Commons Sitting of 26 April 1871

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Poor Law (Scotland), appointed and nominated; Law of Rating (Ireland), nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Sunday Trading [8], put off; Public Prosecutors [35]; Matches* [116], Order discharged.
Committee—Report—Ewelme Rectory*[96].
Considered as amended—Bath City Prison* [100].
Withdrawn—Matches* [116].

SUNDAY TRADING BILL— [BILL 8.]
(Mr. Thomas Hughes, Mr. John Gilbert Talbot Mr. Thomas Chambers, Mr. M'Arthur.)
SUNDAY TRADING BILL— [BILL 8.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading, read.
  MR. T. HUGHES, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that this was the fifth occasion on which he had brought a Bill on this subject under the consideration of the House. The present measure, however, differed from its predecessors in this—that as it now stood it had reference only to the metropolis. The need for legislation, and the utterly unsatisfactory state of things in the metropolis, was more apparent than ever. Last year he had to state that the number of convictions for Sunday trading under the Act of Charles II. might, for the year, be numbered by tens; but for the year now last past that number might be counted by hundreds. He trusted, therefore, that the House would consider it necessary that, at last, some remedy should be applied to the evil complained of. Since he addressed the House last year upon this subject, a well-known society had been very active in the suppression of Sunday trading, and this society had during the year obtained many hundreds of convictions. He would give an instance or two for the purpose of illustrating the state of things in the metropolitan district. In Hammersmith there had been more than 250 convictions under the Act; and though the magistrate remonstrated against the necessity of convicting, he felt bound to comply with the requirements of the law, and the penalty, including the costs, generally amounted to 11 s. or 12 s. In the neighbouring district of Marylebone, the magistrates altogether refused to carry out the Act, merely imposing a fine of
  1724
  1d. without costs. Surely it was time that such a state of thing should cease, for it threw discredit on the administration of the law and brought the office of magistrate into contempt. It was mischievous even here, and in any other country than in England would be dangerous. The first objection against the Bill that he now submitted to the consideration of the House came from those who opposed all legislation for the purpose of enforcing the observance of the Sunday; and the most plausible objection they urged was that this was a Bill by which Dives proposed to legislate for Lazarus—that it was, in short, class legislation directed against the poor. Whatever force that objection might have had in times gone by, it could not hold at the present moment. In a House elected by household and lodger suffrage such an objection was somewhat in the nature of bunkum. Besides, the objection had no truth in it, as the object of the Bill was to relieve 15,000 poor persons compelled to work on Sundays. It was also said that the Bill would diminish the comforts of the people; but anyone who read the Bill would see that this was not the effect of it. It only enacted that those comforts should be procured, and the shopping done before 10 o'clock on Sunday morning, which was a reasonable time in his opinion. It was objected that the Bill would prevent little children buying lollipops when they went out for a walk in the Parks on the Sunday; but by one of the sub-sections to the 3rd clause it was declared that pastry, fruit, or any beverage, for the sale of which no licence was required, might be sold before 10 o'clock and after 1 o'clock in the afternoon on Sunday. This would meet the children's case. With regard to costermongers, the Bill would certainly confine their trade, like all other trades, to a reasonable time on a Sunday, and would not allow them to be bawling about their articles up to the middle of the day, as they would not be allowed to trade after 10 o'clock. He thought, then, that the objections to the Bill which came from this part of the House were unreasonable; and as to those who had supported the Act of Charles II. and who were of opinion that any modification of it would be legalizing a breach of the Commandment as to the Lord's Day, he believed

  1725
  that this opposition had now virtually ceased. The conviction had grown that it would be better to have a moderate law which could be enforced, rather than an unreasonable law, the enforcement of which was opposed to public opinion. He submitted that this Bill would effect a fair compromise of the question, and the second, reading had been several times passed by the House, and it had also been before a Committee. In this way its provisions had been thoroughly sifted; but still the promoters of the Bill would be perfectly ready in Committee to consider any sections that it might be thought would put matters on a better footing. Everybody who was responsible for good order in the metropolis had declared himself in favour of a measure like this. The head of the police had said that it would be a boon to London; and he did not think that there was a single metropolitan Member who would say that he did not consider that the Bill would be a very great improvement upon the present state of things, or that legislation was not absolutely required. Again, there was not a single police magistrate in London who had not declared that the Act of Charles II. ought to be repealed by a reasonable measure, and had not protested against being called upon to enforce the penalties imposed by that Act. He hoped that the Bill would be passed, and would continue in force until the Government should be prepared to bring in a Bill for the re-organization of the municipality of London.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Thomas Hughes.)
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid: * In opposing this Bill of my hon. Friend (Mr. T. Hughes), which I do not do for the first time, I wish to do full justice to the motives which have actuated him in bringing it forward, and I trust that in any observations I may make on this Bill—a Bill which I hold in the most profound contempt—the hon. Member will not apply anything I may say against the Bill to himself. Virtue is by no means always hereditary, and this Bill is a very bad child of a very worthy father. My hon. Friend has told us something about the actual state of the law on this subject; but he has not told us all. The existing Act was passed in
  1726
  the reign of that eminently virtuous Monarch Charles II., and it is of so sweeping and severe a character that it is impossible to put it in general force. It is made, in certain localities, a means of persecution against a number of the poorer and more helpless traders; but its general application is simply impossible; and amongst other reasons is the fact, that on the face of it, it is an honest Act, dealing with the rich as well as with the poor, with tradesmen of every grade, and with labour as well as with trade. It enacts that—
  "All and every person whatsoever shall, on every Sunday, apply themselves to the observation of the same, by exercising themselves thereon in the duties of piety and true religion, publicly and privately."
  Does my hon. Friend suppose that people are to be driven to religion in this way in these days? The Act goes on to say—
  "And that no tradesman, artificer, &c., or other person whatsoever, shall do or exercise any worldly labour or work of their ordinary callings, except necessity or charity;"
  a provision that obviously might be, and, as I shall show directly, has been brought to bear with great effect on the convenience of the upper classes; in respect, for instance, to the use of their carriages on the Sunday. Well, this Act of Charles II. obviously cannot be made to work at the present day, and what my hon. Friend wants to do, is to bring in a Bill so much moderated in its provisions that it may be made to work—be brought to bear—that is, on the poor; for, as I shall show, the rich will escape altogether. My hon. Friend has divided the opponents of his Bill into two classes; those who on Sabbatarian grounds are opposed to all trading whatever on the Sunday, and those who are against all legislation on the subject, and are presumably careless on the subject of a weekly holiday. Now, my hon. Friend was hardly fair towards me on this latter definition, as I am distinctly in favour of a weekly holiday, as complete as is possible, for all; and if my hon. Friend will bring in a Bill free from the taint of Sabbatarianism, that would give good hope of approximation to that object, I promise him my best support. But my hon. Friend, in attempting to give new vitality to the principle of Sunday legislation, is giving encouragement, under the auspices of a

  1727
  so-called religious association, to a new class of persons exercising their ordinary calling, and that not exactly one of necessity or charity, on the Sunday—the miserable class of spies and informers who, on that day, go about to spy, and inform of, and ruin other people; and their ordinary calling is not interfered with by this Bill. Now, I will give as an illustration of this kind of Sunday labour a case that has happened to come under my own observation. I spent the morning of last Sunday in inquiring into it, and I trust that for so doing I shall not fall under the rebuke of my hon. Friend. There is a poor woman living not a mile from my own residence—in the high road between Kensington and Hammersmith—who sells ginger-beer, cigars, and lemonade. She has lived 22 years in the same house, was born in the parish, and has paid rates for 40 years. I hear of nothing to her disadvantage; but, on the contrary, that she is much respected in the neighbourhood. She has, however, unhappily fallen under the ban of these harpies, and has been four times already this year dragged before the magistrates for the sin of selling a cigar. On the last occasion, about a fortnight ago, the agent of a religious society—and it makes one sick to talk of religion in connection with such proceedings—an agent of a religious society called on this poor old woman, and, informing her his secretary was gone for a summons, added—"An old person like you, on the brink of the grave, breaking the Sabbath, and closing the gates of Heaven against you, ought to be ashamed of yourself;" and he added that he would summon her, and fine her 7s. every week unless she closed her shop; and no doubt he will be as bad as his word. This poor woman assures me that the harmless articles she sells on Sunday form an important proportion of her little business; and that, in face of this continued persecution, she has no alternative but to shut up her shop and go to the workhouse. I find her neighbours full of sympathy for her, and that assistance has been given her to help her to meet these prosecutions. [Mr. HUGHES: The punishment inflicted in this case is incurred under the existing law.] My hon. Friend knows very well that the action of these people would be precisely the same under his Bill; cigars and tobacco being among the pro-
  1728
  hibited articles. There is not only the injustice of such a case as this, but there is the opportunity given for indulging in personal malice and vengeance. I asked the poor old woman whether her neighbours were treated in the same way, and she said so far as she knew they were not; and I took the pains to go into a shop in the neighbourhood, selling the same articles, within a quarter of a mile of her house, and I said to the man—"Excuse my asking you; but have they persecuted you for selling on the Sunday?" and he said—"No; they have neither summoned me nor threatened me," and he expressed the indignation that he felt that this poor old woman should have been persecuted in this manner. I understand the old lady is a Catholic. Can this be, as has been whispered, an exhibition of Protestant liberality? I would fain hope not. Now, there is nothing that I detest more than violence; but I confess to the House, in confidence, that I advised the old lady to provide a mop and a pail of water and put them under the counter for use on a proper opportunity. My hon. Friend says that this is the fifth time that he has brought this Bill before the House; but these are only the last of a long succession of similar Bills. There have been at least 11 of these Bills since 1832, and against those various Bills as they have been brought forward, I will bring the opinion of distinguished Members of this House, who enjoyed the confidence of the House and of the country, and some of whom spoke most contemptuously of of them. It is said by the Sunday Rest Association, which my hon. Friend patronizes—or they patronize him—it is said that these Bills have some fatality about them; that they get through the second reading, or through Committee, and then, somehow or other, they sink, as it were, into the sand. The fact is easily explained; the House has no real intention of passing such Bills. There is a little harmless flirtation between a number of hon. Members and certain sections of their constituencies. There is a needless pretence of doing something, and, after a great deal of trouble has been given to the House, the end of the Session closes the farce. Amongst those who have from time to time opposed these Bills, I find such names as those of Mr. John Bright, Sir Benjamin Hall, Henry Drummond, Joseph Hume, Richard Cob-

  1729
  den, Thomas Duncombe, W. J. Fox, and Mr. Massey. If our Government thought such a measure expedient, they ought to have brought one forward, whereas here upon a question clearly affecting the liberty of the subject, as advocates of which the Whig Ministry have risen to power, there is only one Member of the Government present. I am happy to see my hon. Friend (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) present. I am sure that, so far as his power extends, he will take care of the liberty of the subject. Then men who have occupied the position of Home Secretary have equally objected to these Bills—such men as Sir George Grey and Sir James Graham. I trust the Government will take a course somewhat different from that which they have hitherto taken. Hitherto they have said that needless labour on the Sunday was not a desirable thing; that the intentions of my hon. Friend were very creditable, and deserved approval; that the Bill itself was impracticable, and they would therefore give it a second reading with the view to render it more inoperative in Committee. No doubt that is a very convenient mode of dealing with the subject; but I maintain that it is throwing over the due responsibility of Government, and wasting the time of the House. But we are now told that the present Bill is an altered and improved Bill and that it only touches the metropolis. Only touches the metropolis! What has London done that it should be made the corpus vile upon which this experiment should be tried? Of all places in this country, it is the one place where it would be impossible that legislation of this sort could be carried out. To pick out London for the application of a Bill of this kind is an insult to the country, and an injury to London. My hon. Friend does not represent London in Parliament now. He did sit for one of the metropolitan constituencies once, but now he stands on a rock afar off, and fires at his old constituency. I do not believe that there is a single metropolitan Member who would venture to bring forward such a measure as this. It may be asked, how is it that there are no expressions of feeling on this subject out-of-doors. I will tell you how it is. A number of working-class leaders have told me that they have asked the working classes—"Why do you not oppose this Bill?" but they will not do
  1730
  so; they only laugh at it. The fact is that the cry of "Wolf!" has been raised so long, that they do not care for it. But let us pass this Bill, and then see what they will say. It was only on Monday last that you had a demonstration of match girls and women employed in the match trade, but it was sufficient to explode a Budget. If you go to the people of the East end of London, and tell them, not that you will cripple one branch of their industry, but that you will take the bread out of their mouths, the result will be such that bolder men than the Chancellor of the Exchequer will sit alarmed upon the Treasury Bench. My hon. Friend says that this is not a Bill against the poor; but I say that it is especially and decidedly against the poor—"a Bill in which Dives proposes to legislate for Lazarus"—and if my hon. Friend points to this House in contradiction of that view, I say it does not represent the mass, but the wealth of the people. It is obvious that any such restrictions as those contained in this Bill must act specially upon the poor. Their wages are often paid late on Saturday night, and it is convenient to them to make their purchases then or perhaps early on Sunday morning. Then they have no convenience for keeping food in their houses, and if they did so keep it, it would be subject to deterioration and damage. This is emphatically a law against the poor. If it were a law against work, such as was the Act of Charles II., there might be something consistent in it. The great work done in this metropolis on Sundays is the work of domestic servants. I should say that there is no Member of this House who has not one, two, or three persons ministering to his own comfort, and where the wealthy are aggregated together for their own convenience and comfort, as in the clubs and so forth, you find the same thing on a larger scale. But does the hon. Gentleman propose to deal with that? Not a bit of it. Our galleries of pictures, our gardens, and all that we possess of our own the poor cannot possess. The rich can join together in their clubs on the Sunday; or take the Zoological Gardens—there every Sunday you will see the wealthy by thousands, and I am told that since the Darwinian theory has been started, they congregate there more than ever, and I am not surprised at that. I am not surprised that

  1731
  the supporters of my hon. Friend should go to the Zoological Gardens on Sunday, and that they should think it a religious duty to do so, in order to observe the wisdom of our ancestors. And there is another respect in which this Bill is an injury to the poor. I have spoken of the poor consumer—his tradesman, the costermonger, is specially attacked. His coarse but welcome cry in the poorer neighbourhoods seems to be offensive, not, of course, to my hon. Friend, but to the principles of his Bill. My hon. Friend permits pastry and fruit to be sold; but there are other perishable articles besides pastry and fruit, which are considered quite as savoury by the poor, and which are quite as perishable. I see in my own neighbourhood costermongers going about with shrimps, periwinkles, and other articles which are really held in considerable esteem by the poorer classes of the community. Then no poor man can be shaved on Sundays. Now, my hon. Friend has been greatly exercised in regard to barbers. They appeared in some of his Bills, and were included in some clauses in Committee with various modifications. I have no doubt my hon. Friend again means to do something with barbers when he gets into Committee, if he ever does get into Committee. If I might make a proposal as a compromise for all parties, it would be that a man should only be shaved on one side of his face on Sundays. Although the statement that this Bill is a Bill against the poor may be denied or slurred over in this House, I am glad to say that in "another place" they are more frank. The Bishop of Gloucester distinctly declared in the House of Lords that this Bill "must greatly interfere with the means of livelihood of a great many of the poorer classes." Now, I say that that sentence alone ought to be sufficient to make this House pause before it passes this Bill. I declare, in all earnestness, that in the face of the present harrowing condition of suffering in many parts of this city—and especially at the East end—it would be, in my opinion, an act little short of insanity in the Government and the House to pass a Bill which throws any difficulty in the way of enabling people to get a livelihood. A poet—and I know my hon. Friend is himself a poet—has said—
  1732
  "The poor man's sins are glaring,
  In the face of saintly warning—
  When caught in the fact
  Of a lawless act—
  Buying greens on Sunday morning.
  "The rich man's sins are 'under
  The rose' of wealth and station,
  And escape the sight
  Of 'the children of light,'
  Who are 'wise in their generation.'"
  Now, Sir, I will quote Henry Drummond. Perhaps there are not many of us here who knew him. He was an eccentric, but noble-hearted old Tory, and what did he say? He said—
  "The Bill is to put a stop to unnecessary trading on Sunday; but unnecessary trading on the Sunday can only he trading by the rich. If this were a Bill for shutting up the clubs, I would vote for it."
  I have already alluded to the extent to which the Act of Charles II. might be applied to the avocation and recreations of the wealthier classes, provided there were magistrates who had sufficient courage and sense of justice to carry it out to its full extent. In one of these debates, an hon. Member told a story of a person in humble life who, having been convicted of Sunday trading, took out an information against the vicar's coachman, and the effect of this was to keep every carriage away from Islington, church. The magistrate who tried the case held that it was contrary to law to drive a carriage on Sunday, unless it could be shown to be an act of necessity, in which category it seemed he did not include the act of riding instead of walking to church. I say, then, let the House beware of retaliation on the part of the working classes, if they pass this Bill; and let hon. Members recollect how many acts of the wealthier classes violate Sabbatarian legislation. The late Sir Benjamin Hall told an excellent story about the case of—
  "A fashionable barouche, with two slapping horses, and attended by two footmen in powdered wigs, taking up two dogs only, in a fashionable square, for an airing in the Park, which this Bill would not interfere with."
  Nor would the Bill of the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. T. Hughes) interfere with such Sabbath breaking as this. Now, this Bill is defended on the ground that it would act as a protection to the honest and religiously-minded trader, who would be happy to shut up his shop on a Sunday, but who finds that the money-grubbers and irreligious

  1733
  shopkeepers of the neighbourhood will not permit him. This appears to me extraordinary reasoning, and that the hon. Member for Frome comes to a strange conclusion; as the operation of the Bill, when looked at from that point of view, would be simply to protect the scruples of the great at the expense of the necessities of the small. Here we have people who are wealthy and good, but who, at the game time, are afraid to shut up their shops on Sundays, lest their poorer neighbours should monopolize all the Sunday trade. If these rich people have scruples, let them indulge them at their own cost, and not endeavour to combine religion with worldly wisdom, by levying the cost of their abstention from Sunday trade out of the pockets of the poor. Mr. Henley, when replying to the arguments of Lord Claude Hamilton on the 15th May, 1867, said that the noble Lord's assertion was, that there were thousands in this metropolis who were afraid of obeying God's commandments, lest, by so doing, they might suffer in pocket; but, replied Mr. Henley—
  "If people are disposed to treat the commandments of God in that way, they had no right to ask Parliament to strengthen their hands."—[3 Hansard, clxxxvii. 591.]
  Mr. W. J. Fox, speaking on the 18th of June, 1851, said—
  "It seemed to him that the sect for whom this Bill had been introduced were the classes who loved the Sabbath much, but loved the shop more. They had great solicitude for the salvation of their souls, but still greater solicitude for the retention of their great profits."—[3 Hansard, cxvii. 963.]
  Mr. Craven Berkeley mentioned, in evidence given before the Committee, the case of a boy who had been taken up opposite Sir Edward Buxton's brewery for selling dry figs on the Sabbath, whilst, at the same time, within the brewery itself heavy work was being performed, steam was issuing, chains rattling, and every other noise incidental to a great factory in full work. Sir Edward Buxton assured the House that his firm sanctioned no Sunday labour that was not limited to works of necessity. But Mr. Muntz, in reply to this, asked was it less a work of necessity for the boy to soil figs in order to live. Again, Lord Beaumont described the Sabbath Bill of the period as a measure to protect the larger shopkeepers against the smaller. My hon. Friend proposes
  1734
  that the operation of his Bill shall be confined to the metropolis, and I am informed that certain hon. Members, who were once my staunch supporters, have been bought off by this limitation. They were very enthusiastic at first, but now, having been told that their constituents shall not suffer, they are inclined to relax in their opposition to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) has been my warm supporter up to the present time; but I am given to understand that he is cooling very much, and talks about an equitable compromise. Is the meaning of this compromise that Warrington is not to come within the operation of the Bill? I can remember when my hon. Friend used to have larger and' more generous views, which I am much surprised to find can be modified by such a compromise as this. I can remember also how indignant my hon. Friend was on behalf of the orange girls, and how he said that the only way of abolishing Sunday trading was to improve the taste, raise the education, and elevate the religious feeling of the poor. I shall have to trouble the House but for a very little longer; but I must make one further observation. My hon. Friend may say that gigantic evils demand exceptional remedies. Now, if my hon. Friend thinks that the whole morality of London is in danger of being swallowed up by the amount of Sunday trading in existence, he is very much mistaken. As a matter of fact, that amount is by no means alarming. There are no grounds for indulging in the slightest apprehension on that score. If we take a Sunday ramble through our London streets, we shall find little to complain of as exceptions to the dull and decorous demeanour characteristic of the British Sunday. In corroboration of this I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, who, in the course of a debate in this House on the 3rd March, 1869, said, "he concurred in the opinion that the inhabitants of London were not degenerating in regard to the observance of Sunday." I may also quote the Report of the Committee of the Sunday Rest Association. In the pamphlet published by that Association on May 25th, 1869, I find the following passage—
  "The Committee have made another inquiry into the extent of Sunday trading in London, and

  1735
  are able to say that Sunday trading remains, on the whole, in the same state as it was 12 years ago."
  Let me also appeal to the magistracy on this point. When Mr. Burcham, the late police magistrate for Southwark, was examined before the Committee on the Sale of Liquors on Sunday, in 1868, he gave the following evidence. In answer to Question 503 he said—
  "There are in certain districts shops open on Sunday morning; for instance, in the New Cut for the sale of vegetables, and, generally speaking, for necessaries; but with these exceptions I do not think that Sunday trading is at all common.
  "So that in fact, so far as your district is concerned, there is no necessity for further legislation even upon Sunday trading?—No."—[Q. 504.]
  Well, Sir, I have done. This is not the time at which to discuss the ridiculous absurdities and gross anomalies to be found in the details of this Bill. If, unhappily, my hon. Friend should persuade this House and the Government to trouble us further with the Bill, these absurdities will come under consideration in Committee; but let me mention one or two. Here I find, in one place, that the sale of human food is prohibited after 10 o'clock on Sunday morning, and immediately after that the sale of pastry is permitted. A shopkeeper may sell oranges; but if he attempts to sell cabbage he is sure to be prosecuted. Pastry is permitted; but shrimps are prohibited. Then, again, tobacco, which, the public is not to be permitted by my hon. Friend to buy of my poor old lady in Hammersmith, they can, however, purchase without reproach at any publichouse; her shop must be shut up, but smokers may get that, and a glass of gin besides, next door. But there is a still more terrible prohibition. No newspaper is to be sold after 10 o'clock. Let us hope that my hon. Friend will add a provision prohibiting all classes from all sorts of reading on Sundays, except the Bible or Prayer Book. Then let us look at the penalties of this Bill. The penalties which poor people may have to pay are—for the first offence 20 s., and for subsequent offences 40 s.; or, in default, imprisonment for one month. But enough of details; all I shall say further now will be to pledge myself to oppose, as I have done before, by every means in my power, at every stage, and in every
  1736
  way, a Bill which I look upon as being needless, harrassing, tyrannical, and uncalled for. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  SIR DOMINIC CORRIGANseconded the Amendment. He said, he did not believe that by legislation people could be made either moral or religious, or that anything in the New Testament imposed upon society such Sabbath observances as were contained in the Bill. The hon. Promoter of it had stated that the heads of the police had given evidence in favour of the measure; but some of the magistrates had fined those who broke the law as it now stood only 1d., which showed their opinion of such legislation. Instead of being a recommendation, he thought it an objection to the Bill that it was confined to the metropolis. If it was a good Bill for the metropolis, why should it not be extended to the whole country? Such a Bill would not teach the poor respect for the law, for when they saw that poor children could not get lollipops on Sunday, but that the rich could go into the Zoological Gardens and get lollipops, sandwiches, whisky, and wine, they would look upon the law as very unjust. He believed the Bill would encourage drinking on Sunday. A small tradesman must not sell tobacco, but it could be got at the publichouse and other places, as hotels, taverns, and beerhouses, which were exempted from its operation. This Bill reminded him of a controversy he once had with a very good man; but, like many other good men, an enthusiast in his way. Enthusiasts generally carried their views on subjects like this just to that point where their own feelings and their own stomachs were not interfered with. His friend told him he would not take a cab to go to church, and never employed his servants in cooking upon Sundays, for he always dined upon cold meat. "Well, then," said he to his friend, "you need never ask me to dine with you on a Sunday, for I don't like cold potatoes." "Oh, but," said his friend, "we always have potatoes boiled."
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Taylor.)
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he was deeply impressed with the great advantage to be derived from the observance of one day in seven as a day of rest, so far as it could be so observed without interfering with the necessities and comforts of the people. Not only was this so in England; but in America the observance of Sunday was even more strictly carried out than in this country, so that it could not be charged against this Bill that it was an attempt upon the part of the upper classes to coerce the lower. With respect to this Bill it should be remembered that they were not now going to deal with the subject de novo. The question was, should they enforce, repeal, or improve the present law as enacted by the statute of Charles II.? The Act could not be absolutely enforced; the religious feeling of the people would not allow it to be repealed; it only therefore remained to improve it. They should endeavour so to regulate the observance of the Sunday as to protect those who could not protect themselves. There was a very large class of assistants to shopkeepers, who were employed from early morning to the latest hours on Saturday night, who had no Saturday half-holiday, and now worked great part of the Sunday, and without some protection of this sort they would have no Sunday rest whatever. No Government had ever opposed these Sunday Bills. The present Home Secretary supported this Bill, and even the Primo Minister shared his opinion. He altogether denied that the Bill was intended or calculated to oppress the poor, and he should give it his hearty support.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he thought it was inexpedient to allow the Bill to pass in its present form, and he should, therefore, oppose it. The Bill being a local Bill should have been introduced as such, its requirements applying quite as exclusively to the metropolis as those of the Metropolis Local Management Act. The Bill would produce this extraordinary state of things—it would make certain acts criminal if done within a certain line, and not criminal if the same acts were done just beyond that line. Nothing could be more monstrous than that. [Mr. T. HUGHES said, the hon. and learned Member for New Ross had misread the Bill.] The Bill would allow things to be done within the metropolis that it would not permit out-
  1738
  side; and making 3,000,000 of people subject to exceptional legislation, which they did not require, as it did, it would have been much better if his hon. and learned Friend had looked more to the legal effect of the measure before he had brought it in. For the reason above stated alone it ought to be rejected. If the metropolis had really required such a measure it ought to have been introduced by one of its representatives, and not by one who had ceased to have any local connection with the metropolis. The Act of Charles II. provided that all the penalties recovered under that Act should be paid to the poor of the parish in which the offence was committed; but the fines imposed under this Bill would be paid in the City of London to the City Chamberlain, and in the metropolis to the receiver of the metropolitan police. It was wrong in principle that justices should have the remotest interest in the disposal of penalties. This was not, properly speaking, a Sunday Trading Bill, but one for the repression of certain trades in London on the Sunday. On all these additional grounds also he hoped it would be rejected.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, the speeches of hon. Members who approved the object of the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. T. Hughes), but who quarrelled with all he proposed, entitled him to say—
  "Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love,
  But why did you kick me downstairs?"
  What the hon. Member sought to remedy would be remedied by degrees by education and the formation of religious habits. There could be no doubt that the Bill had been introduced with the best intention, and with the desire of settling the question, and it was impossible to deny that some legislation was wanted. The Act of Charles II. was passed by a very bigoted House of Commons, and in the hope that it would largely contribute to the power of a profligate Court to tyrannize over the people. The Bill proposed to lay down a rule for the future, and yet it embodied a clause to the effect that nothing in the Bill should interfere with the Act of Charles II.; so that a man who, under the Bill would commit no offence, might still be convicted under the Act of Charles II. It would be impossible to have both in operation together; that would make confusion more confounded; and, instead of diminishing, it would increase difficulty. The

  1739
  Bill was an improvement on that of last year, and it might, perhaps, be further improved by a year's delay. Instead of passing this Bill, it would, be better to say that, after a certain date, the operation of the Act of Charles II. should cease. If Parliament legislated on the matter at all, it must legislate not for London only, but at the least for the towns of England and Wales. This was a case of legislation for the poor by the rich; by those who had no idea of the circumstances, wants, and sorrows of the poor, and of the anxiety with which the last halfpenny was expended. In the manufacturing districts the rule was to pay wages early on the Saturday afternoon; but the rule was not extended to vast numbers, who were obliged to trudge three or four miles to market at night or to make purchases on the Sunday morning; and for these people Sunday trading was a necessity. We had a higher authority than an Act of Parliament for holding that the Sabbath was made for man, and, where Sunday trading was a necessity, we ought not to be severe. There was a feeling in the country, and it was a growing one, that if the satisfaction of the necessities of the poor were interfered with by Act of Parliament, the unnecessary luxuries of the rich should be curtailed. He hoped the Bill would be withdrawn.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that while he admitted there was great force in the observations of the last speaker, he must remind the hon. Member that this Bill was entirely in accordance with his sentiments, inasmuch as it gave increased facilities to the poor to buy necessaries on the Sunday morning. Perhaps it might be urged, with some apparent justice, that the Bill conceded facilities to the people who least required them, because it could not be said that in London poor people had to travel four or five miles to make their purchases. He was anxious to answer the appeal which had been made to him by the hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. J. G. Talbot). Having spoken once or twice on the subject, he wished it to be understood he had spoken in his own name, and not as representing the opinions of the Government, who had not gone thoroughly into the matter, as they would have done if they had felt that they had time to deal with this important and difficult question. Speaking, therefore, not
  1740
  as representing the Government, but as expressing his own opinions only, he thought there was much in this Bill to recommend it. He could not gratify the anticipations in which the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Taylor) had indulged, for he did not mean to propose that the Bill should be read a second time for the purpose of being dropped. The object of the Bill was to get rid of a great scandal which continued to exist under the Act of Charles II. It might be said that the Bill was imperfect, inasmuch as it did not extend to the whole country, but it had been pointed out in the course of the debate that the necessities of one district were not always those of another; that publichouses were not open in the country at the same hours they were in London; and that, in many cases, local authorities were invested with the power of making bylaws for promoting good order and decency in the towns under their jurisdiction. It happened in this case that the demand for legislation had arisen in the metropolis, and not in other parts of the country. He was assured that there were vast numbers of people in London who would be heartily glad to be relieved of the necessity of carrying on their trade on the Sunday, and would cease to do so, if that would not put them in a disadvantageous position as compared with their competitors. In fact, there was a general coincidence of feeling that, while increased facilities should be given to the poorer classes to supply themselves on Sunday mornings with the necessaries of life, something should be done to promote that good order and decency which an enormous majority of the people desired to see observed. The necessity for a change was greater in London than elsewhere, and for these reasons and no other he supported the measure. He did not mean to say it was complete; but there were matters of daily occurrence under the present law which it was desirable to reform, and as a measure of amendment he could not refuse it his support.
  MR. J. GOLDSMIDsaid, it might be thought he had no business to interfere in a Bill of this character, but he should like to see everybody observing his Sabbath, whatever it was. He was convinced, however, that we could not make people observe their Sabbaths,

  1741
  any more than we could make them moral by Act of Parliament. If Parliament passed this Bill, it must also pass the next Bill on the Paper, for assuredly a public prosecutor would be required to look after the lawbreakers, who would be created by this Bill; or else there would spring up a class of informers who would go about making small purchases, in order that they might summon traders before the magistrates. Another objection to the Bill was its partial application, for that which was wrong in London could not be right in the country, and vice versâ; and we could not have a criminal law applying only to the metropolis and not to other parts of the country. The Act of Charles II. was passed under peculiar circumstances. He supposed that at that time we had the most immoral Court which had over existed in this country; he believed that, in consequence of the immoral condition of the Court, the people generally were rather more than less immoral; and the Act was passed in order to preserve a kind of outward decency which did not cover any beautiful internal state of things. For a longtime that Act had been treated as a dead letter; but recently a society had endeavoured to enforce it. It was most partial in its operation, and it oppressed the little trader who could not afford to close his shop because he lived in a poor neighbourhood, in which the people were paid so late on the Saturday that they could not make their purchases that night, whilst it did not interfere with the great trader who made large profits. It was a bad Act; and this Bill would, in some respects, aggravate its inequalities. For these, and various other reasons, he considered it was a very bad Bill. For himself, he always paid his labourers in good time on Friday, so that they might buy provisions on Saturday, because he wished all to observe their Sabbath; but as this observance could not be promoted by Act of Parliament, he opposed the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he supported the Bill, because it was for the general convenience that Sunday should be observed as a holiday as far as possible, and because a majority of those in London who traded on Sunday were compelled to do so against their will by the action of a minority. Upon those grounds, he con-
  1742
  sidered that the Bill should be read a second time.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he objected to exceptional legislation of the nature provided by this Bill. He wished to know why, if the metropolis wanted the Bill, it had not been introduced by the metropolitan Members? He believed there was not one of them present to support it, and certainly not one of them had spoken in its favour. He hoped the Bill would be rejected.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, if the Act of Charles II. were repealed, there would be no necessity for this Bill; and he drew a distinction between the trades affected by this Bill, which in themselves were harmless, and the licensed trade in drink, which admittedly involved evil that required curtailment. Local by-laws were not forced upon any town without being asked for; but, in this case, it was proposed to force upon London that which was not asked for. The subject ought to be dealt with as a whole, and not in that partial manner; because, in the matter of legislating for Sunday trading, it was impossible to separate London from the country. If it were necessary to make legal provision for a general holiday, it ought to be done upon some intelligible principle, providing under what circumstances Sunday trading should be allowed; and if the Government took the matter in hand he hoped they would deal with the whole question upon principle. He regretted that he could not support the Bill.
  MR. BOWRINGsaid, that he had on former occasions supported the Bill of his hon. Friend; but he regretted that he could no longer do so, for the following reasons:—He objected to legislation for London alone, agreeing as he did with the hon. Member for Knaresborough that legislation on the subject should apply to the whole country. He further thought that the matter was one which ought to be dealt with by the responsible Government, and he heard with regret from his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the Government were not at present prepared to introduce a Bill on the subject. But his special objection to the present Bill was, that he feared it would bear more hardly in practice upon the poorer classes than the existing Act of Charles II. The magistrates appeared to look upon that Act as an antiquated statute, and im-

  1743
  posed the lightest penalties under it that they possibly could; whereas, if it was re-enacted in the shape proposed in this Bill, they would probably feel it their duty to impose much heavier penalties, in deference to what they would consider to be the recently expressed decision of the Legislature. On these grounds he should reluctantly be compelled to vote against the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. T. HUGHESsaid, in reply, that the hon. Member for Leicester had deliberately based his argument against the Bill on a false issue.
  Mr. P. A. TAYLORrose to Order.
  MR. SPEAKERruled that the expression used by the hon. Member for Frome was improper.
  MR. T. HUGHESapologized, and explained that he had merely used the expression in the technical and legal sense, and had no intention of imputing falsehood to his hon. Friend. The Act of Charles II. was a disabling Act. According to it, all that was done in the markets and shops of London on every Sunday at the present time was illegal. There was a society in existence for enforcing this old Act. Last year, it instituted between 300 and 400 prosecutions, and in nearly all the cases the magistrates felt themselves obliged to convict and to impose penalties. But this Bill was an enabling Bill; it would take away the hardship of the present law, and would enable some thousands of persons to do that which was now absolutely illegal; that was to say, it would enable them to sell and buy necessaries on the Sunday morning. This was the real issue, and not that which had been raised by the hon. Member for Leicester. Every instance of oppression which he had cited was due to the operation of the present law, and would be relieved by the operation of the Bill. It would enable the old woman who had been named, to sell ginger beer; and, as to cigars, he was quite willing to introduce a clause to allow the tobacconists to open their shops during the hours that the publichouses were open. At present great fairs were held in certain districts of London up till 1 o'clock, and decent poor people living in them could neither get rest, nor walk comfortably to a place of worship. This state of things was becoming more and more serious every year; and unless Parliament passed this
  1744
  Bill, or some measure like it, the matter would grow until, as Earl Russell said, it would pass out of their hands.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 80: Majority 33.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Second Reading put off for six months.

PUBLIC PROSECUTORS BILL— [BILL 35.]
(Mr. Russell Gurney, Mr. Eykyn, Mr. Vernon Harcourt, Mr. Rathbone.)
PUBLIC PROSECUTORS BILL— [BILL 35.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEY, in rising to move the second reading of the Bill, said, that he felt that he owed some apology to the House for introducing a measure which, he thought, ought to be in the hands of the Government, but he did not do so until the Home Secretary, who did not disapprove its principle, and fully admitted its importance, declared that his hands were too full to allow him to undertake it. And yet it was too important a measure to be indefinitely delayed. He did not know for what Members were in that House if it were not to provide for the due administration of justice, which was so important as to sink into insignificance many of the questions which occupied much of the time of the House. In fact, the measure had already been too long delayed. The amount of authority in favour of the proposed change was absolutely overwhelming. Among those who had taken an active part in law reform there was really no difference of opinion. As far back as 1845 the Criminal Law Commission had reported in favour of it, and had used these words—
  "The existing law is by no means so effective as it ought to be; the duty of prosecution is usually irksome, inconvenient, and burdensome. The injured party would often rather forego the prosecution than incur the expense of time, labour, and money. The intrusting the conduct of the prosecution to a private individual opens a wide door to bribery, collusion, and illegal compromise."
  In 1856 a Committee of the House of Commons, after inquiring very fully into the matter, had reported in favour of it, and had sketched out a scheme very similar to that which he now proposed, which they said would be—

  1745
  "A means for placing the administration of criminal justice on a footing more consistent than the present with the necessities of the existing state of society, and the requirements of an enlightened jurisprudence."
  Unfortunately, Mr. Phillimore, who had proposed the change, shortly afterwards ceased to be a Member of that House, and the question had been allowed to sleep almost up to the present time. Curiously enough, another change in the criminal law had been recommended by that Committee, the object of which was to secure the attendance of witnesses necessary for the defence of prisoners, and to provide for the payment of their expenses by the public. That measure, too, had been allowed to sleep until three years ago, when it had been carried into effect by a Bill which, he had the honour to introduce. He had now to ask the House to adopt the other recommendation of that Committee in regard to the appointment of a public prosecutor. Last Session a Billon the subject was introduced by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Eykyn), and after a second reading was referred to a Select Committee, which carefully considered all the details, and moulded the measure until it assumed almost the precise shape in which he now submitted it to the consideration of the House. With this weight of authority in favour of the proposed change, he might almost rest contented; and he hoped he might be able to discharge his duty by very briefly stating the evils it was proposed to remove, and what, in his opinion, was the most appropriate remedy. In the first place, he set out with the principle that the detection of guilt, and the punishment of offenders, were the duty of the State; and that independently of the interests of the private party who might have been injured. The State suffered when guilt remained undetected, and when offenders remained unpunished; and the State suffered even more when, under the forms of law, and by means of the forms of law, the innocent were unduly harassed, and their lives, which were often dearer to them, put in peril. And it was scarcely possible but that the guilty should at times escape, and the innocent be put in peril, so long as Prosecutions were in the hands of private and irresponsible persons. We saw, in some of our forms which still remained, what was the notion of our ancestors long ago. Many hon. Members were,
  1746
  doubtless, familiar with the terms of the Proclamation made so soon as the jury were sworn—
  "If any one can inform my Lords the Queen's Justices, the Queen's Attorney General, the Queen's Serjeant, of any offences committed by the prisoner, let him come forward and he shall be heard."
  The Queen's Attorney General and the Queen's Serjeant were supposed, by virtue of their offices, to be the proper persons to be made acquainted with the circumstances affecting those about to be put on their trial; and see what was the effect of leaving prosecutions in the hands of private irresponsible persons—some were smarting under the sense of a real or supposed injury, and the temptation was to struggle, not for justice, but for victory. He would say nothing now of that class of cases constantly to be found becoming more numerous, in which criminal proceedings were commenced, not for the punishment of the criminal, but for the enforcing of private rights. But in far the larger portion of cases, the office of prosecutor was merely ministerial. He was bound over to prosecute, not for his own sake, but for the benefit of the public. Well might Lord Denman say, in the evidence he gave—
  "Our procedure for the purpose of preliminary inquiry is open to great objection. The injured party may be helpless, ignorant, interested, corrupt. He is altogether irresponsible, yet his dealing with the criminal may effectually defeat justice; on general principles, it would evidently be desirable to appoint a public prosecutor."
  Anyone who frequented our police courts would see upon whom the real duty of conducting a prosecution too often fell. He would see there a number of persons, sometimes attornies, much oftener persons practising in the names of attornies, who, through personal touting, or through the intercession of policemen, got the prosecutors into their hands; and what did he see when the case was brought into Court? He saw a brief put into the hands of counsel at the last moment—the case negligently prepared—the counsel gaining his only valuable instructions from the policeman who was a witness in the case. He knew not how this was to be prevented as long as the present system lasted; but the sight was not a pleasant one to one who felt for the character or honour of the Bar, and the effect on the police was bad, as

  1747
  they became not only witnesses but partizans. It might be thought that where he had gained the greater part of his experience matters were worse than elsewhere; but he had had the opportunity of judging from what he had seen on different Circuits, and he found from the evidence before Committees that the evils which he had described were not confined to the metropolis, and he did not hesitate to state, as the result of his experience, that the present system of conducting prosecutions was neither conducive to the protection of innocence, or to the detection and punishment of guilt. So strongly had this been felt in many of our large towns that they had taken the matter into their own hand, and public prosecutors had been appointed by the corporations. This system had been found to work admirably. Prosecutions had been fairly and efficiently conducted; and what he wished to call the attention of the Government to was this—that the system had been found to be not only efficient but economical. This was the system which he wished to extend to the whole country, and he believed that if that were done we should not find in our criminal statistics such Returns as those which appeared for the year 1869, when, out of 29,278 persons charged with offences, 1,869 were discharged for want of prosecutors; and out of 19,318 who were committed for trial, no bills were found against 904, and 4,012 were acquitted. These results might well be contrasted with those of Scotland, where public prosecutors existed; as we found that while in England one-fifth of those tried were acquitted, in Scotland, the proportion of acquittals was only 1 in 11. He would only add that there was one class of offences for the prosecution of which a public officer was absolutely necessary if we wished to make laws for their repression really effectual. He referred to offences against the Election Law—such as bribery, intimidation, and personation. The prosecution of these offences ought not to be left to the zeal of political opponents, nor was it desirable that they should be conducted by the officers of the Government. The main provisions of the Bill, which he proposed should be now read a second time, were based on the recommendations of the Committee of last Session. It was proposed that the country should be
  1748
  divided into districts, to be mapped out by the Home Secretary; that to each district an attorney should be appointed as public prosecutor by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the local magistrates, and that after the committal of any person for trial the depositions should be sent to the public prosecutor, who was then to perform the ordinary duties of attorney for the prosecution. Offences of a private nature, such as assaults and defamation, did not come within the scope of the Bill; but it was provided in cases of assault, the magistrates might, if they deemed it necessary, direct the public prosecutor to interfere. The public prosecutor might also interfere in any case prior to the committal, if he were authorized to do so, either by the local magistrate or the Attorney General. One important provision was, that no public prosecutor should be allowed to drop any prosecution without the Attorney General's consent. The only other officers to be appointed under the Bill were three consulting counsel, to whom the Attorney General might refer all cases of difficulty. If private persons chose to prosecute they would still be at liberty to do so, although every Court would be empowered to instruct the public prosecutor to intervene. One of the great evils to be guarded against was an undue increase of the patronage of the Crown. Since he was called to the Bar that patronage had increased enormously, and was in the hands of the political party which happened for the time to be in power. Consequently, Parliamentary influence was brought to bear upon all appointments in a way that was unknown during the early part of his career at the Bar. To prevent, therefore, a further augmentation of Government patronage it was proposed by the Bill that public prosecutors should be appointed by the Secretary of State only on the recommendations of the magistrates of the several districts. The opponents of the measure might urge, as an objection against it, that at present prosecution afforded a very important school for the Bar. Admitting that, he asserted they would do so still, because the public prosecutors would distribute the briefs fairly, and if they neglected to do so they would be called to task by the Secretary of State. Some persons feared that this Bill would

  1749
  lead to largely increased expense. Now, he confessed the Bill would necessitate an increase of expense to a certain extent; but he did not believe that the House would shrink from any expenditure which was requisite for the due administration of justice. Moreover, the expense would not be greatly augmented by the Bill. The salaries of the public prosecutors would not exceed £50,000 a-year, and under the existing system between £30,000 and £40,000 was annually paid in fees to prosecuting attornies. He believed the Bill would affect a most important improvement in the administration of justice, as it would make the innocent more secure, and render the punishment of the guilty more certain. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Russell Gurney.)
  MR. WEST, in rising to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that as a Member of the Select Committee to which this Bill was referred last year, he begged leave to state the facts in connection with it, which came within his own personal knowledge. That Committee had never thought it necessary to discuss the question of the advantage or otherwise of a public prosecutor, and never examined a witness on the point. The evidence given in the previous Committee showed that the most practical men upon it were opposed to the appointment of public prosecutors, while it should not be forgotten that almost all the causes which made the other witnesses in favour of public prosecutors were now removed. The Committee of last year felt that the principle of the measure having been assented to by that House, it was their business only to embody that principle in a Bill in the best way they could. Now, he did not object in any way to the manner in which the Bill was framed. All he wished to say was, he did not think that the authorities referred to by his right hon. Friend opposite were in favour of the appointment of a public prosecutor. For example, Lord Stanley, now Earl Derby, stated his objections to the principle. His right hon. Friend opposite was, therefore, not accurate in claiming that noble Earl as an advocate for this measure. He thought that this Bill was
  1750
  an invasion of the principle recommended by a former Committee on the subject, and its details extremely objectionable. It would saddle the country with an enormous expense, place a vast amount of patronage in the hands of the Crown, and make our whole criminal system dependent on the Attorney General of the day. If an enormous amount of expense was to be incurred they ought, at any rate, to have efficient officers, which would not be the case under the provisions of the Bill before the House. If public prosecutors were needed at all they should be officers who would take charge of cases from the time at which the offences were discovered, instead of merely coming in after a person had been committed for trial, and having charge of the subsequent proceedings. If the assistance of public prosecutors was not afforded to injured persons at some stage earlier than the formal commitment of a prisoner for trial, the result would inevitably be that many guilty persons would escape punishment through the ignorance or helplessness of the persons aggrieved, and the real purpose for which public prosecutors existed in other countries would not be satisfied. It was argued that public prosecutors ought to be appointed because a Committee of Parliament made recommendations in favour of such appointments in 1856; but those who used this argument seemed to forget that the state of the law which caused, the recommendation to be made had been remedied by subsequent legislation. Lord Campbell, though theoretically in favour of the principle involved in the appointment of public prosecutors—because the criminal law was, at the time he gave his evidence, often shamefully perverted by persons for corrupt purposes, more especially in indictments for perjury and conspiracy, and because the control over prosecutors was insufficient—seeing, when he came to deal practically with the question, how impossible, it was to deal with existing evils by the appointment of public prosecutors, had set himself to reform the criminal law, which he thought the preferable alternative; and, accordingly, had succeeded in removing many of those evils by practical legislation. The Committee of 1856, before whom many facts on that part of the question were stated in evidence, was strongly opposed to policemen assuming the func-

  1751
  tions of public prosecutors; but the effect of the present Bill would be that members of the police force would be the prosecutors not only theoretically, but practically, in the vast majority of the criminal cases tried in this country. He strongly deprecated the French system of espionage, and thought one of the worst courses to adopt would be to appoint as public prosecutors the heads of the police force, which was virtually the case in Manchester, Salford, Leeds, and many other large towns. In his opinion, the most suitable public prosecutor, if any were appointed at all, would be the Petty Sessions' clerks. Again, he thought that, regarded in a financial point of view, the proposal before the House was faulty. To carry out the scheme of the Bill, according to the recommendations of that Committee, it would be necessary, in order to have a public prosecutor for each Petty Sessional division, to appoint 765 public prosecutors, and the amount of salary to be given to each public prosecutor was recommended to be £700 per annum, and £300 for their respective clerks and offices, &c., amounting in the aggregate to £765,000 per annum, to supply, for a remarkably small and imaginary grievance, that which would prove to be no remedy at all. Another objection to the proposal was that it would prejudice the administration of the criminal law by placing an inordinate amount of patronage in the hands of the Attorney General of the day. The present appointment of public prosecutors in Mint cases was doubtless dictated by political or personal interest, and the result was that the prosecutions directed by the Treasury were the worst conducted. Yet the Bill sought to extend this system throughout the country. Moreover, the Bill would seriously affect the interests of members of the Bar, and he should like to know how the Attorney General would dispense his patronage to counsel in this matter? It was suggested that the briefs should be distributed generally; but they could not be spread as they were at Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds, where briefs were "souped" out. He sincerely hoped the Attorney General would take this part of the subject into serious consideration. He objected to an increase of Government patronage in the legal profession—it was too large already; it could not be denied that four out every of five of
  1752
  the County Court Judges of this country had been appointed by the present and the preceding Government for personal or political reasons. All this tended to corrupt the Bar. Speaking warmly in behalf of the members of that body, he expressed the hope that the day was far distant when they would be reduced to the position in which the French Bar was now, or that to which the Scotch Bar was reduced some 50 years ago. With regard to the general question of the necessity of public prosecutors, he would not discuss that question, because it was not raised by the Bill. For the reasons he had stated, he would urge the House to reject this extravagant and ill-conceived measure, for which there was no demand, and would conclude by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. West.)
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that as his name had been directly alluded to in connection with a remarkable case that had occurred at Worcester, he decided to say a few words on the proposal now before the House. The person referred to was named Adcock, and was a railway clerk. He was a man of plausible manners, and had obtained so much influence that he was about to be promoted to a place of great trust under the Company, when one morning he absconded; and it was then discovered that he had been systematically committing great frauds—he had inflicted great injury upon persons in all classes of society, and had, in short, shown himself to be a wholesale rascal. Counsel had given their decided opinion that the man had committed legal fraud, yet he was still at liberty. And why? It was said that it was because sufficient legal evidence for a conviction could not be obtained; but the real reason, was that for some reason or other it did not suit the persons who were the sufferers to carry out the prosecution. He (Sir John Pakington) knew of no case that so conclusively showed the real want of a public prosecutor; for it was a gross and shameful failure of justice, which would not have occurred had such an officer been in existence to take charge of the case. With regard to the steps

  1753
  which Mr. Hastings, an able member of the Bar, had taken in this matter, that gentleman moved at the late Worcestershire Epiphany Quarter Sessions, for the appointment of a Committee of Justices to consider the desirableness of petitioning the House in favour of the present Bill, and he believed notice of this motion was given by Mr. Hastings before the case of fraud at Worcester occurred, and therefore the question of appointing a public prosecutor was raised purely on its merits. Mr. Hastings' reference to the case in question, when bringing forward his Motion, was simply due to the fact that it was an opportune argument in favour of the course he recommended. With reference to the Bill, the House must feel indebted to his right hon. and learned Friend the Recorder for having brought this measure forward in the way he had done. It was a question of great importance, and no Member of the House was more competent to deal with it than his right hon. and learned Friend; but as it involved a very important change in our system of criminal law, he thought the House and the public would be better pleased if the question were left in the hands of the Government, than if a private Member dealt with it, however competent he might be. On his own behalf he might say, as an experienced chairman of Quarter Sessions, that his opinion was not founded solely upon the case to which he had referred, nor upon the statement, conclusive as it was, made by his right hon. and learned Friend. He had long felt that there ought to be some responsible officer appointed, as he had been very much impressed by the serious failure of justice occurring from the need of such an officer. He was not prepared to say that they ought to follow, in every instance, the example of Scotland, although Scotland had done much that was worthy of imitation. In the matter of education we had advantageously borrowed from our northern neighbours; and he would like to see an approach to the Scotch system with regard to the establishment of a public prosecutor. On the second reading of a measure, they were only to give their assent to the principle, leaving the details to the Committee, which would be the time for the hon. and learned Member (Mr. West) to go into the objections which he had urged against the Bill. The two main
  1754
  objections to which he adverted were connected with expense and patronage. The hon. and learned Member supposed the expense would be £750,000 a-year. But this statement required to be proved. The other objection was as to the patronage. He (Sir John Pakington) did not want to see the independence of the Bar assailed. No one would more regret to see this than he would—he could not imagine a greater misfortune to the country than anything that should lower the character of the English Bar; and it would be for the Government to take care that the details of the Bill should be so arranged as not unnecessarily or unavoidably to increase the patronage of the Crown. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had magnified the expenses of the Bill; but he did hope that neither the Government nor the House would be deterred from anything relating to the establishment of a system of justice by considerations of expense. He would vote for the second reading of the Bill, and he hoped that it would be taken up by Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. RATHBONEhoped the House would not decide with regard to this Bill from the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. West). The reason why the Committee appointed to consider this subject had not taken any evidence was because very exhaustive evidence had been taken by a Committee that sat as recently as 1855 or 1856. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the Bill proposed to leave the conduct of criminal prosecutions in the hands of the police; but his hon. and learned Friend either could not have read the Bill, or deeming its provisions too strong sought to secure its condemnation by arguing against provisions which it did not contain. So far from intending that the prosecutions should be under the control of the police, as was practically the case under the present system, one of its objects was to take them completely out of their hands. Then, again, his hon. and learned Friend drew a most alarming picture of the expenses incurred under its provisions; but as far as he (Mr. Rathbone) could make out, the expense of working the measure would amount to nothing like the imaginary sum contemplated by his hon. and learned Friend, but would, he believed on good authority, not exceed that of the existing system by more that £29,000; and in

  1755
  return for that increase they would obtain a decrease of crime by its better supervision, and greater certainty in the administration of justice. The patronage devolving upon the Attorney General would be very trifling, consisting only of his three assistant counsel, because the public prosecutors would be recommended by the magistrates. At the same time, there must necessarily, by the very nature of the thing, be some patronage in the hands of the Law Officers of the Crown; but it would be impossible to exercise it without its being open to the observation and criticism of the public. He trusted that the House would not accept the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend, but would read a second time a Bill which, he believed, would render it more difficult for rich men to commit offences with impunity.
  MR. STRAIGHTsaid, he was glad that the long-vexed question of the appointment of a public prosecutor had teen brought before the House of Commons. He was free to confess that, although he could not claim a very lengthened experience in the Criminal Courts, still, to the extent of the knowledge he had acquired in the course of some eight years at the Central Criminal Court, he had come to the conclusion that the evil said to be caused by the large number of prisoners who escaped before, and on their trial under the existing system, had been very largely exaggerated. He looked in vain both to the public Press, and to those who supported the appointment of public prosecutors, for any definite statement of the names of persons who had escaped. He was not going to discuss the question of the patronage which was likely to be exercised by the Attorney General should the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman be accepted by the House. He dared to say that the Attorney General and other persons who would have the opportunity would not be less likely to appoint friends than other persons would be. He did not wish to discuss questions of so much delicacy, because he hoped that, at all events, proper persons would be appointed. Still, we did see extraordinary appointments made that somewhat startled us. We found a very round man placed in a very square hole. Although he went with the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced this Bill to this extent that the appointment of a public
  1756
  prosecutor was exceedingly desirable, he thought that our present system might be made use of to introduce one that should be satisfactory to all; and that by utilizing existing institutions, and enlarging the authority of magistrates' clerks, we should obtain an experienced and valuable institution for carrying on criminal prosecutions, without, at the same time, causing that disturbance which must inevitably result from the adoption of the Bill. An observation was made by the the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), referring to a person who ought to have been charged at Worcester with the offence of forging railway bonds; and the right hon. Baronet said he considered that that was a strong instance of the necessity of appointing a public prosecutor, because if there had been a public prosecutor the man Adcock would have been punished. But was it at all likely that the two railways, if they were interested pecuniarily against the apprehension of this man, would have communicated any more with the public prosecutor of the district than it appeared they had not done with the magistrates? However, he did not think this instance told very much one way or the other. No one could deny that failures of justice did occasionally occur; but they were few and far between. Dealing with the question of expediency, let them see what was the machinery by which the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of London proposed to carry on the administration of criminal justice. He said that in certain districts throughout the country, a public prosecutor should be appointed, who should be a solicitor, and should possess certain qualifications mentioned in the Act; who was to devote the whole of his energy and his time to the conduct of criminal prosecutions arising within his jurisdiction, and who was to be paid a salary according to a scale to be approved by the Treasury. In addition to that he was to be paid a further allowance for the cost of criminal prosecutions according to the allowances made to solicitors under existing circumstances. In ordinary cases, at Assizes and the Central Criminal Court, this allowance was—for the counsel, £2 4s. 6d.; to the solicitor for drawing the brief, £1 11 s. 6d. But would these payments be sufficient to

  1757
  ensure a proper conduct of the prosecutions? It would often be that an inferior advocate would be appointed to conduct an important case, and the failure of justice that might perhaps ensue would ultimately prove very costly to the country; or else a much greater expense would be incurred in paying a sufficient fee to engage the services of an experienced counsel. It seemed somewhat doubtful from the Bill whether a private prosecutor was still to be permitted if he choose, through his attorney, to select his own counsel, and pay from his own pocket the heavier fee that would be required by an eminent counsel. He was not going to discuss the alleged expenditure of £750,000 a-year spoken of by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. West). He did not anticipate such an expenditure, for, speaking the opinions of men conversant with the subject, he thought the expense could be covered by £150,000. There was also a proposition to allow extra expenses. He would take the case of a professional man, a doctor, who might be passing through London down Cheapside, and had his pocket picked; he might have to remain in London all night, and to attend in London at the trial, and what would be the expenses that he would be allowed? Why, 3s. 6d. a-day and 2s. 6d. a-night—because he was not called to give evidence in a professional capacity. That was not a right thing. The hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced the measure thought the proposed system could be carried on for £40,000 a-year; but he believed that the actual expense would turn out, as he said before, to be £150,000 or £200,000. If they were willing to spend an additional £200,000 a-year, it would be better to revise the whole of our criminal law administration, and to appoint a Minister of Justice, instead of saddling the Attorney General with the increased responsibility contemplated by the Bill. The magistrates' clerks throughout the country were at present discharging the duties of public prosecutor. He had heard the observation made by persons discussing this matter—"It is a dangerous thing to place in the hands of the magistrates' clerks the power of conducting prosecutions, because it subjects them to the temptation of inducing these magistrates to commit cases for trial." But that was a stigma on a most respect-
  1758
  able class of persons. If such observations were to be made with respect to magistrates' clerks it was most unfair; and the manner in which they conducted their business at Assizes, and the Sessions of the country, showed this. Whether this Bill was persevered in, or whether it was withdrawn with a view to some future action being taken by the Attorney General, this was quite certain—that it was high time the question was determined one way or another. He had heard it suggested that 70 public prosecutors would be all that would be needed. Was that possible? Why, with the number of Petty Sessions throughout the country, the public prosecutor would be called for at A at 12, at B at 1, at C at 2, and perhaps at all three places at once. The 6th clause of the Bill would put a perfect block on the administration of criminal justice in the police courts. He had attended the magistrates' courts. A case had to be remanded; communication would have to be made to the public prosecutor of the district, who might reside at Bristol, and he would have to come up to London to consult the counsel for public prosecutions, who really would have to do little more than exercise the discretion at present vested in clerks to magistrates. He hoped that the Bill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Southampton would not become law; but that the question involved in it would receive adequate attention from the Law Officers of the Crown and from the country in general, with a view to some satisfactory solution and settlement.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the Government had been asked by the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), whether they were in favour of the principle of the Bill? He answered that they were. He did not commit himself to the details of the measure; but he had always been in favour of it since he had had a seat in Parliament. At the same time, if he consulted his personal feelings he should oppose it, on the two grounds that it would impose on him additional public duties, which he was very loth to undertake, and the invidious nature of the duties of the office. England, so far as he knew, was the only civilized country in the world in which prosecutions were not considered to be the office of the

  1759
  Executive Government—in other words, in which a public prosecutor was not appointed. In Europe, in America, in Scotland, in Ireland, there were public prosecutors; and he thought that the time had come when a public prosecutor was requisite in England. He would not, of course, suggest the adoption of the detailed system of any country; but of the evidence in favour of the subject, he had a weight of authorities almost overwhelming. He had the authorities of three successive Lord Chief Justices of the Court of Queen's Bench—Lord Denman, Lord Campbell, and Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, and to supplement them, the authority of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder himself was of no small account. The present Lord Chief Justice said he thought it very often happened that cases were brought to trial which were only imperfectly got up, and that they failed for the want of some superintending authority to put the evidence together and see that it was complete; that some cases had come to the Court which ought not to have come there; and there were cases of collusion in which, by arrangement between the parties, the cases were not taken before the grand juries, or the witnesses absented themselves, or did not give the evidence which they ought to give, so that guilty parties got off. He (the Attorney General) thought this difficulty would be got rid of by the appointment of a public prosecutor. The Lord Chief Justice gave another reason for the appointment of a public prosecutor, in the improper interference of the police in public prosecutions. It was the intention of the Bill that the prosecutions should be taken out of the hands of the police. The principle of the Bill had been unanimously agreed to, and it had gone before a Committee. The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. West) seemed singularly to misunderstand the object of the Bill and its provisions. He said it was a great deficiency in the Bill that it did not establish some better system for the prosecution of crime, and he objected to a public prosecutor being at the head of prosecutions which ought to be in the hands of the police. God forbid that the police should be at the head of prosecutions! The hon. and learned Member talked of there being 750 public prosecutors; but 60 or 70 would be more like the number, and he
  1760
  thought their appointment would not tend to lessen the independence of the Bar. The Bill would not give any additional power to the Attorney General, but, as a matter of fact, would rather take from than add to his patronage, which, he thought, was a very good thing. At present, he had the power of appointing counsel in Mint and Post Office prosecutions; but, on the passing of the Bill, those prosecutions would be placed under the general law, and the patronage would be taken away from the Attorney General. As to the expense which the measure would entail, the Treasury, which could not fairly be accused of prodigality, had examined the provisions of the Bill, and, subject to one or two alterations, they gave it a general approval. He himself believed that the Bill would introduce a great improvement into the administration of public justice, by the appointment of public prosecutors; and, therefore, without committing himself to all its details, he should support the second reading.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, that, as a Member of the Committee which sat upon the subject, he denied that the course taken by that Committee precluded him from objecting to the principle of that Bill. Having had long experience at one of the largest Sessions in this country, he did not remember a single case where justice had failed, except under circumstances in which it would have equally failed under that Bill. It had been stated that of 29,000 persons charged 2,000 were discharged for want of proof; but the greater proportion of the 2,000 would not have come within the provisions of that measure, being cases of drunkenness or the like, in which nobody would appear to establish the charge. He did not think the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich's estimate of the probable cost of that measure was much too high, for they could not well do with less than one public prosecutor for almost every Petty Sessional division; and they would thus require 500 or 600 prosecuting attorneys to carry out the Bill, at yearly salaries not much under £600 or £700 each. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Straight) that if they wished to alter the present system at all, it would be better to give more power to the existing justices' clerks than to create these

  1761
  new offices. The Bill provided that a public prosecutor should intervene after the person charged had been committed; but that would not be of any use, because the evil of any failure of justice would generally have occurred before committal. Again, the public prosecutor was, if he thought fit, to intervene after the laying of the information; but that would admit of a diversity of procedure before magistrates which would be extremely dangerous; and where the public prosecutor did not think fit to intervene, it would be argued before the magistrates that it might be taken for granted the case was not one that should be pressed. He concurred in what the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich had said as to the effect of the Bill upon the Bar, and he maintained that the measure would do nothing to prevent the failure of justice which might not be amply provided for under the existing system.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, that he also was a Member of the Committee which sat upon the subject, and considering the unanimity which prevailed in that body, he was somewhat surprised to find that objections were now raised to the Bill by Gentlemen who had served on the Committee with him. He could testify, as he had had some experience of the system, to the good working of public prosecutors in Ireland, and he held that the Executive Government ought to be as responsible for the administration of justice with regard to preventing improper prosecutions, securing economy, and protecting the public from improper and corrupt transactions in England as they now were in that country and also in Scotland. All the evidence adduced before the Select Committee of 1856 was in favour of the proposed change. It had been spoken of in the highest terms by the Judges of the land, and by the late Lords Brougham and Campbell; and with regard to the expense, instead of being so costly as had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, experience had proved in Ireland exactly the reverse, there being in that country 33 local public prosecutors, or almost exactly one for each county, their salaries being from £150 to £200, and the total expense not amounting to £7,000 per annum, and that of Crown solicitors to about £18,000. It was a mistake to suppose that a separate public prose-
  1762
  cutor would be required in England for every Petty Sessional division, as he imagined that 70 for the whole of England and Wales would be found sufficient. All the objections to the Bill he considered were such as could be settled in Committee. In Ireland the local public prosecutors had not to attend once in 100 or even 500 cases at Petty Sessions, the Attorney General directing him to do so only in grave cases. In addition, that the system did not militate against the independence of the Bar was proved by the present position of the profession in Ireland, who, whatever they might be said to be in point of talent, were not in any way inferior in independence to the members of either the English or Scotch Bar.
  MR. BRISTOWEregretted that the House had not heard more of the opinions of the country magistrates and chairmen of Quarter Sessions on a subject so closely related to their functions and jurisdiction, and thought that, as a general rule, magistrates' clerks were well qualified to discharge, and could and did adequately discharge the duties required under the measure. He was astonished to learn from the right hon. and learned Recorder that there were such numerous failures of justice in London; and he believed that that state of things had no existence in the country generally. The system contemplated by that Bill was totally different from the one adopted in Ireland, and on that ground he must offer every opposition in his power to the measure. The duties of the public prosecutors of counties in Ireland were practically ministerial, the depositions in every case of committal being sent to the Attorney General, who determined whether the prosecution should go forward. That Bill, however, proposed to give to public prosecutors—attorneys nominated by the Home Secretary—powers that were not ministerial, but judicial. He protested against the notion that when a bench of magistrates had committed an accused person for trial, it should be within the competence of a country attorney to say that the case should not proceed further. That would practically take away from a private prosecutor the right which the Constitution now gave him. That was a blot in the measure which did not attach to the Irish system. Moreover, a private person going on with a case after the public

  1763
  prosecutor had declined, would do it in the full peril of paying the costs himself. He did not say he was altogether opposed to the principle of a public prosecutor, but he was decidedly opposed to the principle that a public prosecutor should have the powers, duties, and responsibilities cast upon him by that measure. This was a case in which the details of the Bill went to the root of the whole measure, and therefore he could not assent to its second reading.
  MR. HENLEYthought that was a question on which more depended on the machinery by which the thing intended was to be carried out than on an abstract principle, and it was on that view of the matter that he wished to make a few observations. There could be no doubt that many circumstances had arisen within the last few years which might seem to render it necessary that some assistance in some cases should be given in the way of public prosecution; but he questioned whether that Bill would do it. Some of the gigantic commercial frauds and other matters that had recently occurred were of such a nature as to make it almost beyond the power of a private person to undertake the responsibility and encounter the difficulty of prosecuting. But what did he find in that Bill? It professed in a sense to be permissive in any other part of the country except London; but, in fact, it left an arbitrary discretion to the Secretary of State for the time being to constitute districts as he thought fit. How the Secretary of State was to arrive at the will or wish of the districts passed his comprehension, because they were not to be conterminous with the counties. Again, if a borough or a district wished a public prosecutor to be appointed how was it to be done? It would be very difficult for a Secretary of State to come to a conclusion as to what was the wish of a particular district on the subject of the appointment of a public prosecutor, and, therefore, on this point the Bill appeared to him to be inconveniently framed. If the Bill as it stood were to become law, a very extensive and most unjust system of remands would grow up under it, which would involve great hardship upon unconvicted prisoners, who were treated more strictly in prison when under remand than those who were convicted, and thus often suffered much injustice. The Bill left them in per-
  1764
  fect ignorance as to the class of persons who were to be appointed under it, and their remuneration, although it was most essential that the calibre of those who were to carry it into effect should be known, which could not possibly be, until they knew the terms of the appointment. This was the more important as, upon the nature of the appointments, would depend the successful working of the system. The Bill was also obscure on the point whether the public prosecutor was to conduct the prosecution personally, or was to be at liberty to employ counsel, and as to how he was to be paid, because he could not be a witness as the prosecutor generally was under the present mode. This was a most important matter, because it was well known that the expenses of prosecutors were frequently cut down to such an extent that there was a failure of justice in consequence, witnesses being paid on so low a scale that they refused to recollect on the trial facts that would tell against the prisoner. What the public required was that in great criminal cases the Attorney General should be authorized to give his assistance on behalf of the prosecution when necessary. On striking a balance, the inconveniences of the measure before the House would be found to outweigh its conveniences, and therefore he should vote against it.
  MR. LEEMANbelieved hon. Members must have arrived at the conclusion, and it certainly was verified by his own personal experience of 30 years as a county clerk of the peace, that no evidence had been placed before the House to show the necessity for the appointment of public prosecutors out of the metropolis. With one exception, no case had been mentioned in which the prosecution of a great crime had been prevented in the provinces, and there was no evidence given before the Select Committee of compromises arising from the absence of a public prosecutor being made in the country. Under these circumstances he wanted to know why this measure should be imposed upon the country? If an experiment was necessary it might be made in connection with the Central Criminal Court; and should the Bill be read a second time, he would, on going into Committee, move that its application be limited to that Court. In the exceptional case of Adcock at Worcester, where it was alleged there had been a

  1765
  failure of justice through there being no public prosecutor, the alleged criminal absconded before he could be apprehended and brought to trial, and, therefore, justice could not have been vindicated even had a public prosecutor been appointed. In Manchester and Leeds public prosecutors had already been appointed by the local authorities, and if other populous places thought necessary they could follow the example set them by those two boroughs without any new legislation. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to point out any cases that had occurred in the agricultural districts which called for the appointment of a public prosecutor. The measure, if carried, would be more expensive than was anticipated, and would entail the appointment of a great number of persons to fill this office, because it would be impossible for one man to be present at the numerous Petty Sessions throughout the country, which might be sitting on the same day. The large number of cases now disposed of at Petty Sessions had rendered the appointment of public prosecutors still less necessary than in the days of Lord Campbell, who had declared that it would destroy the nursery of the English Bar if the patronage of Petty Sessions' prosecutions were put into the hands of one man, which would be the effect of the Bill, if passed; and the Attorney General, whatever other virtues he might possess, was not an angel. He suggested that power should be given to the justices at Petty Sessions to appoint their own clerks to conduct prosecutions, paying them by salary and not by fees, so that they should have no interest in prosecutions, and he still held by the evidence he had given in opposition to this proposal when before a Select Committee some years ago.
  MR. BRUCEremarked that the opinion of Lord Campbell, to which the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down had referred, had been laid before the Committee, who had, nevertheless, decided by a large majority in favour of the appointment of public prosecutors, while the present Lord Chief Justice strongly supported their decision. The hon. and learned Gentleman had asked him whether any cases had occurred in provincial towns which would render the passing of a
  1766
  measure like that now before the House necessary; but the best answer that could be given to that question was to be found in the fact that two large cities had appointed public prosecutors on their own responsibility. In his opinion, had the necessary facilities existed, the counties would have followed the example so set them. He had found, in his experience as a magistrate and as chairman of Quarter Sessions, that there was a most scandalous struggle for prosecutions. His own opinion was that the advantages flowing from the appointment of public prosecutors might be bought too dearly. He could undertake, however, to say that the expense of the proposed system would be but little more than that which was incurred at present, the subject having been carefully investigated by competent persons at the Treasury. At the same time, there were many portions of the measure which required careful consideration, and he felt strongly inclined to ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Bill, after he had tested the opinion of the House with reference to it, inasmuch as the subject was one which ought to be taken in hand by the Government when a fitting opportunity should arrive for them to deal with it. He should give his vote in favour of the second reading of the Bill.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 89: Majority 40.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  POOR LAW (SCOTLAND).
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the operation of the Poor Law in Scotland, and whether any and what amendments should be made therein:"—Committee to consist of Twenty-one Members:—Mr. CRAUFURD, The LORD ADVOCATE, Sir ROBERT ANSTRUTHER, Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. ARMITSTEAD, Mr. CAMERON, Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE, Mr. ELLICE, Mr. CRUM-EWING, Mr. ORR EWING, Mr. FORDYCE, Mr. GORDON, Mr. JOHN HAMILTON, Mr. LOCH, Mr. MACKINTOSH, Mr. M'LAGAN, Mr. MILLER, Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY, Mr. PARKER, Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, and Sir DAVID WEDDERBURN:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

  LAW OF RATING (IRELAND).
  Select Committee on the Law of Rating (Ireland) nominated:—Mr. VILLIERS, Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH, Mr. M'MAHON, Lord CLAUD HAMILTON, Mr. DOWNING, Mr. KAVANAGH, Mr. MAGUIRE, Colonel TAYLOR, Mr. WILLIAM GREGORY, Colonel VANDELEUR, Mr. DEASE, Mr. BRUEN, Mr. STACPOOLE, Mr. WILLIAM ORMSBY GORE, and The Marquess of HARTINGTON:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  And, on May 3, Sir FREDERICK HEYGATE, Mr. BAGWELL added.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.