HC Deb 30 June 1864 vol 176 cc566-7

Lords Amendments considered, and, with Amendments to one of them, agreed to, as far as the second Amendment, in page 2, line 36.

The second Amendment, in page 2, line 36, to leave out the words, "once in each month," and insert the words, "if required to do so by the conditions of his licence," read 2o.


said, he proposed to move that the House do disagree with the Amendment introduced by the Lords in Clause 5, and he asked the House to do so with the more confidence, because it had on a previous occasion passed his own Amendment by a considerable majority. The clause, as it went up to the Lords, was to the effect, that if any holder of a licence from the Secretary of State, who should be at large in this country, unless prevented by illness or other unavoidable cause, failed to report himself to the police within three days after his arrival in England, and subsequently once a month at such places and in such manner as the chief officer of police should appoint, he should be guilty of a misdemeanour. The Lords had struck out the words "once a month," leaving the question whether the ticket-of-leave man should report himself at all after his arrival, to the terms and conditions of his licence. The form of licence in the Bill contained no such condition, and therefore the Lords' Amendment would reduce the clause inserted by the House of Commons to a nullity. It was true the Home Office had power to grant licences in a new form, but those licences would not apply under the terms of the Bill. The alteration in the Bill in the House of Lords was made under peculiar circumstances, for two decisions were come to. On the first occasion the House of Lords affirmed the decision of the House of Commons. On the second occasion they negatived that decision, but the attendance was much smaller than on the former occasion. In support of the opinion which he had expressed, he begged to refer to a Report which had been laid on the table within the last two or three days, in which it was stated, with respect to the prisons in Ireland, that the number of reconvictions had not increased within the year, and that the practice of registration and supervision continued to work advantageously; and the Report further stated that, during the many years in which the convict system had been in operation, no instance had come to the knowledge of the Commissioners in which any complaint had been made against any constable, so far as regarded their supervision having prevented any person from getting employment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Hunt.)


said, he hoped the House would agree to the Amendment. He thought it a very beneficial alteration, and had been deliberately adopted after a very full discussion. It would remove the absolute bar that would otherwise exist to the ticket-of-leave man obtaining employment.


inquired, whether the Government supported the Resolution of the House of Lords that the holders of tickets-of-leave should report themselves to the police once a month?


said, it was his intention to support the Motion for disagreeing with the Lords' Amendment, because if that Amendment was carried it would have the effect of altering the Irish system which had worked so well.

Question put,

The House divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 84: Majority 45.

Subsequent Amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed, To draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to the Amendment to which this House hath disagreed:"—Mr. HUNT, Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Sir HUGH CAIRNS, Mr. ADDERLEY, Mr. AYRTON, Mr. MARSH, and Mr. BEACH:—To withdraw immediately:—Three to be the quorum.