MR. BIGGAR wished to say one word on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). What he wished to convey was that if there was not sufficient time to pass this Bill before the 26th of April then that the present Mutiny Bill should be renewed, subject to a pledge by the Government to give sufficient time to push this Bill through during the remainder of the Session. Then, so soon as this Bill became law, the old Mutiny Act should be dropped, and the new one take its place. In that way there would be a Bill of some sort; and at the earliest possible moment an amended Act would become law.

fears as to the power of commanding | permanent; but it will receive annual officers, and as to bringing other classes force, and be brought under the notice under the power of the War Office, of Parliament, from year to year, by an altogether fallacious, and that the annual Army Discipline and Regulation change proposed will prove beneficial. Act-a short Bill, reciting the number With regard to the proposal of the hon. of men voted in the first Vote of the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), I Estimates, and adopting this Bill and confess that I am placed in a position giving it effect until such time as the of some difficulty. It is clear that if annual Act itself will expire. I trust I the Army is not to be left without any have answered the various questions put Discipline Bill whatever, you must have to me; and I hope there will be other either the existing Bill or some other. opportunities granted on further proNo man had more objections to the ex- gress of this Bill, when I shall be able isting Act than the hon. Member for to give fuller explanations. Meath; and I thought that he, above all men, would have been glad to welcome any change. But if we do not pass this Bill before the present Mutiny Act expires, it is obvious we must have some provision for carrying on the government of the Army. I expressly guarded myself from putting any undue pressure on the House; although I did express a hope that we might make such progress with the Bill as to render the continuance of the present Mutiny Bill unnecessary. In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock), I may say that it is perfectly impossible to explain all the different points of this Bill in a limited time-and I wish COLONEL STANLEY: I think I quite the Bill to explain itself as soon as pos- understood the point which was raised sible. With respect to the question of by the hon. Member for Meath; but it half-pay officers, I admitted that though is necessary we should bear in mind I have done my best to adopt what I be- that there are other parties to be conlieve to be a course consistent with the ex-sidered besides those sitting in this isting law, and in accordance with the altered circumstances under which officers now retire, yet I am in a position of some difficulty; and I have no doubt considerable good will result from a discussion being raised upon the question in this House. With regard to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne), I must say that I do not see what good would be likely to result from the reappointment of a Committee for the purposes of the Bill. I do not think it came within the purview of that Committee to deal either with the tenure or the limit of Staff appointments. I think I have now answered the questions put to me; but I ought, perhaps, to have stated that this Bill technically-even when passed into law-will have no force except as representing a code of discipline for the Army. In that respect I hope it will be, more or less,

House-namely, the officers and men of the Service-and we must have this Bill in their hands by some definite date, so that they may know the law under which they are acting. We have two alternatives-the one to confirm the present Bill, and the other to pass a better Bill to supersede it. I confess I see little advantage in taking up the time, which might be well occupied in passing this Bill through Committee, in passing the present Mutiny Act. It would be far preferable to add a clause to the present Mutiny Act that it should exist only to the end of the Session. What we want is one Mutiny Act, and not three.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary STANLEY, Mr. Secretary CROSS, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, and The JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

ASSIZES BILL.-[BILL 83.] (Sir Matthew Ridley, Mr. Secretary Cross.)

COMMITTEE.

Order for Committee read.

produced some evils. The effect of removing a prisoner a distance from the county where he had committed his crime took away some of his means of defence, and removed him from the persons who could come forward to help him. He had to take with him all his witnesses-perhaps the clergyman of his parish-to testify to his character; and as he could not, as a rule, pay his witnesses, it could not be expected that volunteer witnesses would give up their time to go long distances in order to testify to his character. The result was that prisoners went to trial without the witnesses whom they would have had if tried in their own county town. That was an injury inflicted upon those very persons for whom this system of Assizes had been established. Again, when before the magistrates, a prisoner, no doubt, employed a solicitor to defend him; but when tried hundreds of miles

SIR HENRY JAMES said, that although he supported the Bill-the object of which was to give effect to a wish expressed by the House in relation to the Assizes Act of 1876-yet there were one or two practical disadvantages to the present Assize system. He was encouraged by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was amenable to suggestions to point out to him the matters to which he referred. The House was aware that this Bill carried into effect what had already been sanctioned by the Assizes Act of 1876, and practically carried out the ex-off, his solicitor could not conduct his pression of opinion of this House, that it was desirable that no prisoner should be kept in custody untried for more than the space of three months. He should give his most cordial support to the Bill; but there were one or two practical objections to the system of centralization which it effectuated. The object of centralization was solely for the purpose of economizing judicial power; and if there were more judicial power, he did not think that anyone would wish the system of centralization to be carried out. It was desirable that prisoners should be tried in the counties where their crimes were committed, inasmuch as it brought home the administration of justice to the criminal classes, and had a good effect upon the community. The trial of prisoners in their own counties had a good effect also upon those concerned in the administration of justice-as the magistrates and he knew of no class which benefited by the removal of prisoners from their own county, except the public, by the fact that judicial power was economized. As matters remained at present, there were no means of carrying out the opinion of the House, except by the system of centralization. But the practical objections that occurred to that system were worthy of consideration. Prisoners were, before conviction, supposed to be innocent, and it was, no doubt, desirable that they should be left as short time as possible in prison un

defence, and thus prisoners were frequently left undefended at their trial. Therefore, those persons, for whose interests these Acts were passed, were sent to a distance from places where their offences had been committed without witnesses and without legal advice or assistance. Another matter which fell heavily on those concerned he would call attention to. No doubt, the Government might say they had done something to mitigate this evil by giving an allowance of £20, if a Judge certified to that effect. But that did not apply to witnesses to character, to whom no compensation was given. It was a great practical evil, and had been drawn to his attention by persons who had been witnesses, that when prisoners were sent to trial, witnesses for the prosecution had to attend, frequently under circumstances of great hardship. Amongst the witnesses were married women with families, and girls under 15 years of age; and to those persons the only allowance made was for their own expenses for travelling and for keep. Although the distance might be from the Welsh side of Monmouthshire to Gloucester, they had to travel without anyone to take charge of them, and to stop for days in a strange town where they knew no one, because the only expenses allowed to such witnesses were for themselves, and not for anyone to accompany them. No doubt, this was a small matter; but to those people on

It would be better for the House to take notice of this small matter, and prevent the hardship from arising. He had been told of an instance where a whole family were kept nearly a week in a town, and the only money paid to them was to one member of the family as a witness. No doubt, so long as the judicial strength remained where it was, this system of centralization must be adopted; but he hoped that it would not be carried into effect, except where absolutely necessary. It had an evil effect, both upon the public, by reason of removing the administration of justice from before their eyes, and upon prisoners and witnesses in subjecting them to hardships. VISCOUNT EMLYN wished to know whether, if the Bill passed, the full Winter Sessions could be abolished? He had understood that it was not intended to abolish them.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY observed, that the hon. and learned

Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) had only done justice to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in stating that he had endeavoured to carry out the grouping of counties in such a manner as to minimize the inconveniences which must of necessity attend the system, and so to give effect to the expressed wish of the House that prisoners should not remain untried for more than three months.

No doubt, some disadvantages resulted from the system of centralization. But if, in some cases, witnesses had to go a considerable distance, yet, at the present time, they had frequently to go as great a distance when trials took place in their own counties. To meet the expenses incurred, an allowance of £20 was made. He must also observe that the object of these Acts was not only to economize judicial power, but to save also the time of sheriffs, jurors, and other persons necessarily concerned in the transaction of judicial business. The House would see that this Bill was a necessary sequence to the principle laid down by the House-that no prisoner should remain in custody for a longer period than three months.

MR. PAGET remarked that the Bill

provided that the Winter Assize Act of 1876 should be construed as if it were therein enacted, with the substitution of Spring Assizes for Winter Assizes, and of the months of March, April, and May, for the months of November, De

cember, and January respectively. He should like to know whether the Act was to extend the Winter Assizes into those months of the Spring?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, it was clear that the Bill enabled the Judges to hold four Assizes in the year by groups of counties. The months were purposely omitted, in order to make that possible; and it would be impossible for that to take place if they kept the Assizes to the Winter. This Act was passed to enable them to hold Assizes in two or three other months. The Judges were now framing a scheme for the regulation of Assizes, by which those for criminal and civil business were to be held early in the year, and criminal Assizes only were to be held in the Spring.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

VISCOUNT EMLYN observed, that in his county (Carmarthen) the Spring Assizes were held in January. He wished to know whether, under this Bill, a power would not be given to abolish either or both of the full Assizes now held in every county, and to substitute for them Assizes for a union of counties. He hoped that words would be inserted in the Bill to make it clear that this would not be done.

SIR HENRY JAMES said, that, as he understood, the Assizes in which civil and criminal business took place were to be held in the counties; but that the criminal business only was to be held elsewhere. With reference to the Spring Assizes being held in January, that only occurred through the old Winter Assizes being carried over Christmas. If there was any doubt, it could be put at rest by providing, upon the Report of the Bill, that only two Assizes should take place out of the counties.

MR. PAGET suggested that a provision should be inserted carrying into effect the regulation that two distinct holdings of Assize should be held in the counties.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS did not think that any difficulty could arise with regard to the Bill on the point suggested; but he would undertake that, if necessary, words should be added to make the provisions perfectly clear.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL.

(Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Sir Matthew Ridley.)

[BILL 69.] SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Assheton Cross.)

1940 down to the Bill or not. There were certain other matters which prevented his seeing his way clearly to carry the Bill through if a considerable number of Amendments were set down; but, having discussed those Amendments upstairs, they would be more readily disposed of in the House. In the next place, there were technical matters relating to warrants, and things of that kind, which wanted to be scrutinized by learned gentlemen accustomed to the administration of justice. Lastly, this Bill only applied to England; for with regard to Ireland, he was happy to say that the law there was in a much more advanced state than in this country. The English law was a step or two behind the Irish law; and, therefore, it would be impossible to make this Bill, in its present form, applicable to Ireland as well as England, because it would not fit into the Irish Summary Jurisdiction Acts. Therefore, he thought that if the Irish Members who took an interest in the question were enabled to discuss the question in Committee, they would be enabled to ap

MR. HOPWOOD said, that he felt some regret to see a Motion on the Paper by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. He was so confident that this matter had been thoroughly ventilated during the time that it had been before the House-namely, the last two years-that he regretted to see even the slightest obstruction opposed to it. He should have thought that the time which would be spent in sending this Bill to a Select Committee might have been spared, for he did not see what fresh information could be required.

Attorney General for Ireland would introduce dealing with the Irish law. That, he thought, would be the best course and most acceptable to the Irish Members and the people of Ireland. For the reasons he had stated, he wished to send the Bill before a Select Committee; and he hoped that the House would allow him to take the Chair on that Committee, and that no time would be lost in bringing the matter forward.

ex

MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, that he was quite as anxious as the hon. andpreciate more fully a Bill which the learned Member that this Bill should pass speedily. For a long time he had expressed his opinion that a great number of persons were sent to prison who never ought to go there. He thought no person ought to go to gaol unless he had been tried. The experience he had gained in the Office which he had at present the honour to hold had impressed him strongly in favour of the Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. M. T. Bass) as to imprisonment for debt, and he should be glad to see it pass in some form or other. His feeling was that if a man went to prison he ought to be punished; and if a man did not deserve punishment he ought not to go to prison. He had viewed the inside of gaols, and it was anything but a pleasant sight to see the number of persons idling away their time there-absolutely useless members of society. He hoped the time would come, and during the period that he held his present position, when a salutary change would be made in this reAnd, on March 18, Committee nominated as follows:-Mr. Secretary CROSS, Mr. DODSON, spect. The hon. and learned Member Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. ATTORNEY GEhad asked him why he had sent this BillNERAL for IRELAND, Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS, to a Select Committee? He had done so for three reasons. In the first place, he could not foretell whether a great number of Amendments would be set

MR. W. S. STANHOPE said, that considerable anxiety had been pressed by some magistrates in Yorkshire as to the scope of the Bill. A largely increased power was given by it to Petty Sessions, and a Committee of Quarter Sessions had been appointed to consider those provisions. He was glad to hear that the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Mr. HopwooD, Mr. WOODD, Mr. PAGET, Mr.
COLTHURST, Mr. FLOYER, Mr. WALTER, Mr.
COURTAULD, Mr. SPENCER STANHOPE, Colonel
RODWELL, and Sir COLMAN RASHLEIGH:-Five
to be the quorum.

ing commissions in it. In calling atincreased by having two sons holdtention to the Report of the Commissioners, he might, perhaps, be allowed to remark that he had never on any occasion when he had addressed their Lordships on this subject grounded the views he had laid before them on any hardship done to deserving young men by their being excluded from the Army by the operation of the present

House adjourned at One o'clock. system. He had always rested his case

ARMY EDUCATION - LITERARY AND of them." He had always accepted this