asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is a fact that the soldiers and officers of the Royal Marines receive less pay than the soldiers and officers of the Line; and whether it is a fact that the pay and pension of the soldiers of the Line have been recently raised, while no increase has been made in the pay or pension of the Royal Marines; and, if this be so, whether he will state the grounds on which such inequality is based?

The pay of Marine officers is identical with that of Army officers, but the men's pay is different. The soldier now receives 1s. a-day pay, and for the first 12 years of service 2d. a-day deferred pay and free rations; the Marine on shore is paid 1s. 2d. a-day pay and 1d. a-day beer money; but from this is deducted d. a-day for rations. His net pay is, therefore, 10½d. a-day. The Marine when afloat receives free naval rations in addition to the pay of ls. 2d. As the Marine serves half his time afloat and half on shore, his average net pay is 1s. 0¼d., so that as regards substantive pay he has ¼d. more than the soldier throughout his service, but against this is to be set 2d. a-day deferred pay for 12 years of service, which the soldier earns and the Marine does not. The pay of sergeants in the Army is in excess of that of Marine sergeants. It is impossible to make an exact comparison as regards pension between the Army and the Marines. In some respects the soldier is the gainer, but in others the Marine has the advantage. There has recently been au addition to the pay of the soldier in the shape of the deferred pay already mentioned. Whether the pay of the soldier and the Marine should be equalized in all respects would appear to be a matter for a discussion rather than the subject of a Question and Answer across the Table.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that Mr. G. Fitzgerald, an officer of the Indian Financial Department, has been allowed to take service with the Khedive of Egypt, retaining at the same time his place in the Indian service, and his claims to promotion and pension there; and, if so, whether this arrangement does not conflict with the policy announced by Her Majesty's Government last year when the Government refused to allow any British officer to undertake any office in connection with Egyptian finances, without first resigning the British service, and insisted that an officer of the Treasury who had gone to Egypt should elect between the two services?

Mr. Fitzgerald is an officer in the Uncovenanted Civil Service of India, and has been home on medical certificate since September last. Since then he has had an extension of one year's leave, and I believe he is employing this time in the temporary service of the Khedive. There is, therefore, no analogy between the circumstances under which Mr. Fitzgerald is now serving and those under which the Government announced their decision of last year.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the case that the new Indian title of Her Majesty has been officially translated "Kaiser-è-Hind;" and, if so, whether he can be so good as to inform the House why the Viceroy has thought proper to use a German title, Kaiser, as unknown to the Natives as the English one, and to set it out in a Persian language, as little known to most of them as the English language?

It is true that the official translation of Her Majesty's new title in India is Kaiser-è-Hind. The second part of the hon. Member's Question is of a somewhat controversial nature. Since it has been on the Notice Paper I have received a large number of communications from distinguished Oriental scholars, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be surprised to learn that one and all express the most indignant astonishment that an hon. Gentleman of such high Indian experience should have fallen into the error of assuming that the title is a German title, or that it is unknown to the Natives of India. From these distinguished authorities I understand that the word "Kaiser" is an old Arabic word, which has been much used for many centuries in the East both in writing and speaking, and thoroughly understood by the educated Natives of India. The Viceroy of India adopted the title after long consultation with his Council, and with their unanimous approval. Amongst the Council were Sir William Muir and Sir Clive Bayley, who are admitted to be most distinguished Arabic scholars. Of course, I need not point out to the hon. Gentleman that India is not inhabited by one nation, and that India is not a country in which one language is spoken; but it is inhabited by many nations speaking different languages, and it was not therefore possible to adopt any one particular title which should be intelligible to all. The Viceroy, therefore, adopted this title because, in the opinion of those who were best qualified to offer any judgment on the question, it was the one most appropriate in a historical sense, and best understood by educated Natives, and most capable of easy and accurate rendering into the various vernacular tongues of India.

May I ask the noble Lord, Sir, in answer to the latter part of my Question, why the title which he describes as being known in Arabic is set forth in the Persian language?

I believe the word "Kaiser" is an Arabic, a Persian, and a Greek word for it is in fact the Eastern rendering of Cæsar. If my hon. Friend will look into his Greek Testament, I think he will find the word "Kaiser" occurs there more than once.

May I ask the noble Lord to answer the latter part of my Question. It refers to the latter part of the title — é-Hind.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Press and St. James Chronicle" of the 17th instant, that at Stamford a person named Hammond was recently "watched through a dark unfrequented street, brutally knocked down, and robbed of a parcel which he was taking for special protection to the railway station; whether any complaint or report of this outrage was made to the police authorities; and, whether they have taken any steps or made any inquiries in consequence thereof; and, if no offender has been brought to justice for the outrage, what reason or explanation do the magistrates and the police assign for such failure?

could not say whether the report was true or not; but a complaint was made to the police authorities of the town about a similar outrage, and the magistrates said they ordered a strict inquiry to be made into the matter. The police, however, were unable to trace the missing parcel or to find any clue to the perpetrator of the offence. Indeed, they had, it appeared, considerable doubt as to whether any such outrage had been committed at all; but he would order further inquiry to be made.

moved, in page 4, line 10, at end, to add—

"and the fifty-fifth section of 'The Prison Act, 1865,' shall be read as if the words 'visiting committee' were substituted for the words 'visiting justices.'"

The county and borough gaols under this Act would become Queen's prisons, under the direct control of the Secretary of State, who was rarely seen in the country, though much believed in. It was essential that the people should had confidence that the law would be properly administered, and it was desirable that all justices should have access at all times to prisons, as they had now, with power to report to the visiting committee. If that safeguard was removed, the time of the House would be taken up with complaints similar to those which had been lately made of the "unfortunate person" who was locked up in one of our convict prisons. It was therefore desirable to prevent cases from cropping up of imaginary ill-treatment, leaving a burning sense of injustice in the minds of the people.

said, he could assure the House that this was not a question of principle, but purely of drafting. He was advised that, as the Bill was drawn, it would secure all that the hon. Member required. He, however, suggested that this Amendment should be withdrawn, and that the Committee should accept that proposed by the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson).

moved, in page 4' line 12, after "under this Act", to insert "and every convict establishment in England." His object was to carry, as far as possible, the principle of uniformity, which was the basis of the Bill, to its legitimate conclusion. The Homo Secretary had applied that principle to 20,000 prisoners, leaving 10,000 outside the provisions of the Bill. If it was necessary for the short-sentenced men to have the protection of periodical visits from independent gentlemen, it was far more necessary that the long-sentenced men should have a similar protection. The acceptance of his Amendment would take away from the Bill the reproach that it was a step towards present government.

repeated what he had said on a previous occasion—namely, that he very much agreed with the terms of the Amendment, though he thought it would be inconvenient to introduce it into this Bill. At some future time he should be quite willing to discuss the point.

thought the difficulty with regard to the insertion of the Amendment in this Bill might be met by placing all criminals, including those in the convict prisons under long sentences under the surveillance of the local magistracy.

was strongly in favour of inspection. We did not know where we were going; but we knew where we had come from. [Laughter.] He meant what he said. It was only 100 years since John Howard published his book, in which frightful disclosures were made on the subject of prison life; and, as far as he could see, we might end there again. Government managed then, and would now.

hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn after the intimation of the Home Secretary that he was not opposed to the principle of the Amendment.

remarked that some of the things mentioned in the book referred to by the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Lusk) were as bad as Bulgarian atrocities. Moreover, within the last few days they had heard of indignities being perpetrated on a well-known person at Dartmoor. If this was not the time to bring forward this Amendment no time would be appropriate. He should certainly support the Amendment if it was carried to a division.

thought that the House ought to be satisfied with the assurance of the Home Secretary on the subject. Ho hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.

suggested that the necessary clauses to ensure an inspection of convict prisons should be brought up on the Report.

said, he could not see that this Bill had anything to do with convict prisons. It was a great mistake to have a divided authority in visiting the gaols with which they were dealing; but it would be still worse if they applied it to the convict establishments. He would like to know whether, from the right hon. Gentleman's reading of the clause; the appointment of visiting justices would be made imperative? It ought to be clearly understood whether they would be appointed with their consent or not.

said, it would be imperative upon the courts of quarter sessions to appoint certain visiting justices, and it would be imperative on those justices to serve. Of course, the court of quarter sessions, in the exercise of their discretion, might previously ask the justices whether they would serve. Their duties would be confined to the administration of the gaol, and would be analogous to those they had hitherto performed.

wished to allude to a certain convict at Dartmoor. It greatly increased the anxiety of those persons who were interested in that prisoner that rumours got abroad respecting his treatment in the prison, and that anxiety would be considerably diminished if he were visited by justices, by whom his friends might be assured that he was properly treated. He believed that among the prisoners confined in the convict prisons there were many grievances which demanded inquiry.

said, that if this proposal was to be carried out it must be in a separate Bill. He was quite willing to consider the question, but not in the present Bill. With regard to the particular prisoner referred to by the hon. Member for Peterberough (Mr. Whalley), he could assure hon. Gentlemen that he had made most careful inquiries into the matter, and had found that every possible care and attention had been paid to him.

moved, in page 4, line 17, at end to add, as a fresh paragraph—

"Nothing in this Act, or in any rules to be made under this Act, shall restrict any member of the visiting committee from visiting the prison at any time, and any such member shall at all times have free access to every part of the prison, and to every prisoner therein."

moved, in page 4, line 25, at end, to add—

"Provided, That there shall be on the committee at least one such justice representing the jurisdiction of each prison authority in existence at the date of the commencement of this Act in the county or part of a county or borough to which each prison shall be assigned."

He said that the prisons in different counties or boroughs might be abolished under the Bill, and as the clause was drawn they might not get that full representation of the justices generally on the committee which was desirable.

said, he could not accept the Amendment on the ground that it would lead to considerable confusion. There were a great many prison authorities at present who had no gaols of their own, but sent their prisoners elsewhere, and there was no reason why they should be brought in under the Bill. Besides, as a rule, it would be found that the visiting justices who lived at a distance from the gaols took little trouble about them.

pointed out that in the town which he had the honour to represent there was a borough and a county gaol, and it was probable that one of the two would be done away with, and the prisoners would be placed in the other gaol. There was a strong feeling that those who had had authority in the gaol to be abolished should not be set aside altogether, and he would like to know what were the views of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to dealing with the authorities in such a case as he had suggested.

said, that no doubt in certain cases where there happened to be both borough and county gaols one or the other must give way. The intention undoubtedly was that if the borough gaol was done away with a number of justices in proportion to the prisoners contributed by the borough should be placed on the visiting committee. In the same way if the county gaol were abolished a certain number of county justices proportionate to the number of prisoners from the county would bejoined with borough justices. He would have no objection to introduce words on a future occasion making it clear that this was the intention of the Act.

stated that his constituents were, deeply interested in this question, and were looking forward anxiously to the action of the Home Secretary with regard to it.

moved the following Amendment, which stood on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Rowley Hill), which he proposed to add at the end of the clause:—

"Provided always, That where the right of appointing visiting justices or visitors of any prison hath heretofore been vested in the municipal corporation of any city or borough, the right of appointing the visiting committee under this Act shall be exercised by such municipal corporation and not by the justices of such city or borough."

The hon. Member was proceeding to remark upon the regulations of convict prisons, when—

pointed out that the hon. Member was out of Order in discussing the subject of convict prisons in reference to an Amendment which related to a different class of prisons.

submitted that the hon. Member was quite in Order in referring to cruelties and hardships which had occurred in Government prisons as a ground for vesting the appointment of the visting justices for borough prisons in the town council.

said, the hon. Member for Peterberough was travelling be. yond his own Amendment in entering into an argument as to the condition of convict prisons. In answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke, he might observe that the question raised by the Amendment was not as to the appointment of visiting justices generally, but as to who were the proper authorities to appoint them. Of course, if the hon. Member was only illustrating his argument in referring to the management of the convict prisons, the Committee would perhaps be inclined to allow him some latitude.

was merely advocating the introduction of a still stronger blast of civil life into the recesses of our prisons. The right hon. Gentleman, to whom special credit was due for the anxiety he had always shown to do what was right, had been misinformed and misled with reference to one case which had occurred in our convict prisons. He could prove this by the fact that the treatment of the prisoner to whom he referred had been totally changed. When the right hon. Gentleman—and such a right hon. Gentleman—had been misinformed and misled it, showed the necessity that existed for securing a proper civil supervision of our prisons as contra-distinguished from mere official supervision. He therefore trusted that the Amendment he now moved would be accepted.

moved, in page 4, line 27, after "Secretary of State" to insert "shall on or before the commencement of this Act, make and publish and."

in moving, as an Amendment, the omission of the following words:—

"The visiting committee may from time to time (subject to such rules as to rotation or otherwise as may be made by the Secretary of State) nominate to the Prison Commissioners persons fit to be admitted into the prison service as subordinate officers, and such persons shall, in the event of their possessing such qualifications and fulfilling such conditions as may from time to time be prescribed by the Secretary of State, be appointed to vacancies from time to time arising in the prison service,"

said, that he wished to have omitted from the Bill the small amount of patronage that had been placed in the hands of the visiting justices. His objection to the Bill was not on account of there being no patronage allowed to the magistrates, but to its principle. In the debate on the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir John Kennaway), the Secretary of State said objected to any stringent words being placed in the Bill, because he might thereby be forced to do certain things which he might not wish to do, and prevented from doing certain things and from appointing certain persons he might wish to appoint. If that objection applied to one portion of the Bill it applied equally to another. If they were not to have that patronage, and if the discipline was to be maintained by the Secretary of State and the Commissioners, let them have the patronage, and let the visiting magistrates have the important work entrusted to them of seeing that prisoners had no complaint to make, but let them not have divided responsibility, even the small amount of recommending persons for this patronage. He observed from the Notice Paper that his hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir John Kennaway) intended to suggest that the Secretary of State for War should have this patronage. Well, he believed that amongst the non-commissioned officers of the Army there would be found as good a class of men to put into prison service as could possibly be selected, and he hoped that the Home Secretary would never lose sight of that fact; but, at the same time, it would manifestly be unwise to say that no other deserving men should be open to appointment.

remarked that the patronage which it was proposed to confer on the visiting committee would serve no purpose whatever, except to disguise the exclusive domination which was to be exercised by the Home Secretary, and to defeat the responsibility he proposed to assume. That patronage could only operate to the deception of the public, and he therefore thoroughly concurred in the request that the Justices in Quarter Sessions might not be encumbered with this small patronage.

said, that he hoped his right hon. Friend would announce his consent to the Amendment — which was in the right direction. The words not only possibly created a divided responsibility, but were directly surplusage. Under restrictions to be imposed by the Secretary of State the justices were to nominate persons to certain subordinate appointments. The privilege of recommending persons to such appointments would exist without these words, and any Secretary of State would attend to recommendations coming from such a quarter. As it stood, moreover, the clause appeared to give a power of nomination which it did not give in effect, because the rules regulating the appointments would be in the hands of the Prison Commissioners or the Secretary of State. This part of the clause was an unreality, therefore, to which he objected. Having given the power to the Secretary of State, the less they clogged him the better.

said, that he could save time by stating his cordial agreement with the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter Barttelot), which, he thought, was approved of' by the Committee. He thought the justices would decline to be burdened with this patronage, though he had been accused of coveting patronage for them. The object of the further Amendment to which his hon. and gallant Friend had referred was not to tie the hands of the Secretary of State as to the persons he should appoint, but to offer increased inducements to good men to enter the Army. It had been found difficult to find a class of appointments suited to retired soldiers; but if it were known that such appointments existed, it would add greatly to the inducements which the recruiting sergeants had to offer.

supported the Amendment on the ground that a divided responsibility in prison management was objectionable. He hoped the Home Secretary would keep all these appointments in his own hands. The proposal of the hon. Member for Devonshire could only result in confusion. Those who had served in the Navy and in the Civil Service were equally as deserving as those in the Army.

hoped the Committee would strike out the clause. If they wanted a gaol to be well managed they must have undivided authority and responsibility. The Prison Commissioners and the Home Secretary ought to be responsible for everything, and then if matters did not go well the House would know whom to "pitch into." If they wanted to scare magistrates from acting as visiting justices they would give them the duty of inquiring into the doubtful qualifications of A, B, or C for these situations.

said, he thought the Committee would believe him when he said that he had not sought for any patronage in this Bill that he could possibly avoid exercising. The clause did not, in his view, create a divided authority. His intention was that the visiting justices might send up the names of any persons whom they thought fit to occupy the position of prison warders, and who, after passing the ordinary Civil Service examination, would be appointed not to any particular prison, but to the general prison service of' the country. He would not, however, press that part of the clause, and would accept the Amendment, as he was quite sure he could get all he wanted without the words being embodied in the Bill. It was obvious that if any body of visiting justices recommended a particular man for the position of prison warder the Home Secretary would only be too glad to avail himself of the recommendation.

protested against the withdrawal of this Proviso, and the adoption of the Amendment.

did not consider that soldiers would make good warders, and objected to the introduction of military discipline into our prisons.

moved, in page 5, line 17, at end, to add

"and shall also report as heretofore to the court of quarter sessions by which they have been appointed."

The intention of the Amendment was to keep the public informed through an unofficial source of the management of the prisons. The publicity hitherto obtained through the quarterly reports of the visiting justices to quarter sessions was taken away by the Bill. He desired to see it restored, so that as far as possible the public might be made cooperators with the Government in the cause of prison reform. Improvements had usually originated from outside. Moreover, the best way of meeting the accusations, frequently unfounded, brought against the Government with respect to the treatment of prisoners, would be to appeal to the report of unofficial persons such as the justices committee. It was the secrecy of the system which gave colour to such charges. As long as a large criminal jurisdiction was imposed upon the local magistrates, they should be kept acquainted with the nature of prison discipline, otherwise they would be scarcely competent to pass just and adequate sentences. Pub- lie discussion on this subject in one of the constituted courts of the country, such as the court of quarter sessions, would strengthen the hands of any Government for good and weaken their power for evil.

said, he quite concurred in the object of the hon. Member for Shropshire; but he thought he had overlooked the circumstance that the visiting justices, who hitherto had been responsible to the quarter sessions, would, under this clause, become instruments of the Secretary of State, as the clause stated that they should only exercise their functions as justices in such manner as the Secretary of State should direct. There was nothing in the clause to limit the control the Secretary of State would have over them. They would be responsible to the Secretary of State, and to him, they would, of course, report. He (Mr. Newdegate) saw that it would be unreasonable to make them report to the court of quarter sessions, to which they would no longer be responsible; but he also saw that the system contemplated by the Bill would be one of secrecy, rendering the prisons that would be retained oubliettes. Hitherto the reports of the visiting justices had been published in the courts of quarter sessions. There might be objections to a double system of reporting; but there would be none to the publication of copies of the reports made by these justices to the Secretary of State. He should therefore move to amend the proposed Amendment by making it provide instead—"and shall also furnish copies of their Reports to the quarter sessions by whom they are appointed."

opposed the Amendment, both as it stood originally and in its altered shape. They had, rightly or wrongly, placed those matters in the hands of the Secretary of State, who was responsible to the House, and reports were to be made annually to Parliament on the state of these prisons. The reports of the visiting justices would be simply complaints against the officers of the prison, but would not contain any answer to those complaints. They would contain the charges, but nothing more. The publication of such reports would be unfair and unjust.

was of opinion that if the public were to be informed in regard to the conduct of prison officials there was but one way of doing that—by the publication of reports against these officials. If the House had any hope that this Bill would not give dissatisfaction the original report made to the Secretary of State and the answer he returned should be produced, so that there might be no more secrecy than hitherto. Besides, the sentences pronounced at quarter sessions were not always carried out to the full, any more than those pronounced by the assize courts. This was a necessary incident in the present system of prison discipline which severely tried the prisoners health. There had grown up a system of political trading in the remission of sentences, which this Bill would increase.

was in favour of the visiting justices being required to report to the authority by whom they were appointed.

said, there were many things brought before the visiting justices which it was requisite to keep secret; but there were other matters such as the cleanliness, good order, and discipline in the gaol, as well as whether or not there were any complaints. It should be reported by the visiting justices to the quarter sessions particularly so as the quarter sessions were called upon to appoint the visiting committee of justices.

apprehended that unless words were inserted in the Act prohibiting the visiting justices making reports to the body appointing them they would naturally be entitled, and it would be their duty, to do so. At all events, the body appointing might require reports to be made to them.

said, under the Bill the Secretary of State would have no power to enforce visiting justices doing their duty, whereas if there was a quarterly report the Secretary of State would have the knowledge that they had or had not. Then, again, these reports would not only be a great advantage, but would give satisfaction out-of-doors. If the House was sitting hon. Members would have opportunities of putting Questions to the Secretary of State with reference to the condition of gaols, &c.; but when the House was not sitting what means would the public have of getting information on such matters, unless the visiting justices reported to the quarter sessions?

said, there was nothing in the Bill which would prevent the visiting justices from reporting to the quarter Sessions, but there was a clause which required the prison commissioners to report annually to the Secretary of State, and he was to lay their reports before Parliament. He thought the publicity they all desired would be obtained better by the Bill as it stood than by the Amendment.

said, that under the clause it was possible for the Secretary of State to order that the visiting justices should not report to quarter sessions but to himself.

said, he could not possibly prevent the visiting justices telling their brethren at quarter sessions what they saw inside the gaols. No doubt they would have their chatter about the gaols. ["Oh!"] He begged pardon of any hon. Members who were justices for that expression; but what he meant was that while he could not prevent visiting justices reporting what they had seen, he could not sanction a statutory obligation to report to the quarter sessions, for that would imply that the quarter sessions had something to do with the report, which in fact they would not have.

said, the great thing was that the reports would be made known in the localities most interested in them. He did not find that the reports made to that House helped them much. They had an illustration in the Bulgarian atrocities. How much would the House have known about these circumstances if there had not been independent information? That was a particular instance of the uselessness of information obtained through official Reports to the House. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed.

could not conceive anything which would place a court of quarter sessions in a worse position than that of having a report made to them with which they had no jurisdiction to deal. But a greater objection to such a report would be that, being public, comments in the public Press might be made upon wrong or abuses detailed in it at the very moment when the Secretary of State might have amended what was complained of.

asked if there was anything in the Bill to prohibit the visiting justices from presenting their reports to the courts of quarter sessions? According to his view nothing could so prevent them if ordered by the court which appointed them. On the other hand, to give them a statutory direction to report to the quarter sessions always when some of their reports might be of a confidential character to the Secretary of State seemed to him unwise. His chief objection to the Amendment, however, was that they were by this Bill taking away from quarter sessions the power of managing the prisons, and they could therefore take no action upon such a report if made to them. As a chairman of quarter sessions he would rather that his court did not receive a report upon which it could take no action.

did not see what would be the use of reporting to a body which would have no power to correct abuses or remedy evils.

urged that there was a great deal about these matters which the public ought to know; and there was nothing in courts of quarter sessions—which were still to be entrusted with the administration of justice—that would make them unfit to be the recipients of information which he thought the House would do wrong if it did not insist on their having furnished to them.

thought the Amendment perfectly reasonable, and urged the Government to concede it.

also supported the Amendment.

pointed out that under the Bill the prisons would be placed under the management, to a great extent, of Roman Catholic chaplains, and thought it was therefore of the utmost importance to give the magistrates a controlling power.

stated that the only effect of the Amendment would be to ensure immediate and local publicity to the reports of the visiting justices.

moved that the time allowed for repaying loans received from the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the purposes of this section should be made 60 instead of 35 years.

submitted that, as 35 years was the limit of the period for which prison authorities could now borrow, 60 years would be a most unreasonable term, seeing that the loans would be made at rates considerably lower than the market rates, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

thought it would tend to a more equitable charge upon property if the term was made longer than 35 years, but that 60 years might be too long.

moved, in page 7, line 32, to leave out from beginning of Clause to "pounds," in page 8, line 5, and insert—

"Where, at the passing of this Act, any prison authority has provided more than sufficient cell accommodation for the number of prisoners belonging thereto, there shall be paid to such prison authority, out of money provided by Parliament, one hundred and twenty pounds in respect of each cell over and above the number required for the prisoners of such prison authority."

As the clause stood at present full compensation would be given in some cases and in others it would not. In that respect it appeared to be at variance with the spirit in which the rest of the Bill was framed. In Clause 30, for instance, it was provided that when a prison was discontinued £120 should be paid in respect to the cell accommodation for each prisoner. And by Clause 13 prison authorities having insufficient prison accommodation of their own must pay to the Exchequer for each cell provided for their district the sum of £120.

said, it would not be possible to agree to the Amendment for several reasons. Under the Gaols Act the authorities were all bound to have a certain amount of prison accommodation. In this Bill great care had been taken to put this liability at a moderate figure, and taking the daily average the maximum amount of accommodation, and no more, was required. In many gaols provision had been made for more than that maximum, and they had to be locally maintained and kept up, although some portion of the accommodation was useless. Under this Bill the local authority would be relieved from that charge, and it was by no means certain that the State could utilize this spare accommodation; and if it did there would be the cost of removal. The fact was, that the local authorities must take the rough with the smooth, remembering that the State was going to provide all the corn and hay which they would otherwise have to provide for the maintenance of their respective white elephants. At the same time, compensation would be given under the Bill in cases where local authorities had built gaols upon the understanding that they would accommodate the prisoners of a neighbouring authority; or where, having more room than they wanted, they undertook to lodge prisoners from neighbouring towns. He did not think it would be right to go further than by meeting these two cases of hardship, for otherwise the State would be saddled with charges which would make it impossible for the Government to pass the Bill. As it was, some local authorities might not get so much as others, but none would lose; there would be a gain to all.

said, that in his district the local authorities would have to take all the "rough," receiving none of the "smooth." Having a larger gaol than they themselves needed, they took 50 prisoners from Birmingham, but they would now lese the benefit of that revenue.

said, the Bill would give them the benefit of this contract so long as it existed; and though it might be only a yearly contract, yet, if it were intended to be renewed, that intention would be taken into consideration in estimating the loss suffered by the locality.

thought that the locality in such a case might fairly reckon on receiving from the State £120 for each of the 50 cells which were in excess of local requirements.

thought it would be convenient for the Committee to take the discussion at that time, upon an Amendment of which he had given Notice, as it was similar to the one under consideration, while it provided a safeguard against unreasonable demands upon the Treasury, as it proposed—

"That in case the Prison Commissioners shall report to the Secretary of State that the prison accommodation is in excess of the probable requirements of such district, or that the buildings are dilapidated or unsuitable, it shall be lawful for the Secretary of State to decline to recommend to the Treasury to make such compensation, in whole or in part, as the circumstances of the case may demand."

The right hon. Gentleman had remarked that the local authorities must take the rough with the smooth; but the fact was that the rough fell all on one side and the smooth on the other. The rough fell on those who managed the prisons properly, and handed over the best gaols to the Government. The Government required the cells, but would not pay for them; but while taking the cells they compelled the local authorities to pay for new prisons that would be built in other parts of the country out of the Imperial taxes.

said, it was an injustice that a prison authority should get nothing for unoccupied cells, and he asked for an assurance that the local authority should not, after handing over a prison to the Government, have, under Clause 30, to buy it back at the pleasure of the Home Secretary at £120 per cell.

said, it appeared to him that when a good prison had been built it was not right to give the authorities no advantage over the authorities of smaller prisons.

said, that his Amendment stood first on the Paper, although the hon. Member went further by his Amendment than he (Mr. Fresh-field) did.

called the hon. Member to Order, and pointed out that the Amendment in question was not that of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Rowley Hill), but of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Helms). An opportunity would be given for these remarks subsequently.

begged pardon. His Amendment was, however, of the same character as that of the hon. Member for Paisley.

said, that his referred only to prison accommodation in excess.

said, he did not go so far as that. In his borough they had promised extra cell accommodation, and made a contract with other places to take their prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman had really received the £120 referred to from them. What right had the Treasury to make a profit out of the passing of this Bill?

said, he did not think it desirable that the State should pay for cells which the Government were not going to use; but, in his opinion, they ought to pay for those which were required for the public service.

thought the provision for deciding the amount of compensation was of the most inadequate kind. Unless some Amendment should be made in the clause, the Government would be doing a most unfair thing, for they would take the prison accommodation without paying for it.

said, that he approved of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lancashire (Mr. Hardcastle). He doubted whether the contracts were, in many cases, definite enough to entitle them to compensation under Clause 14. In the borough which he represented (Hull) £80,000 had been expended in the erection of a new gaol, and the number of unoccupied cells would be about 150. It would be a serious thing if the borough should be deprived of that amount of accommodation without compensation.

made a few observations on the matter, with a view, as he said, of saving time when they came to the Scotch Prisons Bill. The county he represented (Ayrshire) had for some considerable time 80 or 90 cells in the county prison in excess of its requirements. The consequence was that the Government had sent them from 50 to 90 Government prisoners in order to fill up the prison, and that was done under a contract. Some time, however, after the introduction of the Bill of last year these prisoners were removed—lie would not say post hoc propter hoc—and the contract was in that way broken. The county, he held, was entitled to receive £120 from the Government for every cell in excess of their requirements in consequence of the breaking of the contract. He trusted the Government would re-consider the question, and see whether they could not do something in the direction of the course pointed out by the hon. Member (Mr. Holms).

argued that one party to a contract was entitled to withdraw from it as well as another, and expressed a hope that the Government would not give way, take care of the public purse, and not pay for cells which were not required.

said, that the object of this Amendment was to remedy the one-sided arrangement which the Bill proposed. They could not make people believe that it was fair to make one side pay and take a great deal from the other and give nothing. This arrangement would create a great deal of heartburning. He would, therefore, suggest that the Government should have nothing to do either with paying or receiving, but they should take the whole of the prisons into their own hands as they stood. It was, he added, the small boroughs which, generally speaking, would have to pay, and they would be put to considerable inconvenience by an arrangement which seemed to proceed on the principle of "Heads I win, tails you lose."

said, he hoped the Government would not be induced to hastily recede from the position they had taken up upon this matter. He thought that the proposition of the Government as it stood was a fair one for the protection of the interests of the public at large. If a prison authority had provided a slight margin of accommodation beyond its actual need it had done DO more than its duty, and if any prison authorities happened to have provided a much greater amount of cell accommodation than was likely to be required in the course of several years, he did not see why the country should be called upon to compensate them because they chose to overbuild.

said, he could not agree with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. Suppose the prison authorities in a town of 100,000 inhabitants to have made reasonable provision for the next three, four, five, or even ten years, were they to be mulcted on account of the precaution they had adopted?

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

said, he had taken the "average" because it was the principle adopted throughout in the Bill, and it should be remembered that the maximum number might have been reached through exceptional circumstances.

pointed out that it was not merely the average, but the maximum number of prisoners the local authority was bound to provide for.

preferred "average" number to "maximum" number. If the policy of the Government was to undertake the management of the prisons of this country, they ought to take over all the prisons, except those that were dilapidated or unsuitable.

suggested that the Amendment of the hon. Member should be withdrawn, in order that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hard-castle) might be put.

moved, in page 6, line 28, after the word "pounds," to insert the words—

"And where a prison authority has provided a prison of its own more than adequate for the accommodation of the prisoners belonging to such authority, it shall be entitled to receive, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, compensation to the extent of one hundred and twenty pounds in respect of each cell provided in such prison over and above the number of cells required for the average daily number of prisoners maintained at the expense of such authority in its own prison during the five years immediately preceding the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven: Provided always, That in case the Prison Commissioners shall report to the Secretary of State that the prison accommodation is in excess of the probable requirements of such district, or that the buildings are dilapidated or unsuitable, it shall be lawful for the Secretary of State to decline to recommend to the Treasury to make such compensation, in whole or in part, as the circumstances of the case may demand."

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

said, it would be his duty at the proper time to move that the word "maximum" be substituted for the word "average."

had first an Amendment to propose—namely, to insert the words "not more than" before the words "one hundred and twenty pounds."

said, that if all these provisoes were to be inserted, it would be made so difficult for the prison authorities to get anything, that he doubted whether they would receive any compensation at all.

said, the Amendment only applied to gaols kept by the Secretary of State, and not to those which he might take and afterwards give up.

doubted whether it would be necessary to retain either the word "average" or "maximum."

saw a difficulty in using either word taken by itself. He would suggest, by way of compromise, that the average should be the average of the maximum of the previous five years. If the word maximum were taken, it might destroy the claim of the gaol authorities to any compensation whatever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had founded his argument in favour of the word maximum upon the fact that it was the duty of the prison authorities to provide as much prison accommodation as was required. But suppose a riot broke out in the neighbourhood. The prison might then be overcrowded, and might not be able to contain the number of prisoners who might be committed. According to the Amendment, the prison authorities were to receive £120 for each cell provided above the "maximum" number of prisoners—that very maximum having been caused by the accidental overcrowding of the prison. He therefore suggested that the average should be fixed on the maximum number of the prisoners maintained during the five preceding years.

believed it was the duty of a prison authority to provide all the accommodation that could be required in any emergency; and this was done in his own county, so that the prisons were equal to the demands made upon them in the hop-picking season. The Government met them fairly by giving them compensation for all the accommodation beyond their maximum requirements, and this was all they could reasonably expect.

complained that the House had been misled in passing the second reading of the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman had now thrown over the calculations upon which he based his case, and the bribe offered to the local prison authorities had been increased at each successive stage of the consideration of the provisions in Committee.

moved, in page 8, line 12, at end, to add—

"and where such contract or dealing shall result in a debt or obligation to be wholly paid or discharged after the commencement of this Act, such debt or obligation shall be paid or discharged out of moneys provided by Parliament."

The object of the Amendment was to supplement what seemed an omission in the clause, which only provided for contracts commencing before and terminating after the commencement of the Act, and which accordingly distributed the obligation between the prison authority and the Imperial Exchequer.

remarked that the prison authority was bound to provide a gaol free from all obligations or charges, but said that he would look into the matter before the Report, and was willing that, if necessary, the clause should be amended in the direction indicated by the hon. Member's Amendment.

proposed to add at the end of the clause a series of provisoes to the effect that persons on remand or committed for trial should be subject to such restraint only as was requisite to secure their attendance; that they should retain possession of money, papers, &c., under their control at the time of their arrest, unless the same constituted evidence of the charge; that a schedule of those articles should be made out by the police, and that the counsel of such persons should have free access to them at all times.

pointed out that the Amendments of which the hon. Member (Mr. Sheridan) had given Notice, although they might be held to be in some degree germane to the subject-matter of the clause, were in fact a series of fresh clauses, and could be more conveniently discussed as new clauses moved at the end of the Bill; but, though the practice was inconvenient of taking such clauses in the middle of the Bill, he considered it his duty, if they were pressed, to put them.

explained that although he did not think it would be wise to put a set of tabulated rules in such an Act of Parliament, yet he had taken the precaution when he introduced the Bill to insert a clause (Clause 35) enabling the Secretary of State to deal with the matters now in question.

said, it was a fundamental principle of the law of England that a man was presumed innocent until he was found guilty. This involved a great Constitutional principle that ought not to be left to the discretion of any Minister of the Crown or any one else.

said, that as to the use of the words "criminal prisoner," they were taken from the Gaol Act of 1865. By the rules laid down under that Act a person was not to be treated as such until after his conviction.

considered the law as it now stood an outrageous attack on the liberty of the subject. Persons charged with offences were detained and subjected to the greatest indignity. As had been clearly shown, a man was bound to be held innocent till he was proved to be guilty. In this country he was really treated as guilty till he proved that he was free of crime. He held that mere detention was all that the Government could fairly claim. Why should a man be deprived of light and heat because he was charged with an offence? Why should he be compelled to sleep on beards or be degraded in any way? The time of the person charged was in many instances valuable to him. Was it not sufficient to make him lose that without any remedy? On the other side of the Atlantic such persons enjoyed every comfort and convenience they desired. He thought the Committee was much indebted to the hon. Member for Dudley for moving this Amendment, and others in the same direction, which he hoped the hon. Member would press to a division.

said, he quite agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald). It was a scandal and a disgrace to the law of the country that a man should be treated as a prisoner whilst yet unconvicted of crime. There was no such term known to the law as "criminal prisoner" to denote a prisoner not convicted of crime, and it was not because they slipped, inadvertently no doubt, into the Act of 1865, that they should be continued now. The Home Secretary proposed to have power to frame rules for these purposes, but it was to be at his discretion, and to that he objected. He hoped the utmost resistance would be offered to this Bill of despotism and centralization, which was in distinct violation of our ancient privileges, for which the Home Secretary, though a learned lawyer, did not seem to have much respect.

thought that if hon. Members would look at the Schedule of the Act of 1865 they would find that a good deal of misapprehension existed on this subject. There were rules given in that Schedule with regard to the treatment of unconvicted prisoners. It was there laid down that such prisoners were to be kept, before trial, apart from the other prisoners; that they were to be at liberty, under certain restrictions, to procure food, clothing, and other necessaries for themselves; that they might, if they so desired, wear a prison dress, and might be required to do it if their own was insufficient, but such dress was to be of a different colour from that of the convicted prisoners; and that they were to have the option of working, but were not to be compelled to do any labour with the exception of cleaning their own cells, which, however, they might employ some one else to do, and as to most of the prisoners it must be borne in mind that they were of a class who thought the work of cleaning no hardship. There were rules also to the effect that due provision should be made for the admission of visitors, and for enabling the prisoners to carry on correspondence, regard being always had to such restrictions as the interests of justice rendered necessary. What he now wanted to do was to relax some of the rules, and this he would have power to do under Clause 35.

urged that the right hon. Gentleman should follow the precedent he had referred to himself —namely, the Prisons Act, and embody in a Schedule to this Bill his amended rules for the treatment of prisoners before trial. That would be much better than that he should take the power to make what regulations he pleased without reference to Parliament. There was no matter on which there was a stronger feeling out-of-doors.

said, everybody gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for his desire to pass a just and equitable measure, but this was a matter which should not be left to the wisdom, or it might be to chance or the caprice of prison authorities. He, therefore, agreed with the remarks that had just been made. He remembered the case of a gentleman—a clergyman from Germany, a few years ago, who was charged with a murder upon evidence of the most unreliable kind, and which was completely disproved. Yet that gentleman, who was not even committed for trial, but only remanded while the inquiry was going on, had been subjected to the grossest indignities. All this had been done with these rules in existence, and what might not be done without rules? [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: You may appeal to Parliament.] Yes, undoubtedly; and what would they get by it? They would have to wait until the whole thing had passed from memory, and at best be content with an explanation from a Home Secretary, but as to redress there would be none.

suggested that the term "criminal prisoner" ought not to be allowed to remain, when the persons to whom it was applied were in many cases not criminals. It was all very well for the Home Secretary to say they might buy what comforts they wished; but how about those who were unable to do so?

said, they treated political prisoners with greater harshness than any other nation of Europe did. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) had been arrested on suspicion and detained for some months on suspicion of Fenianism, and was then discharged. He was handcuffed for some days, however.

said, that question was not the one before the House. Under the 35th section the Secretary of State had the power to do certain acts, but they must be in mitigation of the former statute.

said, that the rules of the Act of 1865 had been found insufficient to protect unconvicted prisoners from great suffering and abuse. As rules had been laid down in the Act of 1865, would it not be right to introduce better rules in the Bill now under discussion?

pointed out that in the first schedule of the Prisons Act of 1865 it was distinctly laid down that no prisoners should be put in irons except in cases of "urgent necessity." No Act of Parliament could say more than that, and he hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would not attempt to lay down any rule in this Act for the treatment of prisoners.

thought it inexpedient to re-enact the hard-and-fast lines that used to tie the hands of the Home Secretary.

hoped that the rules would be put in the Schedule. He objected to discretion being given to the Home Secretary with regard to the treatment of criminals.

moved that the Chairman report Progress.

called the attention of the Committee to the fact that hon. Members had not been discussing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan), but whether certain rules should be put into the Schedule or not. The rules of 1865 were very carefully drawn up, and he was not asking for the slightest additional power. He would recommend the hon. Member for Dudley to adopt the recommendation of the Chairman and withdraw his Amendment, in order to bring it in at a subsequent time.

said, he rose to Order. They were not discussing the question before the Committee, but another question.

said, the Question before the Committee was that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

said, that however mild the rules might be when they were read, yet in actual practice they were very harsh. He would read an extract from the leading journal, The Times, upon the treatment of Dr. Hessel, who was some years ago subjected to the indignity of a convicted offender on a charge of murder, although nothing had been proved against him. The hon. Member was proceeding accordingly, when

asked whether an hon. Member was in Order in reading from a newspaper?

said, an hon. Member was not strictly in Order in reading from a newspaper, but Members were allowed to read extracts from books, newspapers, and other documents.

would remind the House that Dr. Hessel, on very slight evidence of identification, was subjected to the degradation of a criminal. He was stripped, washed, searched, put into a cold cell, supplied with a board for his bed and another for his chair, and was obliged to wash and scrub his cell.

said, that if the debate were adjourned he would prove that the Secretary of State had refused to relax the rule in the case of a very notable prisoner. He was prepared to show that in that case measures were taken to prevent that man preparing his defence. [Cries of "Name."] The person he referred to was one of the witnesses in the Tichborne trial, and he charged the Judge who tried that man with partiality in a corrupt administration of justice. ["Oh, oh!"]

rose to Order. He desired to know whether the hon. Member was in Order in charging Mr. Justice Brett with corruption and partiality in the administration of justice on a Motion to report Progress?

submitted that in that House any hon. Member was entitled to challenge the public conduct of any paid officer of the Crown.

observed that he understood the hon. and gallant Member had risen to Order in consequence of the observations which had been made being irrelevant to the Motion to report Progres. If his opinion were asked whether an hon. Member was entitled in his place to challenge the conduct of any public official he was bound to say that he knew of no rule to prevent it; but he must add that the observations made were not relevant to the Question before the Committee.

said, he did not wish to impute anything, personal to Mr. Justice Brett. He was when called to Order quoting from a letter he had written to the Secretary of State, in which, as a magistrate and a deputy-lieutenant for three counties, he stated that either the Judge was not entitled to public confidence or he (Mr. Whalley) was not fit to be a magistrate.

thought the opportunity a fitting one to deal with this question, and he hoped a clause would be inserted in the Bill which would afford a distinct amelioration of the treatment of unconvicted prisoners under remand.

suggested that the hon. Member for Dudley should lay on the Table, in the form of a Schedule to the Bill, the regulations which he thought should be established for the treatment of unconvicted prisoners.

objected to the House being called upon to go into Committee after half-past 12 o'clock. He thought that no Business ought to be taken after that hour, and begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

explained that the Bill was simply formal.

said, he objected to the system of taking Business after half-past 12. He had no objection to the Committee being taken; but he wished an understanding to be arrived at under which Members might be allowed to go home after half-past 12.

said, he would withdraw his Motion, but he thought the Bill might have been put on the Paper earlier and taken before this hour.