said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Under what circumstances a portion of the expenses incurred by the Bishop of Cape Town in his unsuccessful lawsuit with Mr. Long were repaid to him by the Treasury?

said, in reply, that the circumstances under which this payment was made where somewhat peculiar The Bishop of Capo Town presented a memorial to the Lords of the Treasury to the effect that he had been engaged in trying questions which did not concern himself individually, but which related to the rights of the Crown, with reference to his office. That memorial was referred to the Colonial Office, with a request that the Secretary of State would inform the Lords of the Treasury whether, in his opinion, there were circumstances of a peculiar nature in the case which would seem in justice to warrant and require a payment such as the Bishop had asked. The answer of the Colonial Office was, that the question brought under consideration in the case of the Bishop of Cape Town did bear not only upon the position of the Bishop, but likewise upon important questions connected with the prerogative of the Crown, and its titles and rights in the Colonies, and that consequently it would have been the duty, under other circumstances, of the advisers of the Crown to instruct the Law Officers, the Queen's Advocate, and the Attorney General, to attend the Privy Council and watch the case on behalf of the Crown. But it so happened that the Bishop of Cape Town himself had retained the Queen's Advocate and the Solicitor General to act as his counsel, and consequently they discharged the duty on behalf of the Crown, though immediately at the charge of the Bishop of Cape Town. It was therefore thought fit to make some allowance to the Bishop in respect to that portion of his costs which the Crown must have borne but for the circumstance of his having retained its Law Officers. He did not remember precisely what the sum was, but of course the papers could be produced.

said, he wished to know, whether there would be an opportunity for a fuller explanation of the matter before the Estimates?

said, if further explanation was desired, the hon. Member could move for the correspondence.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty (in reference to Return No. 269, delivered on Friday last), The reason why, notwithstanding that Votes were taken for 10,000 Marines on shore in the Estimates for the year 1863–4 and 1864–5, the number actually borne on the strength of the divisions on shore at the end of 1863–4 was only 8,712 men, or 1,288 short of the Vote, and only 8,970 men, or 1,030short, at the end of 1864–5; whether, in preparing the Navy Estimates for the next financial year, the Admiralty would object to add to the tabular statement (now given in Appendix No. 1) of the number of men and boys "more or less borne than voted," on the first of every month, a similar statement in respect of Marines, distinguishing the number afloat from the number on shore; and whether there would be any objection to distinguish between the Coastguard afloat and the Coastguard on shore, in the tabular statement referred to?

said, in reply, that it was quite true that the number of Marines was considerably below the number voted on the 1st of April, 1864. There was a deficiency of nearly 1,000 men, and not 1,288 men, as stated by his right hon. Friend, the number voted being 18,000, and the number serving 17,061. Although the Marines on shore were below the number voted, yet of Marines afloat, including the number sent to Japan, there was a very considerable excess. The reason of the number being below the Vote was that there had been a considerable difficulty in procuring really efficient recruits at that time. With respect to the Return of 1865, he had to state that on the 1st of April the number serving was within fifty-five of the number voted. There would be no objection to placing upon the Estimates a statement of the Marines, as distinguished from the seamen and boys.

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of works, Whether it would not be possible to give the public greater facilities for visiting the Chapter House at Westminster than they at present enjoy?

said, in reply, that the Chapter House had been shut up since the removal of the Records, but if any one wished to see it he could obtain permission to do so upon application to the Office of Works.

said, he wished to know whether it would not be possible to give further facilities?

said, he had not considered the point very much. Some expense would certainly be entailed, and he doubted whether the interest of the public was so great as to warrant the outlay that would be requisite.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer or the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any Bill is to be introduced this Session, and when, for the removal of certain Collections now forming part of the British Museum, and whether such Bill ought not to be introduced, and the sanction of the House obtained to its main principle, before any expense is incurred in the preparation of plans and Estimates for the erection of buildings elsewhere, to which the said Collections were to be transferred?

said, in reply, that he would endeavour to give the hon. Gentleman the clearest answer in his power. The question of the introduction of a Bill during the present Session for the removal of any portion of the collections of the British Museum must necessarily depend upon the prior question when the Estimate could be produced in reference to the expenditure, and when the opinion of the House could be taken upon it. That was the very point of the hon. Member's objections, and the purpose of his present question. It might be said, why should not the Bill be introduced before the Estimate? That course was adopted in 1862, but it was complained of on all sides. It had been found to be inconvenient by all the speak- ers upon that occasion, because it mixed up inextricably two questions which were wholly distinct—first, the question of finance connected with the proposed plans, and next the important questions of the government of the Museum by trustees. It had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), with a force which could not be denied, that the effect of the Government proposing the Bill was to obtain indirectly, and by implication, the sanction of the House to a very large expenditure, which bad not been regularly brought before it, and upon which it had no direct means of expressing an opinion. That argument appeared to the Government to be sound, and therefore they believed they should best perform their duty by submitting the question to the House, in the first instance, in a financial shape and under circumstances which would afford the House the fullest opportunity of pronouncing a decided opinion.

said, he wished to know when the Estimate would be produced?

replied, that it would be produced as soon as questions now under discussion between the Board of Works and the trustees had been settled. Those questions related to the internal arrangements of the building, and it would be necessary to produce perfect plans when they asked for the money.

said, he rose to ask Mr. Attorney General to inform the House by whose authority the written statement was prepared from which, on Monday last, he read his replies to the questions relating to the Bankruptcy Court at Leeds, and whether ho will lay it upon the table of the House; and whether he will lay upon the table the letter of Mr. Welch, the registrar, which he read to the House on Tuesday last to complete his previous statement, as well as the letter of the Hon. Richard Bethell, confirming the same.

I think, Sir, that probably on no former occasion has the House heard so extraordinary a question as that of the hon. Gentleman. When I saw his Notice on the paper that some questions were to be put to me upon a matter of public interest, of course it was my duty to go to what I considered to be the proper quarter in which to obtain correct information; and, having provided myself to the best of my power with that information, upon my own responsibility and in good faith I gave to the House the information I had thus acquired. Any memorandum either made by myself or by anybody else for my use for that purpose is a document which I believe never has been treated as of a public nature, and I wholly decline to treat it as such on the present occasion. As to the letters, if the hon. Gentleman, as between man and man, wishes to see the letter written to me from which I stated the matters which alone I thought useful to state to the House—which is not a public document, and which I am not authorized by the writer to treat as such—he is welcome to see it, for there is nothing to conceal; but I wholly decline to treat it as a public document. I have also authority from the person who received the other letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers to say that if the hon. Gentleman, as a gentleman, has any curiosity to see it, he shall be gratified; but I wholly decline, on my own responsibility, to treat them as public documents.

I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is competent for a Minister of the Crown to quote in his place letters and papers which he is not prepared to lay on the table?

Public despatches, documents, and papers relating to public affairs, if read and quoted by Ministers, may be called for to be laid on the table. But the Attorney General has stated the distinction which he draws in this case, and which distinction certainly appears to me to be a just one.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, If he intends to proceed with the Bill to amend the practice in Crown suits, or will delay it until after the holydays, to give time to consider if the practice of registering Crown debts can he amended by Clauses to be introduced to render it unnecessary for boná fide parchasers of real estate to incur the expense of searching the registry before they can complete purchases?

, in reply, said, he did not propose to proceed with the Bill that night, but he was anxious to proceed with it as quickly as the course of public business would allow—giving, of course, fair time to those interested in the measure to consider it. He was not disposed to postpone it so long as till after the holydays, but he would fix it for that day week.

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, If any system of telegraphing has been finally approved and adopted for the Army; and, if so, whether there will be any objection to lay upon the table of the House a copy of the Reports of any Committee or Committees on the various systems submitted to them?

said, in reply, that the Select Committee and other Committees bad inquired into the various systems of military telegraphy, and that recommended by Captain Bolton would, he believed, be ultimately adopted. The measures for the organization of the system were still under consideration; but as soon as they were decided upon he should be able to say what portion of the Reports he would be able to lay on the table.

said, he wished to propose an Amendment, the effect of which would be to put the clause in harmony with a new clause he intended to bring up, providing for a gradual approach to the principle of union rating by annual instalments up to the year 1870. He therefore moved in line 14, after "shall," to insert, "subject to the provisions hereinafter contained."

said, that he did not object to the insertion of the proposed words.

said, that as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just taken 2d. in the pound off the Income Tax, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board now proposed a measure which would impose an additional burden of about 3d. in the pound upon the agricultural interest of the country to the advantage of the towns, it was desirable that the whole law of assessment should be inquired into, as well as the exemptions of stock-in-trade and other species of property. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. P. Villiers) would give some assurance that all those questions should he considered.

said, that when he was questioned on the subject the other night he had said that next year the Act for the exemption of stock-in-trade would come to an end, and as that would be an opportunity for an inquiry whether that exemption should be continued, it might also be an occasion for inquiring into all other assessments. If such an inquiry were proposed he should support it.

said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, told them he made this Motion as a test of the sincerity of those who were promoting and supporting the Bill, Therefore the House might congratulate itself upon the admission of the right hon. Gentleman that his objection was not to the principle of the Bill, but to the inconveniences which might arise if the Bill were passed without the Amendment he proposed, which ho alleged would, by giving a wider effect to the measure, complete that reform of the Poor Law system of which the Bill might be regarded only as a commencement. It must be a source of great satisfaction to all parties to find there was a road by which they might arrive at unanimity in dealing with this question for the benefit of the poor. He (Mr. Ayrton) could not be charged with insincerity upon this point, as during the five or six years be had sat in Committees of the House appointed to consider the subject, he had always advocated the principle of extending the area of rating, and of abolishing the law of removal. It had always appeared to him that the two principles were so intimately connected that it was impossible to deal with one without the other. The only question which remained, therefore, was which were they to deal with first. Every one who had studied the legislation during the last thirty-five years upon this question, would be convinced that the great obstruction to carrying out a uniform system with regard to the Poor Law was the disinclination of those who held large estates, and who possessed great influence, to allow successive Governments to propose a measure for the purpose. He must say he admired the courage shown by his right hon. Friend (Mr. C. P. Villiers), insetting aside the attempts that had, doubtless, been made in order to prevent him bringing the matter under the notice of the House. By the positive vote of the House that obstructive difficulty had now been got rid of. The moment that the area of charge was so extended as to render the charge of maintaining the poor fair and reasonable throughout the country, there would no longer exist any reason, as far as the ratepayer was concerned, for insisting upon the right of removal. With reference to the pauper, the argument was that if you did not remove paupers, people would go about from place to place for the mere pleasure of making themselves chargeable. That was an idea which had grown out of past errors in Poor Law administration, and would have no reference to the application of the law by an intelligent Board of Guardians acting for all. Under such a system, the only motive which a man could have for moving from place to place would be to get work by which he might live as an honest man. This was proved by the experience of Ireland, where there was no law of removal, but where the Poor Law was administered in an intelligent and discriminating spirit, and in such a manner as to prevent any jealousy on the part of the labourer. There no such theories had ever been admitted as found favour with the hon. Member for Worcestershire (Mr. Knight) and others, that the Poor Law was a kind of regulated system of national charity and so on. It was remarkable how completely the people of this country had been injured and demoralized by a false system of Poor Law relief founded upon such views. In Ireland, with a population of nearly six millions said to be always on the verge of want, the annual charge for the poor was only £600,000, whereas in this country, with a population of 20,000,000, the annual charge for the poor amounted to £6,500,000. In this wealthy country, where industry flourished with remarkable freedom and vigour, and which was said to be the envy of the whole world, the number of paupers who were chargeable on any day in the year was 1,079,000, while in Ireland it was only 55,000. Can any one doubt that the large number of paupers in England was the result of the demoralization of the working people occasioned by a false system of administering the Poor Law? and he had no doubt that the first effect of this measure would be to compel the guardians as a body to apply themselves to the proper administration of the Poor Law, and the next to improve the moral condition of the people, so that ultimately they might be elevated to the standard of the people of Ireland. He spoke advisedly when he said "of the people of Ireland," because he had no doubt that the moral standard of the people of Ireland was infinitely higher than that of the people of this country, a circumstance which he attributed, first, to their not having had a Poor Law until lately; and, secondly, to the better administration of the Poor Law in that country, the poor not having been demoralized by a system similar to that established here. Under the operation of this Bill we should get rid of the false ideas which had long prevailed; it would be understood that the first object of the Poor Law was to maintain the independence of the self-supporting and honest members of the working classes; and when that had been done no evil could result from the abolition of the law of removal. There remained among us now some of the leaven of the old statute in which the people were described as going about to parishes in which the best stocks were to be found, and where they could obtain most comfort from the Poor Law. That was the origin of the whole system of settlement and removal, and that motive being removed all the restrictions which had grown out of the original error of the Poor Law might be abolished at once. No one would propose that we should regard the Poor Law as part of a system of communism or socialism, and should establish a factory in each parish for the purpose of employing the people and paying them wages. The Poor Law Guardians would have to apply themselves to a more intelligent application of the system. Their object ought to be to give to the people the full benefit of railways and of all means of transporting themselves wherever their industry was needed and where they could earn the best wages. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) had justly pointed out that if the law was altered as he desired, it would be necessary that the metropolis should be considered as one union; and one of the Resolutions of the Committee, from whose Report this Bill had originated, was that in any legislation upon this subject it would be necessary to regard the metropolis as an exception to the rest of the country, and as requiring some special provisions, it being in fact one large city. One of the recommendations of that Committee had been adopted with reference to the houseless poor, and if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was accepted, it would be necessary to go further in the same direction. A servant who had been employed in Belgrave Square could not if discharged find lodgings in that neighbourhood, but must betake himself to those parts of the town where the poorer classes were gathered together; and it would not be fair to saddle such unions with the cost of maintaining persons who only came there when they were most likely to become chargeable. Some persons were afraid lest if the law of removal was abolished the difference between the dietaries in English and Irish workhouses should lead to the migration of a large number of paupers from Ireland to this country. He did not think that there was any real reason to apprehend such a migration, but if there was any danger of its taking place the guardians had the re- medy in their own hands. They would simply have to treat Irish paupers coming over under those circumstances to all the comforts of the workhouse under the most rigid system of administration, and he felt assured no Irishman would be likely to leave his country and friends for the sake of indulging in such a privilege. He had only to say in conclusion that he hoped unless there were some reason, which he did not see, to prevent the introduction of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite into the present Bill, the President of the Poor Law Board would take that course; or, if not, that he would, at all events, give a distinct pledge to lay upon the table of the House a measure to accomplish the object which the right hon. Gentleman had in view.

said, that every step taken to prevent the removal of the poor had been productive of good, but he was somewhat afraid of taking a step so much in advance as that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. We enjoyed in this; country great liberty of removing from place to place, but he had heard his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) say lately that we were becoming the most police-ridden country in the world, and we must he-ware that we do not adopt measures which would render it necessary to have resort to the intervention of the police in matters of removal. There were a great number of persons who went from fair to fair, and a large number of Irish in the metropolis, who were, in fact, a constantly migrating population. It might make landlords much too stringent if they did away with removability altogether, and therefore he was not willing to take so large a step with respect to all settlements. He thought it would be well if a measure of the kind proposed by his right hon. Friend were brought in as a separate measure, and he (Sir William Jolliffe) should be glad if so, to give it his support.

said, that he begged to thank the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) for the enlightened views which he had expressed in his speech. As a measure of justice to the poor he thought no one could doubt that these restrictions were most unjust. In this metropolis they were indebted very much to what was termed the migratory habits of the Irish poor. Without such labour they would find themselves at a great loss, and he could not see why, when a large society called forth so much labour, they should be unwilling to support the destitution which was necessarily occasioned. The sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman were quite in unison with those which the metropolitan ratepayers entertained. The time had, he thought, arrived when the law of removal should be altogether expunged from the statute-book.

said, he wished to call the special attention of the House to the evidence recently placed before it, and which was extremely singular in its character, though the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Villiers) had not gone much into it, but had contented himself with making general assertions. The Chairman of the Board of Guardians of the London Union was examined before the Select Committee that had sat on this subject in 1861–2, and he stated, that in his opinion the law of settlement should be abolished. Mr. Blatchford, the Chairman of the Fulham Board of Guardians, said he thought the law of settlement should be totally abolished, but not until the area of chargeability was enlarged, because if they were to abolish it before such a measure as that was adopted, they would swamp some parishes entirely. He (Sir William Miles) entirely agreed with the witness on that point, and he thought his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) had, with great propriety, made his proposal as a supplement to the present Bill. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) that there should be but one rate for the whole of the metropolis, and he hoped that the hon. Member, and those who thought with him, would support this Amendment, because they might depend upon it this question must be considered very shortly in its entirety. It appeared to him that the present unequal system of rating in the metropolis could not be continued for three years longer. Mr. Esdaile, overseer of St. George's, Surrey, was also examined, and likewise expressed his disapproval of the law of settlement. Mr. I George Goodwin, Chairman of the Board of Guardians of Norwich, stated that he was in favour of making the poor chargeable to the district where they were employed. Mr. George Bowring, clerk of the guardians of the London Union, said the effect of the union rating would be to make the richer parishes pay more and the poorer parishes less. He did not think that union rating would have much effect in increasing or diminishing pauperism; but he said that the abolition of the law of settlement would circulate labour. Mr. May, clerk of the Macclesfield Union, said he would have all settlement done away with. He (Sir William Miles) believed that by abolishing the law of settlement and removal they would greatly add to the comforts of the poor and improve the interests of the ratepayers. The witnesses whose evidence he had quoted, stated in distinct terms that one of the most effectual methods of benefiting the poor was to allow labour to circulate freely. He hoped they would be able to make the Bill a good one, and he confessed that he looked forward with some anxiety to the answer of the President of the Poor Law Board. Some Gentlemen, no doubt, might be afraid of an influx of Irish paupers; but he did not apprehend that any such result would follow. Ho recollected the misery that was suffered in the years 1845 and 1846, when so many Irish paupers were sent over from Liverpool to their country and then reshipped to England. He trusted that such a state of things would never again occur, and in order to provide against the possibility of its recurrence, he hoped that the House would agree to the Amendment of his right hon. Friend.

said, that Ireland suffered more than any other part of the United Kingdom under this law of settlement and removal. He was, therefore, delighted at the prospect of getting rid of the ill-feeling engendered by the removal of paupers from England to Ireland. He was Chairman of a Board of Guardians, and it had often occurred that an Englishman had presented himself to the Board for relief which they gave without hesitation. In Ireland, according to law, wherever a pauper was found, the ratepayers were bound to relieve him; whereas paupers were frequently sent to Ireland from England who had completely forgotten their native country. In his own union paupers were all sent to the house, instead of being offered outdoor relief, and therefore they had no wandering vagrants. If it were possible to introduce that system into this Bill, he would give it his support. If the right hon. Gentleman did not adopt the principle at present, he hoped some other hon. Gentleman would at no very distant date introduce a separate Bill for the purpose of carrying out that object.

said, ho should have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) if he went to a division. When this Bill was before the House for a second reading he said that he should vote for it, not only on account of its own intrinsic merits, but because it was a step in the right direction. That direction was now pointed out to them by the right hon. Gentleman in recommending the abolition of the law of settlement and removal. The step might appear to be bold, but it had the sanction of high authorities. It had been recommended by Adam Smith a century ago. It had been recommended by a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1847, who agreed to four Resolutions:—That the law of settlement and removal was injurious—1st, to the working classes; 2nd, to the employers of labour; 3rd, to the ratepayers; and 4th, that it ought to be abolished. These opinions were echoed by the country. Five unions in the county of Suffolk expressed the same sentiments; as also did various unions in other counties, in answer to inquiries which were instituted by the Poor Law Board in every direction through their Inspectors, whose Reports were made and published in 1850. And now they had the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, who was not likely to counsel a rash and precipitate step; and if any one feared the experiment he would say to him—

"Tune qua parentis Jussa time; neu præceptis parere recusa."

It is quite evident the House wants to come to an early division on this subject. Sir, I cannot help thinking that there is nothing very real in this Motion, and that it is not really proposed for the purpose for which it appears to be moved. Certainly, we have great authority for receiving a repentant sinner with welcome, and we ought, therefore, to hail the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) with all that joy which we know is promised to those who have sinned and who repent. So aggravated a case of an offender in this matter can hardly be found in this House. The right hon. Gentleman has, as I believe, taken the House, and he has certainly taken me, by surprise. Notice has been given, a speech has been made, and reasons have been assigned for the great change which the right hon. Gentleman proposes instantly to be made. He proposes, by an Amendment, to insert a few words, and omit a few other words. Perhaps, however, the right hon. Gentleman has hardly considered what it is he does propose. I beg leave to say that what the right hon. Gentleman proposes is the instant and complete abolition of the system of removal and settlement. That, I say, has taken me a little by surprise, because we know the opinions formerly entertained by the right hon. Gentleman on this particular question. I know no one so alive to these matters, or who has so constantly expressed his opinions on things of this kind. I will, however, venture to say that this is the first time that the House has heard that these are the views of the right hon. Gentleman, or that he ever contemplated such a measure. I took some interest in this matter before I presided over this Department. I have watched these measures, and I have listened to the sentiments expressed at various times by the right hon. Gentleman. Well, Sir, I have been on Committees with the right hon. Gentleman. I have remarked his votes, and have heard his speeches, and having regard to those votes and speeches, I am, I think, justified in saying that I am astonished at the course he has taken to-night, I do not mean to say that we ought to look behind the scenes and search for a man's motives. If he proposes anything good, and is an influential person, we ought to get all the good we can out of it without reference to what he has done be-fore, and without taunting him with inconsistency. But in 1846 the right hon. Gentleman objected to any measure of this kind, and curiously enough, seeing the sympathy he has expressed for the poor of that country this evening, that was an Irish question. The right hon. Gentleman then said that if the House were to declare by law every Irish person in this country to be irremovable they would walk over into this country in such numbers that a heavy burden would be thrown upon English parishes. Well, that did not encourage one to expect that the right hon. Gentleman would introduce the measure he has proposed to-night. But the most important occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman expressed his views was in 1847, when he took a prominent part in the Committee which sat that year on the subject of the law of removal and settlement. Some one moved that the power of removing destitute persons from one part of the country to the other should be abolished. That Motion was lost by one. I will not say that the casting vote was given by the right lion. Gentleman. But who was in the majority on that occasion? Why, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire. He is no young man in the consideration of these questions, and his views may well be supposed to have been matured long since. Had he changed the views he then expressed on a subsequent occasion? Mr. Baines in 1854 brought in a Bill which in its main features was passed seven years afterwards, and which contemplated the abolition of the law of settlement and removal. The right hon. Gentleman was first in the field against Mr. Baines. He said that the measure was proposed on the authority of the Reports of Commissioners, and that he did not believe a word they said, and that their Reports were not worth the paper they were written on. The right hon. Gentleman said that he know something of the poor, and that they did not want the change proposed, and that, though they might be scattered about the world, they generally entertained the wish and the hope to end their days in their several parishes, which they looked upon as their home. Well, that is not a very strong argument in his favour. I never thought he had so much objection to the system of settlement. Then be gets to the favourite topic of the shifting of burdens. He resorts to the old method of disheartening any one who brings forward a measure on the subject, and discouraging the House from accepting it. The right hon. Gentleman is not insensible to the legislation which has taken place in this House. Some persons were astonished that certain measures were allowed to pass that made this Bill necessary. Why was the measure of 1861 passed? The right hon. Gentleman did the best he could to prevent it. He said that nothing could prevent the House from having to pass another measure; that there would be first a union rating, and then an abolition of the whole system. He has been consistent in his opposition to that Bill, and he opposed it tooth and nail. He has been acting in co-operation with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire (Mr. Knight). I do not know which is the leader and which is the party, but they have both acted with great authority in warning the House that they could not pass the measure of 1861 without soon passing a Bill like the present. What the right hon. Gentleman has done since this measure' has been proposed has been to throw doubt and to excite distrust and alarm in the country with regard to this Bill. Well, the divisions which have taken place do not show that the right hon. Gentleman has got that influence in the House which perhaps he ought to have, and which it might be expected that he would have. ["Question!"] The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Cave) says "Question;" but I beg to remind the hon. Gentleman that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire stated that his object in introducing this Amendment was to test my sincerity. Well, the question that is raised will test the sincerity of more persons than one, for I say, notwithstanding that the hon. Gentleman cries "Question," that people out of this House are very much interested and very much in earnest with respect to this subject. They want to know what course the right hon. Gentleman has taken hitherto—whether he has been always consistent, and what lie has been doing since the measure was introduced. I say the public want some explanation of all this. The right hon. Gentleman has been alarming the whole country. He says it is a rash, a hasty, an ill-considered measure—I think he even called it "a social revolution." When this measure, to which the only objection is that it is moderate, that it is careful, that it is only a step in the right direction, is thus spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman, and by those Gentlemen who are supposed to be authorities on all that is safe and conservative, I think we have a right to ask what is the character of this Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman proposes—whether it is more reasonable, more moderate and, more cautious that the one which I have proposed to the House. The right hon. Gentleman remembers, I dare say, the speech which Sir James Graham made upon the Bill of 1861. He knows that Sir James Graham was extremely anxious not only to pass the Bill before the House but to go the length of the right hon. Gentleman; and in the division to which I have already referred it will be found that Sir James Graham voted for the abolition of removal, while the right hon. Gentleman opposite voted against it. Sir James Graham seeing the Bill proposed in 1861, gave it his hearty support, and why?—because he thought it would lead eventually and safely to carrying the other measures. He explained on that occasion the measure of Mr. Baines, which had been submitted to Lord Aberdeen's Cabinet, and he stated in this House, what he told me privately, that he thought the Bill of Mr. Baines went too far, for Mr. Baines proposed three things,—the total abolition of all compulsory removal, the extension of the area from parochial to union, and the establishment of an equal assessment of all rateable property. Sir James Graham said that Mr. Baines proposed to put the three things into one Bill and that therefore it failed, and he added that he approved himself of proceeding gradually. Now, Sir James Graham was sincere, and gave proof of his sincerity when he voted in Committee. He had nothing to gain by voting as he did; he knew the subject well, he had been always considering how to pass Bills for the purpose of getting rid of the question of settlement and removal. Almost the last speech he made in this House was upon this subject, and he expressed his entire approval of the gradual proceedings of the Government in this matter. Well, that Bill of 1861 was passed. And then he said that the next step was to extend the rating from the parish to the union, but he added, "Don't alarm the people, don't attempt too much at one time, because if you do you will do nothing at all." Well, I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire is pretty much of the same opinion. The right hon. Gentleman is as sagacious a man as Sir James Graham was, and he probably thinks if we only propose too much it can be thrown out altogether. I think that is very likely. I do not say it is the object of the right hon. Gentleman, but I say it is likely to occur, and I must say that the right hon. Gentleman has done everything he could to prevent the passing of this Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had said from the first, "I don't quite agree with you; I think you don't go far enough; I will go further," then all men would say, "You are a consistent man, you are sincere, and we will follow you." But when we see the right hon. Gentleman upholding what he calls the parochial system, condemning every measure of a different kind, denying all the facts upon which we recommend the abolition of removal, steadily opposing this measure—first in the field against it, last in the field against it, and, only when he finds overwhelming majorities on the other side, proposing something which will not be carried but which he thinks, if carried, would be rejected either upon the third reading of the Bill or in another place, I think the public will see these things and understand them. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and his godfather in this movement, the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire (Sir William Miles), that I am as favourable as they can be to the abolition of removal. I must do the hon. Baronet the justice to say that he has been consistent in this matter, for he voted in Committee against the right hon. Gentleman. Now, that is one redeeming feature in his career. Now, what do sincere men say as to the best way of carrying out the object of the Amendment, because I do not deny that it would be an immense advantage to get rid of this system of removal. But this is a question of means, and you must look to what is recommended as a means of carrying the proposed abolition into effect. You must distrust, and I distrust, any gift coming from such a Greek as that. He has been always opposed to abolition, and I have a right to distrust him, suddenly bringing such gifts as these. Sir, I do not believe that you could get this Bill through if you were to carry that Amendment, and that is one reason why I oppose it. I believe it impossible. No notice was given to the public—you have taken them by surprise. [Mr. HENLEY: Hear, hear!] I do not exactly know what that cheer means. It may mean that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the course which he has taken, and that he has proposed this Amendment, knowing pretty well what would happen. But I want to carry this Bill, and I do not want it thrown out, though anybody else may want the Amendment. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) spoke to-night. I think the hon. Gentleman is right when he declines to vote for anything which is not open, and therefore I hope the House will not trust or fly away to these new authorities upon the subject, who promise such fine things if you only get rid of removal altogether. But I am not at all sure that those are not right who say that it is objectionable to pass all at once, from the present system which has lasted so long—which I will even say has lasted too long—to quite another system. I am not at all sure that they are not right in saying that alarm and perhaps confusion would be created by doing so, and that it is far better to go first through the transition state which is proposed by this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have explained how what he proposes would work—whether arrangements have been made, and the country has been prepared for it. A man of sense, who was honest in the matter, in proposing the enactment of such a measure, must see that all the arrangements and management must be different. We must have uniformity of management throughout the kingdom. It will not do to pass this Amendment, and tell the world to-morrow morning that you have done away with removal. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that such a proceeding would lead to confusion, because the systems of management are different in different parts of the United Kingdom-—in England, in Scotland, in Ireland, and in the islands which surround us, and abuses would be sure to follow from not having the same system. For instance, I have refused to approve any system which does not treat the Irish pauper in the same manner as the English. But the Irish system is different. No outdoor relief is given in Ireland, but the great majority of the relief given in England is outdoor relief, and the effect of that would be, without remov-ability, to bring a number of paupers into England, which would lead to much abuse. There are whole classes of persons who may be destitute, who might come here and could not be removed, and we should be obliged to support for ever such persons as the sick, the old, and, above all, insane people. You might have lunatics sent over from Ireland and from the Channel Islands. The hon. Member for Lincolnshire laughs at the idea; but he ought to know that that is one of the heaviest charges to which we could be subjected. Under the Amendment proposed lunatics and other persons might be sent here, and you could not remove them or inquire into their circumstances. That would be very tempting to other countries to send their poor here. Have hon. Members opposite considered these matters and considered what would be the effect of this change? Are the workhouses large enough, are the relieving officers numerous enough, for the persons who in some parts of the country might suddenly come for relief? We must make some preparation for such a change of system and total change of principle. Has anything been proposed much more reckless than this Amendment? In other matters the right hon. Gentleman is very careful, and I feel sure that if I had made this proposal he would have been the first man to make the remarks which I am now making. He has said that he will put my sincerity to the test, Well, my sincerity is not at all affected by what he has proposed. I should be glad to see the system of removal abolished, and I propose this measure as an instalment, just as I have brought forward two other measures leading to that abolition; but I wish to give the public the opportunity after it has passed of judging whether that which we wish ultimately to adopt can be safely adopted. I must, therefore, object to this Amendment, I do not believe the country is prepared for it, and I cannot think that it is proposed with that earnestness and sincerity which such a measure involving so considerable a change demands. My hon. Friend (Mr. Kekewich) has upon the paper a notice of a Motion to the effect that paupers who have resided for one year in a place shall be irremovable. That is a greater change than I proposed, and I believe it would be a great improvement. But I ask the Committee to consider that proposal before adopting any greater change—to consider what this measure will be if coupled with the Amendment of my hon. Friend—whether that would not be a great change and improvement, and enough for the present? I think that with the good sense which it always exhibits the House will be of opinion that such a change would be sufficient for the present year.

After the honour which the right hon. Gentleman has done me in going back for eighteen years and tracing my opinions during that time, I hope that the Committee will not grudge me a few minutes. And I wish the Committee and I wish the country to observe this—The right hon. Gentleman has twice said that I propose to give to the country more than he doe3, and I wish the country to consider it. Twice the right hon. Gentleman has said that what I propose is a good measure and will benefit the poor, but that be will not have it because it is proposed from the other side. Now, as to the details which the right hon. Gentleman has dug up. He said I expressed certain opinions about the removability of Irish paupers in 1846. But what was the state of Ireland in 1846? Eight millions of people were starving and dying by thousands, in spite of all your care and of all the money voted by Parliament. Was that a time to do away with the power of removal from this country? Is there any fairness in bringing forward such a charge? It is perfectly well known that I have been a consistent supporter of the parochial system. But when the House has decided on doing away with the parochial system, what inconsistency is there in my trying, in good faith, to introduce a measure which every authority and every person who has given evidence respecting it says could not be introduced while the parochial system lasted? What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by bringing that forward as an evidence of inconsistency? He says that after this measure has been carried so far by overwhelming majorities, then, without the knowledge of the country, I bring this proposal before the House. Now, in anything be more palpably untrue? I say that such a statement is positively untrue, and the right hon. Gentleman must know it. Immediately after the second reading of the Bill, I put a notice upon the votes that I should propose clauses to do away with removals. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean, then, by saying that I am taking the House by surprise? By no Parliamentary course that I could have taken could I have placed the House in earlier possession of what I proposed doing.

had the greatest possible respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but he rose to order. He said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to be allowed to retract the charge he had made that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Villiers) had stated what was absolutely untrue and what he must have known was untrue.

If the word "untrue" be unparliamentary, I should be the last person to insist on it. But, when the fact is that after the second reading, but before the recess, I put a public notice upon the votes for the abolition of removals, it is neither just nor accurate to say that I waited until the overwhelming majority of the other night, and now, to the surprise of the whole country, make this proposal. Some allowance must be made for one's feelings under such circumstances. I think that every sort of charge that could possibly be made against mc was made by the right hon. Gentleman. But I do not think his language will be forgotten:—"I admit your proposal is for the benefit of the poor and for the advantage of the whole country, but I won't have it, because you have opposed my Bill, and therefore, though I am now trying to make it better, I mean to resist your Amendment." The plain English of the right hon. Gentleman's opposition to the Amendment is because it conies from the opposition side of the House. He admits it to be good, but he will not have it in consequence. It is perfectly true that in 1854 many of us doubted whether this could be done. But has nothing happened in the meantime? First we had irremovability after five years, and we said there was no difficulty in that. That went on for a time, and the five years were reduced to three; and in that change also we found there was no difficulty. Step by step we have made these changes. The right hon. Gentleman says:—"Let us be more cautious, lot us wait another year." I say we have had experience enough, and that we may safely abolish the liability to removal altogether, getting rid of that which the right hon. Gentleman himself admits to be a mischievous system. There will never be a more favourable time, for you can hardly expect a time of more general prosperity throughout the country. To frighten us the right hon. Gentleman has conjured up something horrible about lunatics and other people coming over here. Will not all these dangers exist, with only an infinitesimal difference, if the measure abolishes liability to removal after one year's residence? It cannot be argued that there is safety in one year's settlement and danger in abolishing settlement altogether. I am surprised that, instead of discussing this question upon its merits, the right hon. Gentleman should have pointed out what he thinks are inconsistencies in my opinions. I say that I have been always a consistent supporter of the parochial system, and I believe it would have been better for the poor; but, the House having decided to do away with it, I am not inconsistent in try- ing to render the change as beneficial to the poor as I can, and in doing away with some of the evils which, under the parochial system, could not be altogether got rid of. There is a balance of evils and benefits. We gain on the one hand, and lose on the other. But I have no doubt whatever that, if the large areas are introduced, this system of removal ought to be abolished. Something has been said about vagrancy. Have not people more trust in the working men of this country—men who go about seeking for labour—than to think that they would become vagrants? The vagrant is as different from the working man as chalk from cheese. Their faces, their hands, their appearance generally all tell the tale. Now, so long as the power of removal exists, you will never get rid of the vagrant class, because the parochial authorities are afraid to deal with them. They shove them on from one place to another to get rid of them, because they are afraid of the expense of having to remove them. But if the power of removal was abolished, they would be treated very differently, and the guardians would be able to discriminate between the vagrant and the working man.

said, he wished to say a word upon the unfair and unfounded insinuation made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. P. Villiers) that this Amendment was proposed for the sake of defeating the Bill. Up to this time he had strongly opposed the Bill, believing that it would do great injury to the poor; but he was of opinion that the Amendment would prove such a boon to the poor that if it were carried he should offer no further opposition to the Bill.

said, that having been connected with the Poor Law Board for some years, he hoped the House would give him its attention for a minute or two. He wished to state what he was sure the light hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) would believe that it was from no want of respect to him, but on the contrary, that he had made the observations he had done. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in the regret that he had expressed that there should be any recriminations from one side or the other on a subject of the sort. He wished now to call the attention of the Committee to a fact which he thought had not been noticed. If the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman were carried there would be some 30,000 to 40,000 people now receiving relief as removable poor out of charity who would become chargeable to the parishes in which they resided. There was no inconsistency in the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. P. Villiers) saying that he was in favour of the Amendment, but that he was not in favour of it at that moment. His belief was that the right hon. Gentleman wished to come to that which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) had proposed. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Devon (Mr. Kekewich), he was prepared to support it.

said, the Select Committee had recommended that in the event of any extension of the area of rating being effected, the necessities of the metropolis should be taken into consideration. He had stated when the Bill was introduced that it would confer no benefit on the metropolis, but would rather entail inconvenience. The metropolitan Members had supported the Bill, and on the last division be bad gone into the lobby with the ayes, as he wished to support a measure which was for the good of the country. The Irremovable Poor Act, reducing the period of irremovability from five years to three years, had thrown a greatly increased burden on the poorer parishes of the metropolis; and if the three years were still further reduced to one, as proposed by that proviso, it was obvious that the injustice done to such poor parishes as St. George the Martyr, Southwark, which had to support the work-people employed in the richer parishes though residing in theirs when they happened to fall into distress, would be infinitely aggravated. Moreover, when the 4,000 poor persons now congregated on the site of the proposed new Law Courts were turned out of their homes, they would have to seek refuge in other districts, and would become chargeable there. It was plain, therefore, that the case of the metropolis required special consideration, and he appealed to the President of the Poor Law Board to pledge himself to bring in at an early period—say, next Session at the latest—a measure to remedy the evils which must fall on the poorer London parishes through the operation of this Bill. That might he accomplished by establishing one rate for the metropolis, and by treating the whole metropolis as one union, as suggested by the hon. Baronet (Sir William Miles). That principle had been sanctioned by the Committee, over which the right hon. Gentleman had presided, and also by the House, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to give effect to it by legislation. As the wants of the metropolis had been hitherto ignored, it would be but right that it should be excepted from the operation of the proposed proviso.

said, he joined in the appeal made to the right hon. Gentleman by the lion. Member for Southwark; but thought it would not be necessary to except the metropolis from the proviso, if the right hon. Gentleman would pledge himself next Session to bring in such a Bill as the hon. Member had sketched out, because it was only after the expiration of one year that the effect of the measure would be felt he thought that if the details of the Bill were interfered with one by one, great injustice would be done to sectional interests. As he understood the Amendment, the one year's irremovability would not affect the metropolis, and therefore it would not be necessary to bring in a Bill to alter the area of charge in the metropolis until next year. Considering the distinct conclusions at which the Committee arrived, he thought the right hon. Gentleman should pledge himself to bring in a Bill next year which would relieve the metropolis and other large towns from the injury which the Bill—on the whole a good one—would inflict in its present shape. Unless the right hon. Gentleman assured them that the measure would not remain permanently on the statute book in its present crude form, he would find difficulty in passing it through the other House of Parliament.

said, that he supported the Amendment, and believed that the measure altered in that respect would be received with satisfaction as a wise and prudent one throughout the country.

said, he thought the noble Lord opposite (Lord Robert Cecil) had taken the right view, as it would be objectionable to adopt exceptional legislation for the metropolis. But it was necessary that the right hon. Gentleman should give some assurance that he would in a future year take some steps to relieve the poorer parishes from the gross injustice under which they now suffered, and which would be greatly aggravated by the adoption of the Amendment. If there was any sense of justice in the House they would make the metropolis one rating district, if they abolished the law of settlement and removal or reduced the term requisite for rendering a pauper irremovable.

said, that he adopted, with great satisfaction, the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for South Devon (Mr. Kekewich), who was deservedly a great authority on the subject. Considering what it was possible to pass with safety and satisfaction to the rate payers, he thought the proposition of the hon. Member was the very best that could be made. Some experience had been obtained of the results of people coming into the towns and establishing themselves where they were not settled; and it was found that the large majority of the working class who came for the purpose of obtaining work found it, whilst those who did not became destitute and sought relief. But if they took relief at all, it was generally in the first year; and if so fortunate as to get employment in the first year, they were then seldom heard of. He, therefore, thought the experiment of the hon. Member might be tried with perfect safety. There was a general impression that a right to permanent relief should be obtained by domicile or by industrial occupation in the district. He had instituted inquiries as to the practice on the Continent, where, although there were no Poor Laws, there were large funds for the relief of the poor, and he found that the general practice was to regard the right to permanent relief as conferred either by residence or industrial occupation in the district for a given period. He, therefore, thought the Amendment might very readily be assented to. But he did not think that an assent to the Amendment raised the question to which the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) had referred. There was, no doubt, a great practical grievance that those parishes were most burdened with poor which were least able to bear the charge. The consequence was that a heavy burden was cast upon the owners of property in the poorer parishes, and that the poor themselves received relief only under the most stringent rules. Great inequality between some wealthy parishes with few poor and poor parishes with many poor should be redressed in some way, and this Bill to a certain extent recognized the principle upon which an Amendment should be based, for it recognized and carried out the principle of an extension of the area of rating. Hon. Members had urged that where a man fell ill there he should be relieved; but at present a man falling ill at St. George's, Hanover Square, was relieved by St. George's-in-the-East. The whole country appeared to be struck with this inequality between the wealthy and the poor parishes; and he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) certainly thought a year could scarcely pass—considering the advanced opinions which had been expressed in the House in the course of the debate—opinions which, three years ago, would have been deemed wild upon the subject—without his hon. Friends obtaining all they wished. In his position he had seen much of the injustice and misery inflicted on the poor, and when he thought it possible to introduce a measure with any chance of success he should be very glad to do it.

said, that a report from the Clerk of the City of London Union had first suggested to him the propriety of proposing one year for settlement. He could assure the hon. Gentlemen on the other side that he thought the case of the metropolis so exceptional that when a measure was brought in for extending the area of rating in it, and forming it into one large union, it would have his cordial support.

said, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. P. Villiers) had accepted the Amendment. Ultimately we must come to the abolition of settlement and removal altogether, and the enlargement of union rating in the metropolis. The Bill would produce a great improvement in the condition of the poor, and would relieve many parishes from unjust burdens which they at present bore. He hoped that they would in time come to a county rating, and perhaps to some national provision for the poor.

said, there was no argument in favour of a general rate throughout the metropolis which did not apply equally to a general rate all over the country. He wished it, however, to be distinctly understood that the great majority of the metropolis did not share in the feelings of Southwark and the Tower Hamlets as represented by their Members (Mr. Locke and Mr. Ayrton).

said, he thought the noble Lord had forgotten all the evidence and arguments which were adduced before the Committee on Metropolitan Rating. The Resolution of the Committee was unanimously agreed to, and not a witness from Marylebone appeared—the noble Lord not excepted—before them against it. No question of national rating was ever entertained—the subject considered was merely a rate for the whole metropolis. He regretted that the noble Lord now expressed his disapproval of that Resolution.

said, he thought the clause might be omitted, as there was no Board of Guardians but would refuse outdoor relief to those returning after removal, except under exceptional circumstances.

said, the clause was simply a repetition of the law as it existed, and he thought it was advisable to maintain the check.

said, he thought the clause ought to be made compulsory.

said, these local corporations, under their own Acts, were peculiarly jealous of their own privileges, and a number of them had applied to be excluded from the Act. In the face of the strong feeling against the centralization, he did not think they could make the clause compulsory.

said, that he moved the addition of the following clause at the request of his constituents:—

"When this Act has been adopted by any such Union or Incorporation as aforesaid, and such Adoption has been legally brought into operation in such Union or Incorporation, the Body having the Management of the Relief of the Poor therein shall from Time to Time make Calls in advance for Money for the Relief of such Poor upon the Overseers of the several Parishes therein respectively, on the Basis of an equal Pound Rate on the annual Value of the Property in each Parish rateable to the Relief of the Poor according to the Law in force for the Time being, and shall have the same Powers of enforcing such Calls as they now possess under the Provisions of such Local Act for enforcing Calls or Rates for the Relief of the Poor; and such Overseers shall have the same Powers for making, levying, and enforcing Rates to meet and pay such Calls as they now possess, either under the Provisions of such Local Act or the General Law relating to the making, levying, and enforcing Rates for the Relief of the Poor."

said, he wished to give notice that on the bringing up of the Report he should move a clause to the effect that persons over seventy should have the option of receiving outdoor relief; and he should also on that occasion take the sense of the House upon the justice of the Bill itself.

, who had placed an Amendment on the paper for the insertion of a clause including mines in rateable property, said that the clause had, since he had placed it upon the paper, attracted great attention in those parts of the country most interested. The present state of things was extremely vague and anomalous. Coal was the only mining produce which was liable to the poor rates, and even stone and clay, when raised to the surface by means of shafts and windlasses, were exempt from rating, though if they were taken from quarries, no matter how deep, they were subject to the rating. No one had defended the present plan, and there was no reason whatever why all mines should not be rated. Metalliferous mines undoubtedly, though frequently more profitable, were more irregular in their returns than coal mines, but that very irregularity was an argument in favour of their being rated, because when the profits were small the wages of the men were reduced and the amount of pauperism, consequently, increased. There might be some slight difficulty as to the details, but the mode of rating would be decided by the tribunals of the country, as it had been in the case of coal he understood that he was not in order in proposing the insertion of the clause, but he wished to take the opinion of the Chairman upon the subject. He might add that, if he were not allowed to introduce it, he should consider it his duty to bring in a Bill at some future time for the purpose of effecting the object which he had in view. He had already on a former occasion explained this subject, and would not now detain the House. He should, therefore, pro formâ, move the insertion of the following clause:—

"Whereas by the Act 43 Elizabeth, chapter 2, section 1, coal mines are made liable to poor rates: Be it Enacted That from and after the passing of this Act all other mines of every description shall in like manner be rateable to the relief of the poor."

said, that the clause moved by the lion. Member had no relation to the subject of the Bill, and could not, therefore, be inserted.

said, the clause was not within the scope of the Bill. It belonged more properly to the Union Assessment Act. It was, however, his intention to bring in a Bill for the renewal of the Poor Law Commission; and in which Bill several amendments of the law would be proposed. He had no objection to the amendments embodied in the proposed clause, but he thought they might be more properly introduced into the Bill he had referred to.

said, he had understood that the hon. Baronet would not propose his clause on the present occasion, but would bring it up upon the Report. He (Mr. C. P. Villiers) had given the clause every consideration, but he was not prepared to adopt it. Several other Members had proposed clauses of the same kind, but had withdrawn them owing to the complication which must arise from the postponement of the measure so long. The clause also had this peculiarity, that it did not admit of the full advantage being given to the poor for five years. His hon. Friend had not stated a very strong case. His own union, that of Scarborough, he said, was anxious for the measure; but he doubted if there were many unions where the increased value of land was so enormous as in that neighbourhood, and where it was still increasing so fast. Scarborough was rapidly becoming one of the most important places in the East Riding of Yorkshire, and he found upon inquiry that if the ratio of all the unions in that district were equalized they would only amount to 1s. in the pound. In consequence of the prosperity of the town the value of property in the neighbourhood was greatly on the increase, and therefore it would be well able to bear the additional amount of taxation. He could not accede to the insertion of the proposed clause, as it would lead to an enormous amount of trouble, without effecting much real good.

said, he objected to the right hon. Gentleman treating this clause as though it particularly referred to Scarborough. There would be many cases of hardship occur under the Bill; such, for instance, as that of a man who had just taken a lease of a farm with low poor rate; for he would find his liability largely and suddenly increased by it. The lion. Baronet had proposed his Amendment with reference to the general interest, and not that of Scarborough only. He believed the small landowners and tenant-farmers would suffer severely through the operation of the Bill, yet he thought it would be scarcely worth while to press this clause upon the House.

said, that the burden created by this Bill would not fall upon the large landowners, who would gain in one parish what they lost in another, but upon the small landowners and farmers; and he thought that the matter would be very much eased if the change were made gradual, and extended over several years. He would prefer seeing the clause inserted, but would be sorry to endanger the safety of the Bill by pressing it.

said, that he had intended to move the following clause:—

said, that he had not called for a division upon the clause which he proposed, because his right hon. Friend (Mr. Villiers) was under a misapprehension that he intended to bring it up on the Report.

said, he thought it doubtful whether a taxing clause, such as was proposed by the hon. Baronet, could be brought up on the Report. It was not worth while to move any Amendment upon the Preamble; but he thought that it would have been nearer the truth if the Bill, instead of being described as "for the better distribution of the charge for the relief of the poor," had been stated to be "for the relief of certain towns returning Members to Parliament from their fair share of the burdens of the country."

said, he wished to ask how far the lender of a sum of money under its operation would be enabled to satisfy himself, in the event of the business of his debtor showing a loss, as to the actual position of affairs. Would he be entitled to take part in the examination of the debtor's books, or otherwise interfere in the business, as if so he would be a partner.

said, that the clause would leave the law precisely as it stood, except in so far as it would enable a person to lend money to a trader on the understanding that he was to receive a share of the profits, instead of a fixed interest, without by that Act constituting himself a partner. If he were to do anything else which would subject him to the liability of a partner, he might be dealt with as at present.

said, it appeared to him that when a debtor was likely to come to grief the lender might get his money out of the concern without the knowledge of the creditors. The terms of the contract should, therefore, be known to the creditors. They should know the nature of the advance and how it is to be repaid. If it could be repaid without the public knowing anything about it, the debtor might repay it on the eve of bankruptcy, and have the money subsequently relent to him, but the creditors would not be paid. There should be a provision that, if insolvency existed at the time of repayment, the lender should be liable to his share of the loss. He suggested that a memorandum in writing of the contract should be filed in the registrar's office for the information of the public.

remarked that the very same objection would apply in the case of a lender who advanced his money at a fixed rate of interest. He would be able to withdraw it at any moment he pleased, as well as the man who received by way of interest a share of the profits of a business; and there was no reason why the results should be more disastrous in one case than in the other.

said, that there was nothing in the clause to show that the lender under its operation was to bear any share of the loss which might accrue in carrying on the business of the borrower. If he were not liable to any loss, was it not clear that he would stand in the position of a preference claimant?

said, the clause merely enacted that the lender of money upon the terms that the lender should receive for the use of the money a rate of interest fluctuating with the profits should be no more constituted a partner by the Act than if the money were advanced at a fixed rate, and therefore the question raised was not appropriate to the particular matter before the Committee.

said, he did not see the force of the objection which had been raised by his hon. Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme. There was, bethought, no difference between the withdrawal of money lent on the condition of receiving a share of profits and that lent at a fixed rate of interest, so far as the general creditor was concerned. There might be fraud connected with the withdrawal in both cases, but then he apprehended the law as it stood would reach a transaction of that kind.

said, he thought no commercial man could pass the clause as it stood. If the lender was not to bear a proportion of the loss when it occurred, was it to be charged in the following year against his share of the profits?

said, no compulsory contract was forced upon any one by the clause. It merely stated that if a person made a certain contract he should not thereby be constituted a partner.

said, he challenged any Member of the Government to deny that under the wording of the clause cases similar to that which occurred at Liverpool might not happen every day. A man lending £50,000 might draw out of the profits of the concern £100,000, assuming that so much was made in the course of a single year, and after that might draw out his £50,000; and yet in the next year, if it happened to be a season of loss, he would be absolved from any liability whatever.

said, the Bill did not absolve anybody. The Bill simply enabled a man, instead of lending money at a fixed rate of interest, to take a certain share of profits without becoming a partner. If no profits were made he did not receive anything, and to that extent encroached less on the general fund available for creditors than if he took a fixed rate of interest.

admitted that the clause did put the lender in a somewhat advantageous position, but suggested as a safeguard that some limit—say twelve months—might he fixed within which money drawn out should still be liable to the debts in case of bankruptcy before that period had expired.

said, he moved to leave out Clause 2. In doing so he felt that he was not opposing, but forwarding, the principle of the Bill, Clause 2 being inconsistent with its immediate predecessor. The Bill was brought in to do away with an old principle, and introduce anew and different principle, and it was rather strange that a clause inflicting a penalty should be inserted in order to restrain that new principle. The object of the Bill was to encourage loans of money to traders, but by this second clause the lender was subjected to this penalty, that he should not be repaid his loan in case the trader became bankrupt, until all the other creditors were first satisfied. What did that amount to? Why, to an absolute prohibition. For in ninety-nine cases out of 100 a trader failed to pay 20s. in the pound. He put it to the common sense of the President of the Board, of Trade whether any person would lend money on such conditions, when by lending upon a promissory note or bill of exchange he could get 30, 40, or 50 per cent interest, and if the worst came to the worst still be able to go in and prove his debts, and receive an equal dividend with all the other creditors. Under the existing law any partner to whom money was owing by a co-partner could not go in and prove his debt against the estate till all the rest of the creditors were paid. But this Bill, after providing by the first clause that the lending of money should not constitute a partner, actually fixed the lender with penalties similar to those that the existing law attached to the position of a partner. The Committee could not blow hot and cold with the same breath; the principle of the Bill was either right, or it was wrong. If the right hon. Gentleman divided in support of this second clause he would find himself in the lobby with all the Gentlemen who disapproved the principle of the Bill, and who would gladly help him to strangle his own child. He would take the sense of the Committee upon the clause.

said, the question raised must be considered with regard to the principle involved, and also with regard to the practical operation of that principle. With regard to the principle, the strongest argument in favour of the present state of the law was that a man might, under a change of the law, carry on a business which was not substantially his own without incurring the risks of that business. This Bill did not in any way interfere with the liability of the person carrying on a trade. But it could not be denied that the ordinary creditor would be inevitably influenced by the capital visibly employed in the trade, by the stock-in-trade, and by the means which the trader was able to present to the world as the foundation of his undertaking. Credit was, therefore, given to the trader on account of his visible means or stock-in-trade. But, supposing the person who took no share of the risk furnished all the means, then the whole resources of the undertaking would be derived from the loan so made, and there could be no doubt that there might be some risk of injury if the creditor who went in for an unlimited share of the profits were able to go in also for a share in the assets of the business to which the credit might have been given. The person who advanced the money had sent the trader into the world with the appearance of solvency, and the stock-in-trade ought, therefore, in the first instance, to be subject to the Ordinary creditors. It had been suggested that by possibility the real trader might not hold out his name to the world, that he might furnish ail the means and stipulate for the whole of the profits, and in that way avoid running any risk. This clause was intended to supply a practical security against any evasion of the law of that description. It might be objected that the lender could withdraw the amount of his advances before the other creditors got possession of the bankrupt's property, but in such a case an investigation could take place to ascertain whether there had been a fraudulent preference, and if so it could be dealt with by the existing law. What was proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Moor) would enable the person who might be the real trader to come in at the last moment and sweep away the ostensible means of business pari passu with the other creditors, or perhaps in preference to them. It might be said that the possibility was left open of practically doing the same thing by means of loans at an exorbitant interest. That was an objection which deserved to be carefully considered. His own opinion would be by no means unfavourable to the drawing of a line, if it could be done, beyond which it should be determined that a high rate of interest was a mere cover, and of placing such persons in the same situation as the lender who contracted for a share of the profits. But they had better do one thing at a time. They were dealing now with an important branch of the law of partnership, and he believed the proposed change would be a great boon to the trader. Let them do what they could at present, and under such safeguards as they believed to be desirable and good, and if found to work well it might afterwards be considered whether there were not other cases to which it might be expedient that the same rule should be extended. But there was an important practical distinction between the cases. If the person carrying on trade borrowed money at an exorbitant interest he made himself liable to pay both that interest and the capital, whether the business was prosperous or the reverse. That person would see, therefore, that it was very much to his advantage to procure money on the terms of sharing in the profits, and it might be also to the advantage of the lender to lend upon such terms. The clause would in reality act as a check on the formation of a fraudulent undertaking between the trader and the partner who advanced him money on the condition of participating in the profits of the business. The partner enjoyed the benefit of the business if it was prosperous; and if it was not prosperous he ought to share to the limited extent to which he had embarked capital in it, in the loss which it entailed. He was of opinion, then, that they would be proceeding safely and cautiously and taking good securities against abuse if they were to adopt this clause.

said, he was not convinced by the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was clear that the Government were afraid of their own measure, for if this clause were agreed to it would substantially defeat it. He had voted for the second reading, because to lend money in the way proposed by the Bill was a fair legal transaction. But he did not see why they should put a penalty on that which they said was a loan. If the Attorney General's argument was sound, he doubted whether the Bill was sound.

said, that if a man lent money at the ordinary rate of interest he could not be said to be investing it in the business, because he left all the benefit as well as all the risk to the man who was carrying on the trade.

said, that everybody knew that the mercantile rate of interest I was not 4 per cent as for money lent on mortgage. What was the ordinary rate of: interest?

said, that of the two arguments, that of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Moor) appeared to him more consistent. If the lender had nothing to do with the loss while the trader lived, why should he be saddled with the loss when the trader died? He agreed with the Attorney General that it might become necessary to bring in a Bill to put some check on the rate of interest in certain transactions. Hon. Members talked of the ordinary rate of interest, but since the repeal of the Usury Laws the interest of money had varied from 1½ to 10 per cent within a few years. There was now no such thing as a legal rate of interest. From all that he had heard he was more than ever convinced of the impolicy of the measure. He would not vote for the expurgation of the clause.

said, that the hon. Member (Mr. Hubbard) stated that there was now no such thing as legal interest. He should have said that there was no such thing as illegal interest.

said, that as the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Selwyn) had placed upon the paper a new clause on registration he would not press that of which he had given notice, but would accept the clause of the hon. and learned Member, with the addition of a few words which he would propose.

said, that there was a great difference between the two clauses, and he much preferred that of the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. John Peel).

said, he wished to move the following clause:—

said, that the case of a "limited" company was quite different from that of a firm availing itself of this Bill. In one case the partners were not liable to the whole extent of their fortunes, and it was absolutely necessary that this fact should be known to the world, otherwise the public would manifestly be liable to deception. But here the persons who appeared before the world were liable to their last penny. Why, then, should the word "registered" be put after their names? Such a mark, if it had any effect at all, would really show the public that they had a better security than they would otherwise suppose, and it would tempt them to give greater credit than before, because they would then know that they not only had the security of the partners whose names appeared, but the money of certain unknown capitalists besides.

said, that if this word was not a stigma, and was likely to give the firm a standing with the public, there could surely be no objection to the use of it, inasmuch as it would do the firm no harm and supplied information which the public ought to know. These persons, though called lenders, were really traders; yet, while they shared the profits, they might guard themselves against a share of the loss. It was only fair to the public, then, that they should be apprized when any firm was profiting by the provisions of this Bill.

said, he could not understand why registration should be required in the case of money lent at a variable rate of interest any more than when money was lent at a fixed rate. The House should take it for granted that people could conduct their own affairs and would not trust others foolishly. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Selwyn) said that a person lending money might take almost all the profit of the business, but it was not likely that a man working a concern and exerting all his ingenuity in carrying on the business would allow nearly all the profits to be carried off by another. But whatever the arrangement might be, it was entirely matter of bargain between the borrower and lender, and he did not think that the use of the word "registered" was at all necessary. He agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Cave) that this was an entirely different case from that of a limited liability company.

said, he thought that the proposed clause, if added to the Bill, would prevent it from being of any use. In looking back to past times they found that there had been constant difficulty about letting people make contracts with respect to money, and it was only after a great struggle that the Usury Laws were repealed and persons were permitted to contract for loans of money at any rate of interest they might think fit. The present measure was a sort of supplement to the repeal of the Usury Laws. It was now said that if persons in trade borrowed money at a fluctuating rate of interest they ought to be registered. He could not agree with that proposition; and, indeed, he regarded it as opening a door to fraud, for a man might get a credit which he would otherwise obtain by writing in a book in a public office that some person had lent him £10,000 or £12,000. There was no provision in the clause against a fraudulent entry. No man was obliged to give another credit, and if the people were asked to supply an individual with goods or to lend him money, it was their business to see that he was a person who could be relied on. He did not see that where there was no limitation of liability, and when a man was responsible to his last shilling, which was the position of the person to whom credit was given, they should require this registration. Seeing that all the members of great joint-stock associations possessed the advantage of limited liability, he thought that in justice the House should remove every obstacle now standing in the way of the operations of private traders.

said, he had received several letters, including one from the Chamber of Commerce at Leicester, requesting him to oppose the Bill unless a provision similar to that proposed were inserted.

said, the question had been argued as if the person carrying on business was bound to carry on the business in his own name. That was not implied in the Bill. It seemed to him that it would be quite possible, as the Bill now stood, for a member of a well-established firm to retire, and for the remaining partners to carry on the business with his credit. If he left any money in the firm he would be liable to a certain extent only, though the concern would benefit by his name. Again, it appeared to him that it would be competent for any large capitalist to retire from his business, and put in his place some one of comparatively limited means, and the person carrying on the business would thus have the advantage of the names of the established firm. It was for this reason that he thought registration desirable, as it would be the means of directing the attention of the commercial world to the exact position of the firm.

said, that if any person held himself out to the world as a partner, he would be liable under this Bill just as much as he was under the present state of the law. He must disclaim the interpretation which had been put upon his former arguments by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Selwyn). What he had expressed last year and what he still adhered to, was the opinion that it was proper a partnership should appear to the world to be what it really was. Speaking of the Bill brought forward last Session by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Scholefield), he had said that if they created a new description of partnership, having in it some members with limited liability, and some without it, it was right that that new description of partnership should be advertised to the world as what it was—a partnership of a peculiar kind newly constituted under a particular law. But the present Bill proceeded on a better principle than the measure of last year, making a man no longer a partner merely because he lent a sum of money to a trading concern. His hon. and learned Friend's Amendment was absolutely needless as applied to the Bill as it stood. The Bill as it stood provided that persons who were not known to the public, and to whom credit was not given, should nevertheless risk all the money they embarked in the concern, and therefore the public would get the benefit of that. He did not see that the Amendment would do any good. To be good for anything it ought to be carried much further than it was.

said, that a man who lent money on condition of receiving a share of the profits was really and practically a partner. He was a partner as far as regarded the profits; the only thing was that the Bill would relieve him from the position of a partner as far as regarded the losses. The President of the Board of Trade said there was no difference between a person who lent money for a rate of interest and one who lent money for a share of the profits; but in practice there was a great distinction between them, and it seemed to him that parties who objected in these cases to the word "registered" must be ashamed of the real nature of their transactions. If they meant fairly by the public, and did not intend to deceive it, he could not see why they should have any aversion to that word; and he should therefore cordially support the Amendment.

said, that a division took place in the House last year on the very point they were now discussing, when the Attorney General supported a clause to the same effect as that of his lion, and learned Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Selwyn). The House then affirmed the principle of registration, and thereupon the Bill was abandoned. The Attorney General suggested last year, that those who carried on business in a way different from the ordinary way, ought to be held out to the public as carrying on business in that different way.

said, that as a point of order, he put it to the Chairman whether the clause was not in principle the same as that which had just been disposed of.

said, the clause of which the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. John Peel) had given notice was not moved by him, and therefore it was competent to any hon. Member to move it; but seeing that the clause so closely resembled that which bad just been disposed of, he did not think it was competent for the hon. Member (Mr. Horsfall) to propose it.

said, the two clauses could not be identical in principle, because the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) who proposed this clause, had voted against the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Selwyn).

said, the clause last disposed of contained two propositions. The combination might be objectionable, while one proposition by itself might be worthy of approval. For himself he opposed both clauses, but, as a matter of fairness, he thought this clause ought to be put.

said, if the Committee desired to divide, the Clause should be put.

said, he wished to move a clause of which he had not given notice, to the following effect:—That persons who had taken profits, and who had contributed the capital upon which credit was given to the firm, should be responsible for one year to return those profits to the creditors should the concern become insol- vent, and also that they should not be at liberty to withdraw their money, or if they did that they should be responsible to the creditors for one year. The clause was prepared by analogy to a provision in the Companies Act which, whilst limiting a shareholder's liability, made his liability extend to a period of one year after he had ceased to hold shaves, in case of the company being wound up. This clause in like manner would apply to the case of the firm executing a trust deed or becoming bankrupt.

said, it was inconvenient to discuss a clause of which notice had not been given, but he was informed that the law, as it at present stood, guarded against collusion between partners, and would compel a return of the money under the circumstances described. He thought, therefore, it would be better not to limit the period of liability.

said, the clause was not directed against collusion, and that certainly the law would not meet the case which he had suggested, and which would frequently occur under this Bill.

said, that in the judgment of his right hon. Friend and his own too, the law as it stood did as much as it was politic or necessary to do, and would deal with all cases of collusion between debtor and creditor for the withdrawal of capital within the year of bankruptcy. Although he did not pretend to say there might not possibly be some cases in which creditors might be defrauded, he thought that the Bill provided reasonable securities by exposing to the risks of trade capital embarked in a business and not withdrawn, and leaving to the operation of the law as it now stood cases in which such capital was collusively withdrawn.

said, he thought that some protection should be afforded to the public for handing back the money in cases in which capitalists embarked their money in a business with the intention of enjoying the profits, and put an irresponsible party forward as the owner of that business.

said, this Bill bad been framed in accordance with the recommendations of a Committee of the House which sat last year. That Committee was of opinion that the great works proposed in our dockyards and basins should be executed as rapidly as possible, the evidence of engineers having satisfied its Members that such a course was very desirable in the case of works exposed to sea risks. They reported that a great saving of expense would result from diminishing as much as practicable the time occupied in completing the works. The Committee had recommended that the Government should be empowered to give contracts for the whole of those works, to be spread over a certain number of years. This Bill provided that the Admiralty should have power to give contracts for the works in two of the dockyards—Portsmouth and Chatham. In the case of the former the maximum amount of the contract was to be £700,000, and the maximum sum to be made payable in any twelve months on account of the contract £250,000. In the case of Chatham, the maximum amount of the contract was to be £650,000, and the maximum sum payable in any twelve months £200,000. The maximum duration of each of the contracts was to be five years. The Admiralty did not propose to take powers to raise money by this Bill, but merely to grant contracts very similar to the mail and packet contracts subject to an annual vote. A copy of every contract entered into under the Bill was to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within thirty days after the contract was made, if Parliament was sitting, and, if not, within thirty days after the next meeting of Parliament. With respect to the works which the Admiralty proposed to execute at Cork, they were not included in the Bill, because the Department found that they should be able to execute them within five years by convict labour. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

said, he was happy to support the Motion, but in order to facilitate operations under the Bill, he should propose an alteration which would provide that the expenses of defraying the works contemplated by this Act be raised on Government Annuities terminable in thirty years in the same way as the expenses of the fortifications at Portsmouth were ordered to be raised by the Act of 1863. It was most important that the works at the docks and dockyards should be completed as rapidly as possible. The loss which accrued to the country annually from the present state of things was considerable. He should, therefore, move that the alteration which he proposed should be added to the Bill either now or in Committee, whichever course might be the correct one.

said, that he did not think the alteration could be submitted to the House, and he was glad of it. The proposal of the hon. Baronet to provide for these works by loan was a method of proceeding which ought not to be attempted upon any light grounds, or except in cases of absolute necessity; it would constitute a precedent perfectly contagious, destructive to the control of the House of Commons over the public expenditure, and be certain to lead to financial embarrassment and confusion. That was upon the merits. But, in point of form, he believed it was not competent for the hon. Baronet even in Committee to propose that this money be raised by loan.

said, he was exceedingly pleased with the course adopted by the Government upon this occasion, as by contracting for the execution of larger proportions of public works, they would considerably diminish the expenditure of the country, and secure the services of a higher class of contractors than were generally employed. It was only a pity that the Admiralty had not been advised to include within the scope of the Bill other works which were equally necessary. He perceived that though the works at Portsmouth were to cost about a million and a half, only £700,000 were to be spent in the next five and a half years. It therefore appeared that the works would take ten years in completion. A similar delay was also observable in connection with the works at Chatham. He thought, therefore, that it would have been better if it had been proposed to finish the works even more speedily.

said, that the powers taken in the Bill related only to contract, and if the hon. Baronet (Sir John Hay) would refer to the papers which had been laid upon the table relating to dockyard extension, especially in connection with Portsmouth and Chatham, he would find that a large portion of the work was to be carried out by moans of convict labour. There was also a good deal of dredging to be done. At Portsmouth the hon. Baronet would see that it was proposed to expend £260,000 during the present year, £312,000 next year, and £250,000 the year after. He believed that expenditure to be as great as even the hon. Baronet could expect in carrying out works of this kind.

said, the object of the clause was to allow the magistrates to grant licences under special circumstances. Care should be taken that the objects of the Act should not be nullified, or that its original intention should not he departed from. While persons attending markets at an early hour should have accommodation, care should be taken that others not entitled to such privileges should not come in.

said, that having made a false step in the first Bill we were now likely to commit a greater error. In the first Bill the police were allowed to interfere with respect to the opening of public-houses during certain hours; but this Bill would vest a power of selection in justices of the peace. He wished to take away altogether the power from the police, and place it in the hands of the justices who originally granted the licences, consistently with the whole course of legislation on the subject. It was not necessary here to consider if they were the proper persons to grant licences or not, but under the provisions of the present Bill it was better they should exercise the powers it conferred than the police, because they acted in the face of the public, and everything said or done was known to everybody. The Bill, be it remembered, was of a very penal character, and it was better to have the proceedings under it carried on in open Court than intrusted to the police. He submitted, therefore, to the Committee that if the powers given by this Bill should be exercised at all it should be by the justices, and his first Amendment, therefore, was to leave out the words "any local authority," and insert "the licensing justices at the time of granting or renewing any licence."

said, that so far as he understood the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman it proposed to supersede the "local authority" altogether. It would, he considered, be absolutely impossible to carry out any such provision. It was impossible that the justices could for see the occasions of granting such extension of a licence, which in fact arose from day to day—when a ball was given at an inn, or when a public dinner took place there. On these occasions application was made to the police for licence to keep the house open beyond the legitimate hours, and it would be quite impossible to make these constant applications to the justices each time that an occasional licence was required. It was, too, quite impossible that they could, at the time when the annual licences were granted, ascertain when the occasional licences would be necessary. When an occasional licence was granted it became necessary that decorum should be maintained, and where it was not maintained if a similar extension was applied for it would be refused. This power had been for some time exercised by the police, and there had not been the slightest complaint of its having been in any way abused. It would then, he considered, be unwise to disturb the existing state of things.

said, he had no objection to the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets. He would say farther, that when he was preparing the measure he would have introduced a clause in the same spirit, had he not expected to bring down upon him from Her Majesty's Government a much stronger opposition than he had encountered in his attempt to pass this measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department said that he objected to the Amendment because it was impossible for the licensing justices to grant those occasional licences; but if he (Mr. Cox) understood the Amendment, it had nothing whatever to do with the licences granted under the Act of 1864. It would, in respect to that Act, leave them exactly where they were at present, dependent for the licences on the constituted authorities and the Secretary of State. His hon. and learned Friend's Amendment referred to licences which were not occasional licences in the same sense as the occasional licences in the Act of 1864. It was found necessary to bring in this Bill to remedy what was an admitted evil, and he certainly had no objection to an Amendment which would give to the justices the power now exercised by the police. The Act of 1864 had been introduced to meet the case of the Haymarket, as he could prove from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. They were all agreed that the state of the Haymarket was an evil which ought be put down; but if the police and Sir Richard Mayne had done their duty there would have been no occasion for that Act; but they preferred to carry everything with a high hand. The Act had no doubt remedied that evil, but it had inflicted a great hardship on other classes of Her Majesty's subjects. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that there was a grievance on the part of those who attended the markets, and proposed to amend the Bill in that respect; but his (Mr. Cox's) object was to give relief not only to those who frequented the markets, but to all persons who followed a lawful trade or calling. He (Mr. Cox) had presented petitions signed by 4,000 persons pursuing lawful trades and callings in favour of such an Amendment in the Bill as would afford them the necessary accommodation; while the petitions presented from persons frequenting the markets were by no means so numerously signed. He would not object to close the houses from one to two o'clock, but the right hon. Baronet objected to that arrangement. His (Mr. Cox's) desire was that victuallers and refreshment-house keepers should, on application to two justices for a licence, not be precluded from obtaining it, and from supplying the necessary refreshments to those persons pur- suing lawful trades or callings when they required them. He understood the right lion. Baronet to say he would not object to open the houses to persons of any lawful trade or calling; but the right lion. Gentleman in his Amendment made an exception in favour of those persons who frequented the markets only. Now, any man having a trade or calling should have the opportunity of getting the necessary refreshment within reasonable hours. He did not know whether his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets intended to divide the House upon his Amendment, but if he did ho should support him. His object was that the provisions of the Bill should extend to other persons than those who attended the markets—that was to those pursuing lawful trades.

was happy to hear that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Homo Department had conceded one point in favour of those who attended the markets; but there was another interest—namely, that of the compositors, who as a class were exposed to great hardship.

reminded the Committee that the question now before them was simply whether these occasional licences should be granted by the police authorities or by the justices.

desired to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Homo Secretary whether, under the circumstances, he intended to oppose the Amendment of which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had given notice, which proposed to give to two justices the power to grant licences under the particular circumstances he had mentioned. This was different class of licences from the other. Could he doubt that they ought not to be in the hands of the police? He thought they ought to be granted by the magistrates, and not by the police. This did not do away with the occasional licence, which remained with the police. He asked whether it was wise to oppose the proposition of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets.

said, if it was put on that ground, he saw no objection to it. He did not think there was any great objection to this class of permanent licences with regard to markets being in the hands of the justices if it was understood that the occasional licences would be left with the police.

said, it would be quite time enough to discuss the second propo- sition when they came to it. He thought with the right hon. Gentleman that the occasional licences had better be in the hands of the police.

said, the question before the Committee was to confine the power of the justices to the granting of permanent licences. He did not wish the Committee at this stage to pledge itself to anything to be done on any subsequent clause.

said, they were opening grave questions. The more they kept the executive office separate from the exercise of quasi-judicial functions the better. Hitherto we had been careful in this country in this respect; but step by step, and little by little, we were putting into the hands of the police functions which would be much more properly exercised by other authorities. Besides, the police might be supposed to look more leniently on the abuse of a licence granted by themselves. He was for keeping those things out of the hands of the police, whose duty it was to look out for breaches of the law, and to take up and harry those who broke the law; but they ought not to be made judges as well as accusers. He would be glad to see this part of the licensing duty put into the hands of the magistrates instead of the police.

said, he had no desire to infringe upon the existing law, which he thought had conferred a great benefit on society, but he must say that the law did inflict a great hardship upon a meritorious class of the community—he meant the compositors who were engaged on morning newspapers in this town. While so engaged, they carried on employment in a vitiated atmosphere, and when they had concluded their labours between two and four o'clock in the morning, they were unable to procure refreshment. It was quite true that in the office of the leading journal there were facilities for affording refreshment to the men employed on it, but that was not the case with respect to the minor offices, and the consequence was that the men employed in these offices were unable to obtain that refreshment which they stand so much in need of, and were obliged to go through the streets of London subject to every inconvenience arising out of the existing state of the law. This was peculiarly hard as respected these men, and he hoped the Secretary for the Home Department would make a further concession in respect of this Bill, and consent to the opening of houses within the prohibited hours in the neighbourhood of the newspaper offices. He thought that all that would be required to afford the necessary accommodation to the class of persons to whom he referred would he to grant licences to four or five public-houses in the neighbourhood of the printing offices of the several morning papers, which were situated in one particular locality. The concession would be a great boon to the persons in question, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would grant it. He hoped and trusted the Government would grant the prayer of the petitioners.

said, that as the matter now stood he did not see how the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) could entertain any fears on the subject. By the Bill a tribunal of two justices was constituted, and applications for licences had to be made in open day and before the public. The right hon. Gentleman had conceded the right of persons attending the public markets to have refreshments. He thought this right imperative. But why deny it to compositors? Why should they not have the same privilege as that accorded to hon. Members, who, if they kept up till one or two o'clock in the morning, were permitted to obtain refreshments at their Club or even in the lobby of the House itself? It was said that by this Bill the compositors would be prevented from indulging in drams. Was it possible to believe that men, whose labour required such a large amount of intellect, could be guilty of such debasing pursuits? Why should those intellectual and highly accomplished men be deprived for two hours of necessary refreshments? These men, it should be recollected, were working for us. Why should they, while working for the public at large, be deprived of their cup of tea or coffee, or their glass of wine? What possible harm could it do to concede to them this privilege?

concurred in the view that the compositors should not be deprived of the privileges of having refreshments during their work. Consider the satisfaction enjoyed by the public in having the newspaper on the breakfast- table every morning. He thought it would be most unjust to this respectable and intelligent body of men to deprive them of the means of refreshment at the very moment when that refreshment was most needed. Persons applying for such licences must give proof before the public that they possess good characters; and if they do not stand an examination fairly they are refused. Under all the circumstances ho hoped and trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give way; and if not, seeing the feeling of the Committee in favour of the clause, he should certainly move the omission of the proviso.

also hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give way on this point. What, he asked, were public-houses provided for, but to give what people could not at all times get in their own houses? And how were they, in that House, to define what the people of this great metropolis wanted, and at what hours they should have what they required? Were they, before procuring refreshments, to go before a magistrate and prove that they had "a lawful calling?" It was cruel, in his opinion, to refuse what was asked. Members of that House were in a line of life to procure refreshments when they pleased—they might keep their servants out of bed to provide them; but these poor people could not do so. Their wives and children go to bed, and they were unable, therefore, to obtain any refreshments whatever when they most required them. They worked harder than we do, and what harm can possibly occur from granting a licence to let them have refreshments at a certain hour? If any harm occurred they had a police to prevent any bad consequences, and it was unjust that, because there were some loose houses, the whole should be closed up.

said, he only wished to secure the advantages which had been already conferred on the community by the Act of last Session, and it was therefore he proposed to insert the words "lawful occupation." The effect of this clause would be to give power to the licensing magistrates to supersede the Act of 1864. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members cried "No, no," but the cabmen on their stand were following their lawful trade, and under the provisions of this Bill the proprietor of any public-house in the neighbourhood of a cab-stand could apply for an exceptional licence. The words of the Bill went to that extent. Compositors were one class; but there were many other classes of men engaged in night work who used public-houses not much to their own advantage, and therefore it would be unwise to give every public-house situated in the neighbourhood where these men were employed the power of saying they desired to have an exceptional licence for the accommodation of men following their lawful calling. The case of the markets was different, for within the precincts of these markets were certain houses which might, without any general inconvenience, be exceptionally licensed. The licensed victuallers themselves, residing in the neighbourhood of the newspaper offices, very earnestly deprecated any interference with the present Act. They stated that they considered the Act had worked most advantageously, and that they had special opportunities of observing its action in respect to persons engaged on the newspaper press, and that although it might be true that these men did require refreshment while the public-houses were closed, still it could easily be obtained by purchasing it before the hour of closing, and that therefore it was not necessary to keep public-houses open for their accommodation. The Times newspaper provided refreshment-rooms for those engaged on their establishment, and the same could be done by other newspaper proprietors, or by the men combining for that purpose. He had received from Manchester an inquiry as to whether there would be any illegality in having a room in which refreshments might be served during the prohibited hours, and he replied that if the place was not licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors no objection would arise. Ho believed that a similar arrangement might be made in every newspaper office in London. He wished to remind the Committee that the words of the clause were not confined to the case of compositors, but would include every other lawful occupation.

said, he presumed ho knew more of his own Bill than the right lion. Gentleman did. He (Mr. Cox) said, the words of the clause would be a complete answer to the observations of the right lion. Gentleman as to this proposal producing such terrible disaster in the metropolis. The words were "It shall be lawful" & c.," upon the production of such evidence as such justices shall deem sufficient to show that it is desirable for the accommodation of any considerable number of persons attending any public market or following any unlawful trade or calling." He thought he had guarded the granting of such a licence in the strictest possible way by the providing that there shall be evidence, not only that it is "necessary," but also that it is "desirable," and that it shall be for "the accommodation of a considerable number of persons" When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of two justices granting a licence to a cabstand with two or three cabs upon it, he (Mr. Cox) replied that he had so constructed the provision that the evil he anticpated could not be fairly apprehended. He would like the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer to this question. Why should not the cabmen whom they saw waiting outside in scores till two or three o'clock in the morning, in order to take hon. Members to their homes, be able to get refreshment? He thought that the safeguards which he had thrown around this provision ought to disarm the objections which had been made. The turning point of the Bill would be upon the division as to retaining the words" or following any lawful trade or callings."

said, it was not half an hour since, in the lobby of the House, he was in communication with the Secretary of the Manchester Association, who distinctly told him—(probably he was in the House now)—that he approved of Mr. Cox's Bill in its entirety, and that he bad no objection whatever to it; and yet they had beard read from the table of that House an adverse report, he supposed, from the Manchester Association—[Sir GEORGE GREY: No!]—a report condemning the Bill of the hon. Member for Finsbury altogether. The compositors were a class of people frequently employed from six o'clock at night till four in the morning. They were confined in printing establishments during the whole of that time, and he maintained that when they came from their work it was essential that they should have some refreshment, and some shelter in case of need, seeing that some of them had four or five miles to travel home.

suggested, that instead of the words "following any lawful trade or calling," the words should be adopted, "or engaged in their usual occupation in the composition or compilation of the daily paper"

then proposed a proviso to this effect—

"That the house shall be within the precincts of the market at which such persons attend, or at a distance of not more than fifty yards from such precincts and that in regard to persons following a trade or calling, the house shall be within fifty yards of the place where the persons are so employed"

said, that this was a reasonable proposal, and he would not object to it.

suggested that there might not be a public-house within fifty yards.

said, fifty yards was a reasonable distance.

wished to give a discretionary power to the magistrates as to distance. Such peddling legislation was beneath the dignity of the House. If the magistrates could not be trusted on a matter so simple as this they should not be intrusted to perform the more grave duties committed to them.

said, the Bill did not propose to leave anything to the decision of the magistrates. [Mr. ROEBUCK: But I do.] He thought it desirable to fix the distance. It would relieve the justices of great difficulty if that were done. He had no objection to 100 yards, but the limits should be defined.

said, it was absurd to lay down a rule which would prevent a man from obtaining refreshment because a house was a yard more or less from his place of business.

said, that if the feeling of the House was strongly opposed to the proviso he should not put Members to the trouble of dividing again. The proviso had only been proposed in deference to the representations from licensed victuallers and other residents in the neighbourhood of the markets.

then moved the addition of the following provisoes:—

"That a printed notice stating the days and special hours during which, and the class of persons for whom, the house is open under such licence shall be affixed in a conspicuous position outside the house;

"That such persons only shall be admitted during special hours as belong to the class for which the house is licensed to be opened during those hours"

wished to know how it was possible to carry out such a provision. Was a man to write on his forehead that he was a compositor, or was the provisoto apply to men wearing fustian jackets or some other distinguishing dress?

said, the object of this Bill was to limit the licence solely to the persons of that class, and for their accommodation alone. It would prevent publicans keeping their houses open to prostitutes and persons of bad character.

said, that as the police would know the circumstances under which each licence was granted, they would be able to report if the conditions of the licence were not complied with; and if prostitutes or other bad characters were admitted, the licence could be at once cancelled. The public could have no greater protection.

said, that there was an immediate power of withdrawal vested in the justices.

thought the first proviso an excellent one, and therefore suggested they ought to be put separately.

thought the people who propose to use the houses during those hours ought also to be licensed; for it would be necessary for each man to have a ticket to show the occupation he was engaged in, to entitle him to be served.

said, he believed that this proposal would render the Act almost inoperative. A man wanted to keep his house open half an hour or an hour beyond the usual time, on the occasion of a dinner, for instance, and he got a licence at once by-applying to the authority specified in the Act. He hoped the House would not disturb the arrangement made last year with regard to the occasional licences, as it had worked exceedingly well.

thought the right hon. Gentleman was not quite right in what he had just stated to the Committee. He said they had only to apply to the police to get an occasional licence. Now, he had a letter from the Chief Constable's Office, Town Hall, Manchester, December, 1864, which stated—

"In reply to your letter I am to inform you it is not the intention of the authorities to grant any occasional or special licences under the Public Houses Closing Act."

was understood to say that occasional licences could not be got in Liverpool.

said, that the report of the Mayor of Liverpool did not bear out the allegation that occasional licences were invariably refused.

said, the magistrates knew the character of every licenced victualler in the country, but that was not the case in the metropolis, and could not be.

said, the Scotch Act gave this power of special licensing to the justices, and there was no reason why it should not be so in England.

said, it was to two justices in petty sessions.

said, that if there was to be this restriction to two justices it would restrict the operation of the Act.

said, it could not be so. People did not get up great balls at an hour's notice, but knew of them a week, I or a fortnight, or a month beforehand, and justices could meet in petty sessions at any time. Where there were no petty sessions, two justices could do it. There would, therefore, be no delay to complain of. He hoped that the Committee would rescind the error which they had committed in giving the police the power of granting these licences.

said, he did not think that any error had been committed in giving the power of granting occasional licences to the police, and he therefore thought that that power ought to be left in the hands of the police, and not be given to two justices. He believed that the parties most interested would rather that the power of granting the licences should be continued in the hands of the police, and not be transferred to justices of the peace.

was of a different opinion. He thought that the power of granting the licences in question ought to be given to the justices, as proposed by the Amendment.

said, that the Government were willing that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should nominate eight Members of the Committee, but it was only reasonable that the Government should nominate the other seven Members.

then moved the adjournment of the House.