had shown himself desirous to avail himself of the local knowledge and high character of the magistrates, of whose powers the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) was afraid they were to be deprived. On the contrary, the visiting justices would be in a position to advise upon a great many matters of importance. They would, as before, be responsible for much that was connected with the prison management, and also for the appointment of the minor officers. They had also to thank the Home Secretary for the consideration which, under the Bill, he had shown to the Prisoners' Aid Society. He had no fear that the Bill was inflicting any serious blow upon local self-government, for there would still be ample scope in school boards, highway boards, and county boards for those who desired to serve their country in that way. He was, however, anxious that those who had hitherto borne the burden of prison management should continue to interest themselves in it; and he trusted, therefore, that the Government would consider the suggestions for giving those persons a somewhat more extended patronage both in connection with patronage and also with management. He protested against handing over the whole matter to a central despotism, and it was because the Bill did not involve that result, and for the other reasons which he had given, that he should support the second reading.

MR. PEASE said, that the Bill was divided into two parts; one of which referred to the discipline in prisons, whilst the other included the financial part of the question. Of these, that which related to prison discipline was much the more important, but the two portions touched each other very closely, and neither could well be dealt with to the exclusion of the other. It might be perhaps necessary for the Government to contribute to local burdens, and he believed it was right sense, and it possibly might be right sense, to have the prisons transferred to them; but he did not think that it would be wise to meddle with this question of prisons without going a great deal further into the question of local authority and local areas than they had at present done. Further, he did not believe that the mode in which that was pro

VOL. CCXXX. [THIRD SERIES.]

posed to be accomplished by the Bill was a judicious one, or that the other results which it proposed to have in view would be obtained by it. The Bill proposed that, with some small exceptions, the Government should manage all and pay all; but he (Mr. Pease) contended that the Home Secretary had not shown that the evils he desired to get rid of could not be remedied under the present system, nor had he shown that the advantages of the proposed change would not be counterbalanced by corresponding disadvantages. As to removal, it was said that changes could then be made which could not now be made; but under Clause 5 of the Act of 1865 the Home Secretary had very considerable power to remove prisoners from one gaol to another, and, if he required more power, the House would gladly give it to him. The right hon. Gentleman recommended his Bill on the ground of the greater classification of prisoners of which it would admit; but the statistics relating to prisoners afforded but little hope of that. There were, he found, 18,000 prisoners in the borough and county gaols of the country, and of those only about 3,000 were in gaol under sentences of above six months. On the other hand, out of the 9,000 committals in the year, only 6,900, or in round numbers 7,000, were for periods of less than six months, while of the latter portion, those sentenced to imprisonment for terms ranging from six months to a year formed by far the larger proportion. They had the large number of 142,000 prisoners annually committed on short sentences, for offences which, to a great extent, were too widely different to admit of much classification. Out of the 6,900 committals to which he referred, there were nine gaols in the kingdom that had received 2,800 of that average of prisoners on long sentences, and there could therefore be only 2,000 prisoners distributed in the gaols throughout the country under sentence for offences which admitted of any classification. That being so, they could not hope for any great classification under the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman; but even if there were room for it under the existing system, the right hon. Gentleman could effect it under the provisions of the existing law, or, if those were insufficient, the House would gladly make them more complete.

2 G

He thought the right hon. Gentleman's | sent to gaol rather than decrease it. He calculations on the increased value of was strongly opposed to Government the productive work of prisoners were contracts, and he held that if the priequally unsatisfactory. Another object sons contracts were all to be managed which the Bill was to accomplish was to in London, instead of being shared by make uniform the cost of maintenance the different counties, it would lead not of prisoners in the different gaols; but only to centralization of the contracts, the cause of the discrepancies which but to a decrease in the value of the existed in that respect was nothing else commodity supplied and an increase in than the want of intercommunication price. He therefore doubted whether between prison authorities and of a little the Government could contract for what central supervision. For that defect was wanted in gaols nearly so advanthere was also a cause, which could be tageously as the justices had done. The readily ascertained and remedied with- right hon. Gentleman said the Bill would out the necessity for this Bill. The next close about 50 gaols, and there they point on which he based his Bill was would effect considerable economy. That uniformity of treatment. That was one was true enough, he believed; and no of the objects of the Act of 1865, and it doubt it might be done, for in Buckingwas the first time he (Mr. Pease) had hamshire, for instance, there were two heard that that Act had very much failed. gaols with but 90 prisoners between There were Inspectors, and if they had them, but it was not requisite, he conanything to do it was to secure unifor- tended, to pass a Bill like the present to mity of treatment. He had read the provide for the closing of gaols. A very Reports of the Inspectors, and while slight change in the existing system they were full of microscopic details, giving the Secretary of State the nethey were very empty indeed of matters cessary powers would effect that object, touching on the great branches of pri- and reforms and economies might in son discipline. He wanted to know if that way be satisfactorily carried out. the new Inspectors would do any better The Commissioners and Inspectors, he than the old. It seemed to him they were might add, who would be appointed left exactly in the same position with under the Bill would have to be paid, the new as they were with the old. and it would, he thought, be very unGreat cost was to be saved in prison fair to the Secretary of State and his management by turning the whole thing successors in office if, when so much adinto a high Government Department; ditional work would be thrown upon but there was no reason to suppose that them, their salaries also were not inthe Government could manage the mat- creased. In whatever direction he ter so much cheaper than the justices had looked, indeed, he saw very great obdone. They had not shown any great jections to the Bill. It would produce economy in the management of the Post no improvement in the management of Office or the Telegraph Department. our prisons, and give rise to very great Upon investigation Government prison increased cost. The visiting justices had economy vanished just the same as prison very little feeling upon the subject of classification vanished, and he had not patronage, but were they prepared to seen anything to make him believe that hand it over to the Home Secretary the Inspectors would do more duty to and those who might come after him? the Board than they did under the right He, for one, was not, and under the hon. Gentleman. He wanted to know proposed arrangement the double pahow this change of the administration tronage of the Home Secretary and the of prisons would affect the numbers in visiting justices would not work well. the prisons. There were many cases in One of the results would be that the which it was a nice question whether Home Secretary would be everlastingly there should be fine or imprisonment, troubled with hungry half-pay officers and the decision might be somewhat applying for gaol appointments. All affected by the knowledge that a pri- the reforms that had taken place in our soner would be kept at the expense of gaols had not come from the Governthe country generally instead of being a ment. They had been commenced by a burden upon the county rate. If so, he Howard, a Fry, a Buxton, a Gurney, believed the tendency of the Bill would and had been followed up and carried be to increase the number of persons out by the visiting justices. He was

Mr. Pease

in favour of reformation, but he was entirely opposed to revolution and to the system of double government which would be created under the Bill, which, besides, would trench upon the great principle of local self-government and departmental control, to which they owed so much of the independence and greatness that characterized Englishmen and the English nation throughout the world.

matter of prison reform and the treatment of criminals, because country gentlemen would be intruders where they were now lords and masters, and would thus cease to attend to those matters as heretofore; and also because uniformity in prison management was not desirable, crime having its local characteristics, and the criminals of different localities requiring different treatment. These arguments prevailed, and Gloucestershire was one of the counties opposed to the Bill. But if every county were like Gloucestershire, and if every magistrate were like Mr. Barwick Baker, there would be no need for the Bill. In his opinion, every county ought to be brought up to the same standard, a result which could not be obtained without some such measure as this and without uniformity. The Home Secretary had manifested, by the concessions he had promised, a desire to consider the susceptibilities of the visiting justices, and had shown an anxiety, as far as was compatible with the principle of the Bill, to retain among them an interest in their work. The right hon. Gentleman had considered the importance of having the services of an independent body of local men to whom prisoners could have access, so that the public might be satisfied that any complaints of ill-treatment which the prisoners had to make would be looked into. Governors of prisons, however, would very much prefer one central authority to the many masters they had at present, and they would thereby obtain a better prospect of promotion and a readier recognition of any services they were able to give. As to the ratepayer, the Bill was a further step in the direction of relief to this poor beast of burden, now so overladen. Some relief had already been afforded to him by the present Government in the matter of police and lunatics, and the administration of justice was a matter in | every way deserving to be dealt with by the central authority. Coming to the constitutional point of view, he denied that the magistrates were in any sense representatives of the ratepayers, except so far as they were ratepayers themselves. They were appointed by the In his own county (Gloucester-Lord Lieutenant, and therefore in that shire) Mr. Barwick Baker, a most emi-respect owed nothing to the ratepayers, nent prison reformer, opposed the Bill, and were perfectly independent of them. among other reasons, because it would He declined to regard the Bill as a blow put an end to voluntary efforts in the local self-government. No doubt

MR. J. R. YORKE said, the evils of the present system of prison management were great and patent and were becoming intolerable, and the question was whether the Bill was the best remedy for those evils. It had always been pressed upon the Government by local taxation reformers that relief should be given to the local taxpayers; and it was because the Bill was a step in that direction that he considered it both opportune and worthy the support of hon. Members on his (the Ministerial) side of the House. Everyone was agreed in affirming the principle of the Bill, and many of the objections urged against it by the hon. Member for South Durham were applicable to the details of the measure, which he thought could be disposed of in Committee. It secured efficiency, economy, and uniformity of prison discipline, while the ratepayers were satisfied with the financial prospect opened up by the measure. It was, in fact, a continuance of our recent policy in the same direction. A Committee of the House of Lords inquired in 1864 into the discipline and management of our prisons, and the Bill of 1865, founded on their Report, had practically superseded the visiting justices, as far as their individual discretion was concerned. There were three points of view from which the Bill was to be regarded -the point of view of the justices, that of the ratepayers, and that of centralization as compared with local self-government. As to the justices, the Bill had undergone a searching ordeal at quarter sessions; but from a statement handed to him he found that it had been approved definitely at no fewer than 20 quarter sessions, while it was only disapproved, or partially disapproved, at

seven.

to

local self-government at certain stages | ing corporations like that at Warwick of a nation's growth and history was a were of the same mind. But now, healthy and sound development of na- for a farthing in the pound, hon. tional energy; but with the growth of Gentlemen were about to sell their population and new social combinations birthright. The hon. Gentleman who a time arrived when centralization be- had last spoken (Mr. Yorke) was not came absolutely necessary to the due afraid of centralization. But what had administration of national affairs. He been the result wherever centralization could not see that we ran any risk by had been adopted? It was proposed to accepting the Bill, while he did see a begin with the gaols, the next step certain and very real amount of good would be to the county and then to the that would be gained by accepting it. borough police, for they, too, were for He should therefore give it his hearty the protection of life and property. support. He had great confidence in the sagacity and good sense of the Home Secretary, but he was much surprised that he should ever have introduced a Bill of this sort. It was totally different from anything he could have expected. Knowing the magistrates of England so intimately, as the right hon. Gentleman must do, it seemed incredible that he should treat them as they were treated in this Bill. He should give the Bill his unqualified opposition at every stage, for he believed it was the thin end of the wedge of centralization. He asked the House to take warning by what had occurred in France - the country where, from the Pyrennees to the Rhine, every policeman was appointed by the Government. A mob might destroy the Houses of Parliament and burn Buckingham Palace, but the provinces would not bow down to the mob. Our local police and Militia would assemble and join together to put down disorder; and, was not that worth something?

MR. MUNTZ said, he was puzzled with the Bill. Who had asked for it? who had petitioned in its favour? He could not find out. All that he had heard in its favour was, that under the present system there was a want of efficiency, uniformity, and economy. No doubt there might be more of each, but that could be done without the centralizing provisions of the Bill. Hon. Members would be grievously disappointed if they expected that the Bill would conduce to economy. The Bill cast a slur upon magistrates, who were, as a whole, a most estimable and intelligent body of men, but they did not understand the measure. Why take away from them the power of managing their own affairs? Was not that a slur? If his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Taylor) had brought in the Bill he could have understood it; and doubtless some of the Sunday papers expressed their delight at it. He hoped that it would be withdrawn, and the whole subject re-considered before next Session. It handed over the whole country to Commissioners and deprived magistrates of the local influence and powers which they had as a body most usefully and most zealously exercised for the national benefit in their respective localities. The right hon. Gentleman must feel that the response to his Bill, alike in the boroughs and in the counties, had been of the most discouraging kind. He held in his hand a memorial agreed to by the magistrates of Birmingham unanimously, which was directly against the Bill. They had a large population, a large gaol, and not a few prisoners-for it was built to contain 400 persons, and he was sorry to say it was full-but they asked for no assistance from the Government; all they wanted was to be allowed to manage their own affairs, Neighbour

Mr. J. R. Yorke

MR. LEIGHTON believed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) had stated their individual opinions rather with regard to this Bill than those of the magistrates throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor had expressed his surprise that the country gentlemen of England had remained so quiet after this Bill was brought forward; but the reason was they were satisfied with the Bill of the Government. If they believed that a blow was thus struck at the weal of England he was sure that they would have made the country ring with their complaints. It had been said that only a certain number of quarter sessions had expressed a modified approval of this Bill. Speaking for Salop and Montgomery,

re

gestions from any source, and to have encouraged the co-operation of nonprofessional workers. A stereotyped system might, perhaps, be worked best by a high class of officials; but, as long as the repression of crime remained an unsolved problem, so long he hoped the Government would be willing to adopt to its fullest extent the mixed system of official management and unprofessional independent visitation and inspection which were provided for by this Bill, and which he believed to be the surest security to the public for the improvement and development of our prison system.

where he happened to act as a magis- | It would also be an advantage to many trate, he could say the Bill was approved magistrates to have the opportunity of with one dissentient voice in Mont- seeing the different ways in which varygomeryshire, where it was desired that ing sentences were carried out, and thus certain appointments should be left in realizing the operation of the law which the hands of the magistrates and they were called upon to administer. he understood the right hon. Gen- Such names as Howard and Barwick tleman the Secretary of State was Baker suggested that it was from the disposed to concede that point. And outside unprofessional world that reforms Salop had some right to be heard on in the management of prisons had mainly this occasion, for it had absolutely no come; and, although he admitted to the debt at all. It was said the Bill cast a full what had been accomplished by Sir slur on the magistrates and country Walter Crofton, Sir Joshua Jebb, and gentlemen of England, but that was not Colonel Du Cane, they seemed to have the case; and he begged to say that broken professional and official the country gentlemen of England per-straints, to have accepted useful sugformed their duties not for the sake of a little local importance, but from a simple sense of duty, and he repudiated the idea that they desired a retention of power for the sake of giving themselves importance; and he was quite sure that if those duties could be performed more effectually by any other body they would gladly see their own power at an end. He believed that the Bill would secure a better classification of prisoners, greater efficiency in regard to prison discipline, and greater economy. ["No, no!"] He accepted the statement of the Home Secretary in preference to the statements of those hon. Gentlemen who objected to the measure. Questions often arose between friendly Governments as to the treatment of foreign prisoners, and he therefore urged that the principle of supervision independent of the managers which was adopted in regard to lunatic asylums, should be extended to all prisons, and that all alike, including convict establishments, should be visited and inspected by committees of local magistrates. He further suggested that it should be obligatory on the committee of visiting justices to report not only privately to the Home Secretary, but every quarter to their own court of quarter sessions, such reports when adopted to be sent to the Home Secretary and published as a Parliamentary Paper every year. In this manner the light of publicity would be thrown upon the internal management of prisons, the interests of the prisoners would be protected, the hands of the Government would be strengthened, and an encouragement would be given to prison officials by their work being regularly brought under the notice of a body of independent and intelligent gentlemen.

SIR HENRY JACKSON said, that the division on the Bill would probably exhibit as much cross voting as any division of the Session. He should support the second reading, and hoped that the Bill would be passed this Session, for he recognized in it the first step towards the reform of our local government, on which so much stress had been laid both by the opponents and the supporters of the measure. Grave doubts had been expressed whether this measure would secure economy; but it was obvious that a large reduction in the number of prisons must certainly diminish establishment charges, and that uniformity in the management of prisons must produce better results than the present fantastic differences which had been so often alluded to during the debate. As to the attitude of the magistrates being adverse for the Bill, he, for one, would not believe that English magistrates would shrink from doing their duty, even although they might be subject to diminution of dignity or loss of patronage. With regard to the visiting justices, whose treatment was one of the