were so, the Estimate seemed a very low one. There was also good reason for asking how the sum of £25,000 for new buildings was going to be laid out, and upon what prisons? He also wished to know when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cross) intended to give some intimation as to the time at which the different localties would be paid by the Government for the gaols they had taken over? This account might be a very complicated one; but the Government ought to give this information as soon as possible.

to the passing of the Act, £27 per annum, it now amounted to £25 4s. He quite concurred, he might add, with the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) as to the expediency of having much fuller information laid before the House on the subject than was furnished by the present Estimates. With regard to the Act itself, he thought if even it turned out that it worked somewhat economically, it was far from being a satisfactory measure; but he must confess that he had no great expectation, look. ing at the Estimates before the Committee, that it would be productive of economy.

MR. HIBBERT said, he did not wish to discuss the policy of the Prisons Act. What he had risen to suggest was, that if not inconvenient, the Government should postpone the Vote, in order that they might be in a position to give the Committee more detailed information with respect to it. It was of the utmost importance that, in dealing with the Vote for the first time, the Com

what had actually been done under the Act; but, as matters at present stood, they knew little beyond what the number of prisoners was. Now, there would, in his opinion, be great advantage in having before them a statement, showing the number of warders and officers of every description employed in connection with their prisons, and giving an account generally of the way in which those prisons were managed by the Government.

MR. RYLANDS thought it natural that much interest should be felt in the first Estimate under the new Prisons Act. That Act had been recommended to the House on the ground that it would lead to an important saving in the expenses of prisons, and a greater profit on prison labour. There was now some evidence to show that those who thought the Secretary of State for the Home Department too sanguine, were justified in the opinion that the public advantage anticipated from the Act was not likely to be realized. The right hon. Gentle-mittee should be made acquainted with man anticipated that he would save £50,000 a-year in the cost of prisons. On this first year, the entire saving anticipated by the Department in the most favourable circumstances was only £27,000. As expenditure in Government Departments had a tendency to increase from year to year rather than diminish, this saving was not likely to continue. Upon prison labour, the right hon. Gentleman expected to obtain a similar advantage; but as the extra receipts now estimated were stated at £60,000, the profit expected must be considerably less than £50,000. The average cost of prisoners all over the Kingdom was of great interest. It had been represented by Government as enormous under the old state of things; but he had shown that in Lancashire, prisoners were maintained at the rate of £17 per head. In 1876-7, the cost was £27 per head for all the gaols under the control of the local authorities. That included all the small gaols which were so badly conducted, as well as the large gaols conducted like those in Lancashire. The result of the change which had been made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department was, that while the average cost of each prisoner throughout the Kingdom was, prior

MR. ASSHETON expressed his regret that the Committee, owing to the absence of the necessary information, were not in a position to form a judgment as to whether the Government had or had not carried out those financial reforms which they promised would be the result of the passing of the Prisons' Act. He should like, he might add, to know why it was that the very onerous duties of Chairman of the Board of Directors of Ordinary Prisons and those of the Chairman of the Directors of Convict Prisons were discharged by one gentleman? So far as he could see, it would give any one person enough to do to perform the former duties properly.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS thought it was perfectly natural that the inquiries which had just been addressed to him

MR. MACDONALD, referring to the item of £500 a-year for remuneration to the Secretary for personal services, asked what was meant by such services, of which he regretted to find mention made repeatedly throughout the Estimates.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, the personal services rendered in the present instance were connected with the organization of the new system under the operation of the Prisons Act.

question he was of opinion that, perhaps, one authority would be sufficient for the management of the two classes of prisons.

should have been made. He would answer them as far as he was able; but it was absolutely impossible for him to furnish the detailed information which was asked for, inasmuch as the whole system of prison management was in a transition state. During the past year, 37 prisons had been closed in England, and seven or eight more would probably be closed within another month. That process, as the Committee would at once perceive, involved a change of warders and other officers, and a great many local arrangements which could not be MR. PARNELL should feel it to be put on paper until next year. By that his duty at some future time to direct time he hoped to be in a position to attention to the new Rules for the regu. place the Estimates before the Commit-lation of prisons. As to the general tee in such a way that they would be able to ascertain for themselves what had really been done. He might observe that the Estimate which was now submitted to the Committee was less MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, that than that which had been put forward the Rules to which the hon. Gentleman when the Prisons Act was under discus-referred had now been in force for some sion, and next year he expected it would be found that a considerable saving had been effected under the new system. At all events, the account would be set forth as clearly as possible, so that hon. Members might form their own conclusions. He, for one, had not the slightest fear of the result. As to the new buildings which might be required, no Estimate could be given for the first year, and he might also state that arrangements were being actively made with respect to the payments for discontinued prisons. In answer to the Question of his hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Assheton), he could only say that the point to which it related had been fully argued when the Prisons Bill was before the House, and that it was deemed wise to keep in view the desirability of having the authorities of the two classes of prisons amalgamated. The staffs of both were, as far as possible, being worked together to save expense; and, in order to accomplish that object, it was thought advisable that one gentleman should be the Chairman of the two Boards to which his hon. Friend alluded.

MR. WHITWELL felt that it was out of the question that anything like detailed information could be laid before the Committee this year on the subject of the Vote. Indeed, he was surprised that so many details had already been supplied.

Mr. Assheton Cross

time, and that their operation was being narrowly watched by the Government, with the view of seeing whether they could not be amended. Immediately after Whitsuntide he hoped to be able to lay upon the Table Supplementary Rules for the purpose of meeting certain deficiencies which were found to exist.

Vote agreed to.

(18.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum "That a sum, not exceeding £183,665, be necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year_ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for the Expense of the Maintenance of Juvenile Offenders in

Reformatory, Industrial, and Day Industrial Schools in Great Britain, and of the Inspectors of Reformatories."

MR. W. HOLMS pointed out that in Scotland advantage had been taken of the Industrial Schools Act to, perhaps, a greater extent than in any other part of the Kingdom. While, however, the allowance per week for each child in England and Ireland was 58, it was only 4s. 6d. in Scotland. That, he thought, was not fair to the latter country; he believed the increased expenditure in England arose very much from the want of economical management. There was no good reason, he contended, why Scotland should be

placed in that respect on a different MAJOR NOLAN hoped that Irish footing from either England or Ireland. Members would vote with the Scotch SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON Members on this question, because said, that the circumstances of Scotland the argument had frequently been were somewhat different from those used against the former that the which prevailed in England. In the cost of maintenance in Ireland was former country, for instance, the children lower than in any other part of the could be fed on a diet of oatmeal, which Kingdom. That argument had been was not found to answer in this country. advanced with regard to the salaries of The cost of maintenance was, therefore, Civil servants, who were paid less in greater in the one country than in the Ireland than in England; and the same other. contention had been made in refusing to increase the remuneration of national school teachers. It was the policy of hon. Members from Ireland to have the cost of maintenance considered, in the Estimates, as equal all over the Kingdom. He should vote with the Scotch Members, not because he wished to starve poor children either in England or in Ireland, but as a protest against the scale of maintenance being varied in different parts of the Kingdom.

MR. RAMSAY thought the grant should either be reduced in England or increased in Scotland. There was no good reason to justify the difference which existed in the payments made for the support of industrial schools in the two

countries.

MR. W. HOLMS moved that the item for those schools in England be reduced by the sum of £7,000. The question was one which he could assure the Government created a considerable amount of irritation in Scotland, where the maintenance of the children cost quite as much as in this country, though the management of the schools was more economically conducted.

MR. SULLIVAN hoped the Scotch Members would not vote at all. He understood that the promise made from the Treasury Bench was entirely satisfactory. He objected to the Vote, for the reason that they could not improve the Scotch child by pinching the toes of an

Motion made, and Question proposed, English boy or girl.

"That the Item of £103,000 for Industrial Schools, England, be reduced by the sum of £7,000."-(Mr. William Holms.)

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON hoped the hon. Gentleman would not divide the Committee on the question, which, he might inform him, was under the consideration of the Government. He would remind him that these industrial schools had conferred upon the country some of the greatest benefits of modern times, and that it would be a pity that anything should be done which would interfere with their usefulness.

MR. M'LAREN ridiculed the idea that the expense of living was smaller in Scotland than in England and Ireland. Those who advanced that argument might just as well say, upon a comparison of the Northern with the Southern counties of England, that it cost more to keep an agricultural labourer in Yorkshire than it did in Devonshire. Each lived upon his earnings, which were very different. It had been proved with regard to Scotland, not that the expense was less, but only that the expenditure was ground down to a lower degree.

MR. PARNELL said, although Scotch Members had charged Irish Members with obstruction the other night, he should support them in their objection to this Vote, because he thought they were taking a practical course in ventilating a Scotch grievance at that moment. If they felt they were not fairly treated, it was perfectly open to them to move the reduction of the Vote.

MR. RAMSAY said, that, while it might be true that the Scotch people fully appreciated all that had been said. in commendation of their industrial schools, the fact of their appreciation. could be no reason for the State giving them less for maintenance than was given to similar institutions in England. He had no desire to have the children pinched or starved. He deprecated any such result; but he did not think it was at all likely to follow from the reduction of the Vote. When the hon and learned Member (Mr. Sullivan) spoke of the favourable consideration promised by the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry SelwinIbbetson), he seemed to have forgotten that this was not the first occasion on which the subject had been

dealt with in Committee of Supply. Scotchmen had before waited upon one of Her Majesty's Ministers for the purpose of pressing this claim. If it had been the first time, he would have been glad to accede to the suggestion that there should be no division; but, under the circumstances, he was not inclined to ask the hon. Member (Mr. W. Holms) to withdraw his Amendment, because they had no other means of pressing upon the Committee to place Scotland in the same position as England with regard to this question of maintenance.

MR. FRENCH was inclined to support his Scotch Friends, because he thought they had been hardly dealt with. It was all very well to say that the Scotch child cost less; but that might be the result of better management of the schools. He hoped they would be managed in Ireland and England as well as they were in Scotland.

MR. W. HOLMS disclaimed any intention of obstructing the Business of the House, as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell).

MR. PARNELL explained, that he had made no charge of obstruction. He had merely said that the hon. Member (Mr. W. Holms) was doing that which Irish Members had been doing who had been charged with obstruction—a charge which they positively disclaimed. He had wished to imply that the hon. Member was within his right.

MR. W. HOLMS had only said that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell) had made a suggestion implying that he had taken an obstructive course. He ventured to think that if Irish Members were as economical of the time of the House as Scotch Members, Business would proceed much more rapidly than it did. After the assurance from the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), he would not press his Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY would like to have a distinct assurance from the Government as to the course they intended to take, for he thought a clear case was made out that injustice had been done to Scotland. The two LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH countries England and Scotland called attention to the small contribuought to be put on an equal footing. tion of the parents towards the mainteIf it were understood that the Govern- nance of their children at these indusment would re-consider the question, he trial schools. Valuable as these instishould be inclined to ask the hon. Mem-tutions were, their cost was very large, ber (Mr. W. Holms) to withdraw his Amendment; because a Motion to reduce an English Vote did not seem a good way to obtain a boon for Scotland.

DR. CAMERON said, what Scotch Members wanted was equal distribution of State aid. Therefore, he did not think that a case had been made out to induce his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Holms) to withdraw his Amendment. He hoped the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry SelwinIbbetson) would undertake to give the matter serious consideration, and not allow it to be put off from day to day, without anything being done, which had been the case, to his knowledge, for many years.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, he had endeavoured to assure hon. Members that he would consider this question with a view, if possible, of getting rid of the grievance complained of. He could only leave it to the Committee to accept that assurance, which he now repeated.

Mr. Ramsay

and the proportion paid by the parents, he found, did not amount even to onetenth of the sum expended. Their contribution did not exceed 3d. a-head per week; whereas each child would have cost them from 28. to 3s. per week if kept at home. A few years ago, attempts were made to remedy this disproportion; and he wished to know whether those endeavours had succeeded, or whether the matter was still under the consideration of the Home Office?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON agreed with the noble Lord as to the necessity, as far as possible, of making the parent liable for the maintenance of the child while he was at the institution; but the noble Lord was quite aware that the difficulties were very great, first, in the magistrates ascertaining the amount which the parent could contribute; and, secondly, the difficulty of collecting the contribution. In consequence of the adoption of a new system, the sum collected had considerably increased.