said, seeing the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) in his place, he would take the liberty of requesting him (in accordance with the notice he had already given him), to consent to a further postponement of the second reading of the Registration Bill (Ireland), which stood for Friday, to that day fortnight. He did not hesitate for a moment in making this request, under the circumstances of the case. The Bill under consideration was one of great, he ought rather to say, of the greatest importance: it dealt with the most vital interests of a country; it affected the Franchises upon which representation and legislation rested, and therefore determined the very essentials of the liberties and constitutional rights of the entire nation. This was not merely a Registration Bill: it took away, it changed; it effected alterations the most sweeping; in many particulars, instead of giving new Franchises, it deprived the country of those it already enjoyed. Such a Bill required the utmost caution, the greatest deliberation, the widest discussion. It could be satisfactory to no party to hurry such a Bill, especially in the absence of those whom it most concerned, through the House. Now, it was impossible that a large, or even a reasonable attendance of Irish Members could be looked for on Friday next. Many had avocations of the most imperative kind, which would detain them at home, and he would ask the right hon. Baronet if they were not present, how could he hope that any stage of the proceeding could be said to have had that fair consideration to which it had the most unquestionable claim? He did not ask, however, for delay on the ground of attention to the opinions of the Irish representatives only. He looked with still more anxiety to those of their constituents. The constituencies had not been apprized —had not time to be apprized—of the meaning, bearing, results of this measure —a measure on which might depend their life or death as electors and constituencies. They had not time, as he gathered from the Irish papers and from private communications, to make themselves even tolerably acquainted with its provisions, much less to come to any deliberate opinion upon the consequences to which it would lead, or to make those communications which constituencies ought to make on such questions to their representatives. What they did know of the Bill, they gleaned, as well as they could, from the exposition of the noble Lord (Lord Eliot), and the somewhat desultory debate that followed it. How insufficient that was, would at once appear to any one who would take the trouble of comparing that exposition with the Bill itself. The Bill itself was not printed till some days after its introduction. A week had not elapsed since its distribution here. There must be many districts in Ireland which it could scarcely yet have reached. It might be said—indeed it had been said—that a second reading was of little consequence, and that the debate on the merits of the Measure might be taken on going in Committee. This course might not be objectionable in ordinary cases; but where principle and details were equally disliked, it became a question whether any new stage of such a measure should be allowed to proceed without the most deliberate and searching discussion. The ground on which the right hon. Baronet had rested his desire to hasten the Bill through, after the opinions which had since been expressed in Ireland, was no longer tenable. It was idle now to hope he could get it, even with the utmost zeal, and the most strenuous exertion, into operation so early as June. Were the objections trifling, instead of being, as they were, most serious, it would be impossible. He could, therefore, see no possible reason why it should be deferred. It was not the fault of the Irish people or their representatives that the Bill had not been introduced earlier: if inconvenience should now ensue from its delay, they were not to be blamed. Under these circumstances, he should renew his appeal to the right hon. Baronet, with a just confidence that his request, on his own part and that of the other Irish Members, for the further postponement of the second reading, could not with any appearance of reason be refused.

I regret that the hon. Gentleman has found it necessary to make this appeal to me. It will be remembered that the first postponement was from this day to Friday; and, in agreeing to that I thought the change would meet with general approval. I regret that this appeal has been made to me on another ground, because there is an indisposition, at this period of the Session, to approach the discussion of public questions, and the consequence is, that at the latter end of June or July the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) makes the appeal which I, in opposition, used to make for the purpose of learning what those measures were it was intended to press, and what to abandon. Now, this arises not from any fault on the part of the Government, but from an unwillingness at this period to enter upon a prolonged discussion of measures of great importance. I foresee that this Session we shall see the same state of things as heretofore, not for the overwhelming nature of the public business, but because, in April and May, the close of business is reserved for that time when the House is not well attended. These were the grounds which led me to regret that an arrangement should be sought to be set aside which seemed to meet with general approbation. On the other hand, I am bound to say I fully admit the great importance of this Measure being duly considered. The hon. Gentleman says that if brought forward on Friday the Irish Members cannot be instructed in those details which they ought to be, even on the discussion of the principle of a measure of such magnitude. I am always unwilling to press any measure prematurely; and I must say I feel that anxiety in the case of Ireland, at least as strongly as in that of any other part of the Kingdom. I shall not name the day to which it should be postponed, but on consultation with the hon. Gentleman, I shall fix that which he considers most convenient. The principle on which I gave way to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is a sufficient proof that I wish the measure to be fully and fairly considered. I trust, however, I shall not be held responsible for the consequences I foresee from such postponements.

said, that before the adjournment of the House, he had presented a petition from the Council of the borough of Manchester, complaining of certain Post Office arrangements connected with that borough and district, and praying for redress. He was happy to say, that within the last week some of the grievances complained of had been removed. The south mails had also been accelerated an hour, so that the box for London letters was open till half-past six instead of being closed as before at half-past five; but nearly two hours might have been gained for despatching letters if the mail were sent by the Manchester and Birmingham Railway to Crewe instead of by the Grand Junction. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet opposite, what objection there could be on the part of the Post Office, to allow the south mails from Manchester to be carried by the Manchester and Birmingham Railway to Crewe, instead of by the Grand Junction, The inhabitants of Manchester could not conceive why the mail to London should be longer on the road than necessary, which was the result of sending it by the Grand Junction instead of by the Manchester and Birmingham. It appeared that the Post Office at one time, and perhaps, even more than once, had agreed with the Manchester and Birmingham Company to send the London mail by that line, and then had thought proper to depart from their understanding with that Company by proposing fresh conditions. Some of the fresh conditions involving expense and trouble to the Company, bad been agreed to by the Company, but when it was required that the Company should take the Macclesfield, Congleton, and other cross-road bags, without any remuneration, they objected, though willing to take them with fair compensation, on the ground that such service was not comprised in the Post Office contract with the Grand Junction. He moved as an amendment that the House will take into consideration the petition from Manchester with regard to the Post Office arrangements in that borough.

was happy to hear that the grievances of which the hon. Gentleman complained had been in part redressed in consequence of the acceleration of the Irish mail, and the Manchester and Hull mail. The only grievance that remained was, that Manchester letters were delayed half or three quarters of an hour longer than they would be, if carried direct by the Manchester and Birmingham Railway. The change suggested by the hon. Gentleman might be beneficial to Manchester, but strong representations against it came from such important towns as Macclesfield, Congleton, and others. He could assure the House that there was every disposition on the part of the Post Office authorities to extend the accommodations of the post.

Amendment withdrawn.

said, he had on a former day, asked the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, whether it was the intention of Government to bring forward in the present Session, any measure which would settle the question regarding tithe, arising out of the Parochial Assessment. He supposed his right hon. Friend could give him an answer.

said, the subject to which his hon. Friend referred had been already mooted in the course of the present Session, and he had occasion to recal to the recollection of the House, that at that moment, a very extensive alteration of the Poor Law was under consideration. He had also announced, what he now repeated, that it was his intention to ask permission of the House to introduce a Bill for the alteration of the Law of Set- tlement. A very able and elaborate Report on the subject of Rating had, since the time of which he was speaking, been presented to the House. It was impossible to over-estimate the magnitude of this subject, or the difficulty of dealing with it. He certainly had given his attention to it, and if the House should wish to deal with the Amendment of the Poor Law, and permit him to introduce an alteration of the Law of Settlement, it would be his duty at some future period, if he should hold the situation he now filled, to propose a measure for that purpose. But he could not hold out any expectation that it would be possible to prepare any such measare during the present Session.

complained that the money required on account of the House of Lords should be set down in one round sum, while in the Vote required for the House of Commons the items were stated. Out of common respect to that House, the Lords ought to furnish a similar statement of their expenditure.

thought the House should not involve itself in a dispute with the other House on a question affecting the the privilege of the Lords merely for the purpose of having the details explained. If the hon. Member would make inquiry, he would find that the business of the other House was as economically conducted as that of the House of Commons.

thought it very suspicious that while such a large amount of fees was received by officers of the House of Lords, the House of Commons should be called upon to pay the sum of 15,000l. in addition for their officers.

believed that the officers of the House of Lords received from 15,000l. to 20,000l. in fees, so that the whole expenditure on their account must be 30,000l. If the business of that House were economically conducted, he did not see why they should object to state the items. He wished to know the exact amount of the fees received by their officers. He moved, that the sum named in the Vote be reduced by 15,000l.

deprecated a division upon the subject, as an interference with the privileges of the House of Lords.

The Committee divided on the question that the sum be 44,350l.:—Ayes 13; Noes 69: Majority 56.

Original question agreed to.

Several other votes were agreed to.

said he could not for a moment consent to allow a vote of this nature, and of so large an amount, to pass without making some observation upon it. Originally there were three Principal Commissioners, and twenty-one Assistant-Commissioners; that number had since been reduced to eleven, and subsequently to nine. What those Commissioners and their Assistants were about,—what good they had done, or what good they were doing, it was, in his opinion, very difficult to say. They interfered with the guardians, who, no doubt, were quite capable of managing their own affairs; and it was his opinion, and the opinion of many others both in and out of the House, that the guardians would go on much better, that the poor under them would be much better provided for and much better satisfied, if they were let alone to manage the affairs of their own parishes, than could possibly be the case, if they were in the hands of three Commissioners at salaries of 2,000l. each per annum, sitting at Somerset-house. The amount of money expended upon this Commission already amounted to 389,305l.—a most enormous sum, expended to support a Commission established by Her Majesty's late Government, who were so fond of jobbing that whenever they could, they would make one. Their reckless system of jobbing turned them out of office, and he only regretted that hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House should tread in any one of the steps in which their predecessors bad trodden. He confessed he should like to annihilate altogether the whole of this Poor Law Commission. For the present year, however, he would allow one solitary Chief Commissioner to remain, and would propose that the following reductions should be made in the estimate—viz., the two Chief Commissioners he would dispense with, and strike out their joint salaries, which would amount to 4,000l. Then he would strike away all the Assistant-Commissioners—6,300l. more. And though he always regretted to reduce the number of real working clerks' who did all the business, yet he should propose to reduce the Clerks' salaries from 4,926l. 5s. to 2,553l. 15s. being a further reduction of 2,372l. 10s. The total amount which he would propose to deduct, then, from that part of the Vote which had reference to England, or 31,006l. 16s. 4d., was 12,672l. 10s. which would reduce that portion of the Vote to 18,334l. 6s. 4d., and he should move as an Amendment that that reduction should Be made.

hoped his hon. and gal-land Friend would do justice to the Government with respect to the Vote now under consideration. His hon. and gallant Friend would see from page 2 of this estimate, that in the year 1842, compared with the year 1841, there was a reduction of 5,233l., and in the present year as compared with the former year, there was a reduction of 1,500l. This saving had been mainly effected by a reduction in the number of the Commissioners, from thirteen to to nine in England, and in Ireland from eleven to eight. Therefore, since Her Majesty's Government had come into office they had effected a reduction of no less than seven Assistant Commissioners in the administration of the New Poor Law. The appointment of the Commissioners had been brought before the House last year, and full opportunity had been given both with respect to the Commissioners for England and Ireland, for the Legislature to refuse continuing the Commission, and its power in the administration of the Poor Law; and by a large majority, the Legislature had affirmed the principle of the existence of the Commission with this power. If the Commission were to be maintained it was desirable that it should be efficient. He hoped that, since Parliament had declared that the Commission should exist, that the numbers of the Commission would not be reduced so as to render them inefficient.

said, the right hon. Baronet had not pointed out that the Commissioners were of any use. The authority of the Commissioners and Assistant-Commissioners had been set at nought by the Boards of Guardians, and in the presence of the Assistant-Commissioners. The Assistant-Commissioners had threatened prosecutions, but had never ventured to prosecute; and why? Because they knew that the regulations which the guardians had set at nought were inhuman, and could not be sustained by any jury, or by any man who had any humanity in his heart. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Colonel that those who paid the rates were the best judges of the mode of conducting the expenditure of the rates. If the guardians were oppressors of the poor, he granted that this establishment would be necessary; but these Commissioners had Assistant-Commissioners, so far as they had power, to grind and oppress the poor by their rules and regulations. He knew one union where the guardians had passed a resolution in defiance of those rules and regulations. They stated that the poor had never been so badly fed as those rules directed, and they never should be. Now that the unions were framed and the law was in operation, he could not conceive what necessity there was for these three Commissioners, and he believed with the hon. and gallant Colonel, that two of them might be spared. He wished to call the attention of the House to the travelling expenses of these Assistant Commissioners. Their travelling expenses amounted to the enormous sum of 870l. a year each. He could not conceive how they could spend such a sum. Then they had clerks attending upon them in their missions. What did they want clerks for?—as companions? He hoped the hon. and gallant Officer would take the sense of the House on his Motion for virtually repealing the Bill, by dividing on his Motion.

thought it would be very inconsistent in the hon. and gallant Colonel not to divide the House. He had entered into a convention with the right hon. Baronet, that these 50,000l. worth of Commissioners should not interfere with the administration of the Poor Laws in any town governed by Local Acts. These were the terms in which the truce between them had been entered into. He should be glad to rest on this convention. When it was proposed to him to reduce this Vote by 18,000l., it became his duty to consider the nature of the redress it would afford. He believed that many of the objections against the New Poor Law were against the the mode in which it was administered; it was this which gave the greatest dissatisfaction, and this would not be the case if these Commissioners did their duty faithfully to the public. He had had to complain of an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner travelling about in Sussex and smuggling himself into a work house, under Gilbert's Act, without any proper courtesy. He knew that he could enter the house by merely rapping at the door, but that was not the way to give satisfaction, but to create distrust and suspicion. Now that the Poor Law was established, he did not think it could be necessary to support this immense establishment, particularly as they did not intend to interfere with the Gilbert unions, or with the town having local Acts. He complained of the mode of dealing with soldiers' and sailors' pensions, by the Poor Law Commissioners. The guardians were warranted by law in taking the pensions of those poor people who entered the workhouse; but it had happened that guardians had withheld the pensions of poor soldiers and sailors for six months even after they had left the workhouse. They stated that they had a right to charge the pensioner for the amount of relief he had had in the workhouse. A poor pensioner, therefore, when he left the workhouse had no pension to fall back upon. It was certainly intended that the pension should be with held only during the time that he was in the workhouse. He had succeeded in his own union in getting this established, but he wished it to be established in all unions. If the hon. and gallant Member divided the House, he should certainly divide with him; but considering himself under a convention with, the right hon. Baronet, he should refrain from making any observations on the Vote. He had kept the flag of truce at the masthead, and did not intend to haul it down on this occasion.

was anxious to neutralize the opposition of every Gentleman to this measure, and of no one more than the hon. and gallant Member. He did not, however, wish to neutralize his vote by allowing to pass unnoticed any misunderstanding he might have fallen into as to the arrangement come to. He entirely disclaimed that he was ever prepared to deny the right of the Assistant-Poor Law Commissioners to superintend under the Local Acts. That supervision was indispensably necessary. It was true that under the New Bill there were certain Clauses extending the Poor Law Act to certain districts now under the operation of the Local Acts, which were now under consideration and supervision, and which would be laid on the Table of the House before the Bill went into Committee. That was the understanding which existed between them. He must say he thought the hon. Member for Coventry was somewhat wrong in his observation about the Assist ant Commissioners— that they were employed for the purpose of grinding and oppressing the poor. He thought the hon. Member would find that one of the principal disagreements as to the administration of the Poor Law in Eng- land had been with regard to the inadequacy of medical relief. The Local Boards usually wished to obtain medical relief for the poor at the lowest scale without reference to the fact whether or no it were adequate. One of the chief accusations against the Assistant Commissioners was, that they controlled this disposition of the Local Boards to effect savings of the rates at the expense of the poor, by insisting that larger salaries should be given to the medical officers. He gave this only as a specimen of the sort of power exercised by the central authority controlling this disposition of the Local Boards, and exercised for the protection of the poor. This was not a fitting opportunity for discussing this question, and it would be inexpedient to go into it then, but he could not allow an observation like that which had fallen from the hon. Member for Coventry to pass without pointing out conclusive evidence that it was unfounded. If the Commission was to exercise control, it could only exercise it through the Assistant-Commissioners travelling about. If the Assistant-Commissioners were of any use at all they must travel. Consistently with the principle of the Bill recently affirmed by the House, he thought the number of the Commissioners could not be reduced, and he hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not divide the House on a mere matter of detail involving no principle. He was prepared to contend that the staff of the Commissioners as reduced was not too large, and that the expense could not be further reduced.

said he was sorry to find that so few hon. Members on the other side of the House were disposed to support him if he attempted to divide the House. He was also sorry to observe that the great leader of economy had left the House. The right hon. baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had told them that there would be another opportunity of bringing the question under discussion. Of that opportunity he would be quite prepared to avail himself, if there existed any probability that his endeavours would be attended with success, but at present he should not put the House to the trouble of dividing. He would tell the hon. Member opposite that if he exerted his powers of speech when that opportunity arrived, he should have his cordial support.—Amendment negatived.

Original Motion agreed to.

objected to several items of this Vote, more especially to the charge of 1,574l. 16s. 2d. for sixteen Queen's plates, to be run for in Ireland. It appeared to him that this was a direct encouragement of gambling and immorality, peculiarly unjustifiable in the present state of the country. He moved to reduce the Vote to the sum of 4,890l. 1s. 3d.

supported the item, the object of which was, not to encourage gambling, but to improve the breed of horses in Ireland.

said there was no gambling so general and mischievous as that which was encouraged by the promotion of railroads.

The Committee divided on the question that the sum be 4,890l. 1s. 3d.:—Ayes 13; Noes 45: Majority 32.

Original Motion agreed to.

On the question that 39,200l. be granted for foreign and other secret Services.

thought that at least the public should know in what proportions this sum was respectively expended by the several Departments of the State.

could not assent to the honourable Gentleman's desire, but this he would state, that since his accession to office, not one farthing had been expended by the Home Office for secret service.

said it had been rumoured in Ireland that members of the police force had been employed to go among the peasantry to induce them to enter into illegal associations, for the purpose of afterwards informing against them. Was the Government aware of any such practices?

would most distinctly and unequivocally state that he was not cognizant of the employment of the police in any case for any such nefarious purpose.

said, that on hearing of the rumour referred to, the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland had instituted the most rigid inquiries into the matter; he could unhesitatingly declare that no such proceedings had taken place with the knowledge or sanction of the Government; and should it appear that any individuals had taken that task upon themselves from the idea of ingratiating themselves with their superiors, all such persons would, upon their offence being discovered, be visited with condign punishment.

hoped the Committee would not press for a disclosure of particulars in this matter, as there were various reasons which rendered it inexpedient. He would give the Committee his assurance that not a shilling of the whole amount was expended in a way against which any constitutional jealousy could be entertained.

Vote agreed to.

complained of the great expense of this establishment. There was at Parkhurst accommodation for 500 prisoners, and the cost of maintaining them, exclusive of the erection of the building, was about 26l. each a year, a sum considerably more than a labourer received for the maintenance of himself and his family. The Model Prison at Pentonville was of a still more expensive character, for there the maintenance of 510 prisoners cost 20,604l. That was 40l. for each prisoner, independent of the expense of maintaining the prison. Again, the salaries of the officers for the care of these 510 criminals, amounted, with their rations, to 7,520l. There was also a charge of 150l. for cleaning offices, windows, and stairs, and lighting fires, as if prisoners could not light their own fires. And what was the produce of the labour of those prisoners? At Parkhurst the produce of their earnings amounted to nothing at all. At Pentonville, during the last year, the amount of earnings was less than three-halfpence each, and at Parkhurst less than three farthings a-day. The maintenance of these 1,010 criminals amounted to within a few pounds of 40,000l.. In the United States the system pursued was different. In some of the prisons which he had visited, the earnings of the prisoners not only defrayed all the expenses, but produced a surplus which was applied to the service of the State. It must be a system of jobbing which occasioned such expenses as those to which he had referred. He should not trouble the House now to divide upon the Vote; but he hoped that, having called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to this vast expenditure, he would cause a reduction to be made in it. He must observe, however, that the system of secret imprisonment required to be taken into immediate consideration. He was sure it had no good effect upon the morals of the people. The governor of the gaol of Philadelphia had informed him that that system had no better effect than the silent system; on the contrary, that several persons had returned to the prison three, and even four times.

was bound to avow frankly, that the system of punishment referred to was an expensive system; but, in stating the amount of the expense, the hon. Gentleman had not deducted from the gross amount of the Vote, either for Parkhurst or Pentonville, a portion which was required for the completion of the edifice, or for keeping it in repair. He thought, however, it would be no exaggeration to state, that the maintenance of each prisoner at Parkhurst cost about 24l, and at Pentonville about 30l. a year. He was sorry that the Report of the Commissioners had only been laid on the Table that day; he had been desirous that it should be in the hands of Members before they came to that discussion. When that Report was considered by the House and the country, he thought it would be found that a more satisfactory document, whether as regarded its statements, or the authority upon which it rested, had seldom been presented. It was true that the amount of earnings of the prisoners was not large; but the Commissioners had studiously avoided bringing the labour of convicts into competition with free labour. They had not wrought for profit, and the goods were sold at a loss. He thought it his duty to read to the House the short summary drawn up by the Commissioners of the result of the experiment which they had most sedulously watched last year, and which had been carried on under their direct superintendence. He need only state the names of the Commissioners to ensure respect for their suggestions. The Report was signed by Lord Wharncliffe, the Duke of Richmond, the Earl of Devon, Lord Chichester, Lord John Russell, Mr. Charles Shaw Lefevre, (the Speaker of that House), Sir Benjamin Brodie, Dr. Ferguson, Major Jebb, Mr. Crawford, and Mr. Richard Russell, and stated, that during the first year in which separate confinement had been carried into operation in the new prison, it must be apparent that many practical difficulties would occur, which could only be surmounted by experience; and that, under all the circumstances, they were justified in coming to the conclusion that the system of separate confinement in Pentonville Prison, had been exposed during the first year of its operation to a severe test, but that nothing had occurred to induce them to think that the system could not be safely carried into effect—that they had considered it their duty to institute an investigation of every point of the discipline of the prison, and that they found the present bodily and mental condition of its inmates generally satisfactory—that the rate of mortality was remarkably low, and that there were abundant proofs of the moral and religious improvement of the prisoners, among whom a cheerful spirit prevailed—that the penal character of the imprisonment was not sacrificed to other objects; but that, on reviewing the whole system, they were of opinion, that the adoption of separate confinement, as it was established in Pentonville Prison, promised a salutary change in the treatment of criminals, and was well calculated to deter from the commission of crime. Upon the subject of education and moral improvement, he was happy to be able to state the following particulars in respect to the departments of reading, writing, arithmetic, and religious instruction. Of 525 prisoners admitted, 169 could read well; and 70 could not read at all. At the end of the year, 343 could read well; and there was only one who could not read at all. Out of the same number 63 could write well, and 227 could not write at all. At the end of the year 204 could write well, and 26 could not write at all. In arithmetic, of the same number, 27 were versed in the higher rules, and 363 knew something on the subject. At the end of the year 250 were well acquainted with the highest rules, and only six were not at all conversant on the subject. In the matter of Scriptural knowledge, 63 on their admission had considerable knowledge on the subject, and 187 were not at all informed on it. At the end of the year, 341 were versed in the truths of Scripture, and there was not one who was entirely ignorant on the subject. He would not go further upon this point; but he thought that what he had stated would be most satisfactory to the House. Independently, however, of the moral and mental culture of the prisoners, the advancement of the prisoners in industrial employment was a matter of great importance. As it was a fixed rule that persons sent to this prison, under sentence of transportation, should ultimately be sent out to the Colonies, it became, in some sort, an obligation upon society that they should be provided with the means of earning an honest livelihood by their labour when they got out there. It was thought expedient that they should be taught the rudiments and practice of various handicrafts most in request in the Colonies; as, for instance, those of the carpenter, cooper, wheelwright, weaver, tailor, and basket maker. What he said of the Pentonville prison in this respect, applied also to that at Parkhurst, where, indeed, these instructions being applied to more youthful persons, had taken effect with greater force, and with less risk of failure than at the former. His noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Depart- ment, and himself, had received some most gratifying accounts from the Colonies of the conduct of youths who had been sent out there as free labourers; and he had every reason to believe that the system pursued at Parkhurst had been most satisfactory in its results. He was sorry that the noble Lord, the Member for London, who had originated the establishment of this institution, was not present. He would only add, that he had, from the moment he had entered upon the office which he so unworthily filled, thought it his duty to do everything he could to promote the success of the important experiment which the noble Lord had entered upon. The noble Lord had frequently visited the institution since, and he had every reason to believe that he had been satisfied with the manner in which it had been conducted. Considering the very strong desire which existed to do away with capital punishments, and to supply others in their stead, he did not think that 40,000l. was an extravagant demand to carry out these views; at least he entreated the House not to interrupt an experiment, as yet in its infancy, by refusing this Vote.

said, that although the statement of the right hon. Baronet was satisfactory as far as related to the condition of the prisoners, he did not think it was so as far as the public was concerned. He thought that if the prisoners had so improved in handicrafts, their labour ought to be productive in proportion, and that it ought, in fact, to support them entirely, without any expense to the public.

begged to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he was aware that in some prisons in which the new system had been adopted, persons who were kept in prison awaiting their trials, and not under sentence, were subject to solitary confinement; and what he thought in regard to the propriety and legality of such a course of proceeding?

said, that they were now discussing prisons which were strictly of a penal character in which no person was placed who was not under sentence of seven years' transportation. With respect to the other prisons, to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, all he could say was, that he was not aware that there was anything illegal in placing a person under confinement to await his trial in a separate cell, provided nothing was done to aggravate the severity of the restriction upon his liberty.

said that he understood the right hon. Baronet to say that the produce of the prison labour was sold very low in order not unduly to compete with free labour out of doors. He must say, if he was right in this view of what fell from the right hon. Baronet, that the course so pursued was one which would tend to the very contrary result from that which was said to be held in view. It appeared to him obvious, that the higher the rate at which the produce of prison labour was disposed of, the less it would compete with free labour.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly right. The fact was, he had not quite accurately quoted the passage in the Report, and the impression left by what he said, was consequently the reverse of what he intended. The Report stated, that in order that the regular manufacturers might not be undersold by the produce of the prison labour, the prices were regulated by those of the regular market at the time.

Vote agreed to.

Several other sums having been voted, the House resumed. Committee to sit again.

House adjourned at twelve o'clock.