Commons Sitting of 8 June 1874

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Durham County (Northern Division), v. Isaac Lothian Bell, esquire, and Charles Mark Palmer, esquire, void Election.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Friendly Societies * [140]; Publick Petitions (Preparation and Presentment) Act (1661) Repeal * [141]; Waterford Grand Jury Transfer * [142].
First Reading—Boundaries of Archdeaconries and Rural Deaneries * [143].
Second Reading—Merchant Ships (Measurement of Tonnage) * [118]; Militia Law Amendment * [130]; Canadian Stock (Stamp Duty on Transfers) * [133]; Colonial Clergy * [125].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Municipal Elections * [84], committed to the Select Committee on Boroughs (Auditors and Assessors).
Select Committee—Chain Cables and Anchors * [85], nominated.
Committee—Report—Intoxicating Liquors * [83–139]; Land Tax Commissioners Names * [76]; Four Courts Marshalsea, Dublin * [116]; Herring Fishery Barrels * [107]; Churches and Chapels Exemption (Scotland) * [108]; Bar Admission Stamp * [109]; Public Health (Scotland) Supplemental * [106]; Courts (Colonial) Jurisdiction * [111].
Considered as amended—Board of Trade Arbitrations, Inquiries, &c. [86].
Third Reading—Revenue Officers Disabilities * [15]; Leases and Sales of Settled Estates * [8], and passed.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS—BOSTON BOROUGH.
MR. SPEAKERinformed the House, that he had received from Mr. Justice Grove, one of the Judges selected pursuant to the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, for the Trial of Election Petitions, a Certificate and Report relating to the Election for the Borough of Boston. And the same was read, to the effect "that the said Thomas Parry, being one of the Members whose Election and Return were complained of in the said Petition, was not duly elected or returned, and that his Election and Return were and are wholly null and void on the ground of bribery by agents, and I do hereby certify in writing such my determination to you. And it appearing to me on the trial of the said Petition that a question of Law with reference to agency so far as regards the Respondent William James Ingram required further consideration by the Court of Common Pleas, I postponed my Judgment and the granting of the Certificate in respect of the Election and Return of the said William James Ingram, until the determination of such question by the said Court, and I reserved such question accordingly.
"And whereas the said John Wingfield Malcolm prayed that it might be determined that he was duly elected and ought to have

1153
been returned, and it appearing to me on the said trial that a question of Law with reference to certain votes so far as regards the claim of the Petitioner the said John Wingfield Malcolm required further consideration by the Court of Common Pleas, I postponed my Judgment and the granting the Certificate in respect of the Election and Return of the said John Wingfield Malcolm until the determination of such question by the said Court, and I reserved such question accordingly,"

PRIVILEGE—PETITION—OFFENSIVE IMPUTATIONS.
SIR CHAELES FORSTER, Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions, stated that a few days since the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander) presented a Petition to the House from Mr. Rigby Wason. Upon examination, that Petition had been found to contain offensive imputations upon the conduct of the Select Committee on Public Petitions. As such, it was not a Petition which could be received, as it almost amounted to a Breach of the Privileges of the House. He therefore moved that the Order that the Petition should lie on the Table be discharged.
COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, in assenting to the proposal of the hon. Member, he must express his obligations to him for the consideration which he had shown him, and for the terms in which he had brought this question before the notice of the House; and he must further express to the House his deep regret that he should have presented a Petition embodying an imputation on one of the Committees of that House. He felt that he must assume the whole blame which necessarily and very properly attached to such proceedings, and he should not seek to escape from it by pleading Parliamentary inexperience. What he regretted was, that he did not return the Petition to Mr. Wason, requesting him to withdraw any expressions which might be deemed offensive or objectionable; and he was quite sure that Mr. Wason, who was for many years a Member of the House, and might not be unknown to some hon. Members, would have done what was asked of him. He could only once more assure the House of his deep and unfeigned regret for this occurrence, and his determination in the future narrowly to scan the
1154
contents and terms of any Petition he might present to the House.
Order [2nd June] That the Petition do lie upon the Table read, and discharged;—Petition withdrawn.

ARMY—VOLUNTEERS—CAPITATION GRANTS.—QUESTION.
MR. HAYTERasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would explain to the House, whether Lieutenants of Volunteer Corps already on the strength, but by the last Circular made supernumerary, are entitled by attending the required number of drills to Capitation Grant of 30 s., and when passed through the examination for proficiency, to the extra Grant of £2 10 s.; and, whether Sub-Lieutenants by attending the prescribed number of drills, can earn the Capitation Grant of 30 s., and if passing examination at school or before board, will be allowed the extra £2 10 s.
MR. GATHORNE HARTDY, in reply, said, that in both cases the capitation grant and the extra grant were open to lieutenants and sub-lieutenants of Volunteer Corps under the conditions referred to.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS—GROSVENOR PLACE.—QUESTION.
MR. ADAMasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether Her Majesty's Government have been in communication with the Metropolitan Board of Works, with the view of widening the road at the top of Grosvenor Place, or taking any other steps to case the block of traffic at Hyde Park Corner; and, whether he can inform the House what course he proposes to pursue to effect this necessary improvement?
LORD HENRY LENNOX, in reply, said, that he had not as yet communicated with the Metropolitan Board of Works respecting the widening of the upper part of Grosvenor Place, because the scheme which he had been considering for the relief of the traffic at that point was not sufficiently matured to enable the Metropolitan Board of Works fairly to consider it. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman—and he believed it was unnecessary for him to assure his hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman (Sir James Hogg)—that he should not decide upon any question of

1155
metropolitan improvement without conferring with him and his colleagues—neither should he do anything in the matter which could in any way be distasteful to them, or which would lessen their responsibility. Perhaps he (Lord Henry Lennox) might be allowed, at the same time, to answer a Question on the same subject which was to be put to him later by his noble Friend the Member for Marlborough (Lord Ernest Bruce), and to say that he hoped shortly to be able to submit a plan for relieving the present dangerous state of affairs at Hyde Park Corner. When he did so, he would at the same time cause a model showing the proposed change to be exhibited in the library of the House of Commons, or in one of the rooms adjacent to it.

METROPOLIS—SHELTER FOR RIDERS IN HYDE PARK.—QUESTION.
MR. ADAMasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been drawn to the Papers in the Office of Works with reference to providing places of shelter for riders in Hyde Park; and whether he will consider, before the introduction of the Estimates for next year the advisability of making some provision for this purpose?
LORD HENRY LENNOX, in reply, said, that his attention had been directed to the subject, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that it should not be lost sight of when the time came for preparing the Estimates for next year.

THE CAPE COLONY—NATAL—THE LATE KAFFIR OUTBREAK.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, When the Papers relating to the late rebellion in Natal, and the measures taken for its suppression, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, considerable progress has been made with the preparation of these Papers, but the Secretary of State is still awaiting replies to some Despatches which it is desirable should appear along with the earlier Correspondence. I am in hopes that they will shortly come to hand, when no time will be lost in presenting them to Parliament. I am unable to
  1156
  say with any certainty when the answers will arrive; but if they are not received at an early date, measures will be taken with a view of expediting the completion of the Correspondence.

VALUATION OF PROPERTY BILL—RATING OF MINES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KNOWLESasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he would explain to the House why the Valuation of Property Bill does not apply to Scotland and Ireland, and if iron mines and all metalliferous ores are already assessed for the relief of the poor and other local purposes in those places; and, why coal and all other mines should not be rated in the same definite and specific mode as that proposed for tin and copper in the provisions of the said Bill?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, the provisions of the Bill are not extended to Scotland and Ireland, because the objects which the Government had in view when introducing it are, for all practical purposes, already secured in those countries. Coal mines are already rated satisfactorily under the present law, which seems equally applicable to iron mines, the produce of both being of a comparatively certain and ascertainable character. The case of tin and copper mines, however, is exceptional, and it seems difficult to form an estimate of their probable annual value. Hence it is proposed to accept the basis of assessment contained in the Bill, which has the concurrence of all parties interested, not only of the owners and occupiers of the mines, but also of the Assessment Committees, as representing the general interests of the ratepayers.

LEGISLATION—ENDOWED SCHOOLS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LEATHAMasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill dealing with the subject of Endowed Schools; and, whether it is their intention to propose the prolongation of the powers of the existing Commission?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: A Bill, Sir, dealing with the subject of endowed schools has been prepared, and will

  1157
  shortly be laid before Parliament. In reply to the second part of the Question, I fear I must beg the hon. Gentleman to excuse me from mentioning what any of the provisions of the measure will be before it is actually brought forward in Parliament by the Government.

ARMY—SOLDIERS' WIVES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. VERNERasked the Secretary for War, If he would explain to the House why a number of families of Sappers were left at Bermuda in April 1873, when the men were sent to Gibraltar and Malta in the troop-ship "Tamar;" what number of these families were left; were not the families afterwards sent by mail steamer viâ Halifax, at great expense to England, instead of to the Mediterranean; what was the expense incurred; and, whether when companies of Sappers are moved in future from Bermuda to other stations, any of the families will be separated from the husbands and fathers; and, if so, what will be done with them?
  MR. GATHORNE HAEDY, in reply, said, that the reason why the families in question were left at Bermuda was that they were not on the married establishment. Some of them had gone to Bermuda on their own account, and some had been taken through the kindness of the commander of one of the transports, and it was not usual to treat them in the same way as those who were on the married establishment. The numbers of the families in question were 26 women and 46 children. With regard to the third part of the Question, the condition of the regulations was, that persons in a similar position might be sent at the public expense, provided they immediately went to their homes, and it was not usual to send to the quarters where the troops were going as they were not in the establishment. The expense incurred on this occasion was £415 14 s. 6d. With regard to the last part of the Question, the families would not be so separated if it were possible to avoid it. Should there not be room on the transport those who were on the married establishment would receive subsistence money, and the others would be treated in the same manner as the women and children were in this case.

THE GOLD COAST.—QUESTION.
MR. HANBURYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will state to the House on what day he intends to propose the Supplementary Estimate for the Government of the Gold Coast, which it was promised should be proposed early after the Whitsuntide Recess?
MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, the Estimate is already prepared, and will be ready for presentation to the House whenever an opportunity can be obtained. As to fixing a day for the discussion, my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government is about to make a statement as to the course of Public Business, and he will probably give full information upon the point.

THE JUDICATURE ACT—THE RULES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY JAMESasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he can state when the Rules directed to be framed under the sixty-eighth section of the Judicature Act will be laid before the Houses of Parliament; and, whether, in the event of no opportunity being afforded for the consideration by Parliament of such Rules before they take effect, the Government will introduce a Bill for the purpose of postponing the date on which the Judicature Act shall come into operation?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, I am desirous, in answer to the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, to give a full explanation, as some misapprehension appears to exist as to the Rules connected with the Judicature Act of 1873. A code of Rules of Procedure was appended in a Schedule to that Act. These Rules have been already approved by Parliament, and will come into operation on the commencement of the Act, on the 2nd of November of the present year. A power is given by the 74th section of the Act to the majority of the Judges of the Supreme Court to alter or annul these Rules at any time after the commencement of the Act, that is, after the 2nd of November, 1874, and also to make any new Rules, after the commencement of the Act, as to practice and procedure. Any Rules thus made by the Judges, after the 2nd of November, 1874, are to be laid before Parlia-

  1159
  ment in the usual way. In addition, however, to the Rules which I have just referred to—namely, Rules in the Schedule to the Act, and Rules to be made by the Judges after the 2nd of November, 1874, there is another power given by the 68th section of the Act, to make Rules as to procedure, sittings, circuits, and other matters of the same kind. This last-mentioned power must be exercised, if at all, before the 2nd of November, 1874. It is a power given to the Queen in Council, with the advice of the Judges, or of the greater number of them. The course which has been taken, with a view to the exercise of this power, is this—A meeting of the Judges was held on the 19th of November, 1873, under the presidency of Lord Selborne, then Lord Chancellor. In pursuance of the views of that meeting, the services of three draftsmen were obtained, instructions were given to them on the 25th of November, 1873, and a Committee of Judges was at the same time appointed to superintend the work and to convene general meetings when necessary. That Committee consisted and consists of the Lord Chancellor, the three Common Law Chiefs, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Mellish, Vice Chancellor Hall, Baron Bramwell, Mr. Justice Lush, Mr. Justice Brett, Sir James Hannen, and Sir Robert Phillimore, the Master of the Rolls being the ordinary Chairman of the Committee. The draftsmen have been occupied under this arrangement without intermission. Rules have been prepared by them in three separate batches; and, as each batch has been completed by the draftsmen, a certain number of copies have been printed, laid before the Committee of Judges, and by them circulated among such official and representative persons as they thought desirable, and subjected to the revision of the Committee. By the 1st of June, the draftsmen, in pursuance of an engagement made by them with the present Lord Chancellor, soon after his accession to office, had completed the Rules which they were intended to prepare, with the exception of a few minor and collateral Rules, which might well be postponed to a later day. The greater portion of these Rules have now been considered and revised by the Committee of Judges, and, on Saturday last, the first meeting of the whole body of Judges was held to consider the advice
  1160
  which they should tender to Her Majesty on the subject of those Rules, and on the subject of sittings, circuits, and vacations. Considerable progress was made at this meeting, and another meeting is to be held on the 1st of July. When the Rules are made by Her Majesty in Council, they must be laid before Parliament in the usual way, and it is hoped that it may be possible to lay them before Parliament during the present Session, and probably by the middle of July. Her Majesty's Government have never contemplated any alteration in the present law, under which the Judicature Act will commence to work on the 2nd of November next.

CONSTABULARY (SCOTLAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. FORTESCTJE HARRISONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been attracted to a paragraph in the last Annual Report of the Inspector of Constabulary in Scotland, in which that officer says—
  "In two counties, Perth and Renfrew, a system prevails of swearing in as constables certain individuals, principally gamekeepers. These constables are not special constables under the Special Constable Act, nor are they under the General Police Act, but they are sworn in by the justices under the Act 22nd James VI., 1617. These men, though not in any way under the control or orders of the chief constable, have all the powers conferred on constables, not only under the Poaching Prevention Act, but under every other Act of Parliament. It appears to me that this is a violation of the spirit of the General Police Act, which evidently intends that the chief constable is, subject to the control of the sheriff and the justices, to have the complete command of the criminal officers of the county;"
  and, if so, whether the Right Honourable Gentleman purposes taking any measures for an alteration of the system so reported on?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that his attention had been directed to the Report mentioned, deprecating the practice of swearing in gamekeepers to act as constables, which prevailed in Perthshire and Renfrewshire. He was endeavouring to ascertain whether such a practice was legal; and, if not, he would take steps to put an end to it.

COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—QUESTION.
MR. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true that at a recent meeting of the Commissioners of National Education for Ireland, a proposal was submitted for effecting a serious alteration in the present constitution of the Board, by, amongst other changes, the appointment of a second paid Commissioner; and, whether he will lay upon the Table Copies of the Minutes of the proceedings of the Irish National Education Board at its meeting of the 12th ult. and of any communications which may have passed between Members of the Board and any Members or officials of the Government as to such a proposal to create a second paid Commissionership of Irish Education?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that at a recent meeting of the Commissioners of National Education a suggestion was, he believed, somewhat informally made of the kind to which the hon. Member alluded. That meeting of the Commissioners was called for the purpose of discussing the Report of the Departmental Committee of the Treasury which had been referred to them by the Government for consideration, a Report which did not at all deal with the number or payment of the Commissioners of the National Board of Education. He did not think that there would be any objection to the production of a copy of the Minute to which the hon. Gentleman referred or of any official communication that might have passed upon the question; but if the hon. Member would let him know what Papers he desired to move for, he should be able to give him a definite reply.

INDIA—MADRAS IRRIGATION AND CANAL COMPANY.—QUESTION.
MR. SMOLLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he would explain to the House under what circumstances the Marquess of Salisbury consented to extend the period of repayment of the debenture debt of the Madras Irrigation and Canal Company for three years; whether this grace was given, as stated in the Annual Report of the Company, published in "The
1162
Times" newspaper of the 1st June, because there was "some difficulty in raising upon the unauthorized issue of mortgages, funds sufficient to pay off the whole of that debenture debt;" if this be correct, what is meant by the phrase "the unauthorized issue of mortgages;" whether the undertaking is actually burdened with mortgages; if so, to what extent; and, whether the mortgagees have a lien upon the net revenue and receipts of the canal and navigation works, if such should ever accrue, and taking precedence of the debt due to the Secretary of State for India?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in reply, said, it appeared from a letter in which the extension of time was granted, that it had been so made in expectation that the spread of irrigation would secure both the principal and the interest of the debenture debt. If the hon. Member would consult the Report he would find that the word used was "authorized," and not "unauthorized." The undertaking was burdened with mortgages, but to what amount he could not exactly say, but £228,000 of debt had been paid off. The debt still duo to the Secretary of State would have precedence over all other debts and mortgages.

METROPOLIS—SOUTH KENSINGTON AND BETHNAL GREEN MUSEUMS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. HOLMSasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, When the works of the new building for completing the South Kensington Museum and Bethnal Green Museum are likely to be resumed?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, both these matters involve a largo expenditure of public money. The Government have not as yet had time to give these subjects such consideration as would enable them to decide what further buildings are necessary. Under these circumstances, they are not prepared to undertake any new buildings this year.

DESPATCHES OF THE LATE GOVERNOR MACLEAN.—QUESTION.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any of the Despatches written by the late Governor Maclean to

1163
the Committee of British Merchants are now in the Colonial Office; and, if so, will he lay them upon the Table of the House?
MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, the Despatches referred to by the hon. Baronet have been transferred—as is the custom with old Papers—to the Record Office, where every facility will be afforded for their inspection. If on a perusal of the Despatches the hon. Gentleman is of opinion that any public advantage would be derived from their being laid upon the Table, and he will kindly communicate with me, I shall be happy to see how far it is possible to meet his wishes upon the subject.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1872—THE ACTON SEWAGE.—QUESTION.
MR. COOPEasked the President of the Local Government Board, What steps have been taken to remedy a complaint made in 1867 by Mr. Hamilton Fulton, a civil engineer and landowner in Acton, relative to an outfall of sewage in that parish, which has been discharged in considerable quantities for the last seven years into an open ditch, thereby creating a great and serious nuisance; and what is the nature of the Report made by the Inspector sent recently to investigate the matter?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: I am, Sir, unable to state precisely what occurred four or five years ago, when these matters were under the Home Office, but I believe two inquiries were held at that time. Since the passing of the Local Government Act in 1872 Mr. Fulton has renewed his complaints, and an inquiry was held by one of the local Government Inspectors about three months ago, but owing to the great difficulties in the way of a proper outfall for the sewage of the locality no final Report has yet been made.

ARMY—CARLOW—QUARTERING OF TROOPS.—QUESTION.
MR. OWEN LEWISasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to station any troops in the town of Carlow during the present year?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that reference had been made to the Department of the Commander of the Forces in Ireland relative to the
1164
Question of the hon. Member, and he had ascertained that there was no intention to station troops in Carlow in the present year.

PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL BARTTELOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury to state to the House what would be the course of Public Business?
MR. DISRAELI: I have, Sir, a Motion on the Paper with reference to the Orders of the Day which will be come to immediately, and I believe it will be more convenient to give the information required by my hon. and gallant Friend on that occasion.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS—ORDERS OF THE DAY.—RESOLUTION.
MR. DISRAELI, in moving, That the Orders of the Day subsequent to the Intoxicating Liquors Bill be postponed till after the Notice of Motion of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer relating to Friendly Societies, said: The House, Sir, will perhaps think it convenient that I should at the same time answer in detail the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex respecting the course of Public Business, and perhaps the best way I can do so is to lay before them a general view of the Business which probably will occupy the attention of the House during the Session. I mentioned the other day casually, but not with precision, that there were at least seven Bills of considerable importance which would be likely to engage the attention of the House for some time. The Bills I alluded to then were the Licensing Bill, the Friendly Societies Bill, which, if I succeed in the Motion I am about to make now, will be introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; the Factories (Health of Women, &c.) Bill, the Land Titles and Transfer Bill, the Judicature Bill, the Eating and Valuation Bill, and the Scotch Church Patronage Bill. Those are the measures which I had in my mind at the moment when an impression seemed to prevail that there was not much Business before Parliament; but on examining the matter more accurately, in order to address the House on the subject, I find that I understated the case, because, besides

1165
those seven Bills, there are three others certainly which may be considered of equal importance. I allude to the Land Transfer (Scotland) Bill, the Police (England) Bill, and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, on which we should wish to legislate, if the Committee report. Therefore, there are 10 Bills of considerable importance which probably may engage our attention. Besides these, there are Bills of great interest which I am indisposed to describe—although I must do so for the sake of convenience—as Bills of the second class. Three of these are in progress—namely, the Public Health (Ireland) Bill, the Registration of Births, &c. (England) Bill, and the Irish Licensing Bill. There are four others not in progress which may be classed under this head—namely, the Noxious Businesses Bill, the Shannon Improvement Bill, the Irish Constabulary Bill, and the Endowed Schools Bill. That would make 17 Bills, all upon subjects which engage public attention, and which deserve the grave consideration of the House. But, at the same time, I must remind hon. Members that there are occasions upon which considerable debate may be expected on subjects of general and, indeed, commanding interest, which will not solicit the attention of the House in the shape of Bills, but will in that of Supplementary and other Votes. Notably, for instance, there is the Education Vote; also the Supplementary Vote on a subject which was referred to this evening by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Hanbury)—namely, the new constitution of the Gold Coast; and under this head I may also put the Vote for the Post Office and Telegraphs, which, I am told, is likely to lead to considerable discussion. We have, therefore, 17 Bills of interest and import, and three occasions on which considerable expression of Parliamentary opinion is not only expected, but will undoubtedly be given. Besides that, looking to the general course and conduct of the Business of the Session, it is impossible to shut our eyes to the fact—with which we are, I believe, officially acquainted—of the introduction into the other House of Parliament, of a Bill which is not a Government measure, but which is one of commanding interest, brought forward by a high authority—namely; the Bill
1166
introduced by the Archbishop of Canterbury affecting the Church. It is not, as I have said, a Government measure, but there seems, so far as I can form an opinion, a prospect of its passing, and not with any great delay, the other House, and if introduced into this House, every Gentleman of experience of the House of Commons must feel that a Bill of that character makes its weight felt in the arrangement and disposition of the Public Business, and often exercises a considerable influence upon the time and length of the Session. I believe I have now placed before the House the general view we take of the matters and occasions on which our attention will be solicited, and I think the House will agree with me that, under the circumstances, and remembering that this is the 8th of June, we should husband our resources to the utmost, and that every effort should be made at both sides of the House not unnecessarily to waste that precious possession of time, which is not sufficiently appreciated, I believe, by the House of Commons until the month of June commences. I hope, then, the House will not be surprised—but that, on the contrary, it will be ready to aid me—if I should take an early opportunity of asking them to grant that Government Orders of the Day should have precedence of the other Orders on Tuesdays, which are now the privilege of hon. Gentlemen generally. I always with great reluctance interfere with the exercise of the privileges of independent Members of this House; but it has been the custom at the period of the year at which we have now arrived, with the general or very general consent of the House, that such an appeal should be made by the Minister, and usually it has been favourably received. I propose to do this also because I am anxious to postpone as long as I can having recourse to Morning Sittings. Certainly, with the co-operation of both sides of the House and tolerable skilfulness in the general management of the Business, we may perhaps postpone for a considerable time having recourse to Morning Sittings; and therefore, I trust that when in a few days I ask for the Tuesdays, the House will, after the statement I have made as to the number and importance of the Bills which are and will be before us, accede to the request. I will now give my hon.

1167
and gallant Friend and the House, so far as I am able to do so, a general view of the Public Business for the next 10 days, for it is impossible to arrange it further in advance. To-night we shall, I hope, got through the Committee on the Licensing Bill in sufficient time to enable my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce the Friendly Societies Bill, which the House, I think, regards as a measure of very great interest. The second reading of the Factories (Health of Women, &c.) Bill we have arranged for Thursday next. On Friday we propose to take the Post Office and Telegraph Estimates; on Monday, the 15th, the Education Estimates; on Tuesday, the Report of the Licensing Bill; and we hope it may be read a third time on Thursday, the 18th. I shall not press the House to read it on that day if there be any general objection to doing so; but it seems to me the Bill has been so fully debated and considered that probably such a course will not, in the present state of Public Business, be objected to. If it should be, of course I must make some other arrangement; but I hope we may do not only what I propose, but that we also be able to take the Land Transfer Bill on that day, and the second reading of the Friendly Societies Bill on Monday the 22nd. That is the programme I have sketched out, and I have now placed before the House our general view of the Business of the Session, and the arrangements we propose for its despatch, as I said before, for the next 10 days. It is impossible not to perceive that at this period of the year there is before us much to do, if we wish to close the Session at the usual time; but I depend greatly upon the co-operation of hon. Members at both sides of the House, and I flatter myself that if there is that hearty co-operation, we may be able to fulfil this not inconsiderable programme, or an important portion of it, and yet, perhaps, to close our labours at a not unreasonable period of the year. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERasked whether the Licensing Bill would be reprinted before the Report, as at present many hon. Members did not know what had been done?
MR. DISRAELI: It will be reprinted before the Report.
MR. PEASEsaid, he had a Notice on the Paper for Tuesday, the 16th, and if the right hon. Gentleman wished private Members to give way to the Report of the Licensing Bill, he would not press his Motion on that day.
MR. DISRAELI: I wish that all hon. Members may be equally generous with the hon. Member for South Durham. I certainly shall be much gratified if they make way for the Business of the Government.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That the Orders of the Day subsequent to the Intoxicating Liquors Bill be postponed till after the Notice of Motion of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer relating to Friendly Societies.—(Mr. Disraeli.)

INTOXICATING LIQUORS BILL— [BILL 83.]
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Secretary Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
INTOXICATING LIQUORS BILL— [BILL 83.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 5th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Record of Convictions and Penalties.
  Clause 11 (Mitigation of Penalties) agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Record of convictions on licences).
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, a question had arisen, by which, under the clause as it was at present drawn, a copy of the register would not be evidence of an offence recorded in it, unless special words were introduced for the purpose. He believed it had been ascertained, also, that in some parts of the country it would be inconvenient to have the register itself before the magistrate. The defect had been pointed out to him by the hon. Member for Warwickshire. With a view to give effect to the object he had mentioned, he would move as an Amendment to insert in page 6, line 16, the words, "may or shall."
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper which preceded that of his right hon. Friend. It was to insert in page 6, line 15, after "this Act," the words "in respect of which it is provided that a record shall be made upon the licence," and its object was simply this. There were certain offences under the former Act which did not require endorsement on the licences, and his Amendment was in-

  1169
  tended to leave that law as it was. It proposed that magistrates should not have the power to endorse licences with convictions in cases in which they were not required to do so. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that if he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department correctly when he introduced the Bill, he laid stress on the only changes as to endorsements, being that they would be optional, and ordered positively instead of negatively. On looking, however, to the clause itself, it did not appear to him to carry out that intention very clearly. The provisions connected with the adulteration of liquor were left out of the Bill altogether, as the right hon. Gentleman preferred dealing with that subject under the general law; but the result would be that no offence of this hind could be endorsed. Then, again, if the present clause were allowed to stand as it was, especially in conjunction with the Amendment of the hon. Member, no endorsement could be made in cases of obstructing the police, while with regard to convictions for allowing drink to be consumed on premises without a licence, it would be optional with the justices to endorse convictions on the licences or not, just as they thought proper. That, he thought, was a very unwise relaxation for so grave an offence. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be so good as to inform him if his interpretation of the clause were correct, and whether he would not propose some Amendment in order to make adulteration and the sale of drink without any licence whatever more serious offences?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that at present endorsement was absolutely obligatory in certain cases, and obligatory in others, unless the magistrate ordered otherwise; while for a third class, there was no direction in the Act, though he believed endorsement was practically possible. The policy of that practice was very doubtful, and he certainly should not like to accept his hon. Friend's Amendment without more careful consideration. The sole object of the present clause was to give to the magistrates the power of endorsing the convictions on the licences or not, just as they thought proper. That was a perfectly
  1170
  fair and reasonable proposition, because, in, his opinion, all judges should have the power of awarding whatever punishment the nature of a case required, or the offence merited, and beyond that in some cases any other course would inflict great hardship not only on the occupier of a public-house, but on the owner of it. There had been cases of two convictions for trivial offences, where the magistrate imposed the minimum penalty, and would have dismissed the charge had he been able, while in others the maximum punishment of £20 had been awarded for a single heinous offence. As the law stood, the owner and occupier in the latter case were in a more favourable position than in the former, having only one conviction recorded instead of two, while the others had two for petty offences, involving the certainty of a third practically forfeiting the licence. As an act of justice, then, to the magistrates, he did press this most strongly, and without hesitation.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the question which he (Mr. Childers) had proposed to him.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that he intended that the clause—as it was originally drawn—should take in all these cases. That had been his intention, and therefore, while refusing the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory), he had accepted its spirit.
  MR. CHILDERS: Then all the offences which were at present subjects of endorsement, would be so still?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that such would be the case, but at the discretion of the magistrate.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that at the proper time he would ask the Committee to negative the clause. He had been surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State assort that no one in the House attached any importance to those clauses of the Bill which did not refer to the hours of opening and closing; but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would, before the question was disposed of, be convinced that many hon. Members did attach considerable importance to this clause. Under the Act, as it at present existed, there were a number of offences for which convictions might be obtained, such as permitting drunkenness,

  1171
  rioting, and gambling, and harbouring improper characters, any one of which entailed the payment of a fine and the endorsement of the licence; and the law had as yet worked well. If for the future, however, a fine was to be the only penalty inflicted for one of those offences, the punishment would be most inadequate, and the publicans who wished to break the law would be enabled to do a roaring business. In the first place, they would have the chance of escape, arising out of the difficulty in the way of the prosecutor's proving the offence. Then they had the chance of the magistrates, content with the mere fine, desiring to indulge in the cheap luxury of being merciful at the expense of the public, and therefore declining to endorse the conviction on the licence; or it might be that they would not wish to injure the property of the brewer, who was, perhaps, their brother magistrate. Finally, there was the chance of escape afforded by the appeal to quarter sessions; so that the man who, with so many probabilities in his favour, had his licence endorsed, must be very unlucky indeed. Their old friend Horace told them that punishment, although lame of foot, seldom failed to overtake the criminal; but here she would be made by the right hon. Gentleman a downright cripple. The existing Act had kept the trade respectable, by protecting those who desired to observe the law, from having to contend against competitors who were determined to break it; and Parliament should retain that Act in its full force, and not by the proposed alteration deprive it of all its terrors, if they wished to see persons of good character entering the business.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he was glad to find his right hon. Friend was prepared to meet the spirit of his Amendment, although not accepting its terms, and he would, therefore, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw it.
  Amendment (Mr. Gregory), by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. NEWDEGATEurged that the magistrates should still retain the power of endorsing convictions on the licenses when they thought proper.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSexplained that the Amendment he had placed in the hands of the Chairman was framed expressly for that purpose. If it was
  1172
  adopted, there would be no compulsory endorsement; but they would still have the power to register convictions in all cases which might appear to them to require such an endorsement.
  Amendment (Mr. Secretary Cross) agreed to; Words inserted accordingly.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDmoved its omission.
  MR. RATHBONEsupported the Motion for the rejection of the clause, and said he did not wish to detain the Committee unnecessarily; but he could not help thinking that sufficient attention had not been paid to its working, as it stood in the existing Act. He did not think the Home Secretary had stated the case quite fairly when he had referred to the course pursued by the magistrates in Liverpool and other boroughs. The magistrates had by the present Act discretionary powers of not recording convictions when they thought they ought not to be recorded. The right hon. Gentleman could hardly have been present during the debates on the original Act, because if he had, he would have known that it was urged by many hon. Gentlemen, that the only remedy for such abuses was to make the owners of public-houses feel that they were responsible for the selection of good and respectable tenants who would conduct their houses in an orderly manner.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, what he had stated was that it very often happened that when small penalties were inflicted, according to the strict letter of the Act, these trivial offences and small penalties, taken cumulatively, had that effect; whereas, in the case of a serious offence and the infliction of one heavy fine, the same result did not follow.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, the section of the existing statute referring to the matter was the result of a compromise suggested by the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. J. G. Talbot) and agreed to by Lord Aberdare. He did not think that as respected borough magistrates that compromise should be disturbed. It might be unnecessary in the case of county magistrates. The county magistrate was an influential person. He was often the landlord of the public-house or those frequenting it, and could therefore exercise a direct and powerful in-

  1173
  fluence in such matters. But the case of a borough magistrate was very different. In many cases they were members of the town council; they were the friends and neighbours of those whose property might be affected by a continuous record of convictions, and it was therefore necessary to strengthen their hands to do that which they felt ought to be done. He therefore urged upon the Committee strongly not to weaken the law in this respect in towns. He could not help thinking that it was most unfortunate that they should have been called upon to deal with this question, with such limited experience of the actual working of the present Act. Even with that short experience, however, he thought it could be shown that the working of these clauses had not been injurious to property, or favoured that confiscation of which they had heard so much. On the contrary, it was shown that the number of convictions in the case of public-houses had fallen from 3,152 to 2,297, and in the case of beerhouses from 6,371 to 1,495. He thought that nothing could be more conclusive as to the good effects of Lord Aberdare's Bill in preventing disorder in the streets and in maintaining quiet in these houses than this decided diminution of the number of offences, and he therefore hoped that the Home Secretary and the Committee would maintain the law under which such results had been attained.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he thought that if there was one thing more than another which demanded the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, it was the question of adulteration, by which drunkenness was caused more than by almost any other means. He wanted to know precisely what were the conditions on which the licence was to be endorsed under the new Act, and whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to take out of the hands of the magistrates the power of punishing those who vended bad liquor? Most of the drunkenness with which magistrates had to deal was caused by bad liquor, and magistrates should have the power to record convictions in cases where the bad liquor was proved to have boon sold.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the Amendment which he was prepared to accept was that of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) to the
  1174
  effect that convictions under the Adulteration of Food and Drink Act should be entered upon the register, and that the register should be before the magistrates when they had to consider future proceedings.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in supporting the Motion of his hon. Colleague (Sir Francis Goldsmid) said, in his opinion the evidence was most conclusive that the Act of 1872 had answered the purpose for which it was intended. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary himself said that licensed houses had been better conducted since 1872, and the number of convictions as to public-houses had diminished 25 per cent. and as to beer-houses 75 per cent. That clearly showed the success of the penal legislation of 1872. That being so, why were they now asked to mitigate penalties, of which, as a matter of fact, no one complained? The right hon. Gentleman had blamed the late Government for not knowing what they were about in reference to the Licensing Act, and that it had been passed without due consideration; but if the proceedings of the other House were consulted on the subject it would be found that the record of convictions on licences was one of the most important points of the measure. Moreover, if he looked at the alterations which had been made in his own Bill, he would see whether he himself knew what he was about when he brought in the present Bill. He had stated that the enactment that there should be endorsements upon licences prevented good men from entering into the trade, and induced those already in to retire from it. There really, however, was no ground whatever for this statement. Public-house property had largely increased in value since 1872—a fact which showed that capital was being attracted to it. The truth was, that there never had been a measure passed which had met with more general approval than the Act of 3872, and there was really no sufficient ground for their doing away with the securities contained in that statute.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that it was quite possible that the number of convictions had diminished, and that the value of public-houses had risen since 1872; but these two circumstances did not at all affect the question whether an act of injustice should not be remedied

  1175
  and that was the object of the clause. The Act of 1872 required that convictions for certain kinds of offences should he unconditionally endorsed upon the licences, no matter what the nature of the individual offence was, and some of these offences were such as might he committed innocently or unwittingly. The present clause, however, would give to magistrates a discretion to record their judgment upon the licence or not. During the last Election there was a serious accident upon the Great Western line, and when the passengers, after being delayed until late into the night, arrived in town they could not get into any licensed house, the owners of such houses saying that they could not risk their licences by serving them. Circumstances like these should surely come before the magistrates, and they ought to exercise their discretion upon them.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had all along felt the gross injustice of the clause which the present Bill proposed to repeal. All branches of the trade had also felt the injustice of the clause in the original Act more than they had felt that of any other clause. They said that they cared little about the hours, but that they all felt the injustice of the endorsements. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had said that the severity of the penalties had diminished convictions; but the same argument was used in favour of maintaining the punishment of death for sheep stealing. Possibly the number of convictions was less, because magistrates were unwilling to convict when the heavy penalty of endorsement must follow. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Bath-bone) that borough magistrates were, as a rule, inferior persons. He knew not what they were in Liverpool; but in the vast majority of the boroughs they were fully competent to discharge their magisterial duties.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTwould rather that the clause in the Act of 1872—the words in which had been introduced at his own suggestion, to get out of a difficulty in which the then Government seemed to be involved—should have remained unaltered; but after what had been said by the Home Secretary as to its necessity, he would vote for the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and hoped the hon. Member for Reading
  1176
  (Sir Francis Goldsmid) would not divide the Committee. He believed that the Amendment would have a beneficial effect by providing that upon any conviction under these Acts, the magistrates should act in a formal—he might almost say a ceremonial—manner, and deliberately declare, with the register before them, whether the convictions should be endorsed or not.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 345; Noes 81: Majority 264.
  Regulations as to entry on Premises.
  Clause 13 (Constable to enter on premises for enforcement of Act).
  SIR EDWARD WATKINhoped the House would relieve licensed victuallers from the sort of vexatious interference that had unfortunately taken place to a large extent since the passing of the Act of 1872. Under that Act a police-constable might enter any part of a licensed victualler's premises by night or by day, provided he considered he was in the execution of his duty, and under such an enactment, the private apartments were subject to inspection and intrusion. So long as that House sanctioned the sale of intoxicating liquors as a trade, they had no right to treat a licensed victualler other than a citizen, and he ought to have the same protection for his home as every other Englishman had, whose boast it was that his house was his castle. He (Sir Edward Watkin) would suggest that after the word "premises" in the 4th line of the clause, the following should be added:—"other than the private apartments of the licensed person or persons," and also in the proper place in the next clause. The private apartments of a licensed victualler ought to be as sacred as the private rooms of any other trader in the country.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that under the Act of 1872 the clause relating to the entry of constables pointed specially to their entry into bed-rooms, or whatever room they chose, and he believed it was introduced practically to give them the power to search for adulterated liquor. He hoped, however, the House would soon sanction the striking out of the adulteration clauses of that

  1177
  particular Bill, leaving the licensed victuallers, like other traders, subject to the Adulteration Act; and therefore that particular expression of the Act of 1872, which he thought was a very unfortunate one, might now be removed from the Statute Book. When he gave instructions for the drawing of this clause, it was simply that it might be restored precisely to the state in which it was before the Act of 1872; and he was advised that that had been done, and that it was now in accordance with 5 Will. IV., and 18 & 19 Vict., under which no oppression was ever exercised. He hoped that the present clause would prevent any undue interference with the liberty of the licensed victualler, which it had been his desire to accomplish.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that the Act of William IV., to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, enacted that a constable might enter any licensed premises; but there was a doubt whether that carried with it the right to enter every room. He believed that the better opinion was that it did. In order to make that matter absolutely clear, the words "every room and part of such premises" were inserted in the 35th clause of the Act of 1872. If, now, the right hon. Gentleman wished to make it clear that the private rooms of a licensed victualler were to be protected from search by a constable without a warrant, he wished him (Mr. Cross) to consider whether it would not be necessary to insert words to that effect.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was his desire to make the clause perfectly clear, and he-would consider whether the words suggested might not be added upon the Report.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Search warrant for detection of liquors sold or kept contrary to law), agreed to.
  Occasional Licences.
  Clause 15 (Occasional licences required at fairs and races).
  SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, he wished to call attention to the subject of occasional licences, and would point out that there was a broad distinction between these licences in the case of beer-houses and spirit and wine-houses. That had been made a matter of complaint. In the case of spirit-houses an
  1178
  occasional licence could be obtained without the consent of the justices, and in the case of beer-houses it could not. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to the matter.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the difference mentioned by the hon. Member was intended to limit the occasional licences to the local justices.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Occasional licences,—extension of time for closing).
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it had been represented to him that in some parts of the country, magistrates were under the impression they could not, although so inclined, grant occasional licences for certain hours in the day—that an occasional licence once granted would remain in force the entire day. Now, in order to remove that doubt or misapprehension, he would propose to move as an Amendment to insert before the word "one," in page 8, line 17, the words "sunrise until;" and in line 18, before the word "later," the words "earlier than sunrise or," the effect of which would be to set forth on the licence the hours it was to run.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Words inserted.
  MR. WYKEHAM MARTINasked whether there would be any objection to have occasional licences granted by the resident magistrate of a district, so as to save persons who required one for some hours of the day the trouble of journeying a distance to petty sessions?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: It is not necessary to apply to the magistrates at petty sessions for an occasional licence.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEasked whether it was contemplated that occasional licences were to be granted on Sundays, Christmas-day, or Good Friday; and whether the power remained which some magistrates considered they possessed of granting occasional licences throughout the months of June, July, and August, as was done under Act of 1872 to Sandwich, Dover, and other places?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that no such licences could possibly be granted under the present Bill. With regard to the hon. Baronet's first Question, he might observe that occasional licences were intended for balls

  1179
  and public gatherings, and he was quite certain it might safely be left to the discretion of the magistrates that they would not grant them for any improper purpose, but merely to promote the public convenience.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Offences on premises with occasional licence); and Clause 18 (Supply of deficiency in quota of borough justices on joint committee), agreed to.
  Miscellaneous.
  Clause 19 (Provisional grant and confirmation of licences to new premises).
  MR. STEVENSON, in moving as an Amendment, in page 8, line 38, after "as," to insert—
  "a hotel or house for the supply of food and lodging to travellers and other persons requiring the same, and who desires a licence for such premises as,"
  said, he wished to limit the grant of provisional licences to persons interested in the construction of an hotel or house for the supply of food and lodging to travellers and other persons requiring the same. A large number of hotels were rapidly disappearing, being converted into great drinking bars. In many districts there was a deficiency of hotel accommodation, and the traveller frequently experienced difficulty in obtaining food or lodging, and the provisional licence should be limited to those who intended becoming bonâ fide hotel proprietors. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would take that view of the case. There was no greater misnomer than the phrase "licensed victuallers," for in most public-houses the very last thing that a person could obtain was victuals. The old-fashioned inns, it was a source of complaint, were passing away, and their places were taken by grand gin-drinking bars. He knew cases where licences, in the first place, had been obtained during the building of the premises by giving out that they were intended for hotels, but afterwards that understanding was ignored, and the public suffered from the want of proper hotel accommodation. Under the clause they were then discussing, the plans of new premises for which a provisional licence was required were to be produced before the magistrates; but he should go farther, and render it necessary that the description of business proposed to be
  1180
  carried on should be stated, so that in case the magistrates were not satisfied that the promised accommodation was continued, they might be entitled to withhold the annual renewal of licence. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. It would be difficult to define two classes of houses, and the magistrates had already power to require, before granting a licence, a certain number of rooms besides those occupied by the family. If that was not acted upon, its re-enactment would be equally inoperative. The clause as it stood would enable parties intending to build a house to make a provisional application for a licence, instead of first spending £1,000 or £2,000, and then pressing for it on the ground of that expenditure.
  MR. PEASEsaid, that it tended to lower the character of a public-house; that whilst it was being built the proprietor did not know whether it would be licensed or not. In his opinion, a great advantage would arise to the community from the clear manner in which the law on this point would now stand.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEthought a great advantage would result to the public from improving the character of the houses under the present Bill. They did not want more drinking-houses such as they had in the country. If they had more houses, they should be of such a character as to afford reasonable accommodation for travellers, such as the old-fashioned inns had supplied. It had often happened to him, when in the north of England, in the neighbourhood of the docks on the Tyne, that no hotel was near, while there were drinking places without end, and food could only be had by sending a great distance for it.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERELOWsaid, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had introduced a provision under which proper refreshments would be supplied to every person who required them. He was sorry he had not gone a little further, and introduced words empowering the magistrates to take away a licence when the landlord had not fulfilled the promises on which he had obtained it. Promises so made were being continually broken. He knew of houses for

  1181
  which a licence had been obtained on the understanding that they should supply wine and refreshments, but which in a year or two had been converted into vaults, in which only spirits and beer could be obtained. The magistrates, he thought, should have power to take away a licence under such circumstances.
  MR. STEVENSONsaid, that in addition to the character of the occupier, it ought to be required that the house should be continued for the purposes for which the licence was originally granted.
  MR. HANKEYsaid, that the magistrates had the power of taking away a licence from a house the accommodation afforded by which had sensibly diminished.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: There is no doubt about that.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. YOUNGobserved that it was clear the Committee approved of the principle of the clause; and that being so, if it was right to give the licensing authority power to license a house before it was built, there could be no objection to give it the power of removing an existing licence to it. He would therefore move, as an Amendment, to insert, after premises, in page 8, line 41, the words, "or for the provisional removal to such premises of an existing licence under section fifty of the principal Act."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would accept the Amendment, as he thought it a very good one.
  Amendment agreed to: words inserted.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had an Amendment which would answer the object of that which the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Melly) had given Notice, to insert at page 9, in line 1, of the clause, after "or other house," the words, "and if satisfied that such house is required to meet the wants of the neighbourhood." He thought it was necessary, in order to perfect the clause, to leave out at the same place the words "public-house, or other," and insert, after "house," words of this kind—
  "And that if such premises had been actually constructed in accordance with such plans they would, on application, have granted and confirmed such a licence in respect thereof."
  He meant that the justices should not be confined to approving of the pre-
  1182
  mises, but that they should take into consideration all the circumstances attaching to the house. He begged to move that in lieu of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke.
  MR. MELLYsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman told him that his Amendment would answer the purpose he (Mr. Melly) had in view, he should be satisfied; but he was anxious that in granting these provisional licences the Justices should consider the wants of the neighbourhood.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the magistrates on the first application for a provisional order must be satisfied that the house would be properly built according to the plans laid before them, and that it was fit to carry out the object for which it was intended. It was with that view he proposed the alteration. He had also another proposition to make, and that was, in line 9, to leave out the words "public-house or other." The reason simply was, when application was made for a provisional order for a licence, to put it on the same footing as if the house were actually built.
  Amendment (Mr. Melly) put, and negatived.
  Then Mr. Cross' Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 20 (One licence of justices may extend to several excise licences); Clause 21 (Confirmation of licence to sell liquor not to be consumed on the premises not required); Clause 22 (Joint Committee to make rules under s. 43 of principal Act); and Clause 23 (Notices of adjourned Brewster sessions and of intention to oppose), agreed to.
  Clause 24 (No appeal to quarter sessions in certain cases).
  MR. BEISTOWEasked how the right hon. Gentleman proposed to deal with this clause, which was a very important one?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was his intention to leave it as it stood. Under the Act of 1872 there was power given to appeal to a Superior Court; but by an interpretation put upon it, it was held to apply to beer-houses only. He bad asked the opinion of the most eminent lawyers on the meaning of the clause, and no two of them could agree, and so he thought it better to have the

  1183
  clause drawn up which appeared in the Bill.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Drunken person may be detained if incapable of taking care of himself).
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, there would be some difficulty, he found, in working this clause, and he should therefore move that it be struck out.
  Motion agreed to; Clause struck out accordingly.
  Clause 26 (Substitution of licensing justices for Commissioners of Inland Revenue as respects certain notices), verbally amended, and agreed to.
  Definitions and Repeal.
  Clause 27 (Definitions).
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSproposed, as an Amendment, to insert, after "hitherto," in page 10, line 15, the following words—
  "'Town' moans an urban sanitary district as described for the purposes of the Public Health Act, 1872.
  "'Parish' means a place for which a separate poor rate is or can be made or for which a separate overseer is or can be appointed."
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted. Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 28 (Repeal), verbally amended, and agreed to.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDmoved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:—
  (Sale by holders of six-day licences to bonâ fide travellers. &c.)
  "A person who takes out a licence containing conditions rendering such a licence a six-day licence, shall, notwithstanding such conditions, be at liberty to sell any intoxicating liquor on Sunday to bona fide travellers or to persons lodging in his house."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not accept the clause.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. RATHBONEmoved, after Clause 12, to insert the following clause—
  (Record of conviction for adulteration.)
  "Where a licensed person is convicted of any offence against the provisions of any Act for the time being in force relating to the adulteration of food or drink, such conviction shall be entered in the proper register of licences and may be directed to be recorded on the licence of the offender in the same manner as if the conviction were for an offence against this Act, and when so recorded shall have effect as if it had been a conviction for an offence against this Act."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the clause was one he was willing to adopt when the words "food or" in the second line were omitted.
  Clause verbally amended accordingly, and added to the Bill.
  MR. YOUNGmoved, after Clause 19, to insert the following clause—
  (Appeals by persons interested in premises against order of disqualification on limited grounds.)
  "Any persons interested in any licensed premises as mortgagees or otherwise, besides the owner, may appear and appeal against an order declaring such licensed premises to be disqualified in the same manner and upon the same grounds and no other as those upon which the owner of such promises may under section fifty-six of the principal Act appeal against such order."
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he had a new clause upon the Paper which carried the matter beyond the point proposed by the clause, and required that notice should be given to all persons deriving an interest from the premises.
  MR. PEASEhoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment, as there would be no end to the appeals, as not only the first, but every subsequent mortgagee would have the right of appearing and appealing.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSagreed that it was quite necessary to have some clause like this in the Bill. He, however, thought the clause proposed by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) best met the case.
  MR. YOUNGsaid, that if that was the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, he would withdraw the clause.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. A. MARTEN, in moving, after Clause 19, to insert the following clause:—
  (Certain beerhouses to be deemed of sufficient annual value.)
  "Where at the time of the passing of this Act a licence is in force with respect to any house or shop for the sale by retail therein of beer, cider, or wine to be consumed on the premises, such house or shop shall be deemed to be of sufficient annual value within the meaning of the principal Act, and it shall not be lawful for the justices to refuse an application for a certificate for the sale of beer, cider, or wine to be consumed on the premises in respect of such house or shop on the ground that such house or shop is not of sufficient annual value, provided that such house or shop shall not hereafter become diminished, or changed in extent or value, so as to reduce its annual value to a less sum than requisite within the meaning of the principal Act,"

  1185
  said, that by the Act of 1872, Section 46, it was provided that existing houses of that class to which the proposed clause referred, should apply for the renewal of their licences at two annual licensing meetings; and at the first meeting the licence might be renewed upon condition that the holder before the next meeting should improve the premises so as to make them of sufficient annual value; and if the holder should fail to comply with such condition, the licence should not be renewed at the second meeting. By the Acts of 1869 and 1872, the requisite value of such houses to entitle them to a licence was laid down. The object of his clause was, in fact, to protect the houses which had been twice licensed under the provisions of the Act of 1872 from further interference or molestation, with the Proviso to be added at the end of the clause, that they should not in future deteriorate or diminish in value. It was really a serious inconvenience to the owners of these houses to be obliged to prove their value every time they applied for a renewal of their licences, and it might be fairly assumed that all the houses which had in this respect passed the ordeal of two successive licensing sessions were of the proper value for all practical purposes.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that he also had felt that beer-houses were treated with much hardship in this respect, and he sympathized with the object the hon. and learned Member opposite had in view. But the difficulty he felt with respect to his clause was that, if it was agreed to, it would give a very unfair and complete monopoly to existing beer-houses. If they were to do anything in that direction, they should legislate for new beer-houses in the future as well as for those now in existence. What he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was, that the licensing magistrates, with respect both to old and new houses, should have some fixed standard to go by, and that the value should be taken either at what the house stood on the rate-book, or its actual rental. It certainly was a great hardship that the occupiers of such houses should labour under constant anxiety and fear that the magistrates might decide against them on the mere question of the value of their premises. It might be said they had nothing
  1186
  to fear, if the premises possessed the requisite qualification; but that reminded one of the saying that it would be no consolation to an innocent man, if he was tried twice a week for his life. There ought to be some way of settling the matter in a clear and definite manner.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he agreed both with his hon. and learned Friend behind him and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that there did exist a grievance on this particular point. But he did not think it was possible to accept the clause of his hon. and learned Friend in its present shape, while at the same time the adoption of the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman would require some consideration. If the clause were not pressed he would endeavour to meet the views of both hon. and learned Gentlemen by bringing up a clause on the Report.
  MR. BEISTOWEhoped the right hon. Gentleman would turn his attention to another point in connection with this question in framing a new clause. There were two different bases of valuation in the Beer Houses Acts of 1869 and 1870, while Clauses 45 and 46 of the Act of 1872 allowed a dispensing power, which had been used to give contradictory decisions. It was, everybody must see, important that there should be neither contradiction nor confusion in such matters.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEexpressed his concurrence in this view, and testified from his own experience to the inconvenience caused by those conflicting decisions.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. JAMES, in moving, after Clause 19, to insert the following clause:—
  (Restriction on unauthorised extension or alteration of public-houses.)
  "In the case of any application to be made after the passing of this Act for the grant of a licence under 'The Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Act, 1828,' or for the renewal of any such licence (whether originally granted before the passing of this Act or hereafter to be granted), it shall be lawful for the licensing justices at their discretion to cause to be inserted in or endorsed upon such licence, a condition that no material alteration or extension of the buildings, fittings, or arrangements of the licensed premises shall be made without the approval of the licensing justices.
  "Where a licence is granted or renewed upon such condition as aforesaid, if at any time thereafter upon an application for a renewal of such

  1187
  licence it is made to appear to the licensing justices that any material alteration or extension has been made contrary to such condition, it shall he lawful for the justices from time to time to refuse to renew the licence until the premises have been restored as nearly as may be, or so far as the justices direct, to their former condition, or until security has been given to the satisfaction of the justices for such restoration being made within a time to be prescribed by the justices,"
  said, the principal objection that could be urged against it was, that it was of a discretionary kind; but it gave a discretion which would not be arbitrarily used.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSobjected to the clause on the ground that magistrates already had the power which it was proposed to give them.
  MR. JAMESwould be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would state what that power was.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, magistrates had power fully to consider and dispose of every case of the kind alluded to by the clause which was now under their notice.
  MR. PEASEcould tell the hon. Member for Gateshead that magistrates had exercised the power he proposed to give them in his own district. He held with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the power of the magistrates was already ample for the purposes contemplated.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  New Clause (Power for Secretary of State to preserve extended hours where existing in boroughs),—(Mr. Alfred Marten), withdrawn.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOITRTprotested against the withdrawal of the clause. Other hon. Members had been depending upon its being moved, and had abstained from putting on the Paper clauses to secure the same object. Could no hon. Member move the same clause now?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that it would not be competent for any hon. Member to move the clause till the other clauses had been disposed of.
  SIR EDWARD WATKIN*: Mr. Raikes, I move that the following clause be inserted in the Bill:—
  (No troops to be billeted.)
  "From and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, it shall not be lawful for any officer, civil or military, or any other person whosoever, to place,
  1188
  quarter, or billet any officer or soldier of any rank or description belonging to Her Majesty's Army, Navy, Marines, Militia, Yeomanry, Volunteers, or to any branch of Her Majesty's forces whatsoever, or any horse of any such officer or soldier, upon any person within the limits of this Act, of any degree, quality, or profession whatsoever, without his consent, and it shall be lawful for any such person to refuse to quarter any such officer or soldier, or any such horse as aforesaid, notwithstanding any warrant or billeting whatsoever: Provided always, That nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict or affect in any manner the liability of any keeper of any common inn to receive or entertain therein such person as may lawfully and reasonably require to be received and entertained by such, innkeeper in the ordinary course of his business."
  The object of the clause is to abolish the unjust, partial and demoralizing custom of billeting soldiers upon licensed victuallers. But not to abolish it in sudden haste or imprudently; to abolish it after a due period within which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will easily accomplish those measures of substitution which he may deem essential. And I may, at this point, contend, and challenge contradiction, that the only tenable argument against the clause which I propose will be the alleged difficulty of providing a substitute for an admittedly evil system. In fact, I cannot, and will not believe for a moment that either the Home Secretary or the Minister of War, will, or can, defend in the abstract, the compulsory intrusion of the soldiery into the dwellings of private citizens, following a licensed and therefore a lawful calling. I will not Sir, follow the history of billeting further than to remind the Committee that billeting was established in times when there were hardly any roads, when there were no barracks, and no public edifices capable of being used for the lodgment of troops, interspersed between one distant stronghold and another. Certainly there were no railways enabling the rapid passage of men and material, and no telegraphs by which information could be instantaneously conveyed. Therefore, emerged as we are from times called barbarous, we can hardly excuse the perpetuation of a system originated under the exigencies of a state of civilization now happily passed away. The application of the custom is, I say, capricious, partial, liable to favouritism, and often utterly oppressive. To shorten what I have to say, I will confine the description of the

  1189
  general operation of billeting to two points—one, that of troops in small bodies passing across the country; the other that of the billeting of entire regiments of soldiers of the Line, or Militia, in the larger towns. Before doing so, however, let me ask why, if the burden is to be cast upon somebody, everybody does not contribute? That is to say, why the licensed victualler should, here, be asked to lodge men and horses at a loss, and the licensed victualler there—because there are barracks, or for some other reasons—be under no obligation at all? Again, if it be found possible in the larger part of the area of our country to dispense with billeting, why can it be difficult to get rid of it altogether? Undoubtedly, its burden grows less; then why should we not, by some reasonable effort, get rid of it altogether in 1876? But I will illustrate the two conditions which I have put—namely, mere passing through, and long occupation of a whole town. And I will ask the Committee to hear what two or three persons actually suffering under this infliction of ancient times have to say. I will merely give these statements taken at random from scores of letters addressed to me on the subject. For example, Mr. Parmenter, of the Croham Arms, Croydon, whose letter shows that he is a man of education, says—
  "On 'three occasions' in the latter half of 'last year' I had billeted upon me horses and men. In contempt of post offices and telegraphs, on two of these occasions I received only a 'very few hours' notice, and on the last occasion—on 18th November—I received 'nonotice' at all. Men and horses presented themselves with the billet from the police station with no more notice than would be given by so many Uhlans.
  "As it is neither my wish nor expedient to give other than good treatment to the troops of Her Majesty, who are unfairly identified with a harsh system, I always entertain them fitly, though at pecuniary loss. But the absence of fair notice makes it necessary to turn out my family 'from their bedrooms' at great inconvenience, and with the self-respect of myself and household not 'unreasonably wounded.'"
  Sir, who will not sympathize with Mr. Parmenter when he urges the feeling of personal injury arising most naturally from a sudden and probably needless order—it may be an order that of right should have been addressed to some one else more favoured by the petty authority which issued the billet—to turn out his family from their beds and put soldiers into them? Here, again, is an-
  1190
  other letter from Mr. Lamacraft, of the Globe Inn, Exeter, a very respectable man—the father of a family—
  "I had, last summer, throe horses and men billeted, and I have not any stabling attached to my house. I went to the Red Lion Inn and got the stabling for them, and in a few days after I had four horses and men put on me. I went and engaged the same stabling, and later in the day the landlord of the above inn had a billet brought him, and he sent to inform me that he could not take my men as he had agreed. So I was obliged to look further for their accommodation.
  "Last autumn the soldiers billeted at my house were going to bed, and I noticed they had their boots on. I told them they must please take them off before going upstairs, and they tried to persuade me that they would take them off upstairs, but I persuaded them to take them off before they went up. When they were taking them off, one man said that he had not taken his off before for six weeks, and another said that he had not had his off for a fortnight.
  "Now, Sir, these men were going to sleep in as good a feather bed as I sleep in myself—with clean bedclothes—and they were going, until I stopped them, to go to bed with their boots and spurs and other clothes on."
  Now, here we have a case where a man, known to have no stables, is forced to find accommodation for horses at a dead loss of money. I have also to quote a letter from Maidstone. On the question of cost, Mr. Leason, of the Queen's Head Hotel, Maidstone, gives the following calculation:—For each soldier.—One hot meal, to consist of meat, weighing 1¼bs. before cooked, 1s.; 1 lb. bread 2d.; 11 b. vegetables 1d.; and 2 pints small beer 3d.; allowed 1s. 2d.; cost 1s. 6d. One bed—occupied by 2 soldiers, say, washing of linen 6d.; hire of room 1s., equal to 1s. 6d.—moiety 9d.; allowed 2½d.; cost 9d. For each horse.—10 lbs. oats, 12 lbs. hay, and 8 lbs. straw—cost of oats, hay, and straw, 1s. 8d.; hire of stable 9d., equal to 2s. 5d.—allowed 1s. 9d.; cost 2s. 5d. Estimated loss, daily, on each man and horse, 1s. 6½d.; estimated loss, daily, on 4 men and 4 horses—the usual billet—6s. 2d. On the question of want of impartiality in the distribution of billets, another correspondent says—
  "In the case of billeting Militia or other Infantry corps, the system is open to abuse by the billeting officers—the police and non-commissioned officers presenting billeting orders upon all those persons liable who they know are not able to furnish the accommodation, such as eating-house keepers, small beer-house keepers, &c., and offering to take money in lieu thereof, for the purpose of paying for lodgings in private houses, but going to other liable persons

  1191
  instead, until their men are quartered, and then spending the proceeds in drink amongst the men at their quarters, where they could have placed the men without difficulty in the first place; and it generally occurs that the large hotel-keeper and publican can purchase immunity at a small cost, and the men are quartered in the lowest kind of houses, where the men are open to temptations and evil influences which they ought to be preserved from."
  I will now ask the Committee to take as a specimen case of the second sort, that of the ancient county town of Lancashire—Lancaster. And if it be urged that the billeting of Militia is absolutely indispensable at Lancaster, I will ask, then, how is it that in the adjoining counties of Westmoreland and Cumberland the Militia have for years been assembled, for their periodical training, under canvas? Such is the fact. But Lancaster is no doubt a case typical of many other cases in the Kingdom. The honorary secretary of the Licensed Victuallers' Association of Lancaster, Mr. 'Francis S. Dale, states—
  "That the regiment of the 1st Royal Lancashire Militia is embodied at Lancaster every year for training, and during the time is billeted in the houses of the Licensed Victuallers—1st, the recruits for two months, when the number of men to each house is 4 to 6; then the main body for one month, when the number of men to each house is 10 to 12. That there is not accommodation in the licensed houses of the town for such a number of men. That 05 per cent of the men composing the Regiment of the 1st Royal Lancashire Militia are enlisted in Manchester, and are the scum of that city."
  And he drew a painful picture of the demoralization which ensued from the presence of the class of men of which the regiment consisted in that city. And no wonder then that Mr. Dale suggests that the men be either placed in barracks or put under canvas, as the men are in Westmoreland and Cumberland; in these counties the men are placed under canvas on Brackenber Moor, and have been now for some years. And, giving an earnestly practical opinion, he observes—
  "It would be a great saving to Government if barracks were built on a central principle; for instance, form a district of about 12 Militia regiments, and in or near the centre of which build the barracks, and each month let a fresh regiment occupy them for its annual training. Provision might be made for recruits to be constantly training. Of course the depôt or headquarters could remain as at present."
  Now, I ask again, is it for the interest of the soldier—for certainly no one will venture to say that it is for the interest of society—that soldiers, especially young
  1192
  soldiers, should be lodged where the only amusement is drink, and in the lower public-houses, where their only companions are those who drink? Is such an association that which a commander would voluntarily select for his men? Are not the licence, the low revelry, the vulgar sights forced thus upon the young soldier certain to weaken discipline by weakening moral sense? It may be said that all this is very well, but that all you can do is to raise the scale of payment. I do not, Sir, argue the question on the mere matter of payment, although I want to know why a rich country like ours should force the licensed victualler to have his house invaded and to perform his duty of accepting billet at a clear loss of money? In fact, I feel assured that the country would reject the idea of so mean and unjust an economy. I prefer to argue the question upon the issues of damage to public morality, damage to the soldier and injustice to a class who are citizens, and who, as citizens, have a right to demand that an Englishman's house shall be his castle. The Minister of War cannot defend the practice unless on the plea, that, bad as it is, he cannot do without it at present. But, Sir, I beg to say that it is his duty to find a remedy. All the lodging of the country is at his service by voluntary arrangement, as it is to all beside. He has all the barracks, and I propose to give him time—till 1876—to build more. He has the police-stations, and he could easily add dormitories to those stations. And he can always send tents with troops on the march. In fact, is not the soldierly way to march men across the country to march them as men would march in time of war? Would not our troops gain by the experience, and become more hardy by the exposure? Believing that neither the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary nor the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War can defend the system, I move the clause on the grounds that I have alleged—of injustice, partiality, injury to public morality and the public peace, and damage to the soldier. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the clause be inserted in the Bill.
  New Clause (No troops to be billeted,)—(Sir Edward Watkin,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time,"
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that if he had taken the trouble to inquire into the condition of the Militia, he would have found that already they were for the most part, when out for training, in barracks. With regard to the Regular troops, did the hon. Gentleman mean that they were to be billeted on private houses when on the march, or in case of disturbances? What else could he mean? Had he asked for an increase of the billet money when troops were billeted, it would have been what was required by the publicans.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that to deal with the question of billeting in a Licensing Bill was more than the Committee could be reasonably asked to do. Billeting was an old institution, had often been the subject of debate in the House, had been reported upon by Committees, and was well worthy of consideration; but it would have to be considered by itself, and not in connection with a Bill of this kind. The House which had passed the Mutiny Act, which every year re-established billeting, could hardly abolish billeting by the Bill now before the House. Much was being done by barracks, camps, &c, to make billeting unnecessary, and in 1873 only 10,467 Militia had been billeted; but it must not be forgotten that the men very often disliked camps, and that forcing them under canvas was hurtful to recruiting. With respect to the case of Lancaster, it was no doubt hard; but he hardly thought that the hon. Gentleman had done well to embitter the relations between the Militia and the town, by the information that the Militia were considered the scum of the city of Menchster.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had been Chairman for many years of Lancaster petty sessions, and he must say that while the Militia were there, good order prevailed. He therefore could not allow the hon. Gentleman's statement to go forth without making this reply to it.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, he did not think the answer which had been given to the statement which he had made in support of the clause which he proposed was satisfactory. He would, therefore, divide the Committee upon it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 151: Majority 117.
  MR. GREGORY, in moving the insertion of the following Clause:—
  (Person not to be liable for supplying liquor to private friends without charge.)
  "No person keeping a public-house shall be liable to any penalty for supplying intoxicating liquors, after the hours of closing to private friends bona fide entertained by him at his own expense, and without any payment from them or on their behalf, or any expectation of such payment, notwithstanding anything in the principal Act to the contrary thereof,"
  said, it was a great hardship that innkeepers should be the only persons who were liable to fines and other penalties for entertaining their friends after the prohibited hours; and, indeed it was a sort of stigma upon them that they were the only persons in trade that were liable to penalties for doing so. But if the law was as his right hon. Friend said—namely, that publicans were not liable if they supplied articles after hours if they were not intoxicating, he should withdraw the clause.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, while not adopting the clause in its present form, thought that something should be done in that direction; for it seemed a monstrous hardship that an innkeeper could not give a cup of tea or a chop to a friend after 11 o'clock at night. When Viscount Cardwell and himself were staying at Oxford they put up at different hotels, and he visited his Lordship, and about 1 o'clock he had some whisky and water with his noble Friend. The thing was innocently enough done; but as he (Sir William Harcourt) could not possibly be said to be a traveller, it might possibly have cost the hotel-keeper his licence. Now, that was a monstrous state of things; and he would suggest that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should, on bringing up the Report, allow words to be introduced to this effect—"Closed for the sale of intoxicating liquors"—which would get rid of any doubt as to whether a publican was liable for selling other things than intoxicating drinks during the hours for closing.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought it would be a serious thing to have a clause like that inserted in the Bill without careful consideration, and he would rather leave the law as it stood, because

  1195
  he did not believe that the man who bonâ fide gave drink to his private friends after hours could be fined for doing so. He had before him a case in which a metropolitan magistrate dismissed a charge, on being satisfied that the person supplied was the landlord's friend or relation. He feared that were the clause adopted, its interpretation would be widened, and that a publican might entertain too many ostensibly private friends.
  MR. GOLDSMIDthought that the words suggested by his hon. and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt) would make the matter clear, and obviate what was at present a monstrous injustice.
  MR. FORSYTHsaid, that it seemed very hard that a publican or hotel-keeper could not entertain his private friends at night without being liable for an infraction of the law. He would be satisfied with an assurance from the Home Secretary that the law, as it stood, met the case; but the opinion of a single metropolitan magistrate was not conclusive.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that if he had been called upon to prosecute in the case referred to by his hon. and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt), he should have declined to do so, upon the ground that there was no offence. Both the Act of 1872 and that Bill contained a provision permitting the sale of liquors to bonâ fide travellers and persons lodging in the house, and he apprehended that the whisky supplied to his hon. and learned Friend was sold, in the eye of the law, to Viscount Card-well, though it might have been consumed by his hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. GOLDSMIDmust repeat that it was really a grievous hardship that a publican should not have the power of receiving and treating his private friends after business hours. In the case under notice, he presumed that if the hon. and learned Gentleman had been a friend, not of Viscount Cardwell, but of the hotel proprietor, he could not have been entertained, which certainly proved the unfairness of the present law.
  MR. PEASEsaid, that he feared the clause would be abused, for if persons were admitted into the house of a publican after the usual hours they would all declare themselves to be the private friends of the landlord. He hoped the Committee would guard against any carelessness of definition.
  MR. WATNEYsaid, that in such a case it would be for the magistrate who would have to decide the question to say whether the parties in the house were, or were not, the private friends of the landlord.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, they must take great care that the Act was not evaded. When a clause was drawn to meet a question of this kind, it would be scanned and scrutinized in every possible way. Some objection had been raised to the police being allowed to go to the private rooms of a public-house. Supposing a constable went to a public-house bar and heard a great noise in an inner room, and wanted to go and see what was happening, the landlord would object on the ground that it was a private apartment. The constable would then have to go for a warrant, and by the time he got back the party would have dispersed, and, practically, the law would be evaded. He had looked carefully into this matter, and had drawn up a clause upon it, but any alteration in the way of relaxation of that clause would require great care. He was bound to admit that there were great difficulties in deciding this question, and the Committee were bound to take care that the object of the Bill was not defeated. It must not be forgotten that licensed victuallers had considerable privileges and enjoyed a monopoly, and although he did not wish to place any unnecessary hardship upon them, still he could not recommend the Committee to adopt the clause of the hon. Member.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he did not wish to do anything that would be calculated to cause an evasion of the Act. The object he had in view had been to a great extent met by what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. In reference to what had been stated by the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), he might observe that if the hon. Member had read the clause before he made his observations upon it, he would have found not only that the parties entertained should be the private friends of the landlord, but the landlord must have provided the liquors without payment. However, he did not wish to press the clause against the feeling of the Committee.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. GREGORY, New Clause—
  (Definition of term "owner.")
  "Any person possessing an estate or interest in premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, whether as owner, lessee, or mortgagee, prior or paramount to that of the immediate occupier, shall he entitled to be registered as owner or one of the owners of such premises,"
  —agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in moving the following clause:—
  (Forfeited licences.)
  "When a licence is forfeited under the provisions of any of the Acts for the sale of intoxicating liquors, by reason of the holder thereof having been convicted of felony, or of selling spirits without licence, such forfeiture shall be doomed to apply to the Excise licences only; and it shall be lawful to transfer or renew the magistrates' licence for the premises for which the Excise licence so forfeited was held to any new tenant or occupier of the said premises, and for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to issue new Excise licences to such new tenant or occupier having obtained such transfer or renewal upon payment of the proper licence duty."
  —said, there had been brought under his notice cases of hardship to owners of property in consequence of the existing state of the law. The 3 & 4 Vict, and the 23 Vict., provided for the forfeiture of the licence when the publican or the beer-house keeper was convicted of felony, or of selling spirits without licence; but it was only by reason of an accidental alteration in a recent Act, that the innocent owner was made to suffer. When forfeiture of the excise licence was given by former Acts, it was never for one moment intended that the owner should be subjected to the penalty of losing the magistrates' licence for his premises. He would mention two cases where the owner of the property suffered a larger share of punishment than the tenant who was convicted of breach of the law. In Rochdale a publican, who had been 22 years in occupation, was convicted of receiving some stolen hay. The Excise licence was at once taken away, and the magistrates held that the licence for the premises being also forfeited, there could be no transfer to an incoming tenant. Nothing could be more unfair than the exercise of this power. It came to this—that one single offence of an unexpected nature would suffice to ruin an innocent person's property. In Leeds, the magistrates, after careful inquiry and examination, transferred a
  1198
  licence to a man of reputed good character. Some years afterwards, the police discovered that a long time before he became licensed he had been convicted of some offence which caused the forfeiture of his Excise licence, and the magistrates at quarter sessions decided that they had no power to transfer the licence to the house. He hoped the Home Secretary would see his way to grant relief to the owners of public-house property in cases where their tenants were convicted by reason of no fault on the part of the lessor.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he feared that hard cases often made bad laws, and he was free to admit that the cases mentioned by his hon. and learned Friend were hard ones. In the vast number of cases to which the law applied, there should be thrown on the owner of property licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor the responsibility of having as his tenant a respectable and well-conducted person, and with regard to the point, in the Bill under consideration there had been introduced provisions for the protection of the owners, and they all had notice. The clause in its present form was one to which he must object, while he was very willing to protect the owner of the property as far as he could.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpointed out again that the provision of which he complained had never existed until the late Act, into which it had crept rather by accident than design. Previously to that Act the licence was void as against the convicted owner, but the magistrates, if they thought fit, could sanction its transfer. Nothing could be more unjust than to treat owners as they had been treated in Rochdale and Leeds. However, he felt that he had done his duty in bringing the grievance before the Committee, and he would not give the Committee the trouble of dividing.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONhoped the Home Secretary would, if he declined to accept the clause as at present worded, endeavour to meet the case on the Report.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the clause, or some clause like it, was just, not only to the owner of property, but it was necessary for the convenience of the public. The clause provided against a magistrate from being disabled to continue the licence to a house where the tenant

  1199
  had committed a felony; and so disqualified himself; but in point of fact, it should be left for the magistrates to judge whether or not the owner should by reason of his explanation, be allowed to retain the magisterial licence. It might so happen that the owner could not control the tenant. What he (Mr. Henley) looked to was this. Suppose the business was at a railway station. No inconvenience to the public could be greater than closing the house by withdrawing the licence and leaving it closed perhaps for 12 months, because the tenant had done wrong. Unless some such clause as that proposed was added to the Bill, great injustice would be done the owners of property licensed by the magistrates. Some men would always go wrong, and it would be a great hardship, if a large number of people should be inconvenienced by the acts of such individuals. He could not see what harm the proposal could do to anybody, and it might do some good. He hoped some clause of the kind would be put into the Bill.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had promised the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) that he would accept his clause, and when it was brought on on the Report he should endeavour to see that no hardship was done.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought the matter might safely be left to the discretion of the magistrate.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. WATNEY (for Mr. Gregory), New Clause—
  (Transfer or renewal of licences forfeited without disqualification.)
  "In any case where by the principal Act or this Act it is provided that a licence shall he forfeited without a disqualification of the premises, or in any case where the premises are declared to be disqualified for any limited period under the principal Act, the owner of such premises may, either immediately or on the determination of such disqualification, as the case may be, apply for a transfer or renewal of such licence, either to himself or to any person properly qualified to hold the same,"
  agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN, in moving the following clause:—
  (Power to close and to refuse to sell liquor.)
  "A licensed person shall not be bound to keep the licensed promises open, nor to admit or allow persons to remain therein, nor to sell to any person, but may lawfully close and keep closed the same, and refuse to sell liquor therein,
  1200
  whether closed or unclosed during the hours during which the same may be lawfully open, or any part of such hours,"
  said, he made the Motion in the interests of the publicans as well as of the public, and therefore claimed for it the support of the representatives of that body in the House. The Committee was aware that in every part of the Metropolitan district, public-houses were allowed to keep open until 12.30 and that the occupier must keep his house open until then, whether he wished it or not, or whether any customers came to him or not, and until then he must keep up all his staff. It seemed to him that that was a monstrous hardship on the licensed victualler, which no other class of tradesmen were called upon to endure. The argument was, that the publican enjoyed a particular monoply; but that seemed to him an utter fallacy, for he enjoyed it not for his own benefit but for that of the public, whose convenience would not be practically interfered with by this Amendment. He should be willing to confine the clause to London and the large towns. In 99 cases out of 100 in those towns the public-houses were merely places for drinking, and not refreshment houses. If the public wanted them to be opened at that hour, the publican for his own sake would take care to keep them open as long as his customers were likely to come. Chemists were not required to keep open late, but still they did keep open. He thought the matter might be safely left to the operation of the ordinary laws of supply and demand.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was sorry he could not accept the clause, which seemed to him a most extraordinary one. A number of gentlemen were to apply for licences, in order to accommodate the public with what they required to have in the way of refreshments, and that clause, when the licences were obtained, would enable the holders to shut their houses up immediately. Their houses might be applied to other purposes, and, for anything they knew, they might, in Wales, be applied to the purposes of some conspiracy. If the hon. and learned Member wanted to bring forward the subject he had mentioned, he should take a little more pains in drawing his clause. Under such a clause the public would be en-

  1201
  tirely at the mercy of the licensed victualler or of the hotel-keeper. A person calling at his house might be served with anything but what he asked for, and then told he must have what was offered him or nothing. He could not think the Committee would agree to the clause.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had now to move two clauses to carry out promises which he made earlier in the Committee. One of these was to the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and the object of the clause was to extend to beerhouses some privileges conferred upon public-houses. The other clause was a short clause enabling magistrates to issue temporary licences for opening earlier at harvest time.
  New Clauses (Persons licensed under the Beerhouse Acts to sell beer for consumption on the premises may take out occasional licences and exemptions from the closing hours,)—(Mr. Secretary Cross,)—brought up, and read a first time.
  On Question, That the clauses be read a second time,
  SIR SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that as regarded the second of these clauses which he had mentioned, it was a subject of the greatest interest to the country. Only that morning he had received deputations relative to it, and the concession the right hon. Gentleman had now announced would not in the slightest degree meet the grievance which was conceived to exist in the country as regarded the late hour of opening. He hoped that when the clause came up again on the Report the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider the subject, and determine to enable the magistrates to make the same arrangement, not only at harvest time, but at all other times. At present, large numbers of the labouring population had to go considerable distances for their morning's refreshment, and that evil would not be cured if the hour for opening was not fixed at 5.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had not in the least introduced the two clauses with a view of meeting the circumstances to which the right hon. Gen-
  1202
  tleman referred, but simply in fulfilment of a promise he made earlier in the Committee, and he thought it better that the Committee should see both clauses before they came up on the Report. As regarded the subject to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, he thought the 26th clause of the Act of 1872 had not been sufficiently acted upon for the benefit of persons who were following their lawful occupations. On the Report, he hoped he should be able to propose words to be introduced into the 26th clause of the old Act which he thought would be beneficial.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clauses read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  MR. GOLDSMID, in moving the following clause:—
  (Power for Secretary of State to preserve extended hours where existing in boroughs.)
  "Where, at the time of the passing of this Act, more extended hours than those hereby appointed shall prevail for the sale of intoxicating liquors in public-houses in any borough, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, by writing under his hand, at any time, and from time to time, to direct that such extended hours, either in whole or in part, beyond the hours appointed by this Act, and either permanently or for a limited period of time, shall, in lieu of the hours appointed by this Act, be the hours for the sale of intoxicating liquors in the licensed premises in such borough, and such direction shall take effect accordingly,"
  said, in explanation, that the clause stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Alfred Marten); but to the surprise of many hon Members who had come down to support him, the hon. Gentleman had not moved it. Consequently, he (Mr. Goldsmid) now took it up, and invited the attention of the Government to it. He asked the favourable consideration of the Government to the clause, because there could be no doubt-that in cases where extended hours had been allowed, they had been allowed because the longer hours of occupation of considerable numbers of persons required it. He believed that if the clause were accepted, the difficulties now existing with regard to the hours in the agricultural districts would be obviated. He did not think that the proposed change would conduce to early drinking, and he hoped, therefore, the Government would give it favourable consideration.
  MR. A. MARTENsaid, that he had postponed moving the clause, intending to bring it forward for consideration upon the Report. He supported the clause, and was anxious that it should be favourably considered by the Committee. It was, he believed, entirely in accordance with the general principles of the Bill. The object of the clause was to enable the Home Secretary to preserve extended hours of opening or closing licensed houses where existing in boroughs. At Cambridge, which he (Mr. Marten) represented, the hours during which public-houses might be open on week days were from 5 A.M. to 12 P.M. The Bill as amended in its present form would cut off two hours in the 24 on week days, being an hour at each end of the day, besides, the time, about a quarter of an hour, which was allowed after the closing hour for consumption of liquor purchased before the closing hour. Considerable inconvenience might be occasioned to the public by a curtailment to this considerable degree of the existing hours. It might be presumed from the hours having been extended by the magistrates that there was some good cause for the extension in the wants of the public. The grant of the power of continuing the extended hours would have a two-fold advantage. In the first place, the power would provide a means of actually preventing or remedying any established inconvenience. In the second place, the knowledge that the power existed would allay irritation. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Cross) had stated with the weight due to his high office, that he would not be answerable for the consequences in London if the hour of closing was not extended to 12.30 as he proposed. He (Mr. Marten) asked the Home Secretary to apply that observation to other parts of the country where extended hours already prevailed, and not to refuse that power which was proposed to be given to him in the public interest. It was to be observed that the principle of the Bill was not "uniformity," but was "certainty" of hours. The Bill admitted "variety" of hours. In the particular case of Cambridge, there were reasons why it might be treated somewhat exceptionally as to hours, and why, therefore, at all events, the power proposed to be reserved to the Home Secretary should be given. Cambridge was
  1204
  a railway centre, and the three evening trains were timed for arrival as follows:—The Great Northern at 10.35, the London and North Western at 10.50, and the Great Eastern at 11.16. Those were the times appointed for arrival, and, of course, the trains might be late. Thus there were three principal trains arriving every evening about, or after, 11 o'clock, which was the proposed new time of closing. Besides that regular traffic, there were daily, or almost daily excursions during the summer months, the trains generally arriving on their return at a time later than, or about, 11 o'clock. On the first evening of the Act of 1872 coming into operation, before the hours were extended, and consequently when the closing was at 11 o'clock, 1,300 excursionists landed at Cambridge after 11.15. The majority of those had been in the train four or five hours. It might be said that they might obtain refreshment at the refreshment room of the station. But if that were so, the effect would be to create a monopoly of supplying refreshment, which might be injurious to the public interest. In a few hours in the year 1872, as many as 3,780 male householders of the artizan class signed a memorial to the magistrates, upon which the magistrates acted in 1872, in giving relief by fixing the hour of 12 as the hour of closing. Moreover, Cambridge, as to hours, had been dealt with exceptionally from time immemorial. London was dealt with exceptionally, and Cambridge had claims to be dealt with, also, in an exceptional manner. Cambridge was a metropolis of learning. Even in the times of the Curfew, Cambridge was allowed an hour later than other places, and was privileged to shut at 9 instead of at 8, the hour appointed in other places for extinguishing fire and candle. The Bill before the House was a Bill establishing a new Curfew, and it was proper that a similar privilege should be extended now to that which was granted in former times. With regard to other places, the hours of closing had been extended to 12 o'clock in eight places, including Cambridge, with an aggregate population of about 250,000, and to 11.30 in five places. With regard to morning hours, 65 places, including Cambridge, had extended the hours of opening to 5 or 5.30. In all these cases it might be considered that

  1205
  there were exceptional circumstances; and he (Mr. Marten), on the whole, trusted that the proposed clause would be accepted, so that power might exist to provide for these exceptional circustances.
  MR. SANDFORDsaid, he believed that the object in view would be better effected by a clause which was to be proposed on the Report, under which the local licensing justices would acquire the power proposed to be given to the Home Secretary.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not possibly accept the clause. He was quite sure that his hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge and Rochester would see, if they would bear in mind what had been the feeling of the Committee with respect to the question of the hours, that it was totally impossible to carry this clause. With respect to the proposal that the Secretary of State should fix the hours, he was bound, out of charity to himself and his successors, to decline any such responsibility unless they furnished him with some machinery by which he would be able to ascertain what were the feelings of the population in each particular locality.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that after the statement made by the Home Secretary, he would withdraw the clause, but announced his intention to revive it on the Report as far as regarded the early morning hours. That, he hoped, the Government would be disposed to accept.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSremarked that the inconvenience might, perhaps, be met by a modification of Section 26 of the existing Act.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved as an Amendment, to substitute for the terms defining the metropolitan district, the following words:—
  "The city of London or the liberties thereof, or any parish or place subject to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works, or within the four-mile radius from Charing Cross."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday 16th June, and to he printed. [Bill 139.]

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Friendly and other Societies, said, it would be in the recollection of the House that the subject was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, and he might say that at the time Her Majesty was advised to make that reference in her Speech, the Government were in hopes that the Report of the Royal Commission, which had been sitting on the subject for some time, would have been presented in sufficient time to have enabled a Bill to be prepared and brought in before Whitsuntide, so that they might have had the advantage of getting the opinions of the great friendly societies and of the public generally in the course of the Recess, and thus have been able to proceed with greater advantage afterwards. But circumstances had delayed the presentation of the Report, and so rendered it impossible to prepare the Bill within the time originally intended. He hoped, however, there was still time to make progress with it, and he would therefore state the course which he thought now it would be the most convenient to pursue in order that they might deal satisfactorily with the subject; and in doing so, he would urge the House to afford every possible facility for dealing with a matter of such great importance as the one under notice. The question was one which affected a very large body of the working classes and the lower middle classes of this country. From the Report that had been presented, it would be seen that there were somewhere, probably, about 4,000,000 of persons who were actually members of different friendly societies besides an equal number who might be said to be collaterally connected with them; and the sum of money involved was not less than probably, £11,000,000 or £12,000,000. The matter was one which affected and had a close connection with the general welfare of the working classes of the country, and very closely bore upon the habits of providence, and the excellent habits connected with those of providence, which they desired above all others to cultivate amongst the people. It was, therefore,

  1207
  a matter which had for a long time been one of interest to the Parliament of this country. For the greater part of the last century it had been the habit of Parliament to legislate with a view to encourage societies of the class, and the effect of the legislation which had taken place, and of the attention brought to the subject, had been to develop this great system. Restriction after restriction had been removed, and facilities after facilities had been granted, and there was no doubt that an enormous advance had taken place in what might be called the science of providence amongst the people. But at the same time that the system had been developing itself, certain inconveniences connected with it had also been developing themselves. In the first place, it had to be observed that the general law had been very materially altered since the time when special legislation was necessary for friendly societies—without which they could not have been formed and carried on their business on the footing on which it would now be possible for societies to carry it on if they chose to form themselves into joint-stock companies and carry on business on the footing of companies. Moreover, many restrictions that were placed upon them through the jealousy of Parliament—restrictions placed, for instance, upon societies which might be supposed to have political or mischievous objects in view—had been taken off and a much greater freedom and latitude allowed. On the other hand, there were a large number of other kinds of societies besides those properly called friendly societies, which had come into existence; such, for instance, as the industrial provident societies, loan societies, trade societies, and others which had had different Acts passed more or less bringing them into connection with the system. That system, which had been in force of late years, had been to a certain extent, one of Government patronage—that was to say, there had been a registration office, at which the promoters of those societies had been called upon to register them, and in that way obtain a certificate from the Registrar which gave them the advantages of the law. The result of that system had been that an impression had been created—an erroneous impression, but one by no means unnatural—that societies so endorsed by the certificate of
  1208
  the Government Registrar were in some manner approved by the Registrar himself, and that had led many to believe that, though the Government had not guaranteed them, they might at all events be regarded as resting on a sound and good basis. In point of fact, however, the Registrar had no power of satisfying himself that the societies coming to him for registration were sound or good, and even when he had reason to think their rules, as presented to him, were satisfactory, he could not compel the societies afterwards to observe them. Indeed, it often happened that societies had fallen away from those rules, and that after having obtained the certificate of the Registrar, they had gone into bad ways, and great disappointment had been the consequence. They could easily understand that just in proportion as the encouragement of providence was good, and as the well managed societies were a great engine of good by encouraging providence, so disappointment, and the failure of societies in which people had put their trust, must necessarily act badly, because they rather discouraged people from contracting provident habits. It became a serious question, therefore, how far they should go in a direction which might probably encourage false expectations without being able to see that those expectations were fulfilled. He thought it was in the year 1870, that the late Mr. Tidd Pratt, who had been the first Registrar of Friendly Societies, died, and at the time of his death the attention of the Government was called to the fact that a very large proportion of the societies which had been duly certified were believed by Mr. Tidd Pratt himself to be in a very unsatisfactory condition. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lowe) considered the Government was doing what was really a mischievous thing in sanctioning a system of registration which was illusive and likely to cause false ideas amongst the people; and the remedy he proposed was to introduce a Bill, the object of which was to abolish the office of Registrar and provide for something in the nature of open registration—that was, to allow all societies to register, provided they fulfilled the conditions which would entitle them to obtain a certificate. When that Bill was proposed, many friends of friendly societies were alarmed, and

  1209
  thought that the passing of such a measure would be prejudicial to the societies; and they consequently applied to the Government to issue a Royal Commission upon the subject. That Royal Commission was appointed; it had sat for somewhat more than three years, and had recently presented a Report which contained a large mass of information and evidence upon the subject, in fact, almost all the materials required for forming a judgment upon it. In consequence of those inquiries, it was desirable that they should now terminate the state of abeyance in which the whole system, had been kept for some time. Besides, it was all the more necessary to do so as soon as possible, for it could not have escaped the attention of hon. Gentlemen that throughout the country there was great and increasing anxiety manifested to try and improve these societies. In the first place, these societies were doing a great deal to improve themselves, and he thought that anyone acquainted with the facts, in common with himself, must express his admiration of the spirit in which some of the great bodies, and especially the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, were endeavouring to improve the system of which they were leading examples. That great society had a sort of Parliamentary constitution of its own; the members met in their separate lodges, and in their Annual Moveable Committee discussed most freely the laws which bound the union and affected the different lodges. They faced, too, with great courage—which did them the utmost credit—every question that bore on their position and prospects. A more striking instance of that could not be given than the manner in which the Unity had recently undertaken an actuarial inquiry into the solvency of their different lodges, and boldly and honestly brought out to the world the rather disagreeable fact that the lodges, taken altogether, showed a large deficiency of assets as compared with their liabilities—a deficiency of upwards of a million of money. Well, when they saw a body of men coming forward and disclosing disagreeable incidents of that character, and that with a view of putting themselves on a footing of soundness, they could not help feeling that there was a spirit abroad which deserved to be encouraged, and which augured well for
  1210
  the cause of progress. He did not hesitate to say that if there were no other societies than the Manchester Unity, the Foresters, and some others of a similar character, including some of the large country societies, they might be safely left to work out their own salvation. But there were other societies of a different character, which appeared to require a different treatment. The greatest interest was now felt in different parts of the country in the establishment and improvement of friendly societies, and it seemed only right that information and suggestions should be supplied for the guidance of those who wished to aid in forming sound and useful societies for their own district, the time being well adapted for dealing with the question. In order to show that the present law and system were not satisfactory, he would refer to a short passage in the Report of the Commissioners. It was there stated that the system of central registration had so failed of its object that less than one-half of the existing societies were registered, and less than one-third afforded the most elementary information—namely, that which referred to the number of members. He would now proceed to speak of the principles on which he thought they ought to proceed in legislating on the subject, and the first question was, what could they do in that way? It was obvious they must abandon the old system of a central authority, for what could one man do for the guidance of some 22,000 societies, scattered all over the country in remote districts, towns, and villages. That system had failed. The first principle which he would lay down was that they ought to interfere as little as possible with the voluntary action of those who were managing these societies. The truth was that friendly societies were excellent in themselves, but were doubly and trebly excellent in that they were the result of the voluntary action of those who belonged to them; and even although there might be in many cases a better system of management than that which was adopted; although some of the proceedings might be foolish or inexpedient; still it was better that the societies should not be governed as well as they might be than that Parliament should do anything in the way of governing them beyond what was

  1211
  absolutely necessary. Therefore, he would say, let them, in legislating for these societies, endeavour to give them fair play, and let them leave them to manage as far as possible for themselves. But in order that they might have fair play, there were two things which they wanted—they wanted proper facilities for action, and they wanted, above all proper information. They should, therefore, he thought, legislate with a view of supplying the members of the different societies, and those who took an interest in those societies, with such information as would enable them to form an accurate judgment both as to what was being done and as to what ought to be done. For instance, take the cardinal question of the tables on which alone these societies might safely be be founded. It was quite evident that it was mathematically demonstrable that, if a society was founded on a system of tables which was inaccurate, and promised benefits from a rate of premiums which was insufficient to produce those benefits, there must, to a certain extent, be failure. On the other hand, it was almost impossible for the general run even of educated persons, and quite impossible for the mass of those who belonged to those societies, to judge, on the face of the papers which were laid before them, whether this or that society was sound or not. There could be no doubt that a very large number of societies were formed on very inadequate data, and if hon. Gentlemen would look at the chapter of the Report which related to the subject of premiums, they would see demonstrated by a distinguished actuary, who was a member of the Commission, how societies were constantly misled by adopting tables which might be correct under some circumstances, but were not correct under others. For example, if a society comprised amongst its members a large number of those who pursued dangerous trades, and who were taken without medical examination, although they might have adopted tables prepared under high authority, yet those tables would lead to ultimate insolvency; whereas, if adopted in the case of agricultural labourers, the society might be very successful. Notwithstanding that difficulty and danger, however, the amount of information now collected with regard to sickness and death was
  1212
  such that, with a very moderate degree of attention, it would be quite possible to prepare tables which would be very useful to different classes of societies, and he thought the Government would not be in any way overstepping its proper functions if they were to prepare and publish tables containing such information, not, of course, compelling societies to adopt them. That was one of the objects contemplated by the present Bill. Another thing of importance was, that there should be some organized system for the valuation of assets and liabilities. Societies might adopt what appeared a priori the most promising tables in the world, but the only way of ascertaining whether they were sound was by a valuation; and there must be a periodical valuation in order to ascertain whether or not the tables which were used were satisfactory. That was a principle which was acknowledged and laid down by most distinguished actuaries who had taken an interest in that matter, and one which had been prominently put forward and recommended with the utmost authority by the Manchester Unity and other great societies. He thought, before quitting that question, he ought to say a word on the subject of insolvency in order that the meaning of the phrase should be clearly understood, and to prevent that uneasiness which might be created by the supposition that such great bodies as the Manchester Unity might be regarded as insolvent. If a society having 1,000 members, for example, adopted certain tables, invited certain payments, and promised certain benefits, it was clear that if the payments were insufficient, and if no new members came in, it would ultimately fail to fulfil its engagements. If, however, any considerable number of young members were brought in, the fact might be for a time concealed, because the money of the young men would go to pay the allowances to the older men, who were coming on the society's funds. If therefore the society went on increasing its numbers, it might postpone or suspend its insolvency for an indefinite time. Such a society was not, however, in a healthy condition, and when the time came that young men refused to join it, the older members would be deprived of the benefits that had been promised them. But if such a society dis-

  1213
  covered by a periodical valuation that some change was necessary, it might by reducing its benefits and increasing its payments to a small amount, or by making a levy upon its members, redress and retrieve its position. And the sooner a society found out its mistake and had the courage to apply the remedy, the sooner that society would be placed upon a sound footing. A proposal had been made that the Government should take some of the work of the friendly societies upon itself, and the idea had found favour with some that the Government should undertake the conduct of the sick business. He believed, however, that half the benefit of these societies would be lost if the administration were taken out of their hands. The Government, moreover, would be open to so much fraud and imposition that it would be dangerous, if not impossible, for them to undertake such a duty. But with regard to another class of business—the insurance on death—that was a matter with which the Government might fairly deal. At present the Government did grant insurance for sums payable on death, but the amounts did not go low enough, and it was very much to be desired that the system of Government life insurance should be brought more within the reach of the working classes. He spoke just now of one of the particulars in which the Government might give assistance—that was, by correct tables and by the putting out forms of valuation, which might enable persons to understand them. Now, that was an important point, because at present the societies were almost all in the habit of publishing accounts of some sort; but they published them in various forms, so that it was difficult to make out whether they were in a solvent state or not. He thought, therefore, the Government might fairly require the use of prescribed forms of valuation—forms of account which the officers of the societies would fill up for themselves, and which forms should be of such a nature that anybody who had a moderate acquaintance with the subject should be able to form an accurate judgment of the condition of the society. Well, then, if they gave the societies power to establish themselves on a sound basis; if they gave them forms of account to show whether they were solvent, and were carrying on
  1214
  their concerns satisfactorily; and if, at the same time, they made proper provisions for separating the different funds, so that the funds—say of the life insurance department—should not be devoted to the sickness department, or to management, or some other purpose, which was rather a common practice; all they had to do was to take care that these facts were brought fairly before the members of the societies, and of the public, who had been watching the proceedings of the society. Well, they held it impossible to do that in a satisfactory manner under a system of purely central registration, and the Commissioners recommended that in addition to a central registration office there should be a system of district registration. The great object was to provide that the societies which were carrying on their business in different parts of the country should register themselves, and should register certain particulars of all their proceedings; as to their numbers, as to their funds, as to the tables they adopted, and also as to the valuation of their assets and liabilities—that all these particulars should be given in the registry in the locality. It would be necessary to absorb the separate central offices of Scotland and Ireland, and to have one central office for the whole of the Kingdom. At present a society might be registered in England, and might carry on business in Ireland without being registered there. In such cases a member seeking redress had to come to England. The Bill proposed to divide the whole Kingdom into districts, each of which would have a deputy Registrar. They did not propose in the Bill to set out the whole system in detail; but they proposed to leave it to a Department of the Government—probably the Treasury—to parcel the country out into districts. They proposed that there should be something like 40 or 50 districts, connected perhaps with the County Courts, and that there should be paid officers appointed, whose remuneration would not, however, be very high, and whose duty it would be to receive the registrations in the different districts in which they were placed, and to furnish Returns to the central office in London, and that there should be a list placed in some convenient spot in these districts where it would be accessible to anyone who desired to inspect it. They

  1215
  also gave power to the central Registrar to make certain regulations which should be laid before Parliament. They proposed to meet some of the difficulties which had been suggested by the members of friendly societies themselves; but into that part of the Bill he would not go into any great detail at that hour. They proposed to give an appeal when registration was refused, to grant certain advantages in the way of holding land, and to grant incorporation in certain cases where it might be desired. But, the main principles of the Bill were to strengthen and improve the machinery of registration; to publish correct tables for the use of those societies; and to encourage and, as far as possible, to enforce a system of periodical valuation. He was afraid hon. Members, when they came to look at the Bill, might think it rather a long one; but if they referred to it, they would find that it in reality greatly abbreviated the law, for its provisions related to all societies whose objects were of a friendly character, such as industrial and provident societies, charitable societies, scientific and literary societies, trades' unions, and loan societies. The Acts of Parliament relating to these and kindred societies comprised no less than 180 clauses, and the Government now proposed to consolidate these statutes into the 80 clauses in the Bill. Of course, it would be possible for the House to legislate upon the whole question, or to omit from the Bill those portions which referred to any particular class of societies. With regard to burial societies, it might be as well that he should say a word or two. A great deal of public attention had been drawn to the large burial societies. These societies had, indeed, constituted one of the chief difficulties in the scheme, because it was in connection with them that the greatest amount of fraud and cruelty had been found to exist. He did not mean to deny that some of those societies might be well managed; but the evidence adduced before the Commission showed that they, in too many instances, inflicted great injustice and cruelty upon the more helpless classes of the poor. Indeed, it had been stated with authority, that not one in eight of those who subscribed to them derived any advantage from their subscriptions. The collector of the society received his payment in proportion to the number of
  1216
  persons he brought into the society, and the consequence was that the collector called for some time, and then neglected to call again, and the person insured thus lost all benefit in the society. Restrictions had been introduced into the Bill which they hoped would put a stop to some of the evils of this system of collection. Another point of great importance and delicacy in connection with these burial societies was the question of insurance of infant life. They had reason to believe that the insurance of infants led directly to great carelessness about infant life, to say the least of it, and there were districts mentioned in the Report of the Commissioners, which would show that where these burial societies were in most extensive operation, there infant life was lamentably shorter than in other places. They therefore proposed to prohibit the insurance of any infant below three years, and also to impose some restrictions on the insurance of children above that age. Without going further into the details of the Bill, he would just indicate the mode in which it would be best to legislate upon the subject. He was quite aware that this was a subject upon which they were anxious to legislate quickly; but it was of still more importance that they should legislate carefully, and that they should carry the feeling of the country with them. Nothing, in his opinion, would be more unfortunate than to pass a crude and hastily prepared measure on a subject of great interest without sufficient consideration. There was a large amount of work before them. The Bill contained 80 clauses, and though a good deal of it was not new, and might be accepted without much discussion, still if they got into Committee, and many Amendments were proposed, it would be difficult to carry it through this Session. On the other hand, to refer it to a Select Committee would scarcely be satisfactory, and what he proposed to do, therefore, was this. He hoped that the Bill would be in the hands of hon. Members in the course of two or three days. He proposed, if there was no general objection, to take the second reading on Monday the 22nd, and he would propose to go into Committee at some short distance of time from that. He should ask hon. Gentlemen, who took an interest in the subject, to communicate with him as to

  1217
  any alterations or suggestions that they might have to make upon the Bill. That was the course pursued by Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, when he brought in and passed successfully the last Bill on Friendly Societies. Mr. Estcourt was in the habit of seeing at his house gentlemen who took an interest in the subject, and there the matter was discussed, and Amendments put into the Bill, which made it easier to go through Committee. If, however, there were questions on which they could not agree, and upon which much discussion would come, it would be necessary for the Bill to stand over for another year. He was sanguine that hon. Members of the House would give him every assistance, and he would again say that if gentlemen would communicate with the promoters of the Bill, privately, out of the House, a great deal of time would be saved, and aid given to the passing of the measure. He could not help saying that he attached enormous importance to dealing with these and similar questions. It was impossible not to feel, when they were brought to inquire into subjects of this kind, in a melancholy degree how much good power was running to waste in this country. There was a system which if only a little amended, would enable the masses of the people to support themselves. Large sums of money were subscribed which, if administered on a sounder basis, would be sufficient to raise the masses of the people out of the sink of the Poor Law. There were large employers who were desirous for their own sakes, and out of benevolent motives, to assist workmen out of an unfortunate pit-fall, which they were unable to do under the present law. His own conviction was that if they could establish a sound and trustworthy system of registration of these societies, and if they could accompany it with a stricter administration of the Poor Law, and a fairer adjustment of wages, it would be for the benefit of the employer, would effect a saving of the poor rate, and enable the employer to assist his workpeople to provide for themselves; and in this way it would be of the greatest advantage to the whole country; and he felt that the first steps were those which they were now asking the House to take; for if they had a good system of provident societies, the rest might follow, and they would have a very great improvement
  1218
  in the condition of the people. He trusted that the House would accept the Bill in the spirit in which it was offered; and although it was one which undoubtedly might involve somewhat complicated machinery, and certainly would involve machinery which would be somewhat costly to Government, still it would be for objects well worthy any small expense that they might incur, and one which would be of the very greatest advantage to the country. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he rose with some reluctance, because he felt that it was inexpedient that any long discussion should be held upon the proposals of the Bill, until hon. Members had had an opportunity of seeing the measure in print. He entirely agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was very desirable that these societies should be left to themselves as much as possible; but, at the same time, he thought that some assistance beyond that indicated by the right hon. Gentleman should be afforded them on the part of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had gone into some little amount of detail respecting the existing state of those societies, and it appeared from his statement that some 4,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom were members of friendly societies, while their aggregate property amounted to about £12,000,000, giving an average of about £3 for each member. He regretted that he could not find in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that he held out any hope of affording means of raising the position of the members, so that on their being overtaken by sickness they should not fall back from the state of independence they had been striving for. All the assistance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared inclined to lend them was to relieve them from the expense of registration; and he did not find in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman any encouragement or advantage corresponding to that which the Government gave in abating from a person's income tax a sum equal to one-sixth of the premium on his life insurance. Under the present system the subscribers to these societies were sometimes left in doubt whether their efforts at providence were likely to benefit most themselves, or

  1219
  merely reduce the poor-rates by affording them a small amount of relief in sickness and misfortune. He wished that the Government should take charge of the funds of these societies and return them a rather larger interest for their money. The Government would certainly confer a benefit on such societies by supplying tables prepared by skilled actuaries, and based upon well-ascertained statistics, which would show members of those societies at a glance what they should pay and what they ought to receive in return for their subscriptions, a proceeding of which he approved; but he thought some means might have been provided for encouraging the association with such societies of local gentlemen of position who would take an interest in their affairs, and help in their discussion and administration. In his own county, that had been done by Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, a gentleman who had established a large society in which the smaller ones had become absorbed, and there had been no instance of failure or complaint. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would only clog his Bill by proposing to incorporate with a measure relating to friendly societies so many and such various other subjects as he had mentioned, and by such means render it incapable of being worked.
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, he was exceedingly glad to learn that the Government was going to deal with the question of burial societies. In his experience, there was no system that had caused so much annoyance and hardship—and, in many circumstances, so much wrong—as the present system of these burial societies. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would show that he was determined to deal with them in a vigorous manner, and that the House of Commons would support him with a strong hand, so as to put an end to the fraud which was practised on the poorer classes. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on this part of his Bill, and he hoped he would be successful in carrying it.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEthought, as regarded affiliated benefit societies, it was necessary a totally different arrangement should be made as applying to them. They ought to be kept totally separate and distinct from burial and insurance societies, and indeed ought, if possible, to be dealt with by separate legislation. It was, above all things, most
  1220
  desirable they should have the management of their own affairs, and that no unnecessary interference whatever should be permitted. He suggested the necessity of having a head office in London to manage all these societies, presided over by an able and experienced person appointed by the Government, and while his whole time should be devoted to the duty, he should be solely responsible to them for the manner in which he discharged the duties of his position. As to the auditing of their accounts, he believed the societies themselves could do that work better than any actuary sent for the purpose. He hoped there would be no interference with the arrangement which allowed children to become members of these benefit associations, seeing that he was fully convinced that the admission of the "child element" did much to teach and increase thrift among the young, and to insure frugality among the parents.
  Motion agreed, to.
  Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Friendly and other Societies, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. Secretary CROSS, and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 140.]

MERCHANT SHIPS (MEASUREMENT OF TONNAGE) BILL.— [BILL 118.]
(Sir Charles Adderley, Mr. Cavendish Bentinck, Mr. Bourke.)
MERCHANT SHIPS (MEASUREMENT OF TONNAGE) BILL.— [BILL 118.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its object was to secure a more accurate measurement of what might be called the freight-bearing capacity of merchant ships. The action of the Suez Canal Company in respect of the measurement of the tonnage of British vessels had rendered the passing of the Bill a matter of urgency. The Bill contained nothing new except in two or three of its earlier clauses, for the rest of the measure was a transcript of the sections of the existing Act relating to the measurement of tonnage. In point of fact, it was little more than the embodiment of the decision upon the deductions from gross tonnage to arrive at a net register tonnage on which

  1221
  dock dues should be charged, which was come to by the International Commission at Constantinople, on which the principal maritime nations were represented, and its introduction now had been precipitated by the late action of M. de Lesseps. It laid down, in the 4th clause, a clearer and more accurate mode of arriving at net tonnage by limiting the deduction for engine, crew, and navigation spaces. The sliding scale of engine space deductions in the Act of 1854 had produced great unfairness, and vessels had been constructed for the purpose of evading restrictions, the uppermost deck being brought down almost to the middle of the ship's depth, while the upper part had been so constructed as to carry much weight, and yet escape dock and harbour dues. Unseaworthiness had in many cases been the result. The new system was already in force for vessels passing through the Suez Canal, and in many cases it had led to a reduction of the dues, so that probably nobody would suffer increased charges except those who had been hitherto reaping an unfair advantage. It was important that the House should deal with the question without delay, and he hoped the measure would be passed that Session. Other countries would, no doubt, be encouraged to follow their example. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles Adderley.)
  MR. GOURLEYsuggested the reference of so technical a Bill to the Board of Trade or to a Select Committee, that the evidence of practical men might be taken. A Committee of the Whole House could not deal satisfactorily with a measure which involved complicated mathematical calculations. The Suez Canal Company would be enabled by it to charge on a high tonnage, instead of at a high rate.
  MR. MACGREGORbegged to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, the propriety of referring the Bill to a Select Committee. The 4th clause which the right hon. Gentleman thought the only one capable of objection, was the only one he considered just and right.
  1222
  He strongly objected to the 5th clause; but Clause 6 was the most objectionable of the whole; it practically put into the hands of the Board of Trade, the complete power of revoking, varying, or altering the mode of measurement, and the mode of making allowances for the whole of the merchant shipping of the country. Again, Clause 7 looked very much like an arrangement by which the Board of Trade would have every facility rendered them for entering into law-suits with shipowners. They had taken advantage of the powers they already possessed to a very large extent, and the ratepayers of this country had had to pay sweetly for it. In every case, where law-suits of the kind were entered into, the Board of Trade had been defeated, and had had to pay for it. There were other clauses which required very close looking into. Many of them related to technical matters, and therefore ought to be drawn up by men possessing technical knowledge, and criticized closely by others possessing such knowledge; therefore he would suggest to the Government the desirability of allowing the matter to go before a Select Committee, where the most important interest, the Mercantile Marine, might be heard, and give expression to their views before the passing of the measure.
  MR. D. J. JENKINS, as a practical seaman, condemned the 5th clause of the Bill, relating to the space between the main deck and the hurricane deck of a ship as most dangerous, and he should certainly oppose it in Committee.
  MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, the Bill was drawn up haphazard, and with the usual reckless style of the Board of Trade when dealing with the merchant shipping of this country, and he hoped it would not be allowed to pass without the most careful scrutiny of its clauses in Committee.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that as the clauses of the measure were identical with those of the Bill introduced by himself on the part of the late Government some three years ago, and the provisions of which had been carefully considered two years before, he felt bound to assist the right hon. Gentleman opposite in carrying it through the House. He denied that there had been any recklessness or haphazard legislation on the part of the Board. There was no novelty in the Bill, but he thought it

  1223
  would be a great advantage to the country if it were adopted, for the existing mode of measurement had given rise to great evasions, and it urgently required amendment. The only alteration in it was in the 4th clause, so that he was inclined to think that the matter should he a subject of conference with the Board of Trade, and that it was hardly necessary to refer it to a Select Committee. The International Commission had adopted the system of measurement under the Bill for the Suez Canal, and had recommended it for adoption by other countries.
  ADMIRAL ELLIOTregarded this as one of the fairest Bills that could be proposed. It would put an end, moreover, to that system of shipbuilding which had been going on in order to evade tonnage dues—a system that had produced most dangerous ships, imperilling the lives of our seamen and passengers. He strongly objected to deck-loads, and hoped that matter would be included in the penalties, inasmuch as this practice not only endangered the ship, but navigation generally. Low free-boards and deep waists were also dangerous, and if deck-loads were prohibited, this dangerous feature would disappear.
  MR. WILSONsaid, that the Bill was not required, for it was only brought in to legalize a form of measurement which had been instituted by an International Committee in the interests of M. de Lesseps, and which was nothing else than a tax on British shipowners, as they would find from the increased charges levied upon the ships that went through the Suez Canal. So far as the shipowners were concerned, they had the strongest desire to co-operate with the Government in carrying out any measure which could conduce to the safety of our shipping; but with regard to the measure under notice, his objection was that shipowners had not had sufficient notice of it, and did not know what it was intended to effect.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he did not object to the second reading of the Bill; but he maintained that its provisions could not be properly settled, unless it was referred to a Select Committee. Some of the clauses as they stood might, in his opinion, injuriously affect the shipping trade.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee."—(Mr. Norwood.)
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYobjected to that course. There was nothing new in the Bill, except the 4th clause. The only question they had to arrive at was the right mode of ascertaining the freight-earning capacity of merchant ships. He hoped the proposal would not be carried.
  MR. T. E. SMITHthought a conference with the Board of Trade on the part of members of the shipping trade would be infinitely preferable to referring the Bill to a Select Committee. Time must be allowed for calling together the several representatives to assist at the conference, and if there were an assurance that that should be done, he should advise the hon. Member not to press his Motion.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYexpressed his readiness to meet the views of hon. Members in regard to the conference.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.

  PUBLICK PETITIONS (PREPARATION AND PRESENTMENT) ACT (1661) REPEAL BILL.
  On Motion of Sir GEORGE BOWYER, Bill to repeal an Act of the thirteenth year of Charles the Second, chapter five, intituled "An Act against Tumults and Disorders upon pretence of preparing or presenting Publick Petitions or other Addresses to His Majesty or the Parliament," ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE BOWYER and Mr. Serjeant SIMON.
  Bill presentad, and read the first time. [Bill 141.]

  CHAIN CABLES AND ANCHORS BILL.
  Select Committee nominated:—Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY, Mr. LEFEVRE, Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, Lord ESLIXGTON, Mr. BROGDEN, Mr. HICK, Mr. EUSTACE SMITH, Mr. LAIRD, Mr. GOURLEY, Mr. BATES, Mr. MELLY, Sir JOHN HAY, and Mr. CORBY:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Three to be the quorum.

  WATERFORD GRAND JURY TRANSFER BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. RICHARD POWER, Bill to transfer the fiscal powers of the Grand Jury of the city of Waterford to the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the said city, ordered to be brought in by Mr. RICHARD POWER and Lord CHARLES BERESFORD.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 142.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock,