the idea that this Bill intended to pro- THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, vide the country with public prosecutors he was quite disposed to concur with the at all of the character of those in ex- right hon. Gentleman that this was a istence in the towns he had named. question of such magnitude and importThose gentlemen were not entrusted ance as might properly warrant its being with the large and discretional powers dealt with by the Government; but he which it was proposed to place in the believed there was no general desire to hands of the public prosecutors under blame the Government on account of the this Bill. He only desired at the present paucity of measures introduced this Sesmoment to impress upon the House the sion. He was authorized, however, on necessity of caution in proceeding with a the part of the Government to say that measure of this kind, in which so many they approved the principle of the Bill; difficult questions were involved. He though in so saying, of course, he did certainly did not believe that the House not commit either himself or his Colwould willingly embark in so great an leagues to all its details, and he had not expense as that which would be neces- anticipated that any discussion would sary to carry this Bill into effect; but he arise with regard to them. The sysshould not oppose the measure if, after tem of public prosecutors was adopted its second reading, it was intended to in almost all Continental countries, in refer it to the consideration of a Select America, and also to some extent in Committee. Ireland and Scotland; and it appeared to him that there was a conclusive case in favour of supplying what he regarded as a great omission in the administration of the criminal law of this country. He did not assert that that administration was

MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, he would support the second reading on the understanding that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.

MR. HENLEY said, this was a measure of too great importance to be left in the hands of private Members, how- unsatisfactory; but there were evils ever experienced they might be. Such a measure should only be introduced on the responsibility of the Government. The cases in which the action of a public prosecutor was required were very few; but this Bill proposed to include every prosecution. It was impossible to say what the expense to be incurred would be, for the Bill mentioned neither the number of officers required, nor the salaries. He did not believe that justice suffered for want of a public prosecutor. The failure of justice arose principally from the police not being able to find the offenders: the numbers of persons apprehended or sent for trial bore but a small proportion to the number of offences reported to the police. Now this Bill would only put the public prosecutor in motion when the offender was detected and in custody. What was required was a more effectual means of detecting offenders. Generally speaking, justice was, in his opinion, very well administered in this country, and he did not believe that by the passing of this or any similar measure the proportion of convictions to offences committed would be largely increased. It might, however, be advisable to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, and he should offer no opposition to such a course.

Mr. West

which were sufficiently serious to be mentioned. In the first place, many offences were not prosecuted at all, while others were only prosecuted inefficiently ; and he learnt from statistics that of 30,000 persons who were apprehended, 2,000 were discharged because no one would appear against them; and of 20,000 prisoners who were committed for trial the prosecutions failed in nearly 5,000 cases-in a great measure, probably, because those cases were not properly presented to the juries. There was, again, a class of cases which properly resulted in acquittals, and frequently occasioned actions for malicious prosecutions. Another class was that of collusive prosecutions, or those in which witnesses were bought off or induced to leave the country. In another class the criminal law was abused for the enforcement of civil rights; but, further, it frequently happened that a prosecutor cared very little about his case, and it was taken up by a policeman, who acted not only as the principal witness, but also as the prosecutor. He thought the House would see the danger of giving to a policeman-who ought only to be a witness-an interest in procuring a verdict against a prisoner. These and other considerations had impressed him with the

to

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

And, on May 16, Committee nominated as HARDY, Mr. VERNON HARCOURT, Mr. RUSSELL follows:-Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. GATHORNE GURNEY, Mr. BONHAM-CARTER, Mr. WALPOLE, Mr. HIBBERT, Mr. BALL, Mr. DOWNING, Mr. GORDON, Mr. RATHBONE, Mr. SCOURFIELD, Mr. WEST, Mr. STAVELEY HILL, and Mr. EYKYN :— Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

EDUCATION OF THE BLIND, &c. BILL. (Mr. Wheelhouse, Mr. Ward Jackson, Mr. Mellor.)

[BILL 47.] SECOND READING.

necessity of appointing public prosecutors, enterprizing lawyer should make political who should be responsible for seeing that capital out of an appointment, and thereprosecutions were instituted in all proper fore the Lord Chancellor or the Attorney cases, and that when instituted they were General ought to have the power of efficiently conducted, but that in other veto, so that responsible and efficient cases there should be no prosecution. In persons should be appointed. its leading features this Bill seemed to Motion agreed to. carry out the recommendations of the Committee of 1855, which had reported on this subject; but as there were in it some deviations from these recommendations, the Bill might be properly considered by a Select Committee. For himself, he would candidly state that he should be glad if the duty of public prosecutor could be properly entrusted to some functionary other than the Attorney General; for he felt that the ordinary duties of the Office were such as to tax his health and strength to the utmost. At the same time, he could not but perceive that the balance of opinion was in favour of the conduct of public prosecutions being entrusted to the Attorney General-an opinion which he himself entertained before holding, or expecting to hold, the Office-and if it was the pleasure of the House that this duty should be imposed upon him, he had only to assure the House that he should discharge those duties to the best of his ability. They were certainly indebted to his hon. Friend for the great pains he had evidently bestowed in the elaboration of the measure, which had been drawn carefully and well considered, and was not likely to undergo any very material alteration. Subject to certain alterations which he had foreshadowed in the suggestions already offered, he was prepared to assent to the Bill on behalf of the Government.

MR. HIBBERT said, he must oppose the second reading; for he thought it would be unwise and objectionable to pass the Bill in its present form. He had always thought one of the advantages of our system of administration of the criminal law was, that the Government had as little as possible to do with it. If public prosecutors were appointed, they ought to be nominated by the local authorities.

MR. EYKYN said, he would consent that the Bill should be referred to a

Select Committee, as proposed by the hon. and learned Attorney General.

MR. COLLINS also desired that the appointment should be made by local authorities; but did not wish that every

Order for Second Reading read. MR. WHEELHOUSE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he had long felt that something ought to be done in fairness and justice for a class of persons who could not help themselves, more especially since it-allowing something, of course, on account of the infirmity with which its members were afflicted-was one which might by education be rendered eminently useful, and it was for that reason quite as much as from any sympathetic feeling which he might have for either the blind or the deaf and dumb, that he had been led to propose legislation in that direction. As he well knew the value of time on such occasions, and as he most probably would have, in consequence of the Notice put upon the Paper by the hon. Member for Clitheroe, another opportunity of addressing the House, and as in themselves the clauses evidenced fully the principle and construction of the Bill, it would probably be the better course at once to recapitulate those clauses, leaving statistical information out of the matter for the present; but he could assure the House that he had by him amply sufficient of such statistical results to prove a very strong case indeed, should it be asked for or desired. The 1st clause, then, provided that wherever a Board of Guardians was asked by the parents of an indigent blind or deaf and dumb child to send it to school, it should be compulsory on the guardians, under certain conditions, to

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Bill be now read a second time." (Mr. Wheelhouse.)

comply with that request. The 2nd | cation of children, as they might think. clause provided that where the parents proper, for the guidance of the Board of had neglected their duty to the child, Guardians; and a Select Committee of the Board of Guardians might, if it that House, sitting from 1862 to 1864, thought fit, step in and provide the ne- reported favourably of the working of cessary education; and the 3rd clause that enactment. The Act of 1862 proprovided that part of the expense should vided that guardians of a Union might be borne by the guardians and the send any poor child to a school, and other part by the parents, or by some one might pay out of the funds of the Union on their behalf. There was also a clause for the education and clothing of the in the Bill, which provided that every child such a sum as did not exceed the child so sent to an institution should be total amount which would be paid for kept there up to the age of 18 years. the relief of the child had it remained The remaining clauses had reference to in the workhouse during the same period; the inspection of blind and deaf and and the term "school" was interpreted dumb schools. He trusted that the to mean, amongst others, institutions House would, out of consideration for established for the benefit of the blind, those whose humble advocate he was, dumb, deaf, deformed, and idiotic perpermit the Bill to be read a second time. sons. Such was the present law, and satisfactorily. Again, the Bill of the the Committee reported that it had acted hon. Member had included only the blind, deaf, and dumb. For his own part, if this class of unfortunates should be educated by the State, he saw no reason why the lame, deformed, and idiotic should not be educated as well. Then there was the general question, which had been frequently raised, whether it was the duty of the State to provide education and maintenance for all poor children? If this Bill became law, there would be no need of private charitable institutions. Those who relied upon the doctrines of political economy might prove that it would pay to make blind persons become industrious and money-earning members of the community; and, on the other hand, it might be argued that, as it was the duty of parents to provide for those of their children who became afflicted, so it was the duty of the State to stand in loco parentis to those who had no parents able to support them. He desired to hear the opinions of the Government on this matter; because, if the Bill passed, they would have control over the matter, and, in his opinion, such a large question ought not to be dealt with by so small a Bill.

66

MR. ASSHETON said, that in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, he wished the House to understand that he did not object to the education of the blind, but to the particular scheme advocated by the hon. Member for Leeds. The hon. Member, in moving the second reading, had not explained what was meant by the word "poor" which occurred throughout the Bill; but from the context of the measure he (Mr. Assheton) inferred that 99 pauper was the correct term. The object of the measure was doubtless good; but he took exception to the means, which he thought not only unsatisfactory but injurious. More than mere details were involved in the Bill. There was the old question of drawing the proper distinction between the dishonest and the honest poor. By one of the clauses, a child of bad character and of dishonest parents was placed in a better position than many children whose parents were honest though poor. With regard to the provision that the Board of Guardians should agree with the parents to pay a portion of the cost of educating the child, he would refer to the 4 & 5 Will. IV. the Magna Charta of the poor-which he took as his stand-point on this question. According to that Act,

the Board of Guardians were bound to

the word "now," and at the end of the Amendment proposed, to leave out Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Assheton.)

Question proposed, "That the word

provide schoolmasters, and the Commis-now' stand part of the Question."

sioners were authorized to make such rules for the regulation and management

MR. M'LAREN said, he regarded the

of the poor in workhouses, and the edu- Bill as an attempt to do too much good;

Mr. Wheelhouse

MR. A. PEEL, on behalf of the Go

but he must draw a distinction between | could not agree to the introduction of the blind on the one hand, and the deaf Poor Law machinery for the relief of and dumb on the other. He thought those who did not properly come within that the blind were deserving of greater its scope. The education of the blind commiseration, because being deprived was a matter rather for private benevoof the faculty of sight they were de- lence than for public legislation. prived of one of the means most essential to self-support. In the large insti-vernment, hoped the House would not tution at Edinburgh the system of allowing the patients to live within the building had been abandoned, and the blind children were encouraged to go to ordinary schools in the first instance, where they derived great advantage from association with other children. The schoolmasters received additional pay for teaching such scholars, which was a very simple matter; and it was found that the cost of such a system was far less than if the children were sent to blind asylums. He thought the Bill contemplated too much expense, and he should be glad to see it referred to a Select Committee, for the purpose of being reduced to smaller dimensions in this and other respects.

MR. W. JOHNSTON approved of the principle of the Bill; but he objected to the machinery for carrying it into effect. In Belfast there was an admirable institution for the blind, at which children were maintained and educated for £12 a year-a sum very little more than their cost in the poorhouse. It was the duty of the State to interpose between the cupidity or carelessness of parents or negligent guardians, and compel the guardians to interfere on behalf of these afflicted children. He thought that, if the House agreed to read the Bill a second time, it should be referred to a Select Committee.

MR. SYNAN said, he also approved of the principle of the Bill, and he would not have taken part in the debate had not the Bill been extended to Ireland. He desired to point out that the Act recited in the Bill, giving power to certify, did not apply to Ireland; that further, that the Bill did not provide that the institution or school to which a child was sent should be conducted on religious principles according with those of the child's friends. If the Bill was read a second time he should prefer to see it referred to a Select Committee, in order to make its machinery more effective.

MR. DICKINSON said, no one could oppose the Bill without regret, because of the character of its object; but he

consent to read the Bill a second time. There were insuperable objections to the machinery of the measure. Its whole tendency was to make it compulsory on the guardians to do what they already had a discretionary power of doing. The hon. Member, who moved the second reading, had failed to show any good reason for the interference of the Legislature on this subject; he had confined himself to the sentimental argument that these children ought to be wards of the State. The Bill named £24 as the minimum sum which the guardians might pay for the maintenance and education of a blind child. This was extraordinarily high, for the ordinary cost of a child in a workhouse, or district school, was about £16. It was true that expensive appliances were necessary for deaf, dumb, or blind children; but the sum mentioned would form a very heavy charge on the already overburdened ratepayers. By the 1st and 2nd clauses the guardians were compelled to provide for pauper children; and under the 3rd clause the guardians might extend their relief to children for whom partial contributions were made by other people. The effect of that would be to pauperize and disfranchise the parent. In fact, it was a permissive enactment to bring as many children as possible within the influence of pauper action. Other objections to the Bill were that it did not provide for repayment to the guardians of any part of the sum they might be called upon to disburse under it, even where the parents might be able and willing to contribute towards the support of their blind children; and that there was no reference to denominational schools.

Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

And it being Six of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House till Tomorrow, without putting the Question.

Ordered, That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 16th day of June next :

That no Bill authorizing any inclosure of lands under special report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 21st day of June next:

That no Bill confirming any provisional order shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 21st day of June next:

That when a Bill shall have passed this House with amendments these orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the Ilouse is substantially the same as the Bill

so amended.

DOMINION OF CANADA-THE RED RIVER

INSURRECTION.-QUESTION.

LORD LYVEDEN wished to put a Question to his noble Friend (Earl Granville), which he believed would not infringe the understanding that Questions likely to lead to a debate should not be put without Notice-viz., Whether he was in possession of any information as to an arrangement made by the Canadian Government respecting the Red River Insurrection?

EARL GRANVILLE said, that the insurrection which broke out at the Red River at the end of last year had been a subject of much consideration to Her Majesty's Government. The Government of the Dominion declined to accept the transfer which it had been agreed upon should be effected in December, on the ground that they could not be called upon to do so when the Settlement, as it appeared, for the moment was in a state of anarchy. They accordingly stopped the payment of the money which was to be given to the Hudson's Bay

Company. Her Majesty's Government, although not admitting the justice of the refusal, were convinced that any misunderstanding with the Dominion could only increase the difficulty of the position, and that the only mode of settling it was by a cordial co-operation of the Home Government, the Government of the Dominion, and the Hudson's Bay Company. To abandon that portion of Her Majesty's dominions to a state of anarchy, accompanied by bloodshed and possibly by civil war, almost certainly by the destruction of all trade in the Hudson's Bay territory, would have been dishonourable to the Crown and embarrassing as regards our relations with the United States. To establish a Crown Colony in a district so inaccessible as regards Great Britain would have been obviously unwise. Her Majesty's Government were convinced that the only course to pursue was to obtain the cordial co-operation of the Dominion and of the Hudson's Bay Company for the restoration of order. He was happy to say that this assistance was cordially and effectively given. The Government of the Dominion declared that they had no intention of withdrawing from the agreement into which they had entered, and that they were most desirous of conciliating the inhabitants of the Red River Settlement. But they were of opinion, in any event, that it was absolutely necessary that, at the time of taking possession a military force should be present in order to maintain tranquillity and to prevent possible collisions between the different races and creeds in the Settlement. Her Majesty's Government consented to this proposal-but on three conditions. The first was, that the transfer should be accomplished according to the terms originally agreed on. The second was, that the Government of the Dominion should supply at least two-thirds of the men and of the expenses of the expedition. The third was, that the Dominion should previously come to an amicable understanding, on terms which Her Majesty's Government could approve, with the settlers of the Red River district. The Papers, which would be presented to Parliament, as soon as they were printed, would show the continuous and judicious efforts which have been made by the Government of the Dominion to effect an amicable understanding with the Settlement, and their success ap