Offences and Proceedings. (Hansard, 22 July 1878)

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
asked, whether it was the case that the not giving of notice was made an offence; and, if so, where?

§ MR. PEASE
said, he thought his right hon. Friend would see that under Section 30 the Privy Council took power to make rules prescribing and regulating the notice of diseases, or of the illness of an animal to be given to, or by, any person or authority.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he did not know whether this was the time to do it; but he did not think it ought to be left concealed under any possible rule. He thought there ought to be somewhere in the Act a positive statement. Perhaps the hon. Baronet would undertake to bring up such a provision on Report.

§ MR. CLARE READ
said, he had given Notice of an Amendment for that very purpose. He hoped that before they passed the Bill they would not simply leave the matter to the Order in Council, as the Bill proposed at present.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, he thought that this was a matter that ought to be left to the discretion of the Privy Council. When a man failed to report disease, it was difficult to say whether it was from ignorance or design. He had known cases in which an animal had been attended by a Veterinary Inspector for a week or two before he was able to determine that it was pleuro-pneumonia. In fact, a case came to his notice only a week or two ago, in which an Inspector had been attending an animal for two or three weeks, and was only then able to discover that it was pleuro-pneumonia. It was an exceedingly difficult matter; and he thought it would require to be a very carefully-drawn section. It would be necessary, while putting a certain amount of onus on every owner of cattle, to prevent a person suffering from mere ignorance.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, the way in which the Government proposed in the Bill to meet the difficulty suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford was by the combined action of the 2nd subsection of Clause 54 and the 1st subsection of Clause 30. By the 1st subsection 2092 of Clause 30, the Privy Council might make general and special Orders for prescribing and regulating the notice of disease, or of the illness of an animal, to be given to or by any person or authority. And then Sub-section 2 of Clause 54 said— If, without lawful excuse, proof whereof shall lie on him, he fails to give, produce, observe, or do any notice, licence, rule, or thing which by this Act or by an Order of Council or by a regulation of a local authority, he is required to give, produce, observe, or do. If the person neglected to do that which, referring back to Clause 30, was required in the case of the disease or illness of an animal, he was guilty of an offence against the Act. He believed the combination of those two sub-sections would effect the object of the right hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he did not think the interpretation of the Act ought to be left to the magistrates.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he would look into the matter.

§ MR. PEASE
said, he had a rather strong opinion that they ought to have the declaration on the face of the Act. The great point was to make it incumbent on every person who had a diseased animal, whether it was suffering from foot-and-mouth disease or pleuro-pneumonia, to give notice to the Veterinary Inspector, in order that they might prevent the spread of disease.

§ MR. WHITWELL
said, he should like to ask the hon. Baronet whether Sub-section 2 was entirely in accord with Sub-section 1? In Sub-section 1, a penalty of £20 was prescribed for each offence; but by the 2nd sub-section the penalty was limited to £5 each animal, where there were more than four animals. So that if there were five animals, the fine would be limited to £5, although the offence in each case was just as great as where there was a single animal for which the penalty was £20. He should also like to ask the hon. Baronet whether he thought it would be wise to subject offences committed in relation to manure or litter to penalties according to the weight? Surely, the sooner the litter and manure were put out of sight the better, without waiting to ascertain the weight. He wanted the Bill to be as good as it could be; and as it was desirable that dead 2093 carcases, manure, or litter, which, created an offence, should be put out of sight as soon as possible, he did not think they should be suffered to remain till the exact weight was ascertained. He trusted the hon. Baronet would see what his object was, and perhaps he would take the point into consideration.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he would promise to consider the matter. At the same time, he imagined that the method proposed had been found by experience to be the best method of carrying out the Act. It was not so much a question of weighing the manure in the manner the hon. Member suggested, because the carts which were employed in its removal generally carried a fixed quantity and weight.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he wished to know whether the hon. Baronet desired that his Amendment should apply to Orders in Council only?

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
withdrew his Amendment, and moved to insert after the word "authority," line 24, page 27, the words "made under this Act."

§ MR. SYNAN
said, the words were perfectly superfluous, and, if introduced, would only create an ambiguity which did not exist without them.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
asked, if this applied to the regulations of local authorities made under an Order in Council? If the words were not introduced, the clause would apply to both cases; but, seeing that the Amendment limited the matter to "this Act," there might be some doubt about it, and the decisions of country magistrates could not be expected to be very deep.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he confessed that he ought to have 2094 been better informed upon the matter, and ought to have resisted the Amendment before; but all he could do now was to point out to the hon. Baronet where the object he had in view was met in the Bill, and he thought it would be necessary to give Notice to reject on Report the Amendment which had just been introduced. The object aimed at by the hon. Baronet was provided for on page 20 of the Bill, line 39.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, the place where he first moved to insert these words was after the word "Council," in line 24, page 27; and that was not in the least met by the observations of the hon. Baronet. He wished to insert them after the word "Council."

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
And after the word "authority?"

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
Yes; but, in the first place, after the word "Council." I withdraw the Motion to insert the words here, in order to move their insertion after the word "Council."

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he must resist the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. If the Amendment was necessary, it could be made on Report; but he could not consent now to the introduction of words which would cause confusion in many other parts of the Bill.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he could not help thinking that without these words the clause would be vastly too wide. There were two classes of penalties for an offence which was a breach of an Order in Council without any limiting words at all. He thought they ought to have some legal opinion on the point.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, the word "Council" occurred frequently in this clause and in other clauses; and if it was necessary to insert the proposed words in one part, it would be necessary to insert them in all. If such an Amendment was necessary at all, it ought to be done as a separate clause.

§ MR. CLARE READ
said, he could not believe that these words were necessary. 2095 If they were necessary here, they would be necessary in other parts of the Bill. He should say, put them in if they were necessary; but he had been assured by one of the best authorities that with the words "Order in Council" there was no necessity for them.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
did not like to allow the clause to pass without these words. The point was this. The words "Order in Council" occurred repeatedly, and they were creating penalties for offences which consisted in a breach of certain regulations. They were described as— Things done in contravention of this Act, or of an Order in Council, or of a regulation of the local authority. The words "Order in Council" ought to be limited by the words "made under this Act."

§ MR. SYNAN
saw no objection to introducing the words "under this Act" after "Order in Council." If the hon. Baronet persisted in saying the words ought to be inserted, then, for the sake of expedition and peace, let them be inserted.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
thought that the powers of the Privy Council were limited by the 1st section of Clause 8. This point had been carefully considered, and he could not consent to alter the Bill in the way the hon. Baronet suggested.

§ MR. PEASE
pointed out the inconvenience arising from bringing forward Amendments of this technical character without having previously placed them on the Paper, and hoped that the hon. Baronet would defer them till the Report.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
was inclined to think that the words of the 8th clause met the objection of his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea. The words were— In this Act Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council is referred to as the Privy Council, and an order of the Privy Council under this Act is referred to as an Order in Council. Therefore, an Order in Council was an Order in Council under this Act.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
desired to point out to his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire that he thought his object was already met by the Bill. In the 1st sub-section of Clause 55, it was enacted that "if any person does any of the following things he shall be guilty of an offence," and then followed a list of the offences. Whenever a person committed a fault as against this section, he was guilty of an offence, and was liable to penalties. If he repeated the offence he rendered himself again liable, and there was no necessity to prove a previous conviction.

§ MR. PELL
The hon. Baronet does not understand my Amendment.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
did not think the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury understood the point. Clause 54 said that certain things were in contravention of the Act, including the questions of notice, licence, &c. Clause 55 said that certain other things were against the Act, such, for example, as doing a thing licensed after the licence 2097 had expired. But they were all special, and for these offences there was to be, or might be, imprisonment. What his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire proposed was that a person committing a second offence against the Act under Section 54 should be punished by imprisonment, instead of, as at present, by a fine only.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
hoped that the Government would not assent to the Amendment, which might be made an engine of oppression in Ireland.

§ MR. PELL
failed to see the force of the objection which had been raised to his Amendment by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury; because, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had pointed out, the offences under Section 55 were specified, and referred to ordinary licences and certificates. But what he (Mr. Pell) wanted the Committee to observe was this—that the movement of cattle was to be regulated by Order in Council or by the regulation of a local authority; and that to commit an offence against the orders of the local authority, or of the Privy Council, or in reference to the moving of cattle, and bringing them into an open place, was nothing more than an offence against the 54th section of the Act, punishable only by fine. It was the practice of some people, who were well known, to convey diseased animals about the country; and in the part of the country where he lived, a vast amount of disease had been generated in that way. For instance, under Section 30, the Privy Council might make Orders for the isolation or separation of animals in an infected place; and if a person disobeyed such Orders, he could but be fined. If Parliament had really made up its mind to stop the movement of diseased animals in the country, it would be necessary to put into the hands of the Executive the power to imprison a person who repeatedly committed one of these offences. He should have no objection to add to his Amendment words providing that it should only refer to cases where there had been a conviction within 12 months. [Mr. PEASE: Six months.] He (Mr. Pell) was sure that, on reflection, it would be seen that it was not sufficient to impose a mere fine for neglecting to isolate infected animals, or for moving them over roads, 2098 and bringing them into the market. Merely to fine a man for carrying on an illicit trade under one's nose seemed to him to be not an adequate punishment, and in practice it had not proved to be so.

§ COLONEL MURE
begged to support the view of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. The reckless way in which diseased animals were moved about the country was a scandal; and there was no doubt that the imposition of a fine was not sufficient to put a stop to it. Only the other day, a man brought a cow very ill with pleuro-pneumonia into open market. If that man knew that imprisonment would follow the detection of such an offence he would not be likely to commit it. He sincerely hoped that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire would press his Amendment.

§ COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISE
hoped that the Government would not accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire. He thought it was hardly necessary that for a second offence they should imprison a person in the class of life of those whom the Bill would affect. He had no objection to the pecuniary penalty being made more severe.

§ MR. WHITWELL
thought the hon. and gallant Member for Essex (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) had rather forgotten that the infliction of the punishment of imprisonment was not compulsory. It was simply left to the discretion of the justices to inflict imprisonment or not. Taking into consideration the serious nature of the offence mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew-shire (Colonel Mure), he thought the Bill would be inefficient, unless the magistrates had power to inflict imprisonment. He would ask the hon. Member for South Leicestershire whether he would object to include the word "knowingly" in his Amendment? He should certainly support the Amendment in case the hon. Member went to a division.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
had no wish to resist the feeling of the Committee generally if it was in favour of the Amendment; but while accepting the principle of the Amendment, he would ask his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire to allow him to consider the words which he had placed upon the Paper, and to see where 2099 they ought to be introduced into the clause.

§ MR. PELL
I presume the Government agrees to the principle?

§ COLONEL MURE
I should like to ask whether the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury accepts the principle of imprisonment, or of a heavier fine for a second offence?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
What I said was, that I accepted the principle of my hon. Friend, and I understand that carries the punishment of imprisonment for a second offence. What I asked him was to allow me to consider the words, and the exact place where they should be introduced into the Bill.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
apprehended that farmers would be held responsible for the acts of their servants; and, under Clause 54, they might be fined for any inadvertent act of omission or commission which any of their servants might commit on their farms. He quite agreed with the general view of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire, that confirmed breakers of the law, and those who broke the law wilfully, should be punished by imprisonment; but how was he going to discriminate between a farmer whose servants transgressed and that class of offenders? They must keep in mind that under this Act a great many orders might be made by the local authorities; and he knew that at one time it was utterly impossible for farmers to know what was or was not the law without consulting a lawyer.

§ MR. CLARE READ
thought the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire meant this—that for a second offence the magistrate should be obliged to send the offender to prison. ["No!"] He hoped that was not so, and that the magistrate might be at liberty to impose a fine.

§ MR. SYNAN
said, his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) was under quite a mistake as to the use of the word "discretion." What was here left to the magistrates was only a discretion as to the extent of the punishment. If a man was convicted, the magistrate would be bound to imprison him, the term of imprisonment not to exceed three months.

§ MR. PELL
said, that if the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Synan) would read the paragraph of the clause which followed 2100 his Amendment, he would see that the punishment was not of necessity one of imprisonment— And in every case in this section specified he shall be liable, on conviction, in the discretion of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction before which he is convicted, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour, in lieu of the pecuniary penalty to which he is liable under this Act.

§ MR. PEASE
understood that the Committee were not now discussing the exact words of the Amendment, the principle of which had been accepted by the Secretary to the Treasury. The Amendment was really intended to apply to those people who speculated in bad beasts, knowing that a fine could be paid out of the difference between the destruction of the beast and the sale of it.

§ LORD ELCHO
remarked, that, as he understood the question, the magistrate, under Clause 54, could only fine. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire wished to extend the power of the magistrate, so as to enable him to imprison, where a man wilfully or knowingly offended again. He (Lord Elcho) thought that was a salutary change.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he fully understood what was in the mind of the Committee. In accepting the proposal of his hon. Friend, he accepted the principle of giving to the magistrate, on a second offence being proved under Clause 54, the alternative of imprisonment in lieu of fine.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
should like to read one portion of Clause 54, which the Government proposed to make penal— If he does or omits anything, the doing or omission whereof is declared, by this Act, or by an Order of Council, to be an offence by him against this Act. He would undertake to say that there would not be one farmer out of 100 who would know what was in this Act, or in an Order in Council; and yet they were exposing that man to the risk of being summarily sent to prison for some slip which he, or some of his servants, might make, if it were discovered that he had previously offended against the law. He knew one man in his own county who was paying £800 a-year rent, and who did not speak English. If the Committee sanctioned this Amendment, they would be putting a new engine of oppression into the hands of 2101 the justices in Ireland, who were hostile in religion and politics to the people.

§ MR. FRENCH
remarked, that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) seemed to forget that the magistrates of Ireland had taken an oath to discharge the duties of their office without fear, favour, or affection. He had no doubt that, in administering the law under this Act, they would take into consideration the circumstances of each case; and, in his opinion, a conviction under this clause did not necessarily entail imprisonment. A magistrate would have the power to order imprisonment where he saw that a flagrant and wilful breach of the Act had been committed; but he did not believe there was a man on the Bench in Ireland who would imprison a man who had offended in ignorance of the Act.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
believed that the power which it was now proposed to confer on magistrates would be very often unjustly used in Ireland. Unfortunately, there was not the same amount of confidence between the farming class in Ireland and the magistrates, as existed in England; and he objected to placing in the hands of the latter a summary power of imprisoning for a second offence, which a man might not know he was committing. He should feel it his duty, on the Report, to take a division against the proposal.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, that before the Amendment was withdrawn, he thought it was his duty to offer his opinion as to the controversy between the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) and the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan). He was not personally disposed to bring a wholesale charge of dishonesty against the Irish magistrates; but, at the same time, he knew, of his own knowledge, that there were a good many among them who were not praiseworthy. The fact was that they were so prejudiced, and had so little sense of justice, that really they were not competent to give an impartial opinion on a simple proposition; and, for that reason, he thought, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) was quite right in proposing to withdraw his Amendment. He should like to have an assurance from the Government that they did not intend to bring this question forward on the Report. If so, they would oblige him to 2102 move Amendments to every line, not only of Clause 54, but of Clause 55. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway had alluded to one sub-section of the clause, and he (Mr. Biggar) would refer to another— If, without lawful excuse, proof whereof shall lie on him, he does anything which by this Act, or an Order in Council, to be an offence by him against this Act. If he failed to give, produce, observe, or do any notice, or refused to an Inspector, or other officer, acting in execution of the Act, or of an Order in Council, or of a regulation of a local authority, admission to any land, building, place, &c., the unfortunate man, who was liable to three months in gaol, would be called upon to prove a negative. He would have to prove that he did not know he was committing a breach of the law. He might have no means of doing so, and would, therefore, be liable to be imprisoned. The whole thing seemed to be so preposterous, that unless the Government gave some assurance that a man would not, under such circumstances, be imprisoned, he himself would move Amendments to each of the sub-sections that had been referred to.

§ MR. PARNELL
thought that before the Amendment was withdrawn, the Committee ought to know the mind of the Government, if, indeed, they had any mind at all upon this question. The question, undoubtedly, was one of considerable importance. The punishment of imprisonment, as proposed by the Bill, was a serious matter, although it might be reserved by the Government for offences of a very special character. Now, the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Pell) proposed to extend the punishment, if offences were committed a second time, which offences were not offences originally when committed the first time, and which did not carry with them the punishment of imprisonment. He thought that when the Committee came to consider how the law would stand after this Cattle Diseases Bill, they would see that they had introduced a great variety of regulations, which had never existed previously, in connection with the stamping out of cattle disease. They were putting foot-and-mouth disease under the operations of the Act. If they made it penal—if they punished a farmer by imprisonment, especially 2103 under the new prison rules, which were of a severe character—he believed that many of the farmers in Ireland would not be so much obliged to the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) as he himself seemed to suppose they would be. Under all the circumstances, he thought the Committee had a right to know in what way the Government regarded this Amendment. Was a man to be imprisoned if it should happen that he committed one of the trivial offences contemplated under the 54th clause of the Bill, a second time over; or was imprisonment to be reserved for the more heinous offences named in the subsequent clauses?

§ MR. FRENCH
said, that if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had been in the House when he spoke, he would have perceived that he did not advocate the adoption of imprisonment to farmers. He took objection to something that was said with regard to the magistrates by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Major Nolan). What he (Mr. French) said was, that there were no magistrates in Ireland who would send a farmer to prison except he willingly offended against the law.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that if the hon. Member for Roscommon did not say anything in favour of imprisonment, he certainly did not raise his voice against it. The tendency of his argument, certainly, was in support of the clause.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
thought the Committee was being misled by those who represented the farmers of England. The farmers, generally, supported the Members for the counties, and the Members for the counties, therefore, represented their views, and the principle of both was the same. Quite a different thing existed in Ireland. The farmers sent Members to Parliament, and it was well known that many of them were opposed to the magistracy. If the English Representatives of the English farmers, therefore, insisted on forcing the clause on the Irish farmers, they would be doing a serious injury to them. They would make the Bill a political Bill—they would bring in political oppression, and that popularity which the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) seemed to conceive existed in Ireland would disappear altogether. He (Major Nolan) 2104 admitted there were many good magistrates in Ireland; but, on the whole, they were not such an excellent body of men as the hon. Member for Roscommon seemed to think they were.

§ MR. RODWELL
thought there had been a great deal of unnecessary discussion as to the difference between the English and Irish farmers. It was satisfactory to hear that those who represented the counties were willing to abide by the clause. He would not say that if a farmer offended against the law he ought not to be punished or subjected to the same penalties as those persons who sent dead meat that was diseased to London or elsewhere; but he conceived that the power which it was proposed in the Bill to give to the magistrates would be very useful. If the penalty was only a fine, the offence would become a matter of speculation, and a man would do all that he could to smuggle bad meat into the markets. He did not think that the power of imprisonment would prove a hardship upon offenders; and, therefore, he should support the Amendment. Another advantage, he believed, would be derived from its adoption. The magistrates, who had to carry out the law, would see that the parties who had to publish the Orders, whether those Orders were issued by the Privy Council or the local authorities, did their duty; and, therefore, people would not have an opportunity of pleading ignorance of the subject. It would make people more careful in their transactions, and so it would carry out the object they all had in view—namely, to stamp out and remove cattle disease from this country.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, that before the Committee passed the clause, he should propose another Amendment to the effect that no offender should be imprisoned unless he had been tried before a jury.

§ MR. BIGGAR,
who intimated that he had a prior Amendment on the Paper, said, that he should move the insertion of the words "to a penalty not exceeding £50." All the principles of the Act, he believed, would be guarded by the infliction of a heavy fine, instead of imprisonment as proposed. No man in 2105 his senses would, intentionally, do any of the things spoken of in the clause; and, therefore, it would not be reasonable to allow a magistrate to send a man to prison for three months for doing that which he never intended to do. According to the new prison rules, it would be a serious thing to send a man to prison to lie for a month on bare boards. It seemed to him that the parties who were promoting the Bill were desirous of making it as unpopular as possible. He should move, as an Amendment, to strike out all the words in line 36, from the words "after conviction" to the end of the clause, and to insert "a penalty not exceeding £50."

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
could not assent to the Amendment proposed. The penalty of imprisonment would not be inflicted except in certain specified cases. It was not proposed to go beyond that. He believed in the soundness of the principle laid down in the Bill, that if there was a serious case committed knowingly by a person who had offended before—if he by his acts was likely to render all attempts to bring about a remission of the disease—if he really prejudiced the effort that was being made in that direction—there ought certainly to be a right of imprisonment under the Act. It was no novelty to give summary jurisdiction to a magistrate in a matter of the kind. With regard to one of the Amendments which had been withdrawn, and which had reference to a previous clause, he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had stated distinctly that, whilst admitting the principle of the Motion proposed by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire—that imprisonment in lieu of a fine might be given, when the offences were serious—and they would become serious when a man offended the law wilfully—he was quite prepared to limit the power by the insertion of certain words, so as to make it a fact that breaches of the law should be committed wilfully and with a guilty knowledge—two or more breaches within a given time. It would be pointed out to the magistrates that they should act carefully and with discretion, and only inflict imprisonment in the worst cases that might come before them. To deprive the magistrates of the power which they already possessed in so many analogous cases, would be striking at the root of that which Parliament was 2106 anxious to do—namely, to get rid of the cattle disease in this country. It would certainly be injudicious to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and he must dissent from it.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
wished to support the Amendment, and to point out its position at the present moment. He himself, and some other hon. Members, thought that three months' imprisonment should be imposed for 12 specified offences under the Act. He was quite willing that three months' imprisonment should be imposed for any offence against one of these definite provisions. But what the Government did when the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) moved his Amendment was to go back to Clause 54, and for an indefinite offence to give three months' imprisonment on a second conviction, and without an appeal to a jury. He strongly objected to imprisonment being put into the clause at all, or, at any rate, so much as three months, and especially to its being awarded, if they were to interpret the administration of the law by the terms of the reply which the Secretary to the Treasury gave to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. At the present moment, it was quite possible for the Government to do away with imprisonment for indefinite offences. He disapproved, also, of the system of appointing magistrates in Ireland, though he wished to convey no imputation against the great majority of that body generally. In many cases the magistrates were no friends to the farmers, having been entirely selected from one class of society. As the Bill stood, he did not so much object to the clause as to the indefinite term in which offences were stated by the Secretary to the Treasury. If the hon. Baronet would let them know exactly what he was awarding imprisonment for, he would be disposed to agree to it. He should support the hon. Member for Cavan; and if his Amendment were not accepted, he would himself endeavour to bring up words to give effect to it.

§ MR. FRENCH
said, that the Amendment really meant imprisonment for the poor man and fines for the rich man. A rich man probably would not care for a fine; but a poor man would have no option but to go to prison if he were fined £50.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, in looking over the clause, it seemed to him to be perfectly preposterous. He had understood that the punishment of three months' imprisonment was for a second offence; but it seemed, under Clause 55, that a man was liable to the penalty without the magistrate having any discretion to fine at all, and for offences, too, which seemed to him to be of the most trivial nature. There were certain subsections in the Bill that covered very serious offences—offences so serious that in many cases they would amount to forgery. The 3rd sub-section provided for the offence of using an instrument which purported to be a licence, and which was not really so. Of course, in that case, a man would be liable to a very severe punishment; but he believed, at the same time, that, without that Act at all, a person who used a document which was evidently forged would be liable to very severe punishment under other existing Acts. But in the 1st subsection there were three specific offences provided for—namely, for doing a thing which was not permitted by Order in Council, or by the local authority, or by the Act. There were three things for which the unfortunate man was liable without the option of showing that he had not seen a notice; and he was supposed to know what was in the Act of Parliament, what was in the Order of the Privy Council, and what was in the local regulations. Now, he thought it was preposterous to say that the magistrate should be called upon to imprison a person for such a matter as that. To take the case of a licence being required to move cattle along a road in a district where cattle disease was supposed to exist; in such a case, he thought, where a man had failed to comply with the regulations of the Privy Council, the magistrate should not have the power to send him to prison unless there were shown to be very bad circumstances attending the case. The 2nd sub-section was almost as bad. It provided a penalty in the case of a person neglecting to renew a licence. Now, it was quite possible that the licence might only have expired one day, and it was quite possible that it might not clearly state on what day it should be renewed. Supposing the licence was only for 14 days, and the man by some mistake allowed it to run over a day, the result would be 2108 that he would be hauled before a magistrate and sent to prison. Well, the 3rd sub-section amounted to forgery, and he thought it was legitimate enough to punish a man severely for that. But to send a man to gaol for what was really a trivial offence seemed to him to be rather hard. There was one provision in particular which made it penal to make a statement which was false in any particular, unless it could be shown that a person did it in ignorance. It was true that the mistake might involve something material, but that might not arise from wilful falsehood. Such a case would be if a man obtained, or endeavoured to obtain, compensation under a false pretence; and unless he could show that he did so unknowingly, he would be liable to imprisonment. That rendered the case particularly hard, for every hon. Member knew that it was a difficult thing to prove a negative; and it depended entirely upon the extent and nature of the suppression of the truth, whether or not a man should be punished; because everyone must know that in making a statement he could not recollect all the matters that ought to be stated. There was another case he might mention, which was claiming compensation under a false pretext. Now, he would show that that was perfectly unreasonable; because, according to the evidence which had been given before the Committee, there were two sorts of lung disease—namely, pleuro-pneumonia and simple inflammation of the lungs, and they resembled each other so closely that it was difficult to distinguish them one from the other. Well, according to the proposed law, a man might claim compensation for beasts slaughtered on the supposition that they were suffering from pleuro-pneumonia; and should a veterinary surgeon swear that the animal died, not from pleuro-pneumonia, but from inflammation of the lungs, the man making the claim would be liable to be sent to prison, unless he could prove his innocence, which would be a very difficult matter. Sub-section 11 seemed to him to be reasonable enough, because it was an enactment against digging up animals that had been buried; but that was a thing which might be easily avoided. In all the cases he had cited it was assumed that everybody must know every order of the local authority, 2109 of the Privy Council, or the Act of Parliament; and, unless a person exercised a constant supervision over all those things, he was liable to these severe penalties, and, at the same time, it was not possible to fine him, because the magistrate had no option in the matter; and he, therefore, hoped that the Committee would make the alteration in the clause that he suggested.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
trusted that Her Majesty's Government would adopt the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. He was authorized by the agriculturists and magistrates of his own county to state that the difficulty which they had for years encountered arose from the fraudulent practices of a certain set of jobbers, and that those practices were not to be corrected by any fines that might be imposed. He had at one time heard it proposed that no man should be authorized or permitted to act as a dealer without a licence obtained from the local authorities; but it was found that that would have interfered most seriously with the trade. He had received strong representations from the most experienced magistrates in his own county urging this—that the profits that these men contrived to make by obtaining cattle at a very low price that had been associated with diseased cattle were so great that no fine would stop the offence—at least, no fine that the House would think of imposing, and his neighbours had come with great reluctance to the conclusion that nothing but imprisonment at the discretion of the Court, after the first or second conviction, could possibly put a stop to the mischief. He believed that nothing had contributed so much to the spread of disease as that habit of a certain set of unprincipled dealers who went about, being perfectly willing and ready to give a certain price for cattle that had been associated with diseased animals. He was convinced that the principle of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire was essential to the working of the Act.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire seemed to be under a misapprehension that the clause provided for imprisonment after the first or second conviction. The clause proposed unconditionally to inflict imprisonment for the first offence, 2110 so that the hon. Member was mistaken in his view. The hon. Gentleman had spoken rather hardly of cattle dealers. Now, he did not think that charge was thoroughly justified, because it would not pay cattle dealers to sell diseased cattle as a rule. They wanted cattle that they could go from place to place with, and show anywhere. He believed that the dealers who brought over Irish cattle did business with the same farmers year after year. But still the fact remained that the occasional removal of cattle without a licence, or making an untenable claim for compensation, would render a party liable to imprisonment. He really did not see how certain persons could be safe under the Bill. They were liable to imprisonment if they went too far; and they were liable if they did not go far enough; so that the position seemed to be a thoroughly unpleasant one for them. He should be disposed to divide upon the Amendment.

§ DR. LUSH
thought there was something in the nature of a family quarrel about the matter. The Irish Members had not made up their minds to vote en bloc upon it, and so they had come to words. Living in the West of England, and being desirous that the cattle there should be protected against disease from Ireland, he regretted very much that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire had withdrawn his Amendment; but as he thought it only right that Irish cattle dealers should be compelled to keep their animals in proper order, he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, the Irish Members had been taunted with not agreeing. Now, what had they seen? They had seen the English county Members disagreeing with the borough Members, who sat on the same benches, with regard to that very Bill. The Irish Members were not differing about the Bill, but about something which was proposed to be put into the Bill, and they were taunted with that difference. However, he thought, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Dr. Lush) was quite right in the course he was going to take, for he did not think that very severe penalties for an unknown offence would tend to make the Act popular in Ireland.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
thought if the hon. Member for Salisbury 2111 (Dr. Lush) had read the evidence given before the Committee, he would not have made the accusation of Irish cattle bringing disease into England. It would be much more correct to say that disease had been imported into Ireland from England, than to England from Ireland; and he had heard a statement made by a noble Lord in the other House to that effect. He should certainly support the hon. Member for Cavan, because he believed there was no occasion for imposing, or giving the magistrates power to impose, any imprisonment with hard labour; because under the existing law where a penalty was imposed and was not paid, there was power given to the magistrates to impose a punishment to be measured by the amount of the fine. That was to say, where a fine of £5 was imposed and was not paid, there was power given to inflict a corresponding term of imprisonment. At present, they were going to impose a term of imprisonment of three months for an offence which, under the existing law, a man might commit without knowing it.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
really hoped there would be time for the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill to consider the engagement he had entered into with Ireland, and the pains and penalties that were to be inflicted in connection with the working of the law. There were a great many gentlemen who had held the Bill in no very great favour, and amongst them was himself. But he had always acted with very great forbearance up to that time. He, however, should think that any attempt to heighten the character of the class of offences, in order to cultivate the good-will of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), would be a very great mistake indeed. He should certainly support the Amendment.

§ MR. BIGGAR
thought it was all very well for hon. Gentlemen who were going to make a penal clause to be in such a hurry about it; but he thought if they were the parties who were going to be imprisoned they would not be so hasty. They had heard from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire his ideas about the rascality of the cattle dealers.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
begged the hon. Member's pardon. What he stated was that there were a certain set of men who were perfectly well known, and who practically 2112 defied the authority of the trustees, and that they were able to do so by means of the large profits they made.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, that the correction of the hon. Member did not materially alter what was said. He should be disposed to doubt very much whether those persons whom the hon. Member had spoken of as having broken the law, had boasted of their having done so to the hon. Member himself, or whether he had had it by hearsay. He knew the hon. Member would not do anything that he did not think was perfectly right; but, at the same time, he was afraid the hon. Gentleman had prejudices on certain subjects, and that if an unfortunate cattle dealer from England or Ireland were brought before him in his magisterial capacity for having acted contrary to the provisions of the Bill, he would be likely to receive very severe punishment. The penalty which the clause imposed was, in reality, a very serious one. If a man was provided with a copy of the Act and read it carefully, he might, without being in the slightest degree aware that he was doing anything wrong, commit an offence for which he would be liable to three months' imprisonment. That would be the case, even although he had merely infringed the order of some local authority.

THE CHAIRMAN
reminded the hon. Gentleman that his observations referred not to the clause before the Committee, but to another which had been already agreed to.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he was very sorry if, in the observations which he thought it to be his duty to make, he was out of Order; but in referring to the Orders in Council, and the regulations by the local authorities, which might be different in different districts, he was, he apprehended, confining himself to the Question which was before the Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that the first paragraph to which the hon. Member had alluded, relating to the infringement of the Act, was contained in Clause 54, and had just been agreed to.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, the whole discussion had arisen because the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had contended that words should be introduced into the clause before the 2113 Committee applying the penalties which were mentioned in Clause 54, and making a second offence punishable by imprisonment.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was not in Order in basing his observations on an Amendment which had been withdrawn. The Question before the Committee was the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cavan himself, which had no reference to Clause 54.

§ MR. BIGGAR
was afraid the Chairman did not thoroughly understand the drift of his observations. The local authority might make rules and regulations which, as he had said, might vary in different districts.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the Chairman had ruled that the hon. Gentleman was not in Order in pursuing the line of argument which he was endeavouring to press upon the Committee. The hon. Gentleman was bound to respect that ruling.

§ MR. BIGGAR
was very sorry if he had said anything which was out of Order; but doubted whether the wording of the clause did not justify the remarks which he had made. If a local authority were to frame certain regulations, a person making himself acquainted with those regulations in one district might go to another in which they were totally different, and might commit an infringement of the law without being in the slightest degree aware of it. In fact, what was illegal in one district or county might be strictly in accordance with the law in another. It was unreasonable, therefore, he maintained, to impose such a penalty as three months' imprisonment in such circumstances. The penalty was, in his opinion, much too severe; and he would, therefore, feel it to be his duty to go to a division on his Amendment.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
regretted to be obliged to differ on such a question as that before the Committee from hon. Members who represented large constituencies. The evidence, however, which had been given before the Committee upstairs on the point at issue was very strong; and he felt bound to support the Government in their determination that a considerable penalty should be inflicted in those cases in which the law was broken. An Irish witness—Professor Baldwin—who was examined before 2114 the Committee of the House of Lords, stated, in answer to the Duke of Somerset and others, that disease in Ireland was spread about the country in consequence of the proceedings of small cattle jobbers. The expectation of making a good profit, induced, he said, those jobbers, who were very numerous in that country, to violate the law. The only way of meeting the difficulty, he added, without interfering with the ordinary course of trade, would be to pass an Order declaring that no person should sell, at any fair in Ireland, cattle of which he was not the bonâ fide owner for a specified time. In reply to other questions, Professor Baldwin went on to say that the difficulty was a very great and serious one; and he gave, from his own experience, several cases in which jobbers had attempted to defeat the law. He further suggested that it would be desirable, if possible, to stamp out altogether the danger which was created in that way. For his own part, he was convinced that the most stringent restrictions were necessary, if the disease were to be stamped out in Ireland. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) seemed to be of opinion that there was more disease imported from England to Ireland than from Ireland to England, and he had no wish to strike a balance between the two countries in that respect. But the evidence given before the Committee showed conclusively than an immense amount of disease, and especially of foot-and-mouth disease, came from Ireland. It was, therefore, the interest of English Members that the Privy Council should have the power of enforcing the carrying out of the law in a bonâ fide manner; and he would, entertaining those views, support the Government in resisting the Amendment.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
regretted to hear the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, opposed as they were to the experience of those who were best acquainted with the farming and pastoral population of Ireland. He probably had a more extensive knowledge of the small jobbers to whom the hon. Gentleman referred than almost any other Member of that House; and he must say that a more honest or meritorious class of persons did not, in his opinion, exist. [A laugh.] He was not in the 2115 slightest degree afraid of the sneers of those hon. Gentlemen who thought proper to laugh, because they could not understand that which he was talking about as well as he did. The cattle jobbers in Ireland pursued their industry in a perfectly legitimate and worthy manner; and, so far as he was concerned, he had no objection that they should be punished if they committed an infraction of the law. He maintained, however, that the law should not be framed in a spirit of severity, but rather in the spirit of warning and caution, so as to prevent any ordinary or reasonable man from taking a course which, although he might deem it not wrong in itself, was opposed to the law of the land. As to the degree of obligation which Ireland was under to England for the foot-and-mouth disease, or vice versâ, he would only say that the feeling on the other side of the Channel was that the balance was in favour of Ireland—that was to say, that it received from England more of the disease than it communicated to it. But, be that as it might, what he wished chiefly to point out was that the law would be all the more likely to be effectual, if only moderate penalties were imposed under its operation. The magistrates would, he thought, shrink from imposing penalties which they regarded as being too severe. It was, in his opinion, wrong in principle to place comparatively venial offences in the category of more serious crimes; and he should, therefore, support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan.

§ MR. COGAN
wished to bring back the Committee for a moment to the real question before them. That question had nothing to do with the comparative prevalence of disease in England or Ireland, or any exceptional mode of treatment which had been adopted in one country or the other. The introduction of such questions might lead to controversy, which it appeared to him would be ill-timed, and which might prevent the Committee from arriving at a sound and impartial decision. The real point for their consideration was whether the offences enumerated in the Bill were of so grave a nature, that the magistrates should be empowered to inflict three months' imprisonment with hard labour as the penalty for their commission? Now, in his opinion, the Committee 2116 would not consent to view those offences in that light; and if the majority acted upon a different view of the matter, the result would, he was afraid, be to render the Bill so unpopular as to make it impossible that its provisions could be carried into effect; whereas the object of every hon. Member ought to be to make it so popular in its action, and so reasonable in its provisions, that public opinion would lend to it its sanction. The very 1st sub-section of the clause under discussion set forth that if a man did anything for which a licence was required under the Act or the regulations of a local authority without having obtained such licence, he might, at the option of the magistrates, be sentenced to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour. Now, could it, he would ask, fairly be supposed that all the small farmers of the country could make themselves acquainted with the provisions of the law, the Orders in Council, and the regulations of the local authorities? He did not wish to weary the Committee by going through the various sub-sections; but several of them related to offences of so trivial a nature that he could not help thinking that the punishments imposed would be entirely disproportionate to those offences. He would take, for instance, the case in which the use of any vessel or vehicle connected with an infected animal was provided for by Order in Council under the Act, and would ask with confidence, whether it was fair that any breach of the law in that respect should be made punishable with three months' imprisonment and hard labour at the option of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction? He, for one, could not for a moment consent to the infliction of so severe a punishment for such an offence. The pecuniary punishment inflicted under a previous section of the Bill would, he believed, be quite sufficient to meet the exigencies of the case. If not, that pecuniary penalty might be increased. Holding these opinions, he should certainly vote in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
had no desire to take part in a discussion which was already sufficiently protracted. He felt it to be his duty, however, to point out that the sub-section, to which so much objection was urged, had been actually in force as the law of the 2117 land for many years. The 103rd section of the existing Act contained exactly the same penalties as those which were repeated in the 54th clause of the present Bill, and the 104th section gave the magistrates the power of summary jurisdiction, and the authority to inflict three months' imprisonment for a violation of the law, exactly in the same way that was now proposed. It was not, therefore, open to hon. Members to speak of the idea as if it were a sudden one, which it was sought to embody in our legislation for the first time. If they would study the subject more carefully, they would find that the clauses under discussion were, for the most part, a consolidation of the existing law, simply repeating clauses which, he might observe, had never been carried out in the way in which it seemed to be imagined the present Bill would be carried into effect.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
begged the Committee to compare the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury with that of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who welcomed the present Bill as greatly increasing the penalties which would be imposed for any infraction of the law. Was it, he would ask, wise to award three months' imprisonment in the case of some unknown catalogue of crimes, which the Secretary to the Treasury had stated he would name on the Report? He would suggest that the clause should be postponed until the Committee were made aware what those new offences were to be. Let them not sanction the three months' imprisonment first, and then come to a decision with regard to the offences for which that punishment should be inflicted after.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
did not think it would be quite reasonable to press for the postponement of the clause after the discussion which had taken place, especially as by agreeing to it the Committee would not be pledging itself to pass any new clause which might be brought up by the Government to meet the suggestion which had been thrown out by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury was, he thought, perfectly correct in saying that the clause merely repeated the law as it at present stood; and, although it might savour a little of severity to make the obtaining 2118 of a fraudulent licence the subject of so rigorous a punishment as three months' imprisonment with hard labour, yet it must be borne in mind that it would be utterly impossible to carry the law into effect unless there were strong provisions directed against its infringement. The offences against which the clause was directed were, in his opinion, real and serious offences; and, entertaining that view, he could not, he was sorry to say, vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
said, that every hon. Member concurred in the view that a penalty should be imposed for a violation of the law. What the supporters of the Amendment contended for was that a punishment should not be inflicted which there was no power to inflict under the law as it stood. He would suggest that a Proviso should be introduced at the end of the section, to the effect that imprisonment under its operation should not exceed that imposed by any Act of Parliament now in force, in default of payment to a certain amount. Such a Proviso would, he thought, fairly meet the justice of the case.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, that if the Committee were to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, it would be making the law infinitely more lax than it was at present; for the law, as it now stood, gave power to the magistrates, in the very cases which the Committee were engaged in discussing, to inflict the punishment of imprisonment for three months.

§ MR. PARNELL
felt sure the hon. Baronet did not wish to mislead the Committee. Such, however, would be the effect of the observations which had just fallen from him, if they were allowed to pass uncontradicted. The real truth of the matter was that the present Bill was the first by which it was sought to extend the provisions of the English Cattle Acts to Ireland. It was the first attempt to unite the two countries in the same measure. If the hon. Baronet would look at the Acts of 1870 and 1876, which related to Ireland, he would find that they did not empower the Bench of magistrates, or any other Court with jurisdiction, summary or otherwise, to inflict the penalty of imprisonment for a breach of the law, although fines might, and had been, imposed.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
was sorry to detain the Committee, but after the assertion which had been made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he felt it necessary to state that under the 2nd clause of the Cattle Diseases (Ireland) Act of 1870, it was provided that for a breach of the law the magistrates might inflict the punishment of imprisonment for three months, with or without hard labour.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, the Act of 1870 had reference to a particular offence; and that the Act of 1876, which enlarged the number of offences with regard to cattle, made no mention whatever of imprisonment, and gave no power to any magistrate to inflict such a punishment.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
thought the answer of the Secretary to the Treasury would be conclusive, if the offences specified under the Act of 1870 were the same as those with which the Committee were now asked to deal.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he desired to point out that the evidence which was given before the Select Committee by Professor Baldwin, to whom reference had been made, was very different from that of other Irish witnesses. He did not allege, for one moment, that that gentleman intentionally said anything which he did not believe to be correct. But it was to be remembered that Professor Baldwin was a Government official. He was an Inspector of Irish agricultural schools; but it was notorious that the schools under his superintendence had been very unsuccessful. ["Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN
thought the hon. Member was travelling somewhat beyond the point immediately before the Committee.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, his object was to indicate the value of Professor Baldwin's evidence.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, it was not a course which Parliament had ever sanctioned, that the discussion of an Amendment on a Bill should be made the means of raising a question as to the merits or qualifications of a gentleman who was not a Member of the House, and whose conduct was not in any way before it.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
said, that whatever might be the value of the evidence of Professor Baldwin, he believed there was not in Ireland a more 2120 honourable, efficient, or courteous officer than that gentleman. ["Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he must again point out that the conduct or qualifications of Professor Baldwin did not constitute the subject before the Committee.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
said, that, so far as he was concerned, he felt he had been fully answered by the Secretary to the Treasury. He was not aware when he spoke that there were the existing Acts of Parliament to which the hon. Baronet had referred.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
said, it was very well for the hon. Member for Cork county (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) to speak as he had done; but the fact was that this Bill extended to, and included, offences other than those covered by previous Statutes, and placed in the hands of a Petty Sessions Court in Ireland the power of putting a farmer in prison for three months. If the object in view was to punish offences against the law, would not a fine of £50, as proposed by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), be quite a sufficient penalty to impose for what might be really an unintentional violation of the Statute? It was impossible that any attempts could be made to inflict imprisonment for what might be unwitting offences without strong protest and opposition on the part of those who knew what confinement in gaol now really meant. Until the Government assumed control of the prisons, the magistrates knew the discipline to which those who were sent there were about to be subjected. [Admiral Sir WILLIAM EDMONSTONE: No.] Who said "No?"—the hon. and gallant Member opposite? He asked the Chairman to call to Order the hon. and gallant Admiral, who interrupted hon. Members on every occasion he could.

§ ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM EDMONSTONE
said, he was always desirous of doing what he could to remove erroneous impressions.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, it was obvious that any contradiction by one hon. Member of a statement by another hon. Member must be made in a Parliamentary manner.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
said, he did not complain of anything un-Parliamentary. This was a question as to the liberty of the subject, and was not, and could not, be met by cries of "No!" 2121 from hon. Members on the other side of the House. If those hon. Members had taken the pains and the trouble to investigate the matter which he had done, probably they would hold different opinions from those which they appeared to entertain. Imprisonment, he repeated emphatically, was very different now from what it used to be. In former times, the county magistrates sent a man to prison—knowing exactly where that man was going, knowing the description of cell in which he would be confined, and knowing the labour which would be exacted from him. Now, however, there was no such thing; and the cruelties which were inflicted in our gaols——["Order!"]

§ COLONEL MURE
appealed to the Chairman as to whether the hon. Member for Galway was speaking to the subject before the Committee? It appeared to him that the Committee were engaged upon a Cattle Bill, and not upon a Bill relating to Prisons.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the immediate subject-matter before the Committee was an Amendment by the hon. Member for (Cavan (Mr. Biggar) relative to the character of the penalty which ought to be inflicted—fine or imprisonment—and, that being so, he could not say that reference to confinement in gaol, or to the hardships of imprisonment, was out of Order.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
said, he knew he was in Order; but, nevertheless, he was glad to hear the ruling of the Chairman. He hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had interrupted him—and who did not seem to care whether his fellow-subjects were in prison or not—would now see that this was just one of those occasions on which the difference between pecuniary penalties and personal imprisonment could be legitimately discussed in the House of Commons. No interruption, or attempt at interruption, would prevent him from doing what he believed to be his duty; and he would never consent to power being given to a Petty Sessions Court in Ireland to send a farmer to prison for three months, instead of imposing upon him a money fine. The man might occupy a good position, and might be most respectable in character; yet, for what might be a trivial and unintentional offence, he was to be liable to imprisonment for a quarter of a year! 2122 He hoped that every Irish Member would stand up against such a proposal. Certainly, he should resist it to the utmost of his power.

§ MR. D. DAVIES
said, some hon. Members seemed to have lost sight of the fact that this Bill applied to England and Wales as much and as well as to Ireland. Englishmen and Welshmen were nearly always caught when they transgressed the law; but it was very difficult to bring an Irishman to justice. The law as to imprisonment, therefore, and the imprisonment itself, should be severe and stringent, so that an Irishman should get it well when he was caught.

§ MR. FRENCH
said, that while he would not be able to vote with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), if that hon. Gentleman went to a division, he thought the proposal of the Bill as to the three months' imprisonment rather excessive. In his opinion, one month would be amply sufficient to vindicate the law.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, it appeared to him that the objections which had been taken to his proposal were in the nature of very small arguments. Reverting, for a moment, to the evidence of Professor Baldwin, he had not the slightest idea of framing any charge against that gentleman. He believed the Professor was a thoroughly estimable man. At the same time, he early formed an opinion upon his evidence, and he had never yet seen any cause to alter that opinion, which was, that it was the testimony of one who was prejudiced on the subject. As to the contention of the Secretary to the Treasury that because, under certain Acts formerly placed upon the Statute Book, penalties could be imposed, those penalties should, therefore, be renewed, he desired to point out to the hon. Baronet that they were now making a new law, and that this was the proper time to remedy any defects in measures already existing. He could not see why a bad law should be re-enacted simply because it was a law.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
hoped that the hon. Member for Cavan would not divide the Committee, but would withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he would take the advice of his hon. Friend for once, and withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that having been very much impressed with the appeal of the junior Member for Kildare (Mr. Cogan), in reference to the sub-sections of the clause now before the Committee, he had asked his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar)—and had finally succeeded, with the assistance of the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) in inducing him—to withdraw his Amendment, in order that there might be an opportunity of moving the omission of some of those sub-sections. The matter having already been fully discussed, he moved the omission of the 1st sub-section of the clause, which provided that a person should be guilty of an offence if he did anything for which a licence was requisite without having obtained that licence.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, the sub-section objected to was simply a re-enactment of the existing law. That law was at this moment in force, and the words in the existing Statute and the present Bill were identical.

§ MR. BIGGAR
did not think the Act which was now in operation gave power to inflict three months' imprisonment for an infringement of the orders of local authorities.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
asked the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he really meant to say—whether he could be serious in saying—that if a man violated some regulation, however minute, of a local authority, he was to be liable to three months' incarceration in gaol? With reference to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman near him. (Mr. D. Davies), he desired to remind him that Ireland was a totally different country from England and Wales. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of failures of justice in Ireland; but the fact was that there were more grotesque failures of justice in Wales than anywhere else. In Ireland, education had been neglected; distrust between class 2124 and class, and especially between the small farmers and the big graziers, who were particularly anxious that this Bill should pass, was greater than in England and Wales; and it seemed to him perfectly monstrous that the measure should propose to inflict the penalty to which he had already objected, and to which he should continue to object.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
doubted whether there was any such penalty in the present Act for contravening any of the rules and regulations of the local authority. But he appealed to the Secretary to the Treasury on the point.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, the intention of the present Act was to secure uniformity of action in connection with all the instructions issued by the Privy Council for the guidance of the local authorities. That uniformity was not secured under the existing Statute; but it was manifestly desirable.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
said, the hon. Baronet had not referred to the penalty contained in the clause now before the Committee. That clause set up a severe punishment for the most innocent and trivial breach of the law.

§ DR. BRADY
said, he should be sorry if the Bill were not to pass this Session. At the same time, he felt great objection to the provision under which it would be possible to visit an infringement of the law with three months' imprisonment. In such a case as that, the sympathy of the people would be with the offender, instead of being enlisted in support of the Statute. In Ireland, the effect of carrying out the proposal of the Government could not fail to be most injurious, and would ultimately tend to deprive the law of the power which he desired to see it possess.

§ MR. P. MARTIN
said, the penalty proposed was much too severe. In considering the clause the Committee should bear in mind it violated wise and well-established principles of our criminal law. The accused became bound to prove his innocence, and a guilty or criminal intent need not be established. He, therefore, objected to the tremendous responsibility which an ignorant farmer might incur in the event of doing—it might be in the most innocent way—anything for which a licence was declared to be requisite, without having obtained that licence, and in the event 2125 of his contravening in the slightest particular the regulations of the local authority. The clause would be attended, in its operation, with very serious consequences; for, under it, a respectable farmer might be immured in a county prison, and his character thereby sullied and degraded. He was very much surprised, indeed, that any Members on the Liberal side of the House should support this clause.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
said, it would be recollected that when he opposed the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), he stated that he gave his support to the general principle of this clause. At the same time, he must point out to the Committee that there was an enormous difference between the various offences set forth in the sub-sections of the measure. A small penalty should suffice in some cases; but there were other infringements of the Statute which would be obviously considerable offences. He wished to point out that the words of the proposed sub-section were inconsistent with Sub-section 3, which carefully provided that a person accused might be allowed to show that he had acted in error in contravening the law. By the sub-section under discussion, persons accused would have no such power, and were to be rendered liable to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour, for offences into the commission of which a farmer might most easily and naturally fall.

§ MR. EVANS
thought no great injustice was likely to occur in consequence of the operation of the sub-section. Hon. Gentlemen always seemed to forget that the punishment of three months' imprisonment was the maximum penalty; and he did not think that magistrates were in the habit of inflicting the maximum amount of punishment, except in aggravated cases. A large discretion was given under the English law in cases of this kind; and, as far as he knew, it was, as a rule, wisely exercised.

§ MR. CLARE READ
suggested, as a compromise, that the offences constituted by the Act should be grouped under two heads—one to be punished by fine, and the other by imprisonment; and, with regard to the latter, he thought a maximum of a month would be sufficient.

§ MR. PEASE
supported this suggestion. There were some offences for which three months' imprisonment would not be too heavy a punishment; but it would be too harsh to render an ignorant drover liable to such a punishment for an offence committed by sheer inadvertence.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
hoped the clause would be postponed.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he was quite prepared to consider the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), before the Report, with a view to grouping the various offences; but he warned the Committee that if such grouping was effected, it would be a reversal of the principle contained in an Act which had worked satisfactorily for a considerable time, and had given no occasion for a single complaint of harshness. The suggestion which had been made would have the effect of slackening the law at a time when the general opinion seemed to be that it ought to be made more severe, for the purpose of checking the spread of disease.

§ MR. P. MARTIN
said, that, as far as he knew, there had been no prosecutions at all under the Act of 1870 against farmers or dealers in Ireland for offences constituted under the clause referred to in that Act. But, even if there had, it was not a sufficient answer to the arguments against the clause to say the clause under discussion was similar in its terms. Was the Committee to be told—this being a measure for the consolidation of previous Statutes—that because in the hurry, which often attended legislation, a bad clause crept into a previous Act, it should be perpetuated in subsequent measures. He ventured to say that there were not many hon. Members of the House who even knew until very recently of the provisions of the Act of 1870; yet it was proposed to punish ignorant farmers, who erred from want of knowledge of matters shown to have been hitherto unknown to many Members of the Legislature.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
said, the proposal of the Government reversed the principle of the law, for he knew of no Act of Parliament under which a man could be punished for an offence until it was proved that he was guilty. Now they assumed that a man was guilty and then required him to show that he was innocent.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he could not acquiesce in the so-called compromise, which had been accepted by the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, who had promised to consider the matter between then and the Report; because, as he understood the hon. Baronet, he did not propose so to group the offences as that there should be one class which could not, under any circumstances, be punished with imprisonment.

§ MR. SEELY
said, he should vote against this clause, and partly on personal grounds. He happened to be the owner of a few cows; and if the subsection was passed in its present form, he might be subjected to three months' imprisonment on account of the laches of the person to whom he intrusted the care and management of the animals. It had been said that the maximum punishment would only be inflicted in rare and bad cases; but the power to inflict it would remain, and he did not at all like the idea of being left to the mercy of the magistrates. He thought the justice of every case in which offences were not committed knowingly and wilfully would be met by a fine.

§ MR. MURPHY
thought it important to make a distinction between offences committed knowingly and wilfully, and those which were the result of inadvertence or ignorance.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, he thought the clause as it stood was very ambiguous, and asked for information as to whether, in the case of his own cattle, it would be he or his herdsman who would be imprisoned in case of an infringement of the Act? He thought the simplest course would be to postpone the clause, and refer it back to the draftsman, who could deal with it in the light of the discussion which had taken place.

MR. CHAPLIN
pointed out that the law had been in force since 1869.

§ MR. SEELY
said, it was no argument to say, that because for certain offences persons had been liable to imprisonment for any number of years, such liability should continue, unless it was in the interest of the public that this should be done.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
said, he did not object to be under the control of the Privy Council—at the mercy of that body, if any hon. Member preferred the phrase—but he most strongly 2128 objected to be under the control, and at the mercy of the local magistracy.

§ COLONEL KINGSCOTE
said, he objected strongly to this waste of time, and hoped the Government would neither postpone the clause, nor give way regarding it; for Parliament must guard carefully against unscrupulous persons who infringed the law, and of whom there were a good many in this country.

MR. GORST
suggested, that the subsection should be so altered as only to subject to imprisonment persons whose offences were wilfully and maliciously committed.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
again expressed a hope that the Government would give way, and urged, as an additional reason, that if a harsh law was allowed to pass, it would be harshly administered towards poor people in Ireland.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
repeated, that he was quite willing to re-consider the point, and, if possible, on the Report, to bring up a clause which would have the effect of dividing the offences into groups.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
suggested to his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that he should withdraw his Amendment, and that the clause should be postponed.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he could not consent to postpone the clause. All he could do—and his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had stated the same thing—was to consider whether some Amendment could not be introduced on the Report.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he was not satisfied with what had been said by the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, who had not informed the Committee as to whether he was willing, in his grouping of the offences, to provide that one group should not in any circumstances be subject to imprisonment, but to fine alone?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
repeated, that he was perfectly willing to consider whether the offences could not be divided into different groups, with different punishments.

§ DR. BRADY
thought there were very sound grounds for objection to so much power being given to local authorities.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
supported the proposal to group the offences.

§ LORD ELCHO
said, one difficulty that struck him in regard to the matter was that the punitive clauses in the Bill were based upon somewhat similar clauses in an Act which had nothing to do with either pleuro-pneumonia or foot-and-mouth disease, He hoped that in any new clause that might be brought up, it would be provided that no one should be punished for offences committed unwittingly.

§ MR. PARNELL
hoped there would be no necessity for a division—a necessity which would be avoided by the Secretary to the Treasury stating that he would so divide the offences as there should be one to which the punishment of imprisonment could not apply.

§ DR. BRADY
said, this sub-section was a very objectionable one, and required the careful attention of the Committee. He hoped the Government would see their way to strike it out, and not punish a man when acting in no intentional or wrong spirit. If a passenger on the railway travelled without a ticket, he was asked, according to the bye-laws, to pay for it, and there was an end of the matter; but, in the present case, there was no provision made with regard to a person who, by accident or inadvertence, omitted to obtain a renewal of his licence.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he did not wish to enter into the merits of this particular subsection, but only desired to point out to the Committee how absolutely impossible it was to make any progress with the Bill in the manner in which they were then trying to do. He was sure that hon. Gentlemen, who were experienced in the management of Committee matters in that House, must know that nothing was more difficult than to re-draw a clause in the course of discussion, and that any Amendments of this character must be made in quiet consultation with the draftsman, and afterwards laid before the House in a manner in which they might be suitably discussed. The Government had long since promised 2131 that they would be prepared to consider the points that had been raised, and would endeavour, on Report, to introduce Amendments into the clause. These points had been very clearly brought before them, and they were still disposed to consider the clause with the view of making Amendments in it. This matter had already been discussed for some hours, and if the Committee were to insist upon discussing the clause, line by line, he did not see how they were to make any progress. He would remind hon. Gentlemen that the Government were anxious to make arrangements for bringing on some important Irish Business; and while he had no desire to restrain discussion on this Bill, he must say it was rather hard that progress could not be made in a reasonable way, when this question had been fully and fairly discussed, and when the Government had promised to re-consider it, on Report. He trusted that the promise that had been given would be deemed sufficient, and that when they came to the Report the Government might be able to make a suggestion which would be acceptable to the House.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down would have been a most admirable one for postponing or negativing the clause. The right hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to proceed with the clause after he had told them that it was to be materially changed. The Government had admitted that the clause was not tenable as it stood. Why, then, should the Committee be asked to carry a clause which everybody knew would not work? The right hon. Gentleman had talked about progress; but it was not making progress to put into the Bill a clause which was only inserted to be altered. Therefore, it was fairly contended, on that side of the House, that this clause ought to be postponed as it stood. It was open to them to vote against the sub-section; and, if need be, afterwards to oppose the whole clause.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
expressed the opinion that the Amendment was designed for obstruction.

§ MR. JACOB BRIGHT
said, it appeared to him that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Newdegate) scarcely understood the character of the opposition to 2132 the clause, and the same remark might apply also to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He believed the opposition would cease altogether if the principle advocated from the Benches on which he sat were accepted. His complaint, and that of his hon. Friend's was that the Government had not accepted that principle. Whatever the concession the Government might make, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not expressed his readiness to agree to the suggestion of his hon. Friend's, that there should be two classes of offences—one to be punishable by fine, and the other by imprisonment. If the Government would only make that concession, he believed the opposition to the clause from that side of the House would at once cease. He could imagine no proposition more monstrous than that a man should be subject to imprisonment for three months for using a licence a day after it had ceased to be valid. It certainly would be considered monstrous, if a man were sent to prison for using a contract ticket for travelling on a railway a day or two after its term had expired.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, it was true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had properly undertaken to re-consider the clause; but the right hon. Gentleman had not promised to re-consider it in accordance with the terms suggested by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), which were, that there should be two classes of offences, one to be subject to fine, and the other to imprisonment. The distinction was very clear, and it was worth fighting for in discussion. The fact of a man possessing a licence was an assumption that he had made a special application to the authority that had power to grant it; and if, from any miscalculation of the number of days, or from any cause of that character, he rendered himself liable to punishment, the penalty of imprisonment, without the option of a fine, was really too severe; and the Government could not reasonably insist upon the clause being retained with that unhappy provision in it. He did not believe that such a law would be carried into effect; and certainly it was a very vicious principle to provide that an exceedingly heavy punishment should be inflicted, and afterwards not carry it out. A far more sensible course would be to make the penalty a 2133 reasonable one, and abide by it. Unless the Government agreed to make the desired distinction, he thought the continued opposition from that side of the House would be fully justified.

MR. CHAPLIN
agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, that three months' imprisonment should not be imposed for secondary offences; and he suggested that, after the Government had considered the clause, an Amendment might be moved on Report, to meet the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite on this point. As the Government had undertaken to consider this Amendment with a view of meeting the wishes of those hon. Members, he thought they ought to accept that assurance.

§ MR. ANDERSON,
referring to the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it was very difficult to amend this clause, which had 12 sub-sections in it, said, if it was difficult now in Committee, it would be tenfold more so on Report. Therefore, he held that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was one for postponing the clause in Committee, and not for deferring its consideration until Report. Because of the difficulty of discussing these 12 sub-sections on Report, it was necessary that the Government should give the Committee a very definite understanding on the subject, before the question was allowed to stand over. By declining to give way in the first instance, the Government had caused this long discussion. He hoped that now they would give the Committee the clear and definite assurance desired.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
asked the Committee to consider the position in which they were placed. The hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had just said that he saw the unreasonableness of subjecting a person who committed a minor offence under the Bill to three months' imprisonment. Had the hon. Member risen earlier in the debate to make that statement, the Government would probably have accepted the suggestion, and told the Committee upon what lines they were inclined to amend the clause. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), who was also a supporter of the Government—["No, no!"]—had before contended that every one of these offences should be punished by imprisonment. It was not reasonable to say to the Committee 2134 that the Government would consider this question on Report, unless they now informed the Committee how they were going to consider it. If the Government would only say—"We are of the opinion of the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and we will endeavour to arrange this matter in the best way we can on Report," the opposition to the clause would cease. But what had happened that night was only a repetition of that which frequently occurred in Committee. The Government got on its high horse, and, although the postponement of the clause would be the wisest step to take under the circumstances, it said—"No, we will not postpone the clause;" but afterwards, under pressure, they promised to consider it. But that would not satisfy the Committee, who asked the Government to say in what way the clause would be considered. Then the Government replied that they would consider it on Report, in the direction of the wishes of the Committee. Why did not the Government accept this plain and simple Amendment? If they did so, the opposition would cease, and the Bill would proceed.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
said, he would accept the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to make a distinction between the two classes of offences, by withdrawing the penalty of imprisonment from the one class. The Amendment might then be withdrawn; and he, for one, would be happy to suggest its withdrawal.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
reminded the Committee of the promise he had already made, on the part of the Government, that they would undertake to alter the clause on Report. The Government would be willing that a fine should be imposed for the first offence, and the punishment of imprisonment inflicted for the second knowingly committed; and that, for the graver class of offences, there should be imprisonment.

§ MR. DILLWYN
regarded the last statement of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) as perfectly satisfactory, because he thought it would meet the views of hon. Members on that side of the House. But, still, he wished to ask the Government, what was the use of insisting upon this clause 2135 being passed as it stood? There was no more fertile source of obstruction than pressing clauses under those circumstances. He hoped a fresh clause would be brought up on Report.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
hoped that the Secretary to the Treasury, in drawing up the clause, would put it into better shape than the statements made on behalf of the Government. He was willing to trust to the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), that there should be a limitation of time after the second offence.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
really hoped that the last proposition of the Secretary to the Treasury would be accepted. The discussion had shown that the Government and the House were at one as to what should be done. As the Government could not postpone the clause by the Rules of the House, he thought that when an understanding had been come to that a certain course would be taken, they might fairly leave it to the Secretary to the Treasury to take that course. He understood that the Government were prepared to treat this offence in two categories, and that they were also prepared to put several of the suggestions that had been made into Clause 54. In that clause, hon. Members interested in the matter practically got their wish; and he did not think it too much to ask that the undertaking of the Government should be accepted. It was impossible hon. Members could succeed unless the Government assented; and he thought that was all that ought to be asked. The promises they had made would really carry out the view of the House.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
said, he was desirous to meet the views of the Government on this matter, and it occurred to him that on the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster), it would be well to withdraw the clause. He would accept the assurance of the Government, and he begged to withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. PARNELL
wished to guard himself against being understood to accept the principle of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), which had not yet passed the Committee, but which the Government proposed to accept on the Report, as also to include some of the sub-sections of Clause 55 in Clause 54. He understood the proposition 2136 the hon. Baronet made was this—that he would include some of this sub-section in Clause 54, whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire with regard to Clause 54 was passed or not. He should certainly reserve to himself the right to move an Amendment to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire on the Report; it would only be fair to give oneself the right to suggest some such Amendment.

§ MR. RYLANDS
just wished to say that, in regard to the proposed new clause to be brought up on the Report, it was desirable to have the views of the Government in print, and then to have an opportunity of re-considering them in Committee. He believed that would save time, rather than by throwing discussion on the Report, whereby the progress of the Bill might be impeded. The Government, having brought forward a Bill in which they had made great changes, showed that they had no sound convictions. This had caused great loss of time, and they should not, therefore, press too strongly against Amendments.

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, he had an Amendment to this clause, which was printed out of its place on the Paper, but would be found lower down. It was to leave out Sub-section 7. It seemed to him that clause was a very improper one, indeed. Very important facts might be ignored for the purposes of a particular prosecution. An offence might be considered to have arisen in a place where the offence committed actually 2137 arose, or in any other place. It did appear to him that this was an arbitrary power to give in prosecuting a person, to alter material facts in order to secure a conviction.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, this clause was really in accordance with the existing law, and it was a section which had been found exceedingly useful in the working of the present Act by the Privy Council. Under these circumstances, as it was merely a continuance of the present law, he hoped the Committee would not consent to its being withdrawn.

§ MR. WHITWELL
thought the question did require consideration. It proposed that a man should be indicted at one place for an offence which had arisen at another place. It proposed to constitute the offence at the place the person happened to be, although it might have occurred in an entirely different part of the country. That placed an offender in a position that might be very unfair to him, and that was opposed to our English law. He was quite in favour of this Bill being passed with such restrictions as might protect the property on which people depended; but there were limits beyond which they ought not to go. He thought those limits were passed in this case. This was a clause which the Committee ought not to accept. He was glad to see the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, whom he wished would recommend the Committee to do without this clause. He thought there could be no question on that point; and within his own experience no case occurred in which this clause would have been of any use. Perhaps the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury would kindly inform the Committee if there had been any case brought under its operation.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
held that this was a clause very favourable to the offender, because the prosecutor would have to bring the witnesses to him.

§ MR. BUTT
remarked, that whether the clause was useful or not, it was not opposed to English law. A man was usually tried under summary proceedings in the place where the offence was committed. This clause deviated from that, and enabled him to be tried in the place of arrest. That was not new to the law. In cases of bigamy, wherever a man was taken he could be tried. If 2138 the change had any effect, he thought it would be far better for the man if he was tried where he was, and so put on the opposite party the expense of bringing all their witnesses.

§ MR. ANDERSON
After that explanation, I will withdraw.