Sitting of 26 March 1877

MINUTES.
— PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Boundaries of Boroughs and Sanitary Districts [120].
Committee—Prisons [1]—R.P.

QUESTIONS.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—ALLEGED ASSAULT.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the police received any information of, or made any report upon, a case of violent assault by Mr. William Ancketell, J.P. D.L., of Emyvale, county Monaghan, on an English gentleman, whereby the latter had his leg broken in two place, and still lies under surgical treatment after several months' suffering?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: Sir, I can give the hon. Member no information on the subject. I have made inquiry, and I cannot find that any complaint has been made to the police.
  MR. SULLIVAN: Have the police made any report of their knowledge of the transaction?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: The matter has not been brought under the notice of the police at all.

  THE ROYAL SOCIETY — METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'CONORasked the Postmaster General, Whether, considering that the Report of the "Treasury Committee on the annual grant in aid of Meteorological Observations" has recommended an increase in the number of Meteorological Stations in Ireland, and that it appears by the evidence of the Earl of Rosse, F.R.S., and Mr. Scott, F.R.S., that, while "there is great difficulty in getting a suitable station," Mullaghmore on the coast of the county of Sligo has been selected and proposed as an excellent site, but that it cannot be used from want of telegraphic communication, he will sanction the erection of a telegraph wire up to or as near to that place as may be necessary?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS,in reply, said, that it was true that Mullaghmore, on the Sligo Coast, had been recommended as a meteorological station, and the proposal was now under the consideration of the Royal Society, and that until he received the Report of that body he could not sanction the extension of a telegraphic wire to that place.

  PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS PURCHASES, &c.—REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE OF 1874.—QUESTION.
  MR. J. HOLMSasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What progress has been made in giving effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on the mode of purchasing materials and stores for public departments, and which reported to this House in July 1874, viz.:—in respect to periodical meetings of the purchasing officers for the purpose of consultation and co-operation; that there should be an annual stock taking and a valuation made of all stocks and stores on hand, an abstract statement of
  490
  which should be submitted to this House together with the Estimates; to what extent effect has been given to the recommendations in paragraph 125 of the Report in respect to the assimilation of patterns to manufactured goods current in the market, that provision should be made for either buyer or seller to have the option of arbitration in cases of dispute, and that the imposition of penalties and fines other than by buying in default should be discouraged; whether the Government are prepared to introduce a Bill for the repeal of the Contractor's Act; and, what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Treasury to give effect to the recommendations in paragraphs 130 to 134 of the Report with respect to the Stationery Office, and to the printing and publishing of Parliamentary and other Government Papers?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, in respect of periodical meetings of purchasing officers, the Treasury, in the autumn of 1874, consulted some of the principal Departments; but considerable differences of opinion on the subject were found to exist, and little progress has been made towards adopting the recommendations of the Committee. I propose, however, to resume consideration of it at an early opportunity. In the Admiralty, Post Office, and Telegraph Departments and Stationary Office there is an annual stock-taking and valuation of stores in hand. I understand this is not the case at the War Office. I will endeavour next year to add an abstract of stores and stocks in hand to these Estimates, which are compiled under the supervision of the Treasury. The recommendations of the Committee in Paragraph 125 of the Report are now very generally acted upon. The Stationery Office, however, has not adopted the suggestions with regard to arbitration and fines, but I am ready to consider whether it should not now do so. It is not at present the intention of the Government to propose legislation for the repeal of the Contractor's Act. The contingency contemplated in Paragraph 130 has not yet occurred, and the recommendation in the paragraph has, therefore, not been acted upon, nor has that in Paragraph 131. In accordance with Paragraph 132, cheap editions of the Statutes for 1875 and 1876 have been published at 5s. 3d. and 3s. 6d. respectively; but the sale has been dis-

  491
  couragingly small. Paragraph 134 has been acted upon, and so as Paragraph 133 to a certain extent. I may add that considerable economies have been effected in the Stationery Department by submitting to public competition, in different forms, the largest and most important divisions of Government printing.

  POOR LAW—PURCHASE OF SUPPLIES.

    QUESTION.
    MR. J. HOLMSasked the President of the Local Government Board, If any effort has been made to give effect to the recommendation of the Select Committee on the mode of purchasing for Public Departments, contained in paragraphs 128 and 129 of their Report (July 1874), and which suggested that an inquiry should be made into the mode of purchasing supplies for workhouses in the provinces, and that the Local Government Board should endeavour to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report upon the modes of purchasing stores for the workhouses of the metropolis?
    MR. SCLATER - BOOTH,in reply, said, that extracts from Mr. Rowsell's Report on this subject, which formed the foundation of the Report of the Select Committee, had been sent to all the Boards of Guardians in the Metropolis, and afterwards, when the Report came out as a public document, the attention of those Bodies was directed to it by means of the Inspectors. It was not thought necessary to make inquiries concerning the mode of purchasing supplies in country workhouses, because that was already known to the Local Government Board. The proposals of Mr. Rowsell, however, would have caused more interference with matters usually left to the Guardians than the Local Government Board were prepared to undertake; and accordingly they did not see fit to act on the recommendation in the Report; but they had under consideration the desirability of issuing a new General Order by means of which they would be able to introduce some improvement in the direction suggested by the Select Committee.

  THE EDUCATION CODES, 1875, 1876.

    QUESTION.
    MR. GREGORYasked the Vice President of the Council, If he is aware that
    492
    in the Code of Regulations of the Education Department for 1876, a provision similar to that contained in the Code of 1875, by which the annual grants were regulated by the Code of 1874 until the 31st of August following, the date of such Code was omitted, and that the effect of such omission was to subject schools to examination under regulations for which they wore necessarily unprepared; and, whether he will restore such provision to any new Code which may be issued?
    VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, the changes in the Code of 1875 were of so large a character that it was thought necessary to give considerable notice of them before they came into effect. Those in the year 1876 were almost all relaxations in favour of the schools, and, therefore, it was considered that there was no reason for postponing their operation, except in one case, where notice was accordingly given. I agree with my hon. Friend that where more stringent conditions are inserted in the Code, due notice should always be afforded; and we will take care, with regard to this Code, as well as to future ones, that in such cases sufficient notice is given.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT—SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINasked the Vice President of the Council, If his attention has been called to the circumstances connected with the election of a School Board for the united district of Inkberrow, Stock, and Bradley; whether it is true that the returning officer failed to give fourteen clear days' notice of the intention to hold such election, in accordance with section four of the General Regulations for first elections of School Boards in parishes not situate within municipal boroughs, and that in consequence of such neglect on the part of the returning officer certain ratepayers were prevented from nominating candidates within the prescribed time; and, if he will kindly say what remedy exists for the aggrieved persons in any case in which the returning officer may fail to give the requisite notices or so publish them according to the regulations?
    VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, complaints have been made to us by several persons as to the conduct of the school-board

    493
    election for the district of Inkberrow. In accordance with our usual practice the complainants were referred to the returning officer, whose duty it is to conduct an election. Since the first formation of school beards in 1870 the Education Department has always declined to inquire into the validity of school-beard elections and as to the conduct of the returning officer. For though under Section 33 of the Act of 1870 the Department has power to make inquiries, yet as the decision of the Department is not final, but it is subject to revision by a Court of Law, and as the Department has no satisfactory machinery for the purpose of trying the validity of an election, it has been thought inexpedient to make such inquiries. I cannot, therefore, say whether the facts are such as the hon. Member mentions. The remedy for aggrieved persons in these cases is to file an information in the nature of quo warranto, and this course has actually been followed in some cases.

  INDIA—CHURCH ESTABLISHMENTS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. BAXTERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If it is true, as stated in the "Madras Times," that—
    "The Grants which are now being made to the Church Establishments in this Presidency will all be withheld after the payment of the allowances for March next, except to such places of worship as are maintained for the benefit of the Military Service exclusively,"
    and, if so, whether there is to be a similar revision in the other Presidencies?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, as far as I can make out Church establishments in the paragraph referred to does not mean the chaplains who are upon the establishment of the Government of India, but the establishment of servants kept for cleaning and repairing churches and other ecclesiastical buildings. A Resolution of the Government of India was passed last September reducing these establishments, not only in Madras, but throughout India, and this paragraph doubtless refers to that Resolution.

  METROPOLIS—THAMES EMBANKMENT — THE NEW OPERA HOUSE.

    QUESTION.
    LORD ERNEST BRUCEasked the honourable and gallant Member for Truro,
    494
    What is to be done with the proposed new Opera House on the Victoria Embankment, the works having been now long stopped in consequence of a want of funds, it being also understood that the Company intending to open that Theatre have come to terms with the proprietor of Her Majesty's Theatre in the Haymarket; and to inquire if he can give any information as to when it may be thought proper to remove the present remarkable building on the Embankment exactly opposite the windows of Her Majesty's Office of Works?
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Sir, I beg to state that the time fixed for roofing-in the Opera House having expired, the Board are now considering the course which they should adopt under the agreement. The Board have no knowledge of any terms which may have been arranged between the proprietor of Her Majesty's Theatre and the promoters of the new Opera House. With regard to the second part of the Question, I can only say that I know of no building of the character described by the noble Lord on land belonging to the Board.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—OVERLOADING.—MISSING VESSELS.

    QUESTIONS.
    LORD FRANCIS CONYNGHAM (for Mr. E. J. Reed)asked the President of the Board of Trade, What steps, if any, have been taken to prevent the owner's load-line of ships from being submerged. in Foreign ports, contrary to the Act 39 and 40 Vic. c. 80, s. 28; whether any steps have been taken to ascertain what vessels arrive in English ports with the load-line so submerged; and, whether in the latter case any steps are being taken to enforce the penalties provided by the Act, seeing that vessels are frequently arriving from Spanish ports laden with ore with the load-line under water?
    MR. M'IVERalso asked, Whether there had been any inquiries in recent cases where vessels had foundered with all hands?
    SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, I will endeavour, in a very few words, to answer these Questions. As to the first, there are no means of preventing a load-line being submerged in a foreign port, unless in a case coming within the

    495
    powers of a Naval Court, as on the complaint of a crow of unseaworthiness or by shipowners interested. Consuls have occasionally reported a case, on which the Board of Trade makes inquiry and takes steps accordingly. On surveyors or anyone reporting the arrival of a ship with the load-line submerged, the Board of Trade immediately proceed to investigate the case. No prosecutions have yet been thought advisable, but cautions have been given in two cases reported. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Birkenhead, three official inquiries have been ordered about vessels reported missing during this winter—1, the Halley, which left Malta for Falmouth, was spoken off Gibraltar on the 3rd of December, and has not been since heard of. Inquiry was abandoned, because there was no evidence of suspicious circumstances. 2, The Colombo, of Hull, which left in December, was spoken on voyage and not since heard of; and 3, the Great Queensland, emigrant ship. There is a trial going on at Cardiff for misdemeanour on a charge of sending an unseaworthy ship to sea.

  EGYPT—SALE OF SLAVES.—QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has observed a letter in the "Army and Navy Gazette," from Captain W. R. Kennedy, R. N., stating that, a few days after the Egyptian Government sent a ship of war down the Red Sea for the suppression of the slave trade, there was a sale of slaves in Cairo, at which some 300 women wore sold; if Her Majesty's Government has any information on the subject, and whether, in point of fact, that sale was at the instance of the Egyptian Government itself; and, if Her Majesty's Government has remonstrated or will remonstrate strongly with the Khedive on such inconsistency?
  MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, that the Consul General in Egypt had been directed to send a Report on the subject as soon as possible; but it had not yet arrived.

  POST OFFICE—THE TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT — REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.—QUESTION.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has
  496
  any objection to lay upon the Table the Correspondence between the Treasury and himself on the changes to be made in the Telegraph Department in consequence of the recommendations of the Select Committee of last Session?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS,in reply, said, he should have no objection to lay on the Table the Correspondence referred to in the Question of the right hon. Gentleman.

  EGYPT—THE MISSING ABYSSINIAN ENVOY.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. O'CLERYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true as reported that the body of the missing Abyssinian Envoy, about whose treatment by the Egyptian Government an inquiry was lately made in Parliament, has been found on the shore at Massowah, at present in the occupation of the Egyptian troops, under circumstances which would lead to the presumption that the Envoy had been murdered; and, whether Her Majesty's Government, if not already in possession of the necessary information, will take steps to investigate the truth of this report; and, if ascertained to be true, will remonstrate with the Government of the Khedive for having permitted such an outrage on the person of a Christian Envoy to take place in the territory under his control?
  MR. POTTER (for Mr. EVELYN ASHLEY)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Abyssinian Envoy who, according to a letter received by Messrs. King and Co. from Suez, as reported in the "Times" of last Friday, has been found on the sea shore close to Massowah sewn up in canvass matting, is the same Envoy who he informed the House on the 13th instant had been reported to the Foreign Office as having safely arrived at Massowah?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, the Question asked by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Potter) is substantially the same as the Question of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. O'Clery), though the latter covers a little more ground than the former. With the permission of the House I will answer the latter Question. The House will recollect that I answered a Question precisely similar a few days ago, and I have no reason to doubt that

  497
  the answer I gave upon the information we had received was perfectly accurate. We received a Report by telegraph today from our Consular Agent, who is making fresh inquiries at Massowah on the subject, but he adds that the Report which has been sent to this country by Messrs. King, a copy of which I have received, is substantially the same as that which came a few days ago, and which formed the foundation of the Question which I answered a few days ago. He is under the belief that the Report sent by Mr. King originated from Messrs. Barlow and Houghton, and that therefore the Report as it comes now is substantially the same Report about which I gave all the information in my power.

  MALTA—FREEDOM OF DEBATE.

    QUESTIONS.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, a Member of the Council of Government or Legislature of Malta, representing the people of that Island, having been cited before a judge for words spoken in debate in the Council, and condemned to three days' imprisonment, and so punished accordingly for such words so spoken, What course Her Majesty's Government propose to pursue for the purpose of securing to Members of the Malta Legislature the privilege of freedom of debate and speech?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, the subject is now under consideration, and a communication will shortly be addressed to the Governor of Malta, embodying the views of Her Majesty's Government on the course which ought to be adopted.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERasked, whether his hon. Friend would furnish the House with any further information as to what the views of the Government were?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: As I said, the subject is under consideration. The intention is to suggest to the Governor of Malta the framing of an Ordinance embedying the views which Her Majesty's Government entertain on the subject.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—THE STEAMSHIP "ALEXANDRA."

    QUESTION.
    MR. KIRKasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has
    498
    been drawn to the loss of the screw steamship "Alexandra," which, having been driven on shore near Clogher Head, county of Louth, on the 3rd of January last, was taken away on the 29th of the same month, with the intention of conveying it to Belfast, a distance of over a hundred miles, for repairs, after it had suffered serious damage, a great portion of its bottom having been carried away when stranded; whether it has been reported to him that it was conveyed with hatches off, and that it went down near the Copeland Islands, at the entrance of Belfast Lough, when in tow of the steam tug "Kingfisher," in consequence of the sea flowing down the unprotected hatchways, and that seven men lost their lives through this supposed neglect; and, if he will direct an inquiry by the Board of Trade into the matter?
    SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the case is a salvage case, and the salvor's conduct may have been as stated in the Question. At all events, it seemed of such a character as to demand serious inquiry on the part of the Board of Trade, which was set on foot some time since.

  ARMY—DEPOT CENTRES.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'NEILLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there are any reports on the qualifications of Antrim and Downpatrick respectively as Military Depot Centres which can be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, he should be unable to lay on the Table the Reports referred to in the Question, as there were none which were not purely departmental.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
  MR. LEATHAMasked the President of the Board of trade, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give effect, by legislation in the present Session, to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Railway Accidents, or to any of such recommendations?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, I am not prepared to say at present that the Government see their way to any legislation during this Session on the subject of the Report in question.

  THE OFFICE OF CORONER.

    QUESTION.
    MR. PULESTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to legal difficulties arising inconsequence of a vacancy in the office of coroner; and, whether if it is correct that no authority exists to direct any person to hold an inquest under such circumstances, provision can be made for meeting such difficulties as were reported to have occurred at Llanerchymedd in Wales, viz., that no inquest could be held on the body of a man who was killed, the county coroner having died two weeks previously, and the office being vacant?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, it was true that once or twice legal difficulties had occurred of the kind referred to, as the moment the Coroner died the office of deputy ceased, and no Coroner outside the district could hold an inquest in the district. The point was one which deserved consideration, and in any Bill consolidating the law with regard to Coroners he might have to deal with it should not be overlooked.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS — DISMISSAL OF A CHILD.—QUESTIONS.
    MR. BARRANasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to a statement which appeared in the "Leeds Mercury" and other papers, to the effect that at Boston Spa, near Leeds, a little girl was expelled from the national school, which is in receipt of a Government grant, for omitting to curtsey to the clergyman's wife in the street; and, whether the refusal of this act of obeisance is a sufficient justification for depriving the child of the means of education at the only public school within her reach?
    VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, I had not heard of the case to which the Question refers till I saw it on the Notice Paper on Saturday, and nothing is known of it in the Education Department, nor has any communication reached us about it. It is obvious, therefore, that I should not be justified in giving an opinion upon a supposed case; but it may be well to mention that, considering the present law makes attendance at school or being
    500
    able to pass certain educational Standards the necessary conditions of labour for children, we discourage, as far as is in our power, the use of expulsion from school as a punishment for school offences. If the hon. Gentleman has any personal acquaintance with the facts of this case, or of any similar local school difficulties, and will kindly call upon me at the Office, or communicate with me in the first instance upon the subject, I shall be happy to consider the matters with him, and I doubt not we shall be able to settle them satisfactorily without encroaching upon the time of Parliament.
    MR. BARRANasked, whether the noble Lord would cause any inquiries to be made into the matter? He should not have brought the matter before the House, unless he had received some authentic information on the subject.
    VISCOUNT SANDONrepeated, that if the hon. Gentleman would call upon him at the Education Department, they would endeavour to come to some settlement of the matter.
    MR. BARRANgave Notice of his intention to return to the subject.

    EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875–LOADING AND UNLOADING OF EXPLOSIVES.—QUESTION.
    MR. M'LAGANasked the President of the Board of Trade, In how many of the fifty-two harbours in the United Kingdom where the Board of Trade have sanctioned bye-laws allowing the loading and unloading of explosives, the total quantity of such explosives to be loaded or unloaded from any vessel has been restricted to thirty pounds weight; whether such restrictions are consistent with the requirements and development of the mining and other industries in the vicinity of such harbours; how many harbour authorities in Scotland have failed to prepare bye-laws as required by the 34th section of "The Explosives Act, 1875;" whether the Board of Trade have not the power under the 114th section of that Act to make summary application to the Court of Session in Scotland to compel harbour authorities to propose bye-laws for confirmation; and, in the event of the Board of Trade possessing such power, whether they are prepared to exercise it?
    SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY,in reply, said, the answer to the first part of the

    501
    Question was, that in seven out of the 52 harbours the quantity had been restricted to 30lbs weight; to the second part, that it was for the authority on the spot making the bye-laws to decide the requirements of the vicinity and to alter their bye-laws if requisite to meet them, and not for the Government Department in London, which could know nothing of the special interest the Question was directed to. To the third part, he had to say that he had issued circulars after the passing of the Act to all harbour authorities catalogued for him by the Commissioners of Customs. Those circulars went to 151 Scotch harbour authorities, 96 of whom had not yet sent bye-laws for confirmation, but 19 had stated that they had not, and were not likely to have, any traffic in explosivses. It was for parties interested to take action under the 114th section of the Act of 1875. The Board of Trade had no power to do so.

    JUSTICES' CLERKS' FEES.—QUESTION.
    MR. PRICEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the difference in the scale of Justices Clerks' fees, as authorised to be charged in different counties in England, and in some instances in different petty sessional divisions in the same counties; whether he has considered the desirability of providing, as far as possible, one uniform system throughout England as regards the fees for the administration of justice at petty sessional courts; and, whether the Justices Clerks Bill contains sufficient power to enable him to bring about such uniformity?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, his attention had been called to the differences in the scale of justices' clerks' fees, and he had considered the desirability of providing, as far as possible, one uniform system throughout England. He had come to the undoubted conclusion, however, that it was most undesirable to insist on uniformity, for this simple reason, that the same scale of fees might in one place be the means of throwing upon the county a burden of several thousands a-year, whilst in others it would provide an income of £5,000 or £6,000 a-year for the clerks, and thus put the persons who came to Court to very heavy expense. If the
    502
    hon. Gentleman would look to the Bill in "another place," he would see that it was not thought desirable to establish a uniform system.

  ELECTION OF CHURCHWARDENSPAYMENT OF EXPENSES.

    QUESTION.
    MR. CLARE READasked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been called to a recent decision of the County Court Judge of Norfolk, which saddled the chairman of the vestry with the expenses of a contested election of a parish churchwarden; whether the person demanding a poll, the defeated candidates, all the candidates, or the presiding chairman are responsible for the expenses of such election; and, whether all occupiers whose names are in the rate book, including compound householders and women, have a right to vote at such elections?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,in reply, said, his attention had been called to the case in question since the hon. Gentleman's Notice, and he had read a report of that decision, and had ascertained that the County Court Judge found, as a matter of fact, that the defendant was liable to the plaintiff for a sum of £5 for money had and received. As to the second part of the Question, there was no provision in the law for any fund out of which such expenses, which, he understood, were merely nominal, should be paid, and if there were any expenses, he presumed that the person by whose order they were incurred would be liable. As to the latter part of the Question, as a general rule, all occupiers whose names were on the rate book had a right to vote. In his opinion, compound householders had a right to vote, but he had very considerable doubt whether women had the right, except there was some special reason or custom to the contrary. That doubt was not entertained by some lawyers; but if the hon. Gentleman was desirous of knowing the reasons why he entertained his opinion, he (the Attorney General) should be very happy to inform him at a private conference. He was bound to say that he hoped it would not become the practice to ask the Law Officers of the Crown Questions tending to elicit their views as to the soundness or unsoundness of judicial decisions,

    503
    nor, indeed, to attempt to obtain their views upon knotty points of law.

  THE LATE CONTROL DEPARTMENT.

    QUESTION.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the almost universal expression of dissatisfaction on the part of the Officers of the late Control Department as to their position and prospects, he will appoint an independent Committee of General Officers to inquire into their grievances; and, if so, whether he will authorise the same Committee to inquire and report how far the present organization of the transport and supply branches of the Commissariat is calculated to meet the requirements of the public service in war as well as in peace?
    MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, he was afraid, as stated by the hon. and gallant Baronet, that there was a great deal of dissatisfaction in relation to the subject referred to. But with regard to the remedy, it was not his intention to appoint any independent Committee to inquire, because the responsibility of inquiry into the matter rested with himself.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKgave Notice that he would take the earliest opportunity on the Order for going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates to call attention to the subject.

    THE JUDICATURE ACTS—COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.—QUESTION.
    MR. CHARLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he will state the names of the Committee who are to conduct the inquiry which he recently intimated would be held into certain offices connected with the Supreme Court of Judicature: and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the Committee should inquire into the present unsatisfactory state of things at the Chambers of the Judges of the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of the High Court of Justice; and, if so, whether the existing Chamber Clerks of these Judges, or any of them, will be permitted to tender themselves for examination as witnesses before the Committee?
    MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, that the Committee appointed to conduct the proposed inquiry into certain offices connected with the Supreme Court of Judicature consisted of the Master of the Rolls; Mr. Justice Lush; Mr. F. Herschell, Q.C., M.P.; Mr. W. Law, assistant to the Secretaries of the Treasury (and formerly a Member of the Legal Departments Commission); Mr. E. F. Burton, Vice President of the Incorporated Law Society; Mr. H. L. Pemberton, Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court of Judicature; and Mr. F. W. Rowsell (formerly a Member of the Legal Departments Commission). One of the matters which had been specially suggested for the consideration of the Committee was "in what manner the duties at Chambers performed by the Judges' clerks can best hereafter be provided for" (having regard to the 79th section of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act). The evidence which the Committee should call for or receive in the prosecution of their inquiries was a matter entirely within their own discretion.

    TURKEY—THE AMNESTY.—QUESTION.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERwished to ask a Question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of which he had given him private Notice. He begged to ask, Whether the Government had received any information as to the issuing by Turkey of an amnesty to the individuals implicated in the recent events at Philippopolis, and whether Achmet Aga, Toussoon Bey, and Chefket Pasha have not been included in it? His reason for asking the Question was that he had heard from Constantinople that it was reported there that the amnesty did include the perpetrators, but not any of the innocent victims of the atrocities.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, in consequence of the Notice I received of the right hon. Gentleman's Question, in the course of the day I ascertained from the Foreign Office that Her Majesty's Government had received two lists of reforms from the Turkish Government; one list enumerating reforms to be put into execution immediately, and another list containing reforms to be submitted to the Ottoman Parliament. Among the former was the "amnesty for individuals

    505
    implicated in the recent events at Philippopolis." Lord Derby pointed out that this might be taken to include the persons convicted of being implicated in the atrocities. The Porte has since asked what the opinion of Her Majesty's Government with regard to an amnesty is, and Lord Derby has replied that his suggestion is that a large number of those imprisoned for having taken part in the insurrection should be amnestied as political offenders, but that the amnesty should not be extended to any persons convicted of the Bulgarian massacres. With regard to the three individuals whose names have been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, I can say that Achmet Aga has not been amnestied, but is now under sentence of death; Toussoon Bey has been tried and acquitted, and Chefket Pasha has not yet been put upon his trial, although there has been an inquiry into the events with which he is supposed to have been implicated.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERinquired whether any reply had been received to Lord Derby's definition of an amnesty?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Iunderstand not.

  LONDON STOCK EXCHANGE.

    HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
    THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Lord HENRY SOMERSET)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:—
    I have received your Address praying that a Commission may be issued to enquire into the constitution of the London Stock Exchange, and the mode of transacting business in that Institution. And I have given directions that a Commission shall issue for this purpose in accordance with your request.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—SIR H. D. WOLFF AND MR. GLADSTONE.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Sir, having received a private intimation from the right hon. Member for Greenwich that he cannot be present this evening, I beg to give Notice that I shall to-morrow call the attention of the House to a letter, purporting to be addressed to me, published in The Times of this day, and that at the same time I shall ask you, Sir, whether it is in
  506
  accordance with Parliamentary usage for one hon. Member to write a letter to another while Parliament is sitting, impugning his conduct in debate and to publish it in the Press, without first giving that hon. Member an opportunity of explanation in this House itself.

  SUPPLY. COMMITTEE. PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—MORNING SITTINGS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Committee of Supply be deferred till to-morrow, at Two of the clock."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  MR. GOLDSMIDobjected to Morning Sittings so early in the Session. It was altogether unprecedented, and the result would be, looking to the number of Notices which had been put down for the Motion for Supply, that those Motions would have precedence of Notices which had been fixed by ballot four weeks ago. He strongly suspected the proceeding had some reference to the Colonial Marriages Bill, which appeared in the Order Paper for to-morrow evening, and which was the only Bill on which the Government had been beaten this Session. Ordinarily such Sittings were not commenced until June. He would give instances of Morning Sittings in the last five years. In 1872 the first Morning Sitting was on the 4th of June; in 1873, on the 27th of May; in 1874, on the 19th of June; in 1875, he found there was a Morning Sitting on the 16th of March, but for a special purpose only; and the next Morning Sitting that Session was on the 30th of April; and in 1876 he found there was a Morning Sitting on the 11th of April to take the Report of Supply, after which the House did not sit again in the morning till the 13th of June. The effect of Morning Sittings beginning so early as now proposed would be to deprive private Members, in many instances, of the opportunity of bringing forward Motions of importance in which they were deeply interested. As a matter of fact, there was generally a count in the evening when there was a Morning Sitting, and this also entailed a serious curtailment of the time given up to private Members' Motions. There could be no necessity in the interests of the public service on the present occasion, and he thought they

  507
  ought to know more clearly why the Government proposed to take the course suggested by the Motion, and to guard against its being quoted as a precedent in future. He hoped at least the Government would give a pledge that they would not continue the practice.
  MR. WHALLEYsupported the observations of the hon. Member for Rochester, and would recall to the attention of the House the peculiar tactics of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on the question, when the Prisons Bill was nearly carried through Committee before they had an opportunity of discussing it. It was very much the same now. All the arguments based on economy had been frittered away—
  MR. SPEAKERcalled the hon. Member to Order, on the ground that he was anticipating the discussion on the Prisons Bill, instead of confining himself to the Motion before the House.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he only wished to say that it was a matter of the utmost importance that before the Prisons Bill passed through Committee, hon. Members should have an opportunity of going to quarter sessions. That was a reason why Government Business should not be hurried at the expense of the rights of private Members. He thought the Government should make some explanation of the reasons of their departure from precedent.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in all these matters it was very difficult so to arrange the Business of the House as to please everybody. The arrangement which was proposed by the Government was one which, at the time when it was suggested, appeared to be generally acceptable to the House, and he had not seen reason to doubt, as regarded the great majority of hon. Members, that it was more convenient and in accordance with their wishes that the Government should take this course of arranging for the holidays. Hon. Members would not like the idea of sitting till Thursday; indeed, there was a general wish that they should rise on Tuesday; and, if they were to rise on Tuesday, there must be a Motion made on Tuesday, at the beginning of the Business, that the House on rising should rise for the holidays. Upon that Motion Amendments might be moved, and all that the hon. Member for
  508
  Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) pointed out as to hon. Members cutting in before others who had Notices down for that day would occur at whatever hour the Motion for Adjournment was made. No one had any idea that the Morning Sitting was to be regarded as a precedent for Morning Sittings before Easter; the idea simply was to utilize Tuesday morning for a certain amount of Business, in order that hon. Members who desired to do so might leave town in the afternoon. It had been asked if there was anything special in the present Session which made it desirable that hon. Members should have the opportunity of bringing forward these Motions. There were two things to be considered. First, they were on the Prisons Bill, and notwithstanding what the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Whalley) had just said, he believed the House would deem it an advantage to conclude the Committee on the Prisons Bill before the holidays. In that case it would be desirable to devote an hour or two to it to-morrow. As regarded Supply, which was the second, it was in accordance with a suggestion of the hon. Member for Rochester, that the Secretary to the Treasury would make a Statement before going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates; and it would be convenient if that Statement could be made to-morrow. He hoped the House would feel that there was no desire to encroach on the rights of private Members, and that the objection to the course proposed would not be pressed.
  MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, that as to the Colonial Marriages Bill, he did not accuse the Government of having any evil intention with regard to that little innocent; but as it would suffer from the arrangements now to be made for to-morrow, and as the right hon. Gentleman had stated that there were very powerful arguments which had not yet been adduced against it, he hoped the right hon Gentleman would consider that his forbearance from opposing an arrangement which would indefinitely postpone his Bill would give him a claim to another opportunity when the right hon. Gentleman might adduce, and he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) might answer those arguments.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that so far as the observations of the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) rela-

  509
  ted to an alleged creation of precedent, he must say it appeared to him they were well founded. He (Mr. Forster) did not doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to suit the convenience of the House. But he understood that the Morning Sitting was for the convenience of hon. Members leaving for their holidays; and it would be remarkable and contrary to precedent for the Government to have the Morning Sitting to get through Government Business. Was it according to custom for the Government so early in the Session to take a Morning Sitting, and block out private Members?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would allay the alarm of the hon. Member for Peterborough by stating that if the Committee on the Prisons Bill were concluded to night the Report would not be taken to-morrow.
  MR. DILLWYNhoped that there would be no mistake about it—that it was not to be a precedent.
  MR. RAMSAYasked whether, if the Secretary to the Treasury had the opportunity of making the Statement regarding the Civil Service Estimates, Votes in Supply would be taken the same evening? If so, hon. Members would be detained in London.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked, whether they would be asked to vote for any particular Estimates or not, and whether private Members could not have precedence in the morning, as the Government would have no difficulty in securing a House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he would hardly like to make the promise suggested in the Question of the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay); because it was really an object to take Votes of Supply if possible, in order to avoid Votes on Account. It was intended to move the Adjournment of the House at seven o'clock, and of course it would then be possible to object to the Adjournment, and then Business could be taken, though he did not presume that would be done.
  MR. DODSONunderstood, then, that the Adjournment of the House was to be moved at the close of the Morning Sitting.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: At the beginning.
  MR. DODSONapprehended that if there was to be, first, a Motion for Ad-
  510
  journment, which might lead to a discussion, then a speech from the Secretary to the Treasury on the whole subject of the Civil Service Estimates, followed by a discussion, what time would be left? If want of money was the reason, it was clear that there would only be a short interval of Supply left, in which only a few votes could be taken.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, they could not hope to get all the Votes they wished before the Government took a Vote on Account; but the Government would endeavour to get some Votes of Supply in order to make as much progress as possible; and with that view they hoped to go into Supply the next day and Thursday week, after which it would be necessary to take a Vote on Account.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE NEGOTIATIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: Sir, I want to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because to-morrow the House is about to rise for nearly a fortnight. The House is perfectly well aware that there is great anxiety in the public mind with respect to the present state of what may be termed our foreign relations. That is a question which has occupied the mind of the House a great deal more than it has occupied our tongues for some time past. We know what the newspapers say; but people in the secret say the newspapers do not know anything about it. There is great anxiety amongst all the trading classes of the country, particularly with regard to what is likely to happen. I do not want to press the Government to do anything which they do not feel to be right; but it seems to me that before the House rises, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could explain to-morrow what is the present state of the negotiations, if there be any negotiations, in fact; or if he can tell the House anything on the subject which can in some degree allay the anxiety which prevails, he would be doing the country great service, and I think the House would be glad to hear any communication he could make on behalf of the Government.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, That the Sitting of the House, at Two of the clock To-morrow, be held subject to the Resolution of the House of the 30th day of April 1869.—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    PRISONS BILL.— [BILL 1.]
    (Mr. Assheton Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
    COMMITTEE. [Progress 22nd March.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 36 (Transfer of duties of existing Inspectors of Prisons.)
    MR. CHILDERSmoved, as an Amendment, in page 15, line 1, after "thirty-eight," to insert the words—
    "or by the Directors of the Prisons appointed in pursuance of the Act of the Session of the thirteenth and fourteenth years of the Queen, chapter thirty-nine."
    His object in proposing this Amendment was to bring the county and borough and the convict prisons under the same management, so as to avoid the inconvenience of having two sets of officials performing the same functions, with regard to the management of those establishments in different parts of the country. He did not propose to interfere with the formation of the new Department, or the appointment of a certain number of Commissioners, but he would incorporate with it the present Department, utilizing as many of the Directors of Prisons as were efficient for service, and the whole of the stores, building, medical, clerical, and other Civil staff. All the convenience and argument of the matter was in favour of having a single staff of officials. Colonel Ducane, the present head of the Prison Department —than whom there was no more efficient public servant, and whose services in the management of our convict establishments were so highly appreciated—would, by this means, be at the disposal of the Secretary of State for carrying out the objects of this Bill.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought there was much in the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman—certainly it was a matter that was worth the serious consideration of the Committee, but he thought there were reasons on
    512
    the other side which outweighed those which the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward. The Bill had been before the country for some time, and there were two classes of people who must be considered. There were the visiting justices, whose duties would be interfered with, and who had been given to understand that a new set of Commissioners were to be appointed. He did not intend to say a word against the old Commissioners, who had done their work well; but the Government felt that a new body of Commissioners was an indispensable provision, because they were intended to work with the justices in the management of the local prisons. Again, the class of prisoners with whom the new Commissioners would have to deal were to a large extent distinct from the convict class—such as debtors, misdemeanants, and untried prisoners, and others, who ought to be dealt with in a different manner from the convicts who were confined in the general prisons of the country. It was thought that if the former class were put under the Convict Commissioners, it might give rise to the impression that the properly rigorous discipline necessary for convicts would be applied under the new system to the less criminal class of offenders. As to the question of economy, every possible care would be taken that the expenditure should be kept down to the lowest possible point consistent with efficiency. He quite agreed in what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) had said in respect of Colonel Ducane, who was one of the most able officers in the Civil Service, and of whose experience he should be glad to avail himself in any question of prison organization.
    MR. DODSONsupported the Amendment. The reasons given the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State regarding this matter were that the present Directors of Convict Prisons had their hands full, and that the new body would have to deal with prisoners of another class; but to-night it was said the duties of the two bodies would be different in kind. It appeared to him that the staff of Directors of Convict Prisons should be increased, so as to have an uniform supervision over all classes of prisoners. This would be better than constituting a new body for the distinct management of

    513
    said so for the reasons that had been adduced in favour of having the direction of the whole prisons under the same body. The right hon. Gentleman himself appeared to look forward to the amalgamation of the two bodies; but whenever the time came they would be met by questions of compensation and difficulties of other kinds, which would be obviated by the course he suggested.
    MR. PAGETwas in favour of the original proposition. In carrying out this Bill it was proposed largely to make use of the services of the Visiting Justices; but this could hardly be done without friction, if they were placed, as the Amendment proposed they should, directly in contact with the Directors of Convict Prisons, who had absolute control over the prisons under them. The Visiting Justices were much more likely to work with the new body of Commissioners constituted by the Bill. He thought the Home Secretary had done wisely in keeping the management of the county and borough gaols distinct from that of the convict prisons, and hoped the Committee would reject the Amendment.
    MR. BRISTOWEsupported the Amendment, on the ground that the experience of those who had the management of the Convict Prisons would be of great advantage in connection with the others.
    MR. RODWELLthought the Amendment would destroy the symmetry of the Bill. He thought, moreover, that there was some force in the argument, that if there was only one body for the management of all classes of prisons, and that body the Directors of the Prison Department, an impression would probably prevail that the general management of the prisons was likely to be too rigorous.
    MR. CHILDERSpointed out that his Amendment did not propose to deprive the Government of the power of appointing the new Commissioners; all he meant was, that instead of creating another large staff, the great majority of the duties of which would be similar, it would be better to have only one Department of prison management. If he were assured by the Home Secretary that it was not proposed to create a distinct department for all these sub-duties, but simply to have two Boards
    514
    for directorial purposes, he would withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not agree to making one servant subject to two masters, but as far as possible there would be no multiplication of officers to perform the same duties.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 37 to 41, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
    Clause 42 (Rules of Secretary of State and repeal of inconsistent enactments).
    MR. W. HOLMS,who had an Amendment upon the Paper, in page 16, line 27, to leave out from "any" to "Act," in line 28, inclusive, and insert—
    "All rules and regulations made by a Secretary of State in pursuance of this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within ten days if Parliament is then sitting, or, if not then sitting, then within ten days from the then next assembling of Parliament and,"
    said, that as the right hon. Gentleman opposite intended to propose an Amendment which would meet his (Mr. Holms's) view, he would withdraw his.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. FRESHFIELDmoved, as an Amendment, in page 16, line 28, after "Act," insert—"Shall be published in the 'London Gazette,' and."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that as the rules were to be submitted to Parliament there was no reason for inserting the words proposed.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GORSTmoved, as an Amendment, in page 16, line 28, to leave out—"Shall be of the same force as if enacted by Parliament." He feared they might practically give the Home Secretary power to repeal existing enactments, even to the extent of setting aside Magna Charta itself.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the rules would only be valid so far as they carried out the Act of Parliament. The words in question were copied from the Act of 1865, but were not really necessary, and he had no objection to their omission.

    515
    Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved, as an Amendment, in page 16, line 33, at end, add—
    "Provided always, That any rules made in pursuance of this Act shall as soon as practicable be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and shall not come into operation until they have so lain for forty days, but at the expiration of such forty days they shall be of the same force as if they had been contained in this Act."
    After some conversation,
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 16, line 33, at end, add—
    "Provided always, That all rules and regulations made under or in pursuance of this Act shall be forthwith laid before both Houses of Parliament, if Parliament be sitting, or, if not, then within three weeks after the beginning of the next ensuing Session of Parliament; and if any such rules or regulations shall be disapproved by either House of Parliament within thirty days after the same shall have been so laid before Parliament, such rules or regulations, or such parts thereof as shall be so disapproved of, shall be void and of no effect."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and would withdraw his own in favour of it.
    Amendment (Mr. Assheton Cross), by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That all rules and regulations made under or in pursuance of this Act shall be forthwith laid before both Houses of Parliament, if Parliament be sitting, or if not, then within three weeks after the beginning of the next ensuing Session of Parliament; and if any such rules or regulations shall be disapproved by either House of Parliament within thirty days after the same shall have been so laid before Parliament, such rules or regulations, or such parts thereof as shall be so disapproved of, shall be void and of no effect"— (Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. NEWDEGATE,who had an Amendment on the Paper, in page 16, line 33, at end of clause, to add "after such rules have been approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament," said: Mr. Raikes, it is perfectly true that the form of the Amendment, of
    516
    which I have given Notice is adapted to the clause as it stands, and equally to the Amendment or Proviso proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but the position is altered by what the right hon. Gentleman has now done. The right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to abandon the Proviso of which he had given Notice and has adopted the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend opposite the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon). Now, the effect of that change is this—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dewsbury, by his Amendment, goes part of the way to the end which I desire to attain; because he proposes that if any rule be disapproved by a Resolution of this House, or the House of Lords, it shall not have the force of law; whereas my Amendment proposes that no rule shall have effect under this Act, unless it has been approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament. I hope the Committee will excuse me for now stating my reasons for proposing this Amendment. I have opposed this Bill on the ground that it proposes to abolish an ancient jurisdiction, which has been shown to exist in the justices of the peace, undoubtedly in Devonshire, but certainly also in other counties, since the days of Queen Elizabeth. It seems as if the House has decided to sweep away this ancient jurisdiction, and my desire now is, that supposing this House to be determined to abolish this jurisdiction, that this House should take care of itself, so that while sweeping away a local jurisdiction, the House should be quite sure that it retains, and is not parting with, its own jurisdiction. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has explained that the latter words of this clause, which declare that these rules may repeal Acts of Parliament, are unnecessary; and I grant that they would have been unnecessary, because, whether he had adhered to the form of the Amendment which he has proposed and abandoned, or adopted the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury, he will give effect to the repeal of enactments by his rules, although without the use of express words in the Bill. By having accepted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury, the right hon. Gentleman has somewhat confused the position of

    517
    the matter which is before the Committee. I believe, however, that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dewsbury approves of my proposal, which embodies his own, but goes rather further in the same direction. I hope, therefore, he will withdraw his Amendment. But if he does not withdraw it, I can still move my Amendment as an addition to it; and, perhaps, the Committee will be good enough to allow me now to state my reasons for intending to do so. I rejoice that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has decided upon submitting these rules to the two Houses of Parliament. I think it a great constitutional gain that he has decided to do that, for it partly removes that which really appeared to me a stigma on the Bill. The bare fact that Parliament was asked unconditionally to delegate to an Executive officer of the Crown an unlimited power of legislation with regard to such important subjects as how many prisons shall be retained; how many prisons shall be abolished; what classes of prisoners shall be placed in each; what discipline shall be established in any or in all; what officers shall be appointed; what shall be the diet; what the distinctive treatment for non-convicted persons as contrasted with that to be pursued towards convicted prisoners; to ask Parliament to delegate such enormous legislative powers as these, appears to me to be asking for more than Parliament ought to grant. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to submit these rules to the Houses of Parliament appears to me to be an acknowledgment that the discretionary power for which he originally asked was wider than in his own judgment, as now matured, ought finally to be granted. I take this to be a concession to the arguments which have been addressed to him and to the House in the course of these discussions. But there is another consideration which I wish to place before the Committee. The "half-past 12" rule is now in operation, and under that rule no Opposed Business can be taken after half-past 12 o'clock at night. Now, on Friday last no less than 30 hon. Members placed their names on the ballot in order to sscure days for their several Notices, and on the previous Tuesday there were 27 hon. Members who ballotted. If
    518
    these rules are to lie on the Table of the House for only 30 days, I put it to the House and to hon. Members, what chance would an unofficial Member have of obtaining an opportunity of calling the attention of the House to these rules? Why, a very lamentably bad chance. And if he succeeded, what then? He would give Notice, and of course he would be at once told that it was an adverse Notice, and it would primâ facie meet with the opposition of the Government. I submit, then, inasmuch as these rules are to be the product of the Home Secretary, inasmuch as he is to frame them, and must give the sanction of his authority to them when he lays them on the Table of the House, and inasmuch as, being a leading Member of the Government, he has ample command of the time of this House, whether it would not be more convenient to the House, and more respectful to the House, if, instead of merely placing these rules before the House and assuming the consent of the House, if objection be not taken within 30 days—an objection which it would be very difficult to take—to these rules, which are to have an enacting and repealing power, rules which, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own or his adopted Amendment, are to have all the force of an Act of Parliament, I repeat, that it would be more convenient and more respectful to the House that the right hon. Gentleman should, as Home Secretary, ask the assent of the House to the rules he will produce by moving that "the House do approve these rules?" From conversations which I have had with a considerable number of hon. Members of this House, I gather that they think that what I propose would remove much of the constitutional objection they entertain to this Bill, and at the same time that my proposal would facilitate the Business of the House; because otherwise it might happen, owing to the difficulty of naming a day for discussing the rules, hon. Members might be tempted to interpose Questions and Motions for Adjournment, in despair of attracting the attention of the House in any other and more legitimate manner to those rules, which, under this Clause, are to be laid upon the Table of the House, and, therefore, will be nominally, at all events, submitted to the judgment of the House.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had withdrawn unexpectedly his Proviso, to which he had proposed to add the words of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), and the right hon. Gentleman now offered to accept his present Amendment. Seeing, however, that by that course he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) should entirely defeat the object he had in view, he felt bound, under the circumstances, to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, in order that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, who had communicated with him on the subject, might be able to propose his words.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he felt it impossible to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, because he had withdrawn his own in its favour. If the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) wished to add any words, he might propose them afterwards.
    MR. DODSONthought they were getting into some confusion by the number of different Amendments before the Committee. He would suggest, in order that they might have a clear issue before them, that the hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate) should move an Amendment in the Proviso now submitted from the Chair by striking out all the words after "Parliament," in order to insert—
    "That such rules shall not come into operation until they have been approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament."
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would adopt the suggestion thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson), and move that no rules or regulations should come into force until adopted by a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Considering the state of Business, and the few opportunities afforded private Members to bring forward Motions, no opportunity would be afforded in 30 or 40 days, as now proposed, to move any Amendment.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
    In line 5, to leave out from the words "Parliament and" to the end of the proposed Amendment, in order to add the words "no such rules or regulations shall come into force until the
    520
    same have been approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament."—(Mr. Newdegate.)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSopposed the Amendment, on the ground that, if the rules were to be discussed, as proposed by his hon. Friend, word by word, not one of them would probably pass, and they would have all the trouble of discussing the Bill over again. He (Mr. Cross) had made a fair proposition, one which would meet the opinion of the House—namely, that the rules should lie on the Table of the House for a certain period—he did not care whether it was 30 or 40 days—before they came into operation. During that period any hon. Member who wished to have any of the rules changed would have an opportunity of moving to that effect. No less than three or four hon. Members, all sitting on the opposite side of the House, had put down their own Amendments after most serious and careful consideration, but none of them went so far as his (Mr. Assheton Cross's) Amendment went. He hoped the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) would not press his Amendment.
    MR. ROEBUCKasked whether the rules would have force after they had lain for 40 days upon the Table of the House?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Yes; it was so proposed.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he also had an Amendment on the Paper. The discussion had proceeded on the assumption that the rules would be laid on the Table of the House; but there was no obligation to lay them on the Table, and the Home Secretary did not say when he would lay them on the Table of the House. His Amendment was, that it should be imperative for the Home Secretary to lay the rules and regulations upon the Table of the House before the Act came into operation.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) applied to the latter part of the clause, and the Amendment now referred to applied to the first part of it. The only way for the hon. Member for Dudley to proceed was, to move to add his Amendment at the end of the clause.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, there was a misprint in the clause, the word

    521
    "may" having been printed instead of "shall." It was intended to make it imperative on him to produce the rules.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANremarked that it still left the time at which they should be produced unnamed.
    MR. WHITWELLsupported the view of the Government.
    SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, the question was, whether the House was to settle the rules for unconvicted prisoners, or the Secretary of State. He could not consent to so important a matter being left to the Secretary of State. As to laying these rules on the Table, what chance would a private Member have of opposing them?
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) were negatived, the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) would require amendment; otherwise the moment the rules were issued by the Home Secretary, they would come into force.
    MR. WHITBREADhoped they would have an opportunity distinctly afforded them of bringing the rules and regulations under the consideration of the House and not be content with merely having them laid upon the Table for 30 or 40 days. Such a precaution, as it at present existed, was entirely illusory; for instance, in the case of the Endowed Schools schemes, who got an opportunity of bringing them under the consideration of the House? They were now proposing to make rules which ought to have been made in the Act of Parliament. They ought to have an opportunity of making objections if they thought fit; if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary really meant that they should have an opportunity, let him secure it to them at once.
    MR. NEWDEGATEbelieved that the objections raised by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary were without any foundation whatever. All he required was, that the House should have an opportunity of discussing these rules and regulations, and he never intended that they should be laid before the House and discussed separately. He agreed in what had been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whitbread), that experience had shown the difficulties that lay in the way of inde-
    522
    pendent Members bringing forward any proposal to alter rules of the kind when they had been laid upon the Table. The right hon. Gentleman had made a most significant admission when he said that if these rules had to pass the House they would never pass at all.
    MR. WALTERsaid, that his experience in connection with the Endowed Schools schemes differed from that of the hon. Member who had referred to them (Mr. Whitbread), inasmuch as he recollected that there had been very lively discussions in reference to those schemes after they had been laid upon the Table. Believing that the objections to the clause had no foundation in fact, and that there would be ample opportunity for hon. Members to discuss these rules after they had been laid upon the Table, he should support the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. DODSONreferred to the former practice of the House with reference to the mail and telegraph contracts, and said that when those contracts were placed on the Table, it was found that they either escaped the attention of the House, or they were forgotten until it was too late, or no opportunity could be found to discuss any objection to their approval. After some years, the rule was altered, and it was made a Standing Order that no mail or telegraph contract should come into operation until it had received the actual approval of the House by Resolution. And so it would be in this case, if the 30 or 40 days' rule were adopted. What the Committee wanted, and what he (Mr. Dodson) trusted the right hon. Gentleman opposite would do in the matter, would be to find some satisfactory means to give the House an opportunity of discussing the objections to the rules after they had been laid on the Table.
    MR. RODWELLdid not think that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) realized the effect of his Amendment; for if it were adopted, they might be the whole Session discussing rules and regulations on the most trivial points. Further than that, if the rules were to receive the active approval of the House before they came into force, the Home Secretary would have no power to alter them to suit particular exigencies until the next meeting of Parliament.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANsuggested that any necessary alteration in the mode of procedure could be insured by way of Proviso at the end of the clause.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he considered the argument of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, in proposing his Amendment, unanswerable; and he should support it. It would be perfectly impossible for any Member to raise a discussion within 40 days on the rules.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOThoped that means would be afforded by the Government to Parliament for discussing and, if necessary, altering the rules for the management of prisons. That was all the Committee desired; and, assuming that his right hon. Friend would be able to see his way to make an alteration in the clause, he would suggest an Amendment, to be brought up on the Report, to the effect that if within 40 days after the rules had been laid on the Table no objection was taken to them, they should take effect; but if Notice of objection were taken in either House of Parliament within 40 days, then the rules should not come into force until they had received the sanction of Parliament.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsupported the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate).
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he had himself drawn up an Amendment to that proposed by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) pretty much the same as that recommended by the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter Barttelot). The prisons of England in the olden time, before the labours of Howard, were a scandal to the civilized world; and notwithstanding the labours of that eminent man and the reforms introduced, too many cases of tyranny and bullying on the part of officials occurred even now. The other night the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cross) objected to lay the rules and regulations on the Table of the House until he had received the Report of the Commissioners. It was only reasonable when the rules were before hon. Members that any private Member should have the opportunity of laying his objection to any or all of those rules before the House. If the right hon. Gentleman really meant to give to the House that control which he
    524
    had promised, then why did he not agree that the power of control should be properly secured to the House? Every private Member know perfectly well that it would be impossible—a mere illusion—to suppose he could oppose the Government upon any rule merely laid upon the Table of the House. Unless the Secretary of State would consent to give that opportunity the further passage of the Bill ought to be opposed until a proper arrangement was made. The hon. Member proceeded to detail at great length the case of Daniel Reddin, convicted of riot and assault at Manchester on the occasion of the attack on the police van when Serjeant Brett was killed. Reddin was sentenced to seven years penal servitude and was confined in Portland Prison. There, as was alleged, he suffered paralysis of arms and legs and was unable to do the work set him by the prison authorities. The hon. Member was proceeding to read affidavits alleging illtreatment by the medical and prison officers, when—
    ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM EDMON-STONErose to Order, and asked whether every detail ought to be read from the affidavits.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that as the hon. Member's argument had reference to prison rules, he held that he was not out of Order; but, at the same time, he thought that the hon. Member ought not to go fully into all the details of that particular case.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he could not go into the whole case, for there were 35 affidavits made before the Court of Queen's Bench; but, on some future occasion, he would bring the whole of the case before the House. He would only now refer to the salient points. The hon. Member proceeded to quote details from affidavits, when—
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that though the hon. Member was entitled in discussing the prison rules to refer to a particular case, he was travelling beyond a mere reference, and was entering into details which would be more suitable for a separate Motion.
    MR. PARNELLthought he was justified in going into details. The House could not stamp too strongly on this Bill its determination that prisoners, whether tried or untried, should be treated in a humane manner. He would, therefore, go on to read a few more affidavits,

    525
    and the hon Member was proceeding, when—
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. PARNELLresumed his remarks, and was again reading long extracts from affidavits, when—
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member was deviating from the universal practice of the Committee, and that the circumstances to which he was directing attention were only most distantly connected with the question before the Committee.
    MR. PARNELLobserved that the point of the case to which he was referring was, that a prisoner who was suffering from paralysis had been treated as a malingerer. The hon. Member having referred to the manner in which the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1866 had been passed through Parliament by a suspension of the Standing Orders, said he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. If it were not adopted, the rules made by the Home Secretary might be on the Table for the full term of 40 days without any hon. Member having the opportunity of objecting to them. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would agree to furnish an opportunity of discussing the rules.
    MR. FAYconsidered the manner in which the Secretary of State for the Home Department received every suggestion was fair and reasonable towards English prisoners; but he questioned if the Chief Secretary for Ireland would show himself equally considerate in the Irish Prisons Bill with respect to the treatment of Irish prisoners. He entirely objected to rules, as however well intended an Act might be, those who would have the making of the rules would virtually overrule it. Acts which were in themselves good had been ruined in Ireland by rules afterwards drawn up, and he trusted, therefore, that no rules would be allowed upon this subject unless they first received the sanction of Parliament.
    MR. BIGGARmaintained that the proposed rules should be submitted for the approval of the House, and not left to the discretion of the Home Secretary,
    526
    who, at some future day, might not be an official possessing the confidence of the country.
    MR. NEWDEGATEbelieved that if the administration of justice as proposed by the Bill was to command the confidence of the country, it was necessary that the rules—which were the very essence of the measure—should receive the assent of Parliament before being put into operation in the manner which he had proposed—a manner which was the least calculated to interrupt the progress of the House.
    Question put, "That the words 'if any such rules' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 54: Majority 35.—(Div. List, No. 47.)
    On the Motion of Mr. ASSHETON CROSS, Amendment (Mr. Serjeant Simon) amended by substituting the word "forty," instead of "thirty," in line 6.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    On the Motion of Sir HENRY JAMES, the following Amendment was agreed to, and added to the Clause:—
    "Provided also, That no such rules or regulations shall come into force or operation until the same shall have been laid before Parliament for forty days."
    MR. BIGGARproposed to amend the preceding Amendment, by adding to it the words, "or be accepted by a Vote of the House of Commons." The rules might then come into force within the 40 days if the Government asked for a Vote of the House in their favour. He did not think it necessary to trouble the other House about it.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSopposed the addendum. The proposal was an unusual one, and he did not see any sufficient reason for it.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan was to provide 40 days for discussion of the rules.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANmoved to add at the end of the preceding Amendment a Proviso that the rules and regulations should be laid before both House of Parliament before the Act came into general operation.
    Amendment proposed,
    To add, at the end of the last Amendment, the words "Provided also, That the first rules and regulations made under or in pursuance of this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament before this Act comes into general operation."—(Mr. H. B. Sheridan.)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Amendment was quite unnecessary, as the rules would have to be approved by Parliament before they could come into force. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would be withdrawn.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANexplained that his object was to induce the Government either to set forth in the Schedule or state to Parliament the nature of the rules and regulations which were to affect untried prisoners. He should press the Amendment.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, it was obvious to every reasonable person that the issue was whether the House should have an opportunity of deciding on these rules or not.
    MR. BIGGARwished to point out the unwillingness of the Home Secretary to take the House into his confidence as to what gaols and counties should be disestablished, if he might use the expression, and what was the nature of the rules. He also objected to private conferences between hon. Members who wished to move Amendments and the Home Secretary; it was more satisfactory that all discussions should be made on the floor of the House.
    Question put, "That those words be there added.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 119: Majority 79.—(Div. List, No. 48.)
    MR. PARNELLmoved to add to the Proviso that the rules should have the force of law after lying 40 days on the Table of the House the words—
    "Provided, that no Notice of Motion opposing any rule or regulation shall have been given by any Member of the House of Commons."
    This, he thought, was only fair towards
    528
    private Members, who had few opportunities of gaining the ear of the House.
    MR. NEWDEGATEhoped the hon. Member would not persevere in the Amendment, because the object of it was opposed to the decision at which the Committee had already arrived.
    CAPTAIN NOLANexpressed his approval of the Amendment.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERpointed out that if the Proviso were added, some hon Member might for the purpose of obstruction give Notice of a Motion opposing all the rules. There always would be people who would choose to be obstructive.
    MR. SULLIVANthought that at the beginning of any Session hon. Members ought to have the opportunity of pointing out any defect that might have been discovered in the rules.
    MR. BIGGARsupported the Amendment, the object of which was to give to each Member of the House the opportunity of expressing his views respecting the rules.
    MR. PARNELL,out of deference to the feeling of the Committee, said he would not press his Amendment, although he considered he would be doing wrong by abandoning it. He must, however, say that it was incorrect in any hon. Member to say that he was chargeable with obstructing the business of the House. His opinion on that was that the action of obstruction should, when it was employed, be like that of the bayonet, short, sharp, and decisive. Ho would, however, never shrink from endeavouring to obtain a hearing for any one who wished to raise a reasonable discussion.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 43 to 45, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 46 (Definition of "furniture and effects belonging to a prison").
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved as an Amendment, in page 17, line 13, after "stores, the addition of the words "except goods manufactured for sale, and materials in store for the purpose of such manufacture."
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 47 to 49, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 50 (Definition of "prison ").
    MR. GORSTmoved the first of a series of Amendments which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield), the object of which was to prevent lands at present in the possession of the prison authorities, and not required for the purposes of the prison, being vested in the Secretary of State.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the object which the hon. and learned Member had in view would be perfectly carried out by an Amendment which he (Mr. Cross) himself intended to propose.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved to add the following words to the Proviso at the end of the clause enabling the Secretary of State to direct that any portion of lands bought, or contracted to be bought, before the commencement of the Act by a prison authority, and which in his opinion is not necessary for the purposes of such prison, shall be re-conveyed to the prison authority:—
    "Or retain such portion or any part of such portion, on payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such a sum as may be agreed upon, or, in the event of difference, may be determined by arbitration in manner provided by this Act, on the transfer of any such prison to him, and the vesting thereof in him as by this Act provided."
    Amendment agreed to; words added.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 51, and postponed Clause 4, severally agreed to.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved, after Clause 8, to insert the following Clause:—
    (Report to contain information as to manufacturing processes in prison.)
    "The annual Report of the Prison Commissioners required by this Act to be laid before both Houses of Parliament shall state the various manufacturing processes carried on in each of the prisons within their jurisdiction, and such statement shall contain such particulars as to the kind and quantities of, and as to the profits on the manufactures, as to the number of prisoners employed, and otherwise, as may, in the opinion of the Secretary of State be best calculated to afford information to Parliament."
    MR. MORLEYsaid, with regard to work done in prison, and sent into the market in competition with the work of men engaged in trades outside the walls of prisons, large bodies of industrious
    530
    tradesmen were suffering from the heavy pressure in the market of such competition; and he should feel it his duty to move some declaration to the effect, that in the employments to which convicts were put, it would be desirable to avoid undue interference with trades; but he thought a declaration from the right hon. Gentleman opposite would do a a great deal to allay an excitement which existed, and which was likely to continue, unless workpeople had some actual guarantee against such competition in the Act of Parliament. He would like to see the clause which the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had suggested on that matter adopted.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, that the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Morley) was embodied in a clause of which he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had given Notice to insert in the Bill, and the principle of which had already received the approval of many hon. Members on both sides of the House. It was to the effect that rules and regulations should be made, so that sentences of "hard labour" should include as many trades and industries as possible, but always so as to prevent undue and unfair competition with any particular trades and industries. In the case of short sentences to hard labour there was no time to learn trades, except those of mat-making and brush-making, which were subject to severe competition by prison labour, but the great thing was to lay down a principle. He admitted that new clause proposed by the Home Secretary was satisfactory so far as the information to be laid before Parliament was concerned, but it would not meet the real difficulty of the question.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped they would not get into another long discussion on a subject which a few nights ago had occupied them for many hours. There was not the slightest difference of opinion about the matter. He would read to the Committee part of a letter which had been sent out by the Home Office on the question of Reformatory Schools. It said that the Secretary of State wished to repeat the words in which he had answered many memorials which had been addressed to him on that subject—namely, that the establishment of Reformatory Schools having been authorized by Parliament for the welfare

    531
    of society in general, it would be impossible not to continue in them the industrial occupations which were essential characteristics of those institutions; but that at the same time every possible care should be taken to prevent injury being done thereby to particular trades. He had no objection to putting a Preamble to that effect into the clause on the Report, when, if the hon. Member for Bristol was not satisfied, he might propose an Amendment.
    MR. MORLEYsaid, that when the subject was last discussed in the House there was not one dissentient voice as to the propriety of what he urged; and he only would make now a simple declaration that all future Secretaries of State would take care that what he complained of should not be repeated.
    Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved a clause enabling the Secretary of State to make special rules as to the treatment of unconvicted and certain other prisoners.
    New Clause—
    (Special rules as to treament of unconvicted prisoners and certain other prisoners.)
    "(Whereas it is expedient that a clear difference should be made between the treatment of persons unconvicted of crime and in law presumably innocent during the period of their detention in prison for safe custody only, and the treatment of prisoners who have been convicted of crime during the period of their detention in prison for the purpose of punishment, and that, in order to secure the observance of such difference there should be in force in every place in which prisoners are confined for safe custody only, special rules regulating their confinement in such manner as to make it as little as possible oppressive, due regard only being had to their safe custody, to the necessity of a conformity to regular rules for the purpose of preserving order and good government in the place in which they are confined, and to the physical and moral well-being of the prisoners themselves: Therefore, Be it Enacted, That the Secretary of State may from time to time make, and when made repeal, alter, or add to special rules:—

    "(1.) With respect to the retention by a prisoner of the possession of any books, papers, or documents in his possession at the time of his arrest, and which may not be required for evidence against him, and are not reasonably suspected of forming part of property improperly acquired by him, or are not for some special reason required to be taken from him for the purposes of justice:

    "(2.) With respect to communications between a prisoner, his solicitor, and friends,
    532
    so as to secure to such prisoner as unrestricted and private communication between him, his solicitor, and his friends as may be possible, having regard only to the necessity of preventing any tampering with evidence, and any plans for escape, or other like considerations; and

    "(3.)With respect to arrangements whereby prisoners may provide themselves with articles of diet, or may be furnished with a sufficient quantity of wholesome food, and may be protected from being called upon to perform any unaccustomed tasks or offices; also any matter which the Secretary of State may think conducive to the amelioration of the condition of a prisoner who has not been convicted of crime, regard being had to such matters as are in this section directed to be regarded,)"—(Mr. Secretary Cross,)

    —brought up, and read the first time.
    On Question, That the clause be now read a second time,
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsuggested an alteration in the wording of the clause with the view of extending the special rules to the case of persons arrested under a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he had only had the opportunity of reading the additional clause that morning, and he saw, of course, the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to redeem the promise made to the Committee the other evening. At the same time he could not but think that it was desirable to define in the clause the case of those persons arrested under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSdeclined to adopt the suggestion. With reference to persons arrested in Ireland under a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, special provision was already made as to their treatment. He could not contemplate the possibility of the Habeas Corpus Act being suspended in England. It would be time enough to make special rules with reference to persons detained in England under a suspension of that Act when its suspension in England was proposed.
    MR. SULLIVANhoped the day was far distant when the Habeas Corpus Act would be suspended in England; but he feared that if that evil day should come, the moment of panic would not be one in which the House would patiently listen to an hon. Member who should endeavour to secure exceptional treatment for persons about to be arrested. Irish.

    533
    Members felt they must secure the present opportunity, when the House was in a better mood, to discuss the matter without panic. If no such state of things arose, no harm would be done by the amendment of the clause.
    Mr. PARNELLagreed with the hon. Member for Louth. There had been several instances of the suspension of the Act within recent experience, and in no single instance had the question of the treatment of prisoners been considered. There was an instance under the late Liberal Government, who might be supposed to have every desire to respect the liberty of the subject as far as possible. But such was the panic, and such the desire on the part of the House to preserve the integrity of the Empire, that the Act for suspension was passed without discussion, and the Standing Orders were suspended to pass the Bill in its three stages in one night. Lately the House had heard the experience of an hon. Member as to the treatment received in prison—as to the way prisoners were exposed to all kinds of petty tyranny. The Committee must have seen how unjust it was that persons not convicted, not even charged with crime, should be so treated. Some Amendment was necessary that would meet the case of those persons—something that extended beyond a mere "yea" or "nay." It was not reasonable, and the Home Secretary, with that humanity which distinguished him, would surely see his way to that. The Amendment that he (Mr. Parnell) wished to move was the insertion of the words, "also of all persons arrested under any suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act." That would clearly define the distinction between that class of prisoners and others.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the Forms of the House did not permit the Amendment being put until the clause had been read a second time.
    After a few words from Mr. Serjeant SIMON,
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that he would agree to the suggestion made at an earlier period of the evening to substitute the word "shall" for the word "should" in the clause, providing that there "should" be special rules in force in every place in which prisoners
    534
    were confined for safe custody. He would move accordingly.
    Amendment agreed to; word substituted.
    MR. PARNELLthen moved an Amendment on the clause, providing that "all persons arrested under any suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act "should also, as well "as persons unconvicted of crime," be distinguished in their treatment from persons actually convicted.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 3, after the word "only," to insert the words "and also all persons arrested under any suspensions of the Habeas Corpus Act."— (Mr. Parnell.)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSin opposing the Amendment, said, he thought that the hon. Member for Meath must be under some mistake. Under the Act of 1871 the Lord Lieutenant had the power of making rules, and had made rules making considerable exceptions in the treatment of persons confined under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act.
    MR. SULLIVANhoped the House would see the justice of the Amendment, which, if it went to a division, he should support.
    MR. KING-HARMANthought there could be no objection to the Amendment. It could do no harm, and if acceded to then, would prevent a long discussion when the Irish Bill was before the Committee.
    MR. BIGGARsaw a clear saving of time in adopting the Amendment, which could then also be introduced into the Irish Prisons Bill. It was the more necessary because Irishmen were ruled by English authorities, who did not know the feelings of the Irish people the same as their own Representatives did.
    MR. PARNELLagain urged the importance of introducing into the Bill a provision of this kind, which should make the clear distinction that persons arrested under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act were convicted of no crime.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 67; Noes 150: Majority 83.—(Div. List, No. 49.)
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANmoved the omission of the word "moral" from the sentence in the proposed new clause for "preserving order and good government in the place in which they are confined, and the physical and moral well-being of the prisoners themselves." He wished to know what meaning was to be attached to the word "moral." Surely a prisoner was not to be harassed with chapel exercises at a time when he wanted to prepare his defence.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was rather a difficult thing to touch on. He had no doubt, however, the word was well understood by the Committee.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDAN,in the first sub-section of the clause, proposed to include "money" in the list of articles which, being in the possession of an unconvicted prisoner at the time of his arrest, and not being evidence in connection with the charge against him, he should be allowed to retain.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSopposed the Amendment, on the ground that it was undesirable to leave in the hands of a prisoner the means of bribing the warders. If any portion of the money were required for the prisoner's defence, or other legitimate purpose, he could obtain it upon making application.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANmoved the omission, from the second sub-section, of the words, "restricting the communications between a prisoner and his friends, in order to prevent his tampering with evidence."
    Amendment proposed, in line 24, to leave out the words "any tampering with evidence and." — (Mr. H. B. Sheridan.)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in opposing the Amendment, said, he thought the words were so plain that they needed no explanation.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the earlier part of the clause was inconsistent with the subsequent part.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDAN: Who are to be the judges of tampering?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: The gaol authorities.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDAN: What authorities?
    MR. PARNELLcomplained that the right hon. Gentleman had given no explanation of the words, and moved that the Chairman report Progress.
    After some conversation,
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR HENRY JACKSONthought the proposal in the clause very reasonable, its object being to prevent that tampering with evidence which they all knew did take place.
    MR. ANDERSONagreed with this view.
    MR. T. E. SMITHpointed out that it was unfair to treat an unconvicted man as though he were guilty.
    MR. HOPWOODthought there was a good deal in what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan) said to induce the Committee to insert the words in the clause which he proposed. It was only fair that a prisoner should have a free and unrestricted communication with his solicitor and friends before his trial, which the clause in a great degree prevented him from enjoying.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANobserved that there was no reason for casting this slur on a prisoner; and further, if his Amendment were not accepted, there would be one law for the rich and another for the poor; and while the rich man was out on bail, with every facility for preparing his defence, the poor man would be in prison under this rule, which might be used as a means of interfering to a great extent with his free intercourse with his solicitor and friends.
    DR. KENEALYsupported the Amendment, on the ground that prison officials were always inclined to treat every man in their custody as if he was guilty. The right hon. Gentleman ought to treat the Amendments with more consideration. The clause gave with one breath a liberty which with another it took away. A general rule ought not to be made stigmatizing visitors of prisoners.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSdenied that he had not treated Amendments with due consideration. The clause was only to enable the Secretary of State to make rules.

    537
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed new Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 174; Noes 40: Majority 134.—(Div. List, No. 50.)
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANproposed to amend the clause by providing that unconvicted prisoners might have cells properly warmed and lighted, and of a superior class to those provided for convicts in the same prisons.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the words were unnecessary, as the latter part of the clause gave the Secretary of State all the powers requisite.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    On the Motion of Mr. ASSHETON CROSS, the following new Clause:—
    (Salaries.)
    "There may be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to all or any one or more of the Prison Commissioners such salary for their or his services as the Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury determine.
    "There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to the inspectors and other officers and servants of the Prison Commissioners such salaries as the Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury determine."
    agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    DR. KENEALY*said, he rose to move the insertion of the following now clause in the Bill:—
    "The Prisons Commissioners shall make a yearly Return to Parliament of all punishments of any kind whatsoever which may have been inflicted within the prison upon convicts, together with the causes of and reasons for such punishments; and shall report in their own (the convicts) language any complaints which may have reached them against the treatment which they may have received in the prison."
    He did this because he was persuaded that there was a large amount of tyranny and cruelty practised in those prisons, which could only be restrained, or kept in check, by a yearly Return made to Parliament, such as he had indicated in his proposed clause. There were persons who said it was well that even cruelties should take place, as they would have "a deterrent effect" upon the criminal population. But he begged leave to differ from these individuals.
    538
    In the last century, and even in the early part of the present, persons were hanged in dozens for trivial offences; but these miserable spectacles did not produce "a deterrent effect;" and it was found necessary to relax, and not to augment, the punishment of death. He never could believe that any useful purpose could be gained by the wrongs inflicted in prisons. And he believed that the House was not aware of the extent of those wrongs. He found in Parliamentary Return, Number 497, that the number of prisoners flogged by order of visiting justices in England and Wales, from July, 1864, to March, 1871, was 1,398. This was rather a startling list. The world did not know for what sort of offences these floggings were inflicted, and he desired that Parliament should be made acquainted every year with the numbers flogged or otherwise punished, and the reasons also for the punishment. All these punishments, inflicted by order of a secret and irresponsible tribunal, should be viewed with suspicion and jealousy; there was always a disposition to conceal them, which did not look well. He instanced the recent case of Gunner Charlton, as brought before the House by hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin). The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, in his usual jaunty and plausible manner, had denied, or had made light of many of the facts which the hon. Member had stated; but, notwithstanding that, there was a general and a deep impression in the public mind that Charlton had been used with the greatest cruelty at Mill-bank. He had also at the beginning of the Session brought before the House and the Home Secretary details of the condition of an unhappy man now in Dartmoor, the mention of whose name always elicited laughter in that Assembly; and the right hon. Gentleman had never denied any of the statements made with reference to that hapless individual. More recently they had all read in the papers an account of George Bidwell, who was also confined in Dartmoor. This person was, he believed, a member of the American Bar; he was a man of great intelligence, and, he believed, had fine feelings. In an evil hour he was tempted into forgeries on the Bank of England, and was sentenced to penal servitude. He was stripped in prison a few weeks ago, and then it was discovered

    539
    that he had actually concealed under his armpits a rat and a mouse, which he had caught and fed and kept there, to give him a sort of companionship during the horrible hours of prison. A fact like this proved, more than anything he could say, how terrible must be the agonies which these convicts endured when they had recourse to devices like this. These things might go on for ever, and the House would never know. The right hon. Gentleman, by Section 8 of his Bill, provided that his Prison Commissioners might examine into the treatment and conduct of prisoners, and inquire into all the abuses of the prison, and have all the powers of visiting justices; but no control was to be exercised over them, so as to prevent an abuse of their powers; and they were not bound to make a report to anybody of their acts, or of any abuses. In the same way the visiting justices, under Section 11, might hear complaints made to them, and should report on any abuses within the prison; but the right hon. Gentleman had not provided as to the person to whom they were to report. These persons were to have the same powers as visiting justices under Sections 58 and 59 of the Prison Act, 1865. They might confine in a punishment cell for one month; they might order corporal punishment. The right hon. Gentleman had not stated from what class he intended to select his Prison Commissioners; but if they were to be chosen exclusively from the Army or Navy, he feared that there was too much readiness among these gentlemen to resort to flogging. He said this without intending any reflection on either of those gallant Services. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the whole internal system of prisons was perfect, and that no wrongs could prevail; but it was entirely in the gaoler's discretion whether a prisoner could make his grievances known. He might take means to prevent his ever seeing a Commissioner; and, if he did so, his conduct never could be known. All complaints should be heard before a tribunal to which the public could have access. At present the hearing was a farce. The complaining prisoner was brought in the custody of two warders, preceded by a head-warder with his sword, carried into a room, and placed in a sort of dock. There were present the gaoler and the
    540
    warders, the clerk, and the Commissioner, who had probably just lunched with the gaoler, had heard his account of the matter, and paid very little heed to what the convict said. It might be said that he could petition the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, he feared that though petitions might be written, they did not always reach the Home Office. Petitioners could not always write, and they were at the mercy of the schoolmaster, who might narrate their wrongs in a way that would accommodate his superior in the prison. Prisoners, therefore, ought to be allowed to see, or to communicate freely with their friends, for it was only thus that their miseries could be made known. So, when they were ill, they ought not to be dependent solely upon the prison doctor. The House had heard from the hon. Member for Meath a startling history of the way in which a political prisoner had been used; and from the inquiries which he himself had made, he believed that the complaint was common. At Woking, which was a sort of pet prison, a model convict prison, in 1872 a man named Chapman complained repeatedly to the medical officer — "I'm dying — I'm dying." He was not believed. A few days after he was found dead at the surgery door, to which he had crawled. And how were the dead treated? In a manner calculated to make the living enemies of mankind for ever, when they saw the way in which their fellow beings were disposed of. The dead were at once carried to a dead house. There they were cut open. An inquest was held before a jury composed of tradesmen who supplied the prison, and a verdict was found in accordance, not with facts, for these did not always come before them; but as the prison authorities wanted. The body was then thrust into a long box, lamp blacked all over, and buried. How must not such hideous sights affect even the worst criminals? Had it not a tendency to harden them into devils? And could it be expected that any reformation could ever happen, when sights like this were of ordinary occurrence? These men were stripped naked every month, to see whether they had anything about them, contrary to prison rule. This was a savage thing to do; it helped to make them savages. He had received a letter from a convict, with which he felt that he must trouble the

    541
    House. A sense of public duty compelled him to do so. The hon. Member read the letter accordingly. It contained, amongst other charges of harsh and humiliating treatment, this passage—
    "I am sorry to say, with much bitterness, that I fell into error, and was sentenced to five years' penal servitude. I was sent to Millbank, and when admitted there, I, with fourteen others, was subjected to treatment which was most revolting to the barbarous mind much less to any man of education (pardon my plain language). Immediately we were received, orders were given to strip off every article of apparel, and that in the presence of each other, and when in a perfect state of nudity each one was ordered to stoop down in a most disgusting posture, and the officers of the prison inspected each person in his …. in a most revolting manner, even …. This, Sir, is done not only on admission, but you are subjected to it frequently, and at any hour. Not only is this carried on at Millbank, but also at the other prisons, and I leave this with you, Sir, to surmise what this treatment must be to a refined mind; it seems to me that the object is to induce men to lose their own self-respect, and, if that is once lost, reformation is hopeless. I can assure you that I complained to the chaplains of two prisons, Millbank and Woking, about this treatment, and all I could hear from them was, that it was part of the discipline of the prison."
    This was a horrible state of facts; and therefore it was that he asked for publicity. The House had already heard of the insolence and indignities with which the hon. Member for Louth had been treated; he would not therefore allude to them again. At Millbank and other of those convict prisons it was a common thing to apply the galvanic battery between the eyes of convicts, sometimes to other and more delicate parts, which he would not name. That was done when the doctors imagined that the convicts shammed illness. In a word, so terrible was the system of torture going on, that at Chatham convicts had been known to throw themselves under the waggon-trucks, so as to break their limbs, and get away to hospital, where they often remained crippled for life. Woking was filled with men from Chatham and Portland who had cut off their hands at their wrists, or who had chopped off their fingers, to escape labour of the cruel kind to which they were compelled. And when they were sent to Woking how were they treated? Fifty criminals slept in one room, and the night was spent in the narration of horrible crimes, or in concocting new villanies and robberies when they got out. He therefore besought the right
    542
    hon. Gentleman not to oppose the publication for which he asked.
    New Clause—
    (Return of punishments and complaints of prisoners to be made yearly.)
    "(The Prison Commissioners shall make a yearly return to Parliament of all punishments of any kind whatsoever which may have been inflicted within the prison upon convicts, together with the causes of and reasons for such punishments; and shall report in their own (the convicts) language any complaints which may have reached them against the treatment which they may have received in the prison,)"— (Dr. Kenealy,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that with regard to the letters and statements referred to by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Dr. Kenealy), he would point out to the Committee that they did not give a fair and proper view of the state of things existing in convict prisons. From inquiries he had made, he found that the treatment of prisoners in gaols —a subject of great interest to himself personally—was conducted on humane principles, that the complaints of prisoners were duly attended to, and that they were allowed as much correspondence with their friends as the rules and discipline of the prison would warrant. He would refer to a lecture by Dr. Richardson delivered at the London Institution, to show that in the prisons there was the purest air and the most equable temperature. The death-rate in some prisons had actually fallen to the rate of 3 per 1,000. The cases of whipping in one year was only 166, and in 1876 only 153. As to the Returns of punishment, they were made already every year, and would continue to be so made, and all the information desired by the hon. Member's Amendment was obtainable under existing means. With regard to visiting, the Visiting Justices saw the prisoners without the attendance of prison officials, and heard their complaints, and he thought the provisions of the present Bill would still enable them to carry out those objects in a satisfactory manner. He had no objection to accept the part of the clause providing that the Returns should be made

    543
    yearly to Parliament in the Blue Book; but he could not agree to the last part of the clause.
    MR. BIGGARmoved to report Progress. It was a late hour, and it was evident the House was not disposed to give attention to the discussion. On the front bench opposite he saw several Cabinet Ministers asleep, and they certainly had not heard the speech of the Home Secretary.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped the Committee would allow the clause to be disposed of that night. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had met the proposition in a fair spirit, and it was only a question how far a principle which had been conceded should be carried. It was desirable that the Bill should be reprinted with the additions, in order to put it before the country. If the clause were disposed of, the other clauses might be discussed to-morrow should Business allow. If not, he hoped that hon. Members would forego the introduction of the remaining Amendments, until the Bill was brought up on Report. The Bill had been a long time before the House, and many lengthened discussions had taken place.
    MR. BIGGARdid not feel satisfied that such an important clause could be disposed of so hastily.
    MR. MONKthought the proposal was not an unreasonable one.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONappealed to the hon. Member for Cavan not to persist in his Motion.
    DR. KENEALYalso joined in the appeal. He would agree to limit his Amendment to the portion accepted by the Home Secretary.
    After some discussion,
    MR. PARNELLsaid, it was all very well for the hon. Member for Stoke, who had made his speech on the subject, to advise going on. He (Mr. Parnell) was one of those who had not had an opportunity of speaking, and wished to say something on the subject. It was now a quarter past 1 o'clock, and he felt very tired and quite unequal to speaking now.
    MR. DILLWYNsupported the Motion for reporting Progress.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he greatly desired to have the Bill reprinted before Easter, in order that the visiting justices at the ensuing quarter sessions might consider it as amended before the report was taken.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not feel influenced by the argument that it was desirable to prevent discussion. He did not see why the Bill should be pushed on without being discussed. [Cries of "Divide!"] Of course he should divide, but he might say that it would only be a repetition of Friday night, as the discussion could not go on at that hour.
    After some time—
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 10; Noes 138: Majority 128.—(Div. List, No. 51.)
    Question again proposed, "That the Clause be now, read a second time."
    MR. CALLANthen moved that the Chairman leave the Chair. ["No, no!"]
    MR. PARNELLasked what portion of the clause the Government were prepared to accept?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the portion of the clause agreed to was that as to the annual Returns of punishments.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, then the most important part—as to the complaints of prisoners—was excluded.
    MR. PARNELLjoined in thinking this was the most important part of the clause. It was entirely impossible for him or anyone else to go into the subject at that hour, and he hoped they would report Progress. What he would have to say to-morrow really would not occupy as much time as had been wasted to-night. Ho hoped the Government would not force another division on the point.
    MR. KING - HARMANprotested against the course taken, and said, if the clause were to be adopted, it had better provide for the latest editions of slang dictionaries being supplied to the House, so that complaints of convicts might be understood.
    MR. P. A. TAYLORprotested against the obstruction to Business.
    After some time—
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Callan.)
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 4; Noes 134: Majority 130.—(Div. List, No. 52.)
    Question again proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. KIRKmoved to report Progress.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERprotested against these repeated divisions on the part of such a small minority. It was evidently not the opinion of the Government, but that of the House against the minority.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, it was sometimes a duty to be in opposition to the House, and expressed his intention to proceed with a division.
    MR. SULLIVANappealed to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Kirk) not to press his Motion. If any vital question were behind the Motion, there would not be only two Irish Members speaking.
    After some time—
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Kirk.)
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 4; Noes 132: Majority 128.—(Div. List, No. 53.)
    Question again proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. PARNELLthen moved that the Chairman leave the Chair, expressing regret that the majority should be so unreasonable.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 4; Noes 132: Majority 128.—(Div. List, No. 54.)
    Question, "That the Clause be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "convicts," in line 3, to the end of the Clause."—(Mr. Secretary Cross.)
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."'
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 114: Majority 100.—(Div. List, No. 55.)
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

    BOUNDARIES OF BOROUGHS AND SANITARY DISTRICTS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. GORST, Bill to make better provision for the exercise by the Education Department of powers with reference to local Acts relating to the alteration of the Boundaries of Boroughs and Urban Sanitary Districts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GORST, Colonel STUART, and Mr. HOPWOOD.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 120.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Second Reading—Committee negatived—Third Reading — Consolidated Fund (£9,641,960 6s. 9d.), and passed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (£9,641,960 6s. 9d.) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order); Committee negatived; then Standing Orders Nos. XXXVII. and XXXVIII. considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, Three o'clock.