Sitting of 19 June 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Bastardy Laws Amendment* [109]; Imprisonment for Debt Abolition* [156], put off.
Committee—Report—Public Prosecutors [28–203].
Considered as amended—Sites for Places of Worship and Schools* [2].
Third Reading—Review of Justices' Decisions* [190], and passed.
Withdrawn—County Courts (Small Debts) (No. 2)* [121].

PARLIAMENT—ORDER AND PRACTICE— COUNTS OUT.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, I am about to adopt a course which is only resorted to when something unusual has occurred in the Business of this House. Yesterday, when the House resumed at 9 o'clock, and the Business had recommenced, the hon. Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Watkin Williams) at two minutes and a-half past 9 o'clock, called your attention to the fact that there were not 40 Members in the House. At exactly 5 minutes past 9 you counted, and there were only 32 Members present. On yesterday week, and on the preceding Tuesday the same thing occurred. This is a matter that has attracted the attention of the Committee of this House on Public Business, and who unanimously passed a Resolution to the effect that if any hon. Member should call your attention to the fact that if there were not 40 Members present at 9 o'clock, or soon after, you should not count the House until a quarter past 9 o'clock. Now, I observe, that, on the Journal of the House, which is the record of our proceedings, it is entered that you, Sir, counted the House at a quarter past 9 o'clock yesterday; but it happened that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Hardcastle) was sitting next to me at that time and I called his attention to the exact time when the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bowring) was counted out. The Committee on Public Business unanimously came to the conclusion that the counting of the House so soon after it resumed, was taking an unfair advantage of the general body of the Members of this House; because it is impossible, considering the difference of time according to different clocks and watches,
1950
that hon. Members should be in their places here precisely at the moment that this clock points to 9 o'clock. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given Notice, as Chairman of the Committee on Public Business, of a Resolution of that Committee. I shall, therefore, to-morrow, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not propose to the House to give effect to the Resolution of the Committee, and that I shall also move that, when an hon. Member calls your attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members in their places, the name of the hon. Member shall be taken down by the Clerk at the Table before you, Sir, proceed to count the House.
MR. SPEAKER: There being no Question before the House, and no Motion having been made by the hon. Member, the observations he has made are quite out of Order.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had inadvertently omitted to do so, but would then move the adjournment of the House.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, it could not then be done, as he had directed the Clerk at the Table to proceed with the Orders of the Day.

PUBLIC PROSECUTORS BILL— [BILL 28.]
(Mr. Spencer Walpole, Mr. Russell Gurney, Mr. Eykyn, Mr. Rathbone.)
PUBLIC PROSECUTORS BILL— [BILL 28.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that under the very peculiar circumstances of this Bill, it was impossible to say who was the promoter. He was not then about to discuss the question whether public prosecutors should or should not be appointed, but to call attention to the state of things before the House. The measure was introduced by a private Member (the right hon. and learned Recorder for London) early in the Session, and it was read a second time under protest for the accommodation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who was at the time in America, and with the understanding that the discussion should be taken on going into Committee. The Home Secretary in the meantime, however, had given Notice of a number of Amendments entirely altering the whole construction of the Bill;

  1951
  and in some respects they removed objections that existed to the establishment of public prosecutors. With regard to the expense that would be brought upon the Imperial Exchequer, he estimated that it would amount in salaries alone to a sum of £50,000 or £60,000 per annum, while the costs of prosecutions would very probably be likewise increased. It would be impossible then to enter into a discussion of the Bill, and the best course to be pursued would be to go into Committee pro formâ, and introduce the Amendments, and then that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should resign the further conduct of the Bill to the Government. Two matters had been rather unfairly introduced into the Government Amendments, that would require explanation—namely, placing the cost of all prosecutions on the Imperial Exchequer, contingently on adoption of the Act by local authorities, while the adoption of the Act was left optional. He wished also to know if on the passing of the Bill, the establishment in Spring Gardens would be abolished. The Government had also introduced into the Bill, a clause for the payment of clerks of the peace by salary instead of fees, while there was another Bill before the House dealing with those officers in the same manner. He wanted to know on which of the two Bills the Government intended to rely? It was a very unusual and extraordinary proceeding to have a clause in two separate Bills to effect the same object in the same Session of Parliament, and both Bills promoted by private Members.
  MR. WEST, who had given Notice of his intention to move that the House should go into Committee on the Bill on that day three months, said that the objectors to the Bill were placed in a position of great difficulty with regard to the Bill, in consequence of the course which Her Majesty's Government had thought fit to take in respect to it. One of the principal objections which had been taken to the measure, was the great expense which it was urged the Bill would entail upon the public; but down to the present time no information as to the probable cost to the public of the appointment of public prosecutors had been laid before the House, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Home Office having declined to produce
  1952
  the result of an investigation that had been instituted into the subject, on the ground that it was a confidential communication. On Saturday last a list of the Amendments proposed by the Government was placed in the hands of hon. Members, and he regretted that neither of the Law Officers of the Crown was present to give the House some explanation of those Amendments, which were of so extraordinary a character as to give rise to the suspicion that they had been extracted from the pages of a comic journal. In fact, those who had come down to oppose the Public Prosecutors Bill as it was read a second time now found that it had ceased to exist, for the Amendments proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had swept away the whole of the first and second pages of the Bill; while only one line of the original Bill was left in the third page, and so on to the end of the chapter; and in short, it would be found that so far from its being a Public Prosecutors Bill, it would deal with entirely different subjects. Perhaps the House would be surprised to hear that by these Amendments the right hon. Gentleman would be empowered, without consultation with the Lord Chancellor or any one of Her Majesty's Judges, to alter the whole criminal law of the land, and to have the supreme direction of such trifles as trial by jury, writs of error, questions of law to be reserved, proceedings before Justices, or other criminal proceedings which public prosecutors were or were not to institute. [Mr. BRUCE explained that the law upon those points was not to be altered.] Under those circumstances, he must confess that his understanding was not sufficiently lofty to enable him to comprehend the meaning of these Amendments. He objected to give such power to the Home Secretary as would enable him at his own will and pleasure to alter our whole criminal law, and without at that moment making the Motion of which he had given Notice, that the House should go into Committee on the Bill that day three months, he left the matter in the hands of the House, and would take whatever course they might think would be the best under the circumstances.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, that the former opposition to the Bill appeared to be confined to two ques-

  1953
  tions, one of which was whether the appointment of a public prosecutor should be limited to the metropolitan district; and the other, whether the Secretary of State should be empowered to divide the country into districts for similar appointments, wherever the justices or town councils concurred in the arrangement. These objections had been considered by the Government, as well as by his right hon. and learned Friend the Recorder, and the other hon. Members whose names appeared on the back of the Bill; and, to speak the plain truth, he regarded the compulsory appointment of such an officer for the Central Criminal Court district as a wise alteration in the measure. With respect to the other question, affecting the rest of the country, he had as little doubt as on the first one, and he could only repeat what he said on the second reading, that it was really a disgrace—and he used the word advisedly—that England was the only country in the world where prosecutions for crime should mostly be left at the mercy of private individuals, who might or might not proceed with them as they thought fit. In his opinion, therefore, it was a matter of great importance that they should ascertain how far they were agreed in carrying out the principle of appointing public prosecutors. As to the two main objections which were urged against the Bill, he thought the Amendments intended to be moved by the Government would deal wisely with those parts of the Bill to which those objections applied. He hoped the result of this discussion would show that the House wished, in the first place, that public prosecutors should be confined to the Central Criminal Court; and, in the second place, that an opportunity should be given for the appointment of a public prosecutor in any provincial district where such an appointment might be desired by the local authorities. The Bill might be regarded as divisible into two parts—one relating to the appointment of public prosecutors, and the other relating to the mode in which the expenses of prosecutions should hereafter be paid. Excepting as to the mode in which it was now proposed to defray those expenses, he denied that the Bill was entirely new as compared with its original form. However, the question before the House might be said to be, whether they were in a position to go
  1954
  into Committee to consider that part of the Bill which remained practically the same, for he never would press upon the attention of the House anything which they had not had a fair opportunity of examining. His anxiety that the Bill should be proceeded with arose from the fear that, as it was the measure of private Members, and not of the Government, they would have no other day on which to consider even that part of the Bill which was quite familiar to everybody in the House. The Bill was an important one, and as it was desirable that it should not be postponed, through unnecessary delay, to another Session, he therefore hoped the House would see the propriety of going into Committee for considering the first portion of the Bill.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, his right hon. Friend who had just spoken had had a long experience in that House, and had also had experience in the Home Department, and he would ask him whether it was in his recollection that with regard to so important a measure as that such a course had ever been taken as had been taken with respect to that Bill? His right hon. and learned Friend the Recorder had brought in a Bill on this important subject, which was surrounded with difficulties, and with which various Parliaments had attempted to deal. That Bill was read a second time, with next to no discussion, on the understanding, he believed, that the principle of it should be discussed at the following stage—namely, at the stage at which the Bill had now arrived. On the day before the Bill came to be considered in Committee a series of Amendments to be proposed by the Government were put into the hands of hon. Members of the House. If those Amendments were adopted the Bill would become a totally different Bill from that which was introduced by his right hon. and learned Friend, for they filled 13 pages, and if they were accepted only 300 words of the Bill as introduced by his right hon. and learned Friend would be left. That was not the way in which the House had a right to expect that sort of business to be conducted. The criminal law was supposed to be under the superintendence of the Home Secretary, who was responsible to the House for its proper administration, and for the introduction of such measures as he

  1955
  might think requisite for its amendment. As a Member of the Government, the Home Secretary had the command of a great deal of the time of the House, and if he thought a measure ought to be introduced on this subject, he had abundant opportunity of submitting such a measure to the consideration of the House; but to allow a private Member to introduce a Bill on the subject, and, after it had been read a second time, to turn it inside out—to put a new Bill into an old framework—was a course which hitherto had not been adopted by a Home Secretary. Suppose the Bill went into Committee, and these Amendments, which would make it a totally different Bill, were adopted, the House would have lost the opportunity it might have had on the second reading of expressing its opinion on the principle of the Bill. In fact, the course proposed to be taken by the Home Secretary was practically an evasion of those Rules of the House which were made for the purpose of securing an adequate discussion of the principle of a Bill; for the only opportunity the House would have of discussing the principle of this Bill would be on the third reading—the last stage. There was no necessity for having embarked the House in this difficulty, which was entirely owing to the way in which the Home Office now appeared to abandon functions which it used to perform in that House. That was not the first time that Session he had felt it his duty to complain of the way in which the Government did business, and he hoped some change for the better would be made, and that the Home Secretary would pluck up courage and introduce on his own responsibility such measures as he thought were desirable with regard to the administration of the criminal law.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, his right hon. Friend who had just spoken was a great authority on the conduct of the Business of the House; but he ought to remember the great block of Public Business which had occurred and was continually increasing. His right hon. Friend said the Government ought to undertake the conduct of this Bill, but they had not time to do so. He could not help thinking, therefore, that the time had arrived when the House might with advantage recognize the existence of a new class of Bills—
  1956
  what he would call hybrid Bills, half Private and half Government—which, having been long under the consideration of the House, might, though introduced by private Members, and discussed in the time set apart for private Members, receive the special support and sanction of the Government. It was said the principle of this Bill was a new principle—namely, that there should be a public prosecutor; but that principle could in no sense be said to be new, for it had been admitted on both sides of the House in discussions on the second reading; all, therefore, that remained was a matter of detail, for if these Amendments had been before the House on the second reading the House would have been told that they involved questions of detail which should be dealt with in Committee. In answer to the question, whether or not there should be a public prosecutor, the House on the second reading apparently said, Yes. The question how far the appointment of a public prosecutor should be compulsory or permissive was also a question of detail—that was to say, a question for the Committee. He did not concur in all the Amendments, but they could be modified in Committee. He, therefore, hoped they would lose no further time, but proceed with the measure while they had the chance.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he must contend that with the exception of the point that a public prosecutor should be appointed, this Bill had been abandoned by its promoters. ["No, no!"] Why, it was absurd to say that the Amendments intended to be moved by the Government would not make it a totally different Bill. The Bill, instead of enacting that public prosecutors should be appointed, held out facilities for the appointment of a public prosecutor in any district that might choose to appoint one. Things would be left as they now were until a public prosecutor was appointed. What course ought to have been adopted? Without going so far as his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), who spoke as if the Order for going into Committee ought to be discharged with the view of bringing in a new Bill, he thought the Bill ought to have been committed pro formâ, in order to insert in it the Amendments of the Government. The Bill could then have been reprinted,

  1957
  and ample time might have been afforded to hon. Members to consider the Amendments of the Government; whereas, if the House went now into Committee on the Bill, the difficulty of the subject would be enormously increased through not having adopted that course. With respect to the latter part of the Bill, for instance, however desirable it might be to settle the question of costs, he did not think that on going into Committee on a Bill which did not deal with that subject was the proper time for considering it. He was quite aware how over-pressed the Government were with the number of measures they had brought in; but it was more important to have measures fully considered than to relieve by any means the Government from a burden which properly belonged to them. The Home Secretary had shown that he felt the importance of this question of public prosecutor, and that it was impossible for the Government not to intervene when a Bill dealing with such a subject was before the House. They should therefore take the full responsibility of any Amendments they might introduce.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, it was not now possible for the Government either to recommit the Bill, and reprint it in time for hon. Members to consider the Amendments, or to introduce a measure on their own responsibility. That was the advice of the authorities of the House on the question. He would admit that the proper course to take when the Government proposed numerous Amendments in a Bill introduced by themselves was to move that the Bill be reprinted, and that that was a subject which properly belonged to the Government, and that it would have been the duty of the Government to introduce a Bill on the subject, if they had had time. But the Government had charge of a great number of questions, which were certain to occupy every moment of available time at their disposal. In dealing with this subject in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee which sat upon it, it was absolutely necessary to deal with the question of fees; and they had also tried to fulfil the pledge given to the House to take some steps to relieve the counties from the treatment they now complained of as to the taxation of costs. That had necessarily involved great labour; but,
  1958
  nevertheless, it had been, he hoped, effected by the Amendments made in the Bill. It was impossible for the Government to undertake the conduct of this Bill without abandoning other measures to which they were pledged, and the Government were entirely in the hands of the House with reference to this question. If the House expressed a desire to proceed with the Bill, the Government would be most happy to facilitate its passage by every means in their power; if, on the other hand, for the reasons stated by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. G. Hardy), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), the House thought the Bill ought not to be proceeded with, the Government would be content to yield to that opinion.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he never remembered a case in which that House and the country had been less fairly treated than on that occasion, neither did he recollect a Bill with respect to which so many Amendments were proposed as in the case of this Bill, which was not committed pro formâ with the view of reprinting it with the Amendments, and thus enabling the House and the country to know what was to be debated. The alterations, moreover, which were proposed to be made in this Bill by the Government were not of a formal, but of a most material kind, and they affected the principle of the Bill. Another point was the large bribe that was offered to parties who would accept the Bill. The Bill was said to be permissive, except as regarded the Central Criminal Court; but while it was made permissive a very large offer of public money was made to all parties who would accept it, and of course there would be a corresponding disadvantage to those who did not accept it. For what was the proposal? That, in the event of a county or borough accepting this Bill, the public prosecutor would pay all the expenses, without the necessity of resorting to the funds of the county or borough, the necessary inference being that all who did not accept the Bill would be dealt with according to some capricious rule of thumb on the question of the repayment of their expenses. Such a principle, introduced by the Government in the form of an Amendment, ought of itself to have secured the re-committal of the Bill, in

  1959
  order that the country might be able to discuss and express its opinion upon it. There was another point in the Amendments which certainly ought to be considered. It was said that if anybody thought the public prosecutor was not doing his duty properly, he might apply to a Superior Court to set him aside. That was a very queer proposal. In the first place, it did not show much confidence in the people that were to be made public prosecutors. In the next, no provision at all was made about dealing with the prosecution of a criminal, while the public prosecutor and the person who complained of his conduct were contending with each other in one of the Superior Courts. Was the criminal to be handed from one side to the other, or what was to become of him? The Bill, in point of fact, had become a Government Bill, because it provided for the payment of public money, and the Government ought to appoint a day for the discussion of it. [Mr. BRUCE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head. Perhaps the Government had too many omnibuses of their own blocking up the way. He did not think the Government had taken a proper course with reference to this Bill, for they ought to have given the House a fair opportunity of dealing with what had in fact become a new Government Bill.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, he must agree with the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire that the House was hardly put in a fair position in regard to the Bill. For instance, there had been a distinct understanding arrived at by the Government that the counties should be relieved from the cost of prosecutions; but they were now to be asked to consent to another arrangement in the matter, and one to which he believed the counties would entertain a very strong objection. He also felt convinced that the House would never consent to the extensive powers given to the Secretary of State by the Bill. Another point was, that under the Bill the clerks of justices might be appointed public prosecutors, and they might carry on prosecutions in defiance of the magistrates. That was certainly most objectionable.
  MR. BRUCEexplained that under the Bill, clerks of the justices, if appointed public prosecutors, would only have the power to prosecute where offenders had already been committed for trial.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, however it might be, he was not sure the right hon. Gentleman was correct in that interpretation of the language of the measure. Again, why should they be asked to consent to fees being given for prosecutions—a thing that many hon. Gentlemen entertained a great dislike to? The right hon. Member for Oxford University had said that the only principle in the Bill was that of public prosecution; but he differed from that statement, and he thought that it was very unfortunate that the House should now be placed in a position of much embarrassment on account of the course taken by the Government.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had listened with attention to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State in order to find some guidance as to the course they should pursue; but the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have found the difficulties of arriving at a settlement of this case to be so very great, that it was not till Saturday that he had been able to place the result of his deliberations before the House. Now, if it took the Home Office so long to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on the various points involved, how could it be expected that in four days hon. Members who had to communicate with their constituents could make up their minds as to the course they should take on this important Bill? Confessedly, this was a new Bill, and if the Home Secretary had introduced it, could he have expected the House to read it a second time and go into Committee upon it within four days? The changes they would introduce were extremely important, and surely the opportunity ought to be allowed of consulting those interested in the subject throughout the country at large before the House committed itself to legislation on the subject. He thought the proper course for the House now to adopt was to recommit the Bill pro formâ, for the purpose of inserting the Amendments, and that then it should be considered at as early a day as possible.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he wished to explain, what he had not perhaps sufficiently explained before, that he felt had he moved to-day that the Bill be recommitted without giving an assurance that the Government would carry it through, he might seriously interfere with the chance which those having charge of the

  1961
  Bill had of carrying the Bill this Session; and he did not wish to take any course which might prove disastrous to his right hon. and learned Friend the Recorder by taking such a step.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he would not go back on what had been done, but would address himself to the question what was best to be done now. He was in favour of the principle of appointing a public prosecutor, though many of the details of the Bill seemed to him to be faulty, and therefore he was anxious that the Bill should be discussed. Supposing the Bill committed pro formâ, and the Government Amendments incorporated in it, would the right hon. Gentleman promise them time for its discussion—say a Morning Sitting? In that case they might still entertain the hope of carrying a Bill for the appointment of public prosecutors that Session. He objected the other morning at 2 o'clock to the Resolution by which it was proposed to sanction the expenses to be incurred by the Amendments of the Government, for he wanted an opportunity of discussing the financial arrangements under these Amendments, and he observed that the last Order of the Day was to go into Committee on that subject. He could not, therefore, hope to have the opportunity he desired; but he must say he entirely agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that very powerful inducements were held out to local authorities to appoint public prosecutors. Supposing they did so, what was to follow? These public prosecutors were to order any expenditure, sanction and check it, and actually to pay the money. Could that be considered sound in principle or satisfactory in practice? Local authorities might jump at the appointment of public prosecutors, in order to save the rates and to escape the grievance now felt in the deductions from fees and expenses made by the Treasury; but the House was bound to take care that while saving rates they were not increasing taxation unduly. He, however, saw no machinery proposed by the Government to control the lavish expenditure which would be incurred if these Amendments were agreed to, and protested most strongly against that principle. It would be far better to appoint some one wholly independent of the public prosecutor to check the expenditure. There were cases in
  1962
  every county which occasionally required a public prosecutor; he said occasionally, for as chairman of Quarter Sessions he could not say that more than two cases had occurred in several years where a public prosecutor was really wanted. What he should prefer would be that there should be certain large districts—say half a circuit—to which a public prosecutor should be appointed, who, on application of the authorities having charge of the administration of the law, should institute prosecutions where private individuals did not come forward. He agreed that in the district of the Central Criminal Court, and in large manufacturing centres, public prosecutors might be highly necessary and valuable; but he denied that throughout the length and breadth of the land they were wanted in every county and borough, and it was most undesirable to saddle the public with the expense of this officer unless he was really wanted. At all events, he insisted that there should be a taxing officer wholly distinct from those who incurred the expenditure. He hoped the arrangement he had suggested with regard to a Morning Sitting would be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman. If not, he must vote against going into Committee on this Bill to-day.
  MR. LEEMANsaid, that they were within a fortnight of the time when the Quarter Sessions were hold in different parts of the country, and it was of great importance that the Justices should have the opportunity of considering the details of this Bill. He, therefore, hoped that the suggestion to commit the Bill pro formâ would be accepted by the Home Secretary, and that a Morning Sitting should be appointed for discussing the Bill the week after the Quarter Sessions had been held. He must say, from his knowledge and experience, he did not believe that the appointment of public prosecutors was necessary in the agricultural districts. On the other hand, he did not see why a county was to be put under the pains and penalties of this Bill if it did not appoint a public prosecutor. He entirely agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) as to the bribe which was held out to counties under this Bill, for the public prosecutor was to come with the money of the Consolidated Fund, and deal with it in paying

  1963
  the expenses of prosecutions. Besides, as to the machinery proposed in the Amendments of the Government, it was of a most despotic character, and such as would require the most careful and deliberate consideration of the House. There was a clause proposing to enact that the Rules and Regulations of the Home Office on this particular subject should have all the force of an Act of Parliament. He did not agree with that. He did not say that that was a new Bill. It was a modification of several former Bills which had been introduced to the House. That was evidenced by the fact that, with regard to the Central Criminal Court, it had been deemed desirable that a public prosecutor should be appointed; while the Government, in their Amendments, had left the counties and the boroughs to adopt a public prosecutor if they thought proper.
  MR. STRAIGHTsaid, that when the question as to how public prosecutions were to be conducted was being discussed he thought they could not be too careful what sort of machinery they introduced in this Bill. Therefore, it was most desirable that they should adjourn the consideration of the Amendments which the Government proposed. He was thankful to the Government for one thing they had done, in adopting a suggestion he had made to enable clerks to the Justices to prosecute where they were paid by salary. The clerks to the Justices were generally selected from the most respectable solicitors in either town or county, and when paid by salary they were a cheap and effective machinery for conducting prosecutions ready at hand. Certain most unfair insinuations had been made against them; but he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had shut his ears to the idle nonsense people who knew nothing about the subject had talked, and proposed to avail himself of the assistance of gentlemen well qualified to fill the posts of public prosecutors. He was not quite so sure as to the policy of the proposal only to introduce the public prosecutor when the case had been committed for trial. It was in the preliminary proceedings before Justices that so many of the matters of which complaint had been made in the Press, and elsewhere, had occurred, and it was at that stage, he was of opinion, that the public prosecution would
  1964
  be of the greatest use. If the Bill was not proceeded with this Session he hoped the Government would introduce it with these Amendments as a measure of their own next year, when he would do his best to assist in making it a practical scheme.
  MR. WHARTONsaid, that taking for granted the Bill was permissive, supposing a county should not see fit to elect a public prosecutor, by whom, in such case, would the duties of the public prosecutor be discharged? If the Bill was to be a permissive Bill, and the magistrates were to have power to appoint a public prosecutor at Quarter Sessions, in many places that power would not be exercised; and, in that case, what would become of the taxing officers? Would counties be left to the tender mercies of their friends in New Street? In the county of Durham—of the Sessions of which he was Chairman—prosecutions had been well carried out, and the magistrates had never felt the want of a public prosecutor.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he wished to say a few words as to the course which had been taken with regard to the Bill, and, in doing so, must say that the discussion which had taken place would afford material assistance in the further consideration of the measure. It had been stated that the Amendments had only been placed on the Table on Friday night; and it was assumed from that, that the Government had required all the time since the second reading to elaborate their Amendments. But that was not quite correct. He had paid a great deal of attention to the Bill; but it was not a Government Bill. It had been introduced by his right hon. and learned Friend the Recorder, who had only recently returned to England, having been engaged in public duties abroad. It was necessary to consult with him how far the important changes suggested by the Government would be accepted by his right hon. and learned Friend; and when that was done, no time was lost in placing the Amendments on the Paper. Those changes, however, were not by any means of so extensive a character as had been represented. In the first place, they rather reduced and limited the scope of the Bill by restricting it, in the first instance, to the district of the Central Criminal Court; in the next place, they limited the action of public

  1965
  prosecutors to cases actually committed for trial by magistrates; and, in the third place, existing machinery was employed, for Justices' clerks, when paid by salary, would, in many cases, conduct prosecutions very effectually. With regard to the control of expenditure, it was of great importance that adequate provision should be made in the Bill; and it was a mistake to suppose that the expenditure would be at the free will of the prosecutor, and that the only check on him would be dismissal. At the present moment the Secretary of State had power to issue a scale of allowances, while, under the Bill, the tables of fees taken by clerks of the peace and clerks to the Justices would be revised. The whole system of costs would thus be under Government control, and the costs incurred would be taxed. Moreover, every clerk of assize and clerk of the peace was to give such assistance in taxing accounts as the Secretary of State from time to time might require. But if some contended, as they did, that there was no need of a public prosecutor, or of any review of local control of costs as at present practised, let them consider how these costs had been reduced since the Treasury undertook their payment, and began to revise and check the local officers' taxation. In 1848 the total cost of prosecutions formerly paid out of the local rates was £457,213. Next year it was £316,000; the following year £226,000; two years after it was £217,000; and in five years after it was taxed down to £145,000. Such was the effect of the control of the Treasury, and that central control would still be continued, for it was essential that there should be efficient control. The whole object of the Government Amendments had been to limit the operation of the Act to cases in which it was necessary, and at the same time to carry out the pledge they had given to consider the best mode in which they could relieve the counties and boroughs of the grievance of which they justly complained in having to bear the burden of the costs of prosecutions. He protested against the use of the word "bribe" in reference to what the Government now proposed. Wishing, as they did, to relieve those who now complained of their burdens, it was natural that they should propose what they had done, and what they did was a bonâ fide attempt on the part of the Government
  1966
  to meet the wishes of the House and the justice of the case. The Government could not, however, give any pledge that they would find time for proceeding with this Bill out of the time at their disposal, for the state of Public Business rendered it impossible that they could give any such pledge.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, the House was evidently not prepared to go at once into Committee on the Bill and discuss the Government Amendments; but he thought they wore prepared to allow the Bill to be committed pro formâ, in order that the Amendments of the Government might be introduced. An opportunity would then be afforded to the Justices at the ensuing Quarter Sessions to consider the scope of the Government Amendments; and the Government would afterwards, he hoped, be prepared to name a day for proceeding with the Bill, so that they might at last have some useful legislation instead of going on to the end of the Session as they had begun, with mere sentimental legislation. On the whole, in the rural districts justice, he believed, was well administered, and no public prosecutor was necessary. The Bill should, therefore, be so framed that where public prosecutors were required they should be appointed; but whether appointed or not, relieving the ratepayers from the criminal prosecution expenses from which deductions were now so unfairly made.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he did not dispute the fact mentioned by the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department that great reductions had been made in the expenses of prosecutions; but he would contend that those reductions ought not to be made; and the Judges themselves in a recent case were unanimously of opinion that many of those reductions had been unfair. Having regard to the wealth of this country, the expenses of criminal prosecutions were not excessive, and, remembering the enormous cost of the Tichborne trial, they did not contrast unfavourably with civil cases. Fifteen years ago the late Mr. J. G. Phillimore obtained the appointment of a Committee on the subject of a Public Prosecutor; and he (Mr. Scourfield) served upon the Committee. Lord Brougham gave evidence in favour of that system; but Lord Campbell said that though when he was first Attorney General he was most

  1967
  anxious for the appointment of public prosecutors, he had since found such great difficulties in the way, that he had been unable to carry out his wishes, and did not then see that these difficulties were removed.
  MR EYKYNsaid, he must point out that the opposition to this Bill proceeded mainly from hon. Members who were in favour of revising our system of local taxation. He hoped that if the Bill were now committed pro formâ, the Government would pledge themselves to take charge of it next Session, for their Amendments really made the Bill a Government measure. He should have been glad if the Law Officers had been present to assist the House with their opinions on the Bill.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he saw no reason for hurrying on the Bill that Session, and his experience of the administration of the law led him to doubt whether the change now suggested would, on the whole, be any improvement. In the Central Criminal Court, and possibly in other places, a public prosecutor might be necessary; but it did not follow that such a system, with the patronage to which it would give rise, should be applied to the whole country. At all events, the Justices should have an opportunity of discussing the Government Amendments at their next Quarter Sessions before any legislation was attempted, for it would be better to postpone its consideration for a year, than to discuss its merits at a time when they had only a very imperfect knowledge of it.
  MR. PELLsaid, that hon. Members who had taken up the subject of local taxation had no desire to prevent the appointment of public prosecutors, and he hoped the Government would give a Morning Sitting for the consideration of the Bill. If the progress of the measure was impeded at all, it was through the Amendments of the Government, for those Amendments had smothered the Bill. The excisions proposed by the Home Secretary, to be replaced by his Amendments, entirely transformed the Bill, and could only be likened to the repairs to a pair of trousers of which nothing was left but the buttons, and to which the Government had proposed to attach a pair of new legs and a seat. He could not understand why there should have been such delay in placing these Amendments
  1968
  on the Paper, for the Recorder had returned to this country six weeks ago; and the House, therefore, ought not to be now in the position of having for the first time to consider those Amendments.
  MAJOR PAGETsaid he objected to the permissive principle which had crept into the Bill, and he also thought the Bill had been so thoroughly transmogrified by the Government that it ought now to be regarded as a Government Bill. The hands of the Government, however, were so full, and the progress of their legislation was so slow, that he feared there was little hope of the Bill becoming law this Session; but he still hoped the Government would themselves grapple with the evil, instead of being content to introduce Amendments, and say—"This is no child of ours, and we cannot promise to push it forward."
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he should like to know how the system had worked in the other countries which had been quoted as examples. Scotland was being perpetually held up as a model in this respect; but a Select Committee might find evidence to prove that public prosecutors worked very unsatisfactorily. Only a short time ago one Scotch Member contended that they amounted to a practical denial of justice. In the case of Ireland the system of public prosecutors had led in a great measure to the failure of justice, owing to the want of local knowledge and to the carelessness with which prosecutions were got up and conducted. In that opinion Sir Joseph Napier and Chief Justice Whiteside concurred, and the former, in his evidence before the Committee, spoke of "the slovenly and slobbering manner" in which cases were presented, and the result was an unusual number of acquittals. So much so was that the case, that prisoners on leaving the dock free were heard to say—"God bless Her Majesty; she employs counsel nobody else would think of having." Chief Justice Whiteside also stated that although a public prosecutor in Ireland might be never so old or inefficient, he was still continued in office. In Prance, too, in which the system of public prosecutors existed, no one had the slightest confidence in the administration of justice—and the want of such confidence in the administration of criminal justice was also one of the great evils in Ire-

  1969
  land. He would suggest, therefore, that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the system as it existed in France, Ireland, and Scotland, and other countries before the system in England was given up—a system which, he believed, was the cheapest and most efficient which could possibly be devised.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, the statements which had just been made by his hon. and learned Friend had taken him quite by surprise. Some Baron Munchausen must, he was afraid, have been whispering in his ear. He, as one who had the means of knowing how the system in Ireland practically worked, could state that prosecutions were most vigorously conducted there under that system. Very able men were selected to represent the Crown in Ireland, and no prisoner there, he believed, ever returned thanks to God or to Her Majesty for having escaped conviction owing to the stupidity of those by whom he had been prosecuted. The informant of his hon. and learned Friend had, therefore, been guilty of presenting to him a gross and unwarrantable caricature of the actual state of things.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, that as one who was familiar with the conduct of public prosecutions in Ireland, he also protested against the statements which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for New Ross. The idea of a prisoner returning thanks for his escape because of the inefficiency of the prosecution might have some foundation in the past, but none whatever in the present history of Ireland, for public prosecutions in that country were now, at all events, economically and well conducted. The Crown Solicitors were most zealous and efficient public servants, and he had never known in his experience anything to lead him to the conclusion that the prosecutions were conducted in a haphazard manner. The counsel employed, moreover, were learned lawyers, who had the advantage of making the criminal law a study, and it was quite unwarrantable, therefore, to speak of the conduct of the prosecutions in Ireland as being "slobbering and slovenly." [Mr. M'MAHON: Those are not my words; they are the words of Sir Joseph Napier.] Oh, he knew all about the words "slobbering and slovenly." He had the advantage of hearing his hon. and learned Friend de-
  1970
  liver the same speech the other evening; but if these words were used by Sir Joseph Napier—for whom he had the highest respect—they could have reference only to some incidental prosecutions, and were not meant to apply to the system as worked at present. His hon. and learned Friend had also fished up some old story about a prisoner leaving the dock saying, "God bless Her Majesty" for employing stupid counsel, or something to that effect; but he should like to know where his hon. and learned Friend got the story. [Mr. M'MAHON: From the O'Conor Don.] Well, it was not a bit better because it came from another man. He would have to get the authority of the O'Conor Don; but he objected to his hon. and learned Friend drawing on the stories of 50 years ago. All he could say was that the system of public prosecutions in Ireland worked economically as well as efficiently, and he hoped that England would soon follow the example of Ireland in establishing the system.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, that seeing that the principle of the Bill was all but universally approved, he would not trouble the House with many words with respect to it. In reply to the objection of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse), that the question was being hurried on, he would only say that it had been before the House and the country for nearly 20 years, and that on the Select Committee which had sat to inquire into the subject were the Lord Advocate, the Attorney General for Ireland, and the English Attorney General of the day, all of whom were warmly in favour of the appointment of a public prosecutor. At the same time, there had been a series of Amendments proposed which naturally complicated the question, although he was of opinion they were much more simple than seemed to be supposed; and he did not, under the circumstances, think it right to ask the House to proceed with the Bill in Committee in the ordinary way. What he should suggest, therefore, was that the House should go into Committee pro formâ, that Progress should immediately be reported. He should like, then, to see the Bill recommitted in the ordinary way with the Amendments; and he was sure the House would be glad to be afforded an opportunity during the present Session of passing a measure which

  1971
  would be satisfactory to the country. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department might find it convenient to fix a Morning Sitting with that object.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he hoped that, as the Bill would in its altered shape be a new one to most hon. Members, there would be an opportunity of discussing its provisions on going into Committee when it next came on.
  SIR HERBERT CROFTsaid, he trusted the Bill would not be proceeded with until after Quarter Sessions were over, and contended that in the county which he had the honour to represent a public prosecutor was not at all required. His constituents were opposed to centralization, and wished to be allowed to do their own work.
  SIR DAVID SALOMONSsaid, he wished to know in what position the Clerks of Justices Bill would stand in the event of the arrangement proposed with respect to the measure under discussion being carried into effect?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, there would be no objection on the part of the Government to the passing of that Bill if they had themselves no prospect of dealing with the question as part of a larger measure. As to the Bill before the House, there were one or two Amendments to the Bill on the Paper which the Government would feel bound to oppose; but he believed that the measure generally was a good one, and so far from the day having been wasted by the discussion which had occurred upon it, he remembered very few Wednesdays this Session which had been more profitably employed. When the Amendments proposed had been inserted, and the Bill was reprinted, the Government would take into consideration the possibility of giving a day for its discussion. There were measures of great importance, however, still to be dealt with, such as the Scotch Education Bill and the Mines (Coal) Regulation Bill, to which the hon. and gallant Member for Sussex would not, he was sure, say the word "sentimental" was applicable; and it would, therefore, be rash in him to make any definite arrangement with regard to the progress of the present measure. The Government, however, in the event of their not being able to deal with the Bill this Session, would do so next.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 203]; re-committed for Wednesday 3rd July.

BASTARDY LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
(Mr. Charley, Mr. Thomas Hughes, Mr. Eykyn, Mr. Whitwell.)
BASTARDY LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL 109.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. CHARLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the Committee which sat upon the subject of Infanticide last year examined many important witnesses, including the Recorders of Manchester and Middlesex and Mr. Serjeant Relf, who had had great experience in cases of infanticide, and who brought Margaret Waters to justice. That Committee recommended that the bastardy laws should be amended for the better protection of infant life; and it was from that point of view that he now desired to approach the subject. The chief object of the Bill was to enlarge the discretion of the magistrates with regard to the granting of bastardy orders. Under the existing law, if a seducer absconded to the colonies or to a foreign country the mother of the illegitimate child was perfectly helpless; and from the evidence of Mrs. Main, the excellent lady superintendent of the Refuge for Deserted Mothers and their Infants in Great Coram Street, it was found that in only 3 per cent in 1,000 of these cases did the father contribute anything towards the support of his bastard children. It was proposed by the Bill that at any time within 12 months after the return of the seducer proceedings might be taken against him before the Justices, provided he had absconded within 12 months after the birth of the child. By the existing law a hard-and-fast line was fixed with reference to the amount to be awarded to the mother of the bastard child, and in ordinary cases that amount was rigidly limited to 2s. 6d. per week; but the evidence before the Committee showed that it was quite impossible to maintain an infant for a week upon so small a sum, and that that rigid limitation led to infanticide. The mother had this alternative placed before her—either to maintain her child or to destroy it, for otherwise she could not possibly go to service. She could not maintain her child, and so she de-

  1973
  stroyed it. Again, under the existing law the mother could only recover for 13 weeks of arrears, and if she married her husband was obliged to support her bastard children. The last-mentioned provision was a direct restraint on marriage, and was therefore contrary to public policy. It was proposed by the present Bill to alter these two points in accordance with the sentiments of humanity and of justice. Then under the law of 1834 the mother was liable for the maintenance of her bastard child until it attained the age of 16 years; but her bastardy order, if she obtained one, expired when the child attained the age of 13, and it was now proposed to do away with that anomaly. Again, if such a child became chargeable to the rates, under the law of 1844 the guardians were unable to relieve the ratepayers of the cost of its maintenance; but an alteration was made in that respect by an Act passed in 1868, and now the guardians could attach the money obtained under the bastardy order in the hands of the mother for the relief of the ratepayers. It was proposed by the present Bill to extend that principle. If the mother did not take action under the existing law, there was no way of relieving the ratepayers. It was now proposed to give to the guardians, as was the case in Ireland, the power of initiating proceedings for the relief of the ratepayers; but the amount to be obtained by them would be rigidly limited to the amount necessary for the actual cost of the maintenance and education of the child. There was one other provision in the Bill which happened to correspond with a proposal which the Government had made, which was that the age of girls to which criminal liability for their seduction should attach should be raised from 12 to 14 years. Under the existing law consent might be shown where the girl was more than 12 years of age; but it was now proposed to raise the limit of age, during which consent would be immaterial, to 14 years. Unfortunately, in many cases, seduction occurred between the ages of 12 and 14. He maintained that the result of this amendment of the law would be two-fold—it would cause a decrease in infanticide, because the mother would be able to put out her child to nurse, under the Infant Life Protection Bill, with a respectable
  1974
  woman and go out to service herself; and it would also decrease immorality by exposing the seducer to the liability of paying for his illegitimate offspring; and penalties upon the seducer were more likely to discourage immorality than severe and oppressive laws upon the seduced.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Charley.)
  MR. LOPESsaid, he was not aware that any measure of this kind was required; and he certainly thought that some limit ought to be fixed, in Committee on the Bill, to the amount for which the putative father of the child should be held liable. It would be extremely unwise to invest the magistrates with an unlimited discretion in these cases.
  MR. HURSTthought that some amount of discretion, at all events larger than they possessed at present, ought to be given to the magistrates. Indeed, he thought that unlimited power might be given to them with great safety, for they would not be likely to abuse it. With regard to the age to which criminal liability should attach for seduction, he approved of the provision in the Bill, and he thought it might well be applied in cases of indecent assault. It was absurd to talk of the "consent" of a child of eight or ten in such cases.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he trusted the promoter of the Bill would consent to limit the discretion of the magistrates as to the allowance to be made to the mother of a bastard child, for care should be taken not to hold out inducements to a woman to allow herself to be seduced because the whole maintenance of the child would be thrown on the father.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that as one connected with a public institution which had to deal with questions of this nature, he did not think the Bill went far enough, because the difficulty of a woman recovering anything for the injuries done her were now almost insuperable. Gross cases of seduction came under his notice for which there was little or no remedy—a state of things which he hoped would soon be removed.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, that the great sufferers in such cases were the women, and he thought that an unlimited discretion might be left to the magistrates

  1975
  as to the amount of allowance to be given by the father of an illegitimate child, for he thought they could very well judge whether or not the mother was an abandoned woman, and give their award accordingly.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he would at once admit that on that subject it was natural that the feelings of hon. Members should go with the suffering party; but he trusted the House would regard the matter in reference to the general interests of society. If hon. Members looked back to the investigations which were made before the introduction of the New Poor Law and to the evils which existed then, they would be cautious how they moved on the path which might lead to similar results, and how they took too wide steps in the interest of one party, which might have the effect of encouraging the very vice they wished to put an end to. In 1834 there were many persons who arrived at the conclusion that the old law on the subject required to be abolished, on the ground that the payments made to the mothers of illegitimate children were conducive to immorality, and instances were adduced where women, who had transgressed two or three times, were actually sought in marriage on account of the endowment resulting from the orders granted by the magistrates. He stated that circumstance in order to prevent the House rushing rashly to a conclusion on this subject. With regard to the Bill, he thought the two first clauses very complicated and difficult to be understood; but there were points in the Bill well worthy of consideration in Committee, and he therefore deemed it desirable that the Bill should be read a second time. He, however, warned the House not to yield to the rash conclusions to which the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) appeared inclined to yield.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he was of opinion that the Bill deserved the favourable consideration of the House, for there could be no doubt that women in these cases were entitled to more than they now received.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he thought the thanks of the country and of that House were due to the hon. and learned Member for Salford for introducing the measure. At the same time, though he considered the sum which a magistrate
  1976
  could order to be paid to the mother of a bastard child was at present too small, he trusted the House would not be induced to go too far in a contrary direction. He thought that provision might be made in the present Bill to enable women to follow up the fathers of their bastard children, for at present they were put to great expense in that attempt, and trusted that the question of criminal assault would not be mixed up as proposed by the Bill with the question of seduction, which belonged to a totally different branch of the law.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he had great pleasure in congratulating the hon. and learned Member for Salford on the reception which his Bill had met with, and although he thought the warning of his right hon. Friend (Mr. G. Hardy) well worth listening to, yet, speaking his own individual opinion, he was prepared to go so far as to say that the time had come when they ought to review the former Poor Law Acts on the subject of affiliation orders. The points raised by the Bill were all worthy of discussion, and there was hardly any one of them on which some amendments in the existing law might not be made. There was much to be said against any arbitrary limit on the amount of allowance to be awarded by the magistrates; but in dealing with cases of summary jurisdiction, it would be well to consider whether some limit might not be imposed in that respect, or some right of appeal given in the event of any extravagant allowance being ordered. He saw no objection to the proposal that when the mother of a bastard child had not obtained an order from a magistrate, the Poor Law Guardians might get an order and apply the proceeds to the maintenance of the child. He was glad to give his support to the principle of the Bill; but he reserved for himself liberty of action when the Bill came to be discussed clause by clause in Committee.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the present bastardy laws had very much to do with the fearful increase of infanticide; and was glad that though the House had elected in one way to check that evil, that they were now about to do that, which in another direction would have a much greater effect in stopping that fearful crime. It was impossible to look at the bastardy laws without seeing that they bore very hardly on

  1977
  women, and he was glad to see any attempt in the direction in which it was now proposed to go, for he felt certain that since the enactment of the existing law 35 years ago, though the births of illegitimate children had decreased, the crime of infanticide had increased in a far greater proportion. It was impossible to consider the position in which these poor unfortunate women were placed without feeling that the law held out a temptation too strong for human nature to stand against. He was, therefore, glad that an attempt was made to amend the law, for they must all regard with shame and horror the amount of infanticide which had occurred during the last two years. He trusted that the present and other measures would tend to check that crime and to relieve the country from the disgrace which rested on it.
  DR. BREWERsaid, the maintenance of bastard children fell too heavily on local rates; but he thought that unlimited power as to the allowance to be paid by the fathers of bastard children should not be given to the magistrates.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday 12th July.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT ABOLITION BILL— [BILL 156.]
(Mr. Bass, Mr. Robert Fowler.)
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT ABOLITION BILL— [BILL 156.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. M. T. BASS, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, alluded to the present condition of the subject with which the Bill proposed to deal. During the year 1870, he said, there were between 900,000 and 1,000,000 actions for small debts under £50, nearly 600,000 being for debts not exceeding 40 s. These actions resulted in 160,000 executions and the imprisonment of 6,700 people. During the year ending last September there were 602 prisoners for debt in Stafford Gaol, whose maintenance cost the country £370, and for whose conveyance to gaol the Consolidated Fund was charged £361 4s. The total amount of the debt in 100 cases was £47 18 s. 4d., so that the county might have saved 5s. for each prisoner by paying the debts before the summonses were issued, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer £35 at least, and
  1978
  perhaps £82 10 s. The Judge of the Derby County Court was the only one of 60 County Court Judges who concurred in the necessity of abolishing imprisonment for debt. But that gentleman had assured him that it cost him much misery to send these poor people to gaol, when they had no idea of the obligations they had incurred. Not only that, but the maintenance in prison of persons on account of small debts was, in a majority of cases, greater than the total amount of their debts, while their families were thrown on the Union for support. In cases which had been brought under his notice, one man had been imprisoned 14 days for 1s. 10 d., another 10 days for 2s. 11 d., another 30 days for 16 s., and another 40 days for 11 s. 1d. But a man who had been imprisoned for 40 days might be sent back to prison again two days after his liberation for another period of 40 days, so that this power of imprisonment was virtually without limitation. Moreover, the present system was not alone costly, but it was highly injurious, because not one in 50 of those persons who were imprisoned ever recovered the position they had lost. There was a number of cases of imprisonment for debts of 1s., and in April last a man between 70 and 80 years of age, who was a cripple, was imprisoned for a debt of 8s., next for 12 s., and a third time for 9s.; while an unfortunate sweep of Tunbridge Wells, 70 years old, a pauper, who owed 2s. 6d., had been actually taken out of the Union workhouse and sent to Maidstone Gaol under one of these orders of imprisonment. The expense to the county in such a case could not have been less than 30 s.; what it cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would not say; but, at all events, it could not be regarded as anything else than a serious waste of public money. The House was aware that there was no imprisonment for debt from the Superior Courts; and therefore they could come to no other conclusion than that there was one law for the rich and another for the poor. ["Oh!"] That very morning he had an interview with the Lord Chancellor, who had been good enough to inform him that there was no imprisonment from the Superior Courts, except where the matter bore the character of a crime. Did his hon. Friend who said "Oh!" just now mean that poor people who were sent to gaol were criminals?

  1979
  Why, he could prove before a Select committee that many of the men who were sent to gaol did not even know why they were sent there. Well, then, if it were right and good to abolish imprisonment for debt for sums over £50, why not for sums under £50? He was convinced that there was no system of a more vicious character than that of imprisonment for small debts. A publican could not recover for debt, and the existing arrangement tended to encourage drunkenness, because as a man could not get credit at the public-house he spent all his ready money there, while the baker who gave trust had to send the man to gaol, sell up his goods, and ruin his family. He was intimately acquainted with Mr. Daniel, County Court Judge of Burnley, in Lancashire. Mr. Daniel, being dissatisfied with the punishment he had hitherto imposed, had announced that in future when a case for imprisonment was made out he should commit for 40 days. As a reason for adopting that course the County Court Judge stated that he had ascertained from the Under Sheriffs in Yorkshire and Lancashire that many debtors went to prison at Lancaster or York at the expense of the Consolidated Fund, merely for the purpose of amusing themselves. Their practice was, after they had cost the county perhaps 30 s., to pay the small debt for which they had been arrested, and on being liberated they spent the rest of the day in visiting the Minster and other places in the city. But if foolish people acted in this manner it could not be tolerated that their conduct should be made an excuse for trifling with the liberty of the subject. He had conversed with half the Judges of the Superior Courts on this subject, and he had not met with one who was not decidedly opposed to the present system of leaving the exercise of this power of imprisonment for an unlimited time to the discretion—or, as he said, the indiscretion—of County Court Judges. It was said that the people who were sent to gaol for debt were "good for nothing," and not what they ought to be; but he found that a vast number of actions for small debts were for amounts owing on account of Bibles; and he thought people who bought Bibles were not likely to be of such a character as to deserve imprisonment. He thought, on the contrary, that the County Courts
  1980
  were kept up at a cost of £500,000 a-year for the purpose of collecting the debts of Scotch tallymen, and he had received a letter from a friend of his stating that the system was a curse, and that an Act was required to mitigate the evil of imprisonment for debt. He had been waited on by a deputation from the Linendrapers Mutual Protection Society in opposition to the Bill; but they acknowledged in the course of the conversation that in Scotland, where some of them came from, they could not imprison for debt under £100 Scots, and that not the county, nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the creditors themselves paid the expense of maintaining in prison the person whom they imprisoned. For that reason it was very obvious why there were so many Scotch tallymen in England running all over the country. He had received a communication with the farewell address of the gentleman who had, until within the last few days, been at the head of the Exeter County Court, and he said that in the exercise of his somewhat arbitrary power of imprisonment for debt his predecessor had imprisoned 120 men in the course of a year; but he himself had reduced the number to 7. It was said that if the Bill became law, the poor man would have no chance of obtaining credit. That was the very thing he wanted to insure. The labourer at present would have no difficulty in saving a certain moderate sum to enable him to go to market, and if a man went with cash in his hand he might buy at 30 per cent less than if he asked for credit. Between 6,000 and 7,000 men were annually sent to prison and ruined by the existence of this law, and the question was one of such tremendous import that sooner or later the House would have to deal with it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Bass.)
  MR. LOPES, in rising to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that every County Court Judge except one affirmed that if the Bill became law the vitality and efficiency of County Courts would be destroyed, and that from the day of the passing of the Bill County Courts might be as well abrogated altogether. In almost every case the person who was imprisoned could

  1981
  pay the debt. If the hon. Member for Derby had understood the practical working of the matter, and had received correct information about it, he would never have advocated this principle. Was it not a principle of common honesty that a man who had incurred a debt, and had received the benefit of the debt, and had money in his pocket to pay it, should be compelled to do so? Yet what the hon. Gentleman proposed was to take away that power which the County Courts possessed of sending to prison a man who was proved almost to demonstration to be able to pay. He denied altogether the dictum which had been ascribed to the Lord Chancellor by the hon. Member, and would refer him to the 5th section of the Debtors Act of 1869, to show that there was no difference between Superior and Inferior Courts in the matter of the law of imprisonment for debt. He would also draw attention to the very careful way in which the Legislature had guarded that power of imprisonment. It could only be exercised after judgment, provided the Judge was satisfied that the debtor had the means of paying the debt and did not do so; and before the Judge could make an order for the judgment summons the debtor was called upon to show cause why the order should not be made upon him. If he did not appear the Court would not proceed to make an order in his absence, but the employer would be summoned, and called upon to give satisfactory evidence whether the debtor had the means, and persistently refused and neglected to pay. So careful were the County Court Judges that very frequently they made an order for imprisonment, which, however, was "to be suspended for the space of a week;" and in most cases the money was paid before the term of imprisonment arrived. The Bill, moreover, was not supported by working men, because they knew that in the event of sickness their baker and grocer would not give them credit if the security of imprisoning was withdrawn. He held in his hand the concurrent testimony of 59 County Court Judges, who were all opposed to the Bill, and he would instance the opinions of five of them, which were to the effect that there would be no adequate means of enforcing the judgment if the power of imprisoning was abolished.
  MR. NORWOOD, in seconding the Amendment, said, the whole subject was discussed thoroughly a few Sessions ago, when our bankruptcy laws were revised. It was an error to speak of the power of arbitrary arrest, which did not exist in respect of 5s. any more than it did for a debt of £50; the procedure was the same in both cases, and in both there must be a judgment, and in default a judgment summons. It ought to have been stated that the 6,700 persons who were imprisoned were but the residue of 137,000 ordered to be imprisoned, the remainder having paid under the pressure put upon them by the order. There were about 20 Acts under which justices could commit in default of the payment of penalties, and why should we exempt from imprisonment those who refused to pay for the necessaries of life? If this Bill passed men would go with impunity past the door of the tradesman who had trusted them, and spend their money at the public-house. The Bill ought to be called one for the promotion of dishonesty and fraud.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Lopes.)
  MR. RODEN, in supporting the second reading of the Bill, said there was not a single man in prison for a very large debt, but there were men in prison whose original debts did not exceed 5s. The ratepayers, moreover, ought not to be called upon as they were to pay large sums of money to assist certain persons to carry on their business, for he did not admit that the abolition of imprisonment would stop legitimate credit, but only illegitimate credit—credit incurred by a man's wife really without his authority. In short, the present system was a relic of barbarism, and no man ought to be imprisoned for non-payment of a debt, and for that reason he warmly supported the Bill.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he could not forget that, when it was proposed to abolish hanging for theft the objections of the Judges and their predictions of evil were stronger than the objections and predictions of County Court Judges on this subject; and, indeed, as a rule, Judges were very reluctant to part with any authority. In this matter the rich and the poor did not practically stand

  1983
  upon the same footing, for you seldom or never heard of a man being sent to prison because he owed £100; and it was a great mistake and a misfortune, when the law was changed, that all classes were not put on the same footing. It was, further, a great injustice to the poor that they were more easily committed for non-payment of a debt than those who owed large sums; and the injustice was aggravated by the fact that the imprisonment might be perpetual.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, they could not but be obliged to the hon. Member for Derby for the statistics he had brought before them. It was a lamentable thing that so large a proportion of the male population should be committed to prison in a year, and their dependents pauperized; and, indeed, the very fact that men had been in prison was an injury to their future prospects, and it was undoubtedly a hardship that ratepayers should have to support in gaol men who were imprisoned for debt. He did not think that the objections to the Bill, although very serious, were by any means conclusive. As to it tending to stop credit, it would be most beneficial if it stopped credit being given by certain persons who went about the country selling things to the wives of working men; but he did not believe that the Bill would stop legitimate credit. He thought, however, that the subject required further inquiry before they could legislate upon it; besides there were different laws in England, Ireland, and Scotland upon the same subject, and upon a question of this kind legislation ought to be uniform for all parts of the United Kingdom.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 136: Majority 102.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for three months.

  GAME LAWS.
  Instruction to the Select Committee on the Game Laws, to inquire into the Laws for the protection of deer in Scotland, with reference to their general bearing upon the interest of the community.—(Mr. Hunt.)
  House adjourned at Five minutes before Six o'clock.