asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has information regarding the arrest of Mr. H. R. Cox, in Nyasaland, on a false charge of murder; whether his accusers have been punished; what are the circumstances; and whether any compensation will be granted to Mr. Cox?

I have no information beyond what appears in the local Press, but I am in communication with the Governor as to the facts of the matter.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the latest published figures of schools in Bootle still show overcrowded classrooms; whether the new council school is sufficient to supply all deficiencies; and whether he will approach the local education authority with the view of sufficient school places being provided immediately?

According to the latest returns in the possession of the Board (which are for last month) the average attendance exceeded the recognised accommodation in three departments by three, six, and eight units, respectively. I understand that if the new Balliol Council School fails to relieve pressure in other schools the local education authority propose to add 220 places to the Gray Street Council School. In the circumstances, I do not at present think it necessary to take further action.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that of the thirty infant school departments in Birkenhead twenty-one are refusing to admit children of school age, because those already on the roll largely exceed the recognised accommodation; and whether he will take immediate steps to insist upon the local education authority providing sufficient accommodation?

I am unable to verify the statement contained in the hon. Member's question while the schools are closed for the Easter holidays. I will make inquiries when the schools are reopened and communicate the result to the hon. Member.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that in the case of the nine infant school departments in schools at Birkenhead which are not overcrowded two charge weekly fees of 2d. and 4d. for infants attending; that three are inconveniently situated at a distance from the homes of the school population; that one has no playground at all; and that two charge fees in the higher classes; and whether, in view of these facts, he will urge the local education authority of Birkenhead to abolish school fees and to provide better school accommodation?

It is difficult to verify the statements contained in the hon. Member's question without knowing the names of the departments to which he refers. If he will be so good as to let me know the names of the departments, I will make inquiries and communicate the result to the hon. Member.

Are the technical requirements of the Code for children enforced as a matter of course, without any regard for the circumstances of the unfortunate parents?

I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman means. The Code, of course, is enforced, and accommodation must be provided for children of school age irrespective of the parents, and under the Acts of Parliament relating to education.

And irrespective of the rates made—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is the law!"]—so that if there seems a necessity the Code is—

The hon. Member had better put the question down.

asked the Postmaster-General why the man who has been carrying out the duties of assistant superintendent at the Torquay Post Office since September, 1913, and occasionally even more responsible duties, cannot be permanently appointed to that position?

The officer in question has failed to display the powers of control necessary for the efficient discharge of the duties of an assistant superintendent at Torquay.

Has it taken six or seven months to discover that?

We are often obliged to put men in charge who are not considered competent to be promoted afterwards, seeing that there are better men forthcoming.

asked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the refusal of the Anchor Line Steamship Company to pay 5s. bonus to men handling His Majesty's mails on board ship, a payment which is common on other lines; and if, under the terms of the Fair-Wage Clause, it is within his province to compel payment?

The Anchor Line Steamship Company is not under contract with the Post Office, but, even if it were, the Fair-Wages Resolution has never been considered applicable to contracts with steamship companies for the conveyance of mails.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is considering the treatment the traders of this country are receiving at the hands of the Portuguese Government, and that the most-favourednation treatment is being deliberately contravened in the case of duties levied on English goods; and if he will confer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the duty at present levied on port wine, and how it may be raised with advantage?

There is at present no Treaty of Commerce between this country and Portugal securing most-favoured-nation treatment in Portugal for British produce and manufactures, but negotiations are at present in progress for the conclusion of such a treaty. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that these negotiations are making good progress, and in these circumstances there is at present no occasion to consider the suggestion made in the last part of the hon. Member's question.

What is the obstacle in the way of concluding a treaty with Portugal?

I could not answer that at the moment without consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the recent speech of Sir Charles Cameron, M.D., formerly M.P. for the College Division of Glasgow, when presiding at the annual meeting of the Cremation Society, in which he protested against the scandalously lax requirements of the burial law, which afforded every facility for the concealment of crime and conduced to the compilation of worthless statistics, and alleged that death certificates given by medical practitioners were filled up in a most perfunctory manner, too often on hearsay and without personal knowledge, and that many thousands of deaths were each year registered which were not certified by any medical practitioner; whether, in the opinion of his advisers, such allegations are well-founded; and, if so, whether it is proposed to introduce legislation dealing with this matter?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have not seen a report of the speech referred to. Under a recent Regulation issued by the Registrar-General uncertified deaths are required to be reported to the coroner. With respect to the last part of the question, the Registrar-General is considering the question of what amendments are desirable in the law relating to the registration of births, deaths and marriages, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement as to legislation on the subject.

Am I to understand from that answer that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the fact that these death certificates are at the present time given in a far from precise manner by medical practitioners?

I should not be prepared to make any sweeping condemnation of the manner in which medical practitioners perform the duties cast upon them, but I have no doubt that there are defects in a considerable number of cases.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he has yet obtained an undertaking from the Argentine Government that, in the event of no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease occurring in Great Britain for three months prior to the 29th June, no embargo shall be placed upon British live stock purchased for exportation to Argentina at the Royal Agricultural Society's show at Shrewsbury; and, if not, whether, in view of the feeling of British agriculturists on this matter and the impossibility of justifying a six months' embargo in such cases, he will, with the assistance of the Foreign Office, seek without delay to obtain such an undertaking?

My right hon. Friend has nothing to add at present to the answer which he gave to a similar question addressed to him by the hon. Gentleman on the 9th March last.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that unless something is settled at once it will render impossible any trade between the Argentine and this country on the occasion of the Royal Show at Shrewsbury?

My right hon. Friend is fully apprised of the importance of this matter, and is doing all he can to bring about a satisfactory arrangement.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture if, in order to discourage the imposition by other countries of a six months' embargo upon British live stock after the most recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain, and to demonstrate British bona fides in this matter, he will forthwith arrange with the Department of Agriculture in Ireland that the policy as between Great Britain and Ireland of imposing such prolonged embargo shall be at once abandoned, and the period thereof, in view of the admitted fact that the incubation of the disease docs not exceed ten days, be reduced to two months, and that such revision of departmental policy shall be notified for the information of other countries?

The policy as between Great Britain and Ireland of imposing an embargo on live stock for six months from the date of the most recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease cannot be abandoned because it docs not exist. The period during which restrictions are maintained varies according to the circumstances, but if the hon. Gentleman will look back over the records of recent years ho will find nothing at all inconsistent with the contention that the six months' embargo imposed by certain foreign countries is unnecessarily long. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to admit that the incubation of foot-and-mouth disease never exceeds ten days.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish Department, at any rate, imposed a six months' embargo upon our stock after the last outbreak in this country?

I understood the question had, reference to the care of the English Department.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether under the Sale of Milk Regulations it is open to inspectors of local authorities to prosecute milk producers for the alleged adulteration of milk by the addition of water on the ground that such milk contains less than 8.5 per cent. of solids when in fact such milk contains admittedly over 5 per cent. of butter fat, and there is no deficiency of solids other than sugar, demonstrating that such adulteration, in the opinion of chemical experts, could not possibly have occurred; and whether steps will be taken by the Board, in fairness to dairy farmers, to secure that no conviction shall take place in cases where the fat content exceeds 3 per cent. unless the public analyst, on whose evidence the prosecution depends, has ascertained also by analysis not merely the percentage of total solids, but, in addition thereto, the respective percentages of ash, milk, sugar, and proteins?

The Sale of Milk Regulations of 1901 provide that where a sample of milk is found to contain less than 8.5 per cent. of milk solids other than milk fat it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that the milk is adulterated by the addition of water. It is open to inspectors of local authorities to avail themselves of this presumption however rich the milk may be in fat, but in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture the fact that a sample of milk is rich in fat, and other circumstances, should be taken into consideration by the officers of a local authority when deciding the question of instituting proceedings, and the Board believe that this course is usually adopted. There is a division of opinion among experts as to whether a deficiency of non-fatty solids due to a low proportion of milk sugar is an indication that the milk is genuine though abnormal, and the Board do not think it desirable that the discretion of local authorities should be limited in the manner suggested in the last part of the question.

asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange the business of the House so that the question involved in the rebuilding of the Quadrant and Regent Street, in the style of the Piccadilly Hotel, may be adequately discussed and the sanction of this House obtained before any irretrievable blunder is committed?

No design for the rebuilding of the Quadrant in Regent Street has yet been settled, and before a design is sanctioned it will be exhibited in the Tea Room of the House.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the use of Blocking Motions adopted on Wednesday last by which the proceedings on the Adjournment Motions were reduced to a farce; and whether he is prepared to take any and, if so, what steps to prevent a repetition of such proceedings?

My opinion on this subject is well known and has been frequently and strongly expressed. I will put down again on the Paper the proposal which I have made in previous Sessions in the hope that it may receive something like general concurrence. I observe there is a Motion down in the name of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Robert Cecil) for to-night. I hope that will be passed unanimously by the House.

Does that mean that the Prime Minister is inviting the House, if I may so put it, to accept the fact of many previous Motions having been blocked by hon. Members, including an important one on Tariff Reform, and to forego the claim of those who were successful in the ballot for to-day?

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give sufficient time for the discussion of the Motion that stands in my name or put down a Motion in his own name?

I would rather put a Motion down in my own name.

Will the right hon. Gentleman put it down and give Government time for it? The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the previous condition proved to be quite ineffective?

I will put it down in my own name, and I will undertake to give a reasonable time for discussion.

Then may I ask what time the right hon. Gentleman will give for it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—it is a legitimate question—and when it will be given? Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the condition of the Notice Paper at the present moment, and is he aware there are Blocking Motions, mainly standing in the names of hon. Members opposite, blocking discussion on every conceivable topic?

I am afraid it is a case of reprisal on both sides.

Certainly!

And it is very desirable it should come to an end. I am sure the whole House will agree that the condition of things is scandalous, and no one could be more anxious than I am that that condition of things should be brought to an end. If the Noble Lord will accept my assurance that I will give time for its discussion—such time as may be needed—as soon as may be, I hope he will not move his Motion to-night.

Would it be possible for the Prime Minister to appeal to hon. Members who have Blocking Motions on the Paper for to-night to withdraw those Motions?

May we take it that the conditions imposed by the right hon. Gentleman last year, that he would not proceed unless there is general assent, no longer holds good, and that the Government will make this a Government matter?

I am satisfied that the general opinion of the House is in favour of the proposal I make. I exact no conditions of that kind. With regard to the Private Business on the Paper, it is not for me to make an appeal. The Government have no desire one way or the other, but I think it would be well if the Blocking Motions were withdrawn.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can say when the Estates Commissioners will reinstate Michael Driscoll, an evicted tenant on the Leahy estate, at Ballinclemsig, North Kerry; whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board, who have bought this estate, are willing to hand over a portion of the evicted holding from which Driscoll was evicted to the Estates Com-missioners so that Driscoll would be reinstated therein; and whether he will ask the Commissioners to take action in the matter?

The Estates Commissioners are in communication with the Congested Districts Board in reference to this case, but they are not yet in a position to say what action, if any, they may take in the matter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the sum of £3,022,011, being the actual and estimated total cost of the Valuation Department up to 31st March, 1915, whether such sum includes the costs of the Ordnance Survey Department in preparing special maps for the use of the Land Valuation Department; and, if not, what will be the estimated total cost to 3lst March, 1915, of these additional services?

The sum referred to includes the costs of the Ordnance Survey Department in preparing special maps for the use of the Land Valuation Department.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

When this Bill was first framed it was intended to give it the title of the Abatement of Imprisonment Bill. As, however, we proceeded with the various drafts of the measure it became evident that while this title would accurately describe the main purpose of the Bill, yet, inasmuch as it appeared necessary to make certain Amendments of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, this title would not have been strictly appropriate. The opportunity has also been taken of adding certain slight but very convenient amendments of the criminal law. As the House knows, this is not the first attempt which has been made to abate the evil of imprisonment as it affects juvenile or first offenders. In 1879, when Lord Cross was Home Secretary, the Summary Jurisdiction Act was passed, under which it was provided that in the case of a first offence the statutory amount of imprisonment, or the statutory fine, could be reduced by the Court, and it was also provided that an offender guilty only of a trifling offence could be discharged upon giving security for good behaviour. In 1887 the First Offenders Act was passed, which definitely aimed at the reformation of the first offender otherwise than by sending him to prison, and gave him the opportunity, if the Court thought fit, of finding surety for good behaviour, even when the offence was one which could be punished with imprisonment up to two years. In 1901 the Youthful Offenders Act was passed, which provided an alternative place of detention to prison. But much more important than this Act was the Act of 1907, known as the Probation of Offenders Act, under which anybody found guilty of an offence may, if the Court thinks fit, be discharged on entering into a recognisance, one of the conditions of the recognisance being that he is placed under the supervision of a probation officer. Considerable, and I am happy to say, increasing use is made of this Act at the present time, but we believe that very much more extended use would be made of it if in every case the Court could be reminded by the presence of an efficient probation officer that they have at their hands machinery for making use of the Act.

In the following year, 1908, two very important Acts were passed. The first was the Children Act, which provided that no child under fourteen shall, in any circumstances, be sent to prison. Offenders between the ages of fourteen and sixteen can only be sent to prison under circumstances which fortunately are very rare, and I think must be very rare—that is to say, that a young offender is so unruly that he cannot be dealt with in any other way. It is provided also under this Act that provision should be made for erecting proper places of detention for children other than prison. The other Act in 1908 was the Prevention of Crime Act. So far as that Act is concerned the Bill which I am now introducing only deals with one part. The present Bill does not touch that part of the Prevention of Crime Act which relates to the indeterminate sentence. It touches only the part of the Act which provides for the establishment of Borstal institutions. It was felt in 1908, and experience of the working of the Act has justified the opinion then formed, that the youthful offender between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one whose character and associations and conduct show him to be on the brink of a criminal career ought to be dealt with otherwise than by the ordinary punishment of imprisonment. Such a person, it was thought, should be sent to an institution where he would be detained for such a length of time, and where his physical, mental, moral and industrial training would be such as would reasonably be expected to give him a chance of rehabilitation.

Such have been the Acts which this House has sanctioned, quite regardless of the party character of the Government or of the majority in the House of the day, with the intention of abating the evil of imprisonment. In all these Acts alternatives to imprisonment have been provided under the law. There is no doubt—I do not think the proposition will be questioned by anyone—that while short terms of imprisonment may be punitive, and may also be deterrent, they can hardly, under any circumstances, be reformative. Moreover, the deterrent effect of imprisonment is greatly impaired after the first experience of the interior of a prison. Beyond everything we ought to avoid, if we can, the familiarising of the young offender with prison walls. But if State control becomes unavoidable, we ought to immure him only under such conditions as will develop the healthy and industrious habits of life, and with only such a minimum of punishment as necessarily belongs to even a partial deprivation of liberty. In the present Bill we recognise all the substitutes for imprisonment now provided under the law. We deal with fine, with probation, with supervision, and with the Borstal institution, but we propose to amend, to amplify, and in certain respects to simplify the existing provisions of the law in order to build up a duly graded system of punitive and reformative punishment which shall give some hope of the restitution of the offender to active, civil life.

4.0 P.M.

I will take the provisions of the Bill in the order in which they appear in the Bill. The first subject dealt with is that of fines. Under Section 7 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879, to which I have already referred, power is given to the magistrate to allow time to pay fines, but, unfortunately, we have found by experience that advantage is not taken of this power to the extent which might have happened. The figures on the subject of fines are very remarkable. In the year ending 31st March, 1912, no less than close upon eighty thousand persons were committed to prison on non-payment of fines—that is to say, more than half of the total of the commitments to local prisons were on such non-payment of fines. Of the eighty thousand who were committed, close upon thirteen thousand paid their fines in whole or in part after commitment, and there is very little reason to doubt that if time for payment of the fines had been allowed in every case a very much larger number than thirteen thousand would have paid their fines rather than go to prison. The evidence on that point reported to me by the magistrates and others who have experience of the subject is undoubted.

indicated dissent.

I notice that the hon. Member for the City of London shakes his head and is somewhat incredulous upon this point, but I can assure him that the evidence from the different Courts—those Courts where time is habitually allowed, and those Courts where the routine goes through as a matter of course and commitment follows upon non-payment of the fine—from the evidence from the two classes of Courts, we find that a very much larger proportion of fines are paid when time is allowed than when it is not allowed.

I understood the right hon. Gentleman said that eighty thousand were committed on non-payment of fines, and that only thirteen thousand paid their fines after they had been committed. I then shook my head to indicate that commitment induced them to pay the fines which they would not have paid if they had not been committed.

I think the hon. Baronet is not right in that view. I think that if time had been allowed they would have paid, and there is very strong evidence upon that point. We propose, therefore, in Clause 1 of the Bill that in every class, with certain defined exceptions, when the fine is under 40s., not less than seven days' time for payment shall be allowed, and in the case of a young offender the Court is empowered to place him under the supervision of a person appointed for the purpose, whose duty it will be to keep an eye upon him and to report to the Court whether he has done his best to pay the fine. Clause 2 enables the Court to extend the time for the payment of the fine. The intention of those two Clauses read together is to carry out the following system: A young offender, being fined, is allowed a week within which to pay. During that week he will be under the supervision of a properly appointed person who will call upon him, talk to him, see how he is spending his time and what he is doing, and notice if the offender has the means to pay the fine, but if the report of the supervision officer is not satisfactory, he will undoubtedly and inevitably go to prison. If at the end of a week the supervision officer reports that the offender, while unable to pay the fine, has still done his best, has tried to find work, and has endeavoured to get the necessary money, then the Court, under Clause 2, will extend the time for the payment of the fine, and from time to time, by extension of the time, full opportunity will be given to the offender to redeem his character and to pay his fine, so long as he shows a desire and intention to obey the law. Too often an offender in the first instance becomes the victim of circumstances later, because he is not able immediately, or within any short time, to find the money to pay the fine, but in such circumstances, though he may not be able to find the money, he will, under the report of the supervision officer, be successful in avoiding imprisonment. The next provision of the Bill to which I wish to refer is a very important one. It is that the fine shall include all costs. At the present time a person may be fined 10s. and costs. It often happens that the costs will amount to two or three times as much as the fine itself.

More than that.

In certain circumstances the costs may be much more, but I on the average it can be said that the costs imposed with the fine exceed the amount of the fine itself. I gave some figures yesterday in the House in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) as the result of a Return for 1903, which is the latest we have, and from which it appeared that the total amount of costs largely exceeded the total amount of the fines imposed. We hope by these means that the system of fining shall no longer in any Court become a mere automatic procedure under which, upon nonpayment of a fine—that is to say, when the offender has not got the money in his pocket—he goes to prison. Each case will be considered, and if time is not allowed by the magistrate, a special report of the circumstances of the case in which time is not allowed will have to be given.

The next subject in the Bill is that of probation. We propose that powers shall be taken under this Bill to recognise societies for the supply of probation officers. Hon. Members will perceive in Subsection (4) of Clause 7, in a paragraph which is given in italics, we take power to recognise societies out of moneys provided by Parliament by payments towards their expenses. Very fine work is now being done by probation officers, but the amount of their remuneration is inadequate, and almost inevitably the supply of efficient officers is insufficient. We hope that by the recognition of societies of this kind we shall be in a position to provide every Court with a competent officer. The duties of the society will not be confined merely to the supply of probation officers. We shall look to such societies also for supervision officers, and, what is not less important, for officers who will undertake after-care, as we call it, for offenders let out on licence, either from Borstal institutions or from reformatories and industrial schools. We hope by means of societies of this kind to establish a philanthropic network over the whole country, and that in due course every young offender on being discharged from a reformatory or industrial school or a Borstal institution will have somebody whose business it will be to look after him, and, so far as possible, to see to the redemption of his character.

I have touched quite briefly upon the provisions which relate to the alternatives to imprisonment—fine, supervision, and probation. Supposing all these methods fail, what is to be done with a determined offender who repeatedly breaks the law, or repeatedly breaks the recognisance under which he is discharged? If his character is not otherwise bad, or if his associations are not such as to lead to the suspicion that he is really engaged upon a criminal career, in such a case imprisonment is unavoidable. If, however, coupled with the convictions, we find that the offender is an associate of criminals, and that the general record of his life is bad, then we think it is a case which can only be dealt with by treatment and detention in a Borstal institution. I am dealing now with cases of offenders between sixteen and twenty-one years of age. The law relating to Borstal institutions, as I have already said, is contained in the Act of 1908. Under that Act the minimum sentence is one year, and the maximum is three years. The period of supervision at the expiration of a sentence is six months. An offender can only be committed to an institution on indictment by Quarter Sessions or a higher Court. We propose under this Bill several amplifications or variations of the Act of 1908. In the first place, we propose that an offender who is proved to be of bad character, or of associating with criminals, and who has been twice convicted of a summary offence, may be sent to a Borstal institution.

We propose, also, while retaining the maximum period of three years, that the minimum period shall be increased to two years, and also that the period of observation at the expiration of the sentence shall be extended from six months to a year. It would seem at first sight somewhat severe to send a culprit to a Borstal institution for a minimum period of two years when he has only been guilty a second time of an offence, before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, but he could not be so sent unless it was proved against him in addition before the Court that he was a bad character. Let the House consider what is to be done in the case of a juvenile criminal of that kind. It is agreed that short terms of imprisonment will never reform, and to send him again and again for two, three, or six months to prison is only going to spoil his life without giving him the smallest chance of reform. If we send him to Borstal are we sending him to prison at all? My answer to that is certainly not. I may remind the House at once that the Borstal institution is quite a modern one. We readily admit that. It is by no means yet fully developed. But our object is to provide in the Borstal institution a place where the offender will not be imprisoned, but will only be deprived of his liberty to that degree which is necessary to ensure discipline; where he will live under strict discipline affecting alike his body, his mind, and his character, and where he will be taught an industry. It is not a prison. It is, or it should be, far more like a school under severe discipline with a strict industrial training. And if hon. Members object to the Borstal institution because they regard it as a prison, then I will agree that their objection is a good one, if it be justified, to the present management of the Borstal institution, but it is not an objection to the principle of this Bill.

For we do not intend the Borstal institutions to be anything like a prison, and as we develop in the management of the Borstal institutions, I can assure the House that they will be more and more removed from anything in the nature of a prison, and become more and more purely reformative and training institutions. But taking a young offender between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one, you cannot effect any real change in his character or habits in a short period of time. I cannot be sure that my figures are strictly accurate as I have not been able to get a definite Return, but I am told that the number of sentences now of one year in the Borstal institution is about one-fifth of the whole. Most Courts recognise that a sentence of a year is insufficient in order to develop new habits. To give an opportunity for the development of new habits, the experience of the management of these institutions tells us that beyond question, in the great majority of cases, a year is insufficient time. I do not say that it is insufiicient in every case, but under the Act we have power to release or licence at any time. A sentence in a Borstal institution of two or three years does not necessarily mean that the offender will remain under detention for that time. He will be let out on licence as soon as ever the evidence of his conduct is such as to justify his release. Far and away the majority of the young offenders who have passed through Borstal have, so far as we can ascertain with our present experience, begun to do well in life. There is a certain number of failures, but we have been able to say that the number of failures is very small.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the percentage?

I could not give them with any certainty, because there is a number that we are not clear about, and we cannot say what has become of them. There is a considerable number who have gone to sea, and we could not give with any certainty a percentage as to the number who have come through satisfactorily.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these inmates are reluctant to leave the institution?

Some of them show no great desire to leave, but, as a rule, like boys at school or like anybody else who is compelled to stay in a particular place, they very often wish to go.

Like Members of Parliament.

Like Members of Parliament, including Cabinet Ministers. My hon. Friend must remember that we are dealing with a class of offender who has committed a breach of the law more than once, and who has associated with criminals, and we are using the time during which he is detained to teach him a trade so that he can go out into the world afterwards and earn an honest living. We are giving him, in the Borstal institution, an opportunity which he has never had all his life. If my hon. Friend thinks that the mere desire of such a youth to be at liberty is sufficient justification for placing him at liberty, knowing as we do that he is still of tender age and is quite incapable, in ordinary competition in the world, of doing even the most unskilled labour, then my hon. Friend is not treating an offender of that kind in the kindest way. I hope that I have made sufficiently clear what is the scheme in the Bill. To sum it up: so far as possible we avoid imprisonment of youthful offenders. The Clause relating to fines deals with offenders of all kinds, but in the rest of the Bill we are dealing only with the youthful offender. Our great object is to keep him out of prison. I, indeed, look forward to the day when no person under twenty-one will be found in any ordinary prison, but we have to go step by step, and I believe that in this Bill we are making a long step forward in this direction. We think that where reformation is possible, we should spare neither expense nor trouble in providing institutions where a new character may be developed, and it is hoped that the combination of prevention and supervision in the Borstal institution will provide a system which will sufficiently deal with all classes of juvenile offenders.

The Bill contains other proposals, but of a minor character. We propose to abolish all short terms of imprisonment for less than five days In substitution for these short terms, we give the Court a new power of detaining the prisoner within the precincts of the Court until ten o'clock at night, and power also, if the local authorities provide proper police cells or bridewells, to order a prisoner to be detained in these cells or bridewells for a period of not more than four days under proper regulations. We deal also with the subject of hard labour. We propose that hereafter no sentence of imprisonment in default of paying a fine shall be given: under conditions of hard labour. On the other hand, we propose that hard labour, no matter what the statutory offence may be, may or may not, at the discretion of the Court, be given in every other case. There is a great deal of misunderstanding as to what hard labour means. The only distinction between hard labour and imprisonment in the third division is that during the first twenty-eight days of imprisonment the offender committed with hard labour is kept in his cell—that is to say, he does not do his work in association with the other prisoners. But so far as the quality or kind of work or the food or other conditions in which he lives are concerned, whether it be for the second or third division or in the case of hard labour prisoners, it is practically a mere question of the medical report on the prisoner. It would depend on the medical report as between the second and third divisions.

I think that the only distinction is, if my memory serves me, that in the second division there is given the option of cocoa which is not given in the third division. But the amount and quality of the food depends upon the doctor's report. It is the same as regards the kind of labour done. The distinction between the second and third division is a distinction of character. In the second division we hoped that the Courts would place all prisoners whose character otherwise was good, in order that they might not associate with bad characters. Equally, we hoped that the Courts would place in the third division prisoners whose characters were bad. so that they might not contaminate prisoners in the second division. Under this Bill we hope to make sure that that division of the classes may be properly effected, and we take power, where the Courts have not themselves ordered the second division, and the prisoner has gone automatically into the third division, that on the recommendation of the visiting justices the prisoner may be transferred from the third to the second division or equally may be transferred from the second to the third division. We hope by that means to avoid the possibility of persons who perhaps are convicted of a first offence, or whose character otherwise is good, being thrown necessarily into the company of hardened offenders.

I do not quite follow it, but does the Bill enable a prisoner to be transferred direct from the third division to the second division?

On the recommendation of the visiting justices, before whom the case of the prisoner would be put, we take power to transfer him from the third to second division. I may tell the Noble Lord that in order to effect this purpose we have had to do something of the same kind administratively. We have not got the statutory authority to transfer from the third class to second class, but we have had to introduce administratively what is known as the "starred class," to which a prisoner in the third division can be transferred, by virtue of his character, to associate with prisoners of the second division. There are various other provisions of the Bill, dealing with the bail and remand and the salaries of clerks to justices, and with the holders of licences and persons under police supervision, all of which I may describe as useful amendments of the law, but of a purely technical character, not involving any question of principle, and about which I do not propose to detain the House now. But they are all matters of great importance to be discussed in Committee, and I hope that when this House is so good as to give a Second Reading to this Bill I may have the advantage of many hon. Members upstairs in framing this measure—many hon. Members who know the subject well, and who could give us the benefit of their experience and of their competent advice as to the form, extension, or amendment of many of the Clauses of this Bill. I hope, after this explanation of the main principles of the measure, that the House will give it a Second Reading. I can assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that, so far as I am aware, the Bill contains nothing of what may be described as ordinary party controversy. On the contrary, many of these Clauses are mere amendments of Bills which have been passed to the credit of Governments representative of the side opposite as well as of Governments representative of this side, and it is in the hope that the House in all quarters will combine in giving us as effective an instrument as possible, in dealing with juvenile offenders, that I ask for the Second Reading of this Bill.

(who was indistinctly heard): I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is nothing of a party character in this Bill, which I think is a desirable one, and certainly should have a Second Reading. I desire to offer some criticisms on matters of detail contained in the Bill, and possibly some points of congratulation. I am not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman into the naming of the Bill; it does not very much matter what the Bill is to be called; but certainly upstairs it will be called an Omnibus Bill, a Bill containing powers on very varying subjects and in very varying degrees. Personally, I wish there were more Bills of this kind containing small reforms, which are neglected while other questions of no use to anybody are dealt with in this House. The first Clause of the Bill is one which relates to fines, and I myself support it. The Clause provides that a man who is fined for a small offence shall have time allowed him in which to pay, instead of his being sent to prison on default. The Clause is restricted to fines within 40s., but I do not see why that restriction should be made, and it is also restricted to Courts of Summary Jurisdiction. I do not understand the meaning of those restrictions. This is a matter which I have brought before the House, not once, but, I suppose, twenty or thirty times during the years that I have been a Member. This House yearly creates fresh offences for which people may be fined.

There have been more fresh offences created in the last eight years than in any other eight years in even early days. Under the Children Bill new offences have been created and made the subject of fines. Every municipality, county councils, and so forth, nowadays must have their by-laws, which, again, create numberless offences for which fines are imposed, or, in default, imprisonment. A man may be fined for not carrying his bicycle, or for not having a light on his cart, and there are a great many of that kind of cases. It was Lord Brampton who said that these by-laws were a test of the efficiency of a police force, when it was seen how many people were brought before the Sessions for small offences under by-laws. He said that if you found numerous charges before the Petty Sessions of persons riding without a bicycle light, or riding on the footpath, or offences of that character, it was perfectly certain that the police were not doing their duty in looking out for criminals, but were simply looking out for offenders under the by-laws. A policeman often brings an unfortunate offender from the other end of the county, perhaps seven miles or more, on the charge of his not having carried a light on his bicycle, and the man will be fined 1s. or 2s. and costs, while the policeman gets his day to give evidence in the matter. If the man cannot pay, he goes to gaol. I do not suppose that there is anything more distressing than to go over a prison and see the tremendous number of people in gaol simply because they have not been able to pay fines. I hope that this House in future will be less inclined to create those fresh offences.

So far as it goes, I think this Bill is a distinct gain, and, at all events in the smaller cases, the offenders will have time to pay the fine. I quite agree with the light hon. Gentleman that the power which already exists has not been sufficiently exercised throughout the land. The power is vested in the magistrates, but for some extraordinary reason it has not been exercised. This Bill will alter that, and will apply the power in a different way. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt in detail with the question of juvenile offenders, but he omitted to mention what appears to me to be a very important Clause of the Bill, namely. Clause 4. I do not know that I quite rightly understand it. The Clause reads:—

"Where a person has been summarily convicted of any offence and sentenced to pay a sum of money, the Court by which he is convicted may order him to be searched."

If a man has any money upon him it is found before anything happens. I think that is a very useful provision, and I should very much like to know how it is that this great improvement has come to be put forward. I think I may make the observation, in the absence of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who is so anxious for the liberty of the subject, that I do not very much mind whether a man is searched or not. I was wondering whether the Clause was really aimed at certain people at one time known as "passive resisters." Sub-section (2) of the Clause says:—

"Where a warrant of distress is issued by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, it shall authorise the person charged with the execution thereof to take any money as well as any goods of the person against whom the distress is levied, and any money so taken shall be treated as if it were the proceeds of sale of goods taken under the warrant, and the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts shall apply accordingly."

I quite agree that if a man will not pay a fine of 4s., though he is in a position to do so, the Court certainly ought to have the power to get the money somehow or other, and the man should not be allowed to make a martyr of himself by going to gaol. There might be means to seize his banking account, which is found to be effective in the Law Courts. A man's banking account can be garnisheed in order to secure payment, and if it were seen that an offender refused to pay a fine, though he had the means and insisted upon going to gaol, people would have very little sympathy with him when they-knew that he had a banking account, and those people who had not banking accounts would have no sympathy with him at all, and would say that he ought to pay and that he ought not to be able to put himself in the position of a martyr by going to gaol. I would very much like to have known the history of this most excellent Clause, which I am strongly in favour of, and I should like to hear from the Home Secretary how it has come to be inserted. Then conies Clause 5, which deals with the allocation of fines and fees, and the question of costs. I honestly do not understand the Clause. Does it mean that only when a man is poor the fine is to be inclusive of the costs, and that if the man be rich he will have to pay the costs, or does it mean that whether the man be rich or poor the costs are to be included in the fine? Does it mean that in every case?

It would not mean the inclusion of the costs in every case—in trade-mark proceedings, for example; but it would include the Court fees in the case of an ordinary fine in an ordinary case. It would really mean that in an ordinary summons against a poor man the Court fees would be the only costs, and they would be included in the fine.

In the case of a poor man the fine of half a crown would include the costs, but would that apply also to a man perfectly well-to-do?

In a case where a man has made a defence to the action he would have to pay those costs, and he might have to pay the costs on the other side, but the fine would include only the police costs—the Court fees.

Even in the case of a rich man?

Yes, even in the case of a rich man.

Clause 5 says:—

"A Court of Summary Jurisdiction in fixing the amount of any fine to be imposed on an offender shall take into consideration, amongst other things, the means of the offender, so far as they appear or are known to the Court, and where a fine is imposed, the payment of the Court fees, and any police fees payable in the case up to and including conviction, shall not be imposed in addition to the fine."

I am very much obliged that the right hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear that in all cases the fine is an inclusive sum, and it is a change with which I heartily agree. It is an excellent change in the law, so far as it goes. The person knows how much he will have to pay, and the magistrate knows exactly the amount he can call upon the offender to pay. We come to the question of probation. I do not know that that is any very great change from the existing law as regards probation officers. I do not see any objection to power being given to subsidise voluntary societies if the right hon. Gentleman says that these officers cannot be got without that. The next question to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and one which I am afraid I must differ from him, is that of the Borstal system. Taken as a whole, I think we must not put too high a weight upon it, and I think the right hon. Gentleman put the matter too higldy. He says that Borstal is not a prison. I really think it is playing with words to say that it is not. I have been over it, and, while I believe it is an excellent institution, I regarded it as a prison, and a very good form of prison. You ought not to send anybody there unless you are satisfied that they are young criminals, or have been convicted more than once, and really have begun a criminal career. When you send them there you send them to a prison under any definition that I know. Their liberty is interfered with very materially, and the intention is that their stay there should be punitive and reformatory. I agree that it is at present exceedingly well managed by those who take an interest in the boys, and that it is far better than the old reformatory schools which got a very bad name. There is not, however, the slightest doubt that it restrains liberty, and it is unquestionably a serious sentence on a boy to deprive him of his liberty for two years. The hon. Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles) asked what I thought was a very pertinent question by inquiring whether we had got any statistics relating to the Borstal boys. I do not think the statistics are so very satisfactory. I have found, personally, that boys have come back again after having served their time.

What I desired to elicit was, if possible, how the number or percentages of redeemed persons compared at Borstal with those in ordinary prisons, and what proportion of recidivists there are in Borstal prisons compared with those in ordinary prisons.

They are very much better, I think, than ordinary prisons, but certainly a certain number come back. I think it is rather a mistake to send a boy a second time to Borstal. We are not here, however, to discuss the general system of Borstal treatment. I must enter a caveat against what the right hon. Gentleman said when he remarked that he hopes the time will come when nobody under twenty-one will be in gaol at all. I think that is a great mistake. Take the case of two boys of eighteen and nineteen of respectable family who have indulged in a career of crime for some months, and are finally caught. Are those boys to go without any punishment at all? Probably people will say not.

I said not in an ordinary prison.

If you send the boys in that case to which I refer to Borstal for two years you are doing so at the expense of the State, and it is certainly a mere waste of money and a great hardship on the parents, who do not wish to have the boys taken away from them. Surely in a case of that kind of boys of eighteen and nineteen an ordinary short term of imprisonment is a necessary evil. I quite agree with the Home Secretary that we should first think of the reformation of the prisoner, but we have also got to remember punishment of the offender and the deterrent to others as well as the reclamation of the prisoner. It is too one-sided to say that no person under twenty-one should ever be sent to an ordinary prison but ought to be sent to a Borstal prison. This Bill does not deal very deeply with the Borstal system. It makes two alterations, one of which I am thoroughly at one with. Under the present system you cannot send a boy to Borstal for less than one year. Some do send boys for that time. I think it is plain not only to the people at Borstal, but to the people elsewhere, that you cannot reform a boy in one year, and therefore you ought to send him for the maximum time of two years. This Bill proposes that the term shall be not less than two years and may be three. That, no doubt, does seem a long time, but on the whole I think it will be an improvement. But Borstal ought not to be used lightly, and there should only be sent there cases fit for Borstal treatment. That applies to young men starting a criminal career, and two years seems to be a reasonable maximum.

The second change which the Home Secretary makes—and I am not quite so sure about liking it until I hear more about it—is the extension of the time of what is euphemistically called the "supervision of the Prison Commissioners," which sounds like the old police supervision, and which is attached to a boy discharged from Borstal. The maximum time used to be six months, and now it is extended to one year. I should like a stronger case made out for this change before I vote for it. Personally, I have a very strong feeling that once a person is out of whatever punishment place he has been at that he ought to have a free hand, and that probation or supervision, if it is compulsory, may interfere with him. For instance, in the workshop attention might be called to the visitor, and people would want to know about it, and the fact that the boy had been in Borstal might be rubbed in too much. I should like a much stronger case made out for an alteration of that kind. Clause 13 provides that a Court of Summary Jurisdiction shall not have power to sentence anybody to a term of imprisonment of less than five days. I do not understand what the objection is to this power, but I see no harm in the provision, although I would ask why it is confined, if it is a good thing, to Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and why it is not extended to Quarter Sessions and Courts of Assize? The Clause also provides that a man may be sentenced to four days, provided that there is a cell or bridewell or other suitable place in which he may be kept:—

"The Court may, if any police cells, bridewells, or other suitable places provided…are available for the purpose, order the person to be detained therein for such period not exceeding four days."

5.0 P.M.

I do not see what the object of that is. If there is no suitable place, and if a sentence of four days is passed, apparently the man is to go free. I hope somebody will explain what the object of this Clause is. Has it anything to do with the difficulty where a man was sentenced under the Children Act to a whipping, and where there is no power to detain at present? There are certain Clauses altering the Malicious Damage to Property Act. They have not been explained or why the trouble has arisen or why the alteration is needed. Has it anything to do with window breaking under £5 in value? There is, then, a further very important alteration to which the Home Secretary did not refer, and which is contained in Clause 15, Sub-section (2). At the present time if a man who has been charged with an indictable offence comes up before the magistrates, they have no power to deal with him, and they have to send him to Quarter Sessions. It is proposed to alter that state of affairs. I do not quite know personally why this is done, though I have no objection to it. It is a considerable alteration to which the Home Secretary did not refer. It gives extra power to the magistrates. The Home Secretary did deal with Clause 16, which provides that where people are imprisoned in default of a fine they must be imprisoned without hard labour. I was under a complete misapprehension as to this. I thought if a person was sent to prison wth hard labour that not only was he worked slightly more, but that he received more food than if without hard labour. The right hon. Gentleman tells me that the scale of diet is the same in both cases, and probably it has been altered. I agree that the proposal would be an advantage. Then there is a very important Clause, which the Home Secretary did not mention, and which in its present form may land the Home Office in some difficulty. It is proposed that where a man is in prison, whether sentenced or not, and it is found that he is suffering from ill-health and an operation is necessary, the Secretary of State may order the prisoner to be taken to a hospital, or other suitable place, for the purpose of treatment or for an operation. I think I know what was intended to be met by this provision. It was probably the case of a prisoner who absconded when on bail under these circumstances. But this Clause goes much further. As it stands, if the prison doctor says that a prisoner is suffering from a complaint which requires a surgical operation to be performed, the Secretary of State may make an order that the prisoner shall be operated upon. That certainly is not what is intended, and I hope that some such words as "with the consent of the prisoner" will be inserted.

Another point to be considered is, Will the time that a man is in hospital count as part of his sentence? Suppose a man is sentenced to three months' hard labour and is in the hospital for six weeks, will those six weeks count as part of his term of imprisonment? I agree that it ought to do, but, having consulted other people, I have obtained divergent views as to the effect of the Section. As it stands, I doubt whether the time so spent would count as part of his term of imprisonment. The words are "deemed to be in legal custody," which is a much wider term than "gaol." If a man escapes from a constable in a railway train he escapes from "legal custody," not from "gaol." The Home Secretary has not told us anything on that point, and I do not know why it is necessary that this power should be given. I am quite prepared to give such a power, but I should like the Clause to be made clearer on the points which I have indicated. I expect that the case which gave rise to the provision was that of a man who had been remanded for trial, the jury disagreed, and the case went over to the next Sessions without bail. I think that in that case the man, being seriously ill, was taken to the hospital, and when he left the hospital he did not come back to gaol.

Clause 18 puts a tremendous stop on the powers of magistrates—a provision which I am very glad to see. A habit has become prevalent amongst magistrates—and stipendiaries have been greater offenders than unpaid magistrates—of giving consecutive sentences. That has been held to be legal, therefore I presume that it is, but I am perfectly certain that it was never intended. If a prisoner is charged with three offences he is sometimes sentenced to six months' hard labour upon each. The result is that he is sentenced to eighteen months. I do not think that such a sentence ought to be within the power of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Therefore that Clause will have my whole-hearted support. Clause 22 is not easy to understand, but as a result of considerable cross reference I understand what it means. At the present time a policeman in charge of a police station has power to grant bail if he cannot bring a man before a magistrate within twenty-four hours. I understand this Clause to provide that he shall have that power in any case. I hope that before the Bill becomes law some simpler form of drafting will be found. The provision of Clause 24 is, I believe, a distinct improvement, but I should like to know why it is proposed. Clause 25 adds to the power of the Secretary of State, and I am not quite so sure about the advisability of that. It is, however, a matter of detail, and a point for Committee, therefore I will not trouble the House in regard to it.

Clause 27 (3) deals with bigamy cases, and its effect ought to be made perfectly clear. Does it mean that the real wife is to be a compellable witness against her husband, or does it simply mean that she is to be competent to give evidence? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it quite clear what is intended. Clause 30 has reference to the clerks to justices. At present they are appointed by the local authority, and this Clause makes it essential that the Secretary of State shall give his consent. I am not prepared at present to state my view upon that; my mind is quite open in regard to the matter, and I should like to hear why it is thought necessary that the Secretary of State should interfere in the appointment of clerks to magistrates in Yorkshire, Lancashire, and elsewhere. Speaking as a general rule, I think that considerable care should be exercised before such powers are given to the central Government. There is a slight reference in the Bill to people committed in respect of the non-payment of rates. I shall probably have something to say on that question before the Bill leaves the House. Possibly the Home Secretary will indicate that some change may be introduced in the general collection of rates-collection in advance or some other change—so as to do away with the very unpleasant necessity which exists at present of imprisoning people for the nonpayment of rates. As I shall not be on the Committee upstairs, and shall only see the Bill when it comes back to the House, I am sure that the Home Secretary will excuse my having called attention to these various matters, which are of great importance, especially to the poorer classes, and to those who administer justice in any way. I hope the House will give careful consideration to the Bill, which I certainly think ought to have a Second Reading. There is much that is good in the Bill, but there are other points which require very careful scrutiny before being passed into law.

For my part, I welcome this Bill. I am very glad that the Home Office have at last found time to pay attention to the question of the prison population—or, perhaps I ought to say, to bring this matter before the House of Commons, because I have no doubt it has been under their attention long enough. Unfortunately the House of Commons is so difficult an engine to move that we really cannot get at great matters in which many of us take an interest. It is several years since we had an opportunity of discussing prison matters in this House. I am glad that the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Rawlinson) has given his blessing to the Bill, and I sincerely hope that we shall have the great advantage of his services upon the Grand Committee. This Bill aims at two reforms which I have long desired. The first is to keep people out of prison, and the second is to treat them intelligently if they get there. The House of Commons and the general public know and care far too little about the prison population. The gate is shut upon these poor creatures, the door is locked, and we forget all about them. We think, "Oh, they belong to the criminal classes; they do not concern us; there are quite enough honest people in the world to absorb all the interest and energy that we are able to exercise; what is the use of going on about them?" It is, nevertheless, discreditable to England that we should treat these people on the principles on which our present system is based. I have been very glad to notice in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman a totally different spirit from that which I maintain is the foundation spirit of our prison system. Our prison system is based upon the idea of punishment, revenge, of "paying out" those who have-offended us. Society says to them, "We-will get even with you." The spirit of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman was very different. I believe, and always have believed, that our methods of treating criminals should aim, not at punishment, not at making them pay back their debts, so to speak, but at reform, and reformation, and once more making men of them. We should say of such, "Here is a wheel, a rivet, a rod in the social machine which has got broken or damaged: let us send it to the repairers "—all our prisons ought to be repairing shops. Such a course would be far better, not only for the criminal classes, but for the honest classes, for in this way you would be sending men and women back into the world prepared for an honest life.

I do not forget that we have reformatory schools for young people. We have heard a good deal this afternoon about them. These are a step in the right direction. I am very glad to know that Borstal methods are to be extended and improved by the Bill which we are now considering. I cannot forget, when I think of this question of prison, that poverty and destitution are the dominant causes of crime. It is the difficulty that a man has in getting an honest living that, in nine cases out of ten, turns him into a criminal—probably in a larger proportion than that. Nearly all the offences which we punish arise out of the violation of property rights. If men were already well off, if they had a good pasture to themselves, they would not want to feed in the pastures of other people. I rejoice in this Bill, because its first object is to keep people out of prison. I look upon prison as a bad, not as a good place; not as a desirable place at all. If we can prevent people getting there, if we can prevent them getting the brand, the cachet or reproach of prison upon them, so much to the good; for once got they can never really recover from it. The second object of the Bill is to amend the law in respect to the treatment and punishment of young offenders. There is a very vigorous prison reformer on a bench of magistrates in the county of Surrey, a gentleman, no doubt, well known to the Home Secretary. He is a great friend of juvenile prisoners and criminals, and is a visiting justice at one of the prisons. He was kind enough to show me through one of them. He told me he had paid the fines of many of these young people so that they might get out—had done so, in fact, for a good many years. I went into the cells of some of these young people.

The first man I came to was an Army man. He had received four months for stealing a bicycle. He was perfectly honest and straightforward about the matter. He wanted to get out of the Army and get back home, where there were seven more of the family. His whole object in stealing the bicycle was to get his discharge from the Army and get back home. I took notice of ever so many more cases of this description. I went from cell to cell and found there men who were not really criminals, and who did not belong to that class, but whom our prison system is turning into criminals. One was in prison for selling newspapers at Victoria Station. Another, a lad of nineteen, was in for seven days for having got drunk—the first time in his life. These cases, I say, show the very way that we add to the criminal population. I mention these things to show how glad I am that one of the main objects of the Bill is to prevent people getting into prison, and, when they do unfortunately get there, to treat them with intelligence. I do not deny that a good many very useful criticisms have been offered by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I will not go into them, because I do not know about them, but I say that Borstal methods of treatment which aim at reformation and reclamation, rather than at punishing, revenge, and vindictive treatment, should receive a welcome from this House.

I cannot help believing that our prison population might be doing some very useful work if the matter were properly revised and superintended. There are examples in America and Canada which I will not go into now. There are examples showing how useful colonies of the prison population have been founded. What should be aimed at is to let all these men that we have taken away and deprived of liberty so adjust and rearrange their lives that they will live a healthy and industrial life, cither in the workshop or on the farm. They might earn their own living. Our prison ought not to be an expense to those who are not in prison. It they are, those inside ought to be able at least to earn their own living—and, for that matter, build their own prisons. In that case our Home Office Vote for prisons would be very much smaller. I do feel very strongly that we ought to move in regard to this-population, every individual of which, remember, is a reproach to the rest of us It is these men who are the social pariahs, and who simply indicate that the social machine has broken down. If it were perfect we would not have any criminals. Therefore we are responsible for them, and we ought to do to them what is good for them in restoring them to an honest life, if possible. Such a course would, too, be doing good for ourselves. Society would be freeing itself from those burdens which are now laid upon it. The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to give me some estimates and percentage" of the success of the Borstal system. He tells me that over 40 per cent. of cases are believed to be satisfactory, and 25 per cent. believed to be unsatisfactory. That does not exhaust the whole. The percentages amongst ordinary prisoners and criminals convicted compares very badly with this. I believe as many as three out of four of the prisoners sent to prison come back again. That to my mind is sufficient of itself a condemnation, a most palpable, obvious, and complete condemnation of our present prison system.

I should like to offer a hearty welcome to this Bill. In my opinion much can be done under its provisions to avoid the degradation and humiliation, especially of our juvenile delinquents, that are inherent in our present policy of imprisonment. I should like, however, in consequence of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles), to say that the unpaid magistracy, although undoubtedly it does-err at times in its methods of administering justice, errs rather owing to ignorance and lack of experience than from harshness or any vindictive spirit. The right hon. Gentleman described the latter part of this Bill as containing some unimportant provisions. I should like to refer to one of those so-called unimportant provisions as being of greater importance than possibly the right hon. Gentleman realises. Clause 30 provides for the appointment and remuneration of justices' clerks being subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. I do not agree with my hon. and learned Friend below me that this Departmental approval should be dispensed with. My experience is that many of these appointments of justices' clerks are made as the result of very considerable local pressure, very often in a spirit of nepotism, and result in consequences which even the magistrates themselves subsequently have reason to regret. These gentlemen are appointed very often because they are thriving local solicitors with a large country practice. They hold other public offices—of which I do not complain—besides that of clerk to the justices. But there is a limit to the useful public work of these officials, and I should like to see a condition in the right hon. Gentleman's approval of such an appointment, that the private practice of such persons shall not interfere with their public duties, and shall Dot be increased as a result of their exercise of such duties.

It is quite possible that a gentleman of that sort may be a clerk to a district council and to a board of guardians, and as clerk to a district council may be giving advice to gentlemen not experienced in the law, and that he is constantly advising litigation where there is no real reason for it, throwing a heavy burden upon the ratepayers in consequence. I do not say these, are common cases, but they do exist, and I venture to hope that the Secretary of State will exercise a real discretion in approving of these appointments and prevent unsuitable persons, with a view to their material advantage, becoming appointed to such posts. Considerable stress has been laid upon the provisions of Clause 1 of this Bill. As I understand Clause 1, it does not create any substantial alteration in the existing practice except to lay down that it shall be a rule in future that time shall be allowed for the payment of fines in lieu of imprisonment, and that imprisonment shall be the exception rather than the rule, and shall only be imposed as a penalty when there is some special reason inducing the magistrates to impose such penalty. It leaves it open as to what shall be considered a special reason, and I, for my part, would like to have seen introduced in the Bill some explanation of what will be deemed special reasons in such cases.

As regards Clause 2 there is one difficulty that I foresee in carrying out this provision. That is the Clause which provides an allowance of further time for the payment of a sum adjudged to be paid on conviction or order of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction if application is made by or on behalf of the offender for such further time. In purely rural districts, as a rule, the Court only meets once a month, and the time allowed for the payment of a fine does not exceed seven days or fourteen days. Surely some provision ought to be made to prevent the convicted person suffering in consequence of the Court not meeting within a period during which time is allowed for the payment of the fine. Then I do not understand, in spite of the explanation made in reply to the criticisms of my hon. and learned Friend, the exact meaning of Clause 5. I entirely sympathise with the intention to exclude, if this Clause is intended to exclude, the Court fees and the police fees as an addition to the fine imposed by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, but am I to understand that in such case the fine will be inclusive, as my hon. Friend suggested, or exclusive, of the fees.

Inclusive.

Then I venture to suggest it would be a great improvement if it were made exclusive, because what commonly happens at the present time is that a person may be deemed to have committed an offence which merits a very small fine indeed, of sixpence or a shilling, but when added to the costs, over which the Bench has no control, the actual sum which the accused person is compelled to pay may amount to 10s. 6d., or more. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of this Clause exactly the same thing will happen in future, because the fine, instead of being 6d., will be 10s. 6d., as it will be held to include the 10s. costs. If that is so, it will not be any great improvement on the existing system, which causes an immense amount of embarrassment and heart-searching to benches of magistrates, who feel it a great injustice that a person whose delinquency deserves the imposition of a very small fine indeed, has to pay, in addition, costs amounting to 10s., or upwards, because such is the cost involved in county administration. I venture to hope that in Committee it may be found possible to make it an exclusive payment, and not an inclusive payment, as the Bill now provides. I welcome the provision in Clause 7 for the recognition of societies to provide probation officers, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this provision relating to probation societies, if I may call them so, will extend to cases which are to be dealt with by the Inebriates Bill now before the House. As the right hon. Gentleman may remember, under the Inebriates Bill, for which I think his Department is responsible, there is a similar period of probation provided for—probation either before admission to inebriate reformatories or in some cases after the cessation of such sentences—and surely, if it is intended to include such cases, some provision ought to be added to this Bill to enable that to be done. Otherwise I am inclined to think there would be a lacuna in the case of such confirmed inebriates as are intended to be dealt with by that Bill.

As regards the Borstal system, it seems to me that it is early yet to say whether that system is a success or not. It does undoulatedly present many advantages over the reformatory system while retaining most of the benefits of that system. The greatest of them to ray mind is the very useful industrial instruction which this institution provides, and the possibility of persons who serve their time in such an institution leaving without being regarded for the rest of their lives as having a criminal taint upon them. In Clause 15, Sub-section (3), provision is made that where a child is charged with a felony, the Court may inflict a fine not exceeding 40s. as punishment. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, is there any definition of a child in the Bill, and whether he can say what is the age that is covered by that expression?

Fourteen.