laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.—

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [Lords]

TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NO. 1) BILL [Lords]

Ordered, that the Bills be read a second time on Monday next.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords]

Standing Orders not previously inquired into not complied with.

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, viz.—

PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Ordered, that the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Belfast Water Bill

Great Central Railway Bill

London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Bill

SCUNTHORPE URBAN DISTRICT GAS AND WATER BILL.

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

GREAT YARMOUTH PIER BILL [Lords]

(Queen's consent signified); read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

ALL SAINTS' CHURCH (CARDIFF) BILL [Lords]

BRIGHTON MARINE PALACE AND PIER BILL [Lords]

GREAT GRIMSBY STREET TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

Burgh Police (Scotland) Provisional Order Bill

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL [Lords]

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 13) BILL [Lords]

Read a second time, and committed.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 20) BILL

Reported, without Amendment [Provisonal Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

Private Bills (Group L.)

reported from the Committee on Group L of Private Bills, that for the convenience of the Committee, they had adjourned until Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Petitions

Board of Education Bill

Petition from Bradford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

Ground Rents (Taxation by Local Authorities)

Petition from Bradford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1845

Petition from Urquhart, for alteration of law: to lie upon the Table.

Regulation of Railways Bill

Petitions in favour; from Selby; and, Normanton; to lie upon the Table.

Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill

Petition from Everton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c

Shipping Casualties (1897–8)

Copy presented, of Abstract of the Returns of Shipping Casualties which occurred on or near the Coasts, or in Rivers and Harbours, of the United Kingdom from the 1st July, 1897, to 30th June, 1898; and of the Returns of Shipping Casualties to British Vessels elsewhere than on or near the Coasts, or in Rivers and Harbours of the United Kingdom, and to Foreign Vessels on or near the Coasts, or in Rivers and Harbours of British Possessions Abroad, &c., with Charts and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

MASTERS, MATES, ENGINEERS (SUSPENSION, &c., OF CERTIFICATES)

Return presented relative thereto [ordered 19th May; Mr. Gibson Bowles]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 267.]

Ordnance Survey

Copy presented of Report of the Progress of the Ordnance Survey to the 31st March, 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

Dogs Regulation (Ireland) Act, 1865

Account presented of the Receipts and Expenditure under the Act for the year 1898 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 268.]

FINES, &c. (IRELAND)

Copy presented of Abstract of Accounts of Fines accounted for by the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks for 1897 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 269.]

Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898

Copy presented of Regulations, under the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898, as to issue of County Stock [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

East India (Indian Currency Committee, 1898)

Copy presented of Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the Indian Currency [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

Government Departments (Contracts)

Return ordered, "of all Contracts made in the United Kingdom for manufactured Articles by the several Government Departments, either with contractors outside the United Kingdom or with contractors or agents in the United Kingdom who obtain the Articles from Abroad (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 382, of Session 1897).—( Mr. Logan. )

reported from the Committee of Selection; that they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure: Mr. Evelyn Cecil, Mr. William Jones, Mr. Arthur Morton, Sir Albert Rollit, and Mr. Talbot; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Butcher, Sir George Fardell, Mr. Gedge, Mr. Mount, and Captain Norton.

further reported from the Committee; that they had added to the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Improvement of Land Bill—Commander Bethell, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Charming, Dr. Clark, Mr. Colston, Mr. Wingfield-Digby, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Gold, Mr. Seale-Hayne, Mr. Jeffreys, Mr. Heywood Johnstone, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Mr. Walter Long, and Major Rasch.

further reported from the Committee; that they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:—Mr. Galloway and Mr. Gedge; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Edward Hill and Sir James Rankin.

further reported from the Committee; that they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Bill:—Mr. Archdale, Mr. Attorney-General for-Ireland, Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. J. H. M. Campbell, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Doogan, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. Flynn, Mr. Arnold-Forster, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Arthur Moore, Mr. William Moore, Mr. O'Neill, Mr. John Redmond, and Colonel Saunderson.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

reported from the Chairmen's Panel: that they had appointed Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in the place of Mr. John Edward Ellis, in respect of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Bill; and that they had appointed Sir James Fergusson to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Improvement of Land Bill.

Report to lie upon the Table.

I beg to move to reduce this vote by £455 for the purpose of calling attention to the very unsatisfactory manner in which the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General are paid. They are remunerated by a system of salaries and fees. The system is a bad one. I think they should be paid by salary entirely, and I hope that, in his reply to me, the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give me some assurance that steps are being taken in that direction. I wish also to call attention to the allowance for personal clerks. Since the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General are paid by salary and fees, they surely ought to be able to provide the sum necessary for paying their personal clerks. Certainly the taxpayers should not be called upon to pay it. I believe the Attorney-General gets a salary of £6,000 or £7,000, and, in addition, a nearly equal amount in fees. The Solicitor-General receives very nearly as much, and do think that, if these gentlemen had any modesty at all, they would be ashamed to charge this paltry sum for their personal clerks. I beg to move.

Motion made and question proposed—

"That Item A be reduced by £455, in respect of the Allowance for Personal Clerks."—(Mr. Weir.)

I do not know whether I shall support this reduction or not; it depends entirely upon the answer of the Solicitor-General. I do think that some explanation should be given to the Committee in regard to the system under which the Law Officers of the Crown are paid. A new system of remunerating the Law Officers has recently been adopted by the present Government. There was a good deal of trouble for six or seven years in connection with this matter. The late Government established a method of payment which enabled the House of Commons to know exactly how much both these officers received, but this Government has adopted the unusual course of reverting to the old system of payment by salary, supplemented by fees for contentious business. We were promised three years ago, a Return in continuation of a Paper laid upon the Table showing the total emoluments of the Law Officers. I am told, however, that that Return has not been made, and I suggest that that is a breach of a distinct promise given to the Committee. There is only one further question I wish to raise, and that is in connection with the Railway Commission. We have sometimes criticised that body very severely. I believe that the salaries of the Commissioners are included in this, Vote. They have done some useful work, especially in regard to workmen's trains, and I should be glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman could give us some details of the work accomplished, and some information as to the number of days the Commission has sat.

In reply to the hon. Member for Ross, and his complaint of the charge for personal clerks, I would remind the Committee that under the old system these clerks were paid entirely by fees, and when the change took place and the salaries of the Law Officers were made to cover all contentious business it became necessary, of course, to make a new arrangement for the payment of clerks. An understanding was accordingly come to that a certain allowance should be granted for them. There had been a want of continuity in the Law Officers' Department, and it was found necessary some years ago to establish a Department where these clerks on modest salaries might be able to keep up the continuity of the work. I do not think the Committee will see anything to complain of in an arrangement of that kind. The other items in the Vote have reference to the cost of criminal prosecutions incurred in connection with cases taken up at the public expense, and I do not think I need dwell upon them. I am not prepared to give the number of sittings of the Railway Commissioners, but I may say I think the public have every reason to be satisfied with the way in which the work is done. With regard to the Return which the hon. Member for Islington says was promised by the Attorney-General, I do not remember the circumstances, but I will make inquiry, and I can assure him that any pledge given by my hon. and learned friend will most certainly be carried out.

I really think the reply of the hon. and learned Member is rather unsatisfactory. Unfortunately the Attorney-General is away, and he is not likely to be here when the Report of this Vote is taken. I do not think we should part with the Vote until we get an answer to my question. It is admitted that a change has been made in the system of remunerating the Law Officers, and we want to be able to compare the new system with the old system. We discussed this point three years ago, and we were promised a Return showing the exact amount received by the Law Officers. That Return we have not yet received. I should like to point out, further, that no explanation appears on the Votes in connection with the items lettered B, C, D, E, and F.

Order, order! This is a motion to reduce a particular item, and the Debate must be confined to that item.

I can only repeat that I will inquire exactly what took place, and if the Return was promised it certainly shall be prepared.

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman state the exact amount he has received by way of fees, in addition to his salary of £6,000?

I am afraid I cannot answer that, but of course the figures will appear in the Return.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw my motion, in view of the promise that we shall have this information.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give any further explanation as to items B, C, D, E, and F? They cover a sum of £50,000 or more.

These are the costs of criminal prosecutions in cases taken up at the public expense. The Committee will see that, to give fuller explanations in the Votes of these items, would really mean furnishing the bills of costs incurred in these criminal prosecutions and other proceedings. It would be an almost impossible task to do this.

What about item C? Is there any special business warranting the increase in that?

It is an involuntary increase due to the nature of the business and the greater proportion of costs recovered. It is an increased expense which has resulted in a reduction in the amount of outstanding costs.

I think we ought to have further information given us in regard to the miscellaneous law charges. Why are the letters printed in the Votes if no explanation is to be given? Surely the object of the letter is to indicate that there is an explanation elsewhere.

I think the practice pursued on this occasion is that which is always pursued, and if we were to give all these minor details complaint would be made of expense uselessly incurred in printing them.

Question put, and agreed to.

2. £13,200, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Legal Expenses.

3. £206,527, to complete the sum for Supreme Court of Judicature.

4. £16,742, to complete the sum for Land Registry.

5. £29,714, to complete the sum for County Courts.

What is being done to carry out the understanding which was come to last year with regard to the taking of steps for the reduction of fees?

Something has been done in that direction, although there has not been a general revision. Of course, there are two opinions as to whether it is desirable to make any considerable reduction. This complaint really arose in regard to the smaller cases, and while, on the one hand, the fees charged did seem unduly high, on the other it was a question it they did not have some effect in discouraging the grant of credit by tradesmen.

I see there is an increase in the fees of £1,500. Is that due to any change in the scales?

No change has been made.

There is a new charge of £2,000. What is the meaning of that? Are you appointing any more judges or other officers? This is an entirely new charge.

The Committee is aware that a great deal of new work has arisen in connection with the Work men's Compensation Act. These expenses are incurred in connection with that.

What is the money spent for, or what is it to be spent upon?

This is an item in respect of the remuneration of arbitrators appointed under the Act.

I think there should be some inquiry into the working of the county court system in England. In Scotland the cost is very much less, and there we do for 2s. 1d. about as much as two guineas is charged for in England. I think the cheaper Scotch system ought to be introduced into this country.

Vote agreed to.

6. £40,968, to complete the sum for Police, England and Wales.

7. Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £415,161 be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the expenses of the Prisons in England, Wales and the Colonies."

I rise to move the reduction of this Vote in respect of the imprisonment of debtors. I did so last year simply on the general lines that debtors were subjected to discipline which was not general, which, in fact, does not obtain in Scotland. I think it is very unfair that we should be called upon to pay a quota of the expense of maintaining 8,000 debtors in England, while England contributes nothing for any similar purpose in Scotland. This year there is much greater necessity for calling attention to this matter. Owing to an Act passed last session the treatment of debtors it English prisons has been greatly aggravated. Within the last couple of months a circular based on the Bill passed last year has been issued, and it has called forth strong comments from several county court judges. I wish to give the Committee the opinion of one or two of those judges. On 1st May the Birmingham County Court judge, Judge Whitehorn, after announcing that he had received a circular from the Home Office informing him of the changes which had been made in the treatment of debtor prisoners, said there were three main alterations of which it was only right public notice should be taken. The first was that, although hitherto debtors had been allowed to obtain their food and drink from outside the prison, under the new rules they would receive an allowance of food similar to that prescribed for offenders of the first division who did not maintain themselves. I would ask, does the increased sum of £8,000 now asked for the maintenance of prisoners represent the amount required for providing food for these debtors? Again, as the learned judge pointed out, they are to be required to work at their own trade or at some industry. They will receive the whole of their earnings, subject to a deduction for the cost of their maintenance and the use of implements furnished by the prison. That means that for the first time in I do not know how many years since the introduction of reforms in our prison system debtors are to be put on compulsory work. Hitherto they have been confined in prison under the fiction, not that they owe money, but that they have refused to obey an order of the court. Now they nominally remain under the rule sanctioned by the right hon. Gentleman as civil prisoners. There is to be some slight difference made between them and criminal prisoners.

None.

Theoretically there is to be a difference, but in all material respects their position is assimilated to that of criminal prisoners. The learned judge went on to say that the third chief change was, that whereas these prisoners formerly had a common room, for use in the daytime, they were, in the future, to be confined to their cells at all times except when at chapel, and at exercise. Was there ever such a retrograde movement in connection with the treatment of civil prisoners? Certainly, the debtor is still to be allowed to wear his own clothes, but it is only due to a vote given in the Committee upstairs that they are not to be put into prison clothes. Again, they are to be kept separate from the criminal prisoners, and that too, I think, was owing to something we did upstairs. In future they are to be allowed to receive only one visitor and write and receive one letter a week. I do not know what the rule in regard to that has hitherto been in England, but I do know what it was in Scotland before imprisonment for debt was abolished. There they were allowed to receive any reasonable number of visitors and to write any reasonable number of letters. Why should you prevent a man who is in prison in consequence of his financial difficulties from communicating with friends outside with a view to securing financial assistance? Why limit him to one letter a week? The County Court judge further went on to point out what would be the effect of these new rules upon his practice. Inasmuch as the punishment was made much more severe, and as the debtors were being brought nearer to the status of criminals, he thought that the commitment for forty days, which was deemed sufficient under the old system, would find its equivalent in twenty days under the new system. Judge Edge, of the Clerkenwell County Court, has also expressed somewhat similar sentiments, and he added that he would require in the future to be satisfied more definitely as to a man's means of paying before he made a committal order. Probably that is not a perfectly accurate record of what the learned judge said, because, as a matter of theory, a judge has all along been expected to satisfy himself as to the debtor's means of paying before committing him. But the fact is, that these cases arc got through in a most hurried style, and that the evidence received is often of such a nature that it is altogether unworthy of the name of evidence. Still this judge has said that he will be more stringent in future in exacting proof of means. My contention is that this is a retrograde movement in the treatment of debtors, and that instead of it we ought to be progressing with a view to getting imprisonment for debt really abolished. The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, tell the Committee that debtors are to be subjected to compulsory work in consequence of the report of the Departmental Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Leeds. I do not wish to contest the position taken up in that report, that if debtors are kept in prison it is better that they should have some employment. But if you are going to make the debtor a criminal, then I think that affords us the best argument that can be advanced for the total abolition of imprisonment for debt. Whoever heard of a rich bankrupt who would not pay his debts being sent to prison? All the 8,000 debtors kept in prison together probably among them do not owe as much as that gigantic debtor, Mr. Hooley, whom the public Prosecutor refused to have anything to do with. We had the same system working in Scotland, only not quite so bad. In England debtors are maintained at the cost of the State, and not as was the case in Scotland at the cost of the incarcerating creditor. Twenty years ago we abolished every vestige of imprisonment for debt in Scotland. Why should the State step in in the case of these small debtors to give the creditor the means of enforcing payment, which is not done in the case of the rich? What is the result of this system? Who are the debts eventually collected from? Why, the screw is put not on the debtor, but on some of his or her poor relatives, who often have to pawn everything they can to get the person out of prison. I may be told that imprisonment for debt does not exist, but that it is imprisonment for contempt of court; but that seems to me to be an absurd theory. I am not an advocate of allowing anything in the shape of fraud to escape punishment, but under Scottish law the poor man who commits a fraud is just as liable to criminal proceedings as the rich man. What is the result under the English system? It may be that some pedlar manages to induce a poor man's wife to buy goods which are certainly not necessary, and the husband may know nothing about the debt until he is brought up before the County Court judge. Evidence is given as to his wages, and he is ordered to pay a certain amount, but he cannot do it, and he goes to prison. But does imprisonment purge that man's debt? Not at all, for he may go to prison again and again, and still be as deeply in debt as ever. It however, different with the rich man, for he never goes to prison at all. The rich man gets his discharge unless there is something very bad against him, if he can scrape together 10s. in the £. I know a case where a bankrupt put all the money he received into his wife's account. He then took all the debts upon his own shoulders and went through the Bankruptcy Court, and he got his discharge despite all the protests which his creditors could make against him. This system does not exist in any other civilised country but our own, and it is a barbarous system. I protest against this Vote, because under last year's Prisons Act the treatment of debtors has been made infinitely worse, because they have been reduced, if not quite to the status of criminals, to something very nearly approaching it. That is a retrograde movement on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers in these matters, and the question seems to me to call for a pronouncement of opinion on the part of this House, that the time has come when imprisonment for debt should be abolished. I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by £500.

Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That a sum, not exceeding £410,161, be granted for the said Service."—( Sir Charles Cameron. )

I am very glad that this question has been raised to-day, for I believe that the alteration made in the treatment of prisoners for debt was a retrograde movement. There can be no doubt that under the present regulations debtors are reduced to the condition and status of criminals. I remember the time when the debtors' prison was one of the pleasantest places possible to go in, providing you had agreeable friends. I have spent many pleasant hours in the Debtors' Prison, Dublin, where we had a tennis court, and where the prisoners were allowed to have their friends to spend a pleasant evening. Since the abolition of the old Debtors' Prison system you have lowered the status of the unfortunate debtor to that of the criminal. Whatever the pretext may be for imprisonment—whether it be contempt of court or treason—the offence of all these individuals who are imprisoned really is that they refuse to pay when the court thinks they are able to pay. The way the problem presents itself to my mind is that you ought not to imprison any man who is not guilty of a crime; and the question is, Is the refusal to pay a debt a crime? I hold that it is not. I believe a great public benefit will be done by directing the attention of the public to the fact that a large number of persons are condemned to imprisonment as debtors without any of the protection to which the ordinary citizen is surrounded when charged with a crime. A debtor, I hold, is not guilty of a crime according to modern ideas. In olden times I know he was, and was subjected to most cruel tyranny. I maintain that a man who refuses to pay when he is able to pay is not guilty of a crime. He may be guilty of a moral offence, but we do not punish men for moral offences. If a man is guilty of fraud he ought to be proceeded against for fraud, and ought to be treated as a criminal, anal be afforded the same protection as other criminals. The judges alluded to by the hon. Member have bad recourse to a remedy of their own, and they have cut down their sentences accordingly, in order to compensate for the increased severity of the prison rules. A great many judges, however, would take no notice of this, and would proceed to deal with debtors as before. I was much surprised to hear that the whole system had been swept away in Scotland. The system does prevail in Ireland, and it is used in a reckless way. Some of the judges are in the habit of committing people for different periods of imprisonment for contempt of Court with reference to the non-payment of instalments and other similar offences. Men and women are lying in gaol in Ireland who have been there for many months without any proper trial, and who, under these new regulations, are treated as criminals, although they are first-class misdemeanants—although they have not, as a matter of fact, been guilty of any crime whatever. I am extremely glad that the hon. Member has brought this matter Before the attention of the House.

I am not prepared to defend the law of imprisonment for debt, but would remind the hon. Baronet opposite that the state of the law in England, at all events, is that a debtor who, being able to pay, is adjudged to pay and refuses, is sent to prison. It is under those circumstances, not under the very agreeable circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member for East Mayo, which remind one of a story by Dickens, that a debtor is sent to prison. At present it is the practice of the county courts that a man is sent to prison who is able to pay his debts, but refuses to pay them. I am not prepared now to argue in favour of the maintenance of that law; but if I were so inclined, I venture to say this is not the occasion to deal with it. So far as the Prison Commissioners are concerned, I am sure it is no advantage to them to get this class of prisoner into prison. The hon. Baronet is perfectly right when he says that I based this reform upon the recommendations of a Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Leeds, and appointed by my right hon. friend and predecessor, whom I see opposite. That Committee recommended in the strongest terms that it was high time that a less difference should be made between ordinary prisoners and debtors than had been the custom; that various abuses had grown up, and that there was no reason why these men should not be compelled to work. It was regarded as an abuse that they should earn two or three shillings a day by refusing to pay their just debts, and all at the expense of the country. A similar recommendation had also been made by former Prison Commissioners and other high authorities, and it was with a view to carrying it out that the first step was taken under the Bill of last year, by giving power to Prison Commissioners and Governors to stop the providing of meals from outside for these debtors. The second point refers to the obligation compelling them to work. I quite agree with the hon. Baronet that it is not a question of fraudulent debtors, but of debtors guilty of nothing but refusing to pay what they are ordered to pay. I have had not only the Report of the Committee, but frequent representations from Prison Visiting Committees in Birmingham and other centres, complaining of the grievous trouble there was in dealing with this class of prisoners; that the latitude allowed them was very subversive of discipline, and that it was a gross abuse of the law that tins should be done at the public expense. Therefore I proposed, in connection with the Bill, certain rules to be laid before the House, with the full knowledge of the Committee, and the Bill became an Act. It is not correct to assert that debtors are practically criminal prisoners. The only privilege taken away has been the privilege to provide their own meals and the privilege of not being compelled to work. If the hon. Gentlemen concerned in this matter will turn to page 50 of the Parliamentary Paper they will see how carefully the position of a debtor has been guarded. He is allowed to wear his own clothes, if sufficiently clean, and is not compelled to work at any penal kind of labour or any work allotted to a prisoner under a hard labour sentence. He can choose the character of his work, so far as possible, but it must be of an industrial character. I have already had evidence that these rules have given great satisfaction to many of these men. That is a distinct advance. The hon. Baronet imagines that these men are kept perpetually shut up. The rule is that debtors, when they can possibly work in association, do so, and if they work in their cells the cell doors are open. So far from there being any complaint the contrary has been the case, and I cannot understand how the new rules can be held to be a step backwards. I can quite understand that it might be well if, as in Scotland, imprisonment for debt were abolished, but that does not concern this Vote. These men are committed to prison under the law, and I believe the Act of last session enables them to be better treated. It is in no way a hardship to them, and does not compel them to associate with criminal prisoners.

I intend to divide the Committee on this question. Every time is, I am told, not the proper time to bring it up, but if the right lion. Gentleman is open to consider the question of imprisonment for debt, and will give us an indication of his willingness to appoint a Select Committee, of course, not this year, to inquire into it, that will be a different matter. Otherwise, I shall have to take every opportunity I can find to call attention to the matter. May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will hold out any hope of an inquiry?

I am certainly not able in a matter not connected with my Department to give any such pledge.

The right hon. Gentleman described a debtor under the new system as a prosperous and contented animal—as a man earning 30s. a week. Why, let him earn it by all means; encourage him to work. But the difference between the criminal and the civil prisoner always has been that labour was wholly optional in the case of the latter, though compulsory in the case of the former. The right hon. Gentleman says these men work in association, but the rule is that when they are not at work or at exercise they must lie in their cells. I do not know whether the cell doors are open or shut. He said nothing regarding the restriction of communication with the outside to one visit or letter a week. Why should a man be prevented from writing letters because he happens to be a debtor? We had a large Committee consisting of twenty Members which inquired into the whole system of imprisonment for debt in Scotland, and they were unanimously of opinion that it should be abolished. A number of these debtors are men who become securities, and though legally responsible for the debt they have incurred no moral fault. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we had a Division on this question now, and then the consideration of the Vote can be resumed.

I agree with what the hon. Baronet has said with regard to imprisonment for debt. I certainly understood—during the Committee on the Bill of last session—that the Home Secretary himself was rather inclined to the view that imprisonment for debt should be abolished altogether. I hope that he entertains that view and that he will do all he can to bring this question before the Government.

Order, order! Questions that can only be dealt with by legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 75 Noes, 212. (Division List, No. 228.)

Original Question again proposed.

The question I wish to bring before the right Gentleman is the treatment of the warders, and prison labour generally. I think the wardens iii the prisons have been singularly patient in regard to their grievances, but there have been constant expressions of opinion upon them in my constituency. I have communicated with the right hon. Gentleman on the matter, and I must say that he has taken, to a certain extent, a sympathetic attitude, and if he would only go a little further I would not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division. There are 2,700 warders of all grades employed in metropolitan prisons, and, therefore, it is a large class of civil servants. It cannot be said that they are too well treated. They commence as assistants at £60 a year, with an increment of £1 a year till they reach £68. The principal warders begin at £70 a year, which rises by annual increments of £1 to £78—which is 30s. a week. These men have had a great many new duties thrown upon them by the recommendations of the Prisons Committee, who, while they considered the case of the prisoners, left out of consideration the treatment of the officials. The chief complaint of these officials is that they have to work a great deal too long hours. It may be said that though these hours are long, the work is of a mere routine and easy character; but though physically the work may not be severe, the strain is constant. The shortest hours they are on duty are seventy-four or seventy-six hours per week, and they run up to ninety-eight hours per week. If that is true the right hon. Gentleman must agree that it requires some consideration. They have also to work on Sundays, and to put in overtime for which they are not paid. The most serious grievance they have got is night duty. Their night duty is the longest spell of duty that any servant of the State has to do at the present time. It lasts over thirty-six hours— commencing at six o'clock in the evening and going on constantly till six o'clock in the following evening. It is true they are allowed to lie down at intervals, lint they are always liable to be called up, and very frequently they are called up. But even with that qualification, that is too long a spell of duty. I understand that in many prisons this might duty is enforced three times a week, although the ordinary course is five times in two weeks, but I think that twice a week at most is quite sufficient, and that is a reform to which I think the attention of the hon. Gentleman ought to be devoted. Another grievance of these men is that they are subject to a very severe system of fines. We have protested in this House against the system of fines in factories and warehouses, and I do not see why the State should not in this respect set the example. The scale of fines has been recently raised for all sorts of petty offences which I will not detain the Committee by quoting. But these men can be fined up to 5s., which makes a considerable hole in their weekly wages. I think this question ought to be considered by the right hon. Gentleman, and that the fines should be abolished, and that instead of fines a better system of discipline ought to be substituted. Then there is another question with regard to the clerks. They are very dissatisfied with the method of promotion, and there are few opportunities that are open to them in contrast with those they were led to expect when they joined the service. The only other point I wish to put is that there are two or three men in my constituency who think that because they have made reasonable complaints they have been harshly treated by the Home Office. There is an idea that they are made martyrs if they make any complaint. I will not move a reduction of the Vote if the right hon. Gentleman will give me a sympathetic answer. I will ask him three questions: (1) Whether he is willing that an inquiry should be made into these matters; (2) if the hours of labour—and this is the principal point—are found to be as long as, or nearly as long as they are represented, whether some reasonable reform will be made; and thirdly, whether he will give an assurance that none of the warders who bring forward a matter in a reasonable way shall be subject to any disabilities, and if any case of that kind is brought to his notice whether he will put the matter right.

I would like to back up the appeal of my hon. friend to the Home Secretary on behalf of two classes of public servants, the prison clerks and the prison warders, and particularly the case of the prison warders. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have had close connection with prison warders for quite a number of years, and I must say that while their duty was to make my stay under their charge as unpleasant as possible, I always sympathised with the position which they hold. Really the prison warder, in the discharge of his duty to the public, has to undergo a kind of half penal servitude existence himself. He has to submit to semi-imprisonment in order to fulfil the duties he undertakes to discharge for the public. Then, again, a great responsibility is thrown upon him—more so than on any other class of public servant—considering the little remuneration he gets for the work. He has to be more vigilant than any other public servant during the whole time he is on duty, and as my hon. friend has pointed out, night duty is specially hard in his case. I think, taking all these facts into consideration, these men are not paid as they ought to be by the public funds. I cannot ask the right hon. Gentleman to borrow much that is worthy of imitation in the public life of America just now, because America seems to be following the bad example of England in many respects, but in the matter of payment for duties of this kind, in the matter of remunerating prison warders, America is far more generous than this country is. The same may be said in reference to the salaries paid to the prison warders in the Australian Colonies. In every one of these colonies to which I have been I have found that the pay and the conditions of service are much more favourable than they are in this country. I trust, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will take the case of prison warders and prison clerks into his consideration, and will try and see that these men get a better wage for their duties.

I only wish to add one word in support of the appeal of the prison officials. It is necessarily monotonous and irksome to be continuously associated with prison people, and I would suggest to the Home Secretary that he should take into consideration the desirability of giving the officials more recreation and more opportunities for promotion.

There can be no question that the post of the warders is a very monotonous and irksome one, and at the same time considerable responsibility is attached to it. I am, therefore, not surprised that hon. Members should say that they are not adequately remunerated. I have taken some pains to look into the matter. The hon. Gentleman who asked me certain questions spoke of the duties which are imposed on the officials by the new Act of Parliament, and it is perfectly true that those duties have increased as regards the number of books that have to be kept, and other matters. The hon. Gentleman has also said that the hours are too long. Upon that subject I am quite prepared to admit that there is room for improvement in various directions. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that in 1891 a Committee, presided over by Lord De Ramsey, went into the question of the hours of prison warders, and the standard which was then fixed has more or less been the rule since. They recognised that ten hours a day were about the standard hours of work. I find that the hours work out on the average at about 8¾ per day, with certain excesses at Holloway, Wandsworth, and Pentonville. As regards night duty, I believe that night duty takes place in one prison two days a week, and in all the other prisons one day a week. But what is night duty? It is going on duty at eight; from eight to ten having to sit in the mess room, or wherever the official likes—though, of course, he is liable to be called upon—and then from ten to six he is at liberty to go to bed. Then there is the question of evening duty. There is no doubt that at Holloway, which is the great receiving prison for London, the evening hours, which ought to be from six to eight, are very often extended up to nine and ten by reason of the frequent admissions. I admit that this is a state of things which ought to be remedied, and I will give my attention to it. I think, however, the present state of affairs can only be improved by some increase in the staff. I have for some time been considering the matter, and I am at the present moment in communication with the Treasury with that object in view. With regard to the clerks, I have no figures before me, and no particular item of which I can speak. I can, however, say that I have done my best to secure some promotions, and the position of clerks has been greatly improved.

I am glad that something is going to be done for English warders and English prison officials, and if I move a reduction of this Vote, I move it because we have in Scotland a class of men of the same character who are very much worse paid. In England, chaplains are, on the whole, paid a fair salary. The salaries begin at £300, and are increased to £400. But in Scotland they begin at £200, and are only increased to £300. A Scotch chaplain has to undergo a very severe training, and he requires to spend seven or eight years' hard work before he can be ordained. A commencing salary of £200 a year, therefore, is too small, and you cannot expect to get a good class of men. If I appear to be moving the reduction of the English level down to the Scotch level, it is really for the purpose of raising the Scotch level to the English. But after all I move this reduction rather from the standpoint of the medical profession than from that of the clerical profession. I dare say the function of a clergyman is a very useful one, but the medical officer is absolutely necessary, and I think under the prison system even in England the profession is not overpaid. In England the salaries of medical officers start at £400 and are increased to £500. I do not say that that is too much, and I move my Amendment more for the purpose of levelling up than of levelling down. But in our Scotch prisons the same class of men begin at £200 a year.

On a point of order, is the hon. Gentleman really en- titled to discuss the position of things in Scotch prisons?

He is entitled to move a reduction on the ground that the English officials are paid too much.

I do not say that the English officials are paid too much, but that the Scotch officials are paid too little. You cannot get a decent class of men to enter your service if you pay them so miserable a sum. I think the position of our Scotch medical officers ought to be considered as well as the position of the English warders, and I therefore beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.

Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That That a sum, not exceeding £415,061, be granted for the said Service.—( Dr. Clark. )

On behalf of my constituents, I protest against the action taken by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness. Because he thinks he has a better opportunity for raising a Scotch question upon this Vote than upon another, he raises it now when Scotch Members are elsewhere. I think, considering the large amount of time which is given to Scotch Members, we might be spared this occasion for the purposes of English Members.

I am very glad that my hon. friend has brought up this question, as this is very likely the only opportunity we shall have of discussing a matter of great importance to our country, and the Home Secretary will no doubt be glad enough to——

Order, order! What I said was that the hon Member for Caithness was entitled to nerve a reduction of the Vote on the ground that the salaries paid to the public officials to whom he referred were too great, and that he could use an illustration to show that they were too great. I do not think a discussion of the Scotch question is in order.

Under the circumstances, I do not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, but I can tell the noble Lord that the only chance we have of getting anything is to plead poverty continually, as Ireland has done. We are taxed to the highest extent possible, and at the same time we are underpaid. I beg to withdraw my motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

The new rules for the government of convict and local prisons have too recently come into operation to enable us to discuss them at any great length; but my object this afternoon is to call the attention of the Home Secretary to the question of education in convict and local prisons. I think the matter was considered by a Departmental Committee in 1885, and the facts showed a great deficiency of education in prisons, and there was a general consensus of opinion that an improvement in the selection of the subjects of education, and in the education itself, was desirable. There is an appalling amount of ignorance prevailing among the prison population of this country, the number of those who can neither read nor write is enormously high, and the standard of education given is of the lowest character. This being so, it is a matter of great regret that under the Bill of last year not a great deal has been done with respect to this matter. I am not altogether an admirer of the American system, especially that adopted at Elmira; still it is, in regard to prison education, an example which it would be desirable to follow. I earnestly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give his sanction to the proposals which the School Board are making with reference to the local prisons in London. Last year, under the School Board, some lectures were held in one prison with great advantage, and they only entailed a small amount of extra labour in the prison. I think the right hon. Gentleman might go a little further and allow an evening continuation school at the prison at Wormwood Scrubs. I do not say the persons who do not wish to attend should be compelled to do so, and I believe very few of the prisoners would refuse to attend if asked. At the same time the discipline of the prison would be very little disturbed by it. I think such a departure would be productive of very great good. There is one other subject I would like to refer to, and that is the plank bed. Mr. Justice Mathew, in sentencing a prisoner at a recent assize, used some remarkable language with regard to the hardship and the inhumanity of the practice of the use of a plank bed. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will do the utmost in his power to limit the use of it. If that were done I am sure a good deal would be accomplished in the way of prison reform.

I merely desire to refer to the answer given to me by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has shown by that answer that there is a conflict, as to the facts of which I wish to get to the bottom. He said that the average hours were from seventy to ninety a week; but I think that must be for the whole of seven days. The right hon. Gentleman explained that the night duty was not nearly so onerous, that it extended from eight o'clock in the evening to six o'clock in the morning. But the warders have told me that they have to do that after a regular day's duty, which has terminated at six or seven o'clock in the evening. I shall be glad if the Home Secretary will inquire into these two matters of Sunday duty and night duty, and if the statement of the men is correct no doubt the matter will be put right. I would also ask whether it is correct that punishment has been inflicted upon any warder for making complaint on these matters in a proper way.

I cannot answer off-hand, but I will inquire, and if the hours are as the hon. Member suggest, the matter shall be put right. As to any warder being reprimanded for having made complaints, I am sure the Commissioners would not be influenced by such a circumstance. Upon the question of education, it is a well-known fact that it is largely the uneducated classes that compose the prison population. It is certainly very desirable to do what we can to improve the education of such prisoners, and under the new rules very considerable steps have been taken. Every prisoner under the age of forty, and not up to a certain standard, is entitled to four hours' instruction per week. The conditions in that respect are much in advance of what previously existed. With regard to the proposal of the London School Board, referred to by the hon. Member behind me, that is sprite new to me, and I should have considerable hesitation about accepting it without a great deal of consideration. It is a subject I should refer to the Prison Commissioners for a report. It is perfectly true that the last report of the Prison Commissioners does point out how lamentably short of any reasonable standard the great bulk of our prisoners are, but they also state that in the case of prisoners under thirty years of age, there has been a considerable increase in the educational standard.

I am very glad to hear of the great progress which has been made in the way of providing education for illiterate prisoners, and I hope that further facilities will be provided in that direction. The right hon. Gentleman is going to take the case of prison warders into consideration. Will that include the salaries and duties of female as well as of male warders?

Of course.

I am glad to hear that, because I have heard that the women who have to perform this very disagreeable duty are not paid at a similar rate to that of the men.

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I made no promise as to salaries, but only to inquire whether the hours are excessive.

I understood the right hon. Gentleman would take that as well as other matters into consideration, and as he generally brings a very fair mind to bear upon these questions I hope, with the facts which have been put before him, he will really consider whether or not male and female warders are underpaid for the discharge of this very troublesome duty. With reference to the support of what are called Imperial convicts in Australia and Tasmania, the amount stated in the Vote appears to be rather large for the maintenance of the few still remaining. I went to see some of them when I was out there, and they appeared to be mostly old men. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied from the reports he gets that these convicts are really in existence? I assume he has some data which will satisfy him whether the number is decreasing.

There is no doubt about the accuracy of the figures.

Before the Committee pass this Vote, I think it is only right that some expression should be given to our gratification, both to the Home Office and to the Prison Commissioners, at the comparatively small area of criticism which their administration has offered during the last year. I say this, because of all branches of administration prison administration is, perhaps, the most difficult in its details, if not in its general principles. Undoubtedly, as it is conducted in these days, it is subject to a lunch greater amount of public attention than used to be the case. During the past year there have been introduced, with the general assent of all parties in the House, a number of changes in our prison system, all of which are in the direction of greater humanity and elasticity. It is gratifying to find from this Debate that the result of those changes has been not to increase but rather to curtail the area of legitimate criticism, and I do not think we should be doing justice to those who have charge of this very responsible part of administration if we did not offer them our congratulations.

Question put, mid agreed to.

8. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £124,195, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Expense of the Maintenance of Juvenile Offenders in Reformatory, Industrial, and Day Industrial Schools in Great Britain, and of the Inspectors of Reformatories."

I move the reduction of this Vote by £500. This has been a mischievous item of expenditure. A Departmental Committee, of which I was chairman, appointed in 1894 to inquire into the subject of the industrial and reformatory schools in Scotland found that the children were educated not under the Scotch code but under the English code, and that instead of being inspected by the Scotch inspectors of education they were inspected by English inspectors. The result is that the education of these children is kept back, and they are sent forth into the general community earmarked as children who have received their education in either a reformatory or industrial school. Last year the right hon. Gentleman promised to give this matter his consideration, but nothing has been done. The Committee to which I have referred recommended that these schools should be transferred from the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary to that of the Secretary for Scotland. It was also found that ninny of the children in these schools had previously passed the English fifth standard two or three times, while if the schools had been under the Scotch code they could have been advanced to the sixth or ex-sixth standard. No legislation is needed to put that particular matter right, but by a stroke of his pen the right hon. Gentleman could direct that the education should be given according to the Scotch code, and the inspection be by Scotch inspectors. The benefits of such changes are obvious. There is a still greater mischief arising out of that anomaly. It is not good for them that these boys and girls should be constantly reminded of having been reformatory school pupils. It is desirable that all such connection should be forgotten, and that the children should be allowed to mingle, without being ear-marked, among the general population. But when these children go forth, if they speak of any educational matter they at once betray their ignorance of the current arrangements in Scotch schools, and immediately they will be asked where they were educated. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some satisfactory assurance that this simple and obvious defect will be grappled with, and the recommendations of the Departmental Committee in this respect carried out. No such anomaly prevails in Ireland, as there the management of reformatory and industrial schools is under an Irish Board, but that, however, is a different matter. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £500.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £123,695, be granted for the said Service."—( Sir Charles Cameron. )

My hon. friend has referred to the Report of the Scotch Departmental Committee. May I, in support of his argument, call the attention of the House to the Report of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Committee of 1894? They recommended that the Scotch schools should be transferred to the Scotch Office, so that there is no difference of opinion among experts, or among those who are well able to judge, that this transfer should take place. It seems to be merely a matter of persuading the Scotch Education Department and the Home Secretary to move in the matter, and really to carry out what is certainly most desirable in the interests of the Scotch educational system.

I hardly understand what the hon. Baronet means by English education being given in Scotch industrial schools. They are all under the rule of a managing committee.