The Genealogist - UK census, BMDs and more online

        The Duke of ARGYLL gave notice that on Tuesday he will ask whether the Government have any measure in contemplation to carry out the object set forth in the instructions to Lord SALISBURY.
        In reply to Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. BOURKE said the Foreign Office had telegraphed to Constantinople for details of the convictions and sentences of the parties implicated in the Bulgarian atrocities, and he hoped to be able to obtain the information.

                                               THE PRISONS BILL.
        The HOME SECRETARY moved the second reading of this Bill, which vests the gaols of the kingdom in the Government, but largely provides for their management under the present system of visiting justices.
        Mr. Peter RYLANDS, as an amendment, moved the rejection of the Bill, on the ground of its centralising tendency and the danger of increasing the patronage of the Government.
        Mr. HOPWOOD seconded the amendment.
        Mr. W. M. RIDLEY supported the Bill, believing it would promote economy and efficiency at the same time that it afforded a relief to the ratepayers; and as to the justices, it would make their duties clearer and plainer.
        Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN (Liberal) gave his hearty support to the Bill as one which would secure uniformity of prison management with economy and efficiency.
        Sir Harcourt JOHNSTONE (Liberal) also supported the Bill, and ridiculed the old bugbears of "No Centralisation" and :Patronage."
        Mr. Rowland YORKE and Mr. STANHOPE also supported it.
        Dr. KENEALY disapproved of the dictatorial powers conferred on the Home Secretary by the Bill.
        Sir. W. FRASER congratulated the Government on having brought forward this measure.
        Sir. S. WATERLOW, while admitting that many of the smaller prisons might be advantageously abolished, considered that the object could be attained through a modification of the existing system.
        Mr. NEWDEGATE opposed the Bill on account of its centralising spirit, which was a direct invasion of the common law of the country.
        Sir. S. IBBETSON defended the Bill, and showed that it was calculated to secure an improved and uniform prison management, and a relief of local burdens, with the least possible disturbance of existing arrangements.
        Mr. CHAMBERLAIN could not support the Bill, because he believed the advantages it secured would be purchased too dearly by the slur it cast upon local government.
        Sir. W. BARTLELOT objected to the Bill on the same ground.
        Mr. GOSCHEN thought there was a good deal in the Bill which was a move in the right direction.
        The HOME SECRETARY having replied, the House divided: --
                    For the second reading................279
                    Against........................................   69
                        Majority for Government......... 210