTTELOTsaid, there were many things brought before the visiting justices which it was requisite to keep secret; but there were other matters such as the cleanliness, good order, and discipline in the gaol, as well as whether or not there were any complaints. It should be reported by the visiting justices to the quarter sessions particularly so as the quarter sessions were called upon to appoint the visiting committee of justices.
    MR. DODSONapprehended that unless words were inserted in the Act prohibiting the visiting justices making reports to the body appointing them they would naturally be entitled, and it would be their duty, to do so. At all events, the body appointing might require reports to be made to them.
    MR. PAGETsaid, under the Bill the Secretary of State would have no power to enforce visiting justices doing their duty, whereas if there was a quarterly

    1229
    report the Secretary of State would have the knowledge that they had or had not. Then, again, these reports would not only be a great advantage, but would give satisfaction out-of-doors. If the House was sitting hon. Members would have opportunities of putting Questions to the Secretary of State with reference to the condition of gaols, &c.; but when the House was not sitting what means would the public have of getting information on such matters, unless the visiting justices reported to the quarter sessions?
    MR. PEASEsaid, there was nothing in the Bill which would prevent the visiting justices from reporting to the quarter Sessions, but there was a clause which required the prison commissioners to report annually to the Secretary of State, and he was to lay their reports before Parliament. He thought the publicity they all desired would be obtained better by the Bill as it stood than by the Amendment.
    MR. HARDCASTLEsaid, that under the clause it was possible for the Secretary of State to order that the visiting justices should not report to quarter sessions but to himself.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not possibly prevent the visiting justices telling their brethren at quarter sessions what they saw inside the gaols. No doubt they would have their chatter about the gaols. ["Oh!"] He begged pardon of any hon. Members who were justices for that expression; but what he meant was that while he could not prevent visiting justices reporting what they had seen, he could not sanction a statutory obligation to report to the quarter sessions, for that would imply that the quarter sessions had something to do with the report, which in fact they would not have.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the great thing was that the reports would be made known in the localities most interested in them. He did not find that the reports made to that House helped them much. They had an illustration in the Bulgarian atrocities. How much would the House have known about these circumstances if there had not been independent information? That was a particular instance of the uselessness of information obtained through official Reports to the House. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed.
    MR. HENLEYcould not conceive anything which would place a court of quarter sessions in a worse position than that of having a report made to them with which they had no jurisdiction to deal. But a greater objection to such a report would be that, being public, comments in the public Press might be made upon wrong or abuses detailed in it at the very moment when the Secretary of State might have amended what was complained of.
    MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENasked if there was anything in the Bill to prohibit the visiting justices from presenting their reports to the courts of quarter sessions? According to his view nothing could so prevent them if ordered by the court which appointed them. On the other hand, to give them a statutory direction to report to the quarter sessions always when some of their reports might be of a confidential character to the Secretary of State seemed to him unwise. His chief objection to the Amendment, however, was that they were by this Bill taking away from quarter sessions the power of managing the prisons, and they could therefore take no action upon such a report if made to them. As a chairman of quarter sessions he would rather that his court did not receive a report upon which it could take no action.
    MR. WHITWELLdid not see what would be the use of reporting to a body which would have no power to correct abuses or remedy evils.
    MR. NEWDEGATEurged that there was a great deal about these matters which the public ought to know; and there was nothing in courts of quarter sessions—which were still to be entrusted with the administration of justice—that would make them unfit to be the recipients of information which he thought the House would do wrong if it did not insist on their having furnished to them.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKthought the Amendment perfectly reasonable, and urged the Government to concede it.
    MR. BIGGARalso supported the Amendment.
    MR. WHALLEYpointed out that under the Bill the prisons would be placed under the management, to a great extent, of Roman Catholic chaplains, and thought it was therefore of the utmost importance to give the magistrates a controlling power.
    MR. PARNELLstated that the only effect of the Amendment would be to ensure immediate and local publicity to the reports of the visiting justices.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
    Question put, "That the words furnish copies of their report' be inserted after the word 'also' in the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided:— Ayes 59; Noes 114; Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 21.)
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  PART II.

    SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS.
    As to Obligation to maintain Prisons.
    Clause 12 (Termination of local obligation to maintain prisons) agreed to.
    Clause 13 (Compensation to be made in place of prison accommodation.)
    MR. FRESHFIELDmoved that the time allowed for repaying loans received from the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the purposes of this section should be made 60 instead of 35 years.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsubmitted that, as 35 years was the limit of the period for which prison authorities could now borrow, 60 years would be a most unreasonable term, seeing that the loans would be made at rates considerably lower than the market rates, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
    MR. BRISTOWEthought it would tend to a more equitable charge upon property if the term was made longer than 35 years, but that 60 years might be too long.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 12, to leave out the words "thirty-five," and insert the word "fifty,"—(Mr. Freshfield,)—instead thereof.
    Question put, "That the word 'thirty five' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 74: Majority 12.—(Div. List, No. 22.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 14 (Compensation to be made to prison authorities in respect of accommodation provided for prisoners of some other authority).
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. W. HOLMSmoved, in page 7, line 32, to leave out from beginning of Clause to "pounds," in page 8, line 5, and insert—
    "Where, at the passing of this Act, any prison authority has provided more than sufficient cell accommodation for the number of prisoners belonging thereto, there shall be paid to such prison authority, out of money provided by Parliament, one hundred and twenty pounds in respect of each cell over and above the number required for the prisoners of such prison authority."
    As the clause stood at present full compensation would be given in some cases and in others it would not. In that respect it appeared to be at variance with the spirit in which the rest of the Bill was framed. In Clause 30, for instance, it was provided that when a prison was discontinued £120 should be paid in respect to the cell accommodation for each prisoner. And by Clause 13 prison authorities having insufficient prison accommodation of their own must pay to the Exchequer for each cell provided for their district the sum of £120.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it would not be possible to agree to the Amendment for several reasons. Under the Gaols Act the authorities were all bound to have a certain amount of prison accommodation. In this Bill great care had been taken to put this liability at a moderate figure, and taking the daily average the maximum amount of accommodation, and no more, was required. In many gaols provision had been made for more than that maximum, and they had to be locally maintained and kept up, although some portion of the accommodation was useless. Under this Bill the local authority would be relieved from that charge, and it was by no means certain that the State could utilize this spare accommodation; and if it did there would be the cost of removal. The fact was, that the local authorities must take the rough with the smooth, remembering that the State was going to provide all the corn and

    1233
    hay which they would otherwise have to provide for the maintenance of their respective white elephants. At the same time, compensation would be given under the Bill in cases where local authorities had built gaols upon the understanding that they would accommodate the prisoners of a neighbouring authority; or where, having more room than they wanted, they undertook to lodge prisoners from neighbouring towns. He did not think it would be right to go further than by meeting these two cases of hardship, for otherwise the State would be saddled with charges which would make it impossible for the Government to pass the Bill. As it was, some local authorities might not get so much as others, but none would lose; there would be a gain to all.
    MR. ROWLEY HILLsaid, that in his district the local authorities would have to take all the "rough," receiving none of the "smooth." Having a larger gaol than they themselves needed, they took 50 prisoners from Birmingham, but they would now lese the benefit of that revenue.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Bill would give them the benefit of this contract so long as it existed; and though it might be only a yearly contract, yet, if it were intended to be renewed, that intention would be taken into consideration in estimating the loss suffered by the locality.
    MR. ROWLEY HILLthought that the locality in such a case might fairly reckon on receiving from the State £120 for each of the 50 cells which were in excess of local requirements.
    MR. HARDCASTLEthought it would be convenient for the Committee to take the discussion at that time, upon an Amendment of which he had given Notice, as it was similar to the one under consideration, while it provided a safeguard against unreasonable demands upon the Treasury, as it proposed—
    "That in case the Prison Commissioners shall report to the Secretary of State that the prison accommodation is in excess of the probable requirements of such district, or that the buildings are dilapidated or unsuitable, it shall be lawful for the Secretary of State to decline to recommend to the Treasury to make such compensation, in whole or in part, as the circumstances of the case may demand."
    The right hon. Gentleman had remarked that the local authorities must take the
    1234
    rough with the smooth; but the fact was that the rough fell all on one side and the smooth on the other. The rough fell on those who managed the prisons properly, and handed over the best gaols to the Government. The Government required the cells, but would not pay for them; but while taking the cells they compelled the local authorities to pay for new prisons that would be built in other parts of the country out of the Imperial taxes.
    SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEsaid, it was an injustice that a prison authority should get nothing for unoccupied cells, and he asked for an assurance that the local authority should not, after handing over a prison to the Government, have, under Clause 30, to buy it back at the pleasure of the Home Secretary at £120 per cell.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, it appeared to him that when a good prison had been built it was not right to give the authorities no advantage over the authorities of smaller prisons.
    MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, that his Amendment stood first on the Paper, although the hon. Member went further by his Amendment than he (Mr. Fresh-field) did.
    THE CHAIRMANcalled the hon. Member to Order, and pointed out that the Amendment in question was not that of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Rowley Hill), but of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Helms). An opportunity would be given for these remarks subsequently.
    MR. FRESHFIELDbegged pardon. His Amendment was, however, of the same character as that of the hon. Member for Paisley.
    MR. W. HOLMSsaid, that his referred only to prison accommodation in excess.
    MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, he did not go so far as that. In his borough they had promised extra cell accommodation, and made a contract with other places to take their prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman had really received the £120 referred to from them. What right had the Treasury to make a profit out of the passing of this Bill?
    MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, he did not think it desirable that the State should pay for cells which the Government were not going to use; but, in his opinion, they ought to pay for those

    1235
    which were required for the public service.
    MR. GORSTthought the provision for deciding the amount of compensation was of the most inadequate kind. Unless some Amendment should be made in the clause, the Government would be doing a most unfair thing, for they would take the prison accommodation without paying for it.
    MR. NORWOODsaid, that he approved of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lancashire (Mr. Hardcastle). He doubted whether the contracts were, in many cases, definite enough to entitle them to compensation under Clause 14. In the borough which he represented (Hull) £80,000 had been expended in the erection of a new gaol, and the number of unoccupied cells would be about 150. It would be a serious thing if the borough should be deprived of that amount of accommodation without compensation.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERmade a few observations on the matter, with a view, as he said, of saving time when they came to the Scotch Prisons Bill. The county he represented (Ayrshire) had for some considerable time 80 or 90 cells in the county prison in excess of its requirements. The consequence was that the Government had sent them from 50 to 90 Government prisoners in order to fill up the prison, and that was done under a contract. Some time, however, after the introduction of the Bill of last year these prisoners were removed—lie would not say post hoc propter hoc—and the contract was in that way broken. The county, he held, was entitled to receive £120 from the Government for every cell in excess of their requirements in consequence of the breaking of the contract. He trusted the Government would re-consider the question, and see whether they could not do something in the direction of the course pointed out by the hon. Member (Mr. Holms).
    SIR ANDREW LUSKargued that one party to a contract was entitled to withdraw from it as well as another, and expressed a hope that the Government would not give way, take care of the public purse, and not pay for cells which were not required.
    MR. HENLEYsaid, that the object of this Amendment was to remedy the one-sided arrangement which the Bill proposed. They could not make people
    1236
    believe that it was fair to make one side pay and take a great deal from the other and give nothing. This arrangement would create a great deal of heartburning. He would, therefore, suggest that the Government should have nothing to do either with paying or receiving, but they should take the whole of the prisons into their own hands as they stood. It was, he added, the small boroughs which, generally speaking, would have to pay, and they would be put to considerable inconvenience by an arrangement which seemed to proceed on the principle of "Heads I win, tails you lose."
    MR. DODSONsaid, he hoped the Government would not be induced to hastily recede from the position they had taken up upon this matter. He thought that the proposition of the Government as it stood was a fair one for the protection of the interests of the public at large. If a prison authority had provided a slight margin of accommodation beyond its actual need it had done DO more than its duty, and if any prison authorities happened to have provided a much greater amount of cell accommodation than was likely to be required in the course of several years, he did not see why the country should be called upon to compensate them because they chose to overbuild.
    MR. MUNTZsaid, he could not agree with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. Suppose the prison authorities in a town of 100,000 inhabitants to have made reasonable provision for the next three, four, five, or even ten years, were they to be mulcted on account of the precaution they had adopted?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the point involved was one of some little difficulty because of the rather complicated nature of the arrangement proposed, the substance of which was that the Government should take out of the hands of the local authorities those prisons which, having built, they had to maintain. Such an arrangement would be very favourable to the local authorities. They were now charged with maintaining a certain number of prisoners, and for the future these would be taken from their hands by the State. Then arose the question with regard to those places in which the prison accommodation required by law had not been provided, and it was said

    1237
    that it would be very hard and unfair that those persons who had not borne their fair share of the burden should be relieved from the charge they were now put to in order to find accommodation elsewhere for their prisoners, they not having complied with the provisions of the law. Well, the Bill provided that such authorities should be charged at the rate of £120 for each cell they ought to have built and had not built. Then came the question as to the local authorities who had provided more than the law required and had greater accommodation than they could themselves use. If they used that surplus accommodation, it must be by contract or arrangement with other local authorities, or possibly with the Government, and it was but fair that if they were receiving the benefit of those extra accommodations they should be compensated for what they lost, and in respect of the benefit of which they would be deprived. They had expended, perhaps borrowed, a large sum of money to build a commodious prison, and it was not all pure loss, as they received a rent for such portion of it as was not required for their own district. It was perfectly fair that compensation should be made in such cases in respect of the contracts or arrangements made. Such was the intention of his right hon. Friend and the Treasury, and if it was not clearly expressed in the Bill, it ought to be made clear. There remained the case of prison authorities who had built beyond the requirements of their own districts and did not make use of their extra accommodation, and the question was whether they were entitled to compensation in respect of such unused extra accommodation. Well, if the local authority had decidedly overbuilt itself, and provided that which it was not likely to want or to use for a considerable time, it would be difficult to say that they were for that provision entitled to compensation. On the other hand, in the case of a local authority which having regard to the rapid growth of their district had made provision not only for the present time, but for some years to come—there the State would come into possession of a prison which from the accommodation it afforded might save the cost of building another prison. They had therefore to consider a case of equity on the part of the State as well as the case of the prison autho-
    1238
    rity. It was one not free from difficulty, but the difficulty ought to be met in an equitable manner. He did not think, however, that the proposal of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms) was one which would entirely meet the case. The hon. Member had gone much too roughly to work, and the effect of carrying into effect what he desired would be to land the State in a very considerable expenditure—an expenditure which, in many instances, the State would have no right to bear. On the other hand, there was something in the proposal which his hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire (Mr. Hardcastle) had on the Paper which deserved more careful consideration. It made a distinction between the case in which the local authority made proper provision for its immediate wants and for some time to come, and of the case where the accommodation was unreasonably excessive or unsuitable. The Amendment of his hon. Friend certainly contained one word to which he must take exception, and which he would like to see altered. He thought that in that portion of the Amendment which referred to the number of cells required for "the average daily number of prisoners," the word "average" should be struck out, and the word "maximum" substituted. The substitution was suggested because the local authorities were clearly bound by law to find accommodation for the maximum number. Upon the whole, looking at the matter from an equitable point of view, and considering the position in this matter of the Treasury, the State, and the prison authorities, he should be prepared to accept the Amendment if the change which he had just indicated were made upon it.
    MR. HARDCASTLEsaid, he had taken the "average" because it was the principle adopted throughout in the Bill, and it should be remembered that the maximum number might have been reached through exceptional circumstances.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSpointed out that it was not merely the average, but the maximum number of prisoners the local authority was bound to provide for.
    MR. W. HOLMSpreferred "average" number to "maximum" number. If the policy of the Government was to undertake the management of the prisons

    1239
    of this country, they ought to take over all the prisons, except those that were dilapidated or unsuitable.
    THE CHAIRMANsuggested that the Amendment of the hon. Member should be withdrawn, in order that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hard-castle) might be put.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HARDCASTLEmoved, in page 6, line 28, after the word "pounds," to insert the words—
    "And where a prison authority has provided a prison of its own more than adequate for the accommodation of the prisoners belonging to such authority, it shall be entitled to receive, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, compensation to the extent of one hundred and twenty pounds in respect of each cell provided in such prison over and above the number of cells required for the average daily number of prisoners maintained at the expense of such authority in its own prison during the five years immediately preceding the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven: Provided always, That in case the Prison Commissioners shall report to the Secretary of State that the prison accommodation is in excess of the probable requirements of such district, or that the buildings are dilapidated or unsuitable, it shall be lawful for the Secretary of State to decline to recommend to the Treasury to make such compensation, in whole or in part, as the circumstances of the case may demand."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would be his duty at the proper time to move that the word "maximum" be substituted for the word "average."
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHhad first an Amendment to propose—namely, to insert the words "not more than" before the words "one hundred and twenty pounds."
    SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEsaid, that if all these provisoes were to be inserted, it would be made so difficult for the prison authorities to get anything, that he doubted whether they would receive any compensation at all.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Amendment only applied to gaols kept by the Secretary of State, and not to those which he might take and afterwards give up.
    Amendment (Lord Frederick, Cavendish), by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "average," in line 7, and insert the word "maximum,"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,)—instead thereof.
    MR. GREGORYdoubted whether it would be necessary to retain either the word "average" or "maximum."
    MR. WALTERsaw a difficulty in using either word taken by itself. He would suggest, by way of compromise, that the average should be the average of the maximum of the previous five years. If the word maximum were taken, it might destroy the claim of the gaol authorities to any compensation whatever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had founded his argument in favour of the word maximum upon the fact that it was the duty of the prison authorities to provide as much prison accommodation as was required. But suppose a riot broke out in the neighbourhood. The prison might then be overcrowded, and might not be able to contain the number of prisoners who might be committed. According to the Amendment, the prison authorities were to receive £120 for each cell provided above the "maximum" number of prisoners—that very maximum having been caused by the accidental overcrowding of the prison. He therefore suggested that the average should be fixed on the maximum number of the prisoners maintained during the five preceding years.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTbelieved it was the duty of a prison authority to provide all the accommodation that could be required in any emergency; and this was done in his own county, so that the prisons were equal to the demands made upon them in the hop-picking season. The Government met them fairly by giving them compensation for all the accommodation beyond their maximum requirements, and this was all they could reasonably expect.
    MR. WHALLEYcomplained that the House had been misled in passing the second reading of the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman had now thrown over the calculations upon which he based his case, and the bribe offered to the local prison authorities had been increased at each successive stage of the consideration of the provisions in Committee.
    Question put, "That the word 'average' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 199: Majority 116.—(Div. List, No. 23.)
    Word "maximum" there inserted.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 15 (Allowance to be made to prison authority in respect of uncompleted prison) agreed to.
    As to Contracts and Debts.
    Clause 16 (General saving of rights of creditors) agreed to.
    Clause 17 (Determination of contracts between prison authorities) agreed to.
    Clause 18 (Existing debts to be defrayed by prison authorities) agreed to.
    Clause 19 (Provision as to continuing contracts).
    MR. HAYTERmoved, in page 8, line 12, at end, to add—
    "and where such contract or dealing shall result in a debt or obligation to be wholly paid or discharged after the commencement of this Act, such debt or obligation shall be paid or discharged out of moneys provided by Parliament."
    The object of the Amendment was to supplement what seemed an omission in the clause, which only provided for contracts commencing before and terminating after the commencement of the Act, and which accordingly distributed the obligation between the prison authority and the Imperial Exchequer.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSremarked that the prison authority was bound to provide a gaol free from all obligations or charges, but said that he would look into the matter before the Report, and was willing that, if necessary, the clause should be amended in the direction indicated by the hon. Member's Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    As to Classification and Commitment of Prisoners.
    Clause 20 (Confinement of prisoners before and during trial).
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANproposed to add at the end of the clause a series of
    1242
    provisoes to the effect that persons on remand or committed for trial should be subject to such restraint only as was requisite to secure their attendance; that they should retain possession of money, papers, &c., under their control at the time of their arrest, unless the same constituted evidence of the charge; that a schedule of those articles should be made out by the police, and that the counsel of such persons should have free access to them at all times.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the Amendments of which the hon. Member (Mr. Sheridan) had given Notice, although they might be held to be in some degree germane to the subject-matter of the clause, were in fact a series of fresh clauses, and could be more conveniently discussed as new clauses moved at the end of the Bill; but, though the practice was inconvenient of taking such clauses in the middle of the Bill, he considered it his duty, if they were pressed, to put them.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSexplained that although he did not think it would be wise to put a set of tabulated rules in such an Act of Parliament, yet he had taken the precaution when he introduced the Bill to insert a clause (Clause 35) enabling the Secretary of State to deal with the matters now in question.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, it was a fundamental principle of the law of England that a man was presumed innocent until he was found guilty. This involved a great Constitutional principle that ought not to be left to the discretion of any Minister of the Crown or any one else.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that as to the use of the words "criminal prisoner," they were taken from the Gaol Act of 1865. By the rules laid down under that Act a person was not to be treated as such until after his conviction.
    MR. MACDONALDconsidered the law as it now stood an outrageous attack on the liberty of the subject. Persons charged with offences were detained and subjected to the greatest indignity. As had been clearly shown, a man was bound to be held innocent till he was proved to be guilty. In this country he was really treated as guilty till he proved that he was free of crime. He held that mere detention was all that the Government could fairly claim. Why should a man be deprived of light and

    1243
    heat because he was charged with an offence? Why should he be compelled to sleep on beards or be degraded in any way? The time of the person charged was in many instances valuable to him. Was it not sufficient to make him lose that without any remedy? On the other side of the Atlantic such persons enjoyed every comfort and convenience they desired. He thought the Committee was much indebted to the hon. Member for Dudley for moving this Amendment, and others in the same direction, which he hoped the hon. Member would press to a division.
    DR. KENEALYsaid, he quite agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald). It was a scandal and a disgrace to the law of the country that a man should be treated as a prisoner whilst yet unconvicted of crime. There was no such term known to the law as "criminal prisoner" to denote a prisoner not convicted of crime, and it was not because they slipped, inadvertently no doubt, into the Act of 1865, that they should be continued now. The Home Secretary proposed to have power to frame rules for these purposes, but it was to be at his discretion, and to that he objected. He hoped the utmost resistance would be offered to this Bill of despotism and centralization, which was in distinct violation of our ancient privileges, for which the Home Secretary, though a learned lawyer, did not seem to have much respect.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought that if hon. Members would look at the Schedule of the Act of 1865 they would find that a good deal of misapprehension existed on this subject. There were rules given in that Schedule with regard to the treatment of unconvicted prisoners. It was there laid down that such prisoners were to be kept, before trial, apart from the other prisoners; that they were to be at liberty, under certain restrictions, to procure food, clothing, and other necessaries for themselves; that they might, if they so desired, wear a prison dress, and might be required to do it if their own was insufficient, but such dress was to be of a different colour from that of the convicted prisoners; and that they were to have the option of working, but were not to be compelled to do any labour with the exception of cleaning their own cells, which, however, they might employ some one else
    1244
    to do, and as to most of the prisoners it must be borne in mind that they were of a class who thought the work of cleaning no hardship. There were rules also to the effect that due provision should be made for the admission of visitors, and for enabling the prisoners to carry on correspondence, regard being always had to such restrictions as the interests of justice rendered necessary. What he now wanted to do was to relax some of the rules, and this he would have power to do under Clause 35.
    MR. GOLDSMIDurged that the right hon. Gentleman should follow the precedent he had referred to himself —namely, the Prisons Act, and embody in a Schedule to this Bill his amended rules for the treatment of prisoners before trial. That would be much better than that he should take the power to make what regulations he pleased without reference to Parliament. There was no matter on which there was a stronger feeling out-of-doors.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, everybody gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for his desire to pass a just and equitable measure, but this was a matter which should not be left to the wisdom, or it might be to chance or the caprice of prison authorities. He, therefore, agreed with the remarks that had just been made. He remembered the case of a gentleman—a clergyman from Germany, a few years ago, who was charged with a murder upon evidence of the most unreliable kind, and which was completely disproved. Yet that gentleman, who was not even committed for trial, but only remanded while the inquiry was going on, had been subjected to the grossest indignities. All this had been done with these rules in existence, and what might not be done without rules? [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: You may appeal to Parliament.] Yes, undoubtedly; and what would they get by it? They would have to wait until the whole thing had passed from memory, and at best be content with an explanation from a Home Secretary, but as to redress there would be none.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERsuggested that the term "criminal prisoner" ought not to be allowed to remain, when the persons to whom it was applied were in many cases not criminals. It was all very well for the Home Secretary to say they might buy what comforts they

    1245
    wished; but how about those who were unable to do so?
    MR. J. COWENsaid, they treated political prisoners with greater harshness than any other nation of Europe did. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) had been arrested on suspicion and detained for some months on suspicion of Fenianism, and was then discharged. He was handcuffed for some days, however.
    MR. W. GORDONsaid, that question was not the one before the House. Under the 35th section the Secretary of State had the power to do certain acts, but they must be in mitigation of the former statute.
    COLONEL MUREsaid, that the rules of the Act of 1865 had been found insufficient to protect unconvicted prisoners from great suffering and abuse. As rules had been laid down in the Act of 1865, would it not be right to introduce better rules in the Bill now under discussion?
    MR. PAGETpointed out that in the first schedule of the Prisons Act of 1865 it was distinctly laid down that no prisoners should be put in irons except in cases of "urgent necessity." No Act of Parliament could say more than that, and he hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would not attempt to lay down any rule in this Act for the treatment of prisoners.
    GOLDNEYthought it inexpedient to re-enact the hard-and-fast lines that used to tie the hands of the Home Secretary.
    MR. DILLWYNhoped that the rules would be put in the Schedule. He objected to discretion being given to the Home Secretary with regard to the treatment of criminals.
    MR. WHALLEYmoved that the Chairman report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Whalley.)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSScalled the attention of the Committee to the fact that hon. Members had not been discussing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan), but whether certain rules should be put into the Schedule or not. The rules of 1865 were very carefully drawn up, and he was not asking for the slightest
    1246
    additional power. He would recommend the hon. Member for Dudley to adopt the recommendation of the Chairman and withdraw his Amendment, in order to bring it in at a subsequent time.
    MR.WHALLEYsaid, he rose to Order. They were not discussing the question before the Committee, but another question.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Question before the Committee was that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, that however mild the rules might be when they were read, yet in actual practice they were very harsh. He would read an extract from the leading journal, The Times, upon the treatment of Dr. Hessel, who was some years ago subjected to the indignity of a convicted offender on a charge of murder, although nothing had been proved against him. The hon. Member was proceeding accordingly, when
    MR. J. G. TALBOTasked whether an hon. Member was in Order in reading from a newspaper?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, an hon. Member was not strictly in Order in reading from a newspaper, but Members were allowed to read extracts from books, newspapers, and other documents.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANwould remind the House that Dr. Hessel, on very slight evidence of identification, was subjected to the degradation of a criminal. He was stripped, washed, searched, put into a cold cell, supplied with a board for his bed and another for his chair, and was obliged to wash and scrub his cell.
    MR. WHALLEYsaid, that if the debate were adjourned he would prove that the Secretary of State had refused to relax the rule in the case of a very notable prisoner. He was prepared to show that in that case measures were taken to prevent that man preparing his defence. [Cries of "Name."] The person he referred to was one of the witnesses in the Tichborne trial, and he charged the Judge who tried that man with partiality in a corrupt administration of justice. ["Oh, oh!"]
    COLONEL MURErose to Order. He desired to know whether the hon. Member was in Order in charging Mr. Justice Brett with corruption and partiality in the administration of justice on a Motion to report Progress?
    DR. KENEALYsubmitted that in that House any hon. Member was entitled to challenge the public conduct of any paid officer of the Crown.
    THE CHAIRMANobserved that he understood the hon. and gallant Member had risen to Order in consequence of the observations which had been made being irrelevant to the Motion to report Progres. If his opinion were asked whether an hon. Member was entitled in his place to challenge the conduct of any public official he was bound to say that he knew of no rule to prevent it; but he must add that the observations made were not relevant to the Question before the Committee.
    MR. WHALLEYsaid, he did not wish to impute anything, personal to Mr. Justice Brett. He was when called to Order quoting from a letter he had written to the Secretary of State, in which, as a magistrate and a deputy-lieutenant for three counties, he stated that either the Judge was not entitled to public confidence or he (Mr. Whalley) was not fit to be a magistrate.
    SIR WILLIAM FRASERthought the opportunity a fitting one to deal with this question, and he hoped a clause would be inserted in the Bill which would afford a distinct amelioration of the treatment of unconvicted prisoners under remand.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsuggested that the hon. Member for Dudley should lay on the Table, in the form of a Schedule to the Bill, the regulations which he thought should be established for the treatment of unconvicted prisoners.
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    WAYS AND MEANS.—COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    MR. PARNELLobjected to the House being called upon to go into Committee after half-past 12 o'clock. He thought that no Business ought to be taken after that hour, and begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Parnell.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that the Bill was simply formal.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he objected to the system of taking Business after half-past 12. He had no objection to the Committee being taken; but he wished an understanding to be arrived at under which Members might be allowed to go home after half-past 12.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he would withdraw his Motion, but he thought the Bill might have been put on the Paper earlier and taken before this hour.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    WAYS AND MEANS—Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, the sum of £350,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow;
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  OPEN SPACES (METROPOLIS) BILL.
  (Mr. Whalley, Mr. Morgan Lloyd, Sir George Bowyer.)
  [BILL 62.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Whalley.)
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that it was too late to go into Committee then, and begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Parnell.)
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, the measure had passed a second reading, and was a Bill which did not affect the Irish Members at all. He thought it was a good Bill for the metropolis, and hoped the Motion for Adjournment would not be persisted in.
  MR. MELDONsaid, it was utterly impossible for any private Member to get a Bill through, however important. If any large number opposed it of course it would not proceed; but if only one Member did he thought it ought to be allowed to go on.
  MR. J. COWENthought that they were pressing the Rule too harshly. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSobserved, that the Bill was a very simple one, and was likely to work beneficially in the case of a large number of people. He hoped it would be allowed to pass through Committee. It would only take a few minutes.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Beading—Publicans Certificates (Scotland) *(14); Irish Peerages * (15).
KIDNAPPING IN THE SOUTH SEAS.

  ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is in a position to state that kidnapping in the South Seas has been entirely suppressed; and moved an Address for copies or extracts of Correspondence on the subject (if any) since the last Papers relating to the matter were laid before the House. The noble Earl said, it was now three years since he drew the attention of their Lordships to the abuses of the labour trade in the Polynesian Seas. On that occasion he moved for Papers, which had been produced, but since that time no further Papers on the subject, that he was aware of, had been laid before Parliament. But since the occasion on which he last drew attention to the subject circumstances had occurred which could not have been without influence on the state of things in the Polynesian Seas. Fiji had been taken over as a British Colony, a regular Government had been set up and a Vice Admiralty Court; and as under the administration of the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) within the last five or six years the squadron on the Australian station had been augmented by the addition of one man-of war and four small sailing vessels, no doubt a better state of things was to be found there at present than that which formerly existed. In all probability his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies would be able to tell them that the worst abuses of the labour trade had been put down. He feared, however, that there were some minor abuses still. When their Lordships reflected upon the vast expanse of the Pacific and the great number of the Polynesian Islands, and also that the Australian station extended from four degrees south of the Line to the lowest limits of south latitude to which ships went, they would not be surprised that in spite of the most watchful
  1198
  energy of the five men-of-war supplemented by four small sailing vessels some irregularities should exist. He found that the report of the Melanesian Mission for 1876 called attention to several. First it was complained that in numerous cases the "labourers" when sent away from the place to which they had been brought to work were not conducted to the places whence they had come. On this point he begged to quote an extract from the Journal of the Rev. J. R. Selwyn, now Bishop of Melanesia, who stated—
  "We took up a Mota man who had been landed there—i.e., off Gana—by a Fiji vessel, who by his account was dropping people in a very promiscuous way. The present Fiji Government are sending back large numbers of men, and the masters of the vessels have often great difficulty in finding out where the men come from, and don't care much. The prevalent idea is that so long as a man is put down on his island, or even in his group, it is all right; whereas the chances are that you put him down into the very midst of the people most hostile to him. This man told me that one unfortunate fellow from the north end of Aurora had been carried on, and was put down at Espiritu Santo. He himself was landed at Gana, and Lakona people were landed there also. Lieutenant Caffin, commanding the Beagle, told me that he had met a schooner conveying return 'labour' from Fiji, the captain of which had told him that he had not the vaguest notion where many of the men came from."
  He could quite understand that it was not now always easy for the Fiji Government to secure that the labourers should be conveyed back to the places whence they had come, because it must in many instances be difficult, if not almost impossible, for that Government to ascertain the native residence of islanders brought to the labour market at a time when there was no regular Government in Fiji; but for the future there could be no excuse for not adopting proper means to keep a record on the subject. Another complaint was that women and children were allowed to be conveyed by the labour ships without the consent of the husbands and parents. On this point Bishop Selwyn's Journal contained the following statement:—
  "Sunday, Sept. 10.—After services on board the two vessels (the Southern Cross and Her Majesty's ship Conflict), we weighed for Opa, and anchored there in the evening. As we let go, a boat came alongside from a large bark which was returning 'labour' from Fiji. They had brought down 470, and were taking back a few which the Government agent candidly

  1199
  confessed were women and children. They had two on board from Lakona, of whom our boys told us that they were both married, and had come away without their husbands' consent. I spoke out very plainly to the agent about this, which is the crying evil of the labour trade.' There is very little reverence for the marriage tie in any of the islands, especially the Banks, and this sort of thing upsets even that little. The agent was a decent sort of surgeon just out from England, and had his own wife on board; but he did not seem to think it could be helped, because the labour was wanted in Fiji."
  A third grievance was that of overcrowding. At Cockatoo, near or at Taitahi, Bishop Selwyn wrote—
  "Sunday, July 30.—I was much better and went down three miles to the station, calling en route on a labour vessel which had anchored during the night.… I liked what I saw of the people on board, but the state of the ship must have been very bad when they sailed, as they left Fiji with 205 people on board in a vessel of 84 tons. The Fiji Government is doing its best to send home the men on the plantations."
  Then there was what was known as "head hunting." It was much to be feared that at present, or, at least, up to a recent period, this continued. Writing from the Solomon Islands, or thereabouts, the Rev. John Still said—
  "The dread of head-hunting chiefs further west is still great, and with good reason, for in this very year they have nearly depopulated several villages not many miles beyond. Wadrokal is a plucky and determined fellow, and won't be so easily frightened as his people, who flee at the first approach of the enemy. If they would only make a stand, I fancy these pirates would give up molesting them. Both Mr. Selwyn and I have other besides missionary feelings when we hear how they are depopulating this island, and almost wish to stay there a while to show them our teeth."
  Bishop Selwyn added his testimony on this point. Writing on the 2nd of August, he said—
  "My great dread about this place is the head hunters of New Georgia. They have laid waste the whole western coast of Ysabel, and quite down to the south end. Ferguson, the captain of a trading steamer, gave us a long account of their ravages and the mischief they have done and are doing. Every little canoe demands a life; a chief's death or a war canoe, 40 or 50. They keep the unfortunate captives as slaves, make them work very hard, and on any remonstrance tell them they are only 'heads'—i.e., destined to be killed on any such occasion as I have referred to. Captain Noel, of the Sandfly, kept them in check two years ago by saying that he should drive back any canoes he found, and they actually did not go out for a year. A large man-of-war going there would, I think, stop it at once, and I hear the Commodore is likely to go there next year."
  1200
  He wished to ask his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies for any information he could give their Lordships on these several points; and also as to whether he had any information as to a pirate called Hayes, who had commanded at one time a steamer called the Waterlily, a man who had made himself infamously notorious, and who was said to have been an Irishman by birth, though he had adopted American nationality? This man had some years ago been in the custody, at Samoa, of the Consul, Mr. Williams, who, however, had no means of detaining him, and he, consequently, easily made his escape. Subsequently, he (the Earl of Belmore) made a suggestion to Admiral Stirling, who was at that time Commodore of the Australian Station, which that officer was good enough to act on, by putting himself into communication with the Admiral in China, and making arrangements for a ship from each of their squadrons to meet near the Line. The result was that Hayes only escaped capture by a single day. He wished to know, what was the last information respecting him?
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for copies or extracts of correspondence on the subject of kidnapping in the South Seas (if any) since the last Papers relating to the matter were laid before the House.—(The Earl of Belmore.)
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON,in reply, said, that since his noble Friend asked a Question on this subject about this time in 1874, an Act was passed while his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) was in the Colonial Office, and a subsequent one since he (the Earl of Carnarvon) succeeded his noble Friend, and had been carried into effect; besides this, Fiji had been taken up as a British colony. The establishment of Fiji as a British colony was probably the most effective measure that could have been taken for the suppression of the kidnapping; because with such a number of islands it would have been impossible, in the absence of anything like regular Government in Fiji, to put the labour trade under proper control. Accordingly, when submitting to their Lordships the proposal of Her Majesty's Government for taking up the Fiji Islands, the suppression of that traffic was the argument on which he mainly based the proposal. His noble

  1201
  Friend (the Earl of Belmore) now asked for further Papers on the subject; but, as showing the satisfactory position of things in those Islands, it was gratifying to him (the Earl of Carnarvon) to be able to state that there were no such Papers to produce. He could, however, state his belief that during the last two years the abuses of the labour trade had been brought within very narrow limits. No doubt there had been occasional transactions of that kind, and therefore he should be taking too much on himself to say that they had been entirely suppressed, but certainly they were fast disappearing, and their present limitation led to the hope of its eventual suppression. This would seem to have been inevitable, looking to the fact that Fiji was now a civilized station, that there were two Acts of Parliament in operation which dealt with the labour trade, and that a considerable number of Her Majesty's ships—he believed there were not fewer than nine—were keeping a look-out on the South Seas to prevent abuses. No doubt it was due to the terror which those ships and the Acts of Parliament inspired that such good results had been effected. He remembered that in 1875 some complaints of a rather general and vague character reached this country—they led to the disclosure of some abuses, but these were not of a very serious character. One referred to a ship sailing under the British flag from a French colony to New Caledonia. Representations with respect to the practices of that ship were made to the French authorities, who, he believed, did all in their power to assist us in putting a stop to the abuses complained of. With regard to the labour trade itself, it was carried on within legitimate bounds and very narrow limits, and the abuses were few in number and of no very great importance. No doubt, head hunting had led to horrible massacres; but recently he had not received any statements which would incline him to believe that it was now practised on any extensive scale. With reference to the excessive number of passengers carried by ships trading in the Colonies—no doubt the evil of overcrowding would depend very much on the length of the voyage. On a short voyage in such a climate they would be comparatively light. However, his attention had been turned to the point,
  1202
  and only a few weeks ago he urged on the Governor of Fiji the importance of providing a larger amount of tonnage in proportion to the number of passengers carried. The Colonial Office had not been asleep on this matter. With regard to the points raised by his noble Friend, after more consideration, he should be able to give a more complete answer. With reference to that notorious filibuster, Captain Hayes, or Williams, he believed there was no iniquity that a man could commit of which he had not been guilty; and in conjunction with his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, every exertion had been made for the purpose of effecting his capture, but unfortunately without effect. Owing, however, to the increased supervision and watchfulness recently exercised, he would have less power of practising his iniquities than he before possessed. All the points to which his attention had been called were of the greatest importance and deserving of the most serious consideration as well as constant watching. At present he believed that no serious abuses existed; still he was aware that if any ships were taken off the station, and there was an absence of supervision, the trade would be carried on on as large a scale as formerly, and therefore it was the intention of the Government to maintain that supervision. Should circumstances give rise to fresh communications on the points raised by his noble Friend (the Earl of Belmore), he should gladly lay before the House any information the production of which might be of public interest.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYexpressed his satisfaction at the statement of his noble Friend. Although on other grounds he had regarded the annexation of Fiji with some objection, he thought at the time the annexation was proposed that the strongest argument in its favour was its probable effects in relation to the labour trade. From the statement of his noble Friend he was glad to find that the expectations in that respect had been realized.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE,in reply, said, that after what his noble Friend had stated, and which was very satisfactory, he, of course, would not press his Motion. He regretted that they did not know the length of the voyage which the over-crowded ship he had alluded

  1203
  is had made. Distance was a relative term, and his own experience of that part of the world was, that between different places they were generally great. He thought that Espiritus Santo, near which this ship was met, must be a considerable distance from Fiji.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  IRISH PEERAGE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law concerning the Peerage of Ireland — Was presented by The Lord INCHIQUIN; read 1a. (No. 15.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.