Election. The Home Secretary was sanguine that he would be able to reduce the cost of maintaining the prisoners. According to the judicial statistics of 1874, the average cost of a convict appeared to be £33 a-year, and deducting the labour, value £20, the net annual cost was £13, while the cost of a prisoner in local gaols was stated by the right hon. Gentleman to be £27 or £28. In prisons, however, where the convicts were not engaged upon public worksas at Pentonville, Millbank, and Woking

(Sir Massey Lopes), whose voice had, | In the convict prisons there were 10,000 after a long interval of silence, been prisoners who earned £200,000 a-year; once more heard in that House, speak- but that was the estimated value of their ing with his old force and ability on labour upon public works, and not money the subject of local taxation and the realized from the sale of their work. grievances of the ratepayers, had said Convicts were also mostly in prison for that the blots in the present system were long periods, so that they could be trained want of uniformity and extravagant ex- to work effectually. In the local prisons penditure. No doubt the want of uni- 18,000 prisoners only earned £50,000 formity was a defect; but it might be a-year. The House must remember remedied by a measure less sweeping that the majority of the prisoners in than the present one, which if it had those gaols were only under sentence been introduced by the late Government for short terms, and could not therefore would have been described as an heroic be taught a trade. Did the Home Semeasure. The local ratepayer was to cretary hope that the Government offibe relieved of £400,000 of expenditure, cials would make better salesmen than and the general taxpayer was to be bur- the local authorities? He feared, too, dened to the extent of £300,000. The that in disposing of the mats produced hon. Baronet (Sir Massey Lopes) had by the prisoners the Government would strongly insisted that the protection of be told that they were competing with the police and the punishment of crime "honest labour," and that this objecwas exercised mostly in respect of per- tion might lead to serious inconvenience sonal property, and that therefore per--for example, on the eve of a General sonal property should be called on to pay. Both real and personal property, however, would contribute to the £300,000. It was said that there would be a net saving of £100,000, derived partly from the suppression of a number of small gaols, the concentration of prisoners within fewer walls and under a smaller staff of officials, and partly by the increased earnings of the prisoners. This saving, however, would depend not on the Bill, but on the firmness with which the Home Secretary for the time being exercised the powers of retrench--they cost as much as in local prisons ment and of regulation which would be conferred on him. One supporter and another of the Government would represent to him that a particular prison should not be suppressed. With regard to the reduction of the number of prisons, he might observe that the 27th and the 42nd clauses, taken together, provided for the maintenance of one prison MR. GOLDNEY said, he thought that in each county. Consequently, the Home the details mentioned by the right hon. Secretary would be bound to maintain Gentleman were rather questions for such small prisons as existed at Oak- Committee. Of the 118 prisons throughham, in Huntingdonshire, and in seve-out England and Wales there were 20 ral Welsh counties. There were many county prisons in which there were very few prisoners. The £50,000, therefore, which was to be derived from the suppression of small prisons would be, to say the least, doubtful. As to the £50,000 additional to be got from the earnings of prisoners, he doubted whether the Government management would be so superior as to secure this additional sum.

Mr. Dodson

under local management. Some explanation should be afforded on these points, and he hoped that the Government would consent to adjourn the debate, so that the subject might be considered at quarter sessions before the House was called upon to affirm the principle of the Bill.

with an average of only nine prisoners each, while each prison had four or five officials, and 24 more prisons had an average of only 22 or 23 prisoners. These facts of themselves afforded almost a sufficient justification for the Bill. It was in 1823 that an Act was passed by Sir Robert Peel calling on each county to provide a prison for itself and to appoint Visiting Justices. All the Acts

on the subject of prisons passed since | be not that there should be one prison. 1823-and they were many-had been in each county, but one to be fixed in entirely in the direction of inducing the each locality according to the amount of prison authorities to diminish the num- crime, and he could not help thinking ber of prisons. No doubt originally that under its operation a great saving every man committed to prison was would be effected, and a public advancommitted to the prison of the county tage gained. where the offence had been done. But within the last 25 or 26 years Acts were passed authorizing persons to be committed to some other prison besides that of the county, and in that way some of the expenses entailed on counties and boroughs were diminished, those who were not inclined to incur of themselves the cost of building a prison, making certain contributions to other prisons, in proportion to the number of prisoners committed. It had been complained by a large number of Members on both sides that an enormous amount of additional responsibility and expense was imposed on the local authorities by modern legislation. In this very Session there were five or six Bills conferring larger powers on local authorities, and requiring larger contributions from them. The hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot) said that if they began by taking the prisons they might continue the work by taking the police. But was there not a time when a great outcry arose among the country gentlemen that they should be called upon to bear the burden and expense of the police in the rural districts? The truth was that it was according to human nature that when a power was once acquired an outcry was sure to be raised when it was attempted to remove it. In proof of this he might refer to the boroughs, which fought so hardly when their municipal privileges were attacked, either as regarded their prison, police, or magisterial jurisdiction. Magistrates would have quite enough to occupy the whole of their spare time in attending to the various new duties imposed upon them, if relieved from the task of looking after the local prisons. And apart from the question of economy, which should not be disregarded, if we could diminish the number of gaols and insure a uniform system of regulations, so as to make punishment really deterrent, by that means alone we should effect an object which would be of the greatest benefit to the nation. He understood the object of the Bill to

MR. COLE said, he was greatly disappointed at the character of the Bill. It did nothing with respect to the great question of industrial labour, leaving the Prisons' Act of 1865 untouched as to this, and its simple object seemed to be centralization. It, moreover, furnished no means of knowing what gaols were proposed to be abolished, and it took out of the hands of the Justices the whole power which they possessed, except that of interfering in small matters of general discipline, such as authorizing the Governor of a gaol to put a prisoner in irons, and reporting to the Home Secretary. The abolition of too many of the borough gaols would create great inconvenience and also hardship to prisoners committed for trial. The expense, too, of the removal of prisoners to the county gaols instead of their committal to borough gaols would be great, and this expense would fall on the ratepayers. If a man were committed to a borough gaol he could send for his friends or his attorney; but if he were committed to a county gaol 100 miles off from the place where he lived, how could he consult his friends or his attorney? The Home Secretary proposed by uniform management to obtain a much larger sum from the industrial labour of prisoners than it yielded at present. How was that to be done? Under the Act of 1865 prisoners committed for any period not exceeding three months could not be put to industrial labour at all; and as to those who were sentenced to six months' hard labour, the first three months must be passed in the first class of hard labour under the Act of 1865-that was to say, in carrying shot from one end of the prison yard to the other, in grinding the winch, in going on the treadmill, or breaking stones. The Bill ought to deal with the question of industrial labour. The men who were sent to gaol were generally found to be extremely ignorant of handicraft labour. While they were in gaol they ought to receive instruction in some handicraft trade in order that when they left gaol they

might have no difficulty in earning a living. He regretted extremely that this Bill had been pressed on before the meeting of magistrates at quarter sessions, and believed the Government would find there was a strong feeling against it in the country. As the measure was not comprehensive he should oppose it.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, the Government had no reason to be dissatisfied with the course of the debate or to suppose that if the decision of the House on the second reading of the Bill should be deferred they would be in any worse position with regard to it than if the measure had passed this stage at an earlier period. An hon. Member said the Bill would so fetter by its restrictions the power of the Visiting Justices that practically there would be no use for them. The Visiting Justices were quite aware that their present powers were limited by the discretion of the Secretary of State. The Visiting Justices could go into and inspect private lunatic asylums; but they had only power to report to the Lunacy Commissioners the results of their observations. As to remunerative labour on the part of the criminals, that was a subject of great difficulty. By the system proposed in the Bill they would be able to teach the prisoners a variety of trades, and, taking the proposed scheme into consideration, be able to make criminal labour more productive. What, among other things, they asked the House to consider was the deterrent influence which the measure would in its operation have upon criminals. It would become a reformatory measure and a productive one. It was a measure which was worthy the most serious consideration of the House. The reduction of local taxation was a subject which many hon. Members were fond of bringing before the House, and it was a subject the importance of which he was fully prepared to admit. His own view of the question was that local reforms, regarded from a financial point of view, would become much more practicable after the management of prisons was taken out of the purview of local authorities. The power to which objection had been taken-namely, that of retaining one prison in each county, was practically a safeguard against the evil to which it was contended it would give

Mr. Cole

rise. From the information which had been laid before the Home Secretary he could say that the proper selection of prisons would practically bring each within reasonable distance in each criminal jurisdiction, and that prisoners could be as easily remitted to those prisons as they now were to the existing prisons; it was only in the case of convicted prisoners that the powers of removal for the purpose of classification could be exercised. It had been urged more than once that night that the Secretary of State based his advocacy of the Bill on the ground of great economy, and figures had been largely quoted in reference to that subject; but they might take it for granted that there was a great discrepancy between the cost of prisoners in one prison and in another, but the average per head was about £35 a-year, and deducting the labour earnings of a convicted prisoner from the cost of his maintenance, it would reduce the latter to about £13, and wherever the labour test could be applied they would get the cost of maintenance of prisoners very considerably reduced. One of the effects of the Bill would, he believed, be not only a reduction of prisons, but also of the gaol staffs to a considerable amount. He was satisfied, speaking as a magistrate, and well acquainted with the feelings of the magistrates of England, that they would give their hearty co-operation to the Government in carrying out any arrangements that might be made for the management of the prisoners, just as they had co-operated with the Lunacy Commissioners, and as they had done in carrying out the regulations of quarter sessions. Believing that the Bill would work a great reform in the history of our criminal populations, and that it was a measure of long-called-for relief to local burdens, he thought the House would act wisely in giving the Bill a second reading.

THE LORD MAYOR (Mr. ALDERMAN COTTON) moved the adjournment of the debate.

Moved, "That the Debate be now adjourned."(Mr. Alderman Cotton.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, it would be unreasonable to offer any objection to the adjournment of the debate. Other business having intervened, the House had not had a

MR. GÖSCHEN asked the Home Secretary to lay on the Table of the House information respecting the computation of savings to be effected under the Bill, including superannuations and pensions.

MR. PAGET asked the Government to re-consider Clause 8 of the Bill, with a view to its modification, so as to give Visiting Justices the power of appointing subordinate officers, in order to give them control over those officials. He, however, approved of the Bill.

MR. PEASE asked the Home Secretary to lay on the Table of the House a schedule of the gaols that would probably be closed under the operations of the Bill.

full night for the discussion of an im- | magistrates with which he was connected portant and interesting subject, and the had taken precisely the views expressed Government would not, therefore, throw by the hon. and gallant Baronet the any obstacle in the way of the adjourn- Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter ment. With regard to the resumption Barttelot). of the debate, he wished to point out that to-morrow morning had been assigned to business which it would be inconvenient to alter. Next Monday had been appropriated to the Navy Estimates, and Thursday in next week had been given to the debate on the Irish Land Bill. There would not therefore, he presumed, be any opportunity of resuming the debate on the present Bill until the week following. In the absence of the Prime Minister he would not fix the day, but would move that the debate be adjourned until this day week, in order that the day for resuming the debate might then be named. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, when asked by an hon. Friend (Sir Walter Barttelot) to adjourn the second reading until after the quarter sessions, stated that he thought it would be more advantageous that it should be discussed in that House before quarter sessions than afterwards. He believed that the discussion of that night would very much assist those who might take an interest in the Bill at quarter sessions, and enable them to discuss with greater advantage the details of a measure which was of great importance to the country, and not to the magistrates principally, but with reference to the incidences of local burdens. Considering the important part magistrates had played in the past, and the important part he hoped they would continue to take in the future, the Government had no desire whatever to weaken their position, but every desire to secure their co-operation and assistance; and if the matter were fully looked into, it would be found that what the Bill did was mainly to relieve them from some of the difficulties incidental to their position. The debate might now be adjourned for a period which would enable quarter sessions to consider the measure.

MR. NEWDEGATE hoped that the debate would not be resumed until after next week, when the quarter sessions would generally be held throughout the country, and when many Members of the House would necessarily be absent who were directly interested in the question. He could state the bench of

MR. SERJEANT SIMON asked to have a day fixed for the further consideration of the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, because, after next week, the Members of the Bar who were Members of that House would be away on circuit.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, he would lay what information he could respecting what had been asked of him on the Table. He was sorry that, by the adjournment of the debate, he was then unable to give an answer to one or two points that had been raised in the course of the debate.

MR. WHITBREAD expressed a wish that the right hon. Gentleman would state the bases of the calculation according to which he expected to be able to maintain prisoners at £24 per head.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON urged the advantage of the calculations as to the saving that would be effected by the measure being presented to the House in a clear and intelligible form.

Motion agreed to.

Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

EMPLOYERS LIABILITY FOR INJURIES ΤΟ

THEIR SERVANTS.

Select Committee appointed, "to inquire whether it may be expedient to render masters liable for injuries occasioned to their servants by the negligent acts of certificated managers whom the general control and superintendence of collieries, managers, foremen, and others to of workshops and works is committed, and

WAR DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE (REMU- Second Reading Merchant Shipping (99);