In rising to move the second reading of this Bill, I do not think it necessary that I should take up the time of the House by endeavouring to prove the necessity for improvements in this increasing City, nor do I think it necessary to dilate upon the benefits which I believe the citizens of London have derived, whether resident here for purposes of pleasure or business, from the improvements which have been made by the Metropolitan Board of Works. Perhaps I may be allowed to remind the House that in the year 1872 powers were given by this House to the Metropolitan Board of Works to carry out various important street improvements. Amongst them there was one authorizing them to make a communication, partly by means of new streets and partly by the adapting of old ones, from Bethnal Green down as far as Holborn. One of the objects of the Bill which I now ask this House to read a second time is to make a street 60 feet in width to meet the street which I have just mentioned, and which I hope will be completed before the end of this year. If this additional street is constructed as we propose there will be a communication 60 feet wide directly down to Regent Street. Another object of the Bill is to authorize the Metropolitan Board of Works to make a street 60 feet wide from Tottenham Court Road as far as Trafalgar Square. And this brings me to my point of difference with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke. [Mr. BERESFORD HOPE: Cambridge.] I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. I mean my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope). The opinion of my hon. Friend is always well received, both inside this House and out of it, on all matters of taste. He objects to one of the proposals of the Bill, and only one; but I believe I shall be able before I sit down amply to satisfy my hon. Friend upon the point in regard to which he is so very anxious. But while I express my readiness to do everything I can to meet his views and the views of the House, I must say this—that if the street which I had hoped to get permission of the House ultimately to make—if that street is not of the width of 60 feet from Tottenham Court Road to Trafalgar Square, the responsibility will not rest with the Metropolitan Board, but with those who object to any interference whatever with the stops of St. Martin's Church. I need not assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University, nor need I assure the House, that in carrying into effect any improvements there is no desire on the part of the Metropolitan Board of Works in any way to injure, or touch, or displace, or disfigure any of the architectural beauties of London, because, I am sorry to say, there are not too many of them extant. Still more, I may say that instead of wishing in any way to deface, we are anxious to improve, and when we make an improved communication, we are anxious that the improved streets and communications should be lined by handsome buildings. I think I may point to Queen Victoria Street as an example. The buildings which have been erected in it are really a credit to the metropolis. Then, again, we hope, in the course of a few years, that Northumberland Avenue will be filled with buildings of a high architectural character. Perhaps, with regard to the steps of St. Martin's Church, I may, with the permission of the House, be allowed to mention a few circumstances. When this scheme was first proposed, the rector and the churchwardens and some of the inhabitants addressed the Metropolitan Board of Works upon the subject. We endeavoured, as far as we possibly could, to meet them in a friendly and conciliatory spirit. We heard all they had to say; we received from them certain plans, which were proposed modifications upon our plans—the modifications being proposed by Mr. Ferguson. We went into them, and we thought we had improved them; and we introduced and brought in other modifications, which we hoped would meet the views of all parties interested in the matter. I am sorry to say that the Metropolitan Board have in that entirely failed; that not only the churchwardens, but I am sorry to say my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, and I am also bound to add most of the Members who have spoken to me in the House of Commons, have expressed their disapproval of our plans. Now, Sir, I think it is much the best course, in all circumstances like these, to be entirely honest and frank. And that being the case, and not wishing in any way to destroy or do anything to injure the architectural beauties of the metropolis—although I do not think the plans we were going to propose to the House of Commons, and which we hoped would be allowed by the House to go before a Committee, would have had that effect—still, as we found that many hon. Members objected to them, I think the best plan for me to follow is at once to give up a portion of our plans. We ask the House now to say that the street shall be 60 feet in width from Tottenham Court Road down to St. Martin's Church, and I am prepared to give my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University a distinct assurance that in the future progress of the Bill nothing shall be done in any way to interfere with or touch the steps of St. Martin's Church. I hope that that frank acknowledgment and promise from me will induce my hon. Friend to withdraw the opposition of which he has given Notice to this Bill. I am satisfied that if the Bill is passed, and the improvements proposed in it are carried out, it will be of very great advantage to the metropolis. As I am speaking on the subject of the Bill, I should like to mention one or two other improvements which we contemplate, and which are very much wanted. Those who live in the East of London, and on the other side of the River, well know how very much improvements are wanted in Bermondsey and in Tooley Street. We propose to widen both of those thoroughfares, and to form a street which we believe will tend very much to divert the traffic from London Bridge, now so considerably congested with it. There is one other scheme about which I believe an hon. Member proposes to ask me a Question. It relates to Gray's Inn Lane, which we propose to widen to the width of 60 feet, and in order to enable us to do that we have scheduled a considerable amount of property. I may add that a great deal of the property so scheduled is at the present moment reported as quite unfit for human habitation. I hope that this Bill will clear away a large portion of that very bad property. There is just one more point to which I should like to allude for a moment. I hope the House will agree with me that it is a desirable improvement when I tell them that the improvement in question is one for widening Abingdon Street, and making the approaches to this House more worthy of the metropolis. We also contemplate, if the House gives us permission, the extension of the New Embankment recently made beyond the House of Lords to Millbank. There will then be a continuous embankment from Battersea Bridge to Blackfriars Bridge. These objects are some of those we are striving to obtain by this Bill. Having frankly given up the only point of difference in regard to this Bill, notwithstanding that we thought our proposal would tend to the convenience of the whole of the metropolis, I trust that the Bill will now be allowed to go to a second reading and be reformed, as is usually the case. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir James Hogg.)

I can assure the House, and particularly my hon. and gallant Friend, that I have listened to the manly, and frank, and satisfactory statement which he has just made with particular pleasure. We all know that his word is his bond. We know that anything he promises himself will, as far as he is concerned, be thoroughly carried out; but he, of course, can only speak for himself, as far as he has power with those with whom he acts, and so long as his tenure of office remains. I am sure that from the very first time his attention was called to the matter from another point of view, wholly different from that to which it was first attracted, ho would be ready to do all that he could to meet the wishes of the rest of the House and of the public generally. However, I waited to see whether that which his official position enables him to propose would be that which I could honestly say would be permanently sufficient to meet our wishes. Personally, I should be glad of any clause which will prevent the Metropolitan Board of Works from carrying out their first intention. There were, however, rumours in the air of clauses leaving a contingent power of assent in no doubt very respectable hands. But no contingent right of destruction, however fenced, would have been sufficient. We want an absolute exclusion of this portico of St. Martin's Church. That absolute exclusion is now promised, and it is what I asked for. Before, however, the question drifts away, I should like to recall the recollection of the House to a little incident of past history. I am old enough to remember when Trafalgar Square was first made, and I have a very distinct recollection that the plan of Trafalgar Square was vitally altered before it was carried out. In those days people believed more in rectangles than they do at present. The picturesque had not grown up so much in architecture as it now has. Trafalgar Square was at first intended to be a rectangle, but in course of time Trafalgar Square was laid out, not as a rectangle, but as an open space, without one single right angle in it. And why was that? It was because a general and a just cry had arisen that this beautiful portico of St. Martin's was an object which ought to be brought into full view of all England in that part of London, where, as Dr. Johnson said—"The full tide of human existence passes Charing Cross." Actually the whole plan of Trafalgar Square was altered in order that this portico, steps and all, should be brought into full view; and how inconsistent it would be to have swept them away now. Still more inconsistent would it have been had the barge carrying away these steps met another barge from an opposite direction bringing Cleopatra's Needle to decorate that Thames Embankment which is the honour of my hon. and gallant Friend and of his Board. Our national monuments are not so many that we can afford to sacrifice any of them, and I hope that under the guidance of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) we shall be able to preserve a few pre-historic monuments. There are, however, other monuments, perhaps not so ancient, and artistic treasures of stones delicately carved, which are equally worthy of the attention of a great people. This is, I trust, the first and the last time that London and England will have to fear the hands of Vandalism being laid upon St. Martin's Portico, and I shall with much pleasure withdraw the Amendment of which I have given Notice.

I am anxious to say a few words before the Bill is read a second time. We have heard the arrangement which has been come to between my two hon. Friends, and I am not aware that any other hon. Member of the House is anxious to disturb their concord. I only wish to say that while I congratulate them upon having concurred on the subject of the Bill of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro, if my hon. and gallant Friend had gone to a division upon the second reading of the Bill against the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge I should have supported him; because I think the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the University was rather one which ought to be left to the consideration of a Committee. It forms only a very small part of a very large Bill, and I should certainly have deprecated any proposal for taking issue upon the whole question upon such an Amendment. I am glad, however, that the question has been satisfactorily settled between the contending parties, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge has every reason to congratulate himself upon his successful opposition.

My hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees has said that if there had been a division he would have supported the second reading of the Bill against the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the University because he considers that the question of St. Martin's Church is only a small portion of a very important Bill. But it appears to me that whether or not St. Martin's Church is to be destroyed as a national monument is a very important question, more important far than the absolute line to be taken by the road, because I believe that the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board and those who act with him would have been able to make the required road without touching the portico and steps of the church. I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend has taken the course he has; it is a most important question and principle that we have dealt with on this occasion. The object of the Metropolitan Board in these improvements is utilitarianism pure and simple. Is that principle to run riot through the public buildings of this metropolis? I venture to think that the House of Commons will never sanction such a principle as that. It has shown by the support which it has given to the Bill of the hon. Baronet opposite for the preservation of ancient monuments what its real views are; and I hope the action it has so taken will be a warning to the Metropolitan Board to respect the monuments in this metropolis less ancient than those under the charge of my hon. Friend (Sir John Lubbock). Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he will have the provisions of the Act 33 and 34 Vic. c. 22, extended to Ireland, so as to allow the Irish farmers the same privileges as the English and Scotch farmers have of germinating grain for the purposes of cattle feeding?

An Order in Council was passed by the Irish Privy Council on the 5th instant prohibiting the importation of animals into Ireland. The subject of germinating grain in Ireland for the feeding of cattle has been more than once brought under the notice of the House, and I have been in communication with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon it. The result of inquiries which have been made from the Constabulary and Inland Revenue authorities is to show that the Government would not be justified in proposing to extend the Act, 33 & 34 Vict. c. 22, to Ireland. Illicit distillation still prevails in that country to an extent quite unknown in Great Britain, and the extension of this Act to Ireland would largely increase the facilities for committing this offence; while, on the other hand, it would not seem that the want of this Act can impose any real hardship on Irish farmers, as it is almost a dead letter in Great Britain. It has now been in force there for six years, yet in all England and Wales there are only 182 farms at which the process sanctioned by it is carried on, while in Scotland there is only one.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to the Consular Return, No. 3, 1875, presented to this House; and, if he will be good enough to inform the House what Consular posts have been abolished in the disturbed provinces of European Turkey since the 1st of January 1872?

I am at some loss to understand why this Question has been put specially to me. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I may say that what I said on a former occasion was in answer to what had been said as to there being a network of Consuls and Vice Consuls all over the European Provinces of Turkey. I said that I believed that they had been diminished, and I find they have been. In two instances the Consuls have been abolished, and in a third instance it has been made an unpaid place. I said nothing about the disturbed districts. What I referred to was a despatch of Sir Henry Elliot, dated July 14, 1876, in which he said—

"I can add little to the statements in my despatch of the 6th instant. There is no British Consular Agent except at Adrianople, Rustchuk, and Bourgas, and they have seldom been able to guarantee the truth of the reports that reached them."

Again—

"I have not been able to verify the reports of cases of wholesale slaughter which have been brought forward."

These are the Reports I referred to. The Consuls now acting in the Provinces are the same as were appointed in 1872. Unfortunately, previously to 1872, the Consul at Philippopolis was removed, or there would have been earlier information of the events that took place in that district in the spring of last year.

Is it not the case that the Consul at Adrianople was, unfortunately, not in full possession of the power of bodily locomotion, and was, consequently, not able to pay visits to the disturbed districts?

I am unable to give the right hon. Gentleman any information on that point.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Why the Admiralty (Ireland) Act of 1876, extending the jurisdiction of the Recorders of Cork and Belfast has not been brought into operation, and when the procedure under the Act will be established?

, in reply, said, copies of the "Rules and Orders for the Local Courts of Admiralty in Ireland" were forwarded some time back by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to the Recorders of Cork and Belfast and the Northern Law Society of Belfast, for their observations, which have only been received by the Lord Chancellor within the last day or two. He informs me that he has now sent the amended copies to the Judge of the Court of Admiralty and the Queen's Advocate, in order that they may be finally approved by them. As soon as this has been done the Rules and Orders will be complete; but until the Treasury have approved of the alterations which have been suggested in the scale of fees, it will be hardly possible for the Act of last Session to come into operation.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If in consequence of the large increase in the number of recruits in Galway, the Government will advise the enrolment of the City of Galway Artillery, or increase the County Regiment of Militia to its original strength? MR. GATHORNE HARDY: The Galway Artillery Regiment has not been formed, because the Infantry regiment was unable to complete its establishment of ten companies. It has now been reduced to six companies, and the establishment is nearly complete. If on the expiration of the ensuing training the full number of men present themselves, there will be no objection to form the Artillery regiment.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he will consider the question of amalgamating some of the small poor law unions in Ireland, with a view to effecting a large saving of useless expenditure; and if the Local Government Board of Ireland have received any Petitions on the subject?

, There are very few "small Poor Law Unions" in Ireland, if the area of Irish Unions be compared with that of English Unions, and from none of the smallest of them have petitions for amalgamation been received by the Local Government Board. But I believe that some memorials on the subject have been received from other quarters; and I think it better to defer any statement with regard to it until the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) brings forward the proposal of which he has given Notice.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Sir Henry Elliot, having stated in Despatch No. 1,081 on page 745 of the Blue Book on Turkey, No. 1, 1877, that the Porte had sent him a note "giving unqualified denial of Mr. (Consul) Freeman's statements" as to atrocities committed in Bosnia by the Turks in the spring of 1876; and, that he had forwarded the Turkish note to Mr. Freeman for observations, ho will lay upon the Table Mr. Freeman's reply, if any, to the Porte's denial of his statements; and, if there was a reply, if he would explain to the House why it was not published in the Blue Book?

There has been no reply from Mr. Freeman to the Porte's denial of his statements upon the subject of the atrocities in Bosnia by the Turks in 1876. Papers on this subject (Turkey, No. 5) have to-day been laid upon the Table, comprising Mr. Freeman's original Report and the Porte's rejoinder.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been drawn to the practice of swearing-in recruits at Bow Street during the hours of public business, alluded to in the "Times" of February 5th as follows:—

"From the hours of three till five every day the narrow entrance to the building is literally besieged by a set of London roughs, who smoke, swear, and insult or annoy nearly every one who has to push through their ranks to reach the magistrates.… The officers in charge of the court are so utterly powerless to keep order that the attempt to restrain them is rarely made;"

and, whether he will take steps to arrange for the future swearing-in of recruits in a less annoying manner?

Every precaution is taken at Bow Street to prevent inconvenience being caused by the swearing-in of recruits, who latterly have been exceedingly numerous. They are sent down to Bow Street, as the nearest police court to the recruiting depot, under charge of an experienced non-commissioned officer, and when the number is very large half are sent to another police court; they are sent, too, at an hour when the usual business of the court is over. No doubt, inconvenience does occur; but the Assistant Adjutant General for London recruiting states that no complaint of any kind has ever been made to him on this subject, and that he has the authority of one of the magistrates of Bow Street to state that, as far as the conduct of the recruits in court is concerned, there is no complaint made by the magistrates.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to the state of affairs in South Africa, Whether, in the event of officers or men of the Reserve Forces or others volunteering to serve in South Africa, on the invitation of the Colonial authorities and in pursuance of arrangements by the Government, such service would be recognised so far as to provide for such volunteers a free passage to and from the Colony?

No application for service of the kind alluded to by the hon. Gentleman has been made to the Colonial Office. I would, however, point out that there are two distinct classes of force serving in the Colonies of South Africa—the colonial forces, which are recruited and maintained at the cost of each colony, with whose Government arrangements with regard to passages would have to be made by persons wishing to join such forces; and the contingent of British troops to which, of course, the hon. Gentleman's Question cannot apply.

I wish, Sir, to put a Question to you, with your leave, with regard to the Business of tomorrow. A large number of hon. Members have Notices on the Paper as Amendments to the Motion of Supply on the Question, that you, Sir, leave the Chair. Some, I understand, are willing to waive their right of speaking on their own Amendments, in order to allow the debate on Eastern Affairs to be resumed, while others are not; and I wish, therefore, to ask, whether, in the event of an hon. Member rising, you will call upon that Member; and whether you will kindly state to the House what is the position of the House with regard to the resumption of the debate which took place on the Order for going into Committee of Supply last Friday, and which was adjourned till to-morrow.

I will endeavour to explain to the House the position of the question for consideration to-morrow. On Friday last, on the Question that I do now leave the Chair to go into Committee of Supply, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, pursuant to Notice, asked certain Questions on Eastern affairs. No Amendment was proposed, but a debate ensued, which was ultimately adjourned; and there seemed to be a general understanding that the discussion should be renewed to-morrow. Had an Amendment been moved, the debate on that Question would necessarily be resumed to the exclusion of all other Amendments on going into Committee of Supply. But as the adjourned debate is simply on the Question that "I now leave the Chair," and as several Members have given Notice of Amendments for to-morrow upon that Question, some difficulty may arise as to the continuance of the adjourned debate. If no Member rises to move an Amendment, the adjourned debate will naturally proceed; but, otherwise, I shall be bound to put any Amendment which may be moved, and the discussion will then be confined to that Amendment. Should it be the general desire of the House to continue the adjourned debate, hon. Gentlemen who have Notices on the Paper may be probably willing to defer to the general wish of the House and not move their Amendments; but if these Amendments are moved, I shall be bound to put them in order to the House, and the general rules of debate will be followed.

I wish to make a few observations. ["Order."] If it is necessary I will conclude with a Motion. We are generally guided in these matters by the Government, or by the Leader of the Opposition, and I think it is a fair question to ask the Leaders on both sides whether the debate shall be continued to-morrow. If that is not settled, Members may come down here and find there is to be no debate on foreign affairs. It would be a very unfortunate circumstance if, as seems to be the determination, there is to be no debate on Eastern Affairs unless it be of a Party character. Of course, the Government are desirous that a distinct Vote of Confidence or No Confidence should be brought forward. That is perfectly evident. On the other hand there is a difference of opinion on this side of the House. Such a Motion, therefore, could not be brought forward with any chance of success. At the same time, we are, it is admitted, in a most critical position, and it is surely eminently desirable that we should not now repeat the history of the Crimean War and drift into difficulties which full and open discussion in this House would prevent. I therefore beg to ask respectfully the Leaders of the Opposition — [Cries of "Which of them!"] — the Leader, I beg pardon. I recognize however three Leaders of the Opposition; I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I would ask the noble Lord, Whether it is his intention to influence those who will be influenced by him to withdraw their Motions and allow this debate to go on. And if so, I would also ask the Leader of the House if he will use his influence to permit this debate to go on. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

, in seconding the Motion, said: It is quite certain that anyone who has been a few years in this House would never hesitate to withdraw a Motion the pressing of which, at a particular moment, was against the wish of the House; but I could not withdraw my Motion for tomorrow night without making, in a few words, a protest against the conduct of the Leader of the House. If the continuance of the debate on Friday last is for the general interest of the public it should have been continued, in my opinion, in Government time, and the Government should have given a Government day. If it is not for the. interest of the public that the debate should continue, then they ought to have left it to take care of itself, and not to have brought the great weight and authority of the Leader of the House to suggest a day, a suggestion which, whatever the form in which it might be couched, was virtually taking a second day from private Members. Why that suggestion was made, and why the debate is to be continued, I own personally I do not see. That debate turned on certain questions connected with Treaties well known to the House. A few—less than a few—one or two at the most—important points were raised, and these points were solved in the very able speech of the Secretary of State for War; a speech which, at the time, I thought I understood, but which, on reading it afterwards, I found was a still more complete exposition of the view of the Government with regard to the Treaties than I thought: and if any doubt were left in the mind of any hon. Gentleman, that doubt would have been removed by the admirably clear speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). That debate cannot now be resumed without our being led into a desultory discussion, with no definite issue; and in my opinion, considering the critical state of the Continent—for we are all of us patriots before we are Party men—considering that three weeks may plunge us into the middle of a war, if not the greatest, the most complicated in our time, I think the continuance of this aimless debate would be undesirable. Already we are told the applications for admission to the Strangers' Gallery are more numerous than was ever known; and I think that in a debate of that kind, the gentlemen who get seats there will not so much get information about the Treaties concerning Turkey as on certain topics which will rather conduce to their amusement than tend to raise their idea of the dignity of the House. But if the House is not of this opinion—if the House, as a body, thinks this debate should be continued—I have received too much indulgence at the hands of the House to stand between it and its wishes. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Mitchell Henry.)

Until a few minutes ago I had no idea that this Question was to be asked. I shall be quite ready to go on with my Amendment to-morrow evening, or to abstain from doing so. If the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), or the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington), or any prominent Member of the Opposition, wishes to move a substantive Resolution to-morrow in the form of an Amendment to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, I am willing to withdraw. But I will not withdraw unless the Resolution is a formal and distinct one, and on the issue that this House expresses a distinct opinion on the policy of Her Majesty's Government as regards the Eastern Question.

Sir, the inconvenient position in which the House finds itself appears to me to be altogether due to the unfortunate occurrence which took place towards the end of the debate last Friday evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) rose at a somewhat late hour on that occasion, and avowing at the outset of his remarks that he did not intend to address a single word to the discussion of the question which had been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), proceeded to make some observations upon my right hon. Friend's conduct, which I think in the unanimous opinion of the House entitled, if it did not compel, my right hon. Friend to rise immediately to reply. That circumstance prevented some of my Friends who sit near me from making some observations which they wished to make upon the speech which had been delivered earlier in the evening by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War—a speech which, in their opinion, left in a somewhat unsatisfactory position, in the absence of further explanation, the question which had been raised as to the situation of the country and of the Government with regard to our Treaty engagements and our Treaty obligations. But for the interruption to which I have referred the debate might well have been concluded last Friday night, and the inconvenient questions which have now come before the House for decision would never have arisen at all. The question for the consideration of the House now is, whether the discussion raised by my right hon. Friend is to be continued, and, if so, upon what day and under what conditions. Sir, I have no more desire than my hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), or my hon. Friend the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan), that the debate should develop itself into a general and wide discussion upon the question of the East. I do, however, hold an opinion, as I have just stated, that it is not altogether satisfactory that the question as to our Treaty engagements should be left, after the partial discussion which has occurred, without further explanation from the Government; and, therefore, I do hope that either to-morrow, by the forbearance of private Members, or on a future day by the assistance of the Government, the discussion will be resumed. I am perfectly in accord with hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on this side of the House in the view they have expressed that it is not desirable to take the present opportunity of bringing on a full and exhaustive discussion of the Eastern Question. In saying this I am perfectly aware that if the discussion is resumed it is impossible to prevent, and it is perhaps unavoidable that the discussion will be of a somewhat wide character. The speech of the Secretary of State for War, to which I have referred, travelled to a very considerable extent—perhaps not an unjustifiable extent—beyond the limits which had been opened by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, I am not unmindful of the statement which was made at the conclusion of the debate by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who informed us that we were at that time in a crisis as grave as any that had occurred during the long progress of these negotiations. I am not unmindful of the declarations which have been made by Members of Her Majesty's Government in "another place," declarations which we have heard with the greatest satisfaction — that the negotiations were not brought to an end by the termination of the Conference, and that Her Majesty's Government have not abandoned the hope of continuing the accord which was established with the other Powers, and of bringing about in some way the object for which the Conference met. Sir, I say that I am not unmindful of those declarations, and that we have heard them with the greatest satisfaction. and I am prepared to say that if, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, a resumption of the discussion—which may, and probably will, become a discursive discussion, will in any way embarrass the position of the Government, we on this side of the House have not in the smallest degree a wish to add to the difficulties of the situation. Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for Galway and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir William Fraser) referred to a subject upon which, without entering into any argument, I should like to say a few words in order to remove some misconception which seems to exist as to the raising of a definite issue. It appears that it will be impossible to resume the debate to-morrow, because the hon. Member for Kidderminster has informed the House that he will not waive his privilege unless it is the intention of someone on this Bench to bring before the House what he calls a definite issue. I will state for the information of the hon. Member that, so far as I am aware, it is not the intention of any Member sitting on this Bench to bring forward to-morrow such a Resolution as he described. But, Sir, what is meant by these challenges that are constantly thrown out as to a definite issue? Do they mean that the Opposition is to pro- pose a policy for the acceptance of the House and for the guidance of the Government? Sir, that, in my opinion, is not the duty of the Opposition. The policy which ought to be pursued at the present moment must depend to a very great extent—to an enormous extent—upon the intentions and views of foreign Governments. And though we have some information, and are able to form some conjecture as to what these views may be, still we do not pretend to be, and we are not in possession of full information on that subject. It is only from information in possession of Her Majesty's Government that we could propound a policy for the acceptance of Parliament. We are told, however, that if it is not incumbent upon us to propound a policy for the acceptance of Parliament, it is, at all events, our duty either to express disapproval of the policy of Her Majesty's Government or adherence to it. That proposition, also, I venture to deny. When you speak of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, if you refer to the past policy, our allegation is that the policy of Her Majesty's Government has been to a great extent modified, and has been beneficially modified, by the expression of public opinion out-of-doors. And we reserve to ourselves the right, and whatever may be said on the other side we shall continue to reserve to ourselves the right, of selecting our own time—we reserve to ourselves the right of deciding whether the time has arrived, or when the time may have arrived, for inviting an expression of the opinion of the House on the subject. If by the policy of Her Majesty's Government is meant the present policy as distinct from the past policy of Her Majesty's Government, why, then, I say that we do not very clearly know what that present policy is. We have been told very frequently what the policy of Her Majesty's Government is not. We have been told it is not a policy of coercion. But a policy cannot be constructed on any number of negatives, and to tell us that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is not coercion does not necessarily convey to our minds a complete idea of what that policy is. We do not complain of this. The Government have, no doubt, excellent reasons for not entering into full details of the position of the negotiations which are being carried on at the present moment. We are rejoiced to hear that negotiations are in progress—negotiations with a view to the continuance of the European concert; but it is idle to ask us in this state of things to approve or to condemn the policy of a Government as to which we are not altogether actually informed, when we could only base opposition on a negative or a series of negatives. For these reasons we do not consider that we are bound to raise at this moment what is called a definite issue for the decision of Parliament. We do not accept for one moment the proposition that in doing so we abandon any of the legitimate functions of the Opposition, because we believe that there are several functions of opposition which we are entitled, and are bound to exercise. We believe that it is our right and duty to point out generally the policy which, in our opinion, ought to be avoided, and the general direction of that which we think ought to be adopted. We are also of opinion that we have a right, and that it is our duty to do what we can to examine the policy of the Government, and not only to examine it, but to enable the country to examine it and to understand it. We believe that by the exercise of these functions during the Recess much public advantage has been already gained, and that in the continuance of the exercise of those functions much public advantage is still to be gained. A Government enjoying the confidence of a majority of this House has great rights and powers. They have at their disposal all the resources of the country, and a majority to enforce their will, but the minority have also rights. I deny, however, that the majority ever had or can have, as seems to be presumed by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, the right to invent a policy for or dictate one to the Opposition, or to insist on the time or manner in which that policy is to be proclaimed.

I wish, in the first place, to correct what I think was an entire delusion on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan). He imputed to me, and with some warmth, conduct of which he thought he had a just right to complain with reference to the continuance of the discussion which was opened on Friday last; but it seems to me that he misunderstood what I then said. The state of the case was this—No Motion had been submitted to the House, but a debate, or what may rather be called a conversation, was raised which went on throughout the evening. At the close of the evening there were still, as the noble Lord has just reminded us, some Members of the House who were desirous of taking part in that conversation, which was originated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, and which turned on the construction of certain Treaties. But for the interruption to which the noble Lord has referred we should in all probability have had more speeches on that subject, and further remarks might have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. A Motion for the adjournment of the debate was, however, made, and it was evident from the feeling of the House that it would not have been possible again to take up the thread of the somewhat technical discussion which had been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich. That being so, the House agreed to the adjournment of the debate, and the question was then raised as to the day on which the discussion should be resumed. There was only a choice between a Government night or a private Members' night for the purpose, and what I said was that, under the circumstances, there having been no Motion submitted to the House and no distinct issue raised, I was not disposed to give up the Government business either on Monday or to-night for the purpose of renewing the conversation. If a Motion had been before the House—I do not mean even one involving censure, but raising a definite issue—if, for instance, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich had moved that a certain construction ought to be placed on the Treaties to which he referred, or anything of that sort, or there was any prospect of our arriving at a vote or decision on the part of the House, I should have felt differently. But it appeared to me that there was, under the circumstances, no adequate cause for giving a Government night to resume such a conversation as that in which we were engaged. Then what was to be done? I regret that by naming Friday, the next day on which Supply was to be taken, as a day on which the discussion might be continued, I should seem to have given any encouragement to those by whom it was originated to interfere with hon. Members who had Notices on the Paper. I certainly had no intention of doing anything of the kind. I could not but remember that the discussion on Friday last was arrived at by hon. Members surrendering their Motions for that day, and that it would be very inconvenient to other hon. Members who have Motions down for Friday next to give way. It seemed to me that it was a case in which the Government stood in a delicate position, for if we had used our influence to induce those hon. Members to insist on going on with their Motions, we might possibly be accused of flinching from a discussion which we certainly did not flinch from. That was the only reason why I mentioned Friday as a day on which the debate might be resumed. I was, perhaps, technically in the wrong in having done so much as that, for there being no Question before the House it would have been perfectly in Order for those who had Motions on the Paper to persevere with them. The practical question how, however, is what are we to do under the circumstances. I own it appears to me that there was great force in what has been said by several hon. Gentlemen, that unless there is some real definite object to be arrived at it is not particularly convenient to renew at the present moment an irregular discussion. I do not at all desire to dispute the doctrine which the noble Lord has just laid down as to the duties of the Opposition. Far be it from us to prescribe, or to attempt to prescribe, to the Opposition or to any Member of the House the course which they should follow in regard to matters of this importance. If they think it right to challenge our conduct or to submit to the House anything either in the nature of a Vote of Censure or an alternative vote to the effect that such or such a line of policy ought to be pursued, we should feel that the importance of such a Motion was great enough to render it necessary for us, unless there was the strongest reason against it, to name a convenient day for such a discussion. If, on the contrary, the Opposition think it more prudent or expedient to put Questions, and in that way to endeavour to elicit information on the subject, we do not complain of the adoption of that course. We do not complain, for instance, of what has been done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, who desired to elicit information with regard to those particular Treaties, and if the Opposition deem it desirable to do so by all means let steps be taken to put such Questions; but I do think that it is not desirable that we should be called upon to make sacrifices and give up Government time in order that hon. Members should make inquiries that are not pointed to anything definite, and which might lead to a general discussion of an inconvenient character. It is not desirable that we should give any facilities for such a purpose; and I would even go further and venture to say, taking up what has been suggested by the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington), that unless there is some real and very clear advantage in renewing this discussion, I do not think the present a very convenient time for its renewal. The noble Lord stated very fairly what the general attitude of the Government is at this moment. It is not a position in which the door is closed, and you have nothing to do but to look back on matters which have come to an end, for at this moment negotiations of considerable importance are in progress; and although I do not go so far as to say that it would lead to great public inconvenience necessarily that we should speak at all upon Eastern affairs, yet I think this is not a moment which it is desirable to choose for the purpose. I hope things may still turn out better than some suppose; but I do not mean now to enter into matters of that kind. I would merely venture to suggest, looking at the attitude of all parties and Governments concerned, that it would be better to postpone this debate for the present. I refrain from saying more, lest it should be supposed that we desire to prevent discussion.

said, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman he had no wish to press on the discussion. At the same time, he did not think that the policy of "not speaking to the man at the wheel" had in former times conduced to peace; and he was certain that the country would not much longer tolerate the mysteries of Eastern diplomacy. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

I am anxious to call the attention of the House to some circumstances connected with this measure which appear to me to have been overlooked in the debate that took place on the second reading of this Bill. It appears to me that the majority, who support the Government on this Bill, have been acting and voting somewhat mechanically on the subject. This seems to be the case, because the policy now pursued by the Government is not consistent with the antecedents of their Party, or consistent with the general course of conduct which might be expected from a Party professing Conservative principles. When this Bill, or one very like it, was introduced last Session, by the present Government, that was the first occasion in the history of the Conservative Party, so far as I can trace it, when a direct attack was made by a Conservative Government upon the great principle of local self-government in relation to the imprisonment of criminals, and the infliction of punishment. I know it has been said that there has been au unexpected, though not at all universal, concurrence of opinion on this subject on the part of the courts of quarter sessions; but I should like for a moment to recall the attention of the House to what occurred in the last Session. A Prisons Bill having been introduced, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Home Department endeavoured to push it through a second reading at somewhat short notice, but at the desire of hon. Members of this House the right hon. Gentleman deferred the second reading, because the time for holding the quarter sessions was near at hand. I can answer for it, in one case at any rate, that a very small proportion of the magistrates assembled in quarter sessions had really had time to consider or understand the Bill, whilst hon. Members who are anxious to support the Government in their new policy, posted down to the various quarter sessions, and claimed the votes of many justices rather as a matter of Party allegiance than on the merits of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!" and a voice "No!"] Well, I am glad to hear that there has been some exception to the action I have described, and which I witnessed myself in one court of quarter sessions. I say, then, deliberately, that with the exception of the Middlesex quarter sessions, most of the courts of quarter sessions were taken by surprise, and in many cases voted their assent to the Bill, without giving it the full consideration it ought to have received, and which it would have had but for the fact that it was introduced by a Government with whose general policy in other respects the majority of the county justices have agreed, but to that policy this Bill certainly forms a very marked exception. We have had, Sir, an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State that no one is more devoted to the principle of local government than he himself; and he asks us to accept this Bill as an illustration, I suppose, of his devotion to the principle of local government. Now, there is a great distinction between what may be termed "local government" and local self-government. The right hon. Gentleman proposes by his Bill to place a certain number of justices in the position of inspector of prisons commissioned to report to him and not to the court of quarter sessions. He reverses the position of the prison inspectors and of the visiting justices. He makes the inspectors and the commissioners the exponents of the power and sole control over the gaols which he seeks, while he commands the visiting committee of justices, whom he would appoint, and orders them to visit gaols to report to him as the central authority; and this is the manifestation he presents to us of his devotion to the ancient principle of local self-government. He then enunciated an extraordinary opinion with respect to the common law of this country, which he declares that by this Bill he does not infringe. With the permission of the House, I will quote the expressions of the right hon. Gentleman, expressions in which he seemed to deny that this Bill, if passed, would constitute what he considers an infringement of the great principle of the common law in the matter of local self-government. The right hon. Gentleman said—

"The hon. Member-for North Warwickshire said that the Bill would interfere with common law, and quoted Lord Coke. But Lord Coke had laid it down that gaols could only be erected by the authority of Parliament. Gaols were always created by statute. But statutes could abolish thorn without interfering with the common law. Equally so far as the Justices were concerned they had no power by law over the gaols."

[Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: By common law, I said.] I accept the right hon. Gentleman's correction. "Justices by common law had no power over a gaol." [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: Hear, hear!] Then am I to understand that no statute can afford proof of the requirements of the common law? That may be the right hon. Gentleman's opinion. I quoted a high authority the other night to show that statutes are very often explanatory, very often declaratory, of the common law, and that they much more often limit, and specially direct, than contravene the operation of the common law. But the right hon. Gentleman says further that the justices have no common law right over gaols. How is that, Sir? For by this very Bill ho not only abolished the control which the magistrates have hitherto exercised, as Her Majesty's officers, in the regulation of gaols, in accordance with the common law, but also by this Bill he seeks to abolish the responsibility of the office of sheriff, in the matter of the custody of the great mass of prisoners in these gaols, and places himself at once in the position, or, to use a familiar phrase, in the shoes, not only of the justices, but also of the sheriff. Yet the right hon. Gentleman says this is no infraction of the common law. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be a high authority; but, with the permission of the House, I will read what is Lord Coke's definition of common law.

"Common law" (Lex Communis), says Lord Coke, "is taken for the law of this kingdom simply without any other law; as it was generally holden before any statute was enacted in Parliament to alter the same, and the King's Courts of Justice are called the Common Law Courts. The common law is founded upon the general customs of the realm, and includes in it the law of nature, the law of God, and the principles and maxims of the law. It is founded upon reason, and is said to be the perfection of reason, acquired by long study, observation, and experience, and refined by learned men in all ages. And it is the common birthright that the subject hath for the safeguard and defence, not only of his goods, lands, and revenues, but of his wife and children, body, fame, and life also."—[Coke upon Littleton, 97, 142. Treatise of Laws.]

Then what says Lord Hale? According to Hale—

"The common law of England is the common rule for administering justice within this kingdom, and asserts the King's royal prerogative, and likewise the rights and the liberties of the subject. It is generally that law, by which the determinations in the King's ordinary courts are guided, and this directs the course of descents of lands, the nature, extent, and qualification of estates, and thereon the manner and ceremonials of conveying them from one to another, with the forms, solemnities, and obligation of contracts, the rules and directions for the exposition of deeds and Acts of Parliament, the process, proceedings, judgments, and executions of our Courts of Justice; also the limits and bounds of Courts and jurisdictions, the several kinds of temporal offences and punishments, and their application," &c.—[Hale's History of the Common Law, pp. 24, 44, 45.]

Well, Sir, I presume that the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that the sheriff is by common law a representative of the King's authority in every county wherein he acts, during the term of his office, and that he is essentially a common law officer. The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that, inasmuch as common law is the growth of custom, the property of gaols before any statute was passed was vested in the justices as the representatives of the ratepayers, and is therefore the property of the county or borough, held by them in trust for the Crown, in trust for the execution of the law with respect to prisoners; and yet the right hon. Gentleman, knowing, as he ought to know, the nature of the common law, and that by the common law the great principle of local self-government exists throughout the country, and has done so for ages, comes down to this House and proposes to displace the magistrates, as trustees of the Crown, and to displace the sheriff, as the custodian of the prisoners in every county, and tells us that in thus centralizing the possession of this property and the authority over these prisoners, and the execution of justice in his own office, and yet he tells us that he proposes nothing in contravention of the common law. Sir, it is my desire that this delusion should be dispelled; and to show the House how this Bill violates a fundamental principle of common law, I will refer to a case that proves my position. The poisoner, Palmer, was captured at Rugeley, and imprisoned in the gaol at Stafford. Such was the general conviction of his guilt that his counsel thought he could not have a fair trial in the midland counties, for we in the midland counties knew him; and, to the best of my belief, if it had been possible for him to have escaped a conviction for the murder of my acquaintance—I may say my friend, Mr. Cooke, for I knew him well—this Palmer would have been immediately tried for two other murders. I am perfectly cognizant of this case. Was there, under these circumstances, any common law power, or statutable power to remove the trial to the Central Criminal Court? No! The common law directed that the man should be imprisoned, and, if convicted, whatever the penalty might be, that he should suffer that penalty within the jurisdiction in which he had committed his crime. It was not thought desirable to make a special statute for this special case, which might appear ex post facto and personal legislation; so a Bill was brought into the House of Lords by Lord Chancellor Cranworth, which was a general Bill, to modify and direct the operation of the common law, and thus become a part of the common law itself. The Trial of Offences Bill was brought in by Lord Cranworth on the 5th of February, 1856; and what did he say?

"The Lord Chancellor said he had to present a Bill of an important character, which it was desirable should be sanctioned with as little delay as possible, to enable the Court of Queen's Bench to order certain offences to be tried at the Central Criminal Court. When a person was charged in the country with any serious offence which was likely to prejudice him in the eyes of the neighbourhood, it was competent for the Court of Queen's Bench to remove the proceedings into that Court. The case would then be tried in ordinary course in the Court of Queen's Bench by a trial at bar—a process which was not only attended with considerable expense, but occupied a great amount of time, and was not a convenient mode of trial for felony. It was therefore desirable that, at the discretion of the Court, such cases should be sent for trial to a more convenient tribunal, the Central Criminal Court."—[3 Hansard, cxl. 218.]

Lord Cranworth then went on to say there were doubts as to the legal power thus to remove the case to the Central Criminal Court, and that he presented the Bill to solve those doubts. These doubts had arisen, because common law primarily prescribed that the man should be tried at Stafford, in which county the offence was committed, and because, al- though the common law recognised the power of the Court of Queen's Bench to claim the trial of any prisoner elsewhere, the common law had not recognised the Central Criminal Court, for it is a comparatively modern Court. The Trial of Offences Bill was, therefore, carried for the purpose of enabling such cases as that of Palmer to be removed from the county where the offence was committed, and to be tried at the Central Criminal Court, after application had been made to the Court of Queen's Bench. When the second reading of the Bill came on Lord Campbell stated that—

"It often happened that a fair and impartial trial could not be had in the county where the offence was committed; and when that was the case an application might now be made to the Court over which he presided to remove the indictment by certiorari into the Court of Queen's Bench; but then it could only be tried in an adjoining county, or by a trial at bar, both of which might be very inconvenient. In the Central Criminal Court, however, such a case could very well be heard, and very little delay would arise in bringing on a trial in this way."—[Ibid. 512.]

Lord Campbell admitted that the rule according to the common law was that the offender should be imprisoned and tried within the local jurisdiction (the county) in which he committed the offence, but also that the common law had recognised exceptions to this rule in particular cases, when an offender might be tried in an adjoining county, and that the only other alternative was a trial at bar, at which the attendance of all the Judges would be requisite, and which would thus be inconvenient. The Trial of Offences Bill was read a second time on the 11th of February, 1856. In April it was passed into law, and on the 14th of May, Palmer was tried and convicted at the Central Criminal Court. Then came in the operation of common law again. Having been convicted and sentenced to death in the Central Criminal Court, was he executed in London? No. For the injunction of the common law is that the offender should be returned to the scene of his crime, and accordingly he was sent back to Stafford Gaol, and was there executed on the 14th of June, 1856. Now this is a case in point, and proves how strong is the common law of the country in maintaining the great principles of local self-government; for the rule of the common law is, that every man who commits an offence must be imprisoned where the offence is committed, and if convicted he must be executed in that county, and it was only by a special statute that there could be a departure from the principle of local self-government in the trial of Palmer—an exception not extended to his execution. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department says that he does not interfere with the common law by means of this Bill. Why, he has brought in a Bill to suspend the operation of common law in every county and borough in the United Kingdom, with respect to the possession by the authorities of these localities of their prisons—to suspend the functions of their magistrates, to suspend the functions of their sheriffs, and then he says—"I am doing nothing to intercept the operation of the common law," which he has not denied to be founded on the principle of local self-government. The right hon. Gentleman by this Bill is not satisfied with verifying his own dictum that every gaol must exist or be abolished by Act of Parliament, but he takes power to sweep away any or all of the gaols from the counties and boroughs of this country from the jurisdiction under which they exist, and to appropriate that jurisdiction to the central authority, which at present is vested in himself. Is this, Sir, no infraction of the principle of the common law? I beg the House not to pass this Bill lightly, though there may be a large majority in its favour. I own that I was rather disappointed at the conduct of the noble Lord at the head of the Opposition and of the other Members of the late Administration, who absented themselves from the division on the second reading of this Bill the other night. During the last Session of Parliament they twice voted against this Bill; once against the second reading and once against its further progress. Why have they all deserted when this same Bill has been again introduced this Session? True, they have not consented to the principle of the Bill. I am glad to say that they seem to object to the principle of the Bill as strongly as I do; but I ask, again, why they deserted the House when a division was called on the second reading of the Bill? Sir, I regard their conduct as proving that they have not yet learned the duties of an Opposition. What is the duty of an Opposition? Clearly this:—If they have a definite objection to any measure the Opposition ought to oppose it, and if they are left in a minority they must trust to their position being improved in the opinion of the country through the fulfilment of their duty. There are one or two other points which I should like briefly to touch upon with respect to this Bill, and first with regard to the forces that support it. The force which is most usually referred to is the demand for a remission of local taxation, urged upon this House and the Government by the Chambers of Agriculture. Hon. Members, and particularly the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke), declared in the late debate on the second reading of this Bill that that was the motive of his votes; and the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire went beyond that, and said that he, for one, would not be satisfied with the transference to the Consolidated Fund of the charge for the prisons of England and Wales, but would demand that the charge for the country police should also become a charge on the national Exchequer, and I suppose he would go as far as the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes), and transfer the charge for lunatic asylums also to the Consolidated Fund. Now, although the Government declare that they will stop in this course of centralisation after they shall have, by the passing of this Bill, effected the centralisation of all property in and all the authority over the gaols, their supporters in this House, and their supporters out-of-doors in Chambers of Agriculture—not in all cases, perhaps, but in the majority of instances—declare that this is but a first step in the process of what they call relief from the burden of local taxation, which is worked in such a manner that it involves in each case a further resort to the process of centralisation. There is a force urging forward this measure to which I should like to direct the attention of the House. Ever since the year 1862 there has been a pressure brought to bear by the Roman Catholic Members of this House in favour of appointing regularly paid Roman Catholic chaplains in every county and borough prison. In that year Mr. Pope Hennessy brought in a Bill which would have rendered it obligatory upon every bench of magistrates, whether borough or county, to appoint a Roman Catholic chaplain, to keep a Creed register, and to assign to the sole care and direction of every Roman Catholic prisoner, whose name was entered in the register as a Roman, Catholic, to a regularly-appointed and paid Roman Catholic chaplain. By that Bill, moreover, the prisoner was debarred of any option as to receiving the visits of the Roman Catholic priest; and the Bill would also have forbidden access to such prisoner, being a Roman Catholic, on the part of any other minister of religion than the Roman Catholic chaplain. That was the Bill which Mr. Pope Hennessy brought in; and I have here an account, given in The Tablet newspaper, of that Bill having been, prior to its introduction, examined by the Roman Catholic Bishops, and sanctioned by Cardinal Wiseman. That measure was avowedly promoted by Cardinal Wiseman and the Ultramontane Party in this country. Sir George Grey, who was then Home Secretary, declared that he could not assent to a measure that would have entailed the appointment of so great a number, perhaps not less than 116 Roman Catholic chaplains on such terms; but he promised to bring in a Bill the following year on the subject. Accordingly in 1863 he introduced and carried the Bill called the Prison Ministers Bill. That Bill provided that the justices might at their discretion appoint Roman Catholic chaplains, and that on the special request of any Roman Catholic prisoner, or of a prisoner of any other religious denomination, a minister of his religion might visit him, and that the prisoner should not be compelled to attend the services of the Church of England, or accept the ministrations of the Church of England chaplain. Now, that Bill satisfied the principles of religious freedom; but were Roman Catholic Members satisfied? I have a record here on that head. Not in the least, Although the Bill passed in 1863 gave perfect freedom of worship to every prisoner who was not a member of the Church of England, the agitation continued until in the year 1865 Sir George Grey introduced and carried a general Bill for the consolidation and amendment of the laws relating to prisons. Still, however, Sir George Grey, supported by the Conservative Party, and by his own friends the Whigs, and the great majority of the House, refused to render compulsory the appointment of a Roman Catholic chaplain to every county and borough gaol in England and Wales; but he did go a step further towards satisfying the Roman Catholic demand. He consented that the direct request of the prisoner should not be necessary to bring him a Roman Catholic priest or the minister of a Dissenting church, as the case might be, but that the Roman Catholic priest or other minister might visit the prisoner if the latter did not object to receive his ministrations. Well, did even this concession satisfy the Roman Catholic demand? Not in the least. The Ultramontane agitation continued, and in the year 1866 the O'Conor Don moved a Resolution in this House, directed and especially aimed against the local authorities in charge of the county and borough prisons in Great Britain, because they did not use the discretion which was vested in them by the Prisons Act of 1863 and 1865 and appoint in most of their gaols, as permanent officers, Roman Catholic chaplains. In the year 1870 my Friend, the late Mr. Maguire, obtained the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to inquire into the conduct of the magistrates. He asked me to serve on that Committee, but I refused, because in moving for that Committee he had shown his animus to be still more determined than that of Mr. Pope Hennessy. These were the words which he used. He said, speaking of the Middlesex magistrates, "all that was required was that the same state of things should exist in this country as existed in Ireland." In speaking of the justices of the peace, he used the words "incorrigible bigots," and said he "was prepared to justify the use of those words. There were 800 prisoners in the gaols of Middlesex. In two of the prisons the law had not been put in force. In the other three it was inoperative." What did he mean by that? Why, that the magistrates had not appointed Roman Catholic chaplains in all the gaols, though in all they had obeyed the Acts of Parliament and allowed access by Roman Catholic priests to the prisoners whenever requested and when these evils were not objected to by the prisoners themselves. Still the agitation continued after 1870, until in 1872 a Bill was passed by the House of Lords; to this hour there is open discontent among the Catholic priests, because only 10 of their number have been appointed chaplains, although county and borough prisons are in number 116, whilst in the case of the convict prisons, of which there are 12, eight Roman Catholic chaplains have been appointed. We know, then, from their conduct during the last 15 years that the Roman Catholic hierarchy are disposed to attack the magistracy of this country, and deprive them of their control over the prisons, on the special ground that they have not appointed as many Roman Catholic chaplains as the hierarchy desire. That is another force of the attack directed against the magistracy of this country. And what is the third? The third is an importation of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary himself. The right hon. Gentleman, in depriving the justices of the peace of the direction and control of the prisons, takes from them the appointment of all the officers. No doubt the proposal receives the approbation of Cardinal Manning, who, like the late Cardinal Wiseman, prefers that the Home Office should have the appointment of the prison chaplains rather than the local magistrates. He takes from the justices the appointment of all the officers, and what does he tell us? That he intends to incorporate in the Civil Service, already much overloaded, all the officers of the goals he intends to retain for the boroughs and counties of England and Wales; he has thus enlisted the Civil Service in his attack upon the unpaid magistracy. Then the right hon. Gentleman says, with reference to the subject of patronage, that he cannot conceive how the magistrates can wish to retain that patronage. Well, if the right hon. Gentleman finds patronage to be so very inconvenient, and desires to avoid trouble, why does he remain Secretary of State? Why does he, by accumulating patronage by this Bill, seek to place an additional burden on his already over-weighted shoulders? He says that he desires to increase the efficiency of the Service by giving opportunities for the promotion of those officers through their removal from one gaol to another, at the discretion of the central authority; and he declares that he proposes all these changes from a desire to enforce uniformity. I have heard another extraordinary reason for this measure. I have heard it said that because railways now cover the entire country, and that criminals can travel with greater ease than formerly, and that because the communication of intelligence is so rapid, that there can be no reason for preserving local self-government in the control and management of the prisoners or gaols. Thieves may travel by railway, but their offences must be local. Does not common sense tell one that, if access by railway is so easy to every part of Great Britain, and communication by telegraph is so rapid, supervision by the central authority must be ten times easier, and there is therefore less reason for depriving the several localities of self-government in the matter of their prisoners and gaols? Such arguments as these appear to me to have had undue weight with the Members of this House, who are now asked to reverse the policy which, to my knowledge, the Conservative Party have pursued for 30 years, in order to oust their brother justices from a jurisdiction, the exercise of which has resulted in a diminution of crime to such a degree that the comparative freedom of this country from crime has become one of its advantages in the eyes of all civilized nations. Do not tell me that prison discipline has nothing to do with the administration of justice. Sir, I am sorry to say that I have had to resist political pressure, put upon me to support or to make applications for the remission of sentences under the modern system of prison discipline—applications made to the Secretary of State. I have resisted those applications sternly—nay more, twice in this House it has been my duty to impugn the discretion of the Home Secretary, for the time being, in recommending the exercise of Her Majesty's prerogative of mercy. In both cases I was exposed to the whole political pressure of the organization which seeks the abolition of capital punishment, and I never undertook such a painful task in my life. From this experience I view with extreme jealousy the transfer of judicial authority to a political officer like the right hon. Gentleman. In this lies one of my distinct objections to this Bill. The Commissioners appointed to inquire into the exercise of the prerogative of mercy recommended that there should be a Council of non-political officers ap- pointed to aid the Home Secretary, in order to counteract the possibility of political influence being used in the exercise of this, his judicial function. This House, by a large majority, gives a Government which calls itself "Conservative" power to strike down some of the best securities for the freedom and safety of Her Majesty's subjects, by destroying a branch of local self-government under the common law which has existed for centuries in local control of the local prisons in every county and borough throughout England and Wales. I wish the House distinctly to see the course upon which it may be embarked; if the House still persists in passing this Bill, which infringes the fundamental principle of ancient common law—I am told that this Bill will be forced on—then, Sir, I trust that this Bill will be treated as an exception to the future course of legislation, and that it will not prove to be a step in the direction of further centralization. I thank the House most sincerely for the kindness with which it has allowed me to trespass upon its time thus far; but now that the Constitution of this country is assailed in one of its vital parts, I ask the House to permit me to quote a document, and an opinion of one whose authority I believe the House will recognize as of the highest character, and to whom I referred in the debate on the second reading of this Bill—I mean the late M. de Tocqueville. Now, Sir, not only by the Bill before us, but by the whole process of centralizing legislation which has been going on too rapidly within the last few years, you have been approximating to the system of Beaurocracy which has attained such proportions in France, the system of the Code Naopleon; and here let me ask the House to mark the difference between the common law of England and the principle of the Code Napoleon of France; the Code, moreover, which now forms the basis of the administration and government of the greater part of Europe. The common law of England is founded upon the customs, the feelings, the practice of the nation, as illustrated in the various localities. The Code Napoleon is founded upon the Roman law. In the one case responsibility and authority are assumed to exist with the nation according to the classification of the inhabitants of the realm: that is the common law of England. In the other case the head of the State is the source of responsibility, authority, and power. That is the Code Napoleon. In France the head of the State is responsible for the peace of the whole country. In England every county, every borough, nay, every hundred, is responsible for the peace of the locality. Under the common law of England, it was provided on the 10th of April, 1848, every man is bound to act as a constable when called on by lawful authority. Under the Code Napoleon no man is allowed to act as a constable unless he is a paid officer of the State, and every man is liable to the conscription as a soldier. Under the Code Napoleon the first duty of the citizen is to serve as a soldier. Under the common law of England the first duty of the subject is to act as a constable. True, he may be pressed to serve in the Militia; but that is only a secondary duty. The House will understand this difference. It will understand that under the common law of England the whole nation is engaged in the maintenance of its peace. Under the Code Napoleon the head of the State is solely responsible for internal peace. In the difference between these two principles of Government, you will discover the greater security for internal peace which has been enjoyed in England as contrasted with France. With the permission of the House, I should like to read a few words which were written by M. de Tocqueville in a letter to his godson, by way of illustrating this fact, that the people of England have had reason to be more contented, more peaceful, and more orderly than the people of France, because under our common law their freedom is better secured. In this letter to his godson, who was about to study the Roman law, M. de Tocqueville says—

"Roman law has played a most important part in almost all modern nations. It has done them much good, and in my opinion still more harm. It has improved their civil laws and spoiled their political laws; for Roman law has two sides. The one concerns the relations between individuals, and in this respect it is one of the most admirable products of civilisation; and the other part has to do with the relations between subjects and Sovereign; and then it is full of the spirit of the age, when the last additions were made to its compilation, the spirit of slavery. Aided by Roman law and by its interpreters, the kings of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries succeeded in founding absolute monarchy on the ruins of the free institutions of the Middle Ages. The English alone refused to adopt it, and they alone have preserved their independence."

Then he adds, and I desire particularly to draw the attention of the hon. and learned Members of this House, and especially the Law Officers of the Crown, to this important passage—

"Your professors will not tell you this; but it is the most important part. Still the present is not the time for considering it, for your examination will not relate to it."

Now it appears to me, that the professors of law in this House, the Law Officers of the Crown and their predecessors in office, imitate the reticence of the professors De Tocqueville described. They have been ominously silent; they have not said one word to assist the House in seeking to understand the legal aspect of this Bill, nor have they told the House how we should understand its bearing on the common law of this country, and whether, by thus centralizing authority, we are not departing from the common law, and following the principles of the Code Napoleon, which, however they may be modified, are adverse to the freedom of the subject, and have in too many instances failed to secure the peace and order of society.

was about to put the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman had placed on the Paper—namely, that the Bill be committed that day six months, when

said, that he had not moved the Amendment.

objected most strongly to the enormous power which it was proposed to give to the Home Secretary in regard to the management of prisons. The Home Secretary was to have the power to discontinue any gaol he might think proper, to make any rules he might think proper, to appoint any officials he might think proper, and to fix their salaries to any extent he might think proper. The avowed objects of the proposed changes were uniformity and economy; but the advantages to be reaped from such changes were outweighed by the disadvantages attending the destruction of the independence of local self-government. The problematical advantages expected from these changes, if any, might be obtained as well without affecting our common law in respect of local self-government. Why could we not have uniformity without decentralization? The same object might be obtained by giving the necessary instructions to the local authorities, without the Home Office taking the matter entirely into its own hands; and with regard to economy, the advantage to be gained in that respect was more ideal than real. If due examination were given to it, it would be found that the Bill was not so simple as it appeared. It was urged that the House would watch the increase of expenditure under that measure; but hon. Members who knew how business was done there and understood by experience how difficult it was to get any real reduction made in the mass of items which composed the Civil Service Estimates, would feel that Parliament could not place any very effectual cheek on the growth of such expenditure. The case of the Commission under the new Poor Law, the charge for which, though originally small, had crept up to a very large annual sum, was an illustration of what they might fairly expect to happen in the present instance. He had come in personal contact with many magistrates, and found some of them to be in favour and some against that Bill, a number of them saying that they must go with their Party in the matter. He regretted, however, that the question should be made a Party one on either side. Magistrates who were perfectly willing to do their share of duty felt that under the new system things might go on pretty well while the old magistrates and the old servants remained; but, when new comers were appointed, and the justices found themselves looked upon merely as intruders, new justices would not take the place of those who had died off, and the whole system of prison management would thus gradually fall into the hands of the Government Commissioners and their subordinates. If local taxation did press heavily, relief might be afforded without interfering with local management, which was one of the safeguards of the State. He moved that the House resolve itself into Committee that day six months. Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee," — (Mr. Hunts,) — instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

said, some of the objections to the Bill were based on a misconception; and the dangers which had been suggested by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) were so remote that there was no need to discuss them. He did not think that the observations of the hon. Gentleman were quite complimentary to those who supported this measure, because he said it was mechanical and due to Party feeling. Now, he (Mr. Rod-well) protested against that statement, that it was mechanical simply implied this — that after the very full discussion that had taken place there was little more that individual Members could add to the arguments for this Bill; but when the hon. Member stated that the support of the measure was dictated by Party motives, he seemed to have forgotten the speeches which had been made on both sides of the House. He did not see what inference the hon. Member wished to draw from his observations. The visiting justices were created by the Act of 1865, and, although they might suggest rules, they could not carry them out without the sanction of the Secretary of State. The only difference this Bill would make was that changes would be initiated by the Secretary of State, but he would not, therefore, really exercise any more power than he now possessed. He could not understand in what sense the term centralization was used. No one was more sensitive or jealous than himself about interference with local authorities and local administration; but in the administration of a prison the duties, of which the Justices were deprived, were more analogous to those of a house steward. Crime must be dealt with uniformly throughout the country, and in the application of general principles there was nothing calling for local knowledge or a consideration for local circumstances. There was no difficulty or danger in placing the power of appointing Officers in the hands of the Home Secretary. The power of the visiting justices was very great, and clothed them with very great responsibility. They had to see that no unnecessary severity was practised on prisoners, and they acted between the Executive and the man who was under his sentence. So far from considering this Bill as a slur on the magistrates, he regarded it as a recognition of the services of those gentlemen. He believed they would be most useful to the Home Secretary in carrying out this Bill, and their cooperation would procure the confidence of the people of the country in the administration of the law being fairly carried out through the country.

said, that uniformity was the principal recommendation of the proposed change, and the absence of it at present was due, not so much to diversity in the administration of the internal affairs of prisons, as to want of uniformity in the sentences passed on prisoners, which was the reason why those confined in some prisons often expressed gratitude that they were not in other prisons where sentences were more severe. Much was made of the want of uniformity, but that applied far more strongly to the sentences of the Judges than to the discipline of prisons. One Judge gave 15 months' imprisonment and another five years' penal servitude, with, perhaps, the addition of flogging, for the same offence. There was an enormous discrepancy in the sentences, and that was one of the great evils that was complained of; but it would not be cured by this Bill. As a magistrate, he did feel the slight which was thrown on their body, and he thought this interference with them was very unnecessary. It was unfair and most undesirable to throw a slur upon those who had hitherto managed the prisons both wisely and well. All this legislation was proposed to shift the cost of prisons from the landowner, and the land, to the rates, and the people generally. The saving would be merely trifling, and it was not worth while changing the law for the small gain that would be realized. He had never yet seen affairs so well managed by public officials as by private individuals. He also objected to the Bill on the ground that it would increase and intensify the principle of centralization.

said, he did not rise to prolong the debate; but there was one part of the Bill which he regarded with some anxiety, relating to the employment of the labour of prisoners. There was great weight in the objection raised to the practice which had obtained in some prisons in that respect. He hoped the necessity for pressing the clauses of which Notice had been given by way of Amendments would be removed by some distinct statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to the course he would be prepared to take if the House passed the Bill. He trusted the House would go into Committee on the Bill at once, as he regarded it, on the whole, as a step in the right direction, and calculated to promote uniformity of prison discipline throughout the country.

also trusted that the House would at once go into Committee. He thought the Bill well drawn and calculated to carry out the intentions of its framers; but he objected to its principles in toto. The principle was that everything should be governed in London and inspected in the country; whereas he held the reverse should be the rule — that everything should be governed in the country and inspected from London. The objects proposed by this Bill might have been attained quite as well by legislation of a different kind. There would be no difficulty in closing small prisons; and as to the treatment of prisoners, their treatment in convict prisons was much more arbitrary. Prison discipline would be more rigid, and consequently detrimental rather than improving to the prisoners. He believed the whole question arose out of the much-mooted point of local taxation, and if it were not brought forward on that ground there would be no feeling on either side of the House in favour of the Bill. It appeared to him the Government desired to shirk the question of local taxation, for, whilst they had moved certain payments from local to Imperial taxation, they had not altered the basis of local taxation in the least. This Bill would have very little, if any, effect in relieving local taxation, but it would postpone to a more indefinite period still the question of local areas and local government. He objected entirely to the principle of the Bill because it was opposed to the Constitution of England as at present established on this question, which he thought had worked so admirably for many years.

assured the House he was not influenced by any Party feeling or motives in giving his support to this Bill; and, with respect to any opposition offered to the Bill, it seemed to him to come from both sides of the House. He supported the Bill, not as a measure of economy or as a saving to local rates. Some economy might be effected, but he believed it would be very little, and the mere juggle of paying money out of one pocket into another would be no saving to the country. The reason why he supported the Bill was because he believed it would secure, not absolute uniformity, but much greater uniformity, in the discipline and management of gaols than was possible at present, and its provisions would enable the Home Secretary to remove prisoners from one gaol to another, and thereby lead to a classification of prisoners much better than could be secured by local agencies. When he supported the Bill last year he was not aware how it would be received by the country or by his own constituents; but he could now say that it had been very well received by his constituents and by the magistrates of his own county. Some hon. Members were opposed to it, because there was no provision in it to prevent Judges and magistrates passing unequal sentences on prisoners; but he apprehended that that was a matter beyond the Home Secretary's power. He admitted that it was desirable to have equal sentences; but there were difficulties in the matter.

said, ho hoped that the House might now be allowed to go into Committee on the Bill, every point relating to the principle of which had been fully discussed, not only last year, but this year, and there would be an opportunity of discussing any detail in Committee. He wished merely to say in answer to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) that when the question of local taxation was brought before the House it was distinctly stated by the hon. Baronet (Sir Massey Lopes) who brought the Motion forward, that if there was one thing Imperial as distinguished from local it was gaols. He (Mr. Cross) should have thought that his hon. Friend would then have pointed out the evils which would arise from taking such a step, because he must have known that if the whole charge were paid out of the Imperial Exchequer there must be Imperial control. Yet he found voting with the hon. Baronet on that occasion the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. [Mr. NEWDEGATE explained that he voted without hearing the hon. Baronet's statement.] He was surprised that his hon. Friend should have given a vote without hearing the reasons for giving it. The House had heard a good deal from his hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) about the rights of magistrates which had gone on for centuries. But these gaols had not for centuries been under the magistrates. The gaols in old times were the "King's gaols," and the only persons who had the slightest rights with regard to them were the sheriffs; and if the sheriffs were to be taken as representatives of local self-government it was reducing local self-government to the very minimum. When we came to the magistrates, what had they to do with the gaols? In the time of Charles II. the magistrates at quarter sessions were authorized to fix the charges for the sheriff for the maintenance of prisoners. In the time of George II. they were empowered to make certain rules for the government of gaols, which otherwise were to be entirely in the hands of the sheriffs. Then, in 1774, the magistrates were specially charged with this most important duty—to see that the gaols were whitewashed; and it was not until 1784 that visiting justices were appointed to inquire into ordinary gaols; and, with regard to convict prisons, Inspectors were appointed to visit them regularly and report to the Home Office. And when we really came to this question of visiting justices, to speak as the hon. Member for Birmingham did of upsetting the institutions of the country was practically playing with words. Question put, and agreed to. Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee.

said, there was no intention on the part of himself or his Friends to offer a factious opposition to the Bill, but they would rest satisfied with the expression of the feeling of the House in the large majority by which the second reading was carried. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to press forward the Bill with so much haste. He yesterday received a letter from one of the most active and valuable magistrates on the committee of the Salford Prison, than which there was no prison in the country better managed, in which he complained that the Bill was pressed forward with such rapidity that the magistrates had no opportunity of considering its provisions. He thought it was only reasonable that a few days should be allowed to the local magistrates to consider the Bill and make suggestions.

could not agree to the hon. Member's suggestions, seeing that the Bill had been before the country since last year. At the end of the Session the Government were always charged with not having brought forward their business early enough, and at the beginning of the Session they were accused of bringing it forward with undue haste. Clause agreed to. Clause 2 (Commencement of Act), agreed to. Clause 3 (Application of Act).

moved, in page 1, line 14, after "Prison Act, 1865," to insert "and to all other Prisons mentioned in this Act."

opposed the Amendment, observing that the two classes of prisons were wholly different. It was thought right to retain the services of the visiting justices for the borough and county gaols, because the prisoners there, as a rule, were confined so short a time that they would have no opportunity of seeing the Government Inspector.

observed that whenever the question raised by the Amendment came on for discussion he should be prepared to argue that the wisest thing for any Government to do would be to secure the independent testimony of visiting justices in regard to what was going on in the convict prisons of the country. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Clause agreed to.

moved to insert after the word "offices," in page 1, line 25, "except as hereinafter provided." The particular point to which his Amendment was directed was the appointment of the higher officers of the prison—the surgeon and chaplain. The recommendations for appointment should be made by the visiting justices, whose local knowledge would better enable them to select proper persons than any office in London could do; but, of course, the power of dismissal would remain with the Home Secretary. He also thought the visiting justices should have some power in regulating the punishment of criminals. If all patronage were taken away from them there would be little inducement to anybody to join that body.

could not accept the Amendment, because he thought it would be deterimental to the service. As to the inducements to become a visiting justice, he thought no man could be more usefully employed than in seeing that no unnecessary hardship was inflicted on prisoners by gaolers and officers. That being the function of justices, care must be taken that there was nothing like a conflict of authority, and it was, therefore, in his opinion, most desirable that all the officers should be appointed by one head. The justices would be able to recommend fit persons for the general prison service; but those persons would, of course, have to undergo the usual examination before they were appointed.

said, that it was not intended to interfere with the power of appointment vested in the Home Secretary; but only to enable the visiting committees to recommend to him fit persons. He, however, thought the question involved was one which had much better be raised on the 11th clause.

was of opinion that at least the nominations to the offices of surgeon and chaplain should be left with the visiting justices. The surgeon must be a local man.

said that, much as he objected to the Bill, he wished it to be made as perfect as possible, and was satisfied that the less the magistrates had to do with the disposal of patronage the better it would be for them. As they were not to have the appointment of governors he did not think it desirable that they should have any other appointment. They might, however, recommend fitting persons for the various posts which would have to be filled up, and he felt sure those recommendations would have their due weight.

said, that the hon. Baronet who had last spoken had taken an extremely sound view. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) thought that all the patronage ought to be vested in one authority, and that as the justices were not to have the whole, it was not desirable that they should have a portion. Any division of responsibility in such a matter would be a mistake. As to what had been said about patronage, it was one of the most disagreeable things connected with office, and no Home Secretary would desire to have it for his own sake. He believed that as a rule magistrates were actuated by the best of motives in their bestowal of patronage, and it was not from any distrust of them that he thought it, on the whole, best that it should be taken from them in the present instance. He was convinced no magistrate worthy of the name would be actuated by any feelings arising from its loss in contributing, as far as he was able, to the good working of the Bill.

asked whether the visiting committee were to have any connection with quarter sessions? ["No."]

contended that the real question at issue was how the services of the best men were to be secured, and that the magistrates should have the re- cognized position of being called upon to recommend persons for the various offices. He was glad that the matter of patronage was repudiated, and believed there was no greater delusion than that of supposing that the justices were anxious to possess it. If it were not presumptuous he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider the point. He desired as little change as possible, and he wished no more to be made than was necessary to carry out the Bill. He did not wish to retain the appointment, but the recommendation of the officers by the visiting justices.

said, he had no doubt but that the recommendation of the visiting justices would be listened to by the Home Secretary, whoever ho might be. He hoped that the hon. Baronet would press his Motion to a division.

remarked that, of course, the magistrates might recommend any number of people, but that the adoption of the words of the Amendment would, if they had any meaning at all, be taken to mean that the magistrates were practically to have the power to dictate to the Secretary of State. This being his view of the effect of the Amendment, he must stand by the Bill as it was.

said, it was unfortunate that such an Amendment had been so suddenly brought forward. He was afraid there was something more behind than appeared on the face of it. He rejoiced that the right hon. Gentleman intended to stand by the Bill and not accept the Amendment.

said, that having taken part in the drawing up of the Amendment, he disclaimed entirely that there was anything behind the Amendment that did not appear on its face. All it meant was that the best men should be appointed to these offices. The patronage was not worth having, but the visiting justices were the best able to recommend a gentleman for the office of chaplain or surgeon.

acquitted the supporters of the Amendment of any desire merely to retain patronage, but pointed out that there were other motives that there was reason to fear, particularly in connection with the appointment of chaplains. It was better to be without a statutory power if it meant nothing. The criminal law was the law of the land, and prisons which gave effect to the law ought to be national and not local institutions.

did not love this Bill, and had voted against it; but when the Home Secretary had taken upon himself the power to manage these institutions, he thought it would be unwise to maintain a double power of appointment, which would be the effect of adopting the Amendment.

also thought that the two systems could not co-exist, and that hon. Members opposite who had supported the Bill must make up their minds to surrender altogether the patronage of the visiting justices. He should, therefore, vote against the Amendment. At the same time, the Committee must not conceal from themselves that they were creating a great amount of political patronage by this measure. The Home Secretary was, no doubt, acting from the highest public motives; he was not promoting this Bill from any desire to create political patronage. But this would be the result of the measure; and whatever Party was in power, and whatever safeguards were imposed, this patronage would find its way into the hands of the Secretaries to the Treasury, with the result that a worse set of men would be appointed than would have been chosen by the visiting justice under the old system.

should vote for the Amendment, believing that the privilege of nomination in these eases might properly be left to the visiting justices, the surgeon and chaplain being officials not connected with the permanent staff of prisons.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment, reserving to himself the right of proposing it upon the Report.

(who spoke amidst cries of "Divide, divide!") said, he ought not to be interrupted, having had 30 years' experience as a magistrate. It would be dangerous to take away from magistrates their obligations to attend to these prisons. The Bill struck at the root of local government. The Romish influence was evidently at work in this Bill. This Bill was brought forward accompanied by a bribe, which sacrificed, on the one hand, the principles of the constitution, and, on the other, the interests of those who contributed to the Imperial revenue, for the benefit of the landowners.

said, he did not see in what way uniformity of discipline could be endangered by leaving the appointment of surgeons and chaplains in the hands of the local magistrates. He should like to see these appointments remain as heretofore.

said, he hoped the hon. Baronet would not withdraw the Amendment of which he had given Notice. As a rule, all the public appointments made by the magistrates of a county were with a view to the public interest. It had been said by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot) that if the chaplain and surgeon were not appointed by the magistrates, those officers would support the Governor through "thick and thin," and that meant that they would support him in any cruelty and tyranny. It would be better to have two officers who would take an independent part, would counteract the despotic power reposed in the governor, and would alleviate the sufferings of the prisoners, who under some governors were in a pitiable condition. Question put. The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 154: Majority 112. Clause agreed to.

said, he wished to ask for an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. There were a great many public Departments already, and this Bill created a new one and appointed a fresh Commission. Now, there were men at present charged with the superintendence and management of the convict prisons, and it had been asked last Session why a new body of Commissioners were to be appointed to manage the prisons taken over by the Secretary of State. Although the question had been put several times, so far as he could see no answer had been given either by the Home Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Why could they not be put under the same management? This measure was advocated on two grounds—to secure uniformity of discipline, and to obtain greater economy. It would tend more to both that there should be only one Board to superintend all the different prisons under the control of the Home Office than that there should be two Boards, one of which was proposed under this Bill. He trusted the Home Secretary would afford some explanation as to the reasons which induced him to have a fresh body of directors under this Bill, and to afford the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity for doing so he would move, in page 2, line 13, after the word "appoint," to insert the words "under the directors of the convict prisons."

said, he explained last Session, and would now repeat, that the directors of convict prisons had already ample work to do, as they acted not only in that capacity, but as prison justices. If the whole of the duties to be discharged under this Bill were imposed on the directors of convict prisons, it would be necessary to add largely to their numbers and to their staff of clerks. It would be better in a transfer of this kind that the prisons should be under an independent body of Commissioners, because they would stand upon a different footing. In time it might be possible to amalgamate the two administrations; but it would be unwise to do it now, because a general impression would prevail if the prisons were put under the directors of convict prisons that the prisoners were about to be treated in a different way. The transfer of the whole of the gaols would cause an enormous amount of work to be done at first; and, therefore, for two reasons—because it would disarrange the work of the convict prison directors, and because he did not want it to be thought that the treatment of the prisoners would be any more severe than at present—he could not accept the Amendment.

could not see why the management of the prisons should be transferred from an experienced body like the visiting justices and placed in the hands of a body consisting of Commissioners, who might or might not be experienced in prison management.

, while not quite satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's argument, intimated his readiness to withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. On the Motion of Mr. ASSHETON CROSS, the Clause was amended by the insertion of words providing that the Commissioners should be appointed with the approval of the Secretary of State.

moved, in page 2, line 16, to leave out "five," and insert "three." The Government seemed very fond of establishing new Boards and putting on them more members than were needed to do the work, whilst, for political and other reasons, unsuitable persons were often appointed. He considered that a Chief Commissioner and two Assistant Commissioners would be sufficient to perform all the duties that would be required of them.

could not support the Amendment. If it were withdrawn he would move that three should be the minimum number of Commissioners and five the maximum number.

observed that the hon. Member for Birmingham, who was not just then in his place, had informed him that he did not intend to propose his Amendment. He did not think any alarm need be entertained in regard to the number of Commissioners to be appointed under the measure.

preferred the clause as it stood to the proposed Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 7 (Appointment of inspectors, officers, and servants.)

moved, in page 2, line 33, to leave out "inspectors." The present Inspectors were to be continued and others were to be appointed; it was, therefore, desirable to have some explanation as to the number of Inspectors to be appointed. The number of prisons was to be reduced by 60 or 70, and it seemed to him that there would be less work for those men to do than heretofore. Besides, Commissioners were to be appointed, who would discharge the principal duties, and to whom Inspectors would necessarily be subordinate. If there was to be a large staff of Inspectors in addition to Commissioners, no one knew the expense that would be incurred.

admitted that the question was a reasonable one. At the present moment there were three Inspectors, one of whom was told off to reformatory and industrial school work. They were appointed under the old Act. It was necessary to repeal that Act and appoint Inspectors under this Act. The Inspectors would have to visit the prisons all round, and their periodical visits would be more frequent than before. The Inspectors would have to report to the Commissioners where anything was wrong in order that it might be set right. It would not, however, be necessary to have many Inspectors to perform these duties, and a jealous watch would be kept over the number of them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No Inspector could be appointed without the sanction of the Treasury.

moved an Amendment the object of which was to vest the appointment of storekeepers and accountants as well as Inspectors in the Home Secretary.

said, that these officers were entirely subject to his approval, and he would be responsible for their appointment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause agreed to. Clause 8 (Duties of Prison Commissioners).

moved in page 3, line 21, after "work," to insert—

"Provided always, "That such work shall be for the service of the State only, and that no trade have more than a fair proportion of prisoners employed thereon."

He observed that other Amendments with a similar object had been placed on the Paper, and that he had no special preference for his own Proviso if the principle which he had in view were introduced into the Bill. He thought, however, that it was a most dangerous principle that the prison labourer should not be allowed to compete with the labourer out-of-doors. If such was to be allowed, in the smallest degree, it would tend to create a feeling in the minds of the honest workmen that they would do better to become criminal as well. He was aware that it might be said that all they sent to the market would produce no effect. That he most strongly denied. All that went to the open market from the prisons was bound to produce evil results. If the right hon. Gentleman could give him some assurance that under the new regulations some such rule as that sketched in his Amendment would be adopted he should be content; but otherwise he should feel it his duty to go to a division. Amendment proposed,

In page 3, line 21, after the word "work," to insert the words "Provided always, That such work shall be for the service of the State only, and that no trade have more than a fair proportion of prisoners employed thereon."—(Mr. Macdonald.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there— inserted."

As this is a subject to which I have given great attention, perhaps I had better at once state my views upon it. I would first point out an error into which the hon. Member (Mr. Macdonald) and others have fallen, in supposing that of necessity if a number of men in a gaol are set to any particular work it will interfere with free labour, because if the prisoners do not do it somebody else must do it. So that that objection is untenable. We are, I think, all agreed that it is wise to introduce industrial labour rather than merely penal labour into our prisons, because our object is to reform the prisoner; and I admit, on the other hand, that care should be taken in its use in some respects. Prison labour, for instance, should interfere as little as possible with the free labour of the country; as no doubt if all the prisoners in gaol were put to work at one trade that trade might be seriously injured. I have lately had conversations with the directors of labour in the convict prisons, and I understand that they are giving up mat-making, because too many have been made, probably because it is more easily learnt than other trades. It would be the desire of any one holding the office I have the honour to hold that prison labour should be spread over many kinds of employment, so that no one trade should suffer. So far as concerns borough and country gaols, I am not responsible for what has been done, since the direction of these matters has been long under the control of the county and borough visiting justices, who have generally taken measures to secure the greatest amount of profit from the prisoners labour. One of the advantages which I hope will result from the Bill we are now considering is, that it will enable us all over the country to spread the labour in a better way than it could be done under a great number of separate jurisdictions. But when the hon. Member asks me to consent to his Proviso, that prison labour shall be employed for the service of the State only, and that at no time shall its produce be sold, I must object to the insertion of any such words in any Act of Parliament. In the first place, as I have shown, work done for the State in any case must compete with other work. ["No, no!"] The hon. Member says "No;" but it does. Supposing a new wing to a prison were built by the labour of prisoners, would not that take so much work out of the general market? Then as to the rest of the Proviso—"that no trade shall have more than a fair proportion of prisoners employed thereon," it would be impossible to put such words into an Act of Parliament. Who is to decide which is a fair proportion? I can, however, assure the hon. Member that this question has been under the consideration of the Home Office from the time we undertook this measure; and I have several persons of experience and standing looking into the matter; so that the regulations under this Bill which relate to labour may be framed so as not to interfere, if possible, with free labour.

said, the explanation given was to a certain extent satisfactory; but as the matter was one of great importance and interest, he would suggest that it would be advantageous if the House were made acquainted with the regulations, at any rate before the Bill was reported. The question was a very difficult one, and the House ought to be able to give some opinion as to whether the regulations would meet the difficulty. The general principle of employing prisoners in remunerative labour was one that could not be given up without injury to the reformatory character of prisons; but, on the other hand, the persons concerned in some of the trades which were adopted had a right to complain, and he did not wonder at their complaints. He thought there not only ought to be a strong endeavour to prevent prisoners from being set to an employment that interfered with labour out of the prison, but that great care should be taken that prison labour should never be in any way used so as to affect a labour dispute. What little knowledge ho had on the subject was not as to mats, but as to brush-making, and he was bound to say, that he thought the brush-makers made out their case. Care should also be taken to prevent an article made in prison from being sold under the market price.

said, he had paid great attention to this question, and from his observation and experience, there was no question that so much interfered with and seriously affected industrial labour as prison labour. He asked whether the Secretary of State had considered what the effect would be upon the criminals themselves and the general crime of the country. It was a great advantage to keep prisoners cheaply, but it was also a great advantage that they should be treated in such a way as to prevent them from coming back to gaol again. If prisons were made agreeable, instead of deterrent, their inmates would not mind coming back again. In those countries where prisoners were employed and profit was made to the State out of their labour there was a larger amount of criminal population in proportion to the population, and also a larger number of re-committals. There was nothing prisoners liked so little as to be employed on unremunerative labour, like picking up stones, or turning a crank; whereas industrial labour, which they could see was useful, and out of which they might perhaps hope to get something, was comparatively no punishment. He fortunately lived in a county where for the last 30 years crime had diminished more than one-half, and they had no industrial labour in their prisons. The suggestion had often been made, but the question always followed—what effect would it have upon re-committals? The use of a prison was to diminish crime and not to make a profit out of prison labour. And if, besides making labour less deterrent, they put honest men out of work, they would add to the thieves, for thieving was as catching as small-pox. He hoped the Government would take care not to press this industrial labour to far.

, who had the following Amendment on the Paper:—page 3, line 21, to leave out "the amount of their earnings," and insert—

"So as to provide that any work upon which they shall be employed shall be for the purposes of the prison only, and not for profit or sale,"

said, he would not press it, as the Amendment of his hon. Friend now under discussion, and several other somewhat similiar Amendments, would in a considerable degree meet the object he had in view. He thought very little had been done with this question. It was as far back as 12 years since he first brought it under the consideration of the House and moved in it, and it always appeared to him that the Government threw it aside as soon as they could, and the country heard no more about it. His right hon. Friend, however, had now said that he meant to make some change and improved arrangement in the matter, and he hoped the right hen. Gentleman would do so in such a manner as to do away with the present system. Prisoners were very easily taught, and the articles in which they worked were sold at very low prices. It appeared to him that a very large number of prisoners were employed in that way, and in the competition of their labour the industrious tradesman suffered.

agreed very much with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Stafford who had moved the Amendment. He felt that convict labour came severely into competition with industrial labour, and in illustration of that he might instance the industry of the blind, which was principally employed in mat-making, but which was almost destroyed by the article produced by prison labour being brought into competition with it in the market, awl sold at a much less price. The hon. and learned Member quoted statistics showing a large proportion of prison labour employed in the article of mat-making, and to the great injury of poor blind mat-makers. At a reformatory in Bristol the labour of the inmates was let out to a brush-maker, who supplied the materials for brush-making. This he considered was unfair to those who were engaged in that trade. He thought a Proviso ought to be inserted to the effect that the number of prisoners employed in any branch of industry should be in fair proportion to the numbers employed in other trades.

said, he hoped the Secretary of State would lay down in the Bill a principle as to the proportion in which useful trades and employments were adopted as part of our penal system in prisons, and so as not to press unduly upon the trades and industries outside. He (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had a clause upon the Paper to give effect to this object, and he begged to call the Secretary of State's attention to it. There was undoubtedly a well-grounded complaint on the part of some trades of the undue competition set up by prison labour, and he thought that the Bill should lay down some general principle for the guidance of the Secretary of State in making new rules and regulations on the subject.

said, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had taken up the case of the brush-makers, because he had himself had many representations made to him on the subject. Brush-making and mat-making were easily learnt, and that was the reason why the prison authorities taught them to the prisoners. He thought employment of that sort was too light for persons who had been sentenced to punishment, and that it was the duty of the House to protect honest industry, and not allow the hard-working artizan to be driven down into the pauper class by the competition of prison labour.

trusted no Secretary of State would ever give up the remunerative employment of prisoners. He admitted, however, that mat-makers and brush-makers were hardly pressed by the results of prison labour. Both those trades only gave employment to a small number of persons, and it was a pity that the work of prisoners should come into competition with free labour. If prisoners were to be taught any trade at all it should be one in which a majority, rather than a minority of men were employed. But this could only be done at some sacrifice of prisoners' earnings. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to sacrifice some portion of the prison earnings in order to give the prisoners who were learning trades a better chance when discharged, and thereby remove the objection which outside trades had against prison labour. With regard to limiting the employment of prisoners to the making of prison clothing, if a prisoner was only to make his own clothing, and, perhaps, some part of the warders' also in a year, he would scarcely have to undergo much hard labour. As to the argument that prisoners ought not to be employed on any remunerative work lest it should compete with free industry, if it was pushed to an extreme, it would amount to this, that every prisoner must be put to the crank, the treadmill, or some other non-productive labour, in order that he might be kept entirely at the cost of the honest workman.

pointed out that there were 2,600 prisoners concentrated upon the mat trade throughout the Kingdom last year, against 1,900 prisoners who were employed upon all other trades. In some gaols also the manufactured article was sold below the cost of the materials. In such a ease it became impossible for the honest labourer outside to make a living.

suggested that useful employment for convicts might be found in embanking and improving our navigable rivers. Such work would be the means of reclaiming much valuable land, and profitable to the State. He would recommend the Home Secretary to try the experiment in embanking the Thames.

said, that all unfair competition with trade should be removed; but the Amendment on the Paper stated exactly the principle on which the question should be determined—namely, that labour should be performed for the service of the State which was paid for by the State.

observed that the Amendment embodied a most important principle, which had engaged the attention of other Governments, and which deserved careful consideration in connection with the Bill before the House. In one Canadian prison convict labour was let by public auction at 18. a-day per man, which brought in a net profit of £50 a-day for 1,000 convicts.

observed that the making of cocoa-nut matting was originally a prison trade, and had existed many years at Wakefield, and in other prisons; but they could not now sell their goods in New York, and had thousands of pounds worth in hand. He thought it intolerable that ratepayers should be subjected to burdens for the support in idleness or useless labour of those who were breakers of the law. The usual result of prison labour was to induce criminals, when their term expired, not to labour, but if they taught men a trade, and, as they did in Wakefield, provided them with a home after they came out, so that they could carry it on till they obtained employment that would be the right means to adopt in reforming prisoners. In the case of those imprisoned under very short sentences, they could not look for any pecuniary benefit from their work, but must be content with simply inculcating the value of honest labour. Under this Bill he believed the Home Secretary would be enabled to make the best use of the labour of those who were under long sentences, and to distribute the work over all the prisons in such a manner as to interfere as little as possible with the traders outside.

said, that it did not matter whether the prisoners made goods for the Government or not, as, if they were made for private individuals, they would be paid for. With regard to the question whether remunerative or unremunerative labour was the more deterrent, his experience differed from that of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), for in the county where he resided (Derbyshire) the system of remunerative labour had been adopted, and yet crime had greatly diminished even in an increasing population. At the same time, he believed it to be the case that when remunerative labour was first introduced in the form of stone-breaking the prisoners disliked it and preferred the treadmill, although the former might seem to be a much less irksome occupation; and perhaps the reason was that it grated upon their feelings to think that they were, to some extent, made to pay for their own imprisonment. As to the whole question, it seemed to him necessary to leave the matter very much in the hands of the Secretary of State.

apprehended that the object of the Bill was to secure uniformity of system, and thought that the decision respecting the kind of labour to be carried out should be left to the Secretary of State.

observed that the right hon. Gentleman had undertaken to solve the most difficult problem which perhaps had risen in our time. He had to meet demands of the most conflicting character, and to decide between the advocates of the penal view and of the remunerative view of punishment, and they were nearly in equilibrium. It had been said that night that articles ought not to be sold below remunerative prices but if large quantities were manufactured they must, by the mere knowledge of their existence, affect and lower market prices. It was also urged that they ought not to injure small trades such as brushmakers and mat-makers. Now, he should like to know what would be the result if large trades were attacked instead, and Government offered to enter into competition with them. The trade organizations would take care that the right hon. Gentleman should not move in that direction. He thought that House should itself decide this question, instead of entrusting the duty to the Secretary of State—who was, of course, honest in intention—aided by two or three unknown persons, supposed to be peculiarly acquainted with the subject. He hoped the idea that had been suggested that long periods of imprisonment should be reverted to as the best means of effecting an economical result and of making men better members of society would not meet with the sanction of the House. He argued that probably 30,000 persons were every year sent to gaol, not for crimes, but because they could not pay some trifling fine or expenses, and that if this were obviated, the demand for prisons would be vastly diminished.

said, he should have been glad if the Home Secretary had seen his way to acquiesce in the suggestions thrown out in the earlier part of the evening by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), and have promised to tell them on the Report the regulations he proposed should be framed to carry out what he thought was fair and reasonable, and have thereby saved the Committee the trouble of dividing. In utilizing the labour of our prisoners he hoped it would not be done by crushing any particular industry. He strongly depre- cated a return to the old system of unremunerative labour, such as turning a crank without producing any useful result, which he regarded as most depressing and morally injurious to the prisoners.

said, he thought the discussion had gone far enough. All agreed that certain small trades had been very prejudicially affected by the competition of prison labour. He did not believe those interests would be effectually protected by putting words into an Act of Parliament, and thought it would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the Secretary of State. Then if there were any undue interference with any of the small industries of the country the subject could be brought under the consideration of the House.

denied that the prison labour would seriously interfere with labour out-of-doors, inasmuch as it would deprive any particular trade of only one customer—the State. Over and beyond that they would have no competition to contend against in either the home, or in the foreign market.

regretted he could not vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Macdonald), as a palpable fallacy was underlying his argument. If prison labour was employed in work for the State, it was as much competing labour as if it were employed in other directions. He would, therefore, propose to amend the Amendment by leaving out the words from "that" in the first line to "that" in the second line, when the Resolution would run thus:—"Provided always; That no trade have more than a fair proportion of prisoners employed thereon."

appealed to the Home Secretary to accept these words. The right hon. Gentleman had already declared his acceptance of their general meaning, and he would do a great service in allaying a great deal of dissatisfaction and bad feeling if he would embody some words to that effect in one of the clauses of the Bill.

said, he would have been very glad to have accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary only it, in his opinion, really amounted to nothing. He had the utmost confidence in the right hon. Gentleman; but if to-morrow he were removed, they would be placed in a different position, and no assurances or acts of the right hon. Gentleman would be binding upon his Successor. Unless he got a clearer promise from the Home Secretary he should certainly divide the Committee upon this subject. The present system had already driven the matmakers to a state of destitution. So it had the brush-makers. ["No, no."] Prison labour had done that. What trade was the right hon. Gentleman going to attack next? Was it the brewers? If he was going to attack them, he could assure him that they would make his tenure of office not worth a year's purchase. None knew that better than the right hon. Gentleman himself. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed; but was it the manufacturers? Was it proposed to weave cotton or cloth in the prison? If he would only dare to attempt it, all Manchester and the other large manufacturing towns of the Kingdom would be up in arms. The doors of the Home Office would never be closed till the arrangement was changed. There was one place for the criminals that were to be set to work—they should be made to work on the waste and uncultivated lands, there they would compete with no one, and they would do the nation a service.

said, what he had stated was that these prisoners must either sit with their hands before them, or they must work. Of course, the opinion of the House and the country would be that when a man went to prison he must work. Now, was he to work at carrying big cannon-balls, or was he to be employed in industrial labour? Great benefits would result from his being employed in industrial labour. He (Mr. Cross) quite agreed that prisoners should be employed in hard and disagreeable labour. When things were made in prison they must be sold, and the question was how they should be sold. He could only reply to hon. Members who had spoken on this subject, that he hoped they would remember that in the whole of the discussion not one word had been said about the labour performed by the 10,000 persons who were in the convict prisons. He thought that fact, at all events, might be taken as some guarantee that when the other prisons and their 18,000 prisoners came under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State, the same care which was now taken by the directors of convict prisons would be taken by the new directors proposed by the Bill. It was impossible to insert in an Act of Parliament, which might have to be construed in Courts of Law, a clause enacting that prisoners should only be employed in the service of the State, and that no trade should have more than a fair share of the prison labour. All he could say was that the same care which was bestowed on the distribution of the convict labour should be bestowed upon that of the other prisoners, and that, so far as it was possible to distribute the labour, it should be done.

could not vote either for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) or that of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright), but he did not think the opinion of the House would be at all fairly represented by the numbers which would be arrived at if they went to a division; because many Members like himself would be obliged to vote against these Amendments, and yet would think that something might have been done in the matter. He hoped the Home Secretary would consider whether, before the Bill passed its final stages, he could not introduce words which should embody a general principle regulating the distribution of labour. Amendment amended, by leaving out the words "that such work shall be for the service of the State only, and" Question put,

"That the words 'Provided always, That no trade have more than a fair proportion of prisoners employed thereon,' be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 218: Majority 148.

moved, in page 3, line 21, to leave out "the amount of their earnings" and insert—

"So as to provide that any work upon which they shall he employed shall be for the purposes of the prison only, and not for profit or sale."

Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 9 (Reports by Prisons Commissioners) agreed to.

moved that Progress be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sandford.)

said, if it were the desire of the Committee that Progress should be reported he should not oppose the Motion. Question put. The Committee divided:—Ayes 217; Noes 27: Majority 190. Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.