HC Deb 12 August 1881 vol 264 cc1818-20

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Courtney.)

MR. COURTNEY, referring to an objection to this Bill entertained by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), explained that under the Act of 1879 a pedlar could obtain a certificate for any particular district; but if he wished to go into another district he must apply to the magistrate for another certificate. That involved an inquiry by the police as to the man's character, and the whole matter became either irksome or degenerated into a farce.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

explained, that he had blocked this Bill only to ensure a discussion upon it at a proper time. He had been requested to state the objections felt by the Commissioners of Hertford to the Bill. It was true the Bill removed trammels, and, as a rule, that would be a good thing; but the work of the pedlars was decreasing with the increasing means of communication, and as their trade grew less they supplemented it by other trades, which ought to be supervised by the Police. For the protection of the public it was considered necessary to restrict the certificates to districts, so that the pedlars could be more easily watched. The operative clause of this Bill was the 2nd clause, and he thought the whole argument against the Bill was that it removed a restriction which ought to be maintained.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he did not think the objections of the hon. Member were well-founded. No other objections had been offered to the Bill, and he had been advised that these pedlars exercised a very useful trade, and were very much hampered and embarrassed when they went into a town like Birmingham, in which there were several police districts. The endorsements of the certificate were no benefit at all; and the Police were empowered under the existing Act to demand the pedlar's certificate and to inspect his pack. Representations had been made to the Home Office that these men suffered from embarrassing regulations, and he hoped the House would allow the Bill to pass.

MR. ONSLOW

, representing a place where there were many pedlars, said, the head of the Police there had assured him that the certificate was a great safeguard to the public. The pedlars were more or less of the tramp class, and unless the Police had control over them they might transfer the certificates from place to place. The pedlars were not confined to towns, but were all over the country; and he considered this a very dangerous Bill, for it would encourage burglary and house breaking. He did not believe the Police of the country would agree to the Bill.

MR. WHITLEY

said, the Police in his district had told him the mere endorsement of the certificate was no protection at all; and, under these circumstances, he felt bound to support the Bill.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, it certainly appeared to him that the Bill was one of very doubtful expediency.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 8: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 385.)

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.

Clause 2 (Alteration of 34 & 35 Vict. c. 96, so far as regards requiring indorsement of a pedlar's certificate).

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, the whole pith of the Bill was contained in this clause; but after the division which had already taken place, he would not waste the time of the House by taking another division. He had not received a sufficient amount of support to justify such a course, and he could only expect a repetition of the defeat he had already sustained.

Clause agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he hoped the House would now allow the Bill to be read a third time.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill passed.