Bartle Frere was cancelled or about to be cancelled? That commission was one conferring such great and general powers that Sir Bartle Frere considered it justified him in making war without the consent of the Government; and unless it were cancelled, they would have no security for the future, and it would be likely to conflict with Sir Garnet Wolseley's commission. SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH said, if the hon. and learned Gentlemen would wait until he saw the Papers, he would find that they explained precisely the position of the matter. MR. PARNELL did not think the assurance of the Government so satisfactory as the right hon. Gentlemen on the front Bench seemed to believe. He wished to know whether Sir Garnet Wolseley's instructions would forbid the employment of Native auxiliaries for following up the Zulus when beaten in the field? The practice had given rise to horrors that was a disgrace to humanity and civilization. MR. SULLIVAN said, he recognized the force of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Hackney, and thought it would, therefore, be desirable of him to withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the House, and give Notice that to-morrow he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he could state to the House in substance the instructions given to Sir Garnet Wolseley with reference to the negotiations for peace? He thought it unreasonable that he should ask anything as regarded military movements. Those must be left to the General in the field; but, under the peculiar circumstances of the House adjourning for a fortnight, he thought it right that he should ask for the substance of the instructions with regard to the negotiations for peace; and if he did not get a satisfactory answer, it would be his duty to oppose the Motion for the adjournment of the House. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. "That inasmuch as the consent of Parliament to the annexation of the Transvaal was obtained be unfounded, and whereas no valid reason by representations which have been proved to exists for preferring the discontented objection to the friendly alliance of the inhabitants of that territory, this House is of opinion that the Imperial pledge which was pledged, and which delay by the restoration to its former indehas been broken, ought to be retrieved without pendence of the South African Republic." MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that upon the Motion of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given Notice for to-morrow no Amendment can be moved, except with reference to the time of the adjournment. MR. O'DONNELL said, he would pursue his object in a form that would bring it within the Rules of the House. AFGHANISTAN -THE WAR SIGNATURE OF A TREATY OF PEACE. OBSERVATIONS. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Before the Clerk proceeds to read the Orders of the Day, I will take the opportunity of stating that I have received a communication from my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, which informs me that this evening he has received from Major Cavagnari a telegram, dated to-day, and stating that a Treaty of Peace with the Ameer of Cabul was signed this day. ORDERS OF THE DAY. SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. [Progress.] SUPPLY-considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) CLASS III.-LAW AND JUSTICE. (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £339,680, be SOUTH AFRICA - THE TRANSVAAL. granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO MOTION. MR. O'DONNELL: I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall move as an Amendment to the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the adjournment for the Holidays necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and appointed under the 6th and 7th Sections of the Expenses of the Commissioners and other Officers Prison Act, 1877, and the Expenses of the several Prisons in England and Wales to which that Act applies." MR. DODSON said, he wished to ask | run out. The financial success of the a few questions. He observed by the Prisons Act would depend upon conon the part of the Estimates that his right hon. Friend the tinued firmness Home Secretary (Mr. Assheton Cross) Government. Of course, a Central Dehad reduced the number of prisons partment was very much handicapped by 43; his original estimate was that in obtaining economy, because in such he would reduce them by 50, and that offices there was always a natural tennumber was afterwards increased to 54. dency to extravagance, not from careHe should like to know to what further lessness or want of vigilance, but from extent his right hon. Friend hoped to be this officer and that officer recommendable to reduce the prisons? Was any ing this improvement or that improvefurther reduction contemplated in the ment in the desire to make the system staffs of the prisons, which had been perfect. Unless, in fact, this tendency brought down from over 2,500 to 2,230? was repressed by a firm and vigorous According to the Estimates, also, the hand, in a very few years the cost of the right hon. Gentleman had reduced the new system would be greater than that cost of the prisons, compared with what of the old. it was in 1877, the last complete year The of the old régime, by £52,000. original reduction contemplated was £50,000, so that his right hon. Friend had been even more successful than he hoped for; but that, he was sure he would admit, was partly due to the great fall in the cost of fuel, food, and clothing. He should like to know if his right hon. Friend had any idea of how much of that reduction was due to the reduction in the number of the prisons and of the staff? At the time he introduced his Prisons Bill his right hon. Friend said he hoped to double the return from prison labour. Up to the present time, however, there was no advance in this respect. In the year 1877 the return from extra receipts was £65,000, which included some other items, prison labour amounting to £56,000; while the estimated receipts this year, with a somewhat larger number of prisoners, were only £60,000. Therefore, he thought he might presume that the net earnings from prisoners' labour actually decreased, and he should like to ask why that was so? The result appeared to have been the same last year, for in the foot-note to the Estimates it said "estimated receipts £60,000" for last year. Could not his right hon. Friend tell them the actual receipts? He was putting these questions in no carping spirit, but merely to elicit information, and with the most sincere desire that the most sanguine expectations of his right hon. Friend might be realized. Of course, even if all these expectations were realized, the difference would only be a halfpenny or three-farthings in the pound on the rate, and even that could not be realized for some years till the pensions began to MR. ASSHETON CROSS regretted that he was unable fully to answer the questions of his right hon. Friend, for the simple reason that the accounts were not sent in until after the close of the financial year; and, therefore, the Commissioners did not expect to be able to get them ready for presentation to Parliament before July. Still, he would answer to the best of his ability, and would promise that the different matters should be fully dealt with in the Report. They thought it right to take two years in which to decide what prisons should be closed. Very little more than a year had elapsed since the passing of the Act, and 43 had already been closed, and orders had since been given for closing one other. He and the Prison Commissioners had it in contemplation to close quite as many as was originally proposed; but on that subject he would not say more, except that in order that certain prisons might, to the public advantage, be closed, £29,000 had been taken for alterations, in order to make certain prisons larger. A reduction of the staff would naturally follow from this; but it was not his intention to reduce the present staff more than he From what he had seen of had done. the Estimates, he thought £10,000 of the £52,855 saved was due to the reduced cost of food, &c. ; but he had no hesitation in saying, from what he had already experienced, that there would certainly be an eventual saving of £50,000 from the reduction in the number of prisons There had also been and of the staff. an increase of 1,000 in the number of prisoners; yet, in the face of that, the expenses had been thus largely deThis was, however, only an creased. The Go increase for a time. As to the prison | the reasons he had stated. labour, when the local authorities gave vernment did not get the system of up the prisons they sold off all their prison labour in work for the first three materials; and, therefore, there was no months either. great demand at the present time for such goods as they had to sell, for there was such a thing as glutting the market. A system like that, either, could not at once be put in order, and it was some time before they got into full swing. Therefore, he did not think the estimate for the first year would be reached, though he did hope and expect that the one for the second year, of £60,000, would be realized. Up to the present, also, he had not done very much in the matter of prison labour, for he thought it very desirable first to make inquiries as to its effect on trade outside. He accordingly appointed a Departmental Committee, who went into the matter very thoroughly. Their Report was again submitted to a very able person, who went most carefully and narrowly through it, and then presented a very able and elaborate Report on the matter, for his (Mr. Assheton Cross's) private inspection. Before, however, finally dealing with the matter, he thought it better also to have the opinion of two absolutely independent and impartial persons, who had nothing to do with the matter officially whatever, and, therefore, he submitted this Report to two gentlemen who had nothing whatever to do with prison labour in any shape or form. One of them was a most active county magistrate in the West of England, and the other was a medical gentleman. They had also reported, and he now hoped to be able to deal with the question. He had felt, however, that it was far more satisfactory that this question of prison labour should not be touched at all until there had been the most careful inquiry as to its effects. Therefore, it would still be some little time before this system got into working order, although he was sure the amount earned would reach the estimate in a year or two. MR. COLE was sorry that the Home Secretary had not been able to give them more exact details as to the amount received from prison labour during the Government had had the prisons under their exclusive charge. MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, he had not been quite understood. The accounts had not yet been made up for MR. COLE could not understand why the labour should have been stopped when the Government took over the gaols. There was, undoubtedly, a strong feeling outside against prison labour, and it was said that certain industries were ruined by the competition. That might be true, perhaps, to some extent, as regarded mat-making; but, on the other hand, he had always been in favour of making a felon earn his own living by industrial labour. It was said that that would glut the labour market, but it was not at all the case, for the criminal was taken from his work outside, and it mattered very little whether he laboured inside a gaol or outside. He should be put to work at the same trade as he ordinarily worked, and if the man did not know a handicraft trade, which was often the case, he hoped the Home Secretary would do what he himself had always contended ought to be done-that was, to try and teach the prisoners some trado while they were in prison. In Devonport gaol, of which he had had a large experience, the Governor actually built the whole of a large wing entirely by prison labour, and it was admitted on all hands that the work was far better than that in the old gaol. Why, then, should not these felons be taught various handicraft trades which would be of benefit to them when they came out. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: It is being done.] He (Mr. Cole) was very glad to hear it, because there was too great a tendency to teach only one or two trades, and to keep prisoners employed at those trades, and so the complaint as to the glutting the market arose. If they were employed in a great number of various industries no complaint could properly arise. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to close Plymouth gaol, which was now very full in consequence of the closing of the gaol at Devonport. MR. ASSHETON CROSS stated that he had recently told the Mayor that that prison was not going to be closed. SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT wished his right hon. Friend could have given them a more clear and distinct account of the cost of every prison, naming each prison, throughout the country, now that they were under the Government, so that they might compare it with the cost under the magistracy. The present statement was a very vague one, and they ought to have all this information given them without having to go to the judicial statistics. The present was a very unfair way of making out the accounts, for it was his firm conviction if the accounts were analyzed, instead of there being a saving under the present system, that a loss would be shown. As a visiting magistrate of more than 30 years' experience, he was unhesitatingly of opinion that, as a majority of the sentences were for very short terms, it would be impossible to make any very large sum by the earnings of the prisoners. The old system was gone, and they had to deal with the new state of things; but he did think that the Government should give them the means of judging whether it was working fairly or not. MR. RYLANDS said, he had never for a moment anticipated that the Prisons Act would be carried out in a manner satisfactory to the local authorities, and he had no sympathy with those magistrates who cringed to the Home Office and were willing to sell their local rights and powers of administration in order to get relieved of responsibility which belonged to them. It was necessary, to some extent, to struggle against officialism, which certainly, in his opinion, had lessened the efficiency of prison discipline, and was very likely to lead to increased expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman, when he introduced the Prisons Act, made a promise to the House to which he (Mr. Rylands) thought he must be held. That promise, from which he was quite sure there was no wish to depart, was that "While the local rates would be relieved to the extent of £92,000, there would only be an additional charge upon the Public Revenue of £285,000." The right hon. Gentleman, in stating what was perfectly clear from the Estimates, that this point had not been reached, had treated the matter with perfect candour. But the position of affairs at starting this year was this. In the first place, the Government had admitted that they were at a considerable distance from the goal at which they themselves wished to arrive, inasmuch Sir Walter B. Barttelot as they had not been able to bring down the expenditure to anything like the amount anticipated; and, in the second place, they had also admitted that they were unable to bring up the earnings for prison labour to anything like the amount expected. He wished to point out to the Home Secretary that there had been already, owing to certain causes, such as the reduced cost of food and clothing, referred to by the right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson), a very considerable diminution in the prison expenditure since the year 1875, and that, therefore, economy might have been secured had the Government so willed it without this great revolution in prison management. But he had to complain that the account presented for the information of the House was delusive, inasmuch as it did not contain a number of charges which had come upon the Exchequer in consequence of the passing of the Prisons Act; for instance, there was a charge of £11,000 for printing and stationery, which was paid out of another Vote and which, therefore, did not appear in the present account. There was also a charge of £600 on account of prisons included in the Supplementary Estimates; in fact, the House would find various charges cropping up in the different Votes, which would not have been there but for the prisons having been taken over by the State; and although it would not be fair to make use of captious criticism, he thought that the House would be obliged to put the Government, so to speak, upon their trial with regard to the prisons which had been so unreasonably taken over. He thought that as soon as the Government were in a position to state the facts the House should receive a full account, not merely of the charges which appeared on the face of this Vote, but of all charges which had been brought upon the Exchequer in relation to prisons in consequence of their being taken over by the State, and that these items should be brought to a focus and appear in a tabulated form. He did not press this upon the Government because he had opposed the Bill, or with any wish to show that, under the new system, there would be less economy. On the contrary, he should be agreeably disappointed if the system proved to be an economical one, as would also be the case with several distinguished gentlemen in the Treasury who, he was quite certain, had | connected with the system of prison not expected that the taking over of the labour to which he called attention. In prisons would be an economical opera- the first place, he understood that it had tion. If, however, those expectations been the custom for the prison authoriwere agreeably disapppointed, he should ties to issue tenders to, and also to rebe very glad; but it was to be feared, ceive them from, manufacturing firms from their experience of Government outside the prison walls, thereby creating administration-what with the increase competition with the labour of the honest of officials and their superannuation man. This procedure, if truly stated, allowances, the building of new prisons he held to be extremely objectionable. and the pulling down or enlarging of One of the tenders referred to had been old ones, as well as with the staff of shown to him in the Lobby, and he was architects and builders likely to be em- informed that tenders similar to that ployed that the volume of cost would which he had seen were also issued from continue to swell year by year. If such a prison in Cambridgeshire, and were was found to be the case, many hon. by no means uncommon. Surely the Members would not fail to press the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secrefact upon the attention of the Govern-tary would see that such a course was ment. MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, that according to a Return which he held in his hand, the cost of the county and borough prisons for the year 1873 was £585,000, from which amount had to be deducted the sum of £43,000 for interest on loans to local authorities for building purposes; in round numbers, therefore, the cost of the county and borough prisons for the year 1873 amounted to £542,000. According to the estimate presented by him to the House at the time, the probable reduced cost of the prisons was £484,500, which he had proposed to meet by taxation to the extent of £371,000, prisoners' labour £106,000, and other contingent receipts of £7,500. Taking this sum of £484,500, and comparing it with the estimate of the year 1879-80, which amounted to £472,680, it would be seen that he was still within the sum stated to the House. Again, he had stated that the sum of £97,000 had already been paid out of the taxes in the year 1873; this sum would, therefore, have to be deducted from the £371,000, a circumstance which appeared to have slipped from the mind of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), when he reminded the House that he (Mr. Assheton Cross) had promised that the extra burden upon the taxpayers should not exceed £285,000. MR. SERJEANT SIMON said, that, without intending to repeat the observations which he had felt it his duty to make on a previous occasion, he must refer to the difficulty of adjusting prison labour in such a way as would not bring it into undue competition with the work done outside. There were certain things inconsistent with what was due to the honest labourer, because, from the circumstance that prisoners were housed and fed at a comparatively small expense, their work could always be made to undersell his. Therefore, he desired to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that such a practice as had been described existed in the prisons, and, if so, whether he would issue such instructions as would prevent its repetition? The subject, as he was quite aware, was difficult and delicate; at the same time, he knew that his right hon. Friend always desired to do what was just and right to the honest labourer. Again, when the Prisons Bill was before the House, great stress had been laid upon the fact that prison labour was confined to one or two industries, and that it was not generally distributed over the different industrial employments. One reason alleged for this was, as stated by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), that the prisoners sentenced for short terms of imprisonment could not be taught certain trades, and that mat and brush-making were much handier for them to learn. But he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) hoped that when the prison regulations were issued, due regard would be paid to the promise given when the Prisons Bill was before the House, that industrial labour in prisons should be extended to the industries generally, and not be confined to, or put in competition with, one or two trades. SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON complained that, although the Government were pressing the localities to provide extra accommodation for lunatics, the |