moved, after Clause 9, to insert the following clause: —

observed that the extracts which the hon. Member had been reading referred entirely to the treatment of prisoners in convict prisons, and the present Bill had no reference to the treatment of prisoners in convict prisons, and, therefore, any matter affecting such treatment was outside the present Bill.

remarked that there was power in a clause of the Bill to set apart any prison for the confinement of treason felony prisoners; and therefore he considered he was in Order in referring to the extracts from the Report of the Commissioners. He had no desire to detain the Committee.

asked the hon. Member to point out the section to which he referred.

replied that he referred to Clause 21, by which the Secretary of State had power to remove any convicted person from one prison to any other prison.

said, that "criminal prisoner" was a technical ex- pression with a meaning defined in the Gaol Act; but this Bill could not apply to convict prisoners.

was sorry that the clause had been altered, and was proceeding to repeat his statements of the ill-treatment of the treason felony prisoners, when —

again called the hon. Member to Order, and pointed out that his arguments and extracts had reference to the treatment of prisoners in convict prisons.

submitted that if prisoners in convict prisons had been treated in the way he had mentioned he was not precluded from showing how they had been treated, and that they ought not to be treated in that manner in other prisons. After bearing testimony to the candour of O'Donovan Rossa, the Commissioners proceeded

was unwilling to interrupt the hon. Member; but he had already indicated that the clause as proposed would not produce any effect on the treatment of the prisoners in convict prisons. The references of the hon. Member were not germane to the question under consideration.

wished it to be understood that the principle for which he was contending was simply this—that political prisoners, when confined in prisons under the operation of the present Bill, should not be treated as ordinary criminal prisoners, and in order to show that these men ought not to be treated in that way he was reading extracts from a Report of a Royal Commission to show that these prisoners were guilty of no moral crime, and that their offence was not of a degrading kind. The prisoners to whom he had referred were men of excellent moral character.

ruled that the hon. Member was not in Order in referring to this question.

replied that the ruling of the Chairman had not been the same up to the present moment. [Cries of "Order."] Instances of persons confined in prisons had been brought forward as instances in support of clauses in Committee on this Bill, and no objection had been taken hitherto. He thought he was entitled to call attention to the cases of all prisoners under confinement in either England or Ire- land in order to prove the necessity for the clause he was proposing.

stated that previous discussions had reference to previous clauses, and his desire was to point out to the hon. Member what was or was not in Order with regard to particular clauses.

next proceeded to call attention to the cases of Rossa, O'Connell, and others, who died of consumption in gaol; of Murphy, who complained of the indignity to which he was subjected; and of Burke, who, although he was of unsound mind, was accused of malingering. Some of these prisoners complained of weakness in the chest, but no proper attention was shown them, and the consequence was they had since died of consumption.

rise to Order. I ask you, Sir, whether the hon. Member is not persevering in that course which you have ruled to be out of Order?

have on several occasions endeavoured to intimate to the hon. Member the course of Order in regard to matters before the Committee. I have been reluctant, as on previous occasions, to stop him from adducing illustrations of his argument; but I am bound to say he is repeating those protracted referrences to matters not pertaining to the particular clause before the Committee, to which I have already called his attention as being out of Order.

said, the prisoners who had been hitherto convicted of the offences alluded to had been confined in convict prisons, and, therefore, he was bound to draw his illustrations from convict prisons. Although he thought the Chairman's ruling thoroughly wrong[" Order, order !"]—he would not persevere.

If the hon. Member thinks my ruling entirely wrong, he should challenge it before the House. I do not think the observation he has made is one which will commend itself to the Committee.

said, he would withdraw the expression, and if he thought it necessary to do so, he would take another opportunity of noticing the matter. He would, however, remind the Committee that the Act of 1848, which constituted the offence of treason felony, was passed to meet the case of the Chart- ists, who flourished from about 1833 to 1848. Their creed included universal suffrage, and we had now reached the point next to that—vote by ballot, which was now the law—and the abolition of property qualification, which was now abolished; and yet Chartists, for advocating those doctrines, with others of a like character, were liable to imprisonment—and some were imprisoned—as felons. He trusted the Committee would now decide that the rules under which such persons were imprisoned should be at once produced by the Home Secretary; or otherwise to enact that all such prisoners should be treated as first-class misdemeanants, under the Prisons Act of 1865. It was high time an attempt was made to remove from England the reproach that she treated her political prisoners worse than any other country in the world. In France even the Communists who half burnt Paris, and to whom were attributed the most atrocious designs, were treated exceptionally. They were not sent to the hulks or the galleys, but simply expatriated. When history came to be written there was nothing for which the children of Englishmen now living would blush so much as for the treatment of the men convicted in 1865. Had it not been for the ruling of the Chairman he could have made a much more powerful case than he had done by adducing details of the manner in which these men were treated. He had actually a letter from one of his constituents in which he stated that he had been sent to break stones, and had been kept at breaking stones for several hours in the course of the day. If men were treated so badly in English prisons, what would have been the treatment these men would have received in Irish prisons —the treatment of men to the like of whom England now owed a great part of its present liberties. He hoped that this Bill, when it went from that Committee, would be so framed that political prisoners would not be treated as murderers, demons, and culprits, of the worst order. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the adoption of the clause of which he had given Notice.

said, he had not wished to interrupt the hon. Member, but he was bound to state that a great deal of what he had said was irrelevant to the subject-matter of the Bill. He even doubted whether the question raised by the hon. Member could be raised on the present Bill at all. The Committee were discussing a measure regulating the treatment of prisoners sent to a certain class of prisons for a certain class of offences, and it had nothing to do with the general criminal law of the land; but the proposal of the hon. Member was, in fact, as much a change in that law as if he had proposed that, in future, no culprit should be executed within the walls of a prison. He agreed with the hon. Member that the old laws as to treason were in these days unnecessarily severe, and the Act of 12 Vict. made a distinction between what he might call treason proper and treason felony. The first was confined to acts against the person of the Sovereign, and all the rest to the smaller offence of treason felony. The Act distinctly laid down that all persons guilty of such acts should be regarded as guilty of felony, and being so found guilty, might be transported or imprisoned with or without hard labour, at the discretion of the Judge. But the Amendment said that although a man might be convicted of felony he was, by this Prisons Bill, to be treated as a first-class misdemeanant. But it would not only change the treatment of the prisoner, it would change the character of the offence and alter the punishment to be inflicted. If a prisoner were convicted and sentenced to penal servitude, the Bill would not affect him, as his punishment would be inflicted in a convict prison. The hon. Member, however, said that these who were technically guilty of treason felony and might be sentenced to imprisonment with or without hard labour should be treated as first-class misdemeanants. To adopt such a proposition would be to interfere with the function of the Judge who tried the particular case, and who was best able to form an opinion whether the prisoner should or should not be condemned to hard labour. The question before the Committee was a serious one. If this Amendment were accepted it would not simply change the treatment of certain prisoners in the gaols, but it would change the criminal law. If that was what the hon. Memintended he ought to bring in a Bill to amend or repeal the Act of Victoria, and then the whole question would be thoroughly discussed. The Committee should remember who the persons were on whose behalf the clause was submitted by the hon. Member. They were described in the Act of Parliament as persons who combined and conspired to levy war against the Crown, to depose the Sovereign, and to stir up foreigners to invade the United Kingdom or other possessions of the Crown. Such persons should surely be called, not first-class misdemeanants, but first-class criminals.

said, the objections of the right hon. Gentleman to the clause of his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) were merely technical. In point of law, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman was right; but the substance of the question was—how were those persons to be treated who were convicted of political offences. No one, of course, wished to extenuate these offences; but it should be remembered that these who were guilty of them might have been misled by strong political feelings, and ought not, therefore, to be placed on a footing with ordinary felons. There was once a discussion in that House whether or not Oliver Cromwell should have a statue in Westminster Hall, and yet he thought he remembered that Oliver Cromwell cut off King Charles's head, which was something more than treason felony. But if Charles I. had been successful Oliver Cromwell would have been hung, drawn, and quartered. Opinions differed greatly on these matters—there were people who greatly admired Oliver Cromwell, and thought him the greatest Sovereign this country ever had, while he (Sir George Bowyer) thought him a murderer of the worst description. Then, again, Washington was a rebel, and was guilty of treason felony, and he remembered a statesman in office once saying to him that if Washington had been caught he would have been hanged. Everybody now honoured Washington. Many Members of the House remembered the case of Pœrio, the Neapolitan Prefect of Police, who was convicted of attempting the life of King Ferdinand II., and sentenced to imprisonment. Well, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) wrote a pamphlet on the subject, which stated that Pœrio was treated as if he were a murderer. The country rang with execration of the King of Naples, and the feeling that was aroused led finally to the overthrow of the Bourbon dynasty in Naples. But the fact was that the King of Naples was an extremely humane man, and he bought a palace at Palermo in which to confine as first-class misdemeanants persons convicted of treasonable offences. Thus Pœrio, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's indignation, never was in prison at all, and an Italian Prince, a friend of his (Sir George Bowyer) told him that he had been to see Pœrio, and found him in a very nice and comfortable position. Ought they not, then, to look at home and to act in the case of political prisoners on the principle laid down in the pamphlet of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich? A person who had been convicted of a political offence ought to be treated in a manner very different from that which fell to the lot of a man who had been guilty of an offence against the person, or a crime such as burglary or larceny. Allowance ought certainly to be made for the circumstances under which offences were committed; and in this view political prisoners were certainly entitled to more consideration than they received at present, the fact being that their treatment was not consistent either with justice or with the common laws of humanity. He therefore hoped the proposed new clause would be adopted. If it were pressed to a division he would vote in its favour.

said, he was anxious to state the reason why he should endeavour to support the clause, and more especially so, because the clause had not been taken in exactly the same way as it struck him. The clause embraced two things, which were perfectly distinct—namely, the prisoner under sentence convicted of treason felony, and committed for sedition or seditious libel. These two things were distinct, and admitted of different considerations. As to the persons convicted of treason felony, it had been pointed out by the Chairman that this clause could only apply to persons who had been sentenced to two years or under, and whatever improper treatment political prisoners were subjected to this clause would not remedy it. He understood that they still had power over the manner in which political prisoners sentenced to two years' imprisonment were to be treated; but this would only touch the treatment of a small portion of the political offenders, and would not be equal in its results to a declaration of the House of Commons as to their proper treatment. He thought that he might say that the whole common sense and conscience of mankind revolted against treating political prisoners for a political offence exactly in the same manner as common thieves. He could speak of his own knowledge of men who had been tried for political offences, and yet afterwards attained distinctions under the Crown. There was the case of Thomas D'Arcy M'Gee, who became Prime Minister of Canada, and no man had done more service to the Crown in that Colony. Then there was the case of Sir Charles Gavan Duffy, who was tried for treason felony, and though the prosecution failed no one denied that he was implicated; yet the Crown made him Prime Minister of one of our great Colonies with the distinction of knighthood. Those two instances were sufficient to show the broad difference that must be made, and that they could never obliterate the distinction between the men who revolted against the Government under, it might be, an imaginary sense of wrong, and the person who committed a crime. The man who committed the political offence would refuse to associate with criminals, and he need only mention the case of the late Member for Meath (Mr. John Martin) to illustrate the difference between political prisoners and other offenders. Mr. Martin was convicted and imprisoned, but still no Member of that House would have been ashamed to have met him at an evening party. He was not prepared to say that political offenders should be treated as first -class misdemeanants. They were only reading the clause a second time, and whether that would be the proper way of dealing with political offenders was a question for the Committee; but he did think that they ought to say there should be a distinction made between a man who had only committed a political offence and a man who had committed an offence disgraceful to his family. It existed and was carried fully into effect in the case of Mr. O'Connell, who was allowed while in prison to see his friends, to provide his own table, and in every other respect was allowed to do what he pleased, and only deprived of his personal liberty. That was in strict accordance with the common law of the realm. The same course was followed in the case of Mr. Cobbett, who, though convicted and sent to prison for a seditious libel, was allowed to edit his newspaper while in prison. And so it was in the case of Sir John Cam Hobhouse for a similar offence; but the rules and regulations now in existence prohibited all such liberty, although drawn up and acted on without the sanction of that House or the authority of an Act of Parliament. Political prisoners were now subject to have their hair cut, to wear the prison dress, to partake of prison fare, and wash and clean out their own rooms, or, more properly speaking, the cells which they occupied. In England, he would remind the Committee, there was a distinction made between first-class misdemeanants and other prisoners, but no such rule existed in Ireland. If a man in Ireland were convicted of a seditious libel, he only escaped the common punishment by the indulgence of the prison authorities actually departing from the law. Therefore, to a certain extent the criminal law' had been changed, not by an Act of Parliament—for if it had been attempted the whole country would have been in revolution —but without the sanction of Parliament by rules made by officials. Now, they were taking away the control of the prison justices, and they were vesting it in the Secretary of State, and he did not see any reason why they should not revert to the old Common Law right of prisoners convicted for seditious libels being leniently treated. With these views he supported the clause. He was not prepared to say that all political prisoners under the Treason Felony Act should be treated as first-class misdemeanants; but he was prepared to say that the honour of the country required that they should make a distinction between political offenders and other offenders, and it was quite time to strike against the vigorous discipline imposed upon them by officials of the gaol.

was about to refer to the case of O'Donovan Rossa, when—

objected that it was not the question before the Committee.

said, he was about to say that a party convicted of treason felony might be sentenced to imprisonment for two years in any of the prisons under this Bill, and therefore he thought he was in order in referring to the case of O'Donovan Rossa, who was treated in a certain manner in a convict prison.

reminded the hon. Gentleman that he was out of Order in referring to convict prisons.

said, he would bew to the decision of the Chairman, but he contended that the treatment of prisoners in some of the county gaols in Ireland was more severe than in any convict prison. He had inspected the prisoners in the county which he had the honour to represent (Cork), and if hon. Members knew what was suffered by the prisoners in those gaols —which he believed were model gaols—they would be glad to alter the system. In the punishment cell he found there was no light, no air, and that prisoners confined in that cell were not allowed to leave it for 72 hours at a time, even to attend to the calls of nature.

remarked that the rules relating to Irish gaols were entirely different from these in force with respect to gaols in England.

Are there no punishment cells in England?

Not of that kind.

was glad to hear it, and hoped that when the Irish Prisons Bill came on for discussion he would have the support of the right hon. Gentleman in endeavouring to get rid of the system to which he had called attention in Ireland. He would. in the meantime, give his cordial support to the clause of his hon. Friend.

said, he offered no opinion on the technical point that had been raised by the Home Secretary. That was a matter for the lawyers, and not for a plain Member of Parliament like himself. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), however, was an acknowledged legal authority, and he gave it as his opinion that the Amendment could be accepted without any of the confusion arising that was feared by the Government. The point to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee was not the mere phraseology of the clause, but the great principle that underlay it. It proposed to make a distinction between the treatment of ordinary criminals and men convicted of political offences. They all acknowledged the difference in actual life. If a man stole another's purse he inflicted upon the individual robbed a distinct injury; but if an enthusiastic, though, possibly, not very discreet, politician strove to alter the Constitution of his country by means that were scarcely legal, he only offended against the laws of the State. In the first instance, the advantage was a selfish and a personal one. A man strove to benefit himself at the expense of his neighbours. In the second case, men were usually moved by the most generous and self-sacrificing sentiments. They staked their property, their liberty, and sometimes their lives on achieving a change in which they would only participate as a member of the community, but for which they sacrificed more than the mass of their countrymen. There was, to his mind, a clear difference between one class of offence and the other. And, indeed, society recognized that distinction. In the House there were 10, if not 12, hon. Gentlemen who had at one or other period of their lives been called political prisoners, or incarcerated for Press offences. They recognized all these Gentlemen without distinction as their Colleagues and their equals. Some of them were men of marked ability, of great attainments, and much popularity in that Assembly. Let them realize the difference of feeling that would be manifested towards them if, instead of being imprisoned for political reasons, they had been detained for embezzlement, or any description of dishonest conduct. If persons of the latter character had been returned to the House of Commons, he ventured to say that, whatever might be their other qualifications, they would have been shunned and not courted by the Members. In this difference of treatment he contended that they unconsciously, but very emphatically, marked the measure of censure they passed upon a man guilty of a political offence and a person guilty of a moral crime. What his lion. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) wished to do was to recognize, in prison life, the same difference that they recognized, and acted upon in Parliament and public life. The request was a reasonable one, and he could not understand what objection there could be to the course proposed. It was a remarkable fact—and no more remarkable than true—that while the treatment of ordinary crimi- nals in this country had been softened and mitigated, the treatment of political prisoners had been hardened and rendered more irksome and degrading. His hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) had referred to the manner in which Pœrio and his compatriots were treated in Italy. It was quite true, as had been said, that Englishmen in this manner acted very inconsistently. They had all manner of sympathy for political prisoners in other countries. Distance to them lent enchantment to the view; but their insular egotism would not permit them to perceive that in England harder measures were dealt to politicians who made themselves amenable to the law than were meted to these whose cases had excited interest in other countries. The right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister had earned a world-wide and deserved renown for the chivalrous manner in which he had pleaded the cause of the men who were confined in Italian dungeons. He (Mr. Cowen) was not there to detract, even in appearance, from the fame that the right hon. Gentleman had won. He might, however, say that he knew some of these Italian prisoners, and had heard from their own lips a recital of their sufferings and their struggles. He knew two honest, but perhaps mistaken Irishmen, who had been confined for their adhesion to Fenianism, and he had listened to their prison tales also. He felt bound to say that the treatment of the Italian captives was in no sense worse than that meted out to the Fenians by the Government of which the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) was the head. It was easy to see the defects in other people's characters and modes of procedure; but it was not quite so easy at all times to discover the shortcomings of their own. It was remarkable that, while we had rendered the gaol life of ordinary criminals smoother and easier, we had heaped hardships upon erring politicians. They had no end of philanthropic pity for pick-pockets; there was no want of sentimental commiseration for common thieves; but the enthusiastic patriot, who staked his all upon an issue which he believed to be for the welfare of his fellows, had only a small measure of kindly feeling shown him. It was a disgrace to England, but it was nevertheless true, that it was the only country in Western or civilized Europe whose political prisoners were not separated from, and treated differently to, regular convicts. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick had referred to the case of Mr. Cobbett. With the permission of the Committee, he would refer to other instances—for facts illustrated a point better than all arguments. Not many years ago the late Mr. Leigh Hunt was sent to prison. He had commented on certain influential personages in terms that were more correct than courtly. During his detention he edited his newspaper, carried on his literary work, and directed his business without restraint. The only loss he sustained was through the fine inflicted and the imprisonment imposed. Contrast such treatment with that to which his (Mr. Cowen's) late friend, Mr. Ernest Jones, was subjected. Mr. Jones, like Mr. Hunt, was a poet, a man of letters, and an editor. The offence of which he was proved guilty was declared by the Judge at the trial to be one of the mildest of the kind he had ever had to adjudicate upon. Yet notwithstanding this, Mr. Jones was compelled to consort with thieves, burglars, and highwaymen. The severity of the punishment inflicted upon a delicate man amounted in his case to little less than torture. Through the intervention of the late Mr. Joseph Hume and other Members of that House the severity of the punishment was relaxed. If it had not been so, Mr. Jones would have been killed in prison. As it was, it laid the seeds of a disease that led to premature death. The British Bar thus lost, in the prime of life, a distinguished advocate, and English literature one of its most brilliant votaries. Take another case. The late Mr. Richard Carlisle was imprisoned for 10 years for political offences. Six of these he spent in Dorchester Gaol. The offence he was charged with was one that ran counter to the prejudices of Englishmen. It was none other than insisting upon the publication of the political and theological works of Thomas Paine. So vigorously did Mr. Carlisle pursue his agitation, that at one time not only himself, but his wife, some members of his family, and 20 of his shopmen were all in custody. Yet, during his prolonged incarceration, Mr. Carlisle carried on his business, edited his publication, and fulminated his denunciations against the Government. The very name of his paper was almost an incentive to a prosecution, as it was called The Republican. Contrast his treatment with that of Mr. Charles Kickham. That gentleman was a poet, a pleasing novelist, and a literary man of ability. He threw himself with all the ardour of his nature into the Fenian cause. Being arrested and condemned, he was sent to London with the vilest criminals, and to undergo the most oppressive labour. Although a weakly man, and in delicate health, no sympathy was shown him. Mr. Kickham was a gentleman by birth, by education, and, what was better, by nature also; but none of the consideration that was extended to Mr. Hunt or Mr. Carlisle fell to his lot. Take another case, which brought the question home even more closely to the present day. A fortnight ago the London workmen buried their leader. They did it reverently and kindly. Round the open grave of the Brompton Cemetery there were gathered the flower of the metropolitan artizans, some Members of the House of Commons, and not a few of the most distinguished literary men of the time. Mr. Odger was what was known as an "extreme politician." A few years ago he was threatened with a prosecution for sedition. Accident alone prevented his arrest. Had he been taken, he would assuredly have been condemned; because, although murderers and thieves sometimes eluded the meshes of the law, it was rare that a politician was allowed to escape. If Mr. Odger had been tried and found guilty he would have been treated in the same way as Mr. Kickham and Mr. Ernest Jones. Compare the treatment that would have been meted out to him to that given to another gentleman. He had no wish to refer to a painful and unfortunate case, but it was in the recollection of the House that a brave, able, and distinguished man had by a half hour's folly blasted a brilliant reputation as a soldier. When that gentleman was being sentenced by the Judge, he was told that his offence warranted the Court in sending him to penal servitude, and that, under ordinary circumstances, such would have been the sentence; but owing to his having been brought up as a gentleman, and educated with delicacy and refinement, he was during his detention to be treated only as a first-class misdemeanant. He wished to know from the Government and the House what justice or sense of fairplay there could be in thus treating such a man as he had referred to, and at the same time punishing political prisoners, as they had done the Fenians? What was there in the character of Mr. Jones, Mr. Kickham, and Mr. Odger to deprive them of the consideration that had been extended to the Cavalry officer he had just referred to. It was against this injustice, as well as against the folly of punishing so greatly political offenders, that he protested. He knew Englishmen did not like to be reminded of the fact that they had amongst them men suffering for political offences. It was quite true that there were not many, and that the liberty enjoyed in this land was as large as that enjoyed by the people of any other country; and that, in addition to the freedom they possessed, they had the power in their hands to achieve further liberty if they required it. Remembering that, he was willing to admit that nothing but the most serious considerations could warrant any illegal pressure upon the Government. But still, although political prisoners were not common in England, they were to be found. It was not probable that they would have many in the future; but still it was possible. England, however, was not the only part of the United Kingdom, and in Ireland he feared the existence of political prisoners for years to come would be both possible and probable. They should remember that the greatest part of Ireland was under martial law; that a state of siege existed in that country as completely as it did in France two years ago; and that every man's liberty was at the mercy of an ignorant police constable, or the caprice of an officious Jack-in-office. The coercive laws in existence in Ireland were—so far as they appeared upon the statute book —as repressive and arbitrary as the laws of any country in the world. The only reason why they were tolerated was because the Government for the time being administered them with moderation. As long, however, as these repressive enactments existed they must look for conspiracies, and plots, and insurrections. Ireland in this respect re-acted upon England. There were not hundreds, but thousands of Irishmen living in this country. In some of the larger manufacturing centres, one-fourth, almost one-third of the population was Irish. They brought here all the feelings of bitterness that had been generated by long years of misrule in the sister Isle. Indeed these feelings were intensified in England, because Irish workmen felt that here they had greater liberty and larger privileges than they had in their own land, and that embittered them against English rule. They saw that in the state of the national party. In Ireland the prevalent feeling was in favour of a system of Home Rule. In England the feeling among the Irish people was in favour of Fenian principles. Like it or not, as they chose, such were the facts, and it was for them to deal with them. The very severity of the punishment the Government inflicted produced the result they complained of. It was a maxim as old as Christianity that the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the Church, and the Irish nationalists sympathised with the sorrows and emulated the example of the prisoners who were treated with such barbarity. There was no wisdom in attempting to disparage the character of ardent but sometimes unwise politicians. The history of that House and of this country was a record of what had been achieved by so-called seditious writings and treasonable proceedings. The proudest chapter in the history of distinguished members of the British aristocracy was that which recorded their efforts after successful sedition. He hoped the Committee would abandon their prejudices on the subject, and assent to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath.

said, that the sufferings of prisoners, however much people might sympathise with them, did not touch the question before the Committee. He objected to this attempt to alter the criminal law by a side wind. It should be remembered that the Treason Felony Act mitigated the punishment for treason, except in certain cases of the deepest atrocity, altering it from death to penal servitude. The offence, however, still remained a felony, and he considered that persons convicted of treason felony should continue to be treated as felons, and not as misdemeanants. He therefore opposed the proposition of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell).

said, that after hearing the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Cowen) he was of opinion that the preceding speakers had done well not to enter into the merits of the question. It was said they were using a side wind to raise a false issue by stating that the question of the treatment of political prisoners ought not to be introduced into a discussion on a Prisons Bill. They were, in fact, treading in the footsteps of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If they looked at Clause 34 they would find it empowered the Home Secretary to make rules to reduce the punishment of prisoners in for three months with hard labour, from the first to the second class of hard labour for a portion of their time. True, this was a small question, and it might merely depend upon the behaviour of the prisoner; but the Home Secretary took a power precisely similar to that asked for by the hon. Member for Meath. Then in another clause—namely, Clause 35—it was stated that—

"The Secretary of State may from time to make, and when made repeal, alter, or add to rules with respect to the classification and treatment of criminal prisoners before conviction, and of prisoners imprisoned for non-compliance with the order of a justice or justices to pay a sum of money, or imprisoned in respect of the default of a distress to satisfy a sum of money adjudged to be paid by order of a justice or justices, so that such rules are in mitigation and not in increase of the effect of such imprisonment, as regulated by the Prison Act, 1865."

said, he had by chance, in 1848, in a visit which was made to the Metropolitan Prisons in company with Sir Peter Laurie, Mr. Williams, and his near relative the late Mr. Hume, seen in a cell of Millbank the late Mr. Ernest Jones, who had just completed his daily task of tearing oakum, to which he had been sentenced, with two years' confinement to prison, and was shocked at the manner in which that gentleman was treated. No doubt Mr. Jones was tried and condemned by the Judges, but it was for expressing political opinions which, though then condemned, had since been applied in practice by the Conservative Party. It was then decided that Mr. Hume should appeal to the Home Secretary of State for better treatment of a gentleman of education, and, as his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle had stated, Mr. Hume's appeal was successful in freeing Mr. Jones from his sentence of hard labour. He heard him make the speech at Kennington Common on 10th April, 1848, for which he was punished, and judging at the present time by the lights which we had lighted by the Conservatives, who had given effect in part to the demands of the Chartists of 1848, did not believe he was guilty of any political offence. The law was obeyed in a remarkable manner by the people assembled at Kennington Common on that occasion, and he thought their conduct ought to have induced the Government to abstain from political prosecutions. It was worthy of observation that the reforms advocated by Mr. Ernest Jones and his friends had since been carried out by a Conservative Government. He appealed, therefore, to the Home Secretary to take measures that political prisoners should not be punished in future with that severity which had heretofore been observed towards them.

observed, that there were many misdemeanours infinitely graver than any felony short of murder, and because an offence might be technically a felony that was no reason why the prisoner should be treated with greater severity than if he were convicted only of misdemeanour. The late Mr. Ernest Jones was a member of his circuit, and a more high-minded man or one of more refined character he had never met. He was a gentleman by birth and station, his father having been aide-de-camp to the late King of Hanover, who was his godfather; yet because that gentleman, led away by strong views as to popular rights, made what was called a seditious speech, he was subjected to punishment of a severe and degrading character. Turning to the Amendment before the Committee, although it might not be perfect in form, he must vote for its principle. After the many cases of gross and infamous ill-treatment which had been detailed of political prisoners both in England and in Ireland, it was time that the Legislature should interfere. He was amazed that such things could have gone on with a Liberal Government in office. He thought that they ought by the present Bill to prevent the possibility of their recurrence in future.

recommended the hon. Member for Meath to accept the proposition of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing), by which his Amendment would be made to apply to prisoners committed to gaols governed under the provisions of the Bill now before the House.

said, he would adopt the suggestion.

pointed out that the clause as proposed to be amended converted a person convicted of treason felony into a misdemeanant. If the hon. Member for Meath would strike out the words "treason felony," and confine his clause to persons convicted of "sedition and seditious libel," he would support his clause.

remembering that the Treason Felony Act—on which he now expressed no opinion — was deliberately passed by the Legislature, could not vote for reversing that Act by a simple clause in the present Bill. He therefore hoped that the hon. Member for Meath would adopt the alteration in his clause recommended by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James). Persons convicted of sedition and seditious libel ought not to be herded with the common class of criminals in the gaols of this country.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had not quite caught the grounds of his speech. They could not deal in that Bill with the general question of political prisoners, except only as far as they were confined in those gaols. He had ad- dressed himself almost entirely to the Amendment as he had found it on the Paper, where it had stood during the Recess, and if it was persevered in he could not go into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). He had said nothing of any other Amendment of which no Notice had been given, and which he had not seen. Irish Members seemed to entertain the notion that the rules of English prisons were laid down at the will of the prison officials; but that was not so. The rules were laid down by statute, and that would virtually be the case in the present Bill, as he would have to submit the rules to Parliament.

said, he would withdraw from his Amendment the words "treason felony," because the number of persons liable to be confined for that offence would be so few and insignificant that it was not worth while to persevere in insisting on the insertion of the words in the clause.

said, his objection was now at an end, but he should prefer to deal with the case of common law misdemeanants on the Report, as he wished all such misdemeanants to be treated in the same way.

said, that as there was nothing in the clause to which the House would object, the better way seemed to be to pass the clause as amended, and for the Home Secretary to amend it on the Report.

regretted that the discretion now vested in the Judges to say whether a prisoner should be treated as a first-class misdemeanant or not was to be taken away and made a prison rule. That discretion had hitherto been wisely exercised by our Judges, according to the circumstances of the case.

moved, after Clause 11, to insert the following Clause:—

moved to add to the clause that any justice

"having jurisdiction in the place where the offence in respect of which any prisoner may be confined in prison was committed"

moved the insertion of the following clause after Clause 35:—

pointed out that there was already in the Bill a clause relating to rules for the exceptional treatment of unconvicted prisoners held to be presumably innocent, and asked whether the hon. Member intended by his clause to go further, and have a separate treatment for prisoners under arrest in consequence of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act? If not, the clause now proposed would be unnecessary.

explained that he had brought forward this new clause in order to remove some legal doubts which had been thrown on the application of the clause already in the Bill to the class of prisoners he now proposed to deal with.

contended that these Habeas Corpus prisoners ought to be placed in precisely the same position as unconvicted prisoners; but he suggested that the hon. Member should withdraw his proposal for the present, and bring on the question again when the definition of the rules came under consideration.

said, they must be all agreed that the things mentioned in Dr. M'Donnell's account should not occur again. He had a strong objection to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act being discussed as coming within the ordinary jurisdiction of the country, That it had entered into the nominal government of Ireland was too true; but he hoped the time was coming when that would be the case no longer. He appealed to the hon. Member for Meath to rest satisfied with the clause now standing in the Bill. For his own part, he believed that persons arrested under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act would come under the provisions of the Bill. If there was the shadow of a doubt, the introduction of some such Amendment as "prisoners not under the sentence of the jurisdiction of the country," or some such provision, whenever the question of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act was again discussed, might be inserted.

said, the words already inserted in the Bill would meet the case in point; and if over it should be found necessary to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, that would be the proper time to consider the matter. He hoped, therefore, the Amendment would not be pressed.

said, that he desired to say a word in reply to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. In the case of an ordinary prisoner a primâ facie case was made against him before he was committed. But this was not the case in regard to a further imprisonment under a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. No evidence was adduced against him, and his case, therefore, was entirely an exceptional one, and was not affected by the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire.

said, that if it was understood that the rules as to untried prisoners should apply to the Habeas Corpus prisoners, and that the Home Secretary would consider the propriety of making some further rules with regard to the latter prisoners, he would assent to the course proposed.

rose to move the insertion of the following clause:—

rising to Order, submitted that the proposed clause was not within the scope and spirit of the Bill, inasmuch as it interfered directly with the administration of the criminal law with regard to warrants of committal, and as to the time at which an assize should be held or a gaol delivery ordered, neither of which was touched upon in the Bill; and, therefore, he maintained that it was not competent for the Committee to deal with the clause.

held that it was competent for the Committee to consider the clause, and that the Bill did deal with the custody and treatment of prisoners, beth before and after commitment. The clause might not be workable; but he asked the Committee to approve of its principle, as it attempted to remedy a crying evil.

said that the Bill dealt with the ownership and management of prisons, and was not intended to alter the general criminal administration of this country, and therefore the clause could hardly be considered as coming within the scope of the Bill. He therefore, felt it to be his duty not to put the clause to the Committee.

asked, whether the clause could be discussed if it was so shaped as to affect the prisoner only between his commitment and trial?

said, he did not consider that such a change would remove all the objections.

rose to explain an apparent difference between a statement which he had made respecting the number of prisoners punished by whipping in gaol, and a statement made by the hon. Member for Stoke (Dr. Kenealy) on the same subject. The hon. Member had said that, between the 21st of July, 1864, and the 14th of April, 1871, the number of such prisoners was 1,398. He (Mr. Cross) had the judicial statistics before him, which showed that the number in each year was from 150 to 160. As it very often happened they were both right and they were both wrong. If the hon. Member would deduct from the number of 1,398 which he gave, these whippings which were given by order of the quarter sessions, and which formed part of the actual punishment awarded, he would arrive at the number which he (Mr. Cross) laid before the Committee as showing how many persons had been whipped by order of the visiting justices for offences committed in gaol.

said, he had done all he possibly could to ascertain the accuracy of the figures, and might be wrong in his statement. He was now glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to see that the figures were set right, and he was extremely obliged to him.

in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he did not now propose to enter upon the principle of the Bill—his object was simply to explain the course he proposed to take with regard to it. The English Bill having now gone through Committee, what he proposed to do with the present Bill was to read it the second time now, and then place it on the Paper for Committee pro formâ. It was then his intention to introduce into the Bill all the Amendments which had been made in the English Bill, in order that they might be placed as nearly as possible pari passû, any discussion that might be necessary being reserved until the House went regularly into Committee upon the Bill after it had been reprinted. He would, therefore, simply move the second reading of the Bill.

said, the course which the right hon. Gentleman proposed would be satisfactory to the Representatives from Scotland—that was, provided the right hon. Gentleman would undertake that an opportunity would be afforded for a full discussion of the provisions of the Bill before the House went into Committee upon it.

must confess that it is rather an extraordinary mode of procedure to introduce a Bill and read it a second time, without any discussion whatever taking place upon it; but it is very much the course that has been adopted in regard to Scotch legislation for the past few years, and of which we have been always complaining. Indeed, we have been systematically told that if we are to get any legislation at all for Scotland, we must accept it without discussion. That has been the process going on every year, and for some years past we have been obliged to accept all our legislation in that way. I hope that if we assent to the second reading of the Bill to-night, it will be on the clear understanding that there is to be an opportunity for a full discussion at some future stage. The Bill requires to be discussed. There are many things in the system of prison administration in the present Bill that I do not at all like. We may feel ourselves constrained in Scotland to accept the measure as England has accepted hers; indeed, I do not think there is much more to be said in favour of the Scotch measure than that the English Bill has been accepted. We should have liked very much to have had some information as to the principal thing which it seems to mo can be offered in favour of this—namely, the amount of saving which the right hon. Gentleman expects to make by the measure. My own opinion is, that that saving is the most utter delusion ever passed off on the House. In the first instance, there would be a large increased expenditure, and I want to know what surplus the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got to pay the extra cost. Whether it is raised by local rate or Imperial taxation, the money will still have to be paid. The economy shown in the English Bill is extremely small, and I am quite satisfied that when the measure comes to be analyzed, in place of this economy it will be found that there will be a much greater expenditure under the new system than under the old. Seeing that the money has to be raised somehow, either by Imperial or local taxation, I do not think it matters three straws to the country whether it is raised by one or the other. There are many points in connection with the Bill on which I should like to say a few words, but seeing that the English Members have accepted their Bill, and that the maintenance of the English prisons is to be henceforth paid for out of the Imperial Exchequer, it follows as a matter of necessity that the Scotch prisons should be paid for in the same way. We cannot undertake to take the Scotch prison expenditure all upon ourselves, and pay a share of the English also, and therefore the adoption of the Government proposals by England renders it necessary that we should accept the same principle in Scotland. I will not take up more of the time of the House, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give a distinct undertaking that full opportunity will be afforded for discussion upon a future stage of the Bill, at a time when the Scotch Members can be present to take part in it.

said, he believed that throughout Scotland this Bill was regarded with a considerable amount of dissatisfaction. The transference to the Home Secretary of the powers and jurisdiction hitherto vested in local prison authorities was looked upon as a marked advance towards a bureaucratic, as opposed to a local system of government. In the debate on the English Prisons Bill the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department said that the prison authorities should be glad to get quit of their prisons, as they would be saved the cost of maintaining them. He (Mr. Holms) could assure the right hon. Gentleman that in that part of the country with which he was more immediately connected there was no such feeling. On the contrary, these who took an interest in this question believed that Imperial would be more costly than local management, and that consequently taxation would not be diminished, but increased. It was true that local rates would be reduced; but as those prisons must be maintained at the cost of the public, we should have increased Imperial taxation. As a similar measure for England had passed through Committee in this House, he did not intend to oppose the second reading of this Bill. He wished, however, to call the attention of lion. Members to the unsatisfactory mode of legislating for Scotland, of which the measure was a good example. It was, ho thought, most desirable that, as far as possible, the laws of England and Scotland should be assimilated, and instead of having one Act for England and another for Scotland, they should, in the words used on a recent occasion by the Home Secretary, be "rolled into one," when practicable. Now, he ventured to think that a Prisons Bill might have been passed for both countries, with such modifying and explanatory clauses added with reference to Scotland as might be found necessary. Such a course was successfully adopted in the Employers and Workmen Act of 1875; but if this course could not be followed, then it appeared to him that we should endeavour to make the two Acts precisely the same in every respect, except in so far as the difference in the laws and customs of the two countries rendered it absolutely necessary that they should be different. He found, however, that instead of this having been done, the two Bills were different in many cases in which the circumstances of the countries were precisely the same. For example, in England Commissioners were to have the management of prisons under the Home Secretary; in Scotland they were to have managers, and as they were to have the same duties to perform, why not call them by the same name? In Scotland a prison manager might, under pains and penalties, require the attendance of persons and the production of papers. He could find no such claim in the English Bill, or in the unrepealed Acts to which it referred. In England, too, an officer of a prison who had been in the service for not less than 20 years might receive a retiring allowance not exceeding two-thirds of his salary, while in Scotland, in order to become entitled to this allowance, he must serve at least 40 years. In England the Secretary of State might relax the law relating to hard labour; there was no such provision in the Scotch Bill. Again, in England the Home Secretary might from time to time repeal or alter rules with respect to the classification and treatment of debtors; there was no corresponding clause in the Bill for Scotland. On the other hand, juveniles under 14 years of age might be whipped in Scotland in accordance with regulations made by the Lord Advocate; there was no such provision in the Bill for England. When the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary introduced the English Prisons Bill, one of the strongest arguments which he used in its favour was, that it would ensure uniformity in the treatment of prisoners and the management of prisons. It was, he (Mr. Helms) confessed, difficult to see how, in the face of such a declaration, the condition of prisoners in the two countries should be different, and why offi- cers of prisons when discharged should be treated differently. He had to ask whether there was any reason why this opportunity should not be taken to assimilate the laws of the two countries? Such a course would not only be just, but he believed would give general satisfaction. In connection with this question he had received a number of letters and suggestions from parties in Scotland well qualified to give an opinion on the subject, and these suggestions had invariably been in favour of Amendments which, if carried out, would remove those differences to which he had alluded.

said, he was quite satisfied with the course which Her Majesty's Government had taken on this Bill. Throughout the discussion on the English Bill he had had it in his mind that we were at the same time discussing the Scotch Bill; and he had entertained the hope that when they came to the Scotch Bill there would be very little discussion except upon a few matters of detail. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow in the reasons he stated for introducing this change—namely, putting them on economical grounds. These were important grounds certainly, but he thought there were other grounds to be urged for the change of law—namely, the grounds of the great variety of prisons without the power of classifying them. This ground applied in a far greater degree in Scotland than it did in England, and he believed there was a strong necessity for a change. There was one point to which he desired to refer—namely, the absolute necessity that there should be some "doubling" of counties, in order to introduce some better administration than existed at present. Then, as to the mode of administration, the prisons of Scotland had hitherto under the Act been under the management of the Commissioners of Supply. This anomaly arose from the circumstance that hitherto the Commissioners of Supply were the only bodies dealing with the "grievances" of the counties; but as they were now relieved from this obligation, he submitted it would be better to assimilate the law of Scotland to that of England, and to commit the duty to the justices of the peace instead of to the Commissioners of Supply.

begged to ask whether, as there were a great many Amendments to be moved to the Bill, when the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary reprinted the Bill, would he reprint the Amendments on a separate paper?

desired to say on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he felt it to be his object to meet as far as he could the views of the Scotch Members generally, and at the same time to assimilate as nearly as possible the Scotch law to the English law. His right hon. Friend desired not only to introduce those Amendments which had been made in the English Bill, but to consider how far other Amendments might be introduced which would apply more especially to Scotland. He had only further to say that should the Bill be read a second time now, his right hon. Friend would take care that the Committee on the Bill should be taken at such an hour as would give ample opportunity for a full discussion of its provisions.

in rising to call attention to the great and increasing loss inflicted on the ratepayers of counties and boroughs by the system at present practised by the Treasury of paying a part only of the costs of criminal prosecutions, and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, no part of the costs of criminal prosecutions, after taxation by proper officers, should be charged on local rates,"

observed that the appeal recently made by the Secretary of the Treasury in favour of economy had been met by the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken, and who was an earnest and an efficient supporter of the Conservative Party, making a proposal to throw on the Imperial Exchequer a large increase to a charge now sustained by the Exchequer, but which would have been left to be borne by the various localities, where, instead of grants in aid from the Treasury, it would have been far preferable to have assigned taxes such as the dog and gun tax, which were so difficult for the Board of Inland Revenue to collect. The course adopted by the Treasury with respect to the costs of criminal prosecutions had, he believed, caused a great reduction of expense. This was effected by the Treasury enforcing an independent examination of all charges claimed for criminal prosecutions, amongst which were the payments to lawyers, which were not easily checked; the claim of the hon. Member would, if complied with, free these charges from even the trifling control now exercised, and thereby allow of these fees being largely swelled up. But he hoped that the Secretary of the Treasury would persevere in the good efforts he had made in that check. The hon. and gallant Baronet was proceeding to urge that the useful information which the Secretary of the Treasury had given them that night ought to be printed, together with the Estimates, for the use of hon. Members, when—

pointed out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that his remarks were not relevant to the Amendment then before the House.

said, he was afraid that, notwithstanding what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst), he could not recede from that position he had taken up when that matter was discussed some time ago. He thought his hon. and learned Friend had somewhat exaggerated the obligation of the State in this matter. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had always understood that the old Common Law principle was that the expenses referred to were paid out of local funds, and that it was by what he ventured to call an act of grace and favour that some 30 years ago the State undertook to defray the whole of these charges. He did not quite understand, if that was a burden which always belonged to the State, how his hon. and learned Friend explained the Act of 1846, brought in by Sir Robert Peel, placing, for the first time, on the State a duty which his hon. and learned Friend said was always incumbent upon it. For himself, he still thought it was a fair and proper thing that the State should, upon a general statement of the amount of the cost of criminal prosecutions, recoup to the local authorities the amount which had been so expended by them. But, if it was to do that, surely the State must protect itself by seeing that it was not improperly charged. That, however, was really all that the State had been trying to do in that matter. Before 1846 he thought the State bore one-half of that charge and the localities bore the other half; and then there was a certain protection, because the local officers, being anxious to save for the sake of the localities, would seek to keep that expenditure down. But when the State took the whole of that expense upon itself, the cost of prosecutions ran up in a most remarkable way, and a much heavier burden was imposed upon the Imperial Exchequer than was contemplated at the time it was assumed. Well, what was then done? His hon. and learned Friend had called it an unlawful action, and he would not dispute with him about the word "unlawful;" but, at all events, it was a measure of self-defence adopted by the Treasury of that day to provide for the taxing of these costs, in order to see that they were not asked to pay more than they ought to pay. The effect of that taxation was greatly to reduce charges which appeared to be exorbitant. Then a complaint was made by the local authorities that the operation of the taxing officer was an operation of an annoying, unfair, and vexatious character. His hon. and learned Friend had referred, as an instance, to the case of Lancaster, from which some of the most serious complaints came years ago; and he thought his hon. and learned Friend told the House that out of £30,000 or £31,000 only £120 was disallowed under the old system. Well, if only 120 were disallowed out of £30,000 or £31,000, clearly it was not a very great pecuniary grievance. It was the annoyance of officers in London looking into and disallowing charges which had been passed by local officers. Well, the Government endeavoured to meet that by providing that, as regarded sessions cases, they would pay according to the average cost of three years' prosecutions. But, said his hon. and learned Friend, the effect had been to make counties pay greater expenses than before. He supposed his hon. and learned Friend's figures were correct; but he understood that, as regarded assize cases, taking the whole country together, the effect had been greatly to reduce the disallowances. It was quite possible that when they came to review the system as a whole they might find it desirable to revise to some extent the working of it; but his hon. and learned Friend asked them to cast aside this experimental system and adopt a general principle that the whole of the costs of criminal prosecutions, after taxation by proper officers, should be defrayed by Parliament. Whom did his hon. and learned Friend mean by "proper officers? "Did he mean that the costs were to be taxed by officers appointed by those who were expected to pay the costs? That would be a system which his hon. and learned Friend condemned. If, on the other hand, neither that system nor the average was to be adopted, he was asking the Treasury to pay without examination whatever might be demanded by the officers of the local jurisdictions. That was a demand which ought not to be made. It lay on Parliament to vote this money under such conditions as it was pleased to impose. He desired that those conditions should be as little onerous as possible on the counties; but ho hoped the House would not be induced to give a blank order to be filled up by the officers who had incurred these costs. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir George Balfour) said, they paid too much attention to the claims of local taxpayers. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not think they did. He thought they ought to pay attention to them, knowing what they had done as to local finance. He had no fault to find with his hon. and learned Friend for having brought forward his Motion, or with the language he had used; but this, after all, was an experimental system, and the time for considering the proper averages of payment would shortly arrive; and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not ask the House to set aside that system unless he was prepared to put before the House a better alternative than one couched in rather ambiguous language.

rose to call the attention of the House to the functions and duties of District Registrars as provided by the Judicature Acts and the rules and orders made under the same. He reviewed the provisions of the Judicature Act in reference to the appointment of District Registrars, 70 of whom were to be appointed. Of that number 40 had actually been appointed, and their duties were of the most important description. They had absolute jurisdiction, subject, of course, to appeal to the High Court of Justice, over all questions which came before them up to the time of the cause going to trial, and under the Acts the Judges had power to refer to them all accounts and inquiries consequent upon such trial. He thought that gentlemen who exercised this great jurisdiction should be absolutely free and open from all suspicion, he would not say of fair dealing, but of any influence whatever, and that they should be in the same position as Masters in the Supreme Court of Judicature or of the Judges' clerks sitting in Chambers, as they did every day. But, unfortunately, by some slip in the Judicature Act of 1875, no provision was made that the parties appointed to these offices should not carry on private practice, and some 26 out of the 40 were really carrying on private practice in the places where they exercised their jurisdiction, so that they might have before them cases from their own chambers or offices or in which their partners had an interest. As a matter of principle it was not right or proper that a man having judicial functions to perform should be permitted to carry on private practice. He had intended to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it would be desirable that provision should be made for the discontinuance of practice as barristers or solicitors of persons holding those offices during their tenure of the same."

said, no doubt that, as an abstract proposition, it would be better if the Registrars who had to perform judicial functions of considerable importance were not allowed to engage in private practice. That was a good rule in the abstract; but if the Registrars were not allowed to practice, the new system under the Judicature Act could not be carried out, as a few details would show the House. Under that Act some 26 Registrars had been appointed, out of the 75 mentioned in the Act—that was to say, in Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Hull, and in some smaller places—and they had to perform important duties, but with the exception of a few places they were remunerated by fees and not by salary. It would be found that the annual amount of the fees received by these gentlemen for discharging their very important judicial functions ranged from £5 or £6 or £8 or £10, to £100, £200, £300, £700, and £800. If, therefore, the District Registrars were prohibited from continuing their private practice, it would be impossible to get gentlemen possessing the requisite knowledge to undertake the duties of those offices. Of course, if Registrars of the High Court were to be prohibited from practising privately, it would be necessary to place a similar restriction upon the Registrars of County Courts. [Mr. GREGORY: Those Registrars are liable to a fine of £50 if they practise in the County Courts.] But those Registrars were not prevented from carrying on practice in other branches of their Profession — as, for instance, conveyancing. This, however, might be done. In large towns when District Registrars were appointed a stipulation might be made that they should accept the duties and the salary, if they were paid by salary, and enter into stipulations that they would not practise. The recent appointment at Manchester had been made on the payment of salary, and not by fees, and one of the terms in all future appointments of the kind would be the payment by salary and not by fees, In reference to a remark which had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman, he begged to say that if a Registrar were to make an order in a matter in which he was concerned privately for some client, it was clear that such order would be bad, and it would at once be set aside on appeal.

said, that if the Registrars were not to be allowed to carry on their private practice it would be absolutely necessary that they should be paid a larger salary. It was a subject that deserved the serious consideration of the House and the Government. One great evil of our provincial system was that too much important work was entrusted to underlings. In fact, a great deal of the work done by Judges' clerks ought to be performed by the Judges themselves. There was danger of abuse when District Registrars were allowed to practise, from their being directly or indirectly concerned for someone interested in the matter, in which case he might act on knowledge that was not judicially before him.

said, that in these matters there must he compromises, as in almost everything with which they had to deal. There was no principle in our system of judicature. It was an agglomeration of inconsistencies and contradictions from beginning to -end. All our Courts ought to form one entire system. Every action in the High Court of Justice might be brought in London; but in the County Courts they could only be brought in the district where the parties resided or the cause of action arose. It was impossible to amend the present system with the information they possessed, and there-fore he suggested the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole matter.

said, there was great force in what the hon. and learned Attorney General had stated, and his reply to the hon. and learned Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) was as satisfactory as could be expected. He hoped that the view which had been put forward by the Attorney General would remain fixed on his mind, as well as on that of the Lord Chancellor, and that some definite rule would be laid down in regard to District Registrars which would place matters on a more certain and satisfactory footing. In his own com- mercial experience he knew a case where the Registrar was interested for a client. He handed the case over to a junior, who argued it before the interested Registrar. He thought that in the great towns the gentlemen appointed to be Registrars of the County Courts should have a competent salary fixed by the Lord Chancellor, and should receive their appointments on the condition of withdrawing altogether from private practice.

said, the practical point was that populous and non-populous districts should not be treated alike, and that in the large places where the Registrars received sufficient salaries they should have great powers; but in districts where they could not provide a sufficient salary by means of fees their powers should be more restricted.

who had the following Motion on the Paper:—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient that any money, not specially voted for that purpose, should be expended in the removal of the mounds which have recently been erected in Hyde Park,"

referring to the statement of the Secretary of the Treasury, that the increase was occasioned by the demands that had been made for what was called paternal government, considered it an extraordinary statement to come from a Government which had just passed such a centralizing measure as the Prisons Bill.

asked for an explanation of the large sum of £3,000 for improving the accommodation of the Queen's Guard at St. James's Palace.

called attention to a proposed outlay on the stables at Hampton Court, and asked for some explanation with respect to the sale of the yearlings.

complained that the dilapidated state of Kensington Palace was not creditable to the country.

explained that £3,000 was all that it was proposed to expend this year on the guard-house, and the remaining £2,000 next year. Complaints had been made of the sanitary condition of the War Office, but it was a paradise to this guard-room. The stables at Hampton Court were in a most dilapidated condition, and scarcely suited to a breeding stud. He agreed with the hon. Baronet with respect to the state of Kensington Palace, and regretted that the Vote was not larger, so as to make a complete repair, as there was very little true economy in patchwork.

protested against the mode in which the Royal Palaces not in use for the comfort and happiness of the Sovereign were occupied. He believed that a small portion, or, at all events, only one-half of the sum that was expended in maintaining Hampton Court, St. James's, and Kensington Palaces, and in making additions, improvements which occurred every year, would provide the persons who now occupied them with better and more suitable accommodation than that which these big buildings afforded. As the Crown had transferred to Parliament the buildings which were not needed for the personal use of the Sovereign, it was only fair that Parliament should have the right of disposing of their occupation. It would be better for the House to come to an agreement as to the money value of the right of the Crown to bestow residences in these palaces, and to place the amount at the disposal of the Crown for distribution to the classes who were now selected to live in those palaces. Besides, when Royal visitors came to this country there was only one palace, and that one retained for the personal use of the Sovereign, which could be used. This was objectionable in many ways. This country ought to have palaces capable of receiving visitors in a Royal manner, and not require them to be put into Buckingham Palace. Public buildings set apart for the Crown ought to be maintained for the Crown, and not for residences for private individuals. But as respected palaces not used for the Crown, other persons ought not to be occupying these buildings and putting the nation to expense.

was of opinion that the whole of the expenditure on palaces not in the occupation of the Sovereign was very unsatisfactory. He inquired whether Bushey Park was still occupied by the Duke d'Aumale?

stated that Bushey Park was occupied by the Duke de Nemours. As to Hampton Court, that was very much devoted to the recreation of the public, thousands of whom went there. It was necessary that these palaces should be kept in proper repair. With regard to the persons who occupied them, about £800 was all that was spent in repairing the rooms occupied by gracious favour of the Sovereign, and most of those rooms were occupied by persons who had served under Her Majesty.

moved the reduction of the Vote by £250, the sum which, he understood, was required for the levelling of the mounds in Hyde Park. Considering that the mounds had been erected only a year ago, the proposal to demolish them reminded him of the extravagance of the Augustan age. The facts were simply these—In 1875, the present Government expended £400 in erecting these mounds. In 1876 a Vote of £350 was taken to complete them, and now the First Commissioner of Works proposed to undo the work of his Predecessor. A more direct censure upon the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox) could not be conceived. He neither defended nor condemned the mounds, but he protested against so reckless a waste of public money.

said, he had already stated that after the opinion expressed in the House last year he thought there was no other course open to him but to propose the removal of these mounds, and from what he had since learned he believed it was the general wish that they should be removed. For his own part, he did not think they were adapted to the locality. They obstructed a most beautiful view over the Serpentine, and they were planted with shrubs, which, being unsuited to the atmosphere of London, were likely to become more and more unsightly. The sum required to effect the improvement in question was only £200, and he expected to be able by judicious economy to obtain that amount without asking the House specially for money for the purpose.

said, he had expressed an opinion at the time the mounds were formed that plants put into the ground in the month of April would not grow, and he found they had not done so. It was for the House to decide whether the First Commissioner of Works should expend £200 in rendering the mounds sightly, or in getting rid of them entirely as a nuisance; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the determination which he had expressed—namely, get rid of them.

complained of the present state of Rotten Row. Accidents, he said, were of daily occurrence there; and altogether the condition of the drive was most unsatisfactory. Did the right hon. Gentleman intend to take any steps to improve that part of the Park?

asked if another path was to be constructed near the top of Rotten Row?

said, that constant requests had been received by the Department to make a good walk from the top of Rotten Row to Kensington Palace, a route which was very much used at all times, but with great discomfort in wet weather, and it had been determined to comply with those requests. The path, however, would not be a broad one; and, instead of being an eyesore, it would be an improvement. He must admit that he was very much disap- pointed at the state of Rotten Row; but this was attributable principally to the unprecedentedly wet weather which had latterly prevailed. Perhaps the steamroller had been used too much, so that the water could easily get through the surface of the road, while the gravel itself might be of too absorbent a character—other gravel would have been too costly. All kinds of suggestions had been made to him to deal with the Row; but the expense of adopting such suggestions would be enormous, and such as he could not entertain. He had done all he could to improve it, and he hoped it would be better with a change of weather. In Paris the ride from the Arc de Triomphe to the Bois de Boulogne was impassable, and it was generally believed that that ride was kept in as good condition as it was possible to keep such a place, so that we were not alone in suffering from the effects of the rains.

stated that no Vote was taken for the Row last year. What was done last year was taken out of the maintenance money by strict economy.

regarded the Vote of £2,963 for the maintenance and expense of keeping up Greenwich Park as very large as compared with that for other Parks. It exceeded the amounts for Bushey Park and Hampton Court combined. He would also like to know who lived in the Ranger's house at Greenwich Park. A large portion of the Park was shut out from the people by the Deputy Ranger's house, and of this he must emphatically complain. He should also like to have some explanation with regard to Richmond Park. He had heard many complaints of the way in which that Park was being taken up by game preserves; and he thought it was much to be regretted that any portion of that beautiful recreation ground should be wrested by degrees from the people in that way.

said, that he had recently observed on passing through the Park, a new building close to the Guard Room adjoining the house of the Ranger in the centre of Hyde Park, but he considered it most objectionable that any Minister of the Crown should allow encroachments on the Parks, without previously obtaining the permission of Parliament by express Resolution. In his opinion, private individuals had no right to encroach upon the commons, and he denied the right of the Government to interfere with and encroach upon the people's Parks, and the erection of this new building in the very centre of Hyde Park was in disregard of the rights of Parliament, and of the convenience of the people who used that Park.

remarked, that so long as there was a concrete 'foundation for Rotten Row it would be perfectly impossible to have a good road there.

said, the items for maintenance of Greenwich Park would be found in the Estimate. Lady Mayo occupied the Ranger's house. In regard to that portion occupied by the Deputy Ranger, it was a very small plot, only about half an acre. The Deputy Ranger had always had a right of grazing there, and it could in no sense be called an encroachment. In regard to Hyde Park, no new buildings had been erected; but a Superintendent's Lodge had been built near the Deputy Ranger's house in substitution for that which formerly stood in Kensington Gardens.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) in regard to Richmond Park. He entirely concurred in all that had been said in regard to that Park, as he had frequently received complaints from his constituents. It was swarming with game, and the public were on this account excluded from paths which they were formerly allowed to use. He protested against a Park so near London being converted into a game preserve; and if the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee how much was expended in feeding the game, he would move to reduce the Vote by that amount.

said, his kitchen garden adjoined Richmond Park, and if it were swarming with game he believed his garden would have suffered, and as it had not, there could not be much game there.

said, he was not aware that there was a large amount of game in Richmond Park. In regard to plantations, as the old trees were cut down they were obliged to plant new trees. This accounted for the new plantation. The cost of the feed of the deer during the winter was not a very large item.

said, that perhaps the hon. Gentleman opposite had wire round his garden. [Mr. BARING: No, I have not.] He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had seen swarms of rabbits in Richmond Park. He thought that the Ranger of that Park had no right to call upon that House to pay for keeping up the game for him to shoot.

hoped that the game in Richmond Park would not be destroyed, because the people who flocked there from London looked upon the deer and the other game as their own property.

said, the question was whether the lowest figure had been put down in each of the items in the Vote. He expressed no opinion whether the amounts charged were too large or not; but he should vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend, because he objected to money being voted on general grounds when it was to be expended upon a particular piece of work.

thought that it would be inconvenient for the Committee to prescribe how many loads of gravel or how many yards of turf were to be laid down in the public Parks. Something ought to be left to the discretion of the First Commissioner.

moved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £155, the amount asked for the purpose of feeding the deer in Richmond Park.

said, he could not vote for the Amendment, as the Ranger had now enjoyed the right of shooting in the Park for many years, and the amount expended in feeding the deer was exceedingly small.

said, it was not at all a question of renewing the privileges of the Ranger, but one of paying a certain sum of money for feeding game of which nobody knew what became.

wished to know the amount received from the sale of the game?

replied that game was not sold, but given away. Question put.

opposed the Motion, and explained that his reason was to prevent a most important Bill affecting Ireland (Public Health) being read a second time, at an hour when the measure could not be properly discussed. He had seen recently a letter written by an anonymous scribbler in The Times, who signed himself "M.P."—

called the hon. Member to Order. The Question was that the Chairman now leave the Chair.

would not proceed with the topic. The Government had done a great deal to got through the other business in order that the second reading of the Public Health (Ireland) Bill might be taken at a time when there were few Irish Members in the House to discuss it. He should be quite willing to have the House divided into two portions, one sitting by night and the other by day, and he was willing to take his share with either portion; but under the present arrangement he really did not see how the House was to get through its business.

requested his hon. Friend to withdraw his opposition. He agreed I with him that it was very desirable not to have discussions at a late hour on Bills with respect to which there was likely to be any dispute. The Bill, however, which his hon. Friend wished to obstruct was simply a Bill for consolidating the sanitary laws in Ireland, and it was the universal opinion of those who administered those laws that the Bill should be passed. If it were not now read a second time the result would be that it could not pass this Session, and he thought anyone who prevented sanitary legislation would not find his conduct approved of by the people of Ireland.

was proceeding to make some remarks criticising the Public Health (Ireland) Bill, when—

called him to Order.

said, ho regretted that the obstruction had been thrown in the way of the Bill. He was not aware that a single Irish Member was opposed to the measure; and, on the contrary, he thought the Government were entitled to thanks for introducing a measure which gave an instalment of Home Rule.

said, the hon. Gentleman could not have read the Bill. [" Order, order !"]

said, he would not press his opposition, in deference to the wish of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick, but he must object to the way in which Irish business was transacted.

said, the hon. Member for Meath had by his Motion attempted to obstruct the measure.

rise to Order. The right hon. Baronet has made an inaccurate statement. He said that I made a Motion. I have made no Motion.

I should have said, "by his speech on the Motion for reporting Progress." I was proceeding to state the course that I had taken in respect of this Bill. It was as follows:—On the last day before the adjournment for the Easter Recess I stated publicly to the House that I hoped to be able to take the second reading of this Bill to-night, which, as has been said, is really a Consolidation Bill. This evening I met many hon. Members connected with this Bill, and I stated to them that it was my intention to proceed with the Bill, having the further intention of referring it to a Select Committee in order that it might be thoroughly discussed. Considering that this was merely a consolidation of an existing law, with certain amendments of some importance, but which I have always represented as inferior to the great object of the consolidation; and considering that I was anxious to have it discussed before the Select Committee, and that, therefore, the second reading would be merely a formal stage, I leave the House to judge of the conduct of the hon. Member.

thought the Bill ought to have been read a second time, for it could easily be discussed by his hon. Friend the Member for Meath after it came from the Committee, if necessary. He protested against a good Bill like this being stopped from passing simply because it came on at that hour.

said, he had not prevented its passing the second reading; but if the Bill was such a very good one, and no time was necessary for its discussion, why did not the right hon. Baronet bring iton at an early hour of the evening?