I beg to present a Petition from the Bombay branch of the East India Association against charging upon the Revenues of India all the expenditure of the Afghan War. A summary of their statements on the subject is this—they believe, in the first place, that all Indian opinion is extremely adverse to such a measure. In the second place, they consider that the action and policy of Her Majesty's Government in this war has been directly opposed to the spirit and wording of the 56th section of the Government of India Act, and they ask for a disapproval of it by the House. In the third place, they state that the vote by which this expenditure was sanctioned, on the part of Parliament, was principally founded on the allegation of a surplus Revenue of £1,500,000, by which the charge was to be defrayed; but that that surplus does not really exist, and that the Famine Insurance Fund is absorbed. In the fourth place they state that, although the official estimate of the expenses of the war is £3,000,000, the prevalent belief in India is that it will not cost less than £5,000,000; and they finally refer to a declaration, which they conceive to have been made by Members of Her Majesty's Government, to the effect that the war has been made for European, and not for Indian interests.

Sir, it may he of interest to the House that I should state that, after full consideration of the condition of affairs in South Africa, Her Majesty's Government have decided that the arrangements, under which the chief Civil and Military authority in the neighbourhood of the seat of war is distributed among four different persons, can no longer be deemed adequate to the requirements of the present juncture. They have, therefore, decided on appointing Sir Garnet Wolseley to the supreme Civil and Military command in Natal, the Transvaal, and the Native territories to the Northward and Eastward of these Colonies, now the seat of war. It will be remembered that this district is at a distance of more than 1,000 miles from Cape Town, where, during the approaching Session of the Cape Parliament, Sir Bartle Frere must be engaged on important and pressing affairs. Papers will at once be laid on the Table explaining the precise nature of the change, and the reasons for it.

I did not quite gather from what fell from the right hon. Gentleman whether the Transvaal was to be under the new arrangement or not?

Yes; I said that Sir Garnet Wolseley was to be Governor of Natal and the Transvaal.

said, that unless the amount of the Estimates and Expenditure for the war in South Africa were laid on the Table before Thursday fortnight, he would ask when hon. Members might expect it to be produced?

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If the amount of wheat returned as sold in the 150 market towns of England and Wales from which the Corn Returns are compiled fell from 3,579,623 quarters, in 1865, to 1,942,688 quarters, in 1879; whether he accounts for this great diminution by the inefficient collection of the present Returns; whether, notwithstanding the frequent re-sales included in these Returns, they represent less than one-fifth of the wheat grown in England; and, whether be has any grounds for believing that the averages calculated upon this basis fairly represent the prices the grower receives for his wheat?

Sir, the subject which is raised by my hon. Friend's Question is a difficult and complicated one, and if I were to endeavour to reply to it I should be obliged to enter into an argument, and, in fact, to make a speech of some length. I have had a careful Memorandum prepared by the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, and I propose to lay it very shortly upon the Table of the House, so that I may give my hon. Friend all the information that I can obtain on this matter, respecting which I am aware that very considerable interest is felt.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he has seen the statement of Mr. W. Sinclair, of Holy Hill, county of Tyrone, in the "Daily Express" of May 16th, in which that gentleman says—

"Myself detained by illness abroad, I can only hope that the late outrage will draw some attention to the general state of the district, which is at present under the absolute rule of a Ribbon Distillery Gang;"

and, whether this alleged state of things will be at once investigated and put down?

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to the Question, I beg to ask him the Question on the same subject of which I gave him private Notice. It is, Whether he has seen a letter from Mr. Gallaher in the "Londonderry Journal" of the 21st instant, contradicting the statement of Mr. Sinclair, and alleging that the outrage was not a Ribbon outrage, but the result of an Orange conspiracy; and, whether the letter of Mr. Sinclair from Biarritz, in the South of France, stating that certain districts in the county Tyrone were under the absolute rule of a Ribbon distillery gang, is not a great exaggeration of the circumstances of the illicit distillation which is carried on in the neighbourhood, and which was common in various parts of Ireland just as much amongst Protestants as Catholics?

also asked, If the Chief Secretary for Ireland has seen the statement of Mr. Patrick Gallaher, of Strabane, in the county of Tyrone, in the "Londonderry Journal," referring to the letter in the "Daily Express" of Mr. Sinclair, of Holy Hill, county Tyrone, of which Mr. Gallaher states "a more unfair communication was never penned by any man assuming to be a gentleman," and that—

"If Mr. Sinclair honestly investigated the matter he would find that the perpetrators of the outrage are closely connected with his own place, where there are a number of rabid Orangemen," and "that there was strong evidence to show that it was the work of some members of that blood-stained society;"

and, whether Mr. Sinclair made any information of the "stills," of the working of which he found traces on ten different farms on his property, or whether he took any steps whatever to abate that nuisance?

Sir, my attention has been called to some correspondence conducted through the Irish Press, in which statements and counter-statements of a recriminatory nature have been indulged in. I am not in a position myself to decide which of the contending parties is in fault; but the only point I think I am called upon to answer is whether at the present time I have reason to believe the district referred to is "under the absolute rule of a Ribbon distillery gang." From the reports I have perused, I believe there is a certain amount of Ribbonism, and I have no doubt there is a good deal of illicit distillation; but as to how far these movements are connected, I must say no evidence has reached me leading me to suppose that both practices are indulged in by the same parties. As regards the steps which it is our intention to take, I can only say the subject is under investigation, and such steps will be taken as are found to be necessary.

inquired, Whether any report had been received, from the Constabulary authorities; and whether the Chief Secretary had any objection to state whence the statement was supplied, either that there was at present a large amount of illicit distillation, or that there was any Ribbon Society in operation in the district?

I have stated that my impression is derived from the perusal of various reports. This is all the information I have.

said, what he wanted to ask was, Whether these reports were newspaper reports, or authoritative reports from the Constabulary Office; whether they were received from those interested in the preservation of peace and order in the district and the maintenance of the Revenue, or whether they were merely the newspaper reports of insane and rabid individuals?

As I have already said, from the various sources of information I had at my command, including official and other reports.

But, Sir, what I wish to ascertain—Cries of" Order!"]

The hon. Gentleman having already had a full Answer, it is not competent for him now to renew the Question.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether it is a fact that the Telegraph Department has ceased to take on female clerks, and that the female branch of the Government Telegraph School has been closed; and, if so, what is the reason for thus excluding women from one of the few opportunities which they have hitherto had of employment in the public service?

, in reply, said, the Post Office authorities had no intention of discontinuing female labour in the Telegraph Department. On the contrary, they were constantly extending it, and were favourable to its extension. In consequence, however, of the excessive amount of labour at the principal London offices at night, which could only be satisfactorily done by male clerks, the further appointment of female clerks to these offices had been suspended, until the number of female clerks had been properly adjusted to the requirements of the Service.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Whether he is aware that a regular centre for the printing and distribution of tracts of the most offensive description exists in Dublin, where, it is announced, they are kept—

"Stereotyped, and can be had on application, from one copy to a million copies, at cost price, for universal circulation;"

whether it has come to his knowledge that in these productions catholic places of worship are styled "mass houses," and catholics are described as worshipping "stone goddesses and wafer gods;" whether such statements, offensive to the religious belief of many millions of Her Majesty's subjects, are scattered wholesale in tramcars and Railway carriages, and even in private carriages standing at shop doors, and are flung down areas and thrust into private letterboxes, and into the hands of passengers through the public streets; and, whether it has not been repeatedly reported to the Government by magistrates, clergymen, and respectable persons of all denominations that such practices are a cause of deep pain to honourable Protestants, and highly calculated to provoke to breaches of the peace among an earnestly Catholic people.

Sir, with respect to the two first paragraphs of the Question of the hon. Gentleman, the facts are as he has stated them. With reference to the third, I understand that these documents have been circulated pretty generally, but no intimation has ever been conveyed which would authorize me to affirm that they have been circulated in the way referred to. As to the fourth part of the Question, I cannot say that any reports have reached me on the subject; but, since public attention has recently been called to it, I have received certain communications—amongst others, I may say, from the secretary and other persons responsible for the conduct of the Irish Church Mission, in which they certainly do express themselves very much in the manner that the hon. Gentleman does, in so far as he says that these practices were the cause of giving pain to honourable Protestants; but, beyond that, no communications have been made to the Government. As to the last few words of the Question, no information has reached me that leads me to suppose that those practices are calculated to provoke a breach of the peace.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Why, since in Scotland outrages upon the religious belief of a section of Her Majesty's subjects can be prevented and punished by the Law, a similar protection has not yet been extended to the Catholic people of Ireland?

:Sir, the expression, "outrages upon religious belief," is somewhat indefinite, and might be used to describe events differing very widely from each other. The reply of the Lord Advocate to a Question put a few days since by the hon. Member with reference to certain occurrences at Dundee was, no doubt, justified by the facts and circumstances of that particular case. Indeed, it is obvious that all such cases, wherever they occur, must be decided on their own special facts and circumstances. I have no doubt that the law of England and Ireland, in the event of occurrences causing riots or breaches of the peace, would be found amply sufficient to protect all sections of Her Majesty's subjects, no matter what their religion might be.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been directed to an article in the "Scotsman" newspaper of the 14th instant, making among other statements the following:—

"No doubt exists in the Haddington Burghs, and there would be little difficulty in procuring evidence of the fact, that money was spent in the assumed interest of the Conservative candidate in corrupt practices. It is notorious and easily susceptible of proof, that drink was supplied freely to voters in Haddington, Jedburgh, Dunbar, and North Berwick. In the case of the Haddington Burghs there was, beyond doubt, a deliberate conspiracy to debauch the constituency. It has been pointed out above that the law has been broken by the Conservative agents in at least three important particulars, and that for such breaches certain penalties are specified. If, after this, the officials who are responsible for the vindication of the law do not take prompt measures for bringing the offenders to justice, they will be open to a charge of gross and culpable neglect of duty;"

whether he can inform the House that the Procurator Fiscal is making the inquiry which is usual when information reaches him that a breach of law has been committed; and, if not, whether he will direct that the Procurator Fiscal discharge his duty in the matter?

Sir, I have made inquiry with regard to these matters, and I have not obtained any information to warrant a prosecution for any of the offences mentioned in the Question of the hon. Member. I desire further to say that it is exceedingly inconvenient and very difficult to deal with general accusations of this kind, such as are bandied about in times of excitement during an election. It is quite open to anyone to lay specific information before the Officers of the Crown; persons are protected by privilege in doing so, and whenever such in-formation is given, a full investigation will be made.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, considering the existing state of trade on the West Coast of Africa, and especially in those rivers known as the "Oil Rivers," it is contemplated to extend the treaties, and thus permit British traders to establish stations beyond the present Treaty limits, by which means they will obtain direct intercourse with the natives of the interior?

, in reply, said, the British Consul on the West Coast had general instructions to make Treaties with the Native Chiefs wherever he could see the possibility of extending British trade. In regard to the Brass River, it had been thought unadvisable to make Treaties with the Chiefs in the interior, as we already had Treaties with those at the mouth of the river, and any relations come to with those in the interior would be likely to disturb the friendly arrangements already existing.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, in justice to those officers who were mentioned in General Roberts' Supplementary Despatch as having distinguished themselves in the front attack made by Brigadier General Cobbe's Brigade on the Peiwar Kotal, he will communicate with the Government of India and procure that Despatch in its entirety with a view to its publication in the "London Gazette," where only an extract, omitting the names of officers, has yet appeared?

, in reply, said, the practice of publishing subordinate officers' reports of military occurrences having been carried to a great excess, the Government of India had decided that for the future the duty of reporting on actions and campaigns should rest solely on the General Commanding-in-Chief, who was responsible for their conduct in every particular. He was afraid, therefore, he could not undertake to produce that to which the hon. and gallant Member referred.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that four persons were recently imprisoned at the instance of the School Board of Barvas, in the Island of Lewis, under the provisions of the Education (Scotland) Act, for neglecting to send their children to school; and, whether the defence they stated, that the children were attending a school maintained by the Gaelic School Society, in which reading, writing, and arithmetic were taught, was not a good defence in law to the proceedings taken against them?

:Sir, my attention was called to this matter by the hon. Member; but I have not yet been able to get full information on the subject, and, therefore, I am not in a position to say whether the facts are as stated or not. I may state, however, that if reading, writing, and arithmetic are efficiently taught in the Gaelic Society's school, and the children of these parents were in actual attendance, this would form a perfectly good defence to any prosecution under the Education Act.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that, in the month of June 1876, certain native prisoners were, by order of the Governor of the Fiji Islands, marched into a proclaimed district, and there tried by court martial; condemned and executed in a barbarous manner in his presence—some being hung, others strangled and afterwards clubbed to death, and others shot; whether it is a fact that these men were thus illegally deprived of their right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the Colony; and, whether, if these facts are true, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take cognizance of them?

Sir, these statements appeared in an article which was published in a New Zealand newspaper nearly three years ago. They are not true; and I must add, in justice to Sir Arthur Gordon, that I think the hon. Member would not have repeated them now, if whoever communicated them to him had had the fairness—I might say the honesty—to inform him that the newspaper in which they appeared, two months afterwards accepted the contradiction of them without reservation, and

"Frankly expressed regret for having given currency to statements not unlikely to excite serious prejudice against an officer of the Crown placed in a position of great difficulty, and, consequently, in no need of gratuitous or additional obstacles in the discharge of his duty."

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If his attention has been drawn to a statement by the special correspondent of the "Daily News" at Pietermaritzburg, to the following effect:—

"Bishop Colenso affirms that repeatedly Cetewayo since that affair (of Isandula) has sent to Lord Chelmsford messages setting forth his anxiety to receive terms and asking for peace. He tells a narrative of some Natives recently reaching the Tugela with a flag of truce and being tired upon, but four Zulu Christians standing firm were allowed to pass into Natal to Bishop Schruger, and thence to Lord Chelmsford at Maritzburg. The latter pointed out to them that they were not men of sufficient consideration to be bearers of overtures and sent them back to Cetewayo from Maritzburg, with an intimation that men of consequence or indunas sent by Cetewayo would find him in Dundee. The Bishop is satisfied that Cetewayo is not the savage he is represented, and that he would gladly accept reasonable terms and be again in amity with us. He would do every- thing Sir Bartle Frere demanded before the war, and reduce his military force within due limits, and meet us generally on every point, if only we did not insist on utterly and, abjectly humiliating him;"

and, whether there is any truth as to these overtures for peace on the part of Cetewayo; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will, in consequence of such overtures, order a cessation of bloodshed and enter into negotiations for peace?

Sir, I really do not know on what grounds Bishop Colenso has formed that opinion, which, it appears from this quotation, he has expressed as to the intention and wishes of Cetewayo; nor do I know what means of communication he may have with the Zulus. The only overtures which I have heard of as having been made since these messages, duly reported in the Blue Books, which were received before the Tugela was crossed, are, in the first place, a message, which appeared to come from certain Zulu Indunas, and not from Cetewayo himself, which was delivered early in March to the frontier magistrate, and passed on by him to Sir Henry Bulwer. The reply to that message was that any overtures must come from the King himself. A further message came to Lord Chelmsford at the end of the month. Two messengers arrived asking for a conference, and referring to Cetewayo's promises at his coronation. Lord Chelmsford was then on his march to Ekowe, and those messengers were informed that a flag of truce would always be respected, and that if he had any messages to send they would be received by him at his camp. Since that time, and the relief of Ekowe, I am not aware that any messages have arrived.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to a letter, dated the 12th day of April 1879, from the Local Government Board (Ireland) to the Blessington and Ballymore Dispensary Committee of Naas Union, requesting the committee to receive the resignation of their medical officer on account of his failing to attend one Patrick Merrigan, though a medical relief ticket was presented on his behalf, and who I died without medical attendance; and, whether the dispensary committee have yet complied with this direction; and, if not, whether the Local Government Board have taken steps to compel compliance?

Sir, the Committee were so requested, but they took a different view of the case from that adopted by the Local Government Board, and they declined to act on the suggestion of the Board. In order to enable them to hear the statement which the medical officer had to make, and any further observation the Committee had to offer, it was decided to hold an inquiry by one of the Inspectors of the Local Government Board, and that inquiry was fixed to take place to-day.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he is still satisfied that his Estimate for the War in South Africa is sufficient, or recognizes that it must be increased? He added, by way of explanation, that he was aware there had been no formal Estimate; but he referred to the £1,500,000 spoken of by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir, the hon. Member is quite right in saying that at present there is no Estimate on the Table. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), however, has already given Notice of his intention to ask a Question with regard to the Estimate of the cost of the war in South Africa immediately after the Whitsuntide holidays; and I think it would be more convenient to defer answering the Question of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy until then.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, When he expects to lay upon the Table of the House the statement showing the different Consular or other appointments proposed to be made in Asia Minor, together with particulars of the salaries and other expenses connected therewith?

, in reply, said, he could not fix the actual day; but he hoped to be able to lay the Papers upon the Table within the next fortnight or three weeks.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the prolongation of the existing Treaty of Commerce with France is limited to six months from December 31st of the current year; or whether the terms of prolongation include an engagement that the Conventional Duties under the present Treaty shall continue in force for six months after the date, whenever that may be, when a new Tariff shall have been enacted in France?

Sir, no change has taken place in the arrangements between the French and English Governments since I made a statement on the subject a few days ago. The duration of the Treaty, as well as the duration of the Conventional Tariff, as fixed by laws and Treaty, is to be prolonged for six months after the promulgation of the General Tariff now before the French Assembly.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Anti-Slave Trade Treaty with Turkey has yet been concluded, which he informed the House last February had then been not only submitted to the Porte, but had passed the Council of Ministers?

Sir Henry Layard, when in England, undertook that when he returned to Constantinople he would lose no opportunity and no time in pressing on the Porte the subject of that Treaty, and we hope to hear shortly that it has been signed.

asked Mr. Attorney General, If it be true that, while the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill repeals in whole or in part about 80 Statutes, it leaves unrepealed about 650, all bearing on Criminal Law; and, if so, if he will take steps to make the codification more complete before asking the House to go through further labour in discussing details?

:Sir, if the hon. Gentleman asserts that, in addition to the statutes intended to be repealed by the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill, there are as many as 650 other Acts bearing on the Criminal Law, I presume he has made a careful calculation, and has satisfied himself of its accuracy. The number of Statutes mentioned must, however, to a great extent, be made up of Acts of Parliament relating to offences punishable on summary conviction, of Acts which are obsolete, and of Acts which it is not desirable to re-enact. I have already explained why the provisions of all the Statutes relating to indictable offences are not codified by the Bill, and I dare say a further statement on this subject will be contained in the Report of the Commissioners. I consider the Bill contains a very large measure of codification, for it codifies all the common, or unwritten, law relating to Criminal Acts generally, and all the statute law relating to such indictable offences as are ordinarily considered to be embraced under the term "crimes." This being so, I cannot accede to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I shall take steps to delay the passing of the measure.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will make arrangements to allow the House to express its opinion on the Recommendations of the Committee on Parliamentary Reporting before they are carried into effect.

Sir, the Government have not yet been able to consider these recommendations; but if they should propose to apply them, undoubtedly an opportunity will be given to the House to express an opinion upon them, because it will be necessary to submit a small Vote as a test of the opinion of the House on the subject.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, What class of Civil Service Estimates would be taken on this day fortnight; and whether there would be a Morning Sitting on the day after the re-assembling of the House?

, in reply, said, that with regard to the Estimates to be taken on the first Monday after the Whitsuntide Recess, something would depend on the progress made to-night. If the Estimates now on the Paper should not be finished, they would be taken again; otherwise the Army Estimates would be taken. In any case, the Army Estimates would probably be put upon the Paper. On the first Tuesday after the Recess there would be a Morning Sitting for the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill.

; I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the statement he made in the earlier part of the evening, Whether the Government intend to lay on the Table further Papers relating to South Africa, and when he expects that they may be in our hands? I should also like to ask, When further Papers may be expected relating to affairs in Egypt?

I wish to ask, If the Papers which are to be laid on the Table in reference to South Africa will contain the instructions given to Sir Garnet Wolseley?

I have already stated that the Papers relating to South Africa will be laid on the Table before the House rises to-morrow, and I hope they will be in the hands of Members in a few days, but I can hardly say off-hand what they will contain. With regard to the other Question, I believe that further Papers with regard to the affairs of Egypt are being prepared, and that they also will be in the hands of Members in a few days.

I wish to ask a Question or two in reference to the statement that was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think at an unusual time—such statements being generally made after, and not before, the Questions. I do not wish to conclude with a Motion; but I trust the House will permit me to say one or two words in explanation. I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that Sir Garnet Wolseley had been appointed both Civil and Military Governor of South Africa. ["No."] Then, of some portion of South Africa.

I said Natal and the Transvaal, and those portions of territory to the North and East of those Colonies.

Well, I wish to know what is the effect of that appointment in regard to superseding officers already there—among them Sir Henry Bulwer, one of the most competent men in South Africa? I wish to know from the Government, Whether it is to be understood by the House and the country that the confidence of the Government has been withdrawn from the General Commanding-in-Chief; and whether the statement which has appeared in the Cape papers that Sir Bartle Frere has no intention of resigning the position he holds is correct, or whether he has acquiesced in the censure that has been passed upon him by Her Majesty's Government? I wish to put another Question and make an explanation. I do not wish to conclude with a Motion; but I am particularly anxious that this subject should be discussed before the adjournment for the holidays, and should be prepared to raise the question to-morrow on the Motion that you, Sir, do leave the Chair; but I will not do so if the House will permit me to make an explanation. It has to be remembered that at this present moment there are at the Cape forces amounting to nearly 22,000 men, and I want to know whether anything has occurred——

I rise to Order. I think it is unfair to other Members that the right hon. Baronet should be allowed to make remarks unless he means to conclude with a Motion.

:I will be very brief. I will limit myself to a few observations.

As long as the right hon. Gentleman puts a Question, and confines himself to that Question, and to such information as is necessary to make that Question plain to the House, he is in Order.

The Question is one of very great importance, and it is this—Whether it is to be understood by the House of Commons and by the country that the confidence of the Government has been withdrawn from the General Commanding-in-Chief, Lord Chelmsford? I wish also to inquire whether Sir Henry Bulwer, the competent Governor of Natal, is superseded? I wish also to inquire whether Sir Bartle Frere is supposed no longer to exercise the functions which he has hitherto discharged in that part of South Africa? I hope the Government will also allow me to inquire whether it is intended before the vacation—either tonight or to-morrow—to offer to the country any statement as regards the position of affairs in South Africa?

said, he wished to put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the same subject, and he also had no intention of concluding with a Motion if he could avoid it, but the circumstances were peculiar; the emergency was severe. They would tomorrow evening be dismissed to their homes for a fortnight; and, if they were to judge from the past, they might expect on Wednesday or Thursday to receive some stunning surprise. It was, therefore, strongly pressed upon him that he should like to know—[Interruption.] He did appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as they were about to separate to-morrow, to make, if he could, some statement with reference to the present position in South Africa, and also in reference to the intentions of the Government that were to be carried out by the new Commander-in-Chief. He must ask the indulgence of the House while he completely explained his Question. If, while hon. Members were scattered through the country, they found an invasion of Zululand once more in full swing, and scenes that all would deplore being enacted, the blood of the country would be lip. [Cries of "Oh!" "Move!" and "Order!"] He would conclude with a Motion. He decidedly objected to Members being dismissed to their homes without some specific information on a subject which was deep in the heart of the country. They wished for peace; and they wanted a positive assurance from the Government that they would not renew the invasion of Zululand for any mere idle pretext of what was called vindicating the disaster of Isandlana. They wanted to know how much bloodshed the Government thought must be poured out before that vindication took place. It was to him abhorrent that, 10 days hence, they should find a war, brutal and barbarous, in full swing, and no House of Commons sitting to put even a Question to the Minister of the day. He would tell his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) that his Motion would come too late, for they would then be told, "Our arms were in the field, and our gallant soldiers in the grip of a deadly foe. Do not paralyze their arms at a moment like this; to do so would be eminently unpatriotic." He appealed to the Government to tell the House that Sir Garnet Wolseley would be the messenger of peace—he need not be a coward for that, for he had already vindicated in Africa and elsewhere the traditional courage of the British Army—and that he would take in his portfolio some decision of the Government which would enable him, before carrying fire and sword into Zululand, to make offers to Cetewayo which might effect a settlement of the question. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.

asked leave to second the Motion, and begged most earnestly to support the appeal made to the Government by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan). A moment or two ago he ventured to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Papers shortly to be laid on the Table would contain the general instructions which had been given to Sir Garnet Wolseley? The Chancellor of the Exchequer made what he (Mr. Chamberlain) chose to call a very cavalier reply—"That he could not be expected to say what would be contained in the Papers." That seemed to him an extremely unsatisfactory position in which to place the House. They wanted to know whether the appointment of Sir Garnet Wolseley was an augury of peace, or whether he only went out to South Africa as a messenger of still more violent war? They had felt—and that had been one of the grounds of the Motion he had made—they had felt that as long as Sir Bartle Frere was High Commissioner, and enjoyed the confidence of the Government, and as long as his policy was unchanged, there was no chance of peace until the Zulu power had been utterly destroyed. That kind of peace they regarded as no peace at all, but only the beginning of further difficulties and danger. They felt that unless a new Representative of Her Majesty were sent out, there would be no hope of a peaceable settlement of this most unfortunate affair—a war commenced in injustice, and which they did not wish to see continued—a war commenced in injustice and wrong—a war commenced without any necessity—a war in which the country would never have engaged, if the House had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. He seconded the Motion for adjournment.

trusted that in the satisfactory assurances which, he hoped, were about to be given, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to say that Sir Garnet Wolseley would be instructed to grant to the people of the Transvaal, who had been fraudulently robbed of their rights, as full and complete an instalment of independence as was consistent with the safety of our South African Colonies.

I do not understand, Sir, that the House desires now to open up a general discussion upon South African policy; but I do fully understand that hon. Members who were not present when I made a statement at the beginning of Business would wish to hear what I then said. What I stated at that time was, that after a full consideration of the condition of affairs in South Africa, Her Majesty's Government had decided that the arrangement under which the chief Civil and Military authority in the neighbourhood of the seat of war was distributed between four different persons could no longer be deemed adequate. By these four different persons I, of course, mean Sir Bartle Frere as the High Commissioner, Sir Henry Bulwer as Civil Governor of Natal, Colonel Lanyon as Administrator of the Transvaal, and Lord Chelmsford, Commander-in-Chief of the Forces. I therefore said that Her Majesty's Government had determined on appointing Sir Garnet Wolseley as Civil and Military Governor in Natal, the Transvaal, and the Native territory to the Northward and Eastward of those Colonies which are now the seat of war. Sir Henry Bulwer is the Lieutenant Governor of Natal, and Sir Garnet Wolseley will be the Governor. Similarly, he will be the Governor of the Transvaal, and he will be the High Commissioner who will conduct the relations of the Crown with the Native Tribes to the north and east of those territories. It will be remembered that that country is more than 1,000 miles distant from Cape Town, and that Sir Bartle Frere is at present—and will be for some considerable time—detained at Cape Town by important business which he has to transact in Cape Colony. With reference to the Question of the right hon. Baronet, Sir Bartle Frere has not yet answered, or we have not received, any answer to the despatch to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I do not think it would be convenient that I should attempt, on the present occasion, to enter into any fuller explanation further than to say this—that we propose immediately to lay upon the Table Papers which will explain the precise nature and the reason of the appointment which has been made of Sir Garnet Wolseley. Of course, the instructions which will be given to Sir Garnet Wolseley will be laid upon the Table, and will be circulated as quickly as possible, but we were anxious to save time; and I am not sure whether it will be possible to include those instructions in the first batch of Papers which will be laid on the Table. Of course, they will be laid upon the Table, and I hope they will be very shortly in the hands of hon. Members. The Papers which relate to the nature of the appointments will be laid immediately. Of course, I cannot object to any discussion which hon. Members may choose to invite us to; but I hope it may be considered that this is not a very convenient opportunity for entering upon a discussion of South African policy.

said, he had no desire to enter into any general! discussion; but he thought it would be convenient to the House and the country that there should be a fuller explanation as to how the new arrangements would affect the position of Lord Chelmsford. Sir Garnet Wolseley was a lieutenant-general, and Lord Chelmsford held the local rank of lieutenant-general in Africa. He wished to know whether Lord Chelmsford's position would be that of second in command, or would he revert to the command of one of the two main columns, or would he revert to the command of the troops in Cape Colony, 1,000 miles from the seat of war, or would he be entirely superseded and set aside? He knew the eminent capacity of Sir Garnet Wolseley, and he hoped he would take out a message of peace, honourable to this country, and conduct the military operations to a successful and speedy termination.

thought hon. Members were fully justified in asking for some further information than the Chancellor of the Exchequer had yet given. He had given entirely the go-by to the letter, if not to the spirit, of the Questions addressed to him on this side of the House. What ought to be distinctly underststood was, whether the instructions to be given to Sir Garnet Wolseley would place him in the position of being a messenger of peace, or a messenger of war, charged with the extermination of the Zulu people? Everyone, of course, knew the high merits and capacity of Sir Garnet Wolseley, and they had heard something about the vindication of the honour of this country; but were they going to tell the world that it was necessary to vindicate the majesty of the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland by exterminating these wretched Zulus? To say such a thing was almost an insult. It was, therefore, essential to know what Sir Garnet Wolseley was instructed to do in Africa. How long-were we going to continue this war against this wretched Zulu Kingdom—against a country which, in fact, had never attacked us? It had already been stated that the war was an unjust one, and hon. Gentlemen opposite had demurred to the statement. But what could be stronger than the censure passed by the Government on Sir Bartle Frere for what he had done in the matter? But what were we doing now, and after that policy had been censured by the Government? We were establishing a series of military posts right across the Zulu country; and for what earthly reason? The House ought to be told what was going to be done. There were, practically, 25,000 soldiers there already; and Sir Garnet Wolseley, and he did not know how many more soldiers, were going to be sent out. The chief thing which the people of this country desired to know was, whether this war was to last two or three years, or how long? Were we to drive the Zulus out of the full extent of their territory? You would not get rid of them by so doing, but might make things worse and worse. That being so, the people wished to know whether anything short of the entire destruction of the Zulus was to be the limit of the operations that was to end the war. Whether unjust or not in its inception, it was clear that we could gain no credit to our arms by proceeding with it any further against a mere horde of savages.

I wish to express the unfeigned satisfaction which the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given me, and I hope that now we shall see this miserable affair in South Africa placed in the hands of one competent to deal with a most difficult situation, and that that of which I and many others in this House complained of from the beginning—namely, the extreme difficulty attending the ruling and directing of South Africa by four or five heads—will now be removed by the sole direction being placed, as we have been told it will be, under the management of one capable Commander. I wish, also, to call the attention of the Government to the two assurances which they have made during the course of this Session—one was in answer to the humane request made some time ago by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), and the other in answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain); and, on the first occasion, the Government stated most distinctly that until the reverses of the Army had been avenged, and until their military position was reestablished, they did not intend to enter into any negotiations for peace. Let us hope, now that the military position has been re-established, that they will not shrink from listening to the humane voice that was first raised in this House by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, and that they will now in their hearts consider whether the time has not arrived for entertaining proposals of peace from a man upon whom, from the showing of the Government themselves—and no matter what anybody else may say, the Blue Books prove it—upon whom a war has been forced—a war both unnecessary and unjust—and who, over and over again, expressed his desire to be on friendly terms with the great English people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has replied to the hon. Member, for Birmingham that instructions both negative and positive have been forwarded. Now, let us hope that, above all, straightforward and honest instructions have been forwarded to the Cape—and that the first opportunity will be taken, not to overrun the country, nor to undertake measures which will lead to the further shedding of blood and to still further expenditure, but to terminate a war which shocks the hearts and feelings of the English people.

Sir, I had no wish to take part in this debate; but I cannot avoid making a few remarks. I entirely agree with what has been said upon the subject; and I earnestly hope that the instructions given to Sir Garnet Wolseley will be such as will bring the war to a speedy conclusion. I think the Government ought not to feel surprised at the great anxiety of the House to know something as to the purport of those instructions. I am very glad, indeed, to hear the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It does much to relieve my anxiety not merely with regard to the safety of our troops, but with regard to our policy in South Africa. We have much confidence in Sir Garnet Wolseley; but I hope I may be allowed to remind the House that we are in this position:—We are informed, so far as we can gain information from the despatches on the Table, and from intelligence obtained from the newspapers, that the policy upon which the war now appears to be conducted at this moment in South Africa is such that the Zulu King—to use an expression I have seen quoted on good authority—feels that if he were to comply with the demand which has been made upon him for unconditional submission, that would, in his opinion, mean perpetual imprisonment. I cannot think this fear of his very unreasonable, and, if so, his reluctance to accept our conditions is very natural. Does the Government intend another departure in the policy they have of late pursued in South Africa? It is surely not upon military grounds alone that Sir Garnet Wolseley is being sent out to the seat of war; and I most earnestly desire that the Government will not allow the House to separate without some assurance that we may hope to look forward to a speedy end of this war. This is not the time to debate whether the war is a just one or not; but I never knew a case in which there was such a general admission of the accuracy of the statement made by Members on this side of the House that the war is an unnecessary one. Let the Government consider what is the real meaning of a war which is not a necessary war, what it means to our soldiers, what it means to the gallant men—savages though they are—who are fighting against us; what is the condition of our own brave youths, fighting as they are for their Colours, for the banner of Englishmen—fighting under the terribly disastrous circumstances of climate—still, I hope, not for the utter extermination of a hopeful race, who, savages though they are, have yet shown great courage and the power of obedience. If this war be persisted in, it will probably mean the utter extermination of this race by an overpowering force? I cannot resist the opportunity of earnestly calling upon the Government to give some assurance that there is no intention to cause the extermination of the Zulu race, and that we may look for a speedy termination of the war.

The Government have said all along that they were as anxious as any persons in the country could be to conclude this Zulu War at as early a day as was found to be consistent with the safety of our Colonies and the honour of our arms. From that declaration they have in no degree departed, and I would venture to state that the instructions with which Sir Garnet Wolseley will be furnished will be framed in the fullest accordance with those principles. It has been found necessary for the purpose of affairs in South Africa to place the conduct of matters in the hands of one officer, who shall exercise both civil and military control; and it has been found that it was a most fortunate circumstance that Sir Garnet Wolseley's presence at home has enabled the Government to avail themselves of his able services. [Laughter.] If the House will take my authority for the statement, his coming home is connected with purely military matters; and the Government have availed themselves of the circumstance of his being at home to send out without delay an officer, of whose courage and talents it would scarcely become me to speak, but which are fully recognized by the country, and which have been successful in a remarkable degree, not only in a military, but also in an administrative capacity. Singularly fortunate, also, is it that within the last few years Sir Garnet Wolseley has had, of all men, perhaps the best means of forming an intimate knowledge of Natal, and of its Frontiers, and the tribes along its borders; and we trust that, acting in the fullest accordance with the instructions he receives, he will be able so to act that, with little delay, he may give such a turn to affairs in those Colonies as may lead to the operations in the field being speedy and conclusive, and will thus enable this country, at the earliest possible period, to revert to that peace which, provided it can be obtained with safety to our Colonies and honour to our arms, we all alike desire. I am asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford whether Sir Garnet Wolseley is to be sent out with instructions for the extermination of the Zulu people? I will venture to say that no one who will take the trouble to search through the Correspondence relating to the affairs in Zululand will find such a word, or anything like such a word, in it from beginning to end. The fact is, it is utterly opposed to the policy of the Government. It is necessary that the safety of the Colonies should be provided for; it is necessary that the system of future defences should be provided for; and, in both respects, I think I may venture to appeal to the judgment of the country—if any man can be found more fitted to provide for those exigencies than Sir Garnet Wolseley? I am asked how far Lord Chelmsford's position will be affected by the change? Sir Garnet Wolseley is in the Army senior to Lord Chelmsford, and though it is true that Lord Chelmsford at the present moment holds a local rank which gives him the position of lieutenant-general, he is still in many degrees junior to Sir Garnet Wolseley; and by the sending out of a senior officer he will naturally have to subordinate his plan and his general action to the superior officer who may be on the spot. I am bound to say that the instructions to be framed, giving Sir Garnet Wolseley the general direction of affairs, military as well as civil, must not be held to imply censure on Lord Chelmsford's proceedings. It is simply that we have found it necessary at the present time to place the direction of affairs, civil and military, in one pair of hands; and that Her Majesty's Government, having fully stated the views with which they are anxious, at as early a period as may be consistent with the general safety, to bring this war to a conclusion, will send out Sir Garnet Wolseley with instructions framed on that basis—instructions which I hope, with the great ability that distinguishes him, he may be able to carry out efficiently and ably for the benefit of the country and the Colonies.

desired to come to the specific question—"What ought to be done by the Government to-day and to-morrow?" The Questions which had been addressed to the Government were, in his opinion, most reasonable, and the assurances of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken were good as far as they went; but the House wanted fuller and more definite information. Was there any ground for withholding the instructions given to Sir Garnet Wolseley? As far as he could see it, there was absolutely none at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that he would lay the full text of the instructions before the House as soon as he could. Why should they not be laid before the House today or to-morrow?

They are not yet fully prepared.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman meant to say that he had come down there and had assured the House that the Government were going to send out Sir Garnet Wolseley to South Africa to assume the supreme command, but that the Cabinet did not yet know what his instructions were to be?

I really must correct the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman asks why do we not lay the text of the instructions before the House, and I reply the text is not prepared.

admitted that he did use the word text, but what he wished to ask for was the substance in detail of the instructions. It seemed to him that was a most reasonable request. The House were about to separate for a fortnight. It was a question on which the country entertained the deepest feeling. They knew perfectly well what the views of the Government were generally on the subject—that they did not wish to go into the war at all. But was this appointment of Sir Garnet Wolseley to be looked on as a turning point? If it was, let the Government frankly tell the House what the instructions were. Unless the Government were prepared to state to-morrow in detail what was the substance of the instructions proposed to be given to Sir Garnet Wolseley, then, in his judgment, the House ought not to allow itself to be sent about its business. He should not have made such a strong statement but for this—they knew the language which the Government had held in this House, and they knew the language which they had held to their subordinates in South Africa, and they knew the consequences of that language, and that the country had been plunged into a miserable war. The House, therefore, wanted to know whether they might look on this as a turning point in the policy of the Government? If the instructions would bear that interpretation, why could not the Government give it to the House before sending them away for the Holidays? When they came back they would be told they were too late. That was the way they had been treated. It was always so. The Government said—"Do not discuss these things now, because you interfere with the carrying out of a policy;" and when it was over their reply was—"Oh, all that has gone by, and you are now to late to express your opinion." He therefore hoped the House would take time by the forelock, and insist on knowing what the instructions were. The Government must have made up its mind what they were to be, and he hoped the House would not allow itself to be sent about its business until it knew what they were.

said, that he declined on the present occasion to enter upon the causes of the war in South Africa. That was a matter upon which Her Majesty's Ministers must satisfy their own consciences. Considering the circumstances of the present juncture, he thought that the present was obviously a case in which the command ought to be concentrated; and, in his opinion, it could not have been concentrated in abler hands than those of Sir Garnet Wolseley. He deprecated, however, a section of the House assuming the functions which the Dutch Commissioners thought they were performing while Marlborough was carrying on a successful war. He deprecated the idea that because doubt might be entertained as to the justice of the origin of this war, the Government should, after many valuable lives had been sacrificed, and after a hostile spirit had been aroused in an African tribe which was organized in the fashion of the old Knights Templars, be tempted to believe that the country would excuse a failure in an undertaking which had already cost us so dearly. As the case now stood, the first duty of Her Majesty's Government was to secure the lives and property of the Colonists, while their next duty was to secure this country against a repetition of such onerous demands as had been made upon it for this purpose during a period of depression.

said, the reason why he was anxious to see the war concluded—however good the conduct of our soldiers—was that in no sense could it ever be called an honourable war, or one which would bring honour to the Colony or to the British arms. He looked with a deep feeling of sorrow, not only at the losses which were being sustained by our own soldiers, but at the slaughter of the Zulus, who were being slain by thousands. Many of the soldiers who had been sent out to fight the Zulus wore more boys, which he regarded as a great military mistake and a great blot upon the humanity of this country. If they were to have war let them employ men to fight, and not boys; and he urged upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no diplomatic harm could be done by the Government being frank and open in their communications to the House.

wished to confine his remarks to the point to which the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) limited his observations. The right hon. Member said the demand upon the Government was reasonable. He (Mr. Chaplin) said it was unreasonable. What was that demand, and what was their position to-night? The Government had come to a most serious decision. They had decided to send out a Commander-in-Chief to command our Forces in South Africa, and they came down to the House and said that the instructions they had given to Sir Garnet Wolseley would, as soon as they were prepared, be laid on the Table. The demand was that, at a moment's notice, Government should communicate the instructions given to Sir Garnet Wolseley to the House. [An hon. MEMBER: To-morrow.] It was true the hon. Member for Birmingham had qualified his demand and said "to-morrow;" but how could they be printed by tomorrow? And what did these instructions mean? The instructions to Sir Garnet Wolseley meant the future policy of the Government in South Africa. They must be of some length; and unless the House had them before it, how could hon. Members initiate a debate upon them? He hoped the Government would not allow themselves for a moment to be inveigled into a grave debate on this important matter.

thought the request of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham was a perfectly reasonable one. The Question of his hon. Friend was one which the country was asking, and expected to be answered. He wished to point out that it would be fairer to the Government if 24 hours were given to them to consider whether the Question which his hon. Friend had addressed to them was one which they could consistently with their public duty answer. His hon. Friend had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell that House and the country what was the general policy which Sir Garnet Wolseley would be instructed to carry out. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said it would be impossible to tell without compromising that policy, of course our mouths were closed. But as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the substance of the text would be laid before the House in a few days, there could be no reason for secrecy. The simple question raised by his hon. Friend seemed to him to be one of the first importance—namely, whether or not the influence of that House should be brought to bear on a question of vital importance before the House, and also whether the opinion of the House should produce any effect upon the policy about to be carried out. As he understood the Motion for the adjournment of the House would be made at the beginning of the Morning Sitting to-morrow, he would suggest to his hon. Friend whether it would not be well for him to repeat his Question on the Motion for the adjournment.

said, when the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) rose to put his Question accompanied with some explanations, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had ventured to rise to Order, on the ground that it was unfair to other Members of the House to open the flood-gates of this question, and not allow other Members to express their opinions. It was impossible it could be so. He wished now to ask a Question in relation to the appointment of Sir Garnet Wolseley. The Government, apparently, had now found out this Officer was the right man to conduct affairs in South Africa; but Sir Garnet Wolseley's opinion, based upon experience, had been long on record, and that opinion was that no war should be commenced in Zululand with a Force of less than 20,000 Europeans in the country. Contrary to that opinion, Sir Bartle Frere was sent out, and he had no experience. Lord Chelmsford, whose experience was very slight, was also sent, and the war was commenced with a Force utterly inadequate. Everyone acquainted with the Zulus and their mode of warfare shuddered at the manner in which the war was entered upon, with that spirit of light-hearted-ness for which M. Ollivier was celebrated at the commencement of the Franco-German War. Since the Zulu War commenced we had had disaster after disaster, and our troops had undergone suffering almost unparalleled in the history of Colonial warfare. What was now the condition of our troops there? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War knew perfectly well that in one division of the troops at the Cape there was an amount of sickness and a dearth of medical officers which was a disgrace to this country. It was well known that the clothes of the troops were much worn out, and that they had not received a supply of light clothing, which it was essential, in a country like Africa, they ought to receive. The country at a future time would require a complete answer to all these questions. At present he felt justified, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for reasons not easy to understand, and at a very unusual moment, interposed to inform the House that Sir Garnet Wolseley was going to the Cape for the purpose mentioned—he felt justified in asking, did the Chancellor of the Exchequer suppose that the country would be satisfied without knowing for what purpose Sir Garnet Wolseley was going? If so, he would find himself mistaken. The Government seemed to claim credit for their action, and it was only reasonable in the House to demand what were the instructions Sir Garnet Wolseley would carry with him? When the debate re-commenced to-morrow, if it was so arranged, he hoped the Minister for War would be able to give some information as to the condition of the troops in South Africa, their sanitary condition, the condition of the supplies sent out, when those supplies reached the troops, and the condition of the Commissariat and of the Medical Department. He believed the conditions of each and all were deplorable. There was another question to which the First Lord of the Admiralty might give an answer. Why, with a force of 5,000 or 6,000 well-seasoned soldiers in the country, did the Government continue to send out boys to reinforce the troops in South Africa, when they must know that those boys would die in great numbers? Why was it that a force of Marines—well-seasoned soldiers—was kept at home? Why did the Secretary of State for War introduce a Bill to allow of the First Class Reserves being called out, while, all the time, there was this force of well-seasoned Marines ready and willing to do their country service? It was perfectly well known the real reason was that there was a difficulty of etiquette between the Naval and Military Departments. A Government should be able to override these difficulties, and send out men who, well-tried by length of service, were able to fight well, maintain their health, and have a chance of returning in reasonable numbers to their native land.

said, the observations of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) might be apposite if the whole general question of the war in South Africa were under consideration; but the House had before it a much smaller and more pressing question. He would not go back to considerations connected with former arrangements in those districts where war now prevailed, but rather would adopt the right hon. Baronet's (Sir Robert Peel's) view; and he much regretted that the speech from the Treasury Bench since he spoke did not seem to warrant the roseate view the right hon. Baronet had taken. The subject was a question of engrossing importance. Not a town or village they went to, but they found what was going on in Zululand discussed by all classes; and in view of this universality of interest, he asked why it was that this statement they had heard was made only two days before the House was to adjourn for the Whitsuntide Holidays? He inferred that this statement might have been made a week ago, and yet they had chosen that time to inform the House—not that Sir Garnet Wolseley had been put in command of 17,000 men to South Africa; there was nothing extraordinary in that, for the House had seen how General Biddulph, at the Peiwar Kotal, and other Generals in Afghanistan, were sent to carry out previous arrangements; but then there was the clear expression of the Government policy from the lips of Lord Lytton. But here, he asked, on the eve of the House breaking up for a fortnight, was the old policy to be pursued in Zululand with stronger vigour? He thought he had a perfect right to ask this Question. The Secretary of State for War had made use of one pregnant observation. He had said—"We had Sir Garnet Wolseley home for military operations."

No, that must not go forth. What I said was, that Sir Garnet Wolseley was home to assist on a Committee of a military character, and for that purpose alone.

, continuing, accepted that statement; but he had noted the words at the time, and several hon. Members understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say Sir Garnet Wolseley was coming home in connection with military affairs. If that was the reason Sir Garnet Wolseley came home, then it was fair to ask, was it from reasons not military he had been selected to proceed to the Cape? All the debate might have been saved if Government had at once stated what instructions Sir Garnet Wolseley would carry out. In the absence of that, the House must fall back on surmise, and it was his surmise that the Admirable Crichton of the British Army had been selected to go to Zulu-land because of his military capacity. All recognized his military distinction, but he would not say there were not a thousand of equal ability in civil life in England. But why was he selected, and why was the House to be told in a whisper he was selected, because of his civil distinction? He repudiated such an idea, and believed the House would join in asking for an answer. For what had Sir Garnet Wolseley been selected to go to the Cape? When did this change come over the opinion of the Government as to the power and ability of Sir Bartle Frere, and the military capacity of Lord Chelmsford? And if there was no change, if Sir Bartle Frere 's intelligence was still as great, and Lord Chelmsford's military genius so transcendent as hon. Gentlemen opposite would maintain, why were they suspended? He would like to learn how, in every military club in London, where this subject would be discussed with some knowledge, to what this action of the Government would be attributed? It could be but to one cause—that having sent an indiscreet man to take civil control in South Africa, and a man of no special military distinction to take the military command, the Government at last saw the error of their ways, and to save Questions of an unpleasant character being put to them, they selected an opportunity to acquaint Parliament when they thought there would be a narrow attendance, the only Business anticipated being the voting of a sum of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000. [" Oh, oh!" and laughter.] They made this passing statement, and the House was to submit in perfect quietude. He was wrong in calling it a statement—this assurance. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might well try to interrupt him, for he had heard their warrior souls expressed in words on a late occasion when they were going to drag the flag that had borne the battle and the breeze over the hills of Rasselas and over the mountains of Afghanistan. They spoke in a high and inflated style, which he could not attempt to imitate. He was not there to make a warrior speech; but he had a right to ask, what everyone would ask to-morrow, what did the Government mean by this new move? Did not everybody know that there was not a second-class clerk in any branch of the Public Service—and he rejoiced that it was so—who could not put on a sheet of paper what was the policy of Her Majesty's Government? But he could imagine why the policy was not given out. The policy was a waiting one. "God is good," says the proverb, and in 14 days Providence might set all right. So in 14 days, when the House met again, things might change, and Government would say—"Why did you not wait for the information we had to give you? Now we give you a statement we trust you will all receive." An alternative policy, he thought, the people disliked as much as a great Leader of the House once said" they "disliked coalitions." At least his voice should be raised, though the front Bench was dumb, and if they refused an answer it should not be because they were not asked. What was the text of the new policy; or was the old policy to be carried out before Sir Bartle Frere and Lord Chelmsford were sent away, and Sir Garnet Wolseley took control? Was it to be a policy of high-handed aggression or conciliation? ["Oh, oh!"] That was the Question he asked, and, notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that was the Question the nation would ask tomorrow.

said, that Sir Garnet Wolseley was going out as Governor of Natal and as High Commissioner of Natal and the adjacent territories. Under such circumstances, what position would Sir Bartle Frere hold, as he was High Commissioner at present? Surely there ought to be some revocation of his appointment, because he was for the future to be only High Commissioner at the Cape. He should also like to know whether, if the Government had only recently discovered that it was necessary to combine the civil and military authority in one man, they would communicate to the House the reasons which led them to come to that conclusion? He apprehended, he might add, that, although the Government might not be prepared that evening to inform the House as to the substance of the instructions to be given to Sir Garnet Wolseley, they would do so before the House separated to-morrow.

said, the Question of the hon. Member for Birmingham simply asked that the House should be placed in possession of the instructions Sir Garnet Wolseley was about to receive, and the hon. and learned Member for Louth made a distinct appeal as to what was the nature of those instructions. In all the House had heard from the Treasury Benches that evening, and from what had been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite who had undertaken to speak for the Government, they had had no answer whatever to the appeal which was made by the hon. and learned Member for Louth. The sentiment which was uppermost in the minds of hon. Members, and what was also uppermost in the minds of the people outside, was that the people had had enough of this unjust, cruel, and exterminating war. That was the sentiment which had given life to the whole of the discussion, and the Government, in its attempts to answer the statements made on that side of the House, had made no answer, and taken no notice of those sentiments, and the appeal which was based on this. The Secretary of State for War said if they took the trouble to examine the whole of the Correspondence in reference to the question, they would find that the Government never was, and was not now, and would not be in the future, in favour of a policy of extermination. He admitted that if they looked at the Paper for the despatches which had been written by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, they would have not so much reason to complain; but the Secretary of State for War forgot that while he wrote those despatches which the Government had endorsed, the Government had also endorsed the conduct of those in South Africa, who had acted diametrically opposite to them. It was no use telling them that the view of the Secretary of State for the Colonies was of the most peaceable character. That clearly appeared in the Blue Books; but they had over and over again expressed their regret that their views had not been carried out. That was the real root of the question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it had been found no longer advisable to leave the control of the civil and military affairs in South Africa in the hands of four different persons. What did that mean? Did it mean that there was a conflict of opinion as regarded the manner in which the war was to be prosecuted? They knew that there was a conflict of opinion between the officials in South Africa in the discussion of what led to the war. Was it only in the most critical time of the proceedings that the Government had found out what they ought to do? Those were important Questions, which were suggested by the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it was only reasonable that the hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House should be anxious for complete information on the subject before they consented to adjourn for the Holidays. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had said that our soldiers were fighting with the courage of Englishmen, but it might rather be they were fighting with the courage of Irishmen, especially under the circumstances that an Irishman was now selected to retrieve our fortunes in South Africa. He only regretted that the valour of our soldiers was being exhibited in a bad, unjustifiable, and dishonourable war.

Sir, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in reply to the Question addressed to me by the hon. Baronet the Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid). He desires to know, firstly, for what reason Her Majesty's Government propose to make this change in the civil and military command in South Africa; and, secondly, what will be the position of Sir Bartle Frere in future. I think it will be far more convenient to the House if I ask hon. Members to wait for a few days, until they receive the Papers which will be laid on the Table of the House, and which will fully explain the reasons for this change and the position of the several officers in South Africa. But I may say these Papers will fully establish the absolute necessity for vesting' the whole supreme civil and military command in the district affected in one person, and will also show that Sir Bartle Frere will retain not only the functions of Governor of Cape Colony, but the functions of High Commissioner that were vested in his predecessor, Sir Henry Barkly. The point, however, that has principally occupied the House this evening is, what is the nature or purport—I may say the spirit—of the instructions with which Sir Garnet Wolseley is going out? I do not think I need say much in reply to the statement of the hon. Member for Mayo, who seemed to think that, whatever instructions were given, it was pretty certain they would not be obeyed——

Oh, no; I never said that Sir Garnet Wolseley would not obey his instructions. What I said was that those already in South Africa had flatly disobeyed their instructions.

However, I recognize the natural desire of hon. Members to know the spirit of the instructions to be given to Sir Garnet Wolseley; but I would point out the extreme difficulty—nay, the danger to the Public Service—of complying with such a request at the present moment. Supposing these instructions were read from beginning to end by myself or by my right hon. Friend, what would be the result? They would be immediately telegraphed to South Africa, and published there, before the officers intrusted with the duty of carrying them out had arrived, and the very effect that we desire by these instructions to produce might thus be rendered absolutely impossible. This, however, I will say, in addition to what has been said by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secre-taryforWar—that Sir Garnet Wolseley's instructions will be consistent with the spirit and the letter of the expressions of opinion, with which the House is acquainted, on the part of Her Majesty's Government—to obtain as soon as possible an honourable peace; and that, therefore, as a matter of course, so far from any measures tending to the extermination of the Zulu people, or driving them to despair, Sir Garnet Wolseley will be told that it is the object of Her Majesty's Government not to extend the British territories in South Africa, but to secure for the future the safety of those now belonging to us; and that he will be not only authorized, but directed, to receive and entertain any bond fide overtures that may be made to him by the Zulu King, in order that, as soon as possible, the end of his mission may be accomplished.

Sir, I think that probably the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfactory to the House; but I cannot but regret that it was not made sooner. I must also point out that the reason which the right hon. Gentleman has given for not stating the instructions to Sir Garnet Wolseley more in detail seem somewhat inconsistent with that which was given at an earlier period of the evening by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that Papers would be laid on the Table and be almost immediately in our hands. If that be so, it would then be possible for the contingency that the Secretary of State for the Colonies dreads to take place; for these instructions would be telegraphed to South Africa, and be discussed there, before the arrival of Sir Garnet Wolseley. I assume that the Government will lay the Papers upon the Table as soon as, in their opinion, they can be presented without any injury to the Public Service; and I do not know that under the circumstances we can expect more than the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot sit down without saying I have heard with great satisfaction the announcement made by the Government this evening. We, on this side, must look upon it, to a very great extent, as a justification of the course that we thought it necessary to take a month or two ago. It is not with the policy of the Government, as laid down by them, that we have had to find so much fault. What we had have to find fault with is, that the policy was placed in the hands of men who evidently held different views, and that the instructions given by the Government were not carried out. The selection of Sir Garnet Wolseley—a man in whom the country has every reason to have great confidence, who has had the opportunity of holding personal conferences with Her Majesty's Ministers, and who, I may assume, is personally acquainted with those views, and is also in perfect agreement with them—is of such a character that the affairs of the country will be in very different hands, when Sir Garnet Wolseley reaches the Cape, from those in which they have hitherto been unfortunately placed. I think the Government cannot be surprised at the great anxiety that has been expressed for information this evening. We cannot help looking upon this as a very critical turning-point in this matter; and although we know the general views of the Government on the subject, I think the House will have heard with satisfaction that the instructions Sir Garnet Wolseley will take with him will emphasize those views which have already met with the approval of this House. We, on this side, do not yield to any hon. Members opposite in our desire that the conclusion of the war shall be one that will give safety to the Colony, and, at the same time, honour to this country. But what we do wish clearly to understand is, that the honour of the British arms does not require the slaughter of an indefinite number of Zulus, and we also desire to know that the Government are not pledged to the opinion, which we know is held by Sir Bartle Frere, that there is no possible security for our Colonists in South Africa until the military organization of the Zulu Kingdom is entirely destroyed. I gather from what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman that these are not the views held by the Government, and that the instructions given to Sir Garnet Wolseley will be in conformity with those despatches from the Colonial Office which have met with most approval in this House.

said, he had that morning sent to the Secretary of State for War a letter written by Bishop Colenso and referring to the messengers reported to have been sent by Cetewayo to Lord Chelmsford to ask for peace—a subject on which the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had already asked a Question. From this letter, the Secretary of State would see that these messengers were men who had formerly brought most important messages from Cetewayo to our Government, and that, in Bishop Colenso's opinion, they were of sufficiently high authority to be the bearers of overtures of peace.

desired to ask the Colonial Secretary, whether the commission at present held by Sir Bartle Frere was cancelled or about to be cancelled? That commission was one conferring such great and general powers that Sir Bartle Frere considered it justified him in making war without the consent of the Government; and unless it were cancelled, they would have no security for the future, and it would be likely to conflict with Sir Garnet Wolseley's commission.

said, if the hon. and learned Gentlemen would wait until he saw the Papers, he would find that they explained precisely the position of the matter.

did not think the assurance of the Government so satisfactory as the right hon. Gentlemen on the front Bench seemed to believe. He wished to know whether Sir Garnet Wolseley's instructions would forbid the employment of Native auxiliaries for following up the Zulus when beaten in the field? The practice had given rise to horrors that was a disgrace to humanity and civilization.

said, he recognized the force of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Hackney, and thought it would, therefore, be desirable of him to withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the House, and give Notice that to-morrow he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he could state to the House in substance the instructions given to Sir Garnet Wolseley with reference to the negotiations for peace? He thought it unreasonable that he should ask anything as regarded military movements. Those must be left to the General in the field; but, under the peculiar circumstances of the House adjourning for a fortnight, he thought it right that he should ask for the substance of the instructions with regard to the negotiations for peace; and if he did not get a satisfactory answer, it would be his duty to oppose the Motion for the adjournment of the House.

I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall move as an Amendment to the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the adjournment for the Holidays—

"That inasmuch as the consent of Parliament to the annexation of the Transvaal was obtained by representations which have been proved to be unfounded, and whereas no valid reason exists for preferring the discontented objection to the friendly alliance of the inhabitants of that territory, this House is of opinion that the Imperial pledge which was pledged, and which has been broken, ought to be retrieved without delay by the restoration to its former independence of the South African Republic."

I must point out to the hon. Member that upon the Motion of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given Notice for to-morrow no Amendment can be moved, except with reference to the time of the adjournment.

said, he would pursue his object in a form that would bring it within the Rules of the House.

Before the Clerk proceeds to read the Orders of the Day, I will take the opportunity of stating that I have received a communication from my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, which informs me that this evening he has received from Major Cavagnari a telegram, dated to-day, and stating that a Treaty of Peace with the Ameer of Cabul was signed this day.

said, he wished to ask a few questions. He observed by the Estimates that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Assheton Cross) had reduced the number of prisons by 43; his original estimate was that he would reduce them by 50, and that number was afterwards increased to 54. He should like to know to what further extent his right hon. Friend hoped to be able to reduce the prisons? Was any further reduction contemplated in the staffs of the prisons, which had been brought down from over 2,500 to 2,230? According to the Estimates, also, the right hon. Gentleman had reduced the cost of the prisons, compared with what it was in 1877, the last complete year of the old régime, by £52,000. The original reduction contemplated was £50,000, so that his right hon. Friend had been even more successful than he hoped for; but that, he was sure he would admit, was partly due to the great fall in the cost of fuel, food, and clothing. He should like to know if his right hon. Friend had any idea of how much of that reduction was due to the reduction in the number of the prisons and of the staff? At the time he introduced his Prisons Bill his right hon. Friend said he hoped to double the return from prison labour. Up to the present time, however, there was no advance in this respect. In the year 1877 the return from extra receipts was £65,000, which included some other items, prison labour amounting to £56,000; while the estimated receipts this year, with a somewhat larger number of prisoners, were only £60,000. Therefore, he thought he might presume that the net earnings from prisoners labour actually decreased, and he should like to ask why that was so? The result appeared to have been the same last year, for in the foot-note to the Estimates it said "estimated receipts £60,000" for last year. Could not his right hon. Friend tell them the actual receipts? He was putting these questions in no carping spirit, but merely to elicit information, and with the most sincere desire that the most sanguine expectations of his right hon. Friend might be realized. Of course, even if all these expectations were realized, the difference would only be a halfpenny or three-farthings in the pound on the rate, and even that could not be realized for some years till the pensions began to run out. The financial success of the Prisons Act would depend upon continued firmness on the part of the Government. Of course, a Central Department was very much handicapped in obtaining economy, because in such offices there was always a natural tendency to extravagance, not from carelessness or want of vigilance, but from this officer and that officer recommending this improvement or that improvement in the desire to make the system perfect. Unless, in fact, this tendency was repressed by a firm and vigorous hand, in a very few years the cost of the new system would be greater than that of the old.

regretted that he was unable fully to answer the questions of his right hon. Friend, for the simple reason that the accounts were not sent in until after the close of the financial year; and, therefore, the Commissioners did not expect to be able to get them ready for presentation to Parliament before July. Still, he would answer to the best of his ability, and would promise that the different matters should be fully dealt with in the Report. They thought it right to take two years in which to decide what prisons should be closed. Very little more than a year had elapsed since the passing of the Act, and 43 had already been closed, and orders had since been given for closing one other. He and the Prison Commissioners had it in contemplation to close quite as many as was originally proposed; but on that subject he would not say more, except that in order that certain prisons might, to the public advantage, be closed, £29,000 had been taken for alterations, in order to make certain prisons larger. A reduction of the staff would naturally follow from this; but it was not his intention to reduce the present staff more than he had done. From what he had seen of the Estimates, he thought £10,000 of the £52,855 saved was due to the reduced cost of food, & c.; but he had no hesitation in saying, from what he had already experienced, that there would certainly be an eventual saving of £50,000 from the reduction in the number of prisons and of the staff. There had also been an increase of 1,000 in the number of prisoners; yet, in the face of that, the expenses had been thus largely decreased. This was, however, only an increase for a time. As to the prison labour, when the local authorities gave up the prisons they sold off all their materials; and, therefore, there was no great demand at the present time for such goods as they had to sell, for there was such a thing as glutting the market. A system like that, either, could not at once be put in order, and it was some time before they got into full swing. Therefore, he did not think the estimate for the first year would be reached, though he did hope and expect that the one for the second year, of £60,000, would be realized. Up to the present, also, he had not done very much in the matter of prison labour, for he thought it very desirable first to make inquiries as to its effect on trade outside. He accordingly appointed a Departmental Committee, who went into the matter very thoroughly. Their Report was again submitted to a very able person, who went most carefully and narrowly through it, and then presented a very able and elaborate Report on the matter, for his (Mr. Assheton Cross's) private inspection. Before, however, finally dealing with the matter, he thought it better also to have the opinion of two absolutely independent and impartial persons, who had nothing to do with the matter officially whatever, and, therefore, he submitted this Report to two gentlemen who had nothing whatever to do with prison labour in any shape or form. One of them was a most active county magistrate in the West of England, and the other was a medical gentleman. They had also reported, and he now hoped to be able to deal with the question. He had felt, however, that it was far more satisfactory that this question of prison labour should not be touched at all until there had been the most careful inquiry as to its effects. Therefore, it would still be some little time before this system got into working order, although he was sure the amount earned would reach the estimate in a year or two.

was sorry that the Home Secretary had not been able to give them more exact details as to the amount received from prison labour during the Government had had the prisons under their exclusive charge.

said, he had not been quite understood. The accounts had not yet been made up for the reasons he had stated. The Government did not get the system of prison labour in work for the first three months either.

could not understand why the labour should have been stopped when the Government took over the gaols. There was, undoubtedly, a strong feeling outside against prison labour, and it was said that certain industries were ruined by the competition. That might be true, perhaps, to some extent, as regarded mat-making; but, on the other hand, he had always been in favour of making a felon earn his own living by industrial labour. It was said that that would glut the labour market, but it was not at all the case, for the criminal was taken from his work outside, and it mattered very little whether he laboured inside a gaol or outside. He should be put to work at the same trade as he ordinarily worked, and if the man did not know a handicraft trade, which was often the case, he hoped the Home Secretary would do what he himself had always contended ought to be done—that was, to try and teach the prisoners some trade while they were in prison. In Devon-port gaol, of which he had had a large experience, the Governor actually built the whole of a large wing entirely by prison labour, and it was admitted on all hands that the work was far better than that in the old gaol. Why, then, should not these felons be taught various handicraft trades which would be of benefit to them when they came out. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: It is being done.] He (Mr. Cole) was very glad to hear it, because there was too great a tendency to teach only one or two trades, and to keep prisoners employed at those trades, and so the complaint as to the glutting the market arose. If they were employed in a great number of various industries no complaint could properly arise. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to close Plymouth gaol, which was now very full in consequence of the closing of the gaol at Devonport.

stated that he had recently told the Mayor that that prison was not going to be closed.

wished his right hon. Friend could have given them a more clear and distinct account of the cost of every prison, naming each prison, throughout the country, now that they were under the Government, so that they might compare it with the cost under the magistracy. The present statement was a very vague one, and they ought to have all this information given them without having to go to the judicial statistics. The present was a very unfair way of making out the accounts, for it was his firm conviction if the accounts were analyzed, instead of there being a saving under the present system, that a loss would be shown. As a visiting magistrate of more than 30 years' experience, he was unhesitatingly of opinion that, as a majority of the sentences were for very short terms, it would be impossible to make any very large sum by the earnings of the prisoners. The old system was gone, and they had to deal with the new state of things; but he did think that the Government should give them the means of judging whether it was working fairly or not.

said, he had never for a moment anticipated that the Prisons Act would be carried out in a manner satisfactory to the local authorities, and he had no sympathy with those magistrates who cringed to the Home Office and wore willing to sell their local rights and powers of administration in order to get relieved of responsibility which belonged to them. It was necessary, to some extent, to struggle against officialism, which certainly, in his opinion, had lessened the efficiency of prison discipline, and was very likely to lead to increased expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman, when he introduced the Prisons Act, made a promise to the House to which he (Mr. Rylands) thought he must be held. That promise, from which he was quite sure there was no wish to depart, was that—"While the local rates would be relieved to the extent of £92,000, there would only be an additional charge upon the Public Revenue of £285,000." The right hon. Gentleman, in stating what was perfectly clear from the Estimates, that this point had not been reached, had treated the matter with perfect candour. But the position of affairs at starting this year was this. In the first place, the Government had admitted that they were at a considerable distance from the goal at which they themselves wished to arrive, inasmuch as they had not been able to bring down the expenditure to anything like the amount anticipated; and, in the second place, they had also admitted that they were unable to bring up the earnings for prison labour to anything like the amount expected. He wished to point out to the Home Secretary that there had been already, owing to certain causes, such as the reduced cost of food and clothing, referred to by the right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson), a very considerable diminution in the prison expenditure since the year 1875, and that, therefore, economy might have been secured had the Government so willed it without this great revolution in prison management. But he had to complain that the account presented for the information of the House was delusive, inasmuch as it did not contain a number of charges which had come upon the Exchequer in consequence of the passing of the Prisons Act; for instance, there was a charge of £11,000 for printing and stationery, which was paid out of another Vote and which, therefore, did not appear in the present account. There was also a charge of £600 on account of prisons included in the Supplementary Estimates; in fact, the House would find various charges cropping up in the different Votes, which would not have been there but for the prisons having been taken over by the State; and although it would not be fair to make use of captious criticism, he thought that the House would be obliged to put the Government, so to speak, upon their trial with regard to the prisons which had been so unreasonably taken over, He thought that as soon as the Government were in a position to state the facts the House should receive a full account, not merely of the charges which appeared on the face of this Vote, but of all charges which had been brought upon the Exchequer in relation to prisons in consequence of their being taken over by the State, and that these items should be brought to a focus and appear in a tabulated form. He did not press this upon the Government because he had opposed the Bill, or with any wish to show that, under the new system, there would be less economy. On the contrary, he should be agreeably disappointed if the system proved to be an economical one, as would also be the case with several distinguished gentlemen in the Treasury who, he was quite certain, had not expected that the taking over of the prisons would be an economical operation. If, however, those expectations were agreeably disapppointed, he should be very glad; but it was to be feared, from their experience of Government administration—what with the increase of officials and their superannuation allowances, the building of new prisons and the pulling down or enlarging of old ones, as well as with the staff of architects and builders likely to be employed—that the volume of cost would continue to swell year by year. If such was found to be the case, many hon. Members would not fail to press the fact upon the attention of the Government.

said, that according to a Return which he held in his hand, the cost of the county and borough prisons for the year 1873 was £585,000, from which amount had to be deducted the sum of £43,000 for interest on loans to local authorities for building purposes; in round numbers, therefore, the cost of the county and borough prisons for the year 1873 amounted to £542,000. According to the estimate presented by him to the House at the time, the probable reduced cost of the prisons was £484,500, which, he had proposed to meet by taxation to the extent of £371,000, prisoners' labour £106,000, and other contingent receipts of £7,500. Taking this sum of £484,500, and comparing it with the estimate of the year 1879–80, which amounted to £472,680, it would be seen that he was still within the sum stated to the House. Again, he had stated that the sum of £97,000 had already been paid out of the taxes in the year 1873; this sum would, therefore, have to be deducted from the £371,000, a circumstance which appeared to have slipped from the mind of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), when he reminded the House that he (Mr. Asshe-ton Cross) had promised that the extra burden upon the taxpayers should not exceed £285,000.

said, that, without intending to repeat the observations which he had felt it his duty to make on a previous occasion, he must refer to the difficulty of adjusting prison labour in such a way as would not bring it into undue competition with the work done outside. There were certain things connected with the system of prison labour to which he called attention. In the first place, he understood that it had been the custom for the prison authorities to issue tenders to, and also to receive them from, manufacturing firms outside the prison walls, thereby creating competition with the labour of the honest man. This procedure, if truly stated, he held to be extremely objectionable. One of the tenders referred to had been shown to him in the Lobby, and he was informed that tenders similar to that which he had seen were also issued from a prison in Cambridgeshire, and were by no means uncommon. Surely the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would see that such a course was inconsistent with what was due to the honest labourer, because, from the circumstance that prisoners were housed and fed at a comparatively small expense, their work could always be made to undersell his. Therefore, he desired to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that such a practice as had been described existed in the prisons, and, if so, whether he would issue such instructions as would prevent its repetition? The subject, as he was quite aware, was difficult and delicate; at the same time, he knew that his right hon. Friend always desired to do what was just and right to the honest labourer. Again, when the Prisons Bill was before the House, great stress had been laid upon the fact that prison labour was confined to one or two industries, and that it was not generally distributed over the different industrial employments. One reason alleged for this was, as stated by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), that the prisoners sentenced for short terms of imprisonment could not be taught certain trades, and that mat and brush-making were much handier for them to learn. But he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) hoped that when the prison regulations wore issued, due regard would be paid to the promise given when the Prisons Bill was before the House, that industrial labour in prisons should be extended to the industries generally, and not be confined to, or put in competition with, one or two trades.

complained that, although the Government were pressing the localities to provide extra accommodation for lunatics, the Commissioners had thrown many difficulties in the way of their obtaining the grants to which they were entitled.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would not be carried away by the observations which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) with respect to prison labour, and that he would also bear in mind that besides the honest labourer there was the honest taxpayer. He objected very strongly to the agitation with regard to this subject, because it was prejudicial to the public interest, and could never see why prison labour should not be made use of for public purposes, nor why prisoners upon whom large sums of money were spent should not be allowed to do something towards their own maintenance. That doctrine, in his opinion, was most objectionable, and he believed that by the proper use of prison labour very large contracts might be undertaken. It was, therefore, to be hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not lose sight of the interest of the honest taxpayer by prohibiting remunerative labour in prisons. It was desirable that these institutions should be allowed to produce as much as they could, and that the Government should utilize the results of prison labour for the public benefit in any way they thought fit, always provided, of course, that they did not undersell ordinary labour.

, although he disliked the Prisons Act, admitted that the Home Secretary had carried out its provisions fairly and efficiently, and that he had also shown a desire to turn prison labour to account from a business point of view. Speaking as one of many years' experience of the Central Criminal Court, he considered that a good deal of sentimentalism had been talked upon this matter of prison labour; and he begged to assure the House that the magistrates, in sentencing a man to a term of imprisonment, were only influenced by a desire to promote the ends of justice, and that they paid no regard whatever to the possibility of turning the labour imposed to profitable account. The public good would, in his opinion, be very much interfered with if they were to allow themselves to be influenced by any such considerations. Referring to the subject which he had brought to the notice of the Home Secretary when the previous Prison Vote was under the consideration of the Committee, he reminded the right hon. Gentleman that the magistrates considered it hard that they were unable to grant permission, under proper circumstances, to persons who wished to see their relations in prison. Some liberty should, in his opinion, be granted in this respect, to supersede the difficult and, in many cases, almost impossible application on the part of poor people to the Home Secretary. It was to be feared that by unnecessary deprivations of this kind prisoners, whose punishment was intended as an example to others, became hardened, and were sometimes in a worse state when they came out of prison than when they went in. He therefore trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would afford some facilities in the direction indicated.

said, he could not see how the managers of prisons were to put themselves in a different position to the managers of any other manufactories, because, after all, they must look out for orders for their manufactures, and, in doing so, they necessarily placed themselves in competition with the outside world, because consumers of manufactured goods would always try to buy in the cheapest market, and would probably give the preference to employers of labour like themselves. For these reasons, the managers of prisons were in considerable difficulty, and had to arrange for the sale of their goods as best they were able. But his object in rising was to call attention to the arrangement of the Order Book for that evening, with reference to Supply, and, for the purpose of putting himself in Order, he thought it would be necessary that he should conclude with a Motion. It appeared to him that the Government had adopted a course which was exceedingly inconvenient in placing upon the Paper a great number of Classes of Supply, and following that up by a demand for a Vote on Account. He had never known of an instance in which the other Classes of Estimates had been set down prior to a Vote on Account, while the course proposed by the Government was rendered all the more inconvenient at so late a period of the Session. He never objected to Votes being taken on account at an early period of the Session, because the system adopted by the Treasury and by the country necessitated the return to the Exchequer of all unexpended balances, the Government being, consequently, obliged, at the commencement of the Session, to ask the House for Votes on Account to meet the current expenditure of the various branches of the Public Service. But he thought that the position of the Government in the present Session was certainly one which should have prevented any appeal being made for a second Vote on Account. At the beginning of the Session, a very exceptional and stringent Rule was adopted by the House and the Government, who promised that the Estimates should in future be brought forward regularly, and Votes on Account avoided. That promise had not been fulfilled, inasmuch as the Government, having taken one very considerable Vote on Account, were now asking for a second Vote to meet the expenditure for another month. He therefore considered that, under such circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the Government to have placed the Vote on Account before the Votes classed in the Estimates, and that the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury was ill-advised in adopting the opposite course, by which the Vote on Account would, in all probability, be reached very late in the evening, and at a time when hon. Members would get no explanations from the Government for this unusual and unsatisfactory procedure. He was not aware of any case where the Government had obtained a Vote on Account after Votes in Supply were granted; and, for this reason, it seemed to him that they should vindicate the course pursued on the present occasion. Again, he wished to point out to the hon. Baronet who had the arrangement of the Government Business that no single night during the Session had as yet been devoted to the consideration of the Irish Estimates. He was aware that upon one occasion, after the Easter Recess, these Estimates had been brought forward; but it would be remembered that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), in view of the absence of the Irish Members, had felt it incumbent upon him to ask the Government for a postponement of the Votes until their return. To this the Government had very kindly consented; but as the Irish Estimates had only been brought forward once during the Session, he (Mr. Parnell) thought the Committee were entitled to ask for some explanation of the very unprecedented course which had been adopted. He believed, upon the occasion in question, the Irish Members were asked to vote for the Irish Constabulary and Board of Works, as well as for the Scotch Universities. Without going into these matters, he wished to remind the Committee that very important questions attached to them all. It was only on Friday evening last that the Irish Members came to the conclusion that they would oppose the Vote for the Scotch Universities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he would take Class IV., in which this Vote was included, that evening; but immediately the Government heard that it was to be opposed by the Irish Members, Class IV. was dropped. The hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) said that Class IV. was not mentioned; but he would, perhaps, allow him to say that it was not mentioned by him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, on rising to reply to a Question with regard to the Business on Monday, had mentioned Class IV. amongst those which were to be considered in Committee. At all events, Class IV. had been excluded, and it was found that no Vote was to be asked for on account of the Scotch Universities. But the Government had asked for a Vote on Account, the practical effect of that being to preclude all discussion with reference to the Vote. Under those circumstances, he thought he should be excused for asking the Government at what time of the evening they proposed to take the Vote on Account, and whether they would except from that the Votes for the Scotch Universities and the Irish Constabulary? Otherwise, the Irish Members would be prevented during the present Session from discussing the Votes in question, or, at all events, they would be driven on to so late a period as to render discussion impossible. Secondly, he wished to ask the hon. Baronet whether the Queen's Colleges in Ireland were getting any money, there having been no Vote on account of these institutions, and nothing being asked for that evening?

pointed out that the hon. Member had stated his intention to conclude with a Motion.

said, he had not forgotten the Motion. He was simply asking the hon. Baronet how the Queen's Colleges were subsisting during the time that no money was voted to them? He was aware that they only derived a portion of their endowments from the Votes; but as it was well known that, as regarded the Army Estimates, money voted by the House for particular services was applied to services for which it was not intended, it had struck him that the same thing might, perhaps, be taking place with regard to the Queen's Colleges. If the hon. Baronet would like to postpone the Vote for the Scotch Universities, it would not be necessary to take any discussion upon it to-night; but, if not, discussion would be necessary. As far as he was concerned, the Vote for the Scotch Universities might pass as a matter of course; but as he felt it his duty to press that the Vote on Account should be brought forward at as early an hour as possible, he begged to move that the Chairman report Progress.

confessed his regret that the interests of the Public Service had forced upon him the obligation of asking the House to take a second Vote on Account that evening. When he proposed the first Vote on Account, three months' Supply was asked for, and it was stated that notwithstanding the facilities given to the Government at the beginning of the year, the period of the Session was so much advanced that he could not see the possibility of getting a sufficient number of Votes passed to enable the Government to carry on the Public Service unless they had Votes on Account. To that proposal opposition was taken, and the amount cut down to two months' Supply. As he had foreseen, the state of Supply was such that the Public Service would be practically without sufficient money for the requirements—that was to say, that the sum at the disposal of the Government would be run out in the course of next week or so, unless another Vote on Account was obtained, because there was very little chance of getting money in Supply in time to meet the necessities of the Public Service. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) concerning the Civil Service Votes, the same conditions did not apply to these as to the Votes for the Army and Navy, and there was no power of distributing public money over Votes not passed by the House. For that reason, he regretted to say that the Queen's Colleges and Queen's Universities in Ireland had not up to that time been able to get any of the money voted in the Estimates of the present year. With regard to the other point raised by the hon. Member, that by this time the Government ought to have had Supply much more forward, he thought the Committee, or, at all events, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), would bear him out when he said that he had strenuously endeavoured to keep Supply as much as possible before the Committee of the House whenever an opportunity had offered. Notwithstanding that the Session had been rather rife with Votes of Censure upon the Government, which had taken up many nights, he had never missed a single occasion of endeavouring to get Supply passed by the Committee. It was a remarkable fact, however, that he had only got into Supply on four occasions. On the 18th April, 21 Votes in Class I. and 9 Votes in Class II. were passed; on the 21st April, 10 Votes in Class II.; on the 12th May, 17 Votes in Class II.; and, on the 19th May, 15 Votes in Class III. were passed, making- a total of 72 Votes which he had been able to get in the Civil Service Estimates, and leaving 72 Votes still to be considered by the Committee. The Committee would see from that statement that the Government were not in a position to do without a further Vote on Account. The Vote asked for on account was for one month's more Supply; but it in no way precluded discussion on any single Vote embodied in the Estimates, for after this had been granted there would still remain a large sum to be voted. The Committee, therefore, would have fair and ample opportunities for discussion and consideration of any Vote to which hon. Members might take exception. Although the hon. Member for Meath thought that it was his intention to drive off the Votes to a period when hon. Members were likely to be worn out, or were want- ing to get away, he could assure him that such, at any rate as far as he was concerned, was not the desire of a Secretary to the Treasury, whose object was to make Supply his first care, and to keep it before the Committee of the House until the whole was passed. He ventured to think that in the course of the next few weeks the Government might be able to place Supply on the Minutes, and if hon. Members opposite would have confidence enough in Her Majesty's Government not to pass too many Votes of Censure, he believed an endeavour might be made to meet the views of the hon. Member for Meath, and give him an opportunity of criticizing the Votes in question. If the Irish Votes had been postponed, the fault was due to the good-nature of the Secretary to the Treasury rather than to any wish to obstruct Business, for he had more than once been asked to postpone their consideration in order to meet the convenience of the Irish Members. He could assure the hon. Member for Meath that he would not be long without the opportunity of discussing the Irish Votes, which should be brought forward on the first occasion when Irish Members were present in sufficient numbers properly to consider them. Every week's postponement of the Votes for the Queen's Colleges and Universities, in his opinion, rendered their discussion the more necessary. He repeated, that his anxiety was to meet the views of hon. Members, and to bring forward the Civil Service Estimates as early as possible during the Session, in order to complete Supply and to allow opportunities for fair discussion upon particular Votes.

said, he must bear testimony to the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to meet the views of everyone in the House. Nothing could be more satisfactory than the endeavours of the hon. Gentleman to meet the convenience of all. Still, he thought there was some reason for objecting to the course now taken by the Government in placing Votes on Account in the Paper on the same day as Committee of Supply. The objection taken to that course was of this kind. It was understood that Votes on Account were within the terms of the Resolution with regard to the conduct of Public Business; so that if a Vote on Account were taken on any day but Monday, hon. Members would have a right to move a Resolution before going into Committee of Supply. He might say that he had the highest authority in the House—namely, the Speaker—upon that point, for Mr. Speaker had informed him that the rule would be that Votes on Account would be considered as ordinary Supply. Having robbed independent Members of some of their privileges—they had, unfortunately, been robbed by his hon. Friend who sat upon the Treasury Bench—they were now asked to restrict their privileges still more. The Government were asking them now to put down on Monday two Votes in Supply—one in regard to ordinary Supply, and one on Account. Notwithstanding his objection to the course taken, however, he did not intend to stop the progress of the Votes. This was the first occasion on which Votes on Account had been put down on the same evening as Votes in Supply, and he trusted it would not be made a precedent with regard to the Business of the House. He wished to give the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury Notice that when Votes were put down as Votes on Account on Monday, resistance would be made to their being taken. Considering, however, the explanation given by the Secretary to the Treasury, that he had only put down the Votes on that occasion with a view to the convenience of Members, and in order to push forward Supply, he did not think it would be unreasonable to take them on that occasion without construing their being so taken in any way into a precedent.

wished to say, in explanation, that it was absolutely necessary to take these Votes on Account before Whitsuntide. Unless he had put them down for Monday, it would be necessary for him to have taken a portion of the Whitsuntide Holidays, and detained hon. Members till Thursday. As he did not wish to put hon. Members to that inconvenience, he had taken the course of putting down the Votes on Account on the same evening as Supply for the ordinary Civil Services. He fully agreed with what had been said as to its not being an ordinary course to take; but he only adopted it on the present occasion with a view to consulting the convenience of the House.

said, that he had the same objection as his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to Votes being taken on account of the Irish Constabulary. The state of affairs in that force was incompatible with discipline, and, speaking as an officer, he must say there was reason for grave objection. He did not, however, then intend to enter into that question; but he wished to protest against any Votes being taken on account of the Scotch Universities. He thought it was the duty of Irish Members to resist any Vote on that account, inasmuch as Scotch Members had taken considerable trouble to give the greatest possible Opposition to the Irish University Bill.

The hon. and gallant Member is not in Order in going into the question of a Bill not under discussion by the House.

observed, that the opposition of the Scotch Members to a Bill which had been introduced was very unreasonable; and so long as Scotch Members objected to the Imperial funds being applied in the same manner in Ireland as in Scotland, they must resist any Votes on Account of the Scotch Universities.

said, that the Motion before the House was that of the hon. Member for Meath to report Progress. The subject they were debating before the Motion of the hon. Member was moved was that of prisons, and he wished to say a word or two on that subject when the present discussion was closed. He understood that the object of his hon. Friend the Member for Meath would be accomplished, if the Secretary to the Treasury assured them that this Vote on Account which he proposed to take would not include anything for the Scotch Universities. If the hon. Gentleman gave them that assurance, which he imagined he would be able to do, he apprehended that his hon. Friend the Member for Meath would withdraw his Motion. He considered that he was quite right in objecting to any Vote being taken on account which should include grants in aid of the Scotch Universities. With respect to this discussion on University Education, he wished to point out that their only practical way of objecting to a particular system of University Education was by moving to reduce the Votes, and the only effect of postponing the Vote on Scotch Universities now would be that that Vote would be taken definitely on another occasion; and so long as the Scotch Members objected to the institution in Ireland of a similar system to what they themselves enjoyed, so long must the Irish Members oppose any Vote for the Scotch Universities. He wished to call the attention of the House to what he thought were the ill effects of its abandoning its privileges on Monday. When that was proposed, he stated to the House his conviction that by discussing preliminary matters first they were enabled to have a more full and free discussion afterwards. They had been discussing the Prison Estimates, and the subject of prisons had caused considerable excitement in the country. By having a discussion before Committee, they would have obtained a full attendance of Members. But now anything they might say on the subject of prisons in Committee would not be reported, and they might as well address themselves to empty Benches as to the House in its present condition. These things were wrong, and were the result of the abandonment of the privileges of hon. Members for discussing questions before going into Committee. He protested at the time against Monday being taken from them, inasmuch as a Motion before Supply was almost the only opportunity they could get for discussions to be fully reported. It was well known that the discussions on the Estimates were not reported. But he hoped that when they had disposed of the Motion then before the House they would come to the question of prisons, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who was responsible for them, would then be in his place. He did not grudge the right hon. Gentleman his necessary refreshment; but it would be more satisfactory that he should be in his place when the Prisons Vote was under discussion. He would not sit down without bearing testimony to the courtesy of the Secretary to the Treasury in postponing Irish Votes whenever requested to do so for the convenience of hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman was the most conciliatory Secretary to the Treasury that ever sat in that House, and he had always in the most obliging manner agreed to postpone Votes to suit the convenience of Members of all parts of the House. The hon. Baronet, he was I sure, was actuated by a sense of justice and a wish to discuss Votes fairly and fully, and, he trusted, for the benefit of the country. He therefore begged to tender to the hon. Gentleman his vote of thanks for the course he had taken with regard to Irish Votes.

thought it very unfair to place amongst the Votes on Account, which were otherwise unobjectionable, one to which considerable objection was raised. They did not object to give money for denominational purposes; but it was a great injustice to ask them to vote this money for the Scotch Universities so long as all parts of the country did not equally share in an expenditure from the public funds for the same purposes. If the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury would consent to postpone the Vote for the Scotch University Education till another occasion, when it could be brought on at an early hour, he thought the hon. Member for Meath would be justified in withdrawing his Motion; but it was unfair to ask them to vote this money while they had no chance of protesting against it.

was not quite sure that they were in Order in discussing a Vote when there was a Motion to report Progress before the House. As, however, there had been a strong expression of opinion against taking a Vote on Account for the Scotch Universities that evening, he would certainly omit that item from the Votes on Account. He must remind hon. Members that, because Votes on Account were taken, it in no way prevented the Vote itself being discussed. The particular sums voted were only for three months, and they had still nine months to vote on account of the Supply required; and there would, therefore, then be an ample opportunity for discussing the principles of the grants. But as the Votes were required for carrying on the different Services, he must press for a Vote on Account that night, with the exception of the item that he had mentioned. He would remind the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) that it was not absolutely the fault of the Government that the Prisons Vote had come on to be discussed in a thin House. Various Members had raised a somewhat un- expected discussion; but had the Prisons Vote been taken in the manner proposed by the Government, it would have been considered in a full House. Therefore, he thought the Government must be acquitted of not bringing the Prison Vote on for discussion in a full House.

was of the same opinion as other hon. Members as to the manner in which the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury always treated the representations of hon. Members on that side of the House. He must, however, say that he felt that the discussions during that Session had very strongly corroborated the view he took, that Public Business was not facilitated by taking away the right of discussion before going into Committee of Supply. He could not but think that hon. Members were desirous to discuss items in the Estimates, so as to bring in general considerations which would have been very much better treated by means of the regular Resolution on going into Committee of Supply. The result was not only that the time of the House was quite as much occupied as before, but that they had a discussion which did not go directly to the point. It had been very fairly pointed out that they could not make the discussions upon the Estimates as generally interesting as they would be if brought on before going into Committee of Supply. He hoped he should not be in any way considered ungrateful in alluding to the conduct of the Secretary to the Treasury in postponing Irish Votes when requested to do so on account of the scant attendance of Irish Members, when he stated his opinion that that system was very injurious. Irish Members were to blame, and were fully responsible for deranging the regular progress of proceedings in the House, by requiring matters to stand over to meet their convenience. The practice of postponing matters in which Ireland was interested in consequence of the small attendance of Irish Members must injure the influence of Ireland in that House. If Ireland got anything like her proper value from the representation of 105 Members, there would not be a single Irish grievance, from tenant right to Home Rule, that would not be remedied in the space of three Sessions; therefore, he was heartily opposed to every attention being shown to Irish Members which encouraged them to ab- stain from doing their duty to their constituents in that House.

asked leave to withdraw his Motion, as he thought that the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had made a very reasonable arrangement. He thought that the Vote on account of the Irish Constabulary should also be postponed.

considered that there was a great difference between the Vote for the Scotch Universities and the Irish University Question. Whatever happened, the money must be granted by Parliament for the Scotch Universities, and he thought the Government were not acting rightly in consenting to the request for the postponement of the Vote on Account for them. It was very well known why their Irish Friends were asking for a postponement of this Vote; it was from the opposition of the Scotch Members to the Bill with reference to the Irish University. But the difference between a Bill for the Irish University, and voting money required for Scotch Universities, was very great. The payments on account of the Scotch Universities had been incurred, but the Irish University was yet in embryo; and, therefore, it was unfair to require the postponement of a Vote on Account for the Scotch Universities. He did not think that the Government were acting with a due desire to push forward the Business of the House in consenting to the postponement of the Vote.

wished to make some observations with reference to the disproportion between the salaries of the prison officials in England and Ireland. His hon. Friends were obliged, by the Forms of the House, to move to reduce the salaries of the English prison officials in order to give effect to their view that Irish prison officials should be paid larger salaries. He did not wish to go at length into this question, because he hoped that satisfactory assurance would be given either that the salaries of the English prison officials would be reduced, or that the salaries of the Irish officials would be raised to the same level. He had in his hand a long list, showing the disproportion in the salaries of the officials in the two countries. To take the ease first of the higher officials. An English Chairman was paid £1,000 a-year out of the Prisons Vote under discussion, and another £1,000 a-year as Chairman of the Convict Prisons Board; whereas an Irish Chairman only got £1,200 a-year altogether. If the Irish Chairman could manage to exist on £1,200 a-year, he did not see any reason why the Englishman should not do so; he could not see any reason why the English Chairman should be paid an additional £1,000, whereas the Irish Chairman only obtained an additional £200 from the Prisons Vote. When they came to the seven Inspectors who were maintained in England, they would find that they had £700 a-year each, whereas the three Irish Inspectors only got £500 a-year each. The number of Inspectors in Ireland being less than in England they might assume that they had the same amount of work to do as those in England, and if £500 a-year was sufficient for an Irish Inspector it ought also to be sufficient for an English Inspector. He found, on looking into the Estimates, page 216, that the Governors of English prisons got an average salary in England of £710 a-year—he was speaking of the minimum salary, because they went from £710 to £2,000. On page 278 of the Estimates, he found that in Ireland the Governors of prisons were only paid from £100 to £350 a-year—an enormous disproportion, which he thought required some explanation of the Government. He found that the Deputy Governors in England received an average salary of £200 a-year; whereas the Deputy Governors in Ireland were paid from £60 to £130 a-year. Then the chaplains in England got an average salary of from £100 to £200 a-year, while the chaplains in Ireland were paid from £30 to £75 a-year in the case of Protestant chaplains; the Roman Catholic chaplains, however, in Ireland, were paid salaries averaging from £100 to £200 a-year. The same disproportion was seen in the salaries of the medical officers; and he might say that the same thing was observable in the whole list of officers from the Governors down to the lowest hewer of wood and drawer of water. He considered that if men could exist upon those salaries in Ireland they ought to do the same in England. There was a less number of officers in Ireland, because, probably, there was a less num- ber of prisons. He wished to know why the English officers received so much higher salaries than those in Ireland? And unless a reasonable explanation was given, he must move to reduce the Vote.

quite admitted, that at first sight, without going into figures, it might seem necessary that some explanation should be given with regard to the disproportion between the salaries paid to the English and Irish prison officials. But the Committee should not lose sight of all the circumstances connected with this matter. In the first place, the question was very much, and very properly, influenced by the amount of work that was to be done in the different countries—by the amount of inspection, and the amount of charge which was thrown upon each individual Inspector. One very important element was the number of prisons under the eye of each Inspector, and another was the number of prisoners in each prison. The number of prisoners in England was much in excess of the number in Ireland. In the 72 prisons in England the average number of prisoners was 284, and those prisons were, for the most part, very large ones. In fact, a very much larger proportion of work was required in England, and it would seem that an Inspector had much harder work in England than in Scotland or Ireland. Then, again, the number of prisoners was 20,500 in England, as against 2,300 in Scotland, and 2,940 in Ireland. What was the case with regard to the Irish Inspectors of prisons? The first proposal made for the salaries of the Irish Inspectors of prisons was that they should receive salaries of not less than £400 a-year. That amount was the first recommendation of the Irish Government, and on their asking for an increase of that amount for the three Inspectors, the demand was at once complied with, and they now received from £500 to £600 a-year. That was the only application which had been made with regard to the salaries of those Inspectors, and it was assented to at once, and there was no reason to think that it was not very fair remuneration for the services performed. From all that he had heard, he would venture to say that the salaries that had been paid had not been objected to by the officers who had been appointed; but, on the contrary, no complaints had been raised by any of them. When they looked to the relative remuneration of the different classes of the community in Ireland they would see that the salaries paid to the prison officials bore a very fair relation to that remuneration. He did not for a moment dispute that the remuneration that was given to the same officials in this country was greater. A medical man, however, in one country received very much greater remuneration than a medical man in the other, and the payments amongst all classes were greater in England than in Scotland and Ireland. The salaries paid were in relative proportion to the ordinary remuneration in the country; and, with regard to the amount of work done, they were fair salaries. He was sure that if the population and the number of prisoners in England, as compared with the number of prisoners in Ireland, and also the number of prisons were looked at, and the relative scale of professional remuneration in the different countries was considered, it would be found that the officials in Ireland were fairly and adequately paid.

said, the case was really much worse than had been stated. The Secretary to the Treasury seemed to say that, because there had been no complaint, there was no grievance; but, as a matter of fact, there were many complaints. The simple argument seemed to be that because all trades and professions in Ireland were worse paid in Ireland than they were in England, that, therefore, the servants of the Crown should also be worse paid. That was not a fair way of putting the question. If it was maintained that the Government officials in Ireland did less work than the Government officials in England, that might be a reason for paying less; but no such contention had been stated. Except in the case of the Inspectors, the Secretary to the Treasury made out no such case whatever. The true test was the cost of living, and though that certainly was cheaper at one time in Ireland than in England it was not the case now. With the exception of milk and eggs, he believed all sorts of food were quite as cheap in London as in any Irish town. Bread was probably cheaper, for they had to import a great deal of corn in Ireland, while many of the necessaries and all the luxuries of life were much cheaper here than there. As a consequence of their smaller pay, the minor Government officials in Ireland had, without doubt, to content themselves with lower positions than their English brethren enjoyed. Amongst the higher officials, he believed, many unnecessary offices existed. The speech of the Secretary to the Treasury did not give them much hope of any improvement, for he said that, as all other classes were accustomed to receive less remuneration in Ireland than England, the rule must hold good with Government officials also. That might be an argument with some little force, if there was a notable difference between the taxation of the two countries; but, as a matter of fact, he believed Ireland was more heavily taxed than England. The Irish were a whisky-drinking people, and spirits were taxed far more heavily than beer, which was what the English people drank; while, on the other hand, the Income Tax and the tobacco duty, for instance, were the same in both countries. Under such circumstances, he certainly thought it was most unfair to treat the Irish officials worse than the English.

thought his argument had been misrepresented. What he said was that the State, as an employer of labour, in the interests of the taxpayer, ought not to pay more for labour than its proper value, and that value depended upon the general remuneration of the different professions and statuses. Would any hon. Member, for instance, say that the leading medical men and barristers in Dublin made as large incomes as the leading men of those professions in London? For some reason or other there was a larger amount of service to be obtained in Ireland, and the State, therefore, need not pay so much for it as in England. No complaint, also, had been made by these officials. Not one single complaint had reached the Treasury, except that made by hon. Members that night. The argument as to the Inspectors applied also to all other cases. Where there was not the same amount of labour to perform, the salaries ought not to be so high as they were where work was heavier. He ventured to say, in no one case had there been any complaint to the Prison Commissioners.

thought the hon. Gentleman could not have read the evidence before the Commission which inquired into the salaries of Civil servants three years ago.

remarked that the Prison Commissioners were not appointed then.

replied, that the principles laid down then governed the Treasury now, and the objection was a technical and a puerile one. The principle then laid down was that the cost of living should regulate salaries. [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON dissented.] That was so, notwithstanding the oracular shake of the head of the hon. Baronet. He believed that the cost of living in Ireland was quite as great as it was in England, and if they did pay a little more for their milk in London they got a superior quality. The logical sequence of the argument of the hon. Baronet was that the English officials were superior in every shape and form to the Irish officials.

admitted the principle laid down by the hon. Baronet that the State ought not to pay more for its work than the market value; but he complained that a totally erroneous standard of value had been chosen. The officers and warders, on whose behalf complaint was made, were in a totally different position from medical men and barristers. Their position should have been compared with that of merchants, shopkeepers, artizans, and labourers. He would find that those classes earned little, if anything, less than men of the same class earned in England; and, therefore, the enormous difference of salary which had been pointed out certainly was not warranted. The general staff of the prisons, also, had had their duties largely increased by the consolidation of the prisons; but their salaries remained the same. These men had onerous, almost slavish, duties to perform, which made them prisoners very nearly to the same extent as those they had in charge, and they certainly were not properly remunerated for the work they had to do. He knew, in one case, that both the Governor and the doctor, when they undertook increased duties under the new Act, did so on the understanding that they would receive increased remuneration. There was much feeling on this subject in Ireland, and the House must expect to hear of it until the salaries in the two countries were to some extent equalized.

hoped this discussion would now close, and that the Vote would be taken. For his part, he thought the Government ought to be careful how they spent the money of the country. Whenever there was a vacancy for one of these offices there were always 50 applicants, and as long as that was the case what was the good of saying any more about it? He did not want to draw invidious comparisons, or he might say something about Ireland—the police, for instance. The Government had borne a great deal of contention and contradiction, and now he thought it would be reasonable to give them the Vote.

never listened with greater pleasure to the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Lusk) than when he appeared in the character of the "heavy father," and advised them all as to what they should and should not do. He did hope, however, that the hon. Baronet would institute some of these invidious comparisons, and would call attention, for instance, to some of the Government Departments in Ireland. This question of the discrepancy in salaries was a most important one, and there could not be a more fallacious argument urged against the contention of himself and his Friends than that of the Secretary to the Treasury. They could, no doubt, get gentlemen to be Prime Minister, or Home Secretary, or even Chief Secretary for Ireland, at half the salaries paid to the present holders of those Offices. The fact was, that the salaries of the smaller officials were intentionally and designedly fixed at a lower rate than they were in England. It was especially the case in regard to lunatic asylums, as he had himself pointed out, and he was very glad that the Irish Members were at last learning to discuss the Votes systematically. For a great deal of the discussion that evening the Treasury Bench was responsible. For instance, a very interesting discussion on the incomes of professional men in Dublin and London had been started; but as he did not think that question was germane to the topic now before thorn he should not deal with it. It was said that these officials did not complain. No wonder; they were Conservatives, appointed by a Conservative Government—which always managed to secure a great deal of patronage—and not one of the Irish Conservative Members was in the House to speak for them. The Irish Liberal Members were equally to blame; but, notwithstanding the small attendance, he hoped his hon. Friend would not allow the subject to drop, but would bring it forward on every one of the Estimates. The only way in which they could get justice for Ireland was by making it inconvenient for the House to do injustice to Ireland. It appeared that there were 3,000 prisoners in Ireland, some 200 or 300 less in Scotland, and about 20,000 in England. Thus Scotland, with a population only two-thirds that of Ireland, had nearly as many prisoners as Ireland, while the the disproportion was still greater in the case of England. If that were so, what justification was there for the complaints constantly made of the lawlessness and disorder of the Irish people, and what excuse was there for changing their system? The Irish prisons and the Irish lunatic asylums were managed on a totally different system from the English ones; as a result, they had far less crimes and far more cures of lunatics than in England. Under such circumstances, he was justified in asking why this change had been made, and why their whole system had been altered, and why systems of torture which never existed before were now introduced? This system of paying smaller salaries in Ireland than in England was so unjust that if a compact body of Irish Members only made it inconvenient to continue it, the Government would soon discharge their consciences by doing what was right.

would certainly take a Division after the statement they had heard from the hon. Baronet. He did not think it was political economy to take the cheapest labour they could get, nor, until he heard the statement of the hon. Baronet, did he think it was English economy. He should move to reduce Item D of the Vote by £75,000, which, was about the disproportion between the English and Irish salaries.

hoped his hon. Friend would not divide. At the same time, he must entirely disagree from the proposal to treat Irish and English officials differently on the score that they were to regard the scale as dependent on the labour market. The whole question was, whether the work was the same? If it was, it ought to be paid for at the same rate. There was no such thing as a labour market in regard to Public Offices. What would be said if, in the Army, the Irish soldier was paid 1s. and his English comrade 1s. 1d. a-day? If this discussion were taken to heart by the Government, he had great hopes that good would result from it; but he did not think it should lead to a Division on this occasion.

wished to point out that officers in the Army and the Navy were not paid any less when they were serving in Ireland. The argument that the Government should only pay what they could get people to do the work for was utterly fallacious. As for any appointment over £40 or £50 a-year, they would always have plenty of applicants. The Government must settle what was a fair rate of pay, and they should make no distinctions.

said, this Amendment was moved to Item D. As a point of Order, he wished to know whether he could now move a reduction of Item A, on which Vote he wished to bring forward the question of the management of prisons and the conduct of the Chief Commissioner?

said, when this Motion had been disposed of, the whole Vote would be again before the Committee; but it would not be competent to the hon. Member to move a reduction of any Item previous to Item D.

thought the present a proper occasion for asking the Home Secretary, or his Representative, for some information as to the number of Catholic chaplains appointed to the prisons in this country. At an early part of the Session he had moved for a Return of the number of prisons in which there was an average of 50 Catholic prisoners and upwards during the year. He was now very anxious to know what had I been done in this matter, and felt confident that he should receive a satisfactory reply from the Government.

said, although he was unable to give their number, Roman Catholic chaplains would be appointed whenever there was a sufficient number of Roman Catholic prisoners, and would be paid upon the scale recommended by the Committee which sat upon this subject four or five years ago, and every endeavour would be made to bring all the Catholic prisoners to the same gaol where practicable.

expressed his satisfaction at the reply of the hon. Baronet, and inquired whether the number of 50 prisoners or upwards had been taken by Government as a minimum, or what number of prisoners would be held to justify the appointment of Catholic chaplains to the prisons?

said, that the appointment of chaplains had not been restricted to cases in which the Catholic prisoners numbered 50 and upwards. In his own county, Lancashire, the gaols had always had Roman Catholic chaplains, although the county was considered to be Protestant.

trusted to be excused if he failed to address the Committee effectively upon a subject which was originally intended to be laid before the House by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), who was at that moment suffering from loss of voice. He was anxious to pass over a great many topics connected with prison management which he had expected English Members to refer to in the course of the evening. But having been connected for many years with the prisons of this country, he felt bound to take notice of some points in their management. He desired to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, to which he trusted a satisfactory response would be given. Now, great pains had been taken by Government with regard to prison diet, and he was bound to say that, in his opinion, the ordinary diet of the prisoners—if the food was properly cooked and of good quality, of which there sometimes appeared to be a doubt—was better than it used to be. At any rate, he did not think it would be fair to try conclusions either for or against the present dietary until further experience had been gained upon the subject, although he confessed to some suspicion that it was not perfectly satisfactory. His object in rising was to bring to the notice of the Committee the scandal and shame of using starvation as a means of punishment in prisons; and, in so doing, he was compelled to call the attention of hon. Members to the case of a prisoner whose death, in his (Mr. Mitchell Henry's) opinion, was attributable to this system of punishment to which he was exposed. He was aware that, in making this statement, a portion of the Committee would be against him. At the close of last year a prisoner died in Clerkenwell Prison. He was a young man of 18 years of age, and upon whom, in accordance with the rules of the prison, an inquest was held; it was shown by the evidence that he had been for many days in solitary confinement on a diet of bread and water; the jury, which seemed to have been an inquisitive one, and not satisfied to perform their duties in a perfunctory manner, required an adjournment of the inquest, which was resumed on the 20th of November. A great deal of evidence was then taken, and the inquest was again adjourned to the 4th of December, when the Chairman of the Visiting Committee was examined, and gave a very unfavourable account of the working of the prison rules. The jury eventually returned a verdict to the effect that—

"John Nolan was found dead, or had died, in the infirmary of Coldbath Fields Prison, from the mortal effects of inflammation of the lungs: and, further, that his death was accelerated by the bread and water diet sanctioned by the Governor; the jury are of opinion that it is impossible for a medical officer properly or effectually to attend to his duties in prison without being resident; and the jury are also of opinion that the punishment of bread and water should only be administered under the supervision of the Visiting Committee."

That verdict caused a great deal of dissatisfaction in the public mind, and the Home Secretary felt it his duty to appoint a small Medical Commission to take evidence, and to ascertain whether there were any grounds for instituting further proceedings against the prison officials in whose charge the young man was during the time of his imprisonment. The Home Secretary appointed the Commission, against the construction of which no complaint could rightly be made. This Commission came to nine separate conclusions, all of which were totally opposed to the verdict of the Coroner's jury. They found that the punishments inflicted were not excessive, whether measured by the power of the Governor to inflict them, or by the nature of the punishments themselves; that death was neither induced nor accelerated by the bread and water punishment to which the deceased was subjected; that he did not suffer injury from the plank bed; and that his death was attributable to the weather, which was quite cold enough to account for it. The Commissioners also added to their Report that they could not endorse the opinion of the Coroner's jury, that the duties of the medical officer could not be properly performed unless by a resident. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) said, with great regret, however, that, in his opinion, it was impossible for anybody to read the evidence and come to the conclusion that this Report was supported by the evidence adduced. The circumstances of the case to which he asked the attention of the House were these. The young man in question was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour, as being a rogue and a vagabond; he had been a glass-blower, and was said to be of a sturdy and robust constitution; he was, during the course of his imprisonment, repeatedly punished by starvation. After he had been in prison for a few days he did not perform his allotted task of oakum picking, and was, accordingly, put on a diet of bread and water on the 21st and 22nd of August; after that he again failed in doing what he ought to have done, and was sentenced to further solitary confinement and bread and water diet on the 28th, 30th, and 31st August and on the 1st September. One reason for his punishment was that he had wetted his bed, and a small blister was put upon his back, as the Commissioners said, for medical purposes; but that statement he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) begged leave to doubt. The young man, who evidently in his starved condition had no power over his organs, again incurred punishment; he was taken ill and sent to the infirmary on the 3rd of September; on the 5th of that month he was discharged, and on the 7th September he again fell under the dis- pleasure of the Governor, and was sentenced to bread and water on the 8th and 9th September. Here were seven days within the space between the 21st August and the 8th September inclusive, during which he was upon broad and water diet; he was then found to have lost 6 1bs. in weight—that was to say, one pound for every day of bread and water diet, or one-nineteenth of his whole weight. Again, on the 19th and 25th September, and on the 1st, 5th, 7th, and 10th of October, he was placed on bread and water diet, so that out of 50 days' imprisonment 13 days were passed by him on bread and water in solitary confinement. Bread and water diet meant one pound of broad and some water to support a man for 24 hours. A pound of bread was in quantity about half of a very moderate-sized loaf, and this was given to prisoners sometimes altogether, when it was greedily devoured, and sometimes in two portions. Inquiries had been made into the effects of this dreadful discipline, and some knowledge had been gained respecting it. The following accounts had been given by one of the prisoners who appeared before the Commission of 1871, and who described the effects of starvation in this way:—

"The first time you are put into a dark cell, and have nothing but this piece of bread with some water to drink; the sense of hunger is overpowering; a man presses upon his stomach, and does anything to remove the sensation of the absence of food; but after a time he tries to sleep, and then he gets sick and can hardly eat the bread given him next day, after which time he finds himself quite unable to eat it."

That was literally and truly, and was intended to be, starvation. He did not -wish to go into medical details; but everyone had some knowledge of physiology, and would remember that the food was digested by means of the gastric juice; the gastric juice being poured into the stomach by the organs, if there was no food, then would act upon the stomach and cause great inconvenience. He had shown that the young man had spent 13 days out of 50 days upon this starvation diet. Besides this, he was also put upon a plank bed, on which he slept for 16 days until the 25th October. Upon one occasion, when he came in from exercise, the warder noticed that he looked exceedingly ill, besides seeing something else which the Commissioners had not noticed—the man's trousers were wet, or, in other words, he was not able to retain his urine. If that was not evidence of a debilitated constitution he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) did not know what was. The young man was there and then taken to the infirmary, and in five days he died of inflammation of the lungs. All those facts had been laid before the Coroner's jury, who had delivered their verdict in the terms which had been read to the Committee; but the Commissioners, who had before them the same evidence, arrived at a conclusion entirely different. They said that the debilitated tone of the deceased had had nothing to do with the inflammation of the lungs. He maintained that nobody would believe that statement. Everybody must feel that if you put a young man for 13 days upon a diet of bread and water his constitution must become debilitated; and he, therefore, challenged the Report of the Commissioners, when they said that the disease of this man's lungs was in no way accelerated or induced by the repeated punishments of bread and water which he underwent. He appealed to the Home Secretary; this system of starving prisoners was not a right one, and it was a system which, if the people of England knew it to be practised, would not be tolerated. Some other punishment must be found. If a man could not pick a certain quantity of oakum, and had besides the misfortune to soil his bed, he certainly ought not to punished by starvation. He was bound to say that the Home Secretary had, in his opinion, supported the contention of the Governor of the prison upon the powers which he had to inflict bread and water punishment in a way not intended by the Act of Parliament. The House would recollect that when the Prisons Bill was under discussion it was determined that proper rules should be laid down for punishment, and it was enacted that the Governor of a prison should have no right to put a prisoner into the punishment cell for more than 24 hours, the intention being that no person should be placed on bread and water diet for a longer period than that named. But how did the Governors of prisons interpret that rule? They no longer put prisoners into what was called a punishment cell, but converted into a punishment cell the ordinary cell of the prisoner; they put him on bread and water for 24 hours, and, after an interval, they gave him another 24 hours. I In this way it came about that John Nolan was, in his opinion, debilitated by being placed upon bread and water diet for 13 out of 50 days. The Chairman of the Visiting Committee had contested the reading of the rule set up by the Governor, and they both applied to the Home Secretary, who, it was to be regretted, had giving his decision against the Chairman of the Visiting Committee, saying that the Governor of this prison was quite right in acting as he had done. It was, therefore, to be concluded that Governors of prisons might convert the cells of prisoners into punishment cells, lock up their prisoners therein, and place them upon bread and water diet, until the House of Commons laid down strict rules against the practice by Act of Parliament. In another case, that of a man 26 years of age, who had been sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour, was charged with committing an assault upon awarder. He was tried before Lord Coleridge, and found guilty, and the comment made by the Government organ, The Daily Telegraph, upon the case was, that the learned Judge and jury evidently did not believe the evidence of the warder, and that, notwithstanding the serious charges brought forward by the warder, the Judge merely sentenced the prisoner to six weeks' imprisonment; thus not adding a single day to his punishment. There had also been other cases, and he had received from one prisoner a complaint with regard to the very same warder, who was described as a most tyrannical person. This warder was concerned in the imprisonment of Nolan, and there could be little doubt that his conduct had throughout been most tyrannical. In conclusion, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary once and for ever to put a stop to this system of starving prisoners, as it was one which the people of England would not submit to, if they were conscious of the fact that it was being pursued.

wished, in the first place, to assure the hon. Gentleman that, so far as he was concerned, he was no advocate of starvation. He did not wish it to go forth to the public that any system of that character was carried on with his approbation; and he would deny in the most positive terms that in regard to the matter to which the hon. Gentleman had drawn attention any alteration had been effected by the Act of 1877. Prisoners were now treated exactly as they formerly were, and he could not for one moment allow it to be supposed that there had been the slightest change made as regarded the treatment and discipline of prisoners since the passing of that Act. A good deal had been said about the confinement of men in the punishment cell. Under the Act of 1865, the Governors of prisons had the power to confine a man for 36 hours; whereas now, by the measure of 1877, the period of punishment was limited to 24 hours, which he considered to be quite long enough.

said, that Governors never made use of the power conferred upon them by the Act of 1865.

replied, that the hon. Gentleman was quite wrong. He had greater opportunities than the hon. Member of knowing what took place on this subject, and he could assure him that representations had been made to him over and over again, by persons who had been employed in the management of gaols, to the effect that if there was a mistake in the Act of 1877, it was in the clause limiting the hours of solitary confinement which a Governor was enabled to impose. The representations made to him upon this point were that the alteration made had practically destroyed the punishment; but, notwithstanding that, he still entertained the opinion that the alteration made by the Act of 1877 was beneficial. He wished to point out that locking a man up in his ordinary cell was a very different thing from sending him to a punishment cell. In many prisons the punishment cells were dark, and some were in perfect darkness. He had done all he could to abolish the cell system entirely. But even ordinary punishment cells were very dark, and when a man was confined to them he was entirely removed from the general life of the prison. Therefore, confining a man in a punishment cell was, on account of the extreme isolation, a very severe punishment. Isolation in the dark often acted injuriously; and he had, therefore, practically prohibited the use of completely dark cells. But, still, confinement in a punishment cell, being severe from its isolation, he had objected to a man being confined there for more than 24 hours. That had nothing, however, to do with a man being locked up in his ordinary cell for a longer period. When this question was raised, he took the best possible advice upon the subject, and he was informed that punishment cells were very different from the ordinary cells. He was satisfied upon that point, and was sure that everyone who knew anything about prisons would agree that locking a man up in his ordinary cell was very different from confining him in the separate punishment cells. The next question that had been raised was with regard to the diet of bread and water. He must again speak in the most positive terms, for he did not wish the House to be under a wrong impression in this matter. He must, in the most emphatic terms, state that, in the management of prisons from one end of England or Scotland to the other, there had not been, for a single moment, starvation, or anything like it. Nor had there been anything clone which in the least degree tended to lessen the health of prisoners. No officer in any gaol in the United Kingdom would do anything which would be likely to produce starvation or diminish the health of the prisoners. The strongest regulations had been issued for the purpose of rendering it impossible for a prisoner to suffer in health from gaol discipline. First of all, by Rule 36, no punishment was to be inflicted upon any prisoner unless the surgeon should certify that such a prisoner was in a fit condition of health to undergo such punishment. They could not have a much more stringent regulation than that. Then, again, by Rule 104, the surgeon was bound to report to the Governor the case of any prisoner in bad health which he might think necessary. And if he thought the health of any prisoner was in danger from confinement, he was to inform the Governor, and the Governor was to report to the Commissioner. By Rule 106, the surgeon was to report to the Governor any case in which the discipline or treatment seemed likely to injure the health of any prisoner, and the Governor might issue such directions as the circumstances should require. He hoped that the Committee would think that nothing could be more stringent and calculated to preserve the health of prisoners than a regulation of that sort. He would now come to the particular case to which the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had referred—that of John Nolan. That case happened some time ago, and he was bound to state that steps were taken to inquire into it, and from the result of the investigations nothing more had been done. The unfortunate man, no doubt, died, and the coroner's jury found the verdict to which the hon. Gentleman had referred. If anyone would read the Paper containing the evidence taken before the coroner's jury, and the verdict, and the Correspondence between the Visiting Committee and the Home Office, they would see that it was the evidence given by Sir William White that led the jury to believe that the Visiting Committee had not so much power as they ought to have; and the jury went on to say that they thought something ought to be done. That verdict having been found, what was the course he was bound to pursue? The sole object he had in view was that the matter should be as fully investigated as possible, and the hon. Gentleman had admitted that more independent men than those who were appointed to form the Committee could not be found. They were men of the highest experience, and his instructions to them were to find out whether anything wrong had been done, and, if so, to report upon it. He might mention that the surgeon of the gaol had been about 26 or 27 years in the service, and had enjoyed the entire confidence of the Visiting Justices during all that time. What stronger guarantee could they have that no injustice should be done to any prisoner? Then, as to the Governor. He, no doubt, had been changed; but the Governor in charge at the time spoken of had been the Governor of a county gaol in the South for a long time, and was a man bearing the highest possible character. The Commissioners were appointed to inquire carefully into the whole case, and they had no possible interest but to report fully and accurately. He expressly instructed them that if they found out anything wrong they were to report it. Well, what result had the Commissioners come to in the matter? They said—

"1. That John Nolan died from inflammation of the lungs. 2. That though we have formed this opinion without the assistance which a post- mortem examination would have rendered us, we believe it to be fully borne out by the evidence laid before us. 3. That the punishments inflicted upon Nolan were not excessive, whether measured by the power of the Governor to inflict them or of the prisoner himself to sustain them."

He did not think they could have stronger testimony than that of the Commissioners—

"That the punishments inflicted upon Nolan were not excessive, whether measured by the power of the Governor to inflict them or of the prisoner himself to sustain them."

They went on to say—

"4. That Nolan's death was neither induced nor accelerated by the repeated bread and water punishments to which he was subjected, 5. That he did not suffer any injury from the plank bed. 6. That the prisoner was treated during his fatal illness with skill, attention, and indulgence. 7. That the commencement of Nolan's fatal illness coincided in point and time with a marked fall of temperature, high winds, and extreme dampness of atmosphere, and his death with an increased general mortality from the diseases of the organs of respiration, which diseases had been progressive for several weeks. 8. That we cannot endorse the opinion of the coroner's jury that the duties of the medical officers cannot be properly performed without residence."

So far as the officers of the gaol were concerned, could they have higher testimony than was contained in that Report. He would refrain from going into further detail in the matter; but he was bound to read that part of the Report which referred to the matter in question. On page 8 of the Report, the Commissioners said—

"We will now inquire what happened to the prisoner under those two diets respectively. Nolan entered the prison 8th August, under the predecessor of the present Governor, Captain Helby, and on the 21st August was sentenced by him to two days' consecutive bread and water. On the 24th August Captain Helby took charge of the prison, and on the 2Sth sentenced Nolan to one day, and on the 31st to two days' broad and water. On the 3rd September Nolan was admitted to the convalescent ward for a slight cold, and discharged on the 5th. On the 7th September, two days after his discharge from the convalescent ward, Nolan again incurred two consecutive days' bread and water, and when weighed on the 14th September was found to have lost 6 lbs. in the 113 1bs., which was his weight on entering the prison. This is nearly 1–19th of his weight.

"If now we start afresh from the day of the second weighing, when Nolan was found to have lost 6 1bs., and bear in mind that he had now been for some days on the more nutritious diet to which his standing as a prisoner entitled him, and bear in mind, also, the fact that his task of work was to pick only 2 1bs, of oakum per diem, and to keep his cell and person clean, we shall be in a condition to appreciate the following statement of facts:—

"On the 19th and 25th of September, and on the 1st, 5th, 7th, and 10th of October, Nolan was sentenced to one day's bread and water. Nolan, therefore, having, in accordance with prison rules, come into the enjoyment of the diet No. 3, with hard labour, and never doing any harder work than picking 2 lbs of oakum a-day; having made this change on or about the 8th September (five days before his second weighing), he is submitted to bread and water, for one day at a time, six times in the space of 21 days. If we distribute these six days' bread and water over the entire interval from the 14th September, when Nolan was weighed the second time, to 25th October, when he was taken into the infirmary, we have six days of abstinence out of 40 days in which he was upon a diet which must be pronounced extremely liberal for a lad of 18, doing no harder work (if it pleased him to do any work at all) than picking 2 lbs. of oakum per diem. If we take what may be called the effective dietary at 2½ lbs. per diem, the 1½ lbs. of food sacrificed on six occasions being 9 lbs. in all, will still leave the average daily food at the high level of more than 2¼ lbs. a-day. And under this dietary Nolan regains the weight he had when he entered the prison, or, at the least, 5 lbs. out of the 6 lbs. which he was found to have lost when he was weighed on the 14th September, the beginning of the period now under consideration.

"But even this statement of facts and figures scarcely places the matter in the clearest light which can be thrown upon it; for we find that from the 10th October, when the last dietary punishment was inflicted, to 23rd October, or nearly a fortnight, Nolan was not submitted to forfeiture of his food even for a single day; and during this term he is reported to have done the easy task allotted to him, of picking 2 lbs. of oakum per diem. We are quite at a loss, then, to understand how, with so liberal a dietary and so light a labour and deductions so few and slight, the dietary punishments to which Nolan was sentenced could have accelerated his death, whether this term 'accelerated' is taken to mean the setting up of some predisposition to the disease of which Nolan died, or so impairing his strength as to render him a more easy victim to it."

He was bound to say, speaking for the officers of the gaol, they were old servants, and, according to the Report, they did nothing to injure the prisoner, but they did only their duty. Under these circumstances, what was he to do? He thought that it was a serious thing that in these gaols—although there was not under the old system—there was not a resident surgeon or assistant surgeon. He thought there ought to be, and he, accordingly, issued the necessary directions. Further, he gave instructions that whenever bread and water punishments were inflicted, in the current form, the more nutritious stir about diet should be introduced at intervals of not less than three days. He also thought it was right that there should be a separate medical Inspector of all the gaols in England. Having appointed a certain number of medical Inspectors, he appointed a separate medical Inspector whose sole duty it was to go from gaol to gaol in order to inspect the surgeons, and see that they did their duty, and to ascertain whether the punishments or diet injured the prisoners. He might say that the reports made by that gentleman had been of the greatest possible value. With regard to the question of diet, he agreed that the result of the new system must be tested by experience. When the diet was introduced he bad a report drawn up from the different prisons, and the effect was found so good that he left off having those reports made. The last report, he was happy to say, stated that, taking all the prisons together, the death-rate during the last 12 months had lessened by 2 per 1,000 from what it was before. That was most satisfactory. Taking that fact in connection with the reports which he had received, not only from the ordinary officials, but from the medical Inspector, and bearing in mind that the death-rate had so materially decreased, he thought it must be said that the result of the diet now in use was most satisfactory. Under those circumstances, he hoped that the Committee would be satisfied that there was no system of starvation going on in the gaols of this country, either in the general management of prisoners, or when they had been unfortunately condemned to punishment.

thought this was a matter of very grave importance, and trusted the Committee would pardon him if he said a word or two upon it. He thought that poor Nolan had not died in vain, inasmuch as his case, according to the right hon. Gentleman, had led to an improved dietary in eases of punishment—such as Nolan was subjected to—and to a more thorough inspection of prisons. He might say that he believed that Nolan's death was accelerated by the diet upon which he was put. Every now and again the public were seized with a fit of fury against criminals, and sometimes against the Poor Law, and whenever that hap- pened, for some years, what he did not hesitate to say were the most cruel punishments, were inflicted. That system was persisted in for years, when once adopted; but the right hon. Gentleman had told them that, from the strength of his own good-heartedness, he had made alterations in it. That, certainly, showed that it was wrong; in fact, there was a danger that the limits would be reached in the experiment of whether a man could live upon a straw a-day. He had recently received a letter from a gentleman, unknown to him, who had been a surgeon in a gaol, who wrote to him strongly upon this subject; and he stated, as an official, that he felt there was a responsibility upon him, although the dietary was prescribed by the rules, and that it was, in his opinion, too meagre, especially when accompanied by severe punishments. It was perfectly dreadful, to his mind, to know that such things occurred as had been mentioned in the course of the discussion; and he must, as a Member of that House, insist on being allowed to use his own discretion in commenting upon them. Was it possible, he would ask, that anyone could seriously argue that, in the case of a man who had died of consumption, the putting him on a diet of bread and water was not likely to accelerate, and did not, as a matter of fact, accelerate his death? Who was there, among the Members of that House, who had not seen someone suffering under that dreadful disease, but seen him, at the same time, in all probability, surrounded by friends anxious to comfort him in every way, and to pour nourishment into his sinking frame, as well as by medical men, solicitous to prescribe for him some remedy, by means of which the dreadful malady might be cured or modified? But poor Nolan, on his death-bed, had had none of these advantages. Let hon. Members think for a moment of his condition, with warders, the Governor of the gaol, and the surgeon of 27 years' standing, and then ask themselves whether those men must not have seen that he had the signs that he was soon about to make his exit from this world plainly impressed upon his brow? He could not, for the life of him, understand how men could be so brutal, so deadened to every feeling of humanity, as to subject the unfortunate man in these circumstances to such treat- ment as that which it was shown he had received. Who could wonder that the Coroner's jury had come to the mild conclusion that his death had been hastened by that treatment? And yet the officers of the gaol were to be whitewashed, as if no blame were to be attributed to them! He remembered the ease of a man who, in connection with some bankruptcy proceedings of a protracted nature, committed an offence, for which he was sentenced to a punisment which, he dared say, he merited. He found himself, after enjoying a position of luxury, confined within the walls of a prison, where he was visited by some of the friends of the days of his prosperity. Speaking of his condition, he said to them—"Oh, I can get on, but I want bread. The prison portion is regulated in accordance with each particular constitution, and I am dying for want of bread." Thus, a man who was once possessed of great wealth, and who had been accustomed to live in luxury, had actually been reduced to a state of starvation. He mentioned that case, because it served to illustrate the way in which the whole system of the management of our gaols was carried out. All the prison rules were framed on the Procrustean notion that the constitution of every man and woman was the same at the same or different ages, and that the quantity of food supplied to them ought to be regulated by an inflexible standard. That such had been the state of things, at all events in the past, had been admitted by the Secretary of State for the Home Department himself, because he had, in the kindness of his heart, been endeavouring to provide a remedy for it in some degree. But experience showed that cases were still again and again recurring, in which both men and women received their first mittimus to the grave within the walls of a prison. He would, therefore, appeal to the intelligence of the public and the compassion and good feeling of Members of that House not to rely too much upon the officialism which framed rules adapted only to the case of a person of average health and strength, and which made no allowance for the weak and the unhealthy. A man who was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven days and under got for breakfast daily only 8 oz. of bread. That was all—just half, he believed, of a 4 lb. loaf—[A laugh]— he meant to say half of a 1 lb. loaf, and he could not help thinking that hon. Members would scarcely be so ready to laugh if they were confined to that quantity of food for their morning meal. Then came dinner—and it was a mockery to call it dinner—consisting, as it did, of only a pint and a-half of "stirabout," containing 3 oz. of Indian meal and 3 oz. of oatmeal. For supper the allowance was 8 oz. of bread; and that was the scale of diet laid down for men and women, and boys of 16 years of age, with and without hard labour. The diet was the same, no matter what amount of labour a man had to go through; and that reminded him of another point on which he wished to say a few words. This poor man, who was in an advanced stage of consumption, was set to pick 3 lbs. of oakum, although it was, he believed, a pretty stiff dose for a sound man of that age to pick 1½lbs. at a time. At all events, he had had the punishment inflicted upon him five or six times, and he was reduced to a state of great exhaustion, as anyone might perceive whose faculty of perception had not been blunted by the routine of officialism. He was not, however, disposed to make an attack on the prison authorities, while he must implore of the Committee to divest their minds of the notion that everything went on right in our gaols. The notion was a mistaken one; and to be constantly on the watch on those matters ought to be the motto of the House of Commons. He had referred to the dietary fixed for prisoners who had to undergo sentences of seven days' imprisonment and under; but when the period of imprisonment extended to one month the scale of food supplied was, daily, 6 oz. of bread and 1 pint of gruel for breakfast; for dinner on Sundays and Wednesdays, bread 6oz., suet pudding 6 oz.; on Mondays and Fridays, bread 6 oz., potatoes 8 oz.; and on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, 6 oz. of bread and half-a-pint of soup. The supper consisted daily of 6 oz. of bread and 1 pint of gruel. He must say that the way in which the system was worked appeared to him to approach very much to the nature of torture, and he must congratulate the Secretary of State for the Home Department on having made alterations which would serve to make it a little more bearable. The time of the Committee could not, at all events, he thought, be said to have been wasted in discussing the subject, and drawing the attention to it not only of the right hon. Gentleman, but of the public.

said, he could not permit some of the observations which had just been made by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) to pass unchallenged. He could not help feeling indignant, when he heard it publicly stated in that House that all prisoners were treated alike, and that one inflexible rule was applied to every case without the slightest discrimination. He was anxious that such a statement should not remain uncontradicted for a single moment.

said, he had referred to the system of treatment as subject to medical inspection.

said, he would read an extract from the rules which had been laid down—

"The Secretary of State wishes especially to draw the attention of the Prison Commissioners and the medical Inspector to certain points connected with prison management, on which he entertains a very strong opinion. While, upon the one hand, he deems it, of course, essential that prison punishment should he uniform and certain, and that no imposition should he permitted to be practised by those who are in custody, yet it seems to be, on the other hand, equally clear that prison punishments and imprisonment bear unequally on particular persons. Many persons are continually coming into our gaols whose entire nervous system has been prostrated by the evil life which they have led, and are, therefore, more apt to suffer from their incarceration, and more ready to sink gradually under some form of disease or another. Some, again, who have been convicts for the first time, are more likely to feel their situation and to sink under the hardships of a prison from a feeling of shame and degradation. The Secretary of State is very anxious that all such cases should be watched at their various stages, so that the necessity of hospital treatment might, as far as possible, be prevented. As it has been said that it is better that 99 guilty persons should escape conviction rather than that one innocent person should be unjustly condemned to suffer, so it is better that almost any number of prisoners should be treated better than they deserve rather than that any one of them should die through harsh treatment."

What is the date of those instructions?

They are contained in a letter which I gave to the medical Inspector when I appointed him, after Nolan's case; but I am not speaking for myself, but for the body of Visiting Justices who were animated by the same feelings. I will only add that all these stories of cruelty are absolutely untrue.

was quite sure that every hon. Member would be prepared to agree with the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) that it was extremely hard that a man who had been sentenced to imprisonment should have his death hastened by the treatment to which he was subjected while in goal. But, having had a great deal to do with prisons, and having had occasion to study the subject carefully, he must say that he was very strongly of opinion that, if imprisonment was to be of any use as a deterrent from crime, such an amount of severity must be exercised as to make it disagreeable to a prisoner. That being so, some hon. Members, he thought, went too far when they argued, as he had heard them argue in that House, as if the treatment should be such as to make the position of a prisoner comfortable. He admitted that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) was justified in contending that the Committee must not assume that whatever was done by the officials was, as a matter of course, right; but, on the other hand, he was disposed to think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was much too apt to arrive at the conclusion that everything which was done by officials was wrong. The case of Nolan was, no doubt, a very unhappy and unfortunate case, and the circumstances connected with it demanded careful inquiry. But, seeing that the Government had instituted such an inquiry; when men, impartial and competent, had acquitted the officials of Clerkenwell Prison of serious blame in the matter; and when the Secretary of State, as the result of the investigation, issued a warning to the officials of gaols, so as to prevent the risk of such things in the treatment of prisoners in future, the Committee would, in his opinion, scarcely be justified in any longer delaying the passing of the Vote, because of the particular case in question.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had spoken with respect to officials in a manner which was, no doubt, becoming in him as a former Governor of Bengal. But the hon. Gentleman was not in the House when he had referred to the case of John Nolan, and he, for one, entirely objected to the doctrine that the representations made by officials were to be accepted as correct without due inquiry. He had risen, principally, however, for the purpose of pointing out to the Committee that he had made no attack on the Government, or on the prison officials. It was the system of which he complained, and to which he desired to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Under the rules which the right hon. Gentleman had made, such a case as that of Nolan's might, he contended, over and over again occur. The right hon. Gentleman was very indignant because he had said that starvation was part of our prison discipline. But what else, he would ask, did confining a man to such a diet as a few ounces of bread and a certain quantity of water a day mean? For his own part, he could call such a system nothing else but starvation. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to read long extracts; but he had shown the Committee what had happened, and what might occur again, under the very rules with which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be so well satisfied. A man, such as Nolan, might be subjected to a diet of bread and water for 13 days out of 50. That he maintained was not right, and completely justified him in saying that starvation was still a part of our prison system. That the right hon. Gentleman had no fault to find with the officials of a particular prison in connection with a particular case was no answer to the charge which he brought against the system. He objected to a man's being starved at all; and he would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the propriety of issuing orders that no prisoner should be put upon a diet of bread and water for longer than one day in seven. The right hon. Gentleman had read a paragraph from the Report of the Commissioners, and, as every hon. Member was aware, it was very difficult to follow accurately the precise statements contained in a paragraph when read in that way. But the Commissioners referred to the history of a man who, having been subjected to a bread and water diet for six days, lost 6 lbs. in weight, and the Commissioners found that he died, but not as the result of starving him. In the next paragraph they showed that with better food and a greater quantity of it he had, though subjected to hard, labour, in a few clays recovered 5 lbs. of the 6 lbs. he had lost. The right hon. Gentleman had issued a Circular which did him great honour; but it had only been issued within the last six weeks or two months, and why had it been issued? Because the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the statements which had been made by himself and other hon. Members had produced a strong feeling of excitement in the country, and that there was too much truth in them to admit of their being passed over in silence. He hoped that now the state of things would be better. Prisoners, he contended, ought to be allowed to have a chance of recovering if they got an attack of illness, such as inflammation of the lungs. Our prison system, as it had hitherto been carried out, was indefensible. The right hon. Gentleman knew that it was so, and he hoped, therefore, that he would charge the prison officials to be more careful in future. He could have dwelt on other points connected with the subject at greater length; but he should confine himself for the present to urging upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of malting some alteration in the system, so far as putting prisoners on a diet of bread and water was concerned.

hoped that, although the Committee had been engaged in discussing the Vote for nearly five hours, they would permit him to make a few observations upon it before it was passed. The points to which he wished especially to direct his remarks was the powers to be given to the Visiting Justices. A short time ago, a conference of Visitors of gaols was held in London, and, after considerable discussion, they arrived almost unanimously at the conclusion that the powers which they possessed might with advantage be increased. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department seemed inclined to consider the representations which had been made to him on the subject favourably. As things now stood, the Visitors had no power beyond that of being able to protect prisoners from injury, or of reporting the misconduct of warders, or any other matter connected with the gaols to which, in their opinion, the attention of the Secretary of State ought to be drawn. He would suggest that their powers might be increased without interfering with their position as Visitors under the existing law. At present, for instance, all prison contracts were, he believed, made in London by the Commissioners. Now, great assistance might, he thought, be obtained from the Visiting Committee, if they were asked to give their opinion upon those contracts, each for the gaol with which it was connected. He did not mean to contend that they ought to have the power of deciding what contracts should be accepted; but he could not help thinking that, on questions relating to the supply of food and clothing, their experience might be turned to account with great advantage to the public. Contracts might be sent down to them for their consideration, or they might be asked to enter into eon-tracts, with the provision that those contracts should be sent up to the Central Office in London for confirmation. A change of that kind would, he believed, tend to promote economy. He would also suggest that the £6,000, which were given in the shape of gratuities to prisoners, should be left to be divided by the Visitors, instead of by the Commissioners in London, as was now the case. On that point, the assistance of the Visitors might have been sought with the greatest advantage. Formerly, the Visitors had control of the prison labour; but now the materials were bought in London, the whole of the arrangements were carried on by the Central Office in London, and the Visitors had really nothing at all to do with the whole matter. They might give help there, also. Lastly, he believed his right hon. Friend did in his original Bill intend that the Visitors should have some power in the appointment of prison warders. He thought the Visitors were likely to know far better than the central officials the character of the people of the district in which the prison was situated; and, therefore, he thought the Estimates might easily be altered so as to give the Visiting Committee the power of obtaining warders, and of sending up recommendations for certain appointments to London, to be confirmed there. He did not see, indeed, why they should not have the full power given them to make these appointments, under conditions to be laid down by the Home Secretary. Unless some change were made, he was sure the Home Secretary would find the gentlemen composing the Visiting Committees dropping off, and that they would not long consent to act as mere dummies. Then, as to prison labour, nothing was said in the Vote of the purchase of materials, and all the information given was that the receipts were expected to reach £60,000. They ought to have some statement of the amount expended in materials, and they ought also to know the actual amount received and expended last year. He hoped, also, that his right hon. Friend, in coming years, would have this Vote greatly amplified. The information as to the number of officials in each class was very meagre, and the Vote ought also to be brought forward in the usual form for England, Ireland, and Scotland. At present, it was impossible to ascertain what the system in each country cost, because the Irish prisons were mixed up with the convict system, and the Scotch with the General Prison at Perth. As far as he could make out, every prisoner in England cost about £22, in Scotland £28, and in Ireland £30; but it was impossible to make any accurate estimate of the amount.

said, the estimate as to the amount to be earned by prison labour was prepared in December and January, when it was impossible to give the exact figures; but these were now in preparation, and would appear in the Report of the Prison Commissioners. He would endeavour before another year, also, to communicate with the Irish and Scotch Departments, and see if some common form of keeping the accounts could not be adopted. This year it was not possible to do it. As to the expenses, as that depended upon the number of persons in a gaol, and the distance they were apart, he was afraid that the expenses would always be exactly the same. The cost of the raw material was not given, because they had followed the practice in all the convict establishments, which was to give the figures in the present way. Then, as to the Visiting Committee. Of course, as the prisons had been transferred from the local authorities to the Secretary of State, the authority must be transferred also; but there was the greatest desire on his part, and on the part of the Prison Commissioners, to retain the services of the Visiting Committee. For his part, he could not conceive a more honourable duty than that which they would perform, of stepping in between the prison officials and the prisoners, on the part of the public, to see that no injustice was done. As regarded the question of contracts, if his hon. Friend could show any point in which the Government were wrong it should be rectified; but it must be remembered that all articles could be bought much cheaper on a large scale than on a small one. At the same time, he might add, that in this respect, as in all others, the hints of the Visitors had been considered most carefully. In regard to clothing, he hoped before another 37ear that they would be able to make every single article they would require in the prisons for themselves. As to gratuities, that was the only means the Commissioners had at their disposal of inducing prisoners to behave well; but he quite agreed that the money earned should be given in such a way that when the prisoner came out he could not go off at once and spend it in drink. He was quite aware that they had not yet got a perfect plan; but, after going over the whole matter very carefully, the Treasury consented to give a Supplementary Vote, in order that he might assist, as far as he could, the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society. The Government would give them a certain sum, but would have nothing to do with the distribution of the money. That would be left entirely to the Society, aided, he hoped, by the Visiting Committee. The officials of the prisons would be entirely at their service in making reports on particular prisoners, & c.; and all that the Government required would be that, at least, an equal sum to that granted by it should be raised by local subscriptions, and that the Society should be able, if called upon, to show that the money had been properly expended. As to the appointment of warders, he offered not to give the Visiting Committee the appointment of these men, but to allow them to nominate men for the prison service, not, of course, for particular and individual prisons. It must be remembered that the prison service was now a whole, and the result of that was to give a warder much greater chances of promotion than if he were stationed in one prison, and had there to wait his turn for promotion. He thought he had now dealt with all the points raised by his right hon. Friend.

said, he was very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman attached so much importance to the office of the Visiting Committee. It must be remembered that the position of these gentlemen was very much changed. Formerly, the Visiting Committee was, practically, the governing body of the prison, and they were persons of weight and authority. Now they had no authority over the prison officials whatever, and the officials knew it. Further, the officials had the ear of the Prison Commissioners, and, through them, of the Home Secretary, while the Visiting Committee knew they had not the same ready means of access to the right hon. Gentleman. Not unnaturally, therefore, the Visiting Justices felt that instead of being persons with authority they were now looked upon as prying busy-bodies, and in any conflict between them and the officials or the Commissioners they would probably go to the wall. It all depended upon the light in which the Home Secretary regarded the Visiting Justices. If they found their reports readily listened to, their suggestions carried out, themselves treated as representatives of the public, and the Home Secretary ready to avail himself of their services as a check upon the prison officials, then, he had no doubt, gentlemen would be found willing and ready, as heretofore, to discharge the duty of Visiting Justices. Unless, however, the greatest care was taken by the Home Secretary to make the position of the Visiting Justices one, if not of direct authority, at any rate, one of indirect weight and importance, he would find a difficulty in discovering gentlemen to take the post.

said, that there was one great safeguard given to the Visiting Justices. They had the absolute power, if they thought it necessary, or if they were not treated properly, of suspending the Governor of the gaol, which was a very great power to give any body of persons. He might add, that he had received a great many communications and representations from various gentlemen on Visiting Committees, and they had invariably ended by tendering him their warmest thanks for the way in which their suggestions had been received and considered. That was what he hoped and wished always to be the case.

was very glad that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) had brought forward this question about contracts, because the question was very closely allied to a subject which occupied the attention of the Committee at an earlier period of the evening. The contracts for the supply of food were most important branches of the prison arrangements, for some of the complaints against the present system were founded on the allegation that collusion existed between those who supplied the food to the prison and those who had to distribute it. So far from Nolan's case having been exaggerated, his experience of prisons led him to believe that it was not an exceptional case by any means. He well remembered when it was once his duty to visit an English prison how the Governor attempted to capture him, in a metaphorical sense, at the outset. He was marched to the kitchen—there the Governor pointed to some dishes, and stated that each of them contained a prisoner's food for the day. To that he replied that the dishes threw no light on the subject he had come to investigate. He knew what the supply of food should be; the question with him was whether the prisoner got it. "Oh!" replied the Governor, "here is the chief warder, whose business it is to see that each prisoner gets his proper amount of food." He suggested, in reply to that, that the best test of the system was a rigid inspection of the cells without any notice, and he suggested that he should be allowed to go at once into the cells where the prisoners were eating. The suggestion took the Governor rather by surprise; but he could not help himself, and a visit was paid to the cells. In the first one visited it was evident that the man had a much smaller supply of food than he had seen in the kitchen. On asking the reason, the chief warder replied that that particular prisoner belonged to a light-labour party. If a man complained of being sick, in fact, he was put on a light-labour party, and his food was reduced. What was the chance of the man getting better under such circumstances? The lessened work was set against the lessened food, and the man was left with the same chance of getting well as before. Against this Procrus- tean system of management there was no remedy, except independent inspection. He was, therefore, very glad to hear the assurance just given by the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) with reference to the Visiting Justices. He was not by any means satisfied with the way in which the Visiting Justices did their work under the old system; but they were, at all events, the only independent body of Inspectors and Overseers cognizant of what was going on. He should, therefore, be very sorry that their powers should be weakened or destroyed. The Home Secretary had read a rule which he had ordered to be circulated, which there could be no doubt was a very good rule. But, in connection therewith, he wished to mention the case of certain men whose previous life affected neither their physical nor their moral condition—he meant the Irish political prisoners, who were admitted by the Judges who tried them to be men of high moral character. These men, after being in prison, found themselves, after a few months or years, entirely broken down in their constitution. They had a right to punish a man within certain limits; but they had no right whatever to substract in the slightest degree from the fee simple of his constitution. The State had no right to rob any man of the fee simple of his constitution; it was a great mistake to say that their prison system was now perfect. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had said that he had issued instructions calculated in every way to protect the health of the prisoners; but still there was a feeling that all was not as it should be. They objected to the right hon. Gentleman allowing himself to be influenced by those who were interested in the conduct of the prisons. It must strike everyone as being odd that, in the case of Nolan, all the officials came forward and said that although there was not a case against anyone, yet they must acknowledge that something very wrong had been done. This was a very important subject—it was a question of detail of the whole treatment of these prisoners, and he thought that they ought to be satisfied with the discussion that they had had that night and resume the consideration of the Vote the next day, or after the Whitsuntide Recess. He must protest against passing that Vote bafore they had had further discussion; and, therefore, he begged to move to report Progress.

really hoped that the hon. Member was not in earnest in making his Motion. They had now had what everyone must admit to be a most unprecedented discussion, lasting nearly six hours, on a single Vote of the Civil Service Estimates. Although he quite admitted the importance of the Vote, and the extreme importance of the subject that had been brought under consideration, he did hope that the Committee, having considered the matter at length, would now pass the Vote. He appealed to the hon. Member to be satisfied with the ampleness of the discussion, and to withdraw his Motion.

observed, that this Vote had been very carefully and fully discussed, and he thought that next year they would be able to discuss the subject still more fully and carefully. He thought, also, that the exhaustive discussion that they had had would supply some very valuable hints to the Home Secretary in dealing with these questions; and, under the circumstances, he trusted that the hon. Member for Mayo would allow the Vote to pass, on the understanding that Progress would be immediately reported afterwards.

remarked, that he had studied the case of Nolan very carefully, and but for having lost his voice would like to make some further observations with regard to it. Did he understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that there would be a Supplemental Estimate introduced for the Prisons that Session?

said, that it would be necessary to introduce a Supplemental Estimate for some purposes. As they had to provide compensation to some local gaols, it would be necessary to force the matter on in order to provide the requisite funds.

said, that in that case, as there would be an opportunity for raising further discussion on a very important point—namely, the repeated infliction of the punishment of solitary confinement by gaolers, when the Sup- plementary Estimates came on, he should, therefore, recommend his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo to withdraw his Motion.

said, that, under the circumstances, he would beg leave to withdraw his Motion. He would, however, first ask the Chairman of Ways and Means, whether they would be in Order in raising the point suggested upon the Supplemental Estimates?

said, that, not having the Supplemental Estimates before him, he could not inform the hon. Member what questions could be raised upon them.

said, that he had understood the Secretary to the Treasury to accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), that if they allowed Vote 16 to be passed he would immediately consent to report Progress. It was asking rather too much to expect them to vote away a million of money in a breath. He begged leave to move that the Chairman do leave the Chair.

thought that the course he had taken had been assented to by hon. Members generally. It was arranged that they should be allowed to take a Vote on Account, in order to meet certain demands which it was absolutely necessary to satisfy before they separated for the Holidays. He pointed out that their only opportunity to get this Vote on Account was that evening, although he admitted that it was an unusual course to take a Vote on Account on the same night as the Civil Service Estimates. Had he not taken the Vote that evening, he should have had to prolong the Sitting till Thursday—thus shortening the Holiday. With that difficulty before him, he ventured on that occasion to take the unusual course of asking for a Vote on Account of the Civil Service that day before they separated. He had agreed to leave out of the Vote an Item which was objected to by several hon. Members below the Gangway opposite—namely, the University Vote for Scotland. That had been struck out of the sum demanded, and was not, therefore, included in the Vote just put from the Chair.

begged leave to withdraw his Motion.

said, that the House was very much taken by surprise in having this matter brought on at that period, as no notice whatever of the proposal to take it had been given. The Bill was not in the Paper that morning—no one knew what it meant. He had not the slightest idea that the House was to be committed to a loan of these £2.000,000, which he understood it was the proposal of this Bill to lend to India.

said, that the loan which they had heard mentioned was a loan of £2,000,000 by this country to India. He understood that it was the desire of the House to have the discussion upon this Bill taken in connection with the general question of Indian finance. There would be an opportunity at a later stage of the Bill of making any explanation with regard to it, and he hoped that the House would now consent to take the Report of the Committee upon it.