Sitting of 7 August 1885

MINUTES.
RESOLUTION [August 6] reported—East India (Revenue Accounts).
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Report—Third Reading—County Officers and Courts (Ireland) (Pensions) [112]; Registration Appeals (Ireland) [259], and passed.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Criminal Law Amendment [257]; Sea Fisheries (Soot-land) Amendment [258], and passed.
Withdrawn—Tramways Order in Council (Ireland) * [243]; Turbary (Ireland) * [146],

QUESTIONS.

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1876— VIVISECTION LICENCES—DR. E. E. KLEIN.
  MR. FIRTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Dr. E. E. Klein, whose name appears in the last annual Return (for the first time) as a licensee and the holder of a certificate, under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, for experiments on living animals without anesthetics, is the person of that name who was examined before the Royal Commission of 1875, and then stated (Questions 3539, 3541, 3544) that he had no regard at all to the sufferings of animals when performing experiments without anæsthetics?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS), in reply, said, that he believed the licence was granted early in 1884, and that the gentleman was the same gentleman that was referred to in the Question.

  PERU AND CHILI—THE PERUVIAN BONDHOLDERS.
  MR. WILLIAMSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,

  1447
  Whether the proposed action of Her Majesty's Government on behalf of Peruvian bondholders has been suggested to them by any Foreign Power; whether it is the case that, in commenting on its contents, in a letter to the chairman of the bondholders, dated 24th November 1884, Lord Granville expressed general satisfaction with the Note of the Chilian Government of 5th June 1884, and made citations from it which clearly pointed to the necessity for first legally establishing the claims of creditors in the tribunals of Chili; whether the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has, in his letter of 28th July 1885, assumed the existence of a valid hypothecation of territory or property without its having been legally established; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will, in the circumstances, agree to reconsider the course they had proposed to take, so as to avoid disturbing friendly relations with Chili, and indirectly injuring our commerce with that country?
  SIR HENRY TYLER: Before my right hon. Friend answers this Question, I should like to ask him whether he is aware that the bon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Williamson) is a member of the firm of Williamson, Balfour, & Co., of Valparaiso; whether he is aware of the relations of that firm to the Chilian Government with regard to contracts and other matters and to the proposed loan; and, whether he is aware that the hon. Member for St. Andrews is familiarly known as the hon. Member for Santiago, Chili?
  MR. WILLIAMSON: I must appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of Privilege. The hon. Member for Harwich (Sir Henry Tyler) put the same Question to me, when I last year put a Question to the then Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He put exactly the same Question, and insinuated that I, as a member of that firm in Valparaiso, had dealings and contracts with the Chilian Government. I beg, Sir, to let you and the House understand that I am a partner of that firm, and that we have never had any contracts or business relations with the Chilian Government, and that I put this Question as a matter of public- interest.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE): It is not for me to reply to the Question of my hon. Friend behind me (Sir Henry Tyler).
  MR. WILLIAMSON: But, Mr. Speaker, is there not an infringement of Privilege on the part of the hon. Member opposite (Sir Henry Tyler)? Because I answered the Question last year, and he knows perfectly well——
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Williamson) has put himself quite right with the House in making the statement he has made, and I do not think there is any necessity for any further notice being taken.
  SIR. HENRY TYLER: I shall be very happy to bring forward my authority for the statement on which my Questions are founded.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE: As regards the first part of the Question of the hon. Member (Mr. Williamson), I have to say that I do not think that I should be justified in stating, at the present time, what diplomatic communications have taken place on the subject of the joint representation made to the Chilian Government. As regards the second part, I cannot say that I assent to the interpretation placed by the hon. Member on the letter referred to. That letter merely says that—
  "Her Majesty's Government, while not conceding the soundness of all the propositions put forward in the Chilian reply, accept with satisfaction the assurance contained in it, that the position of the creditors of Peru in relation to the ceded territory, and as affected by the cession, will be equitably considered by the Chilian Government."
  As regards the third part, the letter referred to contains no assumption of legal rights, but merely states facts. As regards the last part, Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that there is nothing in the course which they have taken calculated to disturb friendly relations with Chili, or to injure our commerce with that country, and that no circumstances have been shown which call for a reconsideration of the matter.
  MR. WILLIAMSON: With reference to the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given me, I am perfectly satisfied with his reply to the second paragraph of my Question, and I hope—[Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. WILLIAMSON: I have to ask that before those representations—[Renewed cries of "Order!"]—are sent out to the Chilian Government—the joint re-

  1449
  presentations of the Powers—["Order!"]—I have to ask whether the Government will not more fully consider this whole matter? He has admitted——[Renewed cries of "Order!"]
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE: I have said already that Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that there is no need for any reconsideration of the matter.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE X.— THE VARNA-RUSTCHUK RAILWAY COMPANY.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any steps have been taken to call the attention of the Bulgarian Government to the obligations imposed on that country by the 10th Article of the Treaty of Berlin, in her relations with the Varna Railway Company; if it is the case that the Bulgarian Government is now indebted to this Company in the sum of £980,000; and, whether any offer has been made to discharge this debt or any portion of it?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE): The attention of the Bulgarian Government has been repeatedly drawn to the obligations imposed on Bulgaria by the 10th Article of the Treaty of Berlin. The Correspondence on the subject will be found in the Blue Book No. 13, of 1884, where it will be seen that the amount of the claim is disputed by the Bulgarian Government. The last offer made by Bulgaria has been rejected by the Company. Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that the best course would be to press for the reference to the Ambassadors at Constantinople, as provided for in the Treaty of Berlin, and which was agreed to by Bulgaria in 1881. Difficulties, however, of a material character have hitherto arisen as to the terms of reference under this engagement, and the matter is still in course of arrangement between the Company, the Bulgarian Government, and Her Majesty's Government.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE 4TH ROYAL IRISH FUSILIERS (CAVAN MILITIA)—MAJOR LIONEL BROOKE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for War, How many days has Major Lionel Brooke, of the 4th Royal
  1450
  Irish Fusiliers (Cavan Militia), been absent with and without leave from headquarters, between the training of 1884 and the training of 1885; and, if it is true that this Officer is in the habit of being absent without leave from Saturday to Tuesday at Brookeboro' in almost every week, and whether such absence is approved by the authorities; if Corporal Caddin, of B Company Cavan Militia, has been refused re-enrolment by Major Lionel Brooke, and on what grounds and under what section of Military Law this Non-Commissioned Officer was brought before the Bounty Board and fined 2s. 6d. at last training of his regiment; if it is the intention of the authorities to dispense with the services of Captain Somerset Maxwell, he having been absent from the training of his regiment, the Cavan Militia, during 1884 and 1885, and also absent the greater part of 1883; under what circumstances was Lieutenant Dease, of the Cavan Militia, permitted to draw Captain's pay during the last training of his regiment, he not having been at that time promoted to be Captain; and, whether this officer left Cavan without discharging in full his lodging-house account?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Inquiries have been made on the subjects in the later paragraphs of the Question; but sufficient time has not elapsed since the Question was placed on the Order Book for replies to have been received. As regards the first paragraph, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply on the 3rd instant.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked if the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that Major Brooke was absent with leave?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATEsaid, he did not know; but he had no doubt Major Brooke had authority for his absence.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—CHARGE OF INTOXICATION AGAINST THE SCHOOLMASTERS OF THE BELFAST WORKHOUSE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What steps the Local Government Board for Ireland have taken regarding the report furnished them,

  1451
  about two schoolmasters of the Belfast Workhouse named Madden and M'Guinness, who were seen in a helpless state of drunkenness in the streets of Belfast on the 14th July 1885; is it true that, although Madden was assisted by some friends through a back entrance into the workhouse on this date, to the knowledge of the head schoolmaster and other officials of the workhouse, as well as several paupers, no report of Madden's condition was made to the Guardians; is it true that Madden offered a written explanation to the Guardians of his misconduct, and that the Chairman of the Board directed him to withdraw it, so that the document would not require to be entered on the minutes of their proceedings; is Madden the same person who was convicted at the Belfast Petty Sessions of drunkenness and using party expressions; and, is it desirable that schoolmasters of this class should be continued in office; and, if not, what steps will be taken in relation to these two teachers?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): No such Report as that mentioned in this Question has been furnished to the Local Government Board. I understand that anonymous letters containing a charge of this kind against these two schoolmasters have been sent to the Chairman of the Board of Guardians, and to the Local Government Board, who have both very properly declined to take notice of communications of that character.

  EDUCATION (IRELAND)—INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL AT BALLAGHADARREEN, CO. MAYO.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will now issue a certificate for the Industrial School for girls which the Catholic Bishop of Achonry desires to establish at Ballaghaderreen, county Mayo?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): No, Sir; the utmost I could do would be to promise that this case should be considered with others when next year's Estimates are being framed; but I feel that I would not be justified now in saying anything which would encourage the promoters of this or other schools to incur expense in anticipation of the possibility of receiv-
  1452
  ing a certificate. It must be borne in mind that numerous applications of this kind are made to the Government by benevolent persons in different parts of the country, the majority of which must, of necessity, be refused.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, With reference to the forty-nine years annuity of £4, which, under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill, is to be the price paid to the State for £100 in land; and, whether the annuity in its entirety is under the 5 and 6 Vic. c. 35, s. 60, to be subject to the deduction of Income Tax by the debtor of the State, in which case the State would lose the amount of the Tax on the whole of its capital invested in the land, or whether, following the precedent of 16 and 17 Vic. c. 34, s. 42, it shall be made lawful for any person paying such annuity to deduct and retain thereout the Duty computed on the interest included in such annuity, and no more?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: A tenant taking advantage of the provisions of the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill will in no case be entitled to deduct Income Tax on the annuity in its entirety; because such an annuity consists not only of interest, but also of a repayment of the principal. On so much, however, of the annuity as represents interest, the tenant will have a claim, if duly assessed, to deduct Income Tax by analogy to the 16 & 17 Vict., c. 34, s. 42. The proportion which consists of interest, and which has to be retained, will have to be determined, either by legislation, as in the Irish Church Amendment Act, 35 & 36 Vict., c. 90, or by Treasury authority, as in the case of loans under the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act, 1880. The attention of the Inland Revenue Board has been called to the matter, and before any repayments under the Land Purchase Bill are made it will be determined in what way the point raised should be met.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked whether the same rule would be applied to all Terminable Annuities?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir; I can only undertake to deal with this question.

  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON DEPRESSION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY— MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD, who had the following Question on the Paper:—
  "To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he can now state the names of the Commissioners in the Royal Commission on Trade Depression; and, whether the Memorandum will be communicated to the House before the end of the Session?"
  said, he would postpone the Question till Monday, when he would ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not make a statement simultaneously with that of Lord Iddesleigh to the House of Lords?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he thought it would be much more convenient that hon. Members should see what Lord Iddesleigh's statement was, that noble Lord having been throughout in charge of this matter; and then, of course, after that statement was made, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should be prepared to answer any Question that might arise out of it.

  LOTTERIES ACT—FOREIGN LOTTERIES.
  MR. CLARE READasked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been called to an advertisement of a Foreign lottery in The English Labourer's Chronicle, headed "A Fortune," in which the labourers are invited to speculate on the chance of winning prizes; whether such a publication is contrary to the Lotteries Act; and, whether, upon a re-appearance of this or similar advertisements, proceedings will be taken against the publishers and proprietors of the newspaper?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied) said: In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the lottery in question is contrary to the Lottery Acts, and renders the printer and publisher liable to a penalty of £50. An action to recover the penalty can only be brought with the sanction of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. In reply to the second part of the Question, my answer is that upon the re-appearance of such advertisements, if the hon. Member or any of his friends desires to sue for these penalties, if they put themselves in communication with
  1454
  me I shall be happy to allow them to use my name in the action on certain conditions.

  POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, What course the Government mean to take on the Amendment of the Lords in the Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) Bill, maintaining the vote by proxy at Poor Law Elections in Ireland, and on the Amendment maintaining the strength of ex-officio members on each Board of Guardians at one-half the total number of the Board instead of one-third, the proportion adopted by this House?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): Having regard to the late period of the Session, and the protracted discussions these Amendments are likely to give rise to, there is no hope of giving an opportunity of dealing with them. Perhaps, under the circumstances, the hon. Member having charge of the Bill will move that the Order be discharged.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he would move to discharge the Order, and would give Notice that next Session he would introduce a Bill to make Boards of Guardians in Ireland entirely elective.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, that it was proposed by the Government to take the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill as first Order that day. How was it that it was the ninth Order on the Paper?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF the EXCHEQUER: The simple reason is that there is no chance of dealing with the Bill at all to-night. What I said was that if the Criminal Law Amendment Bill was not finished last night it must necessarily be taken as first Order to-day, and after it the Housing of the Working Classes Bill. It would be obviously impossible, therefore, to proceed with the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill to-night.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Why not proceed with it to-morrow?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: To-morrow will be Saturday, and I should be very reluctant to ask the House to meet to-morrow; but if the Criminal Law Amendment Bill is

  1455
  finished to-night, and the second reading of the Housing of the Working Classes Bill be taken, the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill will be the first Order for Monday.
  MR. SEXTONasked, if the Housing of the Working Classes Bill was finished at a tolerably early hour—say, by 1 o'clock—would the Government ask the House to go into Committee on the Bill, and name the two Gentlemen who are to be the Commissioners?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that it would be inconvenient for the House to leave it uncertain whether they would proceed with the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill or not that evening; but he would consult with his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the Commissioners be named?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: We have undertaken to give the two names before we go into Committee.

  AFRICA (EAST COAST)—GERMAN ANNEXATION AT ZANZIBAR.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which he had given private Notice. He had received a telegram from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, expressing great anxiety with reference to the report in The Times of that day, as to the annexation by Germany in the neighbourhood of Zanzibar. He wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman had any information to give to the House on the subject?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE), in reply, said, if his hon. Friend had given him Notice he would have endeavoured to answer the Question. He had seen the telegram in The Times; but he did not think he was justified in answering without Notice. He had no information whatever with respect to this matter.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDgave Notice that he would put the Question down for Monday.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—FLOODS IN COUNTY CLARE.
  THE O'GORMAN MAHONasked the Financial Secretary to the Trea-
  1456
  sury, Whether the Irish Government are aware that great damage has been and is being caused by the overflow of swamps, and the consequent flooding of agricultural and pastoral lands in the district of Kilkee, county Clare; and, whether the Government will immediately cause the Board of Works to institute a competent inquiry, with a view to ascertain the nature and extent of the damage, and to decide whether the State can aid the occupiers of the district in executing drainage operations?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): No complaints on this subject appear to have been received. The Government have no legal power to take any such action as is suggested in the Question of the hon. Member until the Board of Works are put in motion by persons locally interested. If that course is taken inquiries will, no doubt, be instituted without delay.

  ARMY—RAILWAYS IN WAR TIME.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, having reference to recent experience in the Soudan, as well as to previous cases in which Officers and men of the British Army have been required for the purpose of constructing and working Railways in time of War, he will now take into consideration the question of systematically training the Officers and men of the Royal Engineers for the construction, working, and superintendence of Railways in time of war?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): There is no doubt that recent operations in the Soudan have afforded valuable experience as to the construction and working of military railways. Two strong railway companies have been already formed in the Royal Engineers; and a Departmental Committee is now sitting which will consider, together with other subjects, the question of the employment of the Corps of Royal Engineers on railway duties.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)— STATE OF THE RIVER LEA.
  MR. DANIEL GRANTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been

  1457
  directed to the present unsanitary condition of the River Lea, as depicted in the columns of The Standard; and, having regard to the part played by that river in one of the serious outbreaks of cholera in the Metropolis, whether it is his intention to take any steps to avert the possible recurrence of the like danger?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, that he had already answered a similar Question, the reply being to the effect that a loan for works to euro the insanitary condition of the River Lea had already been sanctioned, and, pending the completion of those works, temporary works were in progress.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) ACT—THE ASSISTANT REVISING BARRISTERS.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is yet in a position to name the Assistant Revising Barristers about to be appointed under the new Registration Act in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): If the hon. Member will put this Question to me on Tuesday next I shall probably be in a position to give him the information.

  ARMY—THE CLOTHING DEPARTMENT —MILITARY TEMPORARY CLERKS.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Secretary of State for War, If, while the ordinary established Civil Service clerks in the Clothing Department receive about 10 s. a-day, it is the fact that the Military temporary clerks receive only 4s. a-day; and, if he would favourably consider the case of these latter with a view to ameliorating the position of these old soldiers?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. S. NORTHCOTE): Military temporary clerks receive the rates of pay laid down by the Royal Warrant. Instead of 10 s. a-day, the temporary clerks of the lower division employed at the clothing factory receive, on the average, less than 7s. a-day; but the conditions of service are altogether different, and comparison cannot be made justly between the respective classes.

  ARMY—LIMERICK ARMY CLOTHING FACTORY.
  MR. SEXTON(for Mr. PARNELL) asked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether the work executed on contract for the Army at the Limerick Army Clothing Factory costs less than similar work done at the Government Clothing Factory in Pimlico; whether the existing contracts now being executed by the Limerick Factory will be completed about the end of September, and whether, as a consequence of this and of the absence of fresh Government contracts, about a thousand hands are likely to be thrown out of employment in the city of Limerick, while the hands of the Pimlico Factory will be maintained in full work; and, whether, under these circumstances, the Department will give the Limerick Factory sufficient work to keep their hands employed during the winter months on the same terms as in the Government Factory at Pimlico?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. GUY DAWNAY): Work executed at the Limerick factory usually, but not invariably, costs less than work executed at Pimlico. In their latest contract for kersey frocks and tweed trousers, the Limerick prices exceeded in a marked manner those of Pimlico; at the rate of production which has obtained since April, it will be the end of October before the Limerick factory will have sent in all the clothing for which they have contracts. By that time it will be practicable to see to what extent further contracts can be given to Limerick; but, as regards reduction of workpeople, a large reduction will have to be made at Pimlico, and Limerick can scarcely hope to escape one also.
  MR. SEXTON: Are we to understand that, if the work can be done cheaper than at Pimlico, Limerick will not suffer?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL: Yes; Limerick will not suffer at all.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—INCLOSURE AT REGENT'S PARK.
  MR. DANIEL GRANTasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether Ms attention has been drawn to a statement in "The Echo" of Saturday last, that a portion of the land in Regent's Park, lately restored to the public, has

  1459
  been again inclosed; and, whether such statement is correct; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): A portion of the land adjoining the ornamental water in the Regent's Park has been railed off, in order to lessen the risk of children being drowned by going too near the edge at a place where the bank is rather steep, and also in order to secure a resting place for the wild fowl. A similar course has been adopted in other London parks, and I quite approve of such precautions being taken; however, having carefully investigated the matter myself, I think that rather more space has been reserved for these purposes than was absolutely necessary, and I have given directions that it should be reduced, so as to leave as much of the grass to the public as possible.

  POST OFFICE—REGISTRATION OF TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESSES.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Postmaster General, Whether, under the Telegraph Acts Amendment Bill, any alteration would be made in the existing system of registration of addresses for telegraphic purposes?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS): It is not proposed to make any alteration in the charge or the system for the registration of addresses.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1884—POLICE ENFRANCHISEMENT.
  MR. COLERIDGE KENNARDasked, Why a Question did not appear on the Paper that he had given Notice of as to whether the late Attorney General adhered to his statement that the House was unanimous in objecting to the clause in favour of police enfranchisement he (Mr. Coleridge Kennard) brought forward on the Representation of the People Bill, when the fact was that he withdrew it, and no division was taken?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he had the terms of the Question before him, which related to past debates in the House. Such a Question would be irregular.
  MR. COLERIDGE KENNARD, in explanation, said, the Question was in allusion to the right hon. and learned
  1460
  Gentleman's (Sir Henry James's) remarks on Monday.
  SIR HENRY JAMES, in making a personal explanation (by leave of the Speaker), said, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Coleridge Kennard) questioned the accuracy of the statement that the House had unanimously expressed an opinion against embodying the principle of police enfranchisement in the Representation of the People Bill. Now, that statement he (Sir Henry James) adhered to and emphasized. In Committee on the Registration (Occupation Voters) Bill, on the part of the late Government, he had stated the objections to the enfranchisement of the police in answer to the Motion of the hon. Member for Salisbury that the police should be enfranchised; and while speaking the signs of assent in the Committee were so marked that he made his observations very briefly. As soon as he brought his observations to an end two hon. Members rose to their feet. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was successful in his claim to address the House first, and he said that he had
  "reached a state of happiness which he never expected to enjoy of being able to concur with every word uttered by the Attorney General."
  The hon. Member for Salisbury then spoke, and he said that, after what had been stated in reply to his Motion, he desired to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the clause, and the House unanimously gave him leave to do so. That appeared to him (Sir Henry James) to represent a state of unanimity on the point—one much better expressed than by taking a division, under which he did not see that unanimity could have occurred; and, therefore, he felt justified in stating that the House unanimously expressed an opinion on the subject of police enfranchisement by rejecting the Motion of the hon. Member.

  THE SUEZ CANAL—THE PARIS CONFERENCE.
  MR. MONKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will state to the House what decisions were arrived at by the Conference held at Paris in reference to the Suez Canal; and, whether any Papers on the subject will be presented to Parliament before the Prorogation?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE): It would not be possible, within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary Question, to give the information asked for by the hon. Member. But the Papers are being prepared with the utmost despatch, and will be presented before the Prorogation. No definite decision has yet been arrived at by the Conference.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].— [Bill 241.]
  (Secretary Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].— [Bill 241.]

    CONSIDERATION. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    [SECOND NIGHT.]
    Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, resumed.
    Clause 1.
    MR. HOPWOOD MR. HOPWOOD moved an Amendment, providing that the Act should come into force on the 1st day of January, 1886.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 6, by inserting after the word "Act," the words "shall come into force on the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six, and."—(Mr. Hopwood.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he saw no reason why they should not begin to punish these crimes as soon as the Bill was passed, instead of allowing them to go, as they would if he accepted the Amendment, unpunished all through the winter. He, therefore, could not accept the hon. and learned Member's proposal.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendments made.
    Clause 2.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 12, by leaving out the word "character," and inserting the word "reputation,"—(Mr. Warton,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question, "That the word 'character' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 17, by inserting after the word "prostitute," the words "or of known immoral character."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS), in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 18, to leave out from "procure" to "intent," in line 23, both inclusive, and to insert—
    "(3) Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom, with intent that she may, for the purposes of prostitution, become an inmate of a brothel elsewhere; or (4) procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom (such place not being a brothel) with intent that she may, for the purposes of prostitution, become an inmate of a brothel within or without the Queen's dominions,"
    said, it was the re-casting of the clause which they had undertaken to effect when the Bill was in Committee.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 18, by leaving out from the word "procures," to the word "intent," in line 23, both inclusive, and inserting the words—
    "(3.) Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom with intent that she may, for the purposes of prostitution, become an inmate of a brothel elsewhere; or
    "(4.) Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom (such place not being a brothel), with intent that she may, for the purposes of prostitution, become an inmate of a brothel within or without the Queen's dominions,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    MR. WARTONsaid, he would propose to amend the Amendment by the omission from Sub-section 3 of the words "for the purpose of prostitution." No right-minded Englishman would allow a woman or girl to be carried away even to become a servant in a brothel.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That the words—
    '(3.) Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave the United Kingdom with intent that she may, for the purposes of prostitution, become an inmate of a brothel elsewhere; or
    '(4.) Procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to leave her usual place of abode

    1463
    in the United Kingdom (such place not being a brothel), with intent that she may, for the purposes of prostitution, become an inmate of a brothel within or without the Queen's dominions."
    be there inserted."
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in lines 2 and 3, leave out "for the purposes of prostitution."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he was not at all disposed to stand by the words which the hon. and learned Member for Bridport proposed to strike out.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he thought that the words ought to be retained as a safeguard against the clause imperilling persons to whom it was not right that it should apply.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment amended accordingly.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
    In line 3, by leaving out the word "elsewhere," and inserting the words "without the Queen's dominions,"—(Mr. Warton,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question, "That the word 'elsewhere' stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
    In line 4, by inserting, after the word "woman," the words "under the age of thirty-one years."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 5, by leaving out the words "such place."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question, "That the words 'such place' stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, in moving to insert in page 1, line 26, after the word "labour," the following new paragraph:—
    "Provided, That no person shall be convicted of any offence under this section upon the evi-
    1464
    dence of one witness, unless such witness be corroborated in some material particular,"
    said, that in the class of offence dealt with by the section false swearing was extremely probable, and that the precedent of the Bastardy Acts should be followed in requiring the corroboration of the principal witness in some material particular. When this subject was under discussion before, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department said it was unnecessary to mate such a provision, as no Judge would allow a prisoner to be so convicted. The right hon. Gentleman had no sooner made that statement than the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite the late Attorney General (Sir Henry James), the hon. and learned Member for West Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill), and the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) got up and gave a totally different account of the action of the Judges under the circumstances supposed. That being so, he hoped Ids right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would accept his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 26, by inserting after the after word "labour," the words—"Provided, That no person shall be convicted of any offence under this section upon the evidence of one witness unless such witness be corroborated in some material particular."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he thought it would be well, on the whole, if the House accepted the Amendment of the right lion, and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). It applied only to Sub-section 2; but it included not only the doing of certain acts, but the attempt to do them, and the offence therein might be committed in conversation with a woman. It was desirable, therefore, in order to prevent false charges being made, that there should be corroboration. If a person did an overt act the corroboration could always be supplied, and it was the law in Scotland.
    MR. ELTONsaid, he quite agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General on the point, and hoped the Amendment would be agreed to.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the Government had considered this matter fully, and they were prepared to accept the Amendment. While adopting every means to punish these offences, they must take care to prevent injustice being done.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, the charge might be maliciously made by an immoral woman. He would, therefore, suggest that words should be added making it clear that the corroboration had relation to the charge. He should therefore propose to add to it the words "by testimony tending to implicate the accused." The corroboration should certainly be of that character.
    Amendment proposed, by adding at the end of the said proposed Amendment, the words "by testimony tending to implicate the accused."—(Sir Henry James.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton were rather vague, and suggested that the addition should consist simply of the words "by evidence implicating the accused."
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he would accept the Amendment of his proposed Amendment as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther).
    Amendment (Sir Henry James) to the said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, by adding at the end of the said proposed Amendment, the words "by testimony implicating the accused."—(Mr. J. Lowther.)
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 3.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 2, by leaving out from the word "intimidation," to the words "any person," in line 6, inclusive, and inserting the words—" procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to have any unlawful carnal connection either within or without the Queen's Dominions;
    "(2) By false pretences or false representations procures or attempts to procure any
    1466
    woman or girl, not being a common prostitute or of known immoral character, to have any unlawful carnal connection either within or without the Queen's Dominions,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    —instead thereof.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That the words,—
    'procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl to have any unlawful or carnal connection either within or without the Queen's Dominions;
    "(2) By false pretences or false representations procures or attempts to procure any woman or girl, not being a common prostitute or of known immoral character, to have any unlawful carnal connection either within or without the Queen's Dominions,'
    be there inserted."
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 1, leave out "attempts to procure."—(Sir Eardley Wilmot.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
    In line 1, by inserting, after the word "woman," the words "under the age of thirty-one years."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
    In line 5, by inserting, after the word "woman," the words "under the age of twenty one years."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 4, by leaving out the words "or attempt to procure."—(Sir Henry James.)
    Question, "That the words 'or attempt to procure' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. STANSFELD MR. STANSFELD moved to amend the clause by providing that it should be an offence to administer, or cause to be taken for immoral purposes, by a girl, intoxicating liquors, as well as

    1467
    drugs, so as to stupefy or overpower her. He would point out that intoxicating liquors might be given to a girl to such an extent that she might be overpowered by it.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, by inserting, after the word "any," the word "liquor."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'liquor' be there inserted."
    SIR HENRY JAMES, in opposing the Amendment, said, that particular point had been very fully discussed in Committee, and the conclusion then arrived at was that it would be dangerous to accept the Amendment. What they must look to primarily was the intent with which the accused person acted.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 90: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 274.)
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 9, after the word "overpower," to insert the word "her."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question, "That the word 'her' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Amendment made.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, he had now an Amendment to propose in the clause to meet cases which were omitted from the Bill, but which he thought should be included in it. Houses of ill-fame were recruited by the importation into them of young women and servants, who did not know the real character of those places when they went to them. He, therefore, proposed to make it an offence for a person either knowingly to induce any woman or girl to become an inmate of a house of ill-fame, she not knowing it to be such a house, or to induce any woman or girl, not being a common prostitute, to enter a house of ill-fame, she not knowing it to be such a house, with intent that she should have unlawful commerce with any person.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 10, after sub-section (2), to insert the words—"Or (3) knowingly induces any woman or girl to become an inmate of a brothel, she not knowing the same to be a brothel, or induces any woman or girl not being a common prostitute to enter a brothel, she not knowing the same to be a brothel, with intent that she shall have unlawfule arnal connection with any person."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought that the proposed Amendment was either covered by the words "false representation" already in the Bill, or that it went too far. Unless a person induced a woman by some false representation to go to a place that would tend to destroy her character that person ought not to come under the Criminal Law.
    MR. ELTON, in moving to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting after "common prostitute" the words "or person of known immoral character," said, that when a girl came to a London railway station the kidnapper did not tell her—"I will find a respectable lodging for you." The kidnapper would be more artful, and would say—"I will find a lodging for you," without saying it was "respectable." It was desirable that when a girl went to a situation or a lodging she should go to it with her eyes open.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
    In line 3, by inserting, after the word "prostitute," the words "or person of known immoral character."—(Mr. Elton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he had the strongest hope that the Government might see their way to accept this subsection. Many girls, especially servants, were taken to houses not knowing they were brothels. The Amendment endeavoured to put a stop to one of the most frequented avenues of procuration.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, that several hon. Members professed to know a great deal on the subject; but he should like to know where they obtained their information? The House was handling this matter in a very light-hearted way, and showing great ignorance of law and morals. The words used would apply to persons of either sex; and many of the women it referred to were often capable of acts of kindness towards each other and others of their sex. It might, therefore, be that, while intending an act of kindness to another person, they might be brought within the scope of

    1469
    the clause. He wished to know, therefore, whether the Amendment was intended to prevent a woman of the class of unfortunates from taking to her house, from motives of compassion, a sick girl or woman? No proposal was made in the case of hotels; and it appeared to him that the House was legislating in a sanctimonious, Pharisaical spirit, which it would regret when its legislation came into force.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he wished to point out that false accusations could readily be made under the proposed sub-section. If a man took a woman "not a common prostitute or person of known immoral character" to a brothel, although she knew where she was going, she might afterwards, for the purpose of levying black mail upon him, turn round and accuse him of taking her to a place she did not know to be a brothel. He considered that nobody would be safe under the clause, unless a person provided himself with a witness beforehand to prove that he did give the required caution.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he was afraid the sub-section might be going too far. It might be made the means of false accusations by turning silence as to the nature of a house into a crime, and such a thing as a penalty on silence was unknown to the law. He thought it would be safer to confine the crime to making some false pretence, such as saying that the place was a respectable and proper one for the woman to enter. In cases where a false pretence was made they could rely on the first part of the clause. They had better content themselves with that, and not go so far as was proposed.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITHsaid, he strongly supported the proposed subsection, which he considered reasonable and necessary.
    Amendment proposed, in line 5, by inserting, after the word "have," the word "any."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question, "That the word 'any' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Question put, "That the words,—
    'Or (3) knowingly induces any woman or girl to become an inmate of a brothel, she not knowing the same to be a brothel, or induces any woman or girl not being a common prostitute, or person of known immoral character, to
    1470
    enter a brothel, she not knowing the same to be a brothel, with intent that she shall have unlawful carnal connection with any person,'
    be there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 71: Majority 22.—(Div. List, No. 275.)
    Clause 4.
    On the Motion of Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 26, after "labour," insert, as a separate paragraph—
    "Any person who attempts to have unlawful carnal knowledge of any girl under the age of thirteen years shall he guilty of a misdemeanour, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour;"
    line 32, after "offenders," insert—
    "And the said Act shall apply, so far as circumstances admit, as if the offender had been convicted in manner in that Act mentioned;"
    and line 37, at end, add—
    "The court may also order the offender to be detained in custody for a period of not more than seven days before he is sent to such reformatory school."
    SIR HENRY JAMES SIR HENRY JAMES moved to insert at the end of the clause a sub-section to the effect that when a girl, upon whom an offence under the Act is charged to have been committed, does not understand the nature of an oath, her evidence may be received, though not upon oath, if, in the opinion of the Court or Justices, such girl understands the duty of speaking the truth, provided that no conviction shall take place on such evidence unless it is corroborated by other testimony.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 37, at end of Clause 4, to insert the words—"Where a girl, in respect of whom an offence under this section is charged to have been committed, in the opinion of the court or justices before whom the charge is heard, does not understand the nature of an oath, her evidence may be received, though not given upon oath, if, in the opinion of such court or justices, such girl shall be possessed of sufficient intelligence to justify the reception of her evidence and understands the duty of speaking the truth: Provided, That no person shall be liable to be convicted of such offence unless the evidence of such girl implicating the accused shall be materially corroborated by other testimony."—(Sir Henry James.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. WHITBREADsaid, he would suggest that the Amendment should be extended to "any other person who is tendered as a witness" with the same requirement of corroboration of such evidence. He contended that the evidence of a child should also be admitted on behalf of the accused person, and had placed an Amendment on the Paper to that effect. The same rule should apply to all parsons giving evidence. It could not be right to admit a class of evidence on the accusation and to reject it when tendered for the defence.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, that he had opposed the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General's Amendment in Committee on the ground that it introduced a new principle into English law. But he had had the opportunity of consulting the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate upon the operation of the Scotch law, which admitted such evidence as the Amendment proposed to admit. His right hon. and learned Friend assured him that no difficulty or risk had arisen in consequence of the Scotch law, which was practically the same as that proposed in the Amendment. In those circumstances he would support the Amendment; but he was inclined to think that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) was preferable, because, if the evidence of a child was to be taken as against the accused, he saw no reason why, in fairness, a child equally young should not be allowed to be called as a witness for the accused.
    MR. ASHERsaid, he also supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). He had intended to vote against that of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James); and even if it had been carried he should have been prepared to move that it should not apply to Scotland, because it would undoubtedly restrict, rather than extend, the effect of the existing Law of Evidence in that country. He had had for many years practical experience of the working of the system in Scotland; and he was bound to say, as the result of his own experience, that the evidence of young children was a most material and valuable aid in a great number of cases to the ascertainment of the truth; and that, he believed, was the opinion of lawyers in Scotland generally.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he thought it would be better for the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Henry James) to withdraw his Amendment, and let the hon. Member for Bedford's Amendment be moved as a substantive one.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he should support the original Amendment, and oppose the extension of it suggested by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). He could not help thinking that to allow a child other than the complainant to give evidence otherwise than upon oath would be a source of serious danger to the accused.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he thought the feeling of hon. Members was rather in favour of the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Whitbread); and he would withdraw his sub-section in favour of that of his hon. Friend, which, however, he should propose to amend by adding a Proviso at the end.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 37, at end, to insert the words—"Where, upon the hearing of a charge under this section, the girl in respect of whom the offence is charged to have been committed, or any other person who is tendered as a witness, does not, in the opinion of the court or justices, understand the nature of an oath, the evidence of such girl or other person may be received, though not given upon oath, if, in the opinion of the court or justices, as the case may be, such girl or other person is possessed of sufficient intelligence to justify the reception of the evidence."—(Mr. Whitbread.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    On the Motion of Sir HENRY JAMES, the following Amendment made to the said proposed Amendment:—
    "Provided, That no person shall be liable to be convicted of the offence unless the testimony admitted by virtue of this section, and given on behalf of the prosecution, shall be corroborated by some other material evidence tending to incriminate the accused."
    Amendment, as amended, further amended, and agreed to.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITH, in moving to add words at the end of the Amendment to enable the statement of a child of tender years made by her before the committing magistrate, and taken down in writing at the time, to be used at the trial, said, the reason that he proposed this further Amendment was that frequently a little child might lose its memory of the facts before the trial came on.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the foregoing Amendment, to add the words "and the court may, for the same purpose, allow a similar statement made by her before the committing justice or magistrate, and taken down in writing at the time, to be used for the same purpose at the trial."—(Mr. Samuel Smith.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he regarded this further Amendment as being most dangerous. In the case of a false charge being brought, it would be most unfair to the accused that the statement should be received without the child being produced and cross-examined. In such a case no man would be safe, and would be at the mercy of any person who chose to coach up a child to give evidence in support of a false charge.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he also thought that the Amendment might have very dangerous consequences. In considering the Bill they had to guard as much against conspiracies being brought against innocent men as against the offence sought to be a stop to.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he thought that the Amendment should not be rejected without fair consideration. After a few months the facts would fade away from the child's memory like a dream, although, at first, her statement might bear the impress of truthfulness. Of course, it would be necessary that the statement should be corroborated.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he had always understood that it was better that several guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should be convicted; and it appeared to him that, if this Amendment were to be carried, the danger of convicting innocent persons would be largely increased. The Scotch law contained no pro vision of this kind.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that if he had had any idea that this rider was to be added to it he would have had no hand in framing the clause. He would remind the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) that the examination of the child before the committing magistrate might not take place until months after the charge was brought.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he should vote against the whole clause
    1474
    if this fantastic addition were made to it.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. HOPWOOD, in moving an Amendment to the effect that a witness whose testimony had been received without oath should be liable to indictment and punishment for perjury in all respects as if he or she had been sworn, pointed out that an indictment for perjury was the only Court of Appeal open to a man who had been wrongfully convicted of charges of this nature.
    Amendment proposed to Sir Henry James's Amendment, as amended, at end, add—
    "Provided also, That any witness shall be liable to indictment and punishment for perjury in all respects as if she had been sworn."—(Mr. Hopwood.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid that, as far as he was concerned, he should be glad to see the words added—not that it was desired to punish the child, but in order that the accused should have every opportunity of establishing his innocence. He would, however, prefer to amend the Amendment, so as to make it run as follows:—"Any witness whose evidence has been admitted under this section shall be liable," &c.
    Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, in line 1, after "witness," insert the words "whose evidence has been admitted under this section."—(Sir Henry James.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. BROADHURST, in moving the following Proviso:—
    "Provided on the trial of any person whose age does not exceed sixteen years, if it is proved in evidence that he has, through inability to procure better accommodation, habitually slept in the same room with other persons of both sexes, the court before passing sentence shall take such circumstances into consideration,"
    said, he wished the House thoroughly to understand the importance of the proposal he was then making, and would, therefore, ask hon. Members to study it well while he was speaking in support of it. If there was overcrowding in our large cities, society and the

    1475
    State were responsible for it to a larger extent than the poor victims of the crime. Therefore, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) to give as favourable consideration to the provision as possible; for he could not imagine that the members of families brought up under the conditions in which thousands of families in this country were, unfortunately, born and brought up for the greater part of their lives could really be expected to possess as high a code of morality as children brought up in the well-to-do houses of well-to-do parents. He had no hesitation in saying that if the Bill passed without some Proviso of this kind a great and grave injustice, if not a crime, would have been inflicted upon the poorer classes of society. The evils of overcrowding were fresh in the minds of the public, especially to those Members of the House who served on the recent Royal Commission; and it was amazing to him, considering the circumstances in which the poor lived, that morality amongst them was so high as it was. The truth was that large numbers of persons belonged to a class of society plunged in misery and pressed by starvation, and that they could not place themselves under any better conditions. He hoped the House would assent to the introduction of the Amendment; for though some Judges might, without it, consider these palliating circumstances, others might not.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, at end of Clause 4, to add—"Provided on the trial of any person whose age does not exceed sixteen years, if it is proved in evidence that he has, through inability to procure better accommodation, habitually slept in the same room with other persons of both sexes, the court before passing sentence shall take such circumstances into consideration."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he perfectly recognized the feelings which, had prompted the hon. Member (Mr. Broadhurst) in making this proposal; but he was sorry to say he could not support the Amendment, and thus make a different law for the rich and for the poor. It appeared to be a shallow and popular idea among many persons out-of-doors that the Bill would
    1476
    chiefly affect the rich and the profligate seducer of the poor man's child; and it was upon that assumption that an agitation had been got up, and much inflammatory language had been used. That was, however, a mistake. It was the poorer and humbler class that would be affected by the Bill; and he had no hesitation in saying that for one case in which a rich man would be affected there would be thousands, and, he might say, tens of thousands, of cases in which the poorer classes would. At the same time, there was no doubt that the evil of overcrowding was the direct cause of many of the results they all deplored. Still, while sympathizing with the important observations of the hon. Member, they could not decide that the Bill should apply to the rich, and not to the poor; that was a distinction which they could not draw, and he saw no means of making any safeguard of the kind suggested. He, therefore, opposed the proposal of the hon. Member, on the ground that its insertion would make a distinction between classes, and this would infallibly ruin the usefulness of the measure. The greater part of the seductions of poor men's children took place in their own homes and in their own neighbourhood, for many of them were brought up without any conception of purity.
    MR. WHITBREAD, in supporting the Amendment, said, he believed there could be no doubt that the Court would take into consideration circumstances such as had been referred to by the hon. Member for Stoke. He should be glad to see it inserted in the Bill, if only as a protest against overcrowding, and as a public acknowledgment that so long as the present conditions continued, under which the working classes as regarded their dwellings existed, immorality must ensue, and such scenes could not be avoided. He thought it would be well to insert the clause, as soma Judges might otherwise not consider the circumstances in mitigation of punishment.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITHsaid, he thought the House would do well to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst). One of the main causes for the introduction of the Bill was the deep sense of injustice done by rich debauchees to the daughters of the poor.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he entirely endorsed what had been stated by the hon. Member for Stoke with reference to the wretched condition of the surroundings in which the children of the poor in London and other large towns were brought up; and he hoped that before many hours were over the House would be able to advance a Bill whose object was to take a small step in the direction of ameliorating this state of things. He also recognized, and it was a matter of surprise to him, in the course of the inquiry held by the Royal Commission into the Housing of the Working Classes, to find the high standard of morality which prevailed among the population of the poorest parts of London. While recognizing that there was a great deal of misery and the existence of certain moral offences peculiar to an overcrowded population, he did not see what could be done in the matter. He had had conversations with the hon. Member (Mr. Broadhurst) on this point, and it was a matter which he himself had considered with great care. They had to consider, however, the manner in which such a clause as this would work. Take the case of a boy brought up by bad parents amid the worst surroundings. He committed a theft; why? Because he had been brought up to look upon the commission of such an offence as an ordinary occurrence, and in carrying out which he committed no infraction of the law. The same consideration held good with regard to offences of violence, and the fact was that the sins of the fathers were visited on the children. They must begin, as well as they could, by improving the education of the children, with the object of bringing about an improvement in their morals. While he would have been anxious to recognize mitigating circumstances in the Bill, he thought it would be better to leave such matters to the Judge. If he thought there were any Judges who would not receive evidence on this point, and would not consider a condition of overcrowding as a circumstance to be weighed in passing sentence, he would not oppose the Amendment. But he had had some experience as to the motives which weighed with the Judges of the land in passing sentences, and he was convinced that they would take into consideration
    1478
    all mitigating circumstances which could be produced in evidence regarding the commission of these offences, and he was therefore convinced that the clause was unnecessary.
    MR. WOODALL, in supporting the Amendment, trusted that the last word had not been heard with regard to this proposal. He hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Broadhurst) would take a division on his Amendment, and thus enter a protest which might not be without its effect in the administration of the law.
    MR. WILLIS, in supporting the insertion of the Amendment, said, that in the ease referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) the young lad was really not responsible at all, as what he did was the result of the evil circumstances in which he was born and in which he lived.
    MR. TOMLINSONwished to remind hon. Members that the primary object of this Bill was the protection of women and girls, and that the clause now under consideration dealt with the punishment of odious crimes. Parliament was surely not going to stultify itself by withdrawing the protection intended to be given on the ground of the unfavourable conditions under which the perpetrator of the crime might have lived.
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he felt a certain amount of difficulty in looking at an offence as excusable under any circumstances; but, on the other hand, he recognized that they were taking a step just now for the protection of the daughters of the poor, and he did not wish to shut his eyes to the circumstances under which the poor lived. He was prepared, therefore, to support the Amendment as an addendum to the clause. There could be no doubt that the miserable condition of the housing of the poor was the great cause of this evil; but he must say that the amount of guilt was also very unequal between the rich and the poor in this matter. When a man, fully educated, well instructed, and comfortably brought up, preyed upon little girls of the poor, he considered him an offender of a different character from the men who were indicated in this discussion, and whose offence they were endeavouring to extenuate in some degree by such a clause as this.
    MR. HOPWOOD, in opposing the Amendment, said, that, if adopted, it would, as standing by itself, make the Judges think that the circumstances of it were the only circumstances present to the minds of the Legislature, shutting out all others, and making that the sole case in which the House declared that mitigating circumstances should be taken into account by the Court, and would tend to disturb the balance of justice as between one class and another; for it would not apply equally to the sons of rich persons who were misled, as well as to the sons of the poor. He thought that in all cases the Judge should take into account whatever mitigating circumstances might arise in the case before him, therefore it was far better left to him.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 63: Majority 43.—(Div. List, No. 276.)
    Amendment proposed, to add, at end of Clause, the following Proviso:—
    "Whereas doubts have been entertained whether a man who induces a married woman to permit him to have connection with her by personating her husband is or is not guilty of rape, it is hereby enacted and declared that every such offender shall be deemed to be guilty of rape."—(Mr. Thomasson.)
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he protested against this clumsy and haphazard mode of reforming the law, which, he maintained, was discreditable to their intelligence.
    THE SECRETAEY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he had no objection to offer to the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. WARTON, in whose name several subsequent Amendments stood on the Paper, said that, after the extraordinary action of the Government in accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Thomasson), with regard to a clause with which it had nothing whatever to do, he (Mr. Warton) would move no further Amendments.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 5.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 3, after the word "labour," to insert the words—"Provided, That in the
    1480
    case of an offender whose age does not exceed sixteen years, the court may, instead of sentencing him to any term of imprisonment, order him to be whipped, as prescribed by the Act of the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth Victoria, chapter eighteen, intituled an 'Act to amend the Law as to the whipping of Juvenile and other Offenders,' and the said Act shall apply, so far as circumstances admit, as if the offender had been convicted in manner in the said Act mentioned; and if, having regard to his age and all the circumstances of the case, it should appear expedient, the court may, in addition to the sentence of whipping, order him to be sent to a certified reformatory school, and to be there detained for a period of not less than two years and not more than five years.
    "The court may also order the offender to be detained in custody for a period of not more than seven days before he is sent to such reformatory school."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he feared that detention in a reformatory might utterly ruin young men who chanced to make a mistake.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he objected to the Amendment.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, that as the Amendment was objected to be had no wish to press it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMON, in moving an Amendment to leave out the Proviso, which stated that it should be a sufficient defence if the person charged reasonably believed the girl to have been above the age of 16, said, that by such a Proviso they were legalizing a breach of the law, and giving express encouragement to immorality. It was saying to a person who took his chance of breaking the law or not—"We will protect you in case it should turn out that you have broken the law." There was no instance of such a provision in any other case of the kind where age was a material fact.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 10, by leaving out the words "Provided, That it shall be a sufficient defence to any charge under sub-section one of this section, if it shall be made to appear to the court or jury before whom the charge shall be brought, that the person so charged had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was of or above the age of sixteen years."—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he could not assent to the Amendment. It would be most dangerous to pass the clause without the Proviso.
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he was in entire agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon).
    Question put, and agreed to.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDON(for Mr. MORGAN LLOYD), in moving, as an Amendment, in page 3, after "years," to insert—
    "Or that the girl at the time of the commission of the alleged offence was a prostitute,"
    said, that the girl might be the greater offender of the two.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)in opposing the Amendment, said, the ground of the Bill was that the girl was to be protected. The House had raised the age from 13 to 16, and the meaning of that was that a girl of 16 should be protected in the same way as it was before proposed to protect a girl of 13.
    MR. HOPWOODsupported the Amendment.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the House and the country would understand that, if they inserted the age of 16 in the Bill, not only would girls under that age be prevented from pursuing the trade of prostitution, but they would also be prevented from pursuing other trades. No man who had young sons would ever employ in his house any girl under 16. They ought to understand the bearing and operation of the Bill.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he should not regret if the operation of the Bill had the effect indicated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt), because he believed that girls were sent into service very much too early.
    MR. M'COANsaid, that the object of the promoters of the Bill was to protect young girls who were chaste, and he thought a distinction should be drawn in this connection between prostitutes and chaste girls.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, that the remark of his right hon. Friend (Sir William Harcourt) would apply to the age of 15 as much as to the age of 16. It was not simply because girls between
    1482
    13 and 16 years of age could not, in every case, protect themselves, that they wanted to do what they were doing today. What they contended was, that it was against the interests of morality, against the interests of society, and against the interests of the State, that juvenile immorality and prostitution should exist. He, and those who thought with him, were prepared in their minds to go a step further, and say that a girl of such years should not be entitled to consent.
    MR. TOMLINSON, in supporting the Amendment, said, that if it was not adopted some provision ought to be inserted in the Bill with the object of clearing the streets of juvenile prostitutes, and sending such girls under the age of 16 to industrial schools or reformatories.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he was given to understand by the police authorities that, if the Contagious Diseases Acts were properly worked, there would not be a girl under the age of 16 on the streets.
    MR. JAMES STUART, in objecting to the Amendment, said that, if adopted, it would have the effect of invalidating the Bill in one of its essential features, by giving a legal sanction to juvenile prostitution, which it was one of the objects of the measure to repress. In that event the Bill would not deal with juvenile prostitution at all. If the evil had been reduced by the Acts referred to, it had been reduced by immoral means; if it were chocked by this clause, it would be cheeked by moral means. Those iniquitous Acts would be repealed by the wave of public opinion, which insisted on dealing with the beginning of the evil rather than with the outcome of it. The law should deprive these children of their means of living, and society should, at the same time, come to their rescue.
    MR. STOREYsaid, he must warn the House against striking a serious blow at the objects nearly every hon. Member had in view by passing clauses which, by their very stringency, would make the measure stink in the nostrils of reasonable men. He believed that the danger in the way of rendering legislation of this kind unsuccessful arose from the enacting of too stringent provisions.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, that the clause, as it stood, would operate unequally in the case of two men committing the same moral offence, if one girl was under age and another not.
    MR. PICTONurged that the Amendment was absolutely inconsistent with the main objects of the Bill.
    MR. VILLIERS STUARTsaid, that if this Amendment were accepted it would have the effect of giving a kind of legal sanction to juvenile prostitution, and defeat one of the primary purposes of the Bill.
    Amendment amended, by inserting the word "common," before the word "prostitute."
    Question put, "That the words 'or that the girl was at the time of the commission of the alleged offence a common prostitute,' be there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 82: Majority 71.—(Div. List, No. 277.)
    MR. HOPWOOD MR. HOPWOOD moved, as an Amendment, that it should be a sufficient defence to a charge against a defendant under 18 that the girl was, in point of fact, the more guilty of the two.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 14, at end of Clause 5, to insert the words—"Provided also, That it shall he a sufficient defence if on the trial of a defendant under the age of eighteen years it shall he made to appear to the court or jury that the girl was, in point of fact, the more guilty of the two in the commission of the offence."—(Mr. Hopwood.)
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY), in opposing the Amendment on the part of the Government, said, it was against the whole policy of the Act. The clause was practically one of the most important in the Bill, and without it it would in many cases be a failure.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed, to add, at end of Clause the following words:—
    "No prosecution shall commence for an offence under sub-section (1) of this clause more than three months after the commission of the offence."—(Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he would accept the Amendment.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, he thought the matter ought to be left to the ordinary law. He saw no reason for an exceptional provision of this kind.
    MR. HOPWOODsupported the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to; words added accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. INCE, in moving to omit in page 4, line 32, the words "in any place within the jurisdiction of such justice," said, the section related to the power of search; and the object of his Amendment, taken in connection with the next Amendment which stood in his name, was to place the law with regard to search in the case of offences under this Bill on the same footing as in cases of ordinary larceny. As the clause stood at present, the search warrant must be obtained from a Justice who had jurisdiction in the place where the girl or woman was suspected of being detained. If his two Amendments were agreed to, the search warrant might be granted by any Justice whatever.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 4, line 32, by leaving out the words "in any place within the jurisdiction of such justice."—(Mr. Ince.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he thought it would be dangerous to confer such a wide jurisdiction upon any Justice of the Peace, and, therefore, opposed the Amendment. It would practically give a Justice of the Peace jurisdiction over the whole of England. Beyond that it involved a considerable change of principle, and with Justices of peculiar views might be productive of considerable inconvenience, by leading to the searching of a great many houses.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he was also opposed to such a sweeping alteration of the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace. He did not think it would be prudent to give any Justice of the Peace, having peculiar views, the power to issue any number of search warrants to search any number of places.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he was of opinion that, judging by a recent case, great delay in the execution of jus-

    1485
    tice might arise unless the proposed power were given. He would call the attention of hon. Members to the case of a woman who had applied to a magistrate the other day for assistance to enable her to regain possession of her step-daughter, alleged to have been spirited away by a "wicked Baronet," and who was informed by the magistrate that he had no jurisdiction. This distribution of jurisdiction was calculated to delay justice.
    MR. HOPWOODpointed out that the proposed change in the law was not needed, and could not be effected without breaking down our whole magisterial system. All the magistrates in the Metropolis had jurisdiction throughout the county; but, for convenience, to each was allotted a district.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. JAMES STUART, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 20, after the word "police," to insert—
    "Who shall he accompanied by the parent, relative, guardian, or other person making the information, if such person so desire, unless the justice shall otherwise direct,"
    said, his motive for doing so was that he had no confidence whatever in the police in their search of immoral houses, where plenty of money was going. In saying that he had no intention of casting any reflection upon them as a body; but he thought they should not be exposed to the temptations which the circumstances would bring about, and which would be such that no reasonable body of men, however praiseworthy, could be expected to resist. The Bill was simply an instalment in the right direction; and he apprehended that, in the course of a few years, the whole question would be again under the review of the House.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 20, after "police," insert "who shall be accompanied by the parent, relative, or guardian, or other person making the information, if such person so desire, unless the justice shall otherwise direct."—(Mr. James Stuart.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR HENRY JAMES, in urging the Government to accept the Amendment, said, he thought it would be most useful that someone should accompany the
    1486
    police to identify the person. He was very sorry to hear the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. James Stuart) that they were likely soon to have this question again before them.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said that, as a matter of fact, the police always took some person with them to identify the person sought for, otherwise there would be no use in their going to a house. The addition, therefore, made such a little difference in the actual practice that he had no objection to accept the Amendment. After giving the police enormous powers, discredit should not be thrown on them.
    Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMON MR. SERJEANT SIMON moved to add at the end of the 9th clause the following sub-section:—
    "In the absence of a justice of the peace, or if it should be found impossible to go before a justice of the peace, a superintendent or inspector of police, or other officer in charge of a police station, shall receive information on oath as in this Clause mentioned, and shall take down such information in writing, and shall act upon such information in all respects as if a warrant had been issued as aforesaid, and any person making any false information in the matter herein mentioned shall he guilty of perjury, and dealt with and prosecuted accordingly."
    The hon. and learned Member said that the object of the clause was to prevent delay in the execution of the warrant. If a felony were committed, a police officer would have the right to enter a house without a warrant; and he proposed to give him the same right in order to prevent the commission of a crime which was even greater than an ordinary felony. It might be said that in all the important towns a Justice of the Peace was easily to be found; but he held in his hand a letter—the authority of the writer of which could not be doubted—mentioning the fact that in a town with which he was connected—a town containing 17,000 inhabitants, in a mining district where, he was sorry to say, the population were of a rough and dissolute character, and where crimes of this kind were frequently committed—there was not a single magistrate resident within it. Then, again, hon. Members would be fully aware that in many of the populous districts of the North of England they might travel for

    1487
    miles through a succession of small towns and villages without being able to find a single resident magistrate. It was among such populations as this that the offence which they desired to put down was committed, and was likely to prevail. The object of the Amendment was to secure expedition where expedition was of the most vital importance. While "the parent or guardian or other person interested in the girl" was endeavouring to find a magistrate, and was going from one place to another in order to procure the formality of a warrant, the mischief might be done which it was the object of the Bill to prevent. He proposed that in the absence of a Justice the Superintendent or Inspector of Police should have power to receive a deposition on oath and in writing which would subject any person who set the law in motion, and who made a false deposition, to the penalties of perjury. The subject had been raised when the Bill was in Committee; but the House did not accept the Amendment. He hoped that hon. Members would now feel inclined to reconsider the matter, and deal with it in the way which he proposed. He believed that the clause would be utterly without value unless it had some addition of this kind to it. No doubt it might not be a matter of difficulty to find a magistrate in London, although it would at particular times of the year; but it must be remembered that these offences took place generally at night, at hours when a police magistrate was not sitting in Court, and was not easily to be found. He might live out of town, and in other respects not easily accessible. Under these circumstances, it appeared to him that such an addition to the clause was absolutely necessary in order that the Bill might be rendered really effectual; and he hoped the House would allow the Amendment to pass.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, at end, to add the words—"In the absence of a justice of the peace, or if it should be found impossible to go before a justice of the peace, a superintendent or inspector of police, or other officer in charge of a police station, shall receive information on oath as in this Clause mentioned, and shall take down such information in writing, and shall act upon such information in all respects as if a warrant had been issued as aforesaid, and any person making any false information in the matter herein mentioned shall be guilty of perjury, and dealt with and proseecuted accordingly."—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he objected very much to this clause, on account of the enormous powers it would give to the police. It would give an Inspector of Police the power to permit another person to break open the doors of any house in London at any hour of the night in order to make a search for some person or other in regard to whom there was a suspicion that something wrong was going on. He was bound to say that it was not desirable to give such a power. As to the difficulty of finding magistrates, he had been in communication with the Chief Magistrate in London since the Bill was in Committee, and it had been arranged that the names and addresses of all the magistrates should be scheduled and published, so that those gentlemen might easily be found when required. Any person desirous of obtaining a warrant would know where to find a magistrate, and would readily secure what he desired. He thought, that would be quite sufficient, without giving these very large powers to the police.
    MR. PICTONsaid, that the real grievance which was felt in regard to this subject was that it was much easier to recover stolen goods than it was to recover a stolen child. If hon. Members learned in the law would assure the House that that was not the case, but that it was just as easy to recover a little child seven or eight years of age who happened to have been stolen from her parents as it was to recover a set of silver spoons, undoubtedly a considerable amount of the objection entertained to the clause in its present shape would be met. But, certainly, as it stood in the Bill at the present moment it assumed that form. If a man lost his silver spoons he could get a warrant without the formality of going before a police magistrate, and could get a police officer to go with him and search the promises where the stolen property was supposed to be concealed. But if a man had a little daughter of seven or eight years of age who had been stolen, and was detained for immoral purposes, the parent could do nothing of the kind; and if a magistrate did not happen to be at hand at the moment it would be impos-

    1489
    sible for him to obtain a search warrant, and, in the meantime, the injury might be committed. He thought that it was only right for Parliament to remedy so great a grievance, and with that view he supported the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITHalso supported the Amendment. He thought the Government were bound to find out some other way to enable a parent, who had a child stolen at night, to get that child restored to him without the delay, and possibly the danger, which might result from being compelled, in the first instance, to obtain a search warrant from a Justice of the Peace. If the Government could point out any other way by which a child so taken away could be restored his objection to the clause, as it stood, would be removed; but if they could not suggest any easier way to secure the recovery of the child, he thought the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member ought to be accepted by the House as the only means which hon. Members, not connected with the Government, could think of.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)denied that there were any greater facilities for recovering stolen goods than there would be to recover a stolen child if the clause, as it now stood, were agreed to without the suggested Amendment. If it could be shown that it was a case of a stolen child, then there was a remedy under the existing law, just the same as in the case of stolen goods. He believed that under the Explosives Act, if circumstances of great emergency could be shown, the assistance of the police could be called in; and certainly, in the case of a stolen child, he could not conceive that there would be any difficulty under the clause as it stood, but that the powers of the police would be just as large as those now possessed in regard to a search where a felony had been committed.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 87: Majority 64.—(Div. List, No. 278.)
    MR. SAMUEL SMITH MR. SAMUEL SMITH moved, in Clause 9, after the word "brothel," to insert—
    "Or being the tenant, lessee, or occupier of any premises used for lawful business know-
    1490
    ingly permits such premises or any part thereof to be used for purposes of prostitution."
    The hon. Member said that the Amendment was of very great importance, and he hoped it would receive the careful consideration of the House. As the clause stood, it simply dealt with a place technically described as a "brothel," by means of which, as he understood the law, the most dangerous of all places would escape the operation of the clause. It was very well known that the greatest portion of the mischief was often done, not in places that were technically "brothels," but in other places which were largely used for the purposes of prostitution without coming under the description of brothels. It was well known in the City that there were a large number of places, such as coffee houses and restaurants, frequented by a certain class of people, and even, he was afraid, some shops, where every facility was afforded for the carrying on of these vile practices. It was into these places of lawful business that innocent girls were most frequently entrapped. They were brought up to the Metropolis under the pretence that situations would be found for them; they were taken to these places, and when once they got there they found themselves encompassed by temptations and surroundings that made escape almost impossible; and if the Pill was to be of any value whatever it must include in its purview all places whore prostitution was knowingly carried on. He did not think that it was necessary that he should say more in support of the Amendment, and he hoped that the Government would accept it.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 28, by inserting, after the word "brothel," the words "or being the tenant, lessee, or occupier of any premises used for lawful business knowingly permits such premises or any part thereof to be used for purposes of prostitution."—[Mr. Samuel Smith.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir JOHN GORST)opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would extend the operation of the clause to cases which the hon. Member could hardly have contemplated. The proposal of the hon. Member went a very great deal further than the speech which the hon. Member had delivered in that House. If it only

    1491
    proposed to give effect to the sentiments I which the hon. Member had addressed to the House, the House would probably have been disposed to entertain it; but the words proposed to be inserted in the clause would certainly make it a criminal offence if a person should on any occasion permit any room in his house to be used for an immoral purpose. If the law were made so stringent that any person who should, on a single occasion, allow an immoral act to take place in his house be rendered amenable to a criminal charge, it would be a change in the law of a most important character. He took it, however, that such places as the hon. Member described in his Amendment would in reality be brothels, because the Amendment extended the operation of the clause to tenants, lessees, or occupiers of premises used for lawful business who might "knowingly permit such premises to be used for such purposes." If they "knowingly permitted" the premises to be used for immoral purposes, he (the Solicitor General) took it that they would be held to be brothels; and, therefore, the kind of places which the hon. Member asked them to include were already included in the Bill, and the introduction of these words would not effect what the hon. Member desired.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, that it would be in the memory of hon. Members that, when this question was brought before the House in Committee upon the Bill, he was the Mover of the Amendment; and on that occasion there was, of course, as was constantly the case with regard to any attempt to improve the law, a conspiracy between the two Front Benches to defeat the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary went across the floor of the House, and he heard the right hon. Gentleman say—"Of course, you will oppose this." He could not mention the name of the Gentleman to whom the remark was addressed, because it would be against the Rules of the House. He did not know what the legal definition of a place of this kind was, and the House had not been favoured with a definition. They had now to rely upon the assertion of the Solicitor General that the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Samuel Smith) was already covered by the provisions contained in the Bill.
    1492
    He (Mr. Rogers) had long distrusted the assurances that were given by Gentlemen learned in the law, and there was nothing which he less trusted than an assurance that a particular Amendment of the existing law was already covered by the existing law itself. If hon. Members would believe the Law Officers of the Crown, there was hardly ever any necessity for making any amendment in the law at all. He took a totally different view of the matter. It would be a very serious thing, for instance, if a man who kept a draper's shop, and made use of a number of rooms in his house for the purpose of letting them to a woman who had the key of the door, and who admitted male visitors—it would be very awkward to charge the owner of the premises with keeping a brothel. He did not believe that anyone would ever attempt, to make such a charge, and yet at present it was said that there were numerous premises of that kind which were made use of in that way. Of course, everybody know what a place was that was generally called a "disorderly house"—one of those places where the churchwardens were called on to interpose in order to prevent immoral practices from being carried on. What they were now dealing with was a much more insidious evil. He had received a letter from a clergyman of great experience and knowledge. The writer said that "this was the most insidious and most mischievous way in which young girls were debauched." The Solicitor General informed them that this kind of mischief was already provided for by the existing law; and although it would be certainly necessary to take a division upon the Amendment, he presumed that those who were in favour of it would be defeated and have to grin and bear the consequences. Upon the heads of Her Majesty's Government those consequences must rest. It was stated that there was a great deal of severity in the Bill; but his opinion was that it contained a great deal more of hypocrisy in the way in which the repressive clauses of the Bill were proposed to be carried out.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, that if he had followed the hon. and learned Solicitor General rightly, the hon. and learned Gentleman, speaking on behalf of the Government, appeared to express

    1493
    sympathy with the object of the Amendment, but thought that in its terms it was too vague and wide. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman also to express an opinion that places where prostitution was habitually carried on might be brought within the clause. But the hon. and learned Gentleman went further, and asserted that such cases were already covered by the existing law, seeing that they would be regarded as brothels. Now, he (Mr. Stansfeld) did not feel satisfied that a place of this description would technically be a "brothel" under the existing law; and he thought the case might easily be met if, according to the view of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, instead of making this addition to the clause, they added after the word "brothel" the words "for purposes of habitual prostitution." He thought an Amendment of that kind would answer the purpose which his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) had in view.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITHsaid, he was quite willing to withdraw the Amendment in favour of the words suggested by his right hon. Friend, if the Government would accept them.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the Government had no objection to the words it was proposed to substitute.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. STANSFELD MR. STANSFELD moved, after the word "brothel," to insert the words "or for the purposes of habitual prostitution."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 28, after the word "brothel," to insert the words "or for the purposes of habitual prostitution."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he had been somewhat surprised to hear his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General say that the word "brothel" was covered by the words which the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) proposed to insert. He held it to be very questionable whether the word "brothel" would, in law, cover premises ostensibly used for another purpose, and actually used for another
    1494
    purpose, although occasionally used for the purpose of allowing immoral practices to be carried on. Notwithstanding the high authority of his hon. and learned Friend, he ventured to doubt whether the word "brothel" would cover, in an Act of Parliament, premises of that kind; and he was afraid that if the case were argued out in Court, the Court might decide that a brothel did not mean premises such as those which were intended to be struck at by the Amendment. At any rate, the question admitted of so much argument, and so much doubt as to whether the word "brothel" was intended to include such premises, and to prohibit them under the existing law, that the words ought to be inserted so as to place the matter beyond all doubt.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir JOHN GORST)said, he did not think there could be any objection to the insertion of the words proposed by the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). With regard to the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey), he thought his hon. and learned Friend had omitted to look at the 2nd subsection of the clause in the Bill, which included the tenant, lessee, or occupier of premises used as a brothel, and also any part of such premises. He should have thought that if part of any premises was used for lawful purposes, and another part of the same premises was used as a brothel, the whole of the premises would be covered by the clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON GROSS)THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON GROSS) moved—
    In page 5, line 28, after the word "brothel," to insert the words, "or (3.) Being the lessor of any premises, or the agent of such lessor, lets the same or any part thereof with the knowledge that such premises or some part thereof are or is to be used as a brothel."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR HENRY JAMESasked whether the word "lessor" would be sufficient for the purpose? It might be the landlord of the premises without being the lessor. He would suggest that the words should be "lessor or landlord of any premises," and he would move an Amendment to that effect if the Home Secretary had no objection.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he was willing to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to amend the Amendment, after the word "lessor," in line 1, by adding the words "or landlord."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    Question, "That the words 'or landlord' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, it would be necessary to add the same words after the second word "lessor."
    Amendment proposed, to amend the Amendment, in line 2, by adding, after the word "lessor," the words "or landlord."—(Sir Henry James.)
    Question, "That the words 'or landlord' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. TOMLINSONpointed out that it would also be necessary to insert, after the word "lets," the words "or let."
    MR. STOREYsaid, that this was the only sub-section in the Bill which dealt with the owner. The landlord of any premises, or the agent of such landlord, who knowingly let the premises, or any part of them, for use as a brothel, was to be punished on conviction. What he wished to see was the inclusion of the owner, as well as the landlord and lessor. Experience in London often proved that the greatest delinquent was a person who lived at a distance in a fashionable villa, and conducted the business of a brothel-keeper through another person, who acted as his agent. The Home Secretary would do well, he thought, if he would propose some means by which they would got at the owner; and he would, invite the attention both of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Solicitor General to that point—namely, to what extent did they propose to interfere and punish the owner? They proposed to punish the owner, according to the Amendment of the Home Secretary, if he let his property with a knowledge that the premises, or some part, were or was to be used as a brothel; but he (Mr. Storey) undertook to say that they would never get a conviction in such a case. No owner let his property with a knowledge, such as could be proved, that it was going to be used
    1496
    as a brothel. He would give an illustration of what had really happened in an important town in the North of England. A person occupying the position of Alderman of the borough, and also Justice of the Peace, had a house which was let as a brothel. He let it for a term, but he took good care, through his agent, to collect the rent weekly. The rent commenced at the beginning of the tenancy, and because it was let as a brothel he got twice the amount of rent regularly every other Monday morning which other landlords were able to get for similar property in the same locality. If they had brought that Alderman up, as they ought to have brought him up, before his brother Justices, they would have to prove that he let the premises with the knowledge that such premises were to be used as a brothel. His answer would be—"When I let the premises I did not know they were going to be used as a brothel;" and how much further could the case be carried? He asked the Home Secretary most respectfully, but urgently, to add words which would enable the law to punish such an owner as that. There were already in the Bill, in the 2nd sub-section, the following words referring to the tenant, or lessee, or occupier:—
    "If he knowingly permits such premises or any part thereof to be used as a brothel."
    He asked the Home Secretary to extend these words so as to include the owner and landlord as well as the lessee and tenant; and in order to test whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to do so, he would propose to amend the Amendment by inserting the words—
    "Or knowingly permits such premises to be used as a brothel."
    The sub-section of the clause would then read—
    "Or being the lessor or landlord of any premises, or the agent of such lessor or landlord, lets the same, or any part thereof, with the knowledge that such premises or some part thereof are or is to be used as a brothel, or knowingly permits such premises to be used as a brothel."
    People were extremely anxious in his part of the world, if the Bill was to be passed, that they should be able to get at the owner. It might be urged that if the Amendment were passed the landlord might re-let the property. But the owner could be got at in two ways—

    1497
    first, by providing that the house should only be let as a respectable house, and not turned into a brothel, or otherwise that the tenancy would be voided at once, and the landlord have power to resume possession; or, if they did not make that provision, the landlord could serve a legal notice for the termination of the tenancy, and when the tenancy was determined, then, and not until then, if it were continued to be occupied as a brothel, and the landlord knowingly permitted it, he would render himself liable to be punished. He begged to move the addition of those words.
    Amendment proposed, at the end of the said proposed Amendment, to add the words "or knowingly permits such promises, or any part thereof, to be used as a brothel."—(Mr. Storey.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be added to the said proposed Amendment."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)intimated that he would accept the Amendment, with a Proviso that the landlord should have power of determining the tenancy.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir JOHN GORST)said, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). The landlord, when he let the premises, might have no opportunity of knowing that it was intended to make use of them as a brothel; but if he afterwards learned that they were so used he ought not to permit it. They could not, however, punish the landlord until he had had the power of determining the tenancy; and an hon. and learned Friend behind him was endeavouring to draw up some words which would meet that point—some words of this kind—
    "Knowingly permits such premises to be used as a brothel after he has had the power of resuming the premises."
    MR. GREGORYsaid, there would be enormous difficulty in proving what the tenant was. Very often a charge of this nature would fail, and sometimes the person who made it would render himself liable to prosecution.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir JOHN GORST)thought the House had some right to complain that it was asked to treat as a crime a state of circum-
    1498
    stances covered by an Amendment which had not been printed on the Notice Paper. He strongly protested against the continuance of a practice of that kind. He would, however, in this case suggest words which seemed to him to carry out all that the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) desired. The words he would suggest were these—
    "Or is wilfully a party to the continued use of such premises, or any part thereof, as a brothel."
    It would then be necessary to prove that the landlord was a party to the continued use of the premises for immoral purposes, and he thought that would meet everything which the hon. Member desired.
    MR. SPEAKERasked whether the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) withdrew his Amendment?
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he should like to know, before the Amendment was withdrawn, what the Government meant? Did they mean to drive out every one of the inhabitants from these places, or what was their policy? Was it their object to provide more decent houses and more decent rooms with the intention of debauching more of the population? He did not understand his hon. Friend to advocate strong measures. He presumed that his hon. Friend had in his eye some disorderly place which was a source of annoyance and inconvenience to the neighbourhood. He wanted to know from the Government what their policy in the matter really was, or whether their anxiety to deal with these questions was pure hypocrisy? Were these wretched people to be driven from pillar to post, and to be hunted out, rendered fugitives, and to have black mail levied upon them wherever they went? Was it proposed to imitate the course which had been pursued in Edinburgh and Glasgow, where the authorities had no mercy, but drove all these people out by having recourse to the most extreme measures; sending them out, in all their wickedness and sin, upon their neighbours until they could find, in the course of time, some surreptitious mode of returning back? He did hope hon. Members would bear in mind the nature of the case they were dealing with, and see whether they could not moderate their extraordinary rage for securing an impossible virtue.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of replying to the charge which his hon. and learned Friend had brought against the authorities of Edinburgh, but for an entirely different purpose. He thought the Government might lessen the evil by framing the Amendment in a different way. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) desired to reach the owner as well as the lessor of the premises; but in very few cases would the owner or lessor allow the premises to be taken as a brothel. As the clause now stood the first two sub-sections were practically the same, and were directed against any person who kept or managed, or acted, or assisted in the management of a brothel, or who, being the tenant, lessor, or occupier of any premises, knowingly permitted such premises, or any part thereof, to be used as a brothel. These two sub-sections were practically taken from the Edinburgh Local Act. But the remainder of the clause was different, and he would explain how they attempted to deal with the owner or lessor. Upon a first conviction, any person against whom such an offence was proved was liable to a money penalty, or, in the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two months, with or without hard labour, with an increased pecuniary penalty; or three months on a second or subsequent conviction. Then, in case of a third or subsequent conviction the offender, in addition to the penalty or imprisonment, might be required to enter into recognizances to the amount of £50 that the house should not for six months be used for a similar purpose; and if he failed to find such security power was given to the Local Authority to shut up the house for a period not exceeding six months. In that way they secured a remedy for the undoubted evil which had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), and were able to get eventually at the owner or lessor, besides providing effectually for the cessation of the nuisance. He suggested to the Government that that was a better way of dealing with the evil than that which was proposed by the Solicitor General.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he would like to address a question to Her Majesty's Government. He wished to ask, as the hon. and learned Member
    1500
    for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had asked, what the policy of the Government really was? Was it intended that a house where a woman lived by herself and received visits was to be designated a brothel, and that the owner of that house was to be subjected to the penalties proposed by the clause? He had asked a similar question when the Bill was passing through Committee—namely, why, if they were anxious that all houses called "brothels" should be put down, they were also desirous of closing houses where a prostitute happened to live by herself and received visitors? He was of opinion that houses of that kind ought not to be prosecuted, and ought not to be treated as brothels. He trusted that some Member of Her Majesty's Government would consider that question and give an answer to it. Some explanation would certainly afford satisfaction to those who wished to see the question settled in a satisfactory manner.
    MR. STOREYintimated that he would accept the words of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, and would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the said proposed Amendment, to add the words—"Or is wilfully a party to the continued use of such premises, or any part thereof, as a brothel."—(Mr. Solicitor General.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR HENRY JAMEScontended that the words proposed by the Solicitor General did not carry the matter one whit further than the words of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), nor could the landlord be wilfully a party to the use of the premises as a brothel.
    MR. STOREYasked what was the Question before the House?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Question was to insert the words—
    "Or is wilfully a party to the continuous use of such premises, or any part thereof, as a "brothel."
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that anyone might write a letter to a landlord and say that his premises were being used as a brothel; but he might not become wilfully a party to such use of his premises, because he might not believe

    1501
    the statement which had been made. Therefore, the words suggested would have no effect, and no indictment or punishment would lie. He would suggest these words—
    "Or having power to determine the existing tenancy declines to do so after having Become I aware that such premises are used as a brothel."
    He believed that a provision of that nature would be effectual.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir JOHN GORST)said, he had purposely made his words less strong than those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and he left it to the person prosecuting to prove—
    "That the landlord or lessor knowingly permitted the house to be used as a brothel,"
    He thought the words he had proposed were quite adequate for the purpose.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYobjected to the proposed Amendment, and hoped the Government would adhere to the words they had placed upon the Paper.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTasked what would be the effect of the penalty? Would the cases be triable summarily, or by jury?
    MR. M'COANsaid, that after the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith), he thought the Government would have little difficulty in acceding to another which he (Mr. M'Coan) had placed upon the Paper, the object of which was to provide that the penalty should be increased. They punished the keeper of a brothel who let his upper rooms for a misdemeanour; but he might simply be carrying on a lawful business as an hotel keeper, who happened to let a bed-room to persons who conducted themselves reasonably while on the premises, and yet they scrupled to inflict an adequate punishment on the worst offender of all—the man who lived by this immoral traffic. What did they do to him after having made it a punishable offence to use a room in a coffee-house for immoral purposes? They let off the regular brothel keeper with a penalty of £20. Why, it was only 20 pence or 20 farthings to a man who was carrying on a prosperous business. It was in the discretion of the public to give him two months' imprisonment; but the punishment in the two cases was altogether
    1502
    unequal, and was much less severe upon a brothel-house keeper who employed the whole of his time in the business, than in the case of the coffee-house keeper who quietly lent a room.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERALremarked, that the Amendment to which the hon. Member was addressing his remarks had been withdrawn.
    MR. M'COANsaid, his object in addressing the House was to move that the word "£20," in line 31 of Clause 10, should be omitted in order to substitute "£50."
    MR. SPEAKER: It is not competent for the hon. Member to move an Amendment which would have the effect of raising the penalty.
    MR. M'COANsaid, he was not aware that there was any Rule in existence which precluded him from doing that; but the ruling of the Speaker would dispose of two or three other similar Amendments which he had intended to propose on this clause. [A laugh.] It was not so much a laughing matter as some hon. Members seemed to think. He did not at all see the logic of the clause. They imposed a heavy penalty on the offender who was the least culpable; and they dealt very lightly with the person who employed the whole of his time in this immoral traffic. They merely imposed a twopenny-halfpenny penalty, which was simply ridiculous.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, there was no Question before the House. It was not competent for the hon. Member to propose an increase of the penalty, or to discuss the propriety of increasing it.
    MR. M'COANsaid, that he wished to move an Amendment upon Clause 11.
    MR. SPEAKER: We have not yet disposed of Clause 10.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, that in line 33 the punishment was two months' imprisonment. He wished to know if the Government had any special reason for making it two months, because the effect would be to make the Bill practically inoperative?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERpointed out that there was no Question before the House.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, that he had simply asked a Question.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he would propose his Amendment in Clause 10, to leave out from "Nothing in this section,"

    1503
    inclusive, to the end of the Clause, and insert—
    "The enactments for encouraging prosecutions of disorderly houses contained in sections five, six, and seven of the Act passed in the twenty-fifth year of the reign of King George the Second, chapter thirty-six, as amended by the enactment contained in section seven of the Act passed in the fifty-eighth year of the reign of King George the Third, chapter seventy, shall he deemed to apply to prosecutions under this section, and the said enactments shall, for the purposes of this section, he construed as if the prosecution in such enactments mentioned included summary proceedings under this section as well as a prosecution on indictment."
    MR. M'COANsaid, that he had an Amendment which took precedence of the one proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and he was proceeding to move it when he was interrupted. His Amendment had been on the Paper when the Bill was in Committee; but he had been accidentally prevented from moving it. He proposed to supply a deficiency which existed in Clause 11.
    SIR HENRY JAMESrose to a point of Order. They had not yet got rid of Clause 10. He had an Amendment upon that clause, which he would move in order to afford an opportunity for discussion. He proposed, in page 5, line 33, to strike out "two," and insert "three," which would increase the term of imprisonment on conviction from "two" to "three" months.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 33, to leave out the word "two," and insert the word "three."—(Sir Henry James.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Bill."
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he only wished to put a question to the Government. He wanted to know whether there was any particular reason for making the term of imprisonment two months; because if the penalty was increased to three or four months it would give an opportunity for the accused person to be tried by a jury. He would like to ask the Government if they had any reason to suppose that justice would not be done by a jury; and whether the matter was improved by confining the jurisdiction to the Justices rather than by allowing the case to go to the Assizes or the Court of Quarter Sessions?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, that no doubt if three months were inserted the person
    1504
    charged would have the right to ask for a jury. He was not responsible for this part of the Bill; but the clause, as the measure came down from "another place," fixed the term of imprisonment at two months. He had not the smallest objection to increase it to three months.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, it would now be necessary to increase the penalty for subsequent offences. They had raised the punishment in the case of the first offence from two to three months; and, therefore, they could not retain the punishment proposed to be inflicted for a second and subsequent offence in the 2nd sub-section. It was necessary, under the circumstances, to increase the three months for a second offence either to four months or some other term of imprisonment, or else the clause would be rendered absurd. He would propose, inline 36, to omit the word "three," for the purpose of inserting "four."
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 30, to leave out the word "three," and insert the word "four,"—(Sir Henry James,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Bill."
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there was very little difference between three and four months' imprisonment; and he would, therefore, suggest that the term should be six months for a second offence.
    MR. SPEAKERasked if the hon. Member proposed to move "six?"
    MR. LABOUCHERE: No.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'four' be there inserted."
    MR. M'COANsaid, he confessed that he had noticed with considerable surprise the course which the debate had taken during the last five minutes. He understood that by the ruling of the Speaker he was precluded from moving to increase the penalty from "£20" to "£50;" and now the matter had been altogether taken out of his hands by the right hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), who had proposed and carried an increase in the term of imprisonment.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the ruling he had given had reference to the money

    1505
    penalty only, but did not apply to the term of imprisonment.
    MR. LABOUCHEREasked if he would be in Order in moving "five months" instead of "four?"
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, it would be impossible for the hon. Member to do that until the present Amendment had been withdrawn. The Question now before the House was that "four" be inserted.
    MR. MONTAGU SCOTTsuggested that the words should be "not exceeding-four months."
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 29: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 279.)
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS) moved, in Clause 10, to omit the following paragraph:—
    "Nothing in this section shall be deemed to exempt any person from any penal or other consequences to which he would have been liable at common law or under any Act of Parliament for keeping or being concerned in keeping a brothel or disorderly house, or for the nuisance thereby occasioned, or for any other matter whatsoever, if this Act had not passed: Provided that a person shall not be tried or punished twice for the same offence,"
    for the purpose of inserting—
    "The enactments for encouraging prosecutions of disorderly houses contained in sections five, six, and seven of the Act passed in the twenty-fifth year of the reign of King George the Second, chapter thirty-six, as amended by the enactment contained in section seven of the Act passed in the fifty-eighth year of the reign of King George the Third, chapter seventy, shall be deemed to apply to prosecutions under this section, and the said enactments shall, for the purposes of this section, be construed as if the prosecution in such enactments mentioned included summary proceedings under this section as well as a prosecution on indictment."
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he could not think that it was the desire of the Government to give a carte blanche for a prosecution in all these cases; and he thought he would be able to show that the clause of the right hon. Gentleman did not meet the difficulty. The same object the right hon. Gentleman had been desirous to carry out had been equally the object of the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), and the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Stuart) who were both desirous to avoid
    1506
    placing the fortunes of these persons in the hands of the police. He dreaded the corrupting effect which it might have upon the police. What did the Amendment do? It applied to summary prosecutions the same course of procedure which applied to an indictment. The first process was that somebody gave notice, then the services of a constable were obtained to search the premises, and if two inhabitants could be found they gave bail for the prosecution. If they requested it the constable preferred an indictment; and if an indictment were preferred and were not successful, the constable would be in a position to throw the costs of the prosecution upon the county funds or the borough rate. In that sense, no doubt, the Amendment would encourage prosecutions. He had no objection to the system if it were properly safeguarded; but what he wanted was that somebody should be really responsible for the bona fides of the prosecution—the Crown Advisers or somebody named in the Act.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. M'COANsaid, he proposed to move the introduction of a special definition which was very much wanted. He need not remind the House how many penalties there were in the Bill attaching to brothels, or how frequently that term was used. But, although it was a common term, he pointed out that in England it had no definite meaning. On the Continent a definite meaning could be given, because the places in question were under the supervision of the police; but in England, where that was not the case, it might mean one thing or another. However, he said, it was necessary to have some definition of the word, and the Amendment he proposed was for the purpose of supplying such definition. The words were—
    "The expression 'brothel' means any house or part thereof which is kept and used for the purposes of prostitution."
    He thought that definition was comprehensive enough, and not too much so; at the same time, it drew a complete distinction between houses kept for the accommodation of resident women of immoral character and those of a different kind, which some hon. Members, among them the hon. Member for Liverpool

    1507
    (Mr. S. Smith), declined to treat as brothels.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 18, by inserting the words "the expression 'brothel' means any house or part thereof which is kept and used for the purposes of prostitution."—(Mr. M'Coan.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir JOHN GORST)said, it was rather inconvenient to have to discuss an Amendment of this character without Notice. The definition proposed by the hon. Member was of extreme importance, because it would have, if adopted, the effect of very greatly extending the number of criminal offences dealt with in the Bill, and yet the hon. Member proposed to the House to insert it on his Motion at that hour of the night, without the House having had any opportunity of considering it. As far as he could gather from the words read by the hon. Member, he proposed a definition so wide that it would include possibly a room in which a lady might be temporarily residing. He thought it would be wiser to allow the term to be defined by the common sense of the Judges and juries before whom the cases might be brought.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had opposed these words in the most elastic sense. He bad told the House just now that it would include places of the very class they were trying to get rid of; and then he said that the clause was so wide that he did not wish to have this latitude given to the term. Such opposition as that was hardly intelligible, and it justified the belief that there was an attempt being made to exclude from the operation of the Act the worst possible practices and the worst possible places of the kind referred to. He was astonished that anyone with the experience of the hon. and learned Gentleman should have put forward such grounds of objection. What was the meaning of the expression in the Bill? He had been listening with anxiety for the whole evening to learn what that was; and if, under those circumstances, the House were to be told that what was the meaning in some circumstances was not the meaning in others, he could only say that so far as he was concerned he was left en-
    1508
    tirely in a haze about it. The hon. Member (Mr. M'Coan) had moved an Amendment which was intended to clear up this state of obscurity; and he was bound to say that they ought to have a definition before they passed from the question. He thought the whole statement of the hon. and learned Solicitor General was highly unsatisfactory.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he did not think there was any reason for treating his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General roughly. His own opinion was against defining this word at all; but if it were necessary to have a definition at all, that of the hon. Member would not suffice, because it would apply to any room or part of a house in which a man was living with a concubine.
    Question put, and negatived.
    On Motion of Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS, the following Amendment made:—Clause 14, page 7, line 6, leave out "of" and insert "or."
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he thought it would be better to reserve trials for misdemeanour and felony under the Act for the Superior Courts, so that they might be tried by Judges of superior knowledge. He understood that the Irish Representatives were satisfied with trial at Quarter Sessions, and therefore he proposed to restrict the operation of his Amendment to England.
    Amendment proposed, to add at the end of Clause 14—
    "And no indictment under the provisions of this Act shall in England be tried in any Court of Quarter Sessions."—(Mr. Hopwood.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): Sir, I have now to ask that, having completed the consideration of the Bill as amended in Committee, we may be allowed to read the Bill the third time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (ENGLAND) BILL.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the

  1509
  Leader of the House, whether he will take this Bill as the first Order of the Day on Monday?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, Sir.

  SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.— [Lords.]— [Bill 258.]
  (Secretary Baron Henry De Worms.)
  SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.— [Lords.]— [Bill 258.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    Clause 4 (Fishery Board may make bye-laws prohibiting or regulating trawling within defined areas).
    MR. C. S. PARKERpointed out that one of the sections provided that a bye-law under this Act should not be of any validity until it was confirmed by one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State. The House had agreed to create a Secretary for Scotland, and a great deal of pains had been taken to find business to occupy his time. It seemed to him, in these circumstances, rather strange that after doing that they should be creating new duties for the Secretary of State, instead of giving them to the new Minister for Scotland. He moved to substitute for "one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State" the words "the Secretary for Scotland."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 2, to leave out the words "one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State," and insert the words "the Secretary for Scotland."—(Mr. C S. Parker)
    Amendment agreed to.
    On Motion of THE SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Baron Henry De Worms), the following Amendments made:—Page 2, line 26, after "conviction," leave out to end of Clause; Clause 5, page 3, line 8, after "directing," leave out "the," and insert "their;" page 3, line 8, after "officers," leave out "in their employment."
    MR. ASHERproposed to omit from Clause 6, line 14, the words "and within the exclusive fishery limits of the British Islands." This clause required statistics to be given of the fish caught; but as it stood at present it was merely applicable to the territorial waters within three miles of the shore. He thought the clause would be altogether unworkable if it were left in that position. It was, of course, quite impos-
    1510
    sible for a fisherman coming into port in charge of a boat to say what proportion of fish he had caught within the three mile limit and what proportion outside that limit. He thought that the clause should be made applicable to the catch of fish, whether made within or without the territorial waters.
    Amendment proposed,
    In Clause 6, line 14, to leave out the words "and within the exclusive fishery limits of the British Islands."—(Mr. Asher.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)assented to the Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. C. S. PARKERproposed to omit from lines 17 and 20 the words "one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State" and insert "the Secretary for Scotland."
    Amendment agreed to.
    On the Motion of The SECRETARY to the BOARD (Baron Henry De Worms), the following Amendments made:—Clause 7, page 4, line 13, after "necessary," leave out "on the question of the damage;" Clause 8, page 4, line 21, after "person," leave out "whose property," and insert "who;" Clause 8, page 4, line 28, after "proceed," leave out "according to the provisions of Clause seven hereof," and insert—
    "To consider and dispose of the question of compensation to the injured party, and if a report of a sea fishery officer has been produced, as set forth in Clause seven hereof, the sheriff shall not allow any additional evidence to be heard unless he shall consider it to be necessary in order to do justice in the case; and, if he shall allow additional evidence, the accused person shall he allowed to be examined as a witness on the question of the amount of damages;"
    Clause 8, page 4, line 31, after "damages," insert "and shall, after hearing parties, give decree as in an ordinary action before the Sheriff Court."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. ASHERsaid that in Committee he proposed an alternative clause which, in his opinion, carried out the intention embodied in the clause more effectually

    1511
    than this clause did. The difference was, however, merely a matter of drafting; and as it had been considered by the Government desirable to retain the clause in its present shape he did not propose to offer any opposition to it.
    Motion agreed to.
    MR. R. W. DUFFsaid that before Report was disposed of, he desired to ask if the Government could give the House any information as to what steps were being taken, in accordance with the recommendations of the Trawling Commission, for the protection of fishing vessels? The vessels at present employed on the coast of Scotland in the work of protection were quite obsolete. He had raised the question on the Scotch Fishery Vote and on the Navy Estimates, and he wished to again ask what was being done by the Admiralty to provide efficient vessels. He had received an assurance from the Admiralty that they intended to do something, and he hoped that intention would be carried out, otherwise the Bill would be quite useless.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)said, he had been in communication with the Admiralty, and he had every reason to believe that arrangements were being made for the proper protection of the fishing vessel.
    Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) (PENSIONS) BILL.— [Bill 112.]
  (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) (PENSIONS) BILL.— [Bill 112.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
    MR. SEXTONproposed the following Clause:—
    "On the date of the passing of this Act, George Augustus Hamilton Chichester, commonly called the Earl of Belfast, shall cease to hold the office of clerk of the peace for the county of Antrim, and, until the appointment of his successor, the duties of the said office shall be discharged by the deputy clerk of the peace for the said county, and the new clerk of the peace shall he appointed as if a vacancy had been caused in the said office by the death or resignation of the said George Augustus Hamilton Chichester, who shall be awarded, out of the salary and emoluments of
    1512
    the said office, a pension of fifty pounds per annum."
    The hon. Gentleman said, he thought it would scarcely be denied by anyone that this gentleman should never have been appointed to the office he now held. Thirty-five years ago it happened that the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Antrim was the uncle of George Augustus Hamilton Chichester, and in pursuance of a system which had long obtained in Ireland the noble Lord thought he was quite at liberty to appoint whoever he liked Clerk of the Peace of the county without any regard at all to the public interest. Therefore by a flagrant act of jobbery the Lord Lieutenant of the county conferred the office on the Earl of Belfast, at that time Mr. Chichester, a person who had no qualification whatever for the office. The office of Clerk of the Peace required considerable qualification. The person holding the office should have the legal qualification of a solicitor in order to discharge the duties efficiently. Mr. Chichester possessed no qualification for the office at all, and since his appointment he had not resided for a year or even a month in county Antrim, or any other part of Ireland. But the job, having occurred so long ago, might now be pardoned if the person had had the common decency to devote himself to the performance of his duties. He (Mr. Sexton) had looked through the official records, and he found that the address of the Clerk of the Peace of County Antrim was Great George Street, Westminster, London. The Earl of Belfast was actually without an Irish address deputing his duties as he did to a person to whom he paid a salary of £200 a-year. He (Mr. Sexton) believed the emoluments of the office amounted to £1,600, so that the Earl of Belfast pocketed £1,400 a-year and lived in London. The Earl of Belfast appeared to be one of the persons who thought that offices paid for by the money of the people were made for the purpose of finding places for the sons of the aristocracy. Such a thing as duty never entered into their minds. Transactions of this kind might be suffered in past times, but the days for tolerating them were gone. The duties of Clerks of the Peace were now far more important than formerly. The franchise had been extended to the general body of the people, and he was not surprised to hear

    1513
    bitter complaints from County Antrim with regard to the manner in which the duties of the Clerk of the Peace had been discharged. The law intended that on the 22nd of July the lists of voters and claimants of votes should be published, so that every man in the county should have an opportunity for 13 days of examining the lists in order to see that the names which ought to appear there did not appear. He was informed that for nine days after the time prescribed by law there had not been published any list of the voters in North Antrim. Was it to be pretended that this man who had hold office for 35 years, who had never taken the trouble to live in Ireland, but who had taken the trouble to receive in all £56,000 out of the public funds, should any longer retain the office? Was it to be said that the Earl of Belfast, by his neglect and his atrocious disregard of the public interest, should be allowed to deprive the people of Antrim of a right they were by law entitled to—namely, the right of 13 days' inspection of the list of voters? He asserted that if the Earl of Belfast had not disfranchised a great many people in Antrim he was practically responsible for their disfranchisement. He might be told this was a patent office, and therefore could not be disturbed. It was a patent fraud. Parliament could do what it pleased, and therefore he asked the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) to give him the aid of the Government in putting an end to this scandal, and securing to the people that due discharge of the duties of the office of Clerk of the Peace for the county of Antrim which they demanded. He claimed that the holder of this office should be a solicitor, that he should live in the county, and be a gentleman not above the common honesty of devoting himself every day to the duties of the office. That was not an unreasonable claim. If the Government were not prepared to assent to such a claim he asked whether the Lord Lieutenant would use his influence to induce the Earl of Belfast to perform the duties of his office or else resign? The people could accept no other terms. He had made provision in the clause for the payment of a pension to the Earl of Belfast of £50 a-year, and that he considered very ample and liberal considering that that nobleman had done no-
    1514
    thing at all except drawn £56,000 from the people.
    New Clause (Clerk of the Peace of County Antrim to vacate office,)—(Mr. Sexton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he believed the Earl of Belfast was appointed to the office of Clerk of Peace for the county of Antrim in 1849, and that at the time he was appointed to the office it was in the gift of the Lord Lieutenant of the comity. The tenure by which he had held the office and held it still was a tenure for life. At the time he was appointed he had the right conferred by statute to appoint a deputy, and that right he exercised. A deputy had attended to the duties, and assuming that the deputy performed the duties properly the terms on which the appointment was originally made were complied with. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) was prepared to admit at once that the tenure of office was not a satisfactory one; but the Committee would bear in mind that in the year 1877 an Act of Parliament was passed for the very purpose of meeting the objections to which the hon. Member had called attention. That Act provided that in future the duties of the office of Clerk of the Peace and Clerks of the Crown should be performed in person, that the power of appointing a deputy should be abolished, and that for the purpose of getting rid as quickly as possible of Clerks of the Peace and Clerks of the Crown who did not perform their duties favourable terms should be given as an inducement to them to resign. In most of the counties of Ireland the terms which had been offered had been accepted, and now, in most instances, Clerks of the Peace and Clerks of the Crown were performing their duties in person. There were one or two gentlemen who retained their appointments on the old terms, having appointed deputies. He did not think Parliament would be disposed to go further than they had gone by the Act of 1877. Now, if the gentleman who had been appointed by the Earl of Belfast to perform the duties of Clerk of the Peace in County Antrim had not performed the duties properly,

    1515
    another question, of course, would be opened up. The hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) had said that the lists of voters in North Antrim were not published within the time prescribed by statute; but the hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, aware that in some of the counties of Ireland, where the Clerks of the Peace had been most efficient, there had been necessarily a delay of a day or two in the publication of voters' lists. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) did not say that the Earl of Belfast's deputy had discharged his duty properly, and neither did he say the gentleman had discharged his duty improperly. That ought to be the subject of inquiry, but ought not to be a reason for the Committee accepting this clause without inquiry. He would undertake to make the necessary inquiries. It might be shown to the satisfaction of the Government that the non-publication of the lists within the proper time was owing to circumstances over which the deputy had no control. In that case he was sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish any penalty to be imposed. He asked the hon. Gentleman, having regard to the Act of 1877 and to the fact that the change he desired had in great measure been carried out, not to press his clause.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he should advise his hon. Friend to go to a division, and he should not be surprised if Her Majesty's Government found, as the result of that division, that the House of Commons would not tolerate any longer these absurdities. He would venture to say that if a report of this discussion could appear in the English newspapers at any length to-morrow, the English people would be astounded at the fact that in the present day there existed a man who could get £56,000 of public money without performing a day's or an hour's work for it—who was appointed as far back as 1849, who received £1,600 a-year, and, therefore, had had as much as £56,000 for doing nothing. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) told them that not only did that gentleman do nothing, but that he did not even make a pretence of doing anything, and did not often reside in Ireland—as a matter of fact had no address in the country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was evidently guilty on all the counts of the
    1516
    indictment passed on him. He had said there was an Act passed in 1877, and that that Act should have provided for the compulsory retirement of the Earl of Belfast. Well, if it did not, that was no argument against their doing it now, but, on the contrary, was an argument in favour of its being done now. With regard to the question of neglect of duty, he often found that officials in Ireland were guilty of irregularities in a manner which would not be permitted in any other country in the world. Would anyone credit it that a law could be passed enfranchising householders of counties, and that an official drawing £1,600 a-year without residing in the country could be allowed, by neglecting his duties under the Act, actually to disfranchise county householders? He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) took it that by this time the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland ought to have made out some case against the statement of his (Mr. T. P. O'Connor's) hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). This was by no means the first time that the hon. Member had made a complaint against the manner in which the Earl of Belfast and his deputy discharged their duties. The hon. Member for Sligo, who was a most careful investigator of facts brought before his notice, would not have ventured to have brought these charges against the Earl of Belfast if he had not known that they were true. What were these facts? Why, that during the interval between the 22nd of July and the 4th of August persons were to be put on the lists who were entitled to be there, but that in County Antrim seven of the 13 days' interval passed without the people knowing whether they were on the lists or not. That was an intolerable state of things, which should certainly not be allowed to last for another year. He thought the Committee should now go to a division, and felt sure that when they did the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would find that he was not generally supported.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought that if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) would amend his clause so as to provide that the Earl of Belfast should get his pension on the scale of the Act of 1877 it would be satisfactory to all parties. The position of the Earl of Belfast was rather pecu-

    1517
    liar. He was—as had been pointed out—a gentleman who neglected his duties, but who had figured a great deal in the Law Courts in London. He had figured a great deal in the Divorce Court, and as to his wife's portion—for not paying his wife an allowance he had undertaken to pay her. On those grounds he was not a very desirable sort of person to have in an official position; but besides that his position was more satisfactory than it was formerly, because on the death of the late Lord Donegall he became entitled on reversion to a considerable property. It would not, therefore, be so much a grievance to him to be compelled to retire now as it might have been in 1877, when, so far as he (Mr. Biggar) knew, he had no means except his salary as Clerk of the Peace. Now he had a valuable property which he could mortgage, and there was not the slightest doubt he had mortgaged it. If the Government would agree to an amendment of the clause to the effect that the pension should be regulated according to the Act of 1877, it would be satisfactory to all parties.
    MR. O'SHEAsaid, that what had been proposed by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Biggar) would be a very fair solution of this difficulty. No doubt, if the Amendments, as proposed by the hon. Member for Sligo, were carried, they would affect other people. Other Clerks of the Peace appointed under the old system, who still held their appointments, and performed their duties most satisfactorily, would also be affected. Under all the circumstances of the case, the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cavan was an extremely fair one—one which would meet the circumstances of the case of the Earl of Belfast, without hitting other people who were performing their duties satisfactorily.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYasked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would undertake to inquire as to the delay in preparing the lists, and if he found that it had been wilful would remove the officer?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he would undertake to inquire as to the delay in preparing the lists, and if it was found to be wilful would take such steps as it was in the power of the Government to
    1518
    take to deal with the matter. He did not know what steps could be taken; but if they found that there had been such wilful neglect of duty as had been described something would be done.
    MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether the Government was going to support the right of this gentleman to prey any longer on the public Treasury? He (Mr. Labouchere) had heard of Belfast, but he certainly did not know that there was an Earl of Belfast. This Earl of Belfast might be a most respectable gentleman—he might be, or he might not be; but even if he were the most respectable of human beings, why was he to continue to prey in this manner upon the public Treasury? He had received £56,000 already; he employed a person to do his work to whom he paid £300 a-year; he never went near the scene of his duties; he did nothing; and now they were asked in the clause of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo to give him a small pension to enable him to retire. Though this was at the present moment the rump of Parliament, the Government were passing through Bill after Bill after the Appropriation Bill had been read a third time, quite contrary to all rule. Seeing that they were taking this course, however, he thought they should accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo, which was a most reasonable one, and should not seek to upset it by their mechanical majority. [Laughter.] Yes, "mechanical majority," for at that hour and at that period of the Session a Government—even a Government in a minority—always had a mechanical majority waiting upon it. The Government seemed disposed to reject this reasonable proposal, and to force the House to pay this £1,600 to an absentee Irish landlord for doing nothing. They had heard of an alliance between the Conservative Government and the Irish Party. How long would that last if these monstrosities continued. Did not his hon. Friends the Irish Members know that if the Liberals had been in power they would have accepted the clause of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo? He hoped that would enlighten his hon. Friends, and that now they would know what they had to expect from a Conservative Government.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 46: Majority 31.—(Div. List, No. 280.)
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he begged now to move the second clause on the Paper in his name, which was in the following terms:—
    "From the date of the passing of this Act no clerk of the Crown or clerk of the peace in Ireland shall be awarded any pension on quitting office, unless he shall have personally discharged the duties of his office, and resided within the county for which he was appointed to act."
    He should think that failure to discharge duty, or absence from the county for which a Clerk of the Crown was appointed to act should procure dismissal; but as this was only a Pension Bill he would not propose a clause of that kind. He kept within the scope of the Bill by proposing that in case of failure to discharge duties or absence from the county there should be no pension awarded. He was strongly convinced that the time had come when a most strict observance of duty by a certain class of servants in Ireland was necessary. Those who had to deal with the franchise would have to deal with much larger bodies than was formerly the case; and he could not contemplate with equanimity such a state of affairs continuing as that in which officials charged with the management of the franchise were allowed to leave their districts altogether. Such a state of affairs was not to be tolerated, and he thought the House, whatever was done this year, should certainly put a stop to it next year. In the case of Major Wynne, Clerk of the Peace for the county of Sligo, Chief Justice Morris at the Sligo Assizes had found the books in such a state that he had to call the Clerk of the Peace to his presence. His Lordship fined the Clerk £20, and £20 for as many two hours as he was absent. He (Mr. Sexton) did not know how many hours elapsed before Major Wynne appeared, but however long it was nothing had been levied. Irish officials had a certain easy, familiar way of settling differences of this kind amicably amongst themselves. There was a certain freemasonry between the Judges and the other officials engaged in the administration of the law. It was reported to him from Grange, in County
    1520
    Sligo, that the lists of voters which should have been published on the 22nd of last month had not been published on the 1st of this month. He did not know whether they had been published yet—he rather thought they had not. The law said that the lists should be prepared on the 22nd of July, and 13 days' interval was allowed for persons to get on the list. Ten days of that period had elapsed when he was informed that the lists had not been posted, so that the people even then had only three days instead of 13 to examine the lists. What was to be done with those people? Suppose a man whose name ought to be on the list found that it was not on, and pointed out the error too late. He would not be able to make a claim, and he would, therefore, be without a vote at a time, from a Parliamentary point of view, more critical than any other in the history of Ireland. What reparation could be made to such a man? If, on the other hand, a man's name was on the list which should not be there, and it was too late for either of the political Parties to get it struck off, what reparation could be made to them? Certain electors had gone down to Sligo to find out why the lists had not been published. They made inquiries, and were first told that the lists were published. The visitors, however, convinced the Clerks that that was not the ease. Then it was said that the Clerks of the Unions had not sent in the Returns, but that was found to be inaccurate; and, finally, it was said that the printers had not been able to do the work. But why had they not been able to do it? They had had as much time as anyone else. No matter what the list was in Sligo the Nationalists were going to win; but, he would ask, was this not a proper case for complaint? In mentioning the case of Sligo he had other gains elsewhere in view. He would forbear from giving any further details and particulars; but he would ask that the counties should be relieved of the burden of these officials, and that Major Wynne should be removed from an office which he had been proved unfit to hold.
    New Clause (Award of pension to depend upon personal discharge of duty,)—(Mr. Sexton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, that if the hon. Member would allow him he would refer to the last portion of his speech first. The Clerk of the Peace for the county of Sligo was a gentleman of the name of Wynne; but he could tell the hon. Member that before he had put this matter on the Paper the Government had felt it necessary to call upon that gentleman to explain his conduct in regard to the duties of his office, and an investigation on the matter was proceeding. If it was found that he had been derelict in his duty he would not escape censure, and, if necessary, he would be removed from his office. If it was found that he had been remiss in his duties, he would be dealt with in such a way as to show that no favour was shown to anyone. In future Clerks of the Peace would not be entitled to delegate their trusts to deputies; but he would remind the hon. Member that there were a few Clerks in Ireland who had been appointed under the old system, and they had appointed deputies, as they had a perfect right to do, who were carrying on the business with the greatest efficiency. He thought it would be a hard thing that a gentleman who had held such an office for some time, and had had the right to appoint a deputy, and whose deputy had performed the work with efficiency—that he should have new burdens put upon him by a clause of this sort. He and his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir William Hart Dyke) were opposed to this method of doing business, and he could assure the hon. Member that no further appointments of this kind would be made. At the same time, was it desirable to interfere with an existing system under which somebody did the work efficiently?
    MR. SEXTONregarded the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as generally satisfactory. With regard to the general question, he quite agreed that it was not desirable to interfere with the discharge of the duty by a deputy where the deputy was doing his duty well. If they would not pass this clause, however, he wished to know whether there was any objection to the
    1522
    Lord Lieutenant addressing a letter to those gentlemen, and to point out to them that they were to remain in their counties and perform their duties personally?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)pointed out that under the Act of 1877 it was necessary that the Clerk of the Peace should attend personally; but it was not necessary in any way that he should be permanently resident in the county.
    MR. SEXTONremarked that they would see what effect this discussion had between that and that time next year. In the meantime he begged leave to withdraw his clause.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): Perhaps the House will allow me to take the third reading of the Bill now.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill passed.

  REGISTRATION APPEALS (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 259.]
  (Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  REGISTRATION APPEALS (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 259.]

    COMMITTEE.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, the object of this Bill was simply to allow the Court of Appeal to sit at an earlier time than it could now sit for the hearing of Registration Appeals. Under the present law they could not sit until late in November, and it would be impossible for them to deal with all the business which the Government expected would come before them this year if they did not meet earlier than that.
    Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  LAND PURCHASE [IRELAND) [ADVANCES].
  Resolution [6th August] reported.
  "That it is expedient to authorise Advances out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, of any sum or sums of money not exceeding £5,000,000 in the whole, to enable the Land Commission in Ireland to make Advances for the purchase of estates, in pursuance of the provisions of any Act of the present Ses-

  1523
  sion, for providing greater facilities for the sale of laud to occupying tenants in Ireland."
  MR. LEAwished to ask what time on Monday this Resolution would come on?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS)said, it would be the second Order.
  MR. LEAasked whether it would come on before 12 o'clock?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I hope so.
  Resolution agreed to.

  POLICE ENFRANCHISEMENT EXTENSION BILL.— [BILL 219.]
  (Mr. Coleridge Kennard, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, Mr. Cowen, Lord Claud John Hamilton, Mr. Robert Fowler, Mr. Reid, Mr. Houldsworth, Mr. George Elliot.)
  POLICE ENFRANCHISEMENT EXTENSION BILL.— [BILL 219.]

    COMMITTEE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Adjourned Debate on going into Committee [5th August].
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be further adjourned till Monday next."
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYwished to say, on the Question that this Bill be put off until Monday, that it was not fair to continue a Bill of this sort on the Orders at that period of the Session, when the Appropriation Bill had been read a third time, There was a very great difference with regard to this measure in the House; and at that period of the Session, when they had such a thin House, it ought not to be further put off. He should like to move that the Bill be taken on that day three mouths, or that the Order be discharged, if he would be in Order in doing so.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was hardly usual on a measure of this sort to move such a Resolution in the absence of the Member who was in charge of the Bill.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he did not think it fair that the Bill should be put down at that period of the Session. If he were in Order he would ask that it be taken on Monday week.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the course proposed by the hon. Gentleman would be very unusual in the absence of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he would like to hear what the Government had to say on the subject, and for that purpose he would make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Appropriation Bill having been read a third time and there having been a distinct understanding some time ago that contested matters should not be pushed on at that stage of the Session, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman as to whether it was fair that this Bill should be proceeded with.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the Bill had been approved by several Members on both sides of the House. He was willing to adjourn the debate till Monday next.
    Debate further adjourned till Monday next.

  POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 245.]
  (Mr. John Redmond, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Gray, Mr. Barry.)
  POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 245.]

    LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
    MR. SEXTONrose to move that the consideration of the Lords' Amendments be deferred till the 21st of August. He wished to point out that when the Bill left that House last year a compromise had been arrived at, and Irish Members informed the House that it was the smallest measure they could accept. The Lords had excluded some points of the scheme which he thought they must object to. If the Government were resolved to maintain the Amendments of the Lords, he thought that any further time spent on the Bill would be wasted, because in the next Session of Parliament it would be necessary for Irish Members to insist on a fuller and more adequate measure of reform.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Consideration of the Lords' Amendments be deferred till Friday the 21st of August."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Motion agreed to.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Public Health (Metropolis) * (240).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Metropolitan Police Staff Superannuation* (222); Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*; Past India Army Pensions Deficiency* (239).
Committee—Labourers (Ireland) (No. 2) (235–241).
Committee—Report—Public Works Loans* (234).
Report—Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (170); Crown Lands* (224), and passed.
Third Reading—Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers)* (231), and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
(The Marquess of Waterford.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.

  (NO. 170.) REPORT.
  Amendment reported (according to Order): Then Standing Order No. XXXV. considered (according to Order), and dispensed with; Bill read 3ª, with the Amendment.
  On Motion, "That the Bill do pass?"
  LORD FITZGERALD, in rising to move the insertion of the new clause which was rejected at the previous Sitting by a majority of 1—the figures being, Contents 19, Not-Contents 20—said, it provided that the supply of water by the Dublin Corporation to the outlying townships should be increased from 20 to 25 gallons per head per day. When the arrangement was made, 16 years ago, the valuation of Bray was £17,600; now it was £26,000—an increase of nearly 60 per cent; so that the Corporation was receiving considerably more from. Bray now than it did when the agreement was made. The population had only increased in that period 30 per cent; so that the advantage was clearly on the side of the Corporation, and not on that of the township. The case was similar in regard to the other townships. It was asked why the townships, if they wanted to obtain the increase now asked for, did not seek to bring in a Bill to effect their purpose; but they had no funds to meet the expenses of a Private Bill. There was nothing to fall back upon but
  1430
  the rates; and it was obvious that they could not contend with a wealthy Corporation like that of Dublin, whose power and wealth were increasing day by day. With the Corporation it was different. It was now promoting a Bill, the cost of which would be paid out of the Borough Fund; and, as this was a sanitary question, advantage was taken of the opportunity on the part of the townships to, if possible, induce the Corporation to confer a great sanitary advantage upon them. He (Lord Fitzgerald) had carefully looked into the Provisional Orders, and seeing the advantages conferred on the Corporation, he considered the townships were justified in asking that the Corporation should be compelled to do that act of justice that many of its own members were willing to concede. The question before their Lordships really was, whether they would not abide by the recommendation of their own Select Committee? He was now authorized to state that it was the unanimous wish of the Peers who had composed that Committee, that the clause he was now about to move should be agreed to, increasing the supply of water to the townships by 25 per cent.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, after Clause 2, to insert the following Clause:—
  "For the purposes of the eighth section of the Dublin Corporation Waterworks and Fire Brigade Provisional Order, 1874, and of the Orders hereby confirmed, the statutable or contract allowance of water to the townships mentioned in that section shall be deemed to be twenty-five gallons per head per day, as provided by the Acts in that section mentioned relating to those townships respectively, and the said Orders and Acts shall be read and have effect accordingly."—(The Lord FitzGerald.)
  Question proposed, "That the said Clause be there inserted."
  LORD ARDILAUNsaid, that if there was one rule which was impressed upon their Lordships as one which should not be broken, it was the necessity of supporting the Reports of their own Committees. As regarded the subject under notice, he put it to their Lordships, whether they were not sticking to the letter rather than to the spirit of the Report of the Select Committee? The Bill was now in the form, in which it left the Committee no doubt; but the noble Lord the Chairman of the Committee,

  1431
  and the noble Puke (the Duke of Marlborough), and other noble Lords, Members of the Committee, had stated to the House, that the opinion they had appeared to have expressed on the Report was not the opinion they had desired to give. The noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) had told them yesterday that it was too late, or something to that effect, to alter the Bill; but if that were the case, he (Lord Ardilaun) would ask what was the object of having these different stages of a Bill? Why should they have the first reading, the second reading, the Committee stage, Report, and third reading? Was it not that they might have so many opportunities of correcting faults and errors that might have occurred in the conduct of the Bill during those earlier stages? Unquestionably. When, therefore, they found that the Members of the Select Committee were now practically unanimous in declaring that they appeared to have made a mistake in their Report, and when it was remembered that the Committee was sitting until 7 o'clock at night, and that great obstacles in the way of the passage of the clause had been raised by the parties to the Bill, he did not think that the objection that it was now too late to alter the Bill should hold good. There had been insuperable difficulties in the way of the drafting of the clause before the Committee; though, if the Chairman himself had seen his way to draft it, the whole thing would have been at an end. He would call their Lordships' attention to the fact that the Acts on which the present water supply was based were passed 16 years ago, during which long time the Corporation had taken no steps to have these Acts altered. One of the clauses had been found unworkable in the interests of the Corporation, so the Corporation had come to Parliament to get it altered. Whilst they effected their purpose, it was but right that the townships should seek to obtain an alteration in the existing law, which was found to be disadvantageous to them. He earnestly supported the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, he was surprised that the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Fitzgerald) should have brought that matter again before the House, after the decision which had been given yesterday.
  1432
  It was said that the water supplied to the townships was sought to be cut down by the Corporation; but that was not the fact, and if the townships had been receiving more than 20 gallons per head per day, it was in excess of that to which they were entitled. The townships had the right under their own Local Acts, passed 10 years ago, to 20 gallons of water per head per day. They were to have that amount assessed on the number of the population, and all that the Corporation had done had been to desire to assess the population properly. There had been no means in Ireland of finding out what the population was; and all they asked for, in the present Bill, was that they should have those means, and that there should be a legal definition of the term "population" for the purposes of assessment. It was admitted that during the 16 years referred to, the townships had received a large number of gallons per head per day more than they were entitled to. The Corporation, however, on that account made no proposal to cut down the quantity of water supplied. It would remain as it was. The only proposal was that the townships should be limited to what they themselves arranged for 16 years ago, and that any water beyond that should be paid for at the rate of 2½d. per 1,000 gallons. Finding an opportunity of getting from the Corporation what they were really not entitled to—namely to have an additional supply of water without paying the 2½d. per 1,000 gallons chargeable for it—it was evident to him now that was what the opponents of the Bill meant. He would call their Lordships' attention to the fact that the proposal had only been brought before the Committee of the House of Lords at the last moment, and that it had never been submitted to the House of Commons Committee at all. He trusted their Lordships would not reverse the decision they arrived at yesterday, and throw out the Bill at the last moment. The House could only act upon what it saw, and that was, in this case, that the Bill was reported without Amendment; and though now it was said the Committee were unanimous in favour of the Amendment, yet they had practised an extraordinary method of showing their unanimity—namely, by neglecting to put in this clause. It was

  1433
  only as an afterthought that it was proposed. It would be most unfair to the Corporation of Dublin to accept it. It would have the effect of taking hold of the property of the Corporation, which was really the property of the people of Dublin. If they accepted the Amendment and broke down the existing law, as to the quantity of water to be supplied to the townships, they would also break down all those various Local Acts which had been reported to have been in existence for 16 years, for it proposed to allow an extra five gallons of water per head without increasing the charge. He would again say that he hoped their Lordships would not reverse the decision at which they arrived yesterday.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that their Lordships had had the case most ably and clearly put before them, and after what had fallen yesterday from the noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitzgerald) and that day from the noble Lord (Lord Ardilaun), he was exceedingly surprised at the attitude taken by the noble Marquess who represented the Government in the matter (the Marquess of Waterford). They were accustomed to see so many changes in the attitude of Parties in Parliament that one was prepared almost for anything; but he certainly was not prepared to see the noble Marquess give such an extraordinary support as this to the privileges of the Corporation of Dublin. Such a circumstance seemed to him (the Duke of Marlborough) to be most remarkable. The injustice under which the minor townships were labouring had been clearly shown, and it was surely too much to say that that injustice should not be removed except at the expense of a special Act of Parliament. He put it to the Government that the unanimous decision of the Peers who had formed the Select Committee should be taken as a guide in this matter. As that was the only occasion of which the townships could avail themselves in order to obviate the injustice he had referred to, he should give his vote for the Amendment. If the House decided that the townships must, in order to obtain what they sought for, go through the expensive process of trying to get an Act of Parliament themselves, then it would be impossible for them to obtain a measure of justice. The only point the Committee had before them
  1434
  was whether they would take on themselves the responsiblity of inserting the Amendment; but they were absolutely unanimous as to the justice of the proposal.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 21; Not-Contents 19: Majority 2.
  Resolved in the affirmative; clause inserted accordingly.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent, to the Commons.

TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE X.— THE VARNA AND RUSTCHUK RAILWAY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD SANDHURST, in rising to ask the Prime Minister, Whether Her Majesty's Government propose to take any steps, and, if so, what steps, to insure compliance by the State of Bulgaria with Article 10 of the Treaty of Berlin, in so far as it refers to the Varna and Rustchuk Railway? said, that several Questions had been asked in the House of Commons on the subject; but the answers given had not been very reassuring. The action of the Bulgarian Government had been so dilatory as to be almost suggestive of bad faith. If it were a private individual or firm, there would be a method of dealing with it, and he could not see how the code of commercial honour of States differed from that of individuals. The Article of the Treaty of Berlin seemed in danger of lapsing; and, if one Article lapsed, the whole might do so, an idea in which Her Majesty's Government were hardly likely to concur. In asking the Question, he was actuated by no self-interest—he was not a shareholder, nor a Director—but, judging from the Blue Book, the conduct of Bulgaria was at variance with ordinary notions of commercial honour.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in reply, said, that the noble and gallant Lord opposite (Lord Sandhurst) had relied a good deal upon the Article of the Treaty of Berlin; but he (the Marquess of Salisbury) very much doubted whether that Article had precisely the bearing which appeared to have been suggested to the mind of the noble and gallant Lord. He did not gather from it that it gave any new rights to the

  1435
  Company. The Treaty of Berlin transferred Bulgaria, so far as practical government wont, from the Porte to the Prince of Bulgaria, and the Prince succeeded to the obligations which the Porte had assumed in respect of this railway. Therefore, the Railway Company had precisely the same rights against the Prince that it had against the Porte, neither more nor less. No doubt, the creditors of the Railway Company had been badly treated. Successive Governments in England had done what was in their power to bring about a satisfactory settlement of the long-standing claim of the Company; but those efforts had proved ineffectual, and the noble and gallant Lord seemed to think it strange they had not succeeded. No doubt, as the noble and gallant Lord had said, in this country a creditor could easily bring a debtor to book; but, among the inventions of modern times, a Bankruptcy Court as between nations had not yet been discovered, and, therefore, a process which would be easily applied to a private debtor in this country could not be applied to a State which did not fulfil its obligations. The noble and gallant Lord asked what steps were to be taken to insure the payment of the obligations of the State to the Varna Railway. "Insure" was a big word, and he did not know whether the noble and gallant Lord attached any military views to the idea, or whether he intended to carry out the analogy he had instituted, by issuing process against Bulgaria, and attaching the body of the Prince or those of the inhabitants. He (the Marquess of Salisbury) must say that none of those material methods appeared to be open to us, and we were left entirely to such moral influence as other nations of Europe and ourselves could exercise. He doubted whether it was incumbent upon us especially, or whether it was incumbent upon all the Signatories to the Berlin Treaty, to secure that proper effect should be given to the Article relied upon; but he earnestly hoped that, by the wisdom of the nations of Europe, some exhortations might be addressed to the Bulgarian Government sufficiently pressing to induce them to do more justice than they had hitherto done to these and to other creditors. He should be sorry to use any language winch would separate his statement from those of his
  1436
  Predecessor (Earl Granville), which had been described as sympathetic, but not too encouraging on the subject. As to himself, he desired to offer the noble and gallant Lord who asked the Question all the sympathy in his power; but, beyond sympathy, he doubted very much whether he could promise any assistance. He could only say that all means that were open to the Government diplomatically they should gladly bring to bear so as to secure the equitable settlement of these long outstanding claims. It was much to be regretted that they had stood over so long. But, at the same time, it was only fair to say it was probable that the delay of the Bulgarian Government in making payment was to be attributed quite as much to financial embarrassment as to any indisposition to satisfy the demands of the Company. He should be glad to use his efforts to get the matter referred to arbitration, if he thought that arbitration could lead to any practical results; but it did not seem likely that it could do so. The matter should receive all the attention the Government could give to it; but he could not give any promise to insure the satisfaction of the claims of the Company.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
(The Marquess of Waterford.)
LABOURERS (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.

  (NO. 235.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD, in moving that the House do resolve itself into a Committee, said, that the object of the Bill was to render the Act of 1883 workable by removing some of the difficulties that had been found to exist in that Act. It was passed when Parliament was anxious to deal in a comprehensive manner with the housing of the Irish agricultural labourer, and contained some novel principles, which their Lordships always approached with great caution, and would only adopt in case of absolute necessity. He would first state shortly what provisions the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, contained. In the first place, it arranged that if 12 ratepayers, residing within a sanitary district, represented that the existing house accommodation for agricultural labourers was deficient, or unfit for habitation, the Sanitary Authority

  1437
  should call a meeting after 14 days' notice, and, if satisfied that such was the case, should pass a resolution, and make a scheme for improvement. The 12 ratepayers were to suggest the most suitable positions for the houses required. The Sanitary Authority, after having published a statement of the scheme in the months of September, October, or November, and served notice on the owner and occupier of the land which they proposeed to acquire, were to petition the Local Government Board, praying that an Order might be made confirming the scheme. With the Petition were to be sent maps and estimates of the proposed undertaking, and also a statement as to whether the owner or occupier dissented from the proposal. The Local Government Board were then to hold a local inquiry, and, if satisfied with the proposal, were empowered to make a Provisional Order sanctioning the scheme; but that Provisional Order would not take effect in cases where an objection was raised by owners or occupiers, or where three ratepayers had petitioned within the specified time against the scheme, unless it was confirmed by Act of Parliament. When that confirmation had been obtained, the Sanitary Authority were empowered to purchase the land compulsorily and carry the scheme into execution, and the Treasury was bound to advance the money, paying off the interest and principal in a certain number of years, in order to enable the Sanitary Authority to carry the scheme into effect. The Act had been found to be almost inoperative, and he was afraid it would be found, as time went on, more inoperative still. There were a number of schemes proposed; but so great were the difficulties of carrying thorn out, that very few houses were built, and, unless the Act were amended, there would be even fewer for the future. A Committee sat upon this question in "another place" last year, and obtained a great deal of valuable and interesting evidence, and upon its Report the present Bill was mainly framed. The reasons set out in that Report why the Act of 1883 was not workable were shortly these—that the expenses attending the working of the Act of 1883 were so enormous that they discouraged the Sanitary Authorities and Boards of Guardians from taking action in the matter, for
  1438
  fear they should place too great a burden upon the rates. In the first place, the Sanitary Authority was obliged to purchase the fee-simple of the land, and the cost of proof of title and conveyancing was very heavy, and entirely disproportionate to the size of the plot of land required, the cost being to all intents the same as if the Sanitary Authority was purchasing a large estate instead of half-an-acre. Secondly, the cost of Parliamentary confirmation which was incurred in every case where the scheme was opposed was very great. Thirdly, the rate of interest charged by the Treasury and the shortness of the maximum term allowed for repayment made the money borrowed a heavy charge upon the rates. Then, again, there were other causes which prevented the Act being put into operation. It obliged the Sanitary Authority to buy land, and build a new cottage upon it; but there was no provision made for repairing existing cottages, and allotting plots of land to them. Moreover, the arrangement which limited the service of notices to the months of September, October, and November was found not to be sufficient. It was shown in evidence, that the cost of building a cottage of a kitchen and two rooms, with all the sanitary arrangements required by the Local Government Board, would be about £70, and the legal and other expenses, including the purchase money, would come to some £35 more, making in all £105. The annual payment to the Treasury for 35 years for that sum would be something over £5 12.s., a sum which it would be perfectly impossible to expect an agricultural labourer, from the small wages he received in the greater part of Ireland, to pay in the shape of rent for his cottage and plot of land. About 1s. to 1s. 3d. was as much as an agricultural labourer could pay in Ireland; and, therefore, if that rent were put upon the houses, the rates would have to bear more than half the charge for 35 years, with the risk that if the house became untenanted, or the labourer became unable to pay even that rent, the rates would have to bear it all. The Bill got rid of many of these difficulties. In the first place, it got over the difficulty and expense of purchase by empowering the Local Government Board, with the consent of the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council, to make

  1439
  a Provisional Order to enable the Sanitary Authority to take land compulsorily upon lease for 99 years, and limited owners were given power to grant such leases. There would be very little expense in taking such a lease compared with the expense of purchasing the fee-simple, and the rates would be saved to that extent. In cases of dispute, the Land Court was to fix the rent which was to be paid by the Sanitary Authority. If the land were liable to quit rent, Crown rent, or in the occupation of a tenant, the apportionment of such rent was to be settled by agreement. If not so settled, the Court was to apportion. The owner, if aggrieved, could obtain a re-hearing of his ease by the Land Commission under the 44th and 48th sections of the Act of 1881. A Provisional Order made by the Local Government Board did not require to be confirmed by Act of Parliament, in cases where a Petition was lodged; but, instead of going before Parliament, arrangement was made that the petitioner's case be heard by the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council, who then could confirm or reject the Provisional Order. The Lord Lieutenant in Council was to make rules for the procedure, the payment of fees and costs, &c. In addition to those provisions, the Sanitary Authority could purchase and put into repair any existing cottage, and add half-an-acre of land to it, or could take an existing cottage on lease. The time for serving notices of the improvement scheme, instead of being limited, as in the Act of 1883, to the months of September, October, and November, was, by the Bill, extended to the whole year. An Inspector of the Local Government Board was to report if a house were unfit for habitation, and the Sanitary Authority was to require the owner to repair it, or prevent it being further used. Anybody disregarding the order of the Sanitary Authority in this respect was liable to a fine not exceeding 10 s. a-day. The definition of an agricultural labourer was revised and enlarged, and the term fixed for the continuance of the Act would be fixed at seven years from 1883, instead of for five years, the date named in the original Act. The Bill, he thought, was distinctly a step in the right direction. Its object was to provide house accommodation for one of the most deserving classes in Ireland;
  1440
  and it was hoped that, while these classes were by these means put into a state of comfort, indirect benefits would be conferred on all classes of society. The House had already assented to the principle by passing the Act of 1883, and ought, therefore, to pass a Bill which would give the labourers an Act which would really be workable. In some quarters a fear was felt that the measure might be used for political purposes; but he hoped that would not be the case, and there were provisions in the Bill that were intended to guard against such an unfortunate result. Should that precaution prove efficient, the Bill would, be a real blessing to the class whom it was intended to benefit. The noble Marquess concluded by making the Motion of which he had given Notice.
  Moved, "That the House do resolve itself into Committee."—(The Marquess of Waterford.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he wished to know whether the Bill was to enable Sanitary Authorities or others to build houses for the working classes, partly out of the rates and partly out of the public funds?
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: No.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Well, out of the rates?
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: Yes, out of the rates.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that the noble Marquess had spoken of the Bill as a step in the right direction. What was the terminus of the road along which the noble Marquess desired to travel? Was any limit to be imposed to the advance of money for such purposes?
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that he must remind the noble Earl that this was not a new departure in legislation. He used the expression to indicate that the object of the Bill was simply to render operative an Act the principle of which their Lordships had accepted in 1883.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he perfectly agreed that the Bill was a step in the right direction with respect to a subject of considerable importance—the improvement of the condition of Irish agricultural labourers. That question had been a subject of controversy for the last 30 years. A Bill on the subject

  1441
  had been passed in 1857, but it failed; and several intermediate attempts had been made to deal satisfactorily with the question, but without success. No doubt, on large estates, and especially on that of the noble Marquess himself (the Marquess of Watorford), sufficient cottage accommodation was already provided by the landlords. But outside those estates the condition of the Irish labourers in regard to residence was a reproach to civilization, and it was impossible for any considerable advance in their well-being to be made unless their homes were greatly improved. He hoped their Lordships would pass the Bill, and thereby give a most deserving class a chance of advancing in prosperity and comfort.
  Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 11, inclusive, severally agreed to.
  Provisional Orders.
  Clause 12 (Provisional order may be confirmed by the Privy Council).
  On the Motion of The Marquess of Waterford, Amendments made in page 5, line 12, after ("than") leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six"); in line 17, after ("not") leave out ("more") and insert ("less"); and in line 28, after the word ("Council") to insert the words ("after hearing the petitioner or giving him an opportunity of being heard.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Amendment of provisional orders made before this Act).
  On the Motion of The Marquess of Waterford, Amendment made in page 6, after ("not") leave out ("more") and insert ("less.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 14 and 15 severally agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Powers of the sanitary authority relative to purchase existing cottages, and allot land to existing cottages).
  THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved, as an Amendment, to insert words to render it clear that the purchase should be by agreement.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that as this was a new Amendment
  1442
  proposed without Notice, he should, be glad if the noble Earl would move it on Report.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  On the Motion of The Marquess of Waterford, Amendment made in page 8, line 22, at end of the Hue, add—
  "Provided also, that, except in the case of a tract of land in the neighbourhood of a town or village as aforesaid, a sanitary authority shall not let or permit to be hold any land acquired by them under the said Act as amended by this Act to or by any person who is not also tenant to the sanitary authority of a dwelling-house."
  On the Motion of The Earl of COURTOWN, Amendment made by omitting, in the same page, lines 24 and 25.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Closing of dwellings unfit for habitation) agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Area of charge for rate levied by the sanitary authority).
  LORD VENTRY, in moving an Amendment with the object of creating a right of approval to the Local Government Board against unjust assessment by Sanitary Authorities, said, that, unless the Amendment were accepted, it would be in the power of Boards of Guardians to favour particular districts at the expense of others.
  Amendment moved, in page 9, line 36, after ("authority") insert ("subject to the approval of the Local Government Board.")—(The Lord Ventry.)
  After some discussion,
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that in deference to what appeared to be the sense of the House he would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Miscellaneous amendments of Act of 1883. 46 & 47 Vict. c. 60) agreed to.
  LORD VENTRY, in moving the insertion of a new clause (19A), the object of which was to enable a landowner, from whom it was proposed to take land compulsorily, to offer, as an alternative, other land in lieu of that proposed to be taken, said, he believed it would make the Bill work much more smoothly, and

  1443
  would also tend to prevent its being used by Sanitary Authorities as an instrument of oppression.
  Moved, To add, in page 10, after Clause 19, the following new clause:—
  (Power to owner to propose alternative schemes.)
  "When in execution of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, after the completion of an improvement scheme, notice of the compulsory taking of any lands for the purposes of such scheme, or any part thereof, has been served upon any owner or reputed owner, and such owner or reputed owner in his answer to such notice states that he dissents to the taking of such lands; he may in such answer offer to the sanitary authority, instead of such lands, other lands of which he is the owner, and which lands he, with the consent of the occupier thereof, may agree to be appropriated to such purposes.
  "On the consideration of the petition for the confirmation of such scheme, and of the local inquiry to be held in relation thereto, the offer of such owner and the propriety of accepting the same shall be considered, and if such offer shall be accepted the lands specified in such offer may be substituted for the lands originally sought to be taken from such owner compulsorily, and such substitution shall not be deemed to be an addition to the lands proposed in the scheme to be taken compulsorily."—(The Lord Ventry.)
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, he thought the proposal a fair one, and he would accept it.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  LORD VENTRY LORD VENTRY moved the insertion of a new clause (19B), the object of which was to insure a period of six weeks' notice to a landowner whose land it was proposed to take compulsorily.
  Moved, to add, in page 10, after Clause 19A, the following new clause:—
  (Limit of time for giving answers.)
  "The time within which any owner, or reputed owner and lessee, or reputed lessee, of any lands served with any notice as to the compulsory taking of such lands for an improvement scheme under the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, may give an answer thereto, as required by the said Act, or by this Act, shall be six (6) weeks after the service of such notice."—(The Lord Ventry.)
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that there was something fair in the proposal. If the noble Lord would make it 21 days he would accept it.
  LORD VENTRYsuggested a month.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, he would accept the term as altered.
  Clause amended, by leaving out, in line 6, the words ("six (6) weeks") and inserting instead the words ("one month.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  LORD VENTRY LORD VENTRY moved the insertion of a new Clause (19c), with the view of enabling the rents due for sites of cottages to be set off against rates due by the landlord in the electoral division in which the cottages were situated.
  Moved, to add, in page 10, after Clause 19B, the following new Clause:—
  "Any person liable to the payment of rates in any sanitary district, and entitled to receive any rents from the sanitary authority of such district in respect of any lands appropriated to any improvement scheme, may from time to time claim, by way of set-off against such rates, the whole or any part of such rents so far as the same had accrued due previous to the striking of such rates, and are payable out of the electoral division in which such lands are situate."—(The Lord Ventry.)
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, he thought it would be better that the rent should be a set-off for the rates, not in the electoral division, but in the whole Union. The noble Lord's proposal would, he feared, lead to complication. He would suggest that the matter should be dealt with on Report.
  Clause (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  LORD VENTRY LORD VENTRY moved the insertion of a new clause (19D), giving the Local Government Board power to order an inquiry upon the complaint of any person liable to the payment of poor rates as to any breach or non-compliance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, by the Sanitary Authority; and also giving the Board power to enforce the observance of the section in question by the imposition of a penalty upon the Sanitary Authority.
  Moved, to add, in page 10, after Clause (C), the following new Clause:—
  "When complaint is made to the Local Government Board by any person liable to the payment of poors rates in any sanitary district of any breach of or non-compliance with any of the provisions of section thirteen of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, by the Sanitary Authority, the Local Government Board may direct a local inquiry, to be held, and if such breach or non-compliance shall be proved at such local inquiry, the Local Government

  1445
  Board may make such order with respect to such breach or non-compliance and for prohibiting the continuance thereof as to the said Board shall seem fit, and may enforce the observance of the same by the imposition of a penalty upon the sanitary authority not exceeding pounds, and by a farther penalty not exceeding pounds for every day after the first during which such breach or non-compliance shall continue."—(The Lord Ventry.)
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that the Local Government Board might be trusted to do its duty without any provision of this kind being inserted. He could not accept the clause.
  Clause (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  LORD VENTRY LORD VENTRY moved the insertion of a new clause (19E), to prevent any person in receipt of outdoor relief occupying any of the cottages under the Act.
  Moved, to add, in page 10, after Clause (D), the following new Clause:—
  "It shall not be lawful for the sanitary authority to allow any person who may be in receipt of outdoor relief, other than medical relief, to continue in occupation of any cottage built or acquired under this Act, or of any land of which he may be the tenant under any of the provisions of this Act."—(The Lord Ventry.)
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, the clause was unnecessary, as the law as it stood was sufficient for the purpose. He could not, therefore, accept it.
  Clause (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 241.)

PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to consolidate with amendments certain Acts relating to nuisances, infectious diseases, and other matters concerning public health in the Metropolis—Was presented by The Marquess of Salisbury; read 1ª (No. 240.)
House adjourned during pleasure; and resumed by the Viscount Hawarden.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with amendments; the said amendments to be printed; and to be considered on Monday next. (No. 242.)
House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock A.M. to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.