asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, if the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill becomes Law as it now stands, he will allow carts and horses kept exclusively for agricultural purposes to be used by farmers without hire for the conveyance, to and from church or chapel, of themselves, their domestic servants, and their children, when the weather or the roads are bad, provided such use, being thus dependent on circumstances, is only occasional?

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith asks me in effect, whether, if the Legislature lays down one law, I am to lay down another of a directly contrary character in respect to carts and horses kept for agricultural purposes being used for the conveyance of the owners and families to church on Sundays. Now, I have to say, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member, that I cannot arrogate to myself the prerogative, as it is now the fashion to call it, of setting aside the law. Even if I were disposed to do so in the case referred to, how, I ask, am I, sitting in Downing Street, to know whether the weather is bad, or the roads out of repair, in distant parts of the country? Or how could I tell whether the practice of using a cart and horse for taking persons to church on a Sunday is "dependent on circumstances" and "only occasional?" How could such questions be decided without a Court of Appeal?

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has considered the suggestion that Postmasters in general should be made vendors of Stamps?

I have considered the Question, and I do not think it desirable to adopt such a course as that suggested, because I believe that it will introduce great complexity in the transaction of business relating to stamps; will place the Revenue in some danger, and create great additional cost to the department. The Government authorities, in the event of the adoption of the course proposed, would have to issue a large quantity of stamps in certain neighbourhoods where the postmasters would probably be unable to dispose of them, and therefore would not to able to pay for them.

said, the War Department were fully impressed with the importance of traction engines, and there were some at present at work both by the Control department, and also with the Royal Engineers, and they were highly thought of. They should use them in the forthcoming manœuvres.

said, he must protest against the clause, and, in doing so, he protested against the policy of detention of vagrants which was proposed in the clause as likely to encourage, rather than suppress, vagrancy by giving an excuse for begging, and holding out an inducement to the charitably disposed to give their alms more freely than they would do, if they thought that every poor man on a journey to his wife and family, or in search of work, might be detained if in his destitution he took advantage of the use of the casual ward. There could be no doubt that the practice in the Metropolis and other large towns was for vagrants to make a regular circuit of the casual wards, which they made their homes, and so relieved themselves at the expense of the ratepayers, which it was never intended they should do. It was the professional and almost criminal vagrants that they should endeavour to diminish by checking the inducements to vagrancy by indiscriminate almsgiving, and making them as uncomfortable as possible in these nightly refuges. The clause would be difficult of operation in the Metropolis, and would rather increase than diminish the evils complained of. The clause would not be required in country Unions, and he trusted that if the clause were retained the Guardians would exercise the option given to them, and not put it in operation.

said, the clause was sufficiently elastic to meet the views of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire. It simply limited and defined the right of the pauper to claim his discharge from the workhouse; but it left the discretion of the Guardians in discharging him untouched, so that while the criminal vagrant, the more numerous class, might be detained, the honest wayfarer might be allowed to go on his way. The professional vagrants who made use of the casual wards were a small proportion of the number returned by the police. On the 1st of April, 1868, the number of vagrants returned by the police was 36,179; but, according to the Poor Law Returns, the number of vagrants was returned, on the 1st of January, as having been reduced from 4,469 to 3,735. The question of vagrancy was, therefore, clearly a larger question than could be dealt with in that Bill. What they now had to deal with was a class of idle vagrants which bordered closely on the margin of criminality, and they endeavoured by that clause to deter them from making a convenience of the casual wards of the country, and, at the same time, to enable the Guardians to detain and punish those who obtained food and shelter under false pretences.

said, he concurred in the object of the Bill, but he had some doubts if it would carry out the intentions of the Government. The class of paupers the Bill was intended to deal with, as distinguished from well-meaning persons in temporary distress, ought to be placed under the authority of the police, and the expense charged on the county rate or Consolidated Fund, and not on the poor rates.

said, he agreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Rylands), that the poor rates ought not to be charged with the expenses attendant on this class of paupers, and in dealing with the question of local burdens next Session they would have to consider whether it was not a charge that the country at large ought to bear, and not the local taxpayer. He also thought that to detain vagrants and keep them shut up was to depart altogether from the principle of local poor relief.

said, the clause would act most unjustly to a deserving class of poor who went into Kent in the hop-picking season in order to earn, if possible, a little extra money; and he suggested whether the severity of the clause might not be mitigated in respect to such persons by the adoption of "the Dorchester ticket system" for supplying bread instead of giving money. It had been adopted in some parts of Kent, and had been found to work well.

said, that in his part of the country nine out of every ten of these travelling paupers were confirmed thieves and blackguards, who watched labouring men leave their homes and then entered, bullied the men's wives, and insisted on being fed. They usually assaulted the Governor of the workhouse, would not take their bath, or do anything which was ordered, and made a point of having a row before they left. They constantly tore up their clothes, and when they went out, as often as not, it was for the purpose of getting drunk, and next day they insisted on their right to come in again. What were you to do with such men? They certainly were in want of food, but he could not help thinking that they deserved to be. He strongly objected to the ratepayers being called upon to support workhouses if they were to be turned into a sort of prison for the reception of this disreputable class of persons. He thought the expenses of such a proceeding ought to be paid by the State.

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel North) ought to be a supporter of the clause, for nothing would so much tend to keep persons out of the casual wards. By a Return in his possession he found that out of 645 Unions, 571 had provided vagrant wards, of which 427 were reported on as being sufficient. After that outlay had been incurred, he did not think it would be wise to render it nugatory by transferring the vagrant class to the police; and in dealing with vagrants as a class, it appeared to him that one stringent rule could not be made applicable to them, as if they were all criminals. There was no measure which they could adopt which would tend more to keep professional vagrants away from the casual ward than the power of detention, which the clause conferred. The system of separating the honest from the professional vagrant, both in the sleeping wards and when at work, had been found to act as a great deterrent upon the vicious class, who from knowing the system and the peculiarities of each Union as well as if they were publicly advertised in the newspapers, had been in the habit of selecting their quarters; but once let every Union provide proper accommodation for the casual poor, and one uniform method of diet and treatment be adopted, and vagrancy as a trade would soon fall off. Mr. Wodehouse reported that in the Battle Union, Sussex, upwards of 100 vagrants got relief as often as twice and three times a-week during the past year, and many of them had resorted to that practice for a number of years. The clause would enable the Guardians to exorcise a deterrent against that class of persons, and he had every reason to believe the Bill would have the effect of greatly reducing the number of vagrants.

said, the Metropolis suffered more than any other part of the country under the burdens imposed by the vagrant class, and for that reason he must protest against any difference in the treatment of the metropolitan and country Unions. These vagrants came in shoals; nobody knew anything about them, and they wandered from district to district continually, and the ratepayers of London had to pay for their support. Not a few ratepayers were themselves poor, and the burden fell all the more heavily upon them. Casual wards ought to be placed under Government control in some form or other, and the expense paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and he was glad to hear there was some probability of that taking place, as the whole country would then contribute. He concurred with the hon. and learned Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) in thinking that people who picked hops and were paid for it ought not to be treated as vagrants.

thought the character of the clause had been mistaken. It was one that was merely permissive, and would not extend to the deserving poor such as those before mentioned. Your regular scientific tramp had an unsure-mountable objection to work in any shape, and the prison records showed that the greatest criminals had been originally tramps. But a workman out of employment had no such objection to the labour test as these casual rascals, who spent their lives in going in and out of workhouses, and prowling about between-times, hon. Members who talked of drawing money from the Consolidated Fund, should first show how that fund was to be sustained after an enormous demand had been made upon its resources. At the same time, he trusted that the whole question of the Poor Law would be considered, and the burden of rates re-adjusted, so that that Fund might at least be charged with its fair proportion of the expenses incurred in relieving pauperism. No one could question the common experience of his hon. Friends that these casuals had become an intolerable nuisance throughout the country, and the sooner they were rigorously dealt with the better for the ratepayers.

said, that if magistrates only exercised their existing powers vagrancy would very soon be got rid of. No county had been worse off in that respect than Wiltshire; but the exertions of a new Chief Constable had got rid of most of the common lodging-houses, and with them the vagrants had disappeared. It was rather hard that after spending £7,000,000 upon work-houses, the ratepayers should be called upon for additional contributions. The cells provided by the police appeared to answer all necessary purposes; and it was very doubtful whether any improvement would arise if vagrants came under the immediate charge of the Guardians, instead of being, as at present, under the jurisdiction of magistrates.

referred to an old Statute of Henry VIII., in order to show how much more severe the law was in former times than at present. Amongst other things, every vagrant or vagabond persisting in his old courses was taken up and sent to the place from which he had come, there to earn his living. If he still persisted in his idleness he was again taken up and whipped, besides which he had the gristle of his right ear cut off. If after that he was again taken up for vagrancy he was capitally executed as a felon.

said, it was a principle of the law of England that every destitute wayfarer was entitled to relief; and he was not prepared to abandon that principle. The principle of the Bill was to relieve those who required relief.

said, he did not think that any great result would come from that Bill, but he regarded it as being a step in the right direction. All their legislation and all their practice had been to pass the vagrants along anyhow to get rid of them. In some cases they were passed to gaol; and his experience led him to think that vagrants did not dislike the gaol and thought it preferable to the Union. It was, no doubt, a good thing to give the power of stopping vagrants; because by so doing an opportunity would be given of separating the wheat from the chaff, and possibly of assisting those who were deserving by procuring them employment.

proposed, at end of Clause 7, to add—

"Provided, That in the case of a pauper suffering from bodily disease of an infectious or contagious character absconding or escaping from or leaving any workhouse or asylum as aforesaid, the justice convicting him of the offence may suspend the execution of the warrant of commitment, and may order the pauper to be taken back to such workhouse or asylum, there to remain until he shall be cured or otherwise lawfully discharged therefrom, and when he shall be cured the warrant of commitment shall be put in execution by order of the said justice or some other justice having jurisdiction in the place; any officer of such workhouse or asylum, or any constable, may apprehend the pauper who may have so absconded or escaped from or left the same, and take him before a justice without having previously obtained a summons or warrant, and upon the order of the justice take him back to the workhouse or asylum:

"And provided also, That where any casual pauper is taken before a justice charged with any offence under this Act the justice may, if he think fit, grant a certificate to the person who has preferred the charge for the amount of the expenses incurred by him in relation thereto, and such certificate shall have the same effect, and the amount mentioned therein shall be paid and recovered in like manner as in the case of a certificate granted by justices in petty sessions under section fourteen of the Act of the eighteenth and nineteenth years of Victoria, chapter one hundred and twenty-six."

trusted that the expenses arising from such provisions as these would be thrown upon the Consolidated Fund, as otherwise great injustice would be done to certain localities.

observed that, in his belief, the Bill would result in a decrease instead of an increase of the charges with respect to vagrants.

thought that more protection than at present existed should be afforded to the relieving officers, whose windows frequently suffered at the hands of these vagabonds when their demands were not acceded to.

observed that that was a large discretion, and if it were given as proposed to the Poor Law Board, would afford an additional reason for placing the cost of casual wards on the Consolidated Fund.

argued in favour of a system for defraying the expenses of this accommodation out of the Imperial funds, instead of throwing it upon the local rates. He did not believe that the clause, as it now stood, ought to be put in practice throughout the country, because he was convinced that the matter could be more effectually dealt with if the charge over the vagrants was placed in the hands of the police, who knew far more about them than the Guardians. He hoped, at any rate, if they were to pass the clause, that the right hon. Gentleman would take carefully into his consideration the whole question of providing these vagrant wards, and would not at once compel the various Unions to provide them as now proposed.

said, his belief was that the notions of hon. Members with regard to the cost of separate wards were exaggerated. The whole number of vagrants frequenting casual wards was not 4,000, and he believed the number might be further decreased without much increased expenditure.

objected to the large powers that would be conferred by this clause on the Poor Law Board, and suggested, by way of Amendment, the omission of the words "Poor Law Board," so as to leave the action of the Boards of Guardians in the matter more unfettered. The clause, as thus amended, would be to the effect that the Guardians of every Union should provide such casual wards and such fittings and furniture as in their judgment should be necessary, regard being had to the number of casual paupers likely to require relief therein.

expressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, as he considered that the powers conferred on the Poor Law Board by the clause, as it now stood, were excessive. He objected to the Poor Law Board assuming to itself the power of spending as much of the ratepayer's money for this purpose as they pleased.

said, that he certainly could not accept the Amendment, though he as certainly did not desire to exercise any extraordinary powers, for the power vested by the clause in the Poor Law Board was precisely the same as the Department possessed in regard to all workhouses, as distinguished from casual wards; but it was very important that they should arrive at some system of uniformity in dealing with the vagrant class, and to establish the power in some central authority to draw up general regulations for the guidance of the Guardians. The policy of the Bill with respect to vagrants could not be carried out without uniformity of treatment, and he contended that the Poor Law Board ought to be allowed to exercise a discretion in the matter.

thought the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was by no means satisfactory. He thought that the Amendment would not diminish the stringency of the clause. The great object was to provide separate cells for casuals, as under present arrangements a night in a casual ward was looked upon by vagrants as a most enjoyable proceeding. Separate cells would, however be a great expense, and he must repeat that that expense should, in his opinion, fall on the Consolidated Fund, not on the local rates.

expressed his surprise that the Amendment should be objected to, and hoped the hon. Member for Birmingham would press it to a division. It was a wrong principle to convert their workhouses into prisons, and, in his opinion, vagrants as distinguished from casual paupers ought to be dealt with, not by the Guardians, but the magistrates.

said, that the Amendment could not be put, and that the question before the Committee was, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

said, if that was the case, he should vote against the clause altogether.

said, that he had moved the Amendment. He should divide against the clause.

confirmed the statement of the hon. Member for Birmingham, that he had moved the Amendment.

said, that if the clause were taken away, the utility of the Bill would be destroyed.

suggested that the hon. Member for Birmingham might move his Amendment on the Report.

said, he could not agree to the adoption of the course proposed.

, in moving that the Bill be re-committed with the view of inserting the following clause:—

"It shall not be necessary to take out a licence for any cart or horse used for the conveyance of any goods or burden in the case of trade or husbandry, although such cart or horse shall be used on Sunday for carrying the owner thereof or his family to or from any place of worship,"

said, he did not intend to occupy the time of the House with any remarks on the subject of the exemption, but he wished to point out that on the previous night, with all the power of the Government against it, the clause was lost only by a majority of 1 in a House of 83 Members, and he believed that if Ministers had acted as they did in the case of the Ballot Bill when the question of election expenses was discussed, and said—"Let hon. Gentlemen vote as they think right," his proposal would have been carried by a very large majority. [Mr. KINNAIRD: Hear, hear!] He mentioned that fact as a justification for his bringing the matter again under the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he now begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was wise to carry what was substantially a new tax against the general feeling of the Scotch people; and, lastly, whether it was worth his while to make the present Government the most unpopular which Scotland had seen for the last 40 years, by putting, as it would be, that tax into operation.

said, he thought it would be a great hardship if an exemption did not exist in a case where a farmer had a weakly or invalid member of his family who could not go to church except by a conveyance. He must take that opportunity of observing that his vote yesterday in favour of the Motion was a sentimental one; but in point of principle he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right. Whilst the right hon. Gentleman was just he ought to be generous, and to avoid bringing his Government into discredit with the agricultural classes, he (Mr. H. E. Brand) would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the best way to get rid of the difficulty would be to abolish the tax altogether as soon as possible. He trusted the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) would not divide on the present occasion, but would be satisfied with the decision of the previous night.

said, he earnestly supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), for not only in Scotland, but in England, that tax was felt as a great hardship. He invariably found that when anyone desired to promote anything savouring of a feeling of benevolence or common justice a cry was raised that it was illogical and against the doctrines of political economy. He felt the justice of this clause very strongly, and no should consider it was a great hardship if the exemption was not given. It was very hard that a horse used by a farmer in an agricultural employment should not also be used in taking an invalid member of the family to church on Sundays.

trusted that the clause would be pressed. He had come down to the House on purpose to support the Amendment.

felt himself called upon to make an appeal to the Prime Minister, and to ask him if he had not had sufficient testimony as to the feeling of injustice created by the refusal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consent to the exemption which was asked for. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that this was merely a Scotch complaint. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I did not say so.] He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the united feeling of England, Scotland, and Wales was against the tax. It was a practical grievance, and if the right hon. Gentleman did not concede what they asked for, they would remember it, and take other steps for remedying the grievance.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer now perceived that the grievance was not exclusively Scotch, and that he would not give again an answer such as he had given to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Dodson)—namely, that it was easy to know from his speech what constituency he represented. If hon. Members were sent to that House for anything, it was to represent the nature of the grievances under which their constituencies laboured. They might regard themselves in some sense as advocates in such a case and the House as the judge. He believed they had a good case, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give a reply with respect to two points. First, could he deny that this was a new tax, and the abolition of an old exemption? and, secondly, would he affirm that it was the intention of Parliament, when the Bill passed, to take away the exemption? The case of those who supported the clause was, that this exemption with regard to horses employed on the seventh day, on a different duty from that in which they had been engaged during the other six, was an old exemption, and ought not to have been taken away without express permission of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman was familiar with the political philosophers of antiquity, and would remember the advice not to be always changing laws, because the force of a law depended very much on its antiquity and custom. This was especially true of taxation, and where they had old taxes adjusted to the shoulders of the people it was a great mistake wantonly to alter them for new ones. The same philosopher told how a fox, covered with leeches, declined to have them removed on the ground that fresh ones would take their place, and he preferred the old ones; and it was pretty much the same with taxes. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would distinctly answer the two questions which he had put to him.

said, that the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) talked about the practical nature of the claim. He thought its practical character was exemplified by a Question on the Paper that morning, asking if the right hon. Gentleman would grant the exemption on wet days. Well, but some hon. Gentlemen might ask for the exemption for a hot day, and others again would request it for a cold day. In fact, the nature of the claim would depend upon the temperament of the hon. Gentleman who asked the Question. He agreed that that was purely a sentimental grievance, and he hoped the exemption would not be granted.

said, he was averse to all exemptions as a rule, but the Board of Inland Revenue in this case told the farmer that he might go to tea meetings, or have a day in the country in his cart without being taxed, but that if he went to church in it he must pay the tax. This was a new tax which was felt as much by the trading body as by the agriculturists.

said, he did not rely upon any distinction between "used" and "kept" in this matter, and the same construction was adopted, no matter which word was placed in the Act. A question was raised by that Motion which was much more important than the one agitated on the previous night, and that was whether, after a thing had been twice debated and twice decided in that House, especially at that period of the Session, when time was very valuable, the Order for the Third Reading of a Bill should be stopped in order to try over again precisely the same issue as they had already determined. The Orders of the House were framed with extreme care, so as to give every legitimate opportunity for discussion, that nothing might be carried by surprise or mistake, and it was probably right that those rules should exist; but if they were used, not for the purpose for which they were framed, but merely to raise over and over again the same question, they would become almost an intolerable impediment to business. If he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had been beaten on the last occasion when this question was brought forward it would not have occurred to him to have raised the question again now, even if he had been sure of a majority, and unless hon. Members would consent to exercise some degree of forbearance towards each other, and not to insist on every small occasion on their extreme rights, they might carry some particular points, not of much importance, which they sought to advance; but they would inflict grievous injury on the proceedings of the House, and also on the respect entertained for the House by the country. Therefore he hoped, if for no other reason, that the House would not agree to the clause, which nobody would say was of the importance or urgency to justify its introduction a third time. He would not go into the question again, but he wished to explain what he took the liberty of explaining on the previous night, when the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Dodson) accused him of saying what he probably did say—namely, that the policy of the present Government was to support this exemption. That was a lapsus linguæ. What he meant to say was, that the policy of Parliament was to grant this exemption. If the Government had a policy in the matter, it would not be in favour of the exemption, and he never intended to say otherwise. If this clause were granted it would have the effect pointed out by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) last night—it would enable persons to do what they liked with their horses and vehicles on Sunday. It would be utterly impossible for the Inland Revenue to prove that a man driving with his horse and cart was not going to church. The man was seen on the road with his horse and cart, and he having a lawful reason for going out, the Inland Revenue could not lay hold of him. The exemption, if granted, would not rest at the point indicated. It was quite clear from the speech of the hon. Member for East Sussex that they must go a great deal further, and look to the "vocation of the horse," and if it was pretty often usen in agriculture or trade they must allow it to be employed at other times in any other way. There were £450,000 a-year at stake on the horse duty, and, without being pedantic, he should be sorry to do anything that would prevent the collection of that revenue. It might become desirable at some future time to re-consider that tax altogether, but he could not do so now, and he hoped the House would refrain from interfering with the possibility of collecting it. He thought the Government acted justly with regard to this tax, because they laid down the terms of the exemption, and if those terms were complied with, they granted the exemption. He did not think it would be expedient to allow sentiment to come into the matter; and he must also say that the hon. Member for East Sussex misrepresented him when he said that he was influenced by his love of symmetry and uniformity. He would never be dissuaded from doing anything that was, upon the whole, for the good of the country by a mere abstract love of symmetry and uniformity; but when the burden was cast on some people, and others were exempted without complying with the conditions of exemption, there was more involved than a mere question of symmetry, because they were making one man pay for another. If two men dined together at a tavern and one paid for himself and left the other to pay his own share, what would be thought if the latter said to the former, "What a stickler you are for symmetry, why don't you pay for us both?"

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer complained that this question had been brought before the House again, but he seemed to forget that the other night, when the Motion of the hon. Member for Penrhyn (Mr. Eastwick) on the subject of foreign decorations was fully discussed, and the Government defeated, they raised the question in a few minutes afterwards, and had the vote reversed.

said, the act was not his. He was called upon to vote by the forms of the House.

thought the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) could hardly be blamed for raising that question again, as the proposal had, in the first instance, been defeated by a very few votes indeed, and last night by a majority of only 1. As that was admittedly not a matter of abstract symmetry, nor one of any great urgency or importance, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might gracefully yield upon it. He did not deny that successive exemptions might ultimately render a tax altogether untenable; but then if the right hon. Gentleman, instead of drawing a rigid hard-and-fast line, had only continued to work the law in the same manner and with the same elasticity as it was applied when he entered upon office, and had kept the tax as it was, all that discomfort and inconvenience to the public would have been avoided, and the present demand for exemption would not have been made. He should again vote with the hon. Member for Edinburgh.

said, he was surprised at the obstinacy of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point, especially as the right hon. Gentleman had admitted on the previous evening that the exemption would apply to a man taking his neighbour's family to church, but not to a man taking his own family to church.

pointed out that the majority in favour of the second reading consisted of 23 official votes. He regretted that anything should have been said about religious differences, for he opposed the measure on the broad ground that no public money should be advanced for any religious purposes whatever. He complained that contradictory explanations of its objects had been given by the Government.

said, that was merely an extension of the Act of last year, and embodied no new principle whatever. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Miall) on examining the Bill, expressed himself satisfied that there was nothing in it inconsistent with his (Mr. Fortescue's) assurances last year. The Bill would merely remove certain anomalies, and provide a more convenient mode of carrying out the Act of last year. For instance, at present they might lend money to build a glebe, but not to buy one already built.

admitted that the Bill was no advance in principle upon the measure of last year, but it was an extension of its operation, and in his view the operation of a law was as important as the principle on which it was founded. The Bill was founded on the system of liberal ignorance and wilful blindness, and was in opposition to the course taken by every other European nation.

objected to the principle of laying taxes on the people and lending the produce of them to any Religious Body whatever. One step in that direction led to another, and he deprecated that kind of legislation altogether.

complained of the course taken by hon. Members for Scotland, who had remained in town for the express purpose of opposing all measures for the advantage of Ireland, although Scotland got more from the Imperial Exchequer in seven years than Ireland did in twenty. It had been stated that money was advanced and not repaid; but that was utterly untrue, for every shilling advanced had been repaid, and paid with interest. The Bill was an extension of an Act in operation for 40 years, the 1 & 2 Will. IV., under which a farmer or any other person might borrow money, with the exception of clergymen, and when power was given to the Presbyterian minister, the Protestant clergyman, and the Roman Catholic priest to borrow money, to be repaid in 35 instalments, objections were raised by Scotch Members and by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Newdegate).

explained that the ground of his opposition was that the Bill proposed to apply the money of the taxpayers for ecclesiastical purposes, and that would influence him if a similar Bill was brought in respecting Scotland.

explained that he had voted against the Bill of last year, but supported this because it was clear that it was supplemental to their previous legislation.

moved the omission of the clause, on the ground that it involved the new and objectionable principle that money might be advanced to pay off mortgages which existed before 1870, and thus scattered broadcast, as it were, money which had been collected for a different purpose among all the religious denominations in Ireland. If his proposal was accepted and the clause negatived, it would remove all the objections entertained to the measure.

, in seconding the Amendment, reminded the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) that Scotch Members had voted with Irish Members in the divisions on the Irish Church and Irish Land Bills, and declared that he had never voted against the interests of Ireland. The charge of remaining to oppose the Bill could not apply to himself, because during the six years he had had a seat in that House he had always entered and left it with the Speaker, and had only been absent for a few days during the whole of that period.

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, because the clause contained the principle of the Bill, and if it was omitted, the Bill would remain a stringent measure dealing with the loans of last Session without conferring any advantages whatever. To strike it out would be worse than leaving out the part of Hamlet; it would be leaving out Hamlet, Ophelia, and all the other characters of the play. He acquitted the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) of staying in town for the purpose of opposing the Bill, but must advert to the fact that out of 103 Irish Members, including many distinguished patriots, only three were present on that occasion to support an Irish Bill of some importance.

, alluding to a reference made by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) to the course he had pursued with regard to the Maynooth Bill, asserted that in wishing to amend the Bill, he (Mr. Newdegate) had acted consistently, and that he desired the welfare of Ireland as sincerely as any Irish Member.

said, it was unfortunate that the measure had been brought forward at such a period of the Session that it could not be fully discussed. The Bill increased the powers of the police to an enormous extent, and proposed, in reference to the mode of proving crime, a very queer addition to our present laws. By the system now in operation it was sought to bring thieves and the police in close acquaintance, under the belief that the police would thereby gain some advantage. He believed, however, that more crime would be detected if the police knew nothing of the old thieves, who were quite competent to throw dust in the eyes of the police, and would, by cunningly avoiding cause of complaint, create the impression that they were excellent people. In that way suspicion would be allayed and crime would not be detected. It could not be proved that by giving such extraordinary powers to the police any material alteration had been made in the number of offences committed by persons for the first time or afterwards. The system had also a sad effect in closing the door almost completely in the face of those who, having once committed an offence, desired to return to an honest course of life. But he wished especially to call attention to the Amendment to be proposed by the Government, with the intention of removing the pecuniary burden connected with the arrangements of the Bill from the national Exchequer to the local rates. He did not consider that to be a just proposal. He did not think that a Bill of that sort should be brought forward at a time when things were being so jumbled together. The expense involved in this legislation was no small matter, and it was only fair that the national Exchequer should bear its share of the expenditure. He also complained of the introduction of a new and dangerous principle in the Bill, by which a man might be convicted of an offence which was not included in the indictment for which he was tried. The Bill said that a man might be convicted "under the circumstances of the case." He wished to know what facts might be comprised under such a phrase. He thought it was hardly fair for the Government to bring forward a Bill containing these important provisions at a time when it was absolutely impossible they could receive the attention and discussion which they ought. It was absurd to say it could be amended in Committee, for it was quite idle for anyone to propose anything without the assent of the Government, because, in the present state of the House, the power of passing Bills was in their hands.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Recorder of London had some Amendments on the Paper, which he had requested him (Mr. Straight) to move. He also wished to say a few words upon the Bill on his own behalf. The measure was practically a reproduction of the Habitual Criminals Act of last year; but the language had been rendered much more plain and intelligible. With respect to Clause 20, it was merely a reproduction of a clause in the Habitual Criminals Act, where the prosecution were entitled to put in the fact of a previous conviction. He hoped that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), relating to the harbouring of thieves in publichouses, would be accepted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. This seemed a much better Bill than that of last year, and he thought it would work effectively.

considered that it should be in the discretion of the magistrate to determine whether a publican should lose his licence for the offence of harbouring thieves, and that in those cases there should be an appeal similar to that provided by the 9 Geo. IV. c. 61.

recalled the attention of the Government to the objection which he had made to those clauses a few moments before.

said, it was from no want of respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that he had not at once met the objection; but he thought it would be more convenient to consider the Bill clause by clause. With respect to the particular objection, facts and circumstances meant the same thing.

said, he could not allow these clauses to pass without expressing his deep regret that in the present state of society it should be necessary to have such a restrictive Bill. Every year there was some new Act for the prevention of crime, and every year crime continued to increase. How could anyone wonder at it? The old system of transportation, which worked so well, had been abolished, and men were now discharged from prison, and left to wander about the country without any means of finding a livelihood. If anyone deeply imbued with religious motives wished to receive such an one into his service he was not allowed to take him, for his very domestics would revolt against him. Formerly, when a criminal was sent to a colony, he had a chance of doing well, but now, for some reason which he could not understand, the ticket-of-leave system had been introduced, and was turning out upon society a parcel of ruffians who could not do well. He hoped Government would consider the matter, and bring before the House some measure which would give these people a chance of earning a living. He did not mean to conclude with any Motion, but he could not help making these remarks.

moved, to add to the clause the following words:—

"Provided that any person convicted under this section shall have a right to appeal against such conviction in the same manner in all respects as if the said conviction had been for an offence committed against the provisions of the Act of the ninth George the Fourth, chapter sixty-one."