, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that during two successive Sessions Select Committees were appointed to inquire into the subject of newspaper libel, and each of these Committees was presided over by the Attorney General for the time being. The first of those Committees heard a mass of valuable evidence, but made no Report owing to want of time. The second Committee asked permission to have that evidence referred to them, and this Bill embodied the recommendations of that Committee, and was confined to them exclusively. The justification of the Bill lay in that fact, and he was thereby relieved from the necessity of entering upon any long argument in its support. The provisions of the Bill were few and exceedingly simple. Rightly considered, the interests of the newspaper Press and those of the public were quite identical; and the Bill, while intending to remove acknowledged hardships, also provided guarantees against danger that might be apprehended in some quarters. It proposed, in the first place, to protect newspapers in the exercise of an important function, the due performance of which was expected at their hands. A newspaper was the record and expression of what took place in public, of all political life, and of all municipal and social activity—in short, it was the record of everything outside the domain of strictly domestic intercourse; and he asked whether it was fair that an agency which met an ever-increasing demand of this kind, and which was expected to perform its functions with accuracy, should have to do its work in the midst of red-hot ploughshares, and should be subject to consequences for the injudicious language of persons whom it correctly reported. Protection from private liability in the discharge of an important public function was the end sought to be obtained by this Bill. It provided that a fair and honest bonâ fide report of lawful public meetings should be held as privileged in the same manner as reports of a similar character of proceedings in Parliament and the Courts of Justice. In the matter of comment the Bill left the law precisely as it was. It made no change in the law of civil action; but it did make some change in the present law of criminal prosecution for libel, and for good and sufficient reasons. He could give a long list of cases in which criminal prosecutions had been resorted to on the most frivolous pretences, either for the purpose of extorting money or gratifying private malice. A man's character could be quite as well vindicated by civil action as by criminal prosecution. He did not ask for the total abolition of criminal prosecution against a newspaper, because there might be cases of violation of public decency; but it seemed to him that the tremendous power of that law ought not to be placed within reach of capricious and unscrupulous persons who might be wickedly disposed and worthless. The Bill, therefore, asked that no criminal prosecution for libel against a newspaper should be instituted unless the Attorney General for the time being were satisfied that there was a primâ facie case for resorting to that method instead of the ordinary one of civil action. Lastly, as the price which the newspapers would have to pay for those concessions, the Bill provided for the registration of newspaper proprietors. At present it was very difficult to find out who was the real proprietor of a newspaper; but by this registration clause the responsible person could be got at in case of need without any difficulty, and would prevent a man shelter- ing himself under the wing of a man of straw as at present—the nominis umbra. It would be noticed by the House that this Bill referred to England and Ireland alone, but not to Scotland, and the reason was significant. In Scotland, the changes he proposed by the Bill were practically, and had long been, in operation. Scotch newspaper proprietors would not thank them for including their newspapers in this Bill, because there was a large measure of free publicity as regards the reports of public meetings. These prosecutions must first be authorized by the Procurator Fiscal; and the strongest argument he could adduce for this Bill was that in Scotland, where criminal prosecutions for libel were almost unknown, civil actions also were extremely rare. The journalist was put upon his honour, and he acted accordingly. He (Mr. Hutchinson) believed a similar state of things would obtain in England and Ireland if this Bill were passed. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the second reading; but, at the same time, there were one or two provisions to which he could not give his assent. The main provision of the Bill was one that would meet with approbation—namely, that fair, honest, and bonâ fide reports of lawful public meetings should be privileged in the same way as reports of proceedings in Parliament and in Courts of Justice were privileged, it being thoroughly understood that the privilege did not extend to comments that might be made outside of such reports of public meetings. But it was also important that it should be laid down in very precise terms what was to be held a public meeting, for, of course, if two or three persons met to condemn the conduct of a person obnoxious to them that would not be a public meeting. By the second part of the 2nd clause it was provided that the defendant should not be entitled to avail himself of the defence that the report was a fair one if it were shown that he had refused to insert in his newspaper a reasonable explanation of the circumstances tendered for publica- tion on the part of the persons reflected upon in the alleged libel. As the law stood now, no such limitation of the right of the defendant to avail himself of a legal ground of defence existed in the case of reports of proceedings in Parliament, or in the Courts of Law, and he did not see why it should be introduced in the case of reports of public meetings, especially as it might lead to endless and most inconvenient controversies in the public Press. He would be glad if that part of the Bill were altered in Committee. The Bill also provided for a better registration of proprietors. That, he thought, was extremely necessary, and it would obviate a great amount of difficulty which now existed in ascertaining the person morally responsible for the publication of a libel. The third proposal was open to very grave objection. He could not go the length of approving a suggestion that no criminal proceedings should be taken in respect of any libel without the consent of the Attorney General. He did not think that the right of any of Her Majesty's subjects to take criminal proceedings in respect of any libel, however gross or personal it might be, should be limited by the view which might be taken of the matter by the Attorney General. There were other matters that he should like to see dealt with by the Bill. For instance, as the law now stood, the person who considered himself aggrieved by the matter published had an alternative remedy. He might sue the defendant in a civil action, where he could give evidence on oath in his own defence, or he might, by taking criminal proceedings, shut the mouth of the defendant altogether. It was contrary to all right and justice that the accusing party should, by choosing one form of proceeding rather than the other, have the option of declaring whether or not his opponent should be heard. There was a growing feeling that the accused in all criminal cases should be permitted to make his statement upon oath; and, therefore, what he should ask the House to do in the present instance would be to enact that every criminal proceeding in respect of libel should be conducted in the same manner, both as to evidence and costs, as though it were a civil action—that was to say, that the defendant should have the right to go into the witness box at each stage of the proceedings, and make his own statement in denial or justification of the charge made against him.

said, the question the Select Committee had to consider was whether the proprietors of newspapers could be to any extent relieved from their present legal liabilities without prejudice to the public interests; and, after taking a great deal of evidence, and giving very careful consideration to the subject, the inquiry resulted in the Bill now before the House. The Committee felt that publishers of newspapers were very often made liable for acts which were not their own, and which it was almost impossible for them to control; and they, therefore, recommended that any report published in a newspaper of the proceedings of a public meeting should be privileged, if the meeting was convened for a lawful purpose, and open to the public, and if the report was fair and accurate, and published without malice. The privilege solely applied to public meetings, publicly convened, and would exclude railway and other meetings, where shareholders often called each other hard names, and where strong reflections were sometimes cast upon the commercial credit of individuals. The clause also required it to be proved that the publication of the matter complained of was for the public benefit; and he could not, with deference to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Inderwick), think that there was much in his objection to the proposal that the protection afforded by the clause should not be available as a defence if the defendant had refused to publish an explanation or contradiction. In the course, of his experience, he had always found that a respectable journal was ready to insert a reasonable explanation, or apology, for any libel that might have found its way into its columns; and in a case of libel before a jury the refusal to publish a contradiction was commonly treated as an aggravation of the offence. The 3rd clause, by providing that no prosecution for newspaper libel should be commenced without the fiat of the Attorney General, did not, of course, make the Attorney General responsible for the prosecution; but only required him to declare whether or not a primé facie case was made out, and he could not think the restriction was unfair. The registration of newspaper proprietors appeared to him to be a very important part of the Bill; but he was not sure whether the Bill would not be better without the clause, which imposed a £10 penalty for the omission of the printer, or publisher, to make the required return. A proprietor who wished to conceal his name would not be made by so small a penalty to disclose it; and it would be better either to make the penalty £10 for every month during which the return was not furnished, or to leave the omission to be dealt with under the ordinary law.

said, he trusted the Bill would be read a second time, and that reasonable facilities would be allowed to his hon. and learned Friend for getting it through the House this Session. The subject had been dealt with many times, and in no instance had a more generally satisfactory solution been hit upon than that now before them. The late hon. and learned Member for Glasgow, the late Mr. Butt, and himself had been concerned in more than one Bill dealing with this subject during last Parliament. The difficulties that now beset the question had beset them; but those who were formerly unwilling for legislation had been brought to see the necessity and the justice of it. Two special Committees had inquired into the whole matter. Both the public and the newspaper proprietors had had an opportunity for putting their case before this Committee, and the Bill was the outcome of these deliberations. He recognized the difficulty of defining what was a public meeting; but, after full consideration, the words that were in the Bill had been hit upon as the best that could be chosen. Anyone who was capable of suggesting better words could do so in Committee. After repeated trials, those who had concerned themselves in the question had failed to define the meetings more accurately than in the clauses as they stood in the Bill. He thought it was only fair that persons who felt themselves aggrieved should have the liberty of requesting the insertion of corrections or explanations. If reports of public meetings were to be privileged, the public, on the other hand, should be at liberty to correct any inaccuracies in these privileged reports, and newspapers would only be too willing to comply with the request. It was not to the interest of a newspaper proprietor to circulate what was incorrect. It would not add to the reputation of the paper, and certainly it would not add to its influence, to give persistent publicity to unfair and incorrect reports. Everyone now admitted the hardship under which newspaper proprietors lay in being held responsible, both civilly and criminally, for fairly reporting proceedings of public bodies. The Bill would free them from that responsibility. In consideration for that concession, newspapers were to register the list of proprietors. That he regarded as a retrograde step. It was going back upon an obsolete law. In former times the owner of every printing press had to be registered. Printers were regarded as disturbers of the peace. Their types were considered as explosive materials, and they themselves were treated as rogues and vagabonds or dealers in dangerous commodities. That was when the Press was in its infancy. The law had gradually been modified, and now it had only a nominal force. Papers might be registered, but it was not compulsory for them to be so. He did not see any reason why the owner of a newspaper should be registered any more than the owner of a coal mine or the owner of a chemical works. A chemical works might destroy the vegetation in a neighbourhood, or it might injure the health or lead to the death of cattle. Persons who suffered by these had their remedy against the proprietor of the works, although these proprietors were not registered. If, in consequence of the working of a coal mine, the surface subsided and injury was sustained by anyone, the people who suffered could sue the coalowners and get redress, and yet the coalowners were not registered. He did not see why newspapers should be treated differently. If newspapers undermined the character of anyone, the persons attacked could get at the owners of the newspaper just as easily as people could get at the owners of chemical works or coal mines. He objected to this exceptional legislation. It was quite true that there had been isolated instances where newspaper proprietors had got out of their responsibilities by quibbling; but these cases were rare. That was a point of the Bill he objected to, and, when in Committee, he would try to modify it or amend it; but the Bill generally was a fair attempt to settle a complicated and difficult subject, and he hoped the House would assist his hon. Friend in giving it the force of law.

said, he thought that reports of the proceedings of Boards of Guardians, of Town Councils, of School Boards, and of other public bodies through which public money was expended, should be held to be privileged. He cited a case in which the law, as it at present affected Boards of Guardians, operated manifestly to the prejudice of the ratepayers. When the Bill got into Committee, he should propose a clause to the effect that any report of any public body having the administration of public funds, such as Town Councils and Boards of Guardians, to whose meetings reporters of the Press were admitted, should be privileged, if such reports were fair and accurate, and published without malice. Such a provision would be a considerable protection to newspapers, and would confer a real benefit upon the public.

said, he rose for the purpose of supporting this Bill warmly. In his opinion, the Bill would be more useful than all the other measures put together which had been brought forward on the Ministerial side of the House since the present Government came into Office. He did not, however, agree with the criticism of the hon. and learned Member for Rye (Mr. Inderwick), as he thought that no definition should be given of a public meeting; but that every case should be left to be decided by a Judge and jury, who would consider all the facts and circumstances of the case. He most strongly supported the 3rd clause, believing that no criminal prosecution for libel should be brought without the consent of the Attorney General. Very often criminal proceedings were taken in respect of libels for the purpose of stopping the mouth of the defendant. Until the time came when the Criminal Code, which was too valuable a measure for the Government to deal with, was before the House, he should not like to say anything on the subject of the propriety of permitting defendants in criminal cases to give evidence.

said, he was sorry to interrupt the harmony which this Bill had brought from every part of the House, including the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who as a rule did not sympathize very strongly with attempts at legislation on the part of Liberal Members; but he could not entirely agree with any part of this Bill. The point as to "being privileged" was a good one. As to deciding what a public meeting was, they knew there were a great many bodies who often excluded reporters just as they pleased, and there was also a class of meetings which were semi-private. For instance, meetings of Conservatives in different parts of London, to which admission was almost invariably by ticket, could hardly be termed public meetings. It was unfortunate that they should have to discuss this Bill so much in detail; but it was not their fault, because it in reality consisted of three measures, which might be embodied in three different Bills, and more closely debated in Committee. With regard to prosecutions by the Attorney General, he did not think that provision was all that was wanted. What was wanted was that magistrates should have a discretionary power of dealing with them. They might have the power of inflicting fines or short sentences of imprisonment instead of sending defendants for trial. There was a danger arising from occasions which were not very important, but distinctly libellous. Magistrates desired to give defendants the benefit of the smallest possible doubt. He did not think the scheme, as at present proposed in the third part of the Bill, would work at all. There were two classes of proprietors. They would have to deal with what he might term good proprietors and bad proprietors. This Bill was aimed at the wicked proprietors; but sufficient machinery was not provided to carry out the intention of the Bill in this respect. Very often, too, the printers and the proprietor were entirely different people. The responsibility for libel was now a meaningless one. It was quite right that there should be civil and criminal responsibility; but it was well known that newspaper proprietors were often civilly responsible when they were not criminally; and criminal actions were often brought against publishers who ought not to be implicated at all in the Law of Libel. It should be defined where the criminal responsibility ought to end. He thought the penalty of £10 was a ridiculous one. A wicked proprietor would give the printer an indemnity, unless the amount of the fine was extremely heavy. They would find that under this provision the law would be practically inoperative, and things would go on very much as they did at the present moment. Whatever law was passed, they would find that the man they were seeking to get hold of was seeking to evade the law, and they would be no better off than they were before. He should not oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he thought it might be materially altered in Committee.

said, he fully shared the objections against the Bill which had been raised by the hon. Member who has just spoken. He entirely agreed that the registration of newspaper proprietors was antiquated, obsolete, and unsuited to the present time. As to public meetings, it had been argued that the definition applied only to meetings of corporate bodies or great assemblages open to the public, and did not include the meetings of public companies. But this latter class of meetings were the very class to which it was most necessary often, for the sake of the public, that attention should be called, and fair reports of the proceedings published in the newspapers. He had known instances where companies in a tottering condition had been enabled to keep on drawing in new victims by the absence of fair and full reports of their proceedings. If fair and full reports were given of the proceedings of such concerns, the public might be warned, and the final crash of the company foreshadowed. There was no class of reports out of which libels were more likely to arise than those of the proceedings at meetings of public companies and shareholders. He remembered one case in his own experience in which some of the shareholders of a company felt convinced that one of the officials was literally cooking the accounts and mismanaging the affairs. A meeting of shareholders was called, and the charges were distinctly repeated, and a newspaper with which he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) was at that time connected published a report of the proceedings. The person accused brought an action for libel, and no doubt would have got a verdict but that his guilt in the meantime was found out and he had to abscond. This incident showed the importance of their not narrowing the scope of the Bill so as to exclude the reports of the public meetings of companies from the category of privileged reports, and he thought some improvement might be made in that particular.

hoped that the Bill would be read a second time: but thought that certain changes would have to be made in Committee. It would be necessary to define more clearly than the 2nd clause did what was a public meeting. With regard to the 3rd clause, he did not entirely agree with it. He thought it was a mistake to vest any more power than was absolutely required in a Minister of the Crown or other central authority. If a summons for libel were obtained, the magistrate was not able to dismiss the case summarily, even if he thought a jury would not convict. He was obliged to send the case to trial. If a newspaper were to say when the claimant came out of prison that the claimant had been in prison, the claimant might go before a magistrate, and might insist on the newspaper proprietor or whoever was responsible being sent for trial at the Old Bailey. He might put him to heavy expense, although there was no doubt there would be an acquittal. It, therefore, seemed to him (Mr. Labouchere) very desirable that, instead of a fiat being obtained from the Attorney General for a trial in such a case, a magistrate should be able to deal summarily with any application made to him on the subject. As to the registration of proprietors, there was formerly not a register of proprietors, but a register in which one person was entered as proprietor. He might have half-a-dozen partners; but it was not necessary to enter their names in the register. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) had remarked that colliery owners were not registered. The cases were, however, different; and while everybody knew the proprietor of a colliery, it was difficult with regard to newspapers to discover who was the responsible person. In almost all cases the printers and publishers of newspapers were mere dummies. He submitted to the Attorney General whether it would not be possible to render the printer liable if he did not give up the name of some responsible person as proprietor. He did not see the necessity of registering the names of all the proprietors. Some were mere shareholders in a newspaper, and it would only gratify an idle curiosity to put their names in the register. He thought the Bill was in the right direction, and he hoped the House would agree to the second reading.

, said, the Bill appeared to him to be a very useful measure, and he hoped it would not only be read a second time, but that an opportunity would be afforded for reading it a third time. The House would remember that newspaper proprietors had formerly serious cause for complaint in being held liable for criminal proceedings where they had not personally erred, and that this state of things produced considerable discussion some years ago in relation to the liability of newspaper proprietors. But some few years ago, in a case that was heard before the late Lord Chief Justice, the opinion was strongly expressed by the Court that Lord Campbell's Act would protect from criminal proceedings those who had intrusted editorial duties to others and had not been deficient in any want of care themselves. This Bill did not deal with that point, because it was felt by the Committee which considered the matter last year that the law already existing afforded sufficient protection. The Bill was the result of the deliberations of a Select Committee of last Session, on which it could not be said that those interested in newspapers had anything like a preponderating influence, but in which the general public were well represented. One or two objections had been made to the Bill. It had been said that there ought to be greater clearness in the definition of what a public meeting was. As to that objection, he would only observe that those who made it should be good enough to define what was a public meeting. Directly you defined what was a public meeting you excluded all other meetings from the operation of the Bill. He thought it was much safer to leave a judicial tribunal to define the term "public meeting." Prima facie, he should say if reporters were admitted in order to report, the meeting would be regarded as public. The hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Inderwick) said under this Bill a few persons might meet together, and by means of private scandal ruin the character of any man. But no editor would have the protection of this Bill in such a case as that, for the editor must show that the publication was for the public benefit, and that it was not a mere private slander. The objection to Clause 3 which the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had urged—namely, that the requirement of a fiat from the Attorney General before proceedings for libel could be commenced would have the effect of giving too much power to the Executive Government, was an objection which he would meet by stating that the principle was one which had been much extended of late years. He had always given notice to persons accused to say what they had to say before he issued his fiat; but he would suggest to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that the 2nd clause should be so altered in Committee that a fiat should not be issued against editors of newspapers until they had had an opportunity of making a statement before the Attorney General. As to the question of registration, he thought that registration was, on the whole, beneficial to the public, while he did not think it was injurious to editors of newspapers. That, however, was a matter to be discussed in Committee, and he would now content himself by asking the House to allow the Bill to be read a second time.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, observed that the object of the Bill was to get rid of a statute called Horne Tooke's Act, which was passed for the purpose of getting rid of a man whose political opinions were obnoxious. The Act excluded clergymen from sitting in the House of Commons. Mr. Horne Tooke was returned for Old Sarum at a time when political feeling was very strong. He (Sir Gabriel Goldney) did not know the reason why his right hon. Friend (Mr. Beresford Hope) sitting below him and others objected to clergymen sitting in the House of Commons. It was formerly held that clergymen sitting in Convocation were not privileged to sit in the House of Commons, because they claimed the right of taxing themselves through Convocation, instead of through the House of Commons, and it was felt that they ought not to have a double voice; but in 1846 the powers of Convocation were abolished. Clergymen were now eligible for all civil offices and functions, and why should they be excluded from the House of Commons? Why should they be ostracized from all political feeling and action? They performed all the ordinary duties of citizens, and became Guardians of the poor. It might be said that it was inconsistent to be in the pulpit one day and in the House the next; but this applied with equal force to officers in the Army and Navy. It might be said that they ought not to be in the House of Commons, but performing their duties as officers, and looking after their men. Nonconformist ministers also could sit in the House without any objection being taken on the ground that political life was inconsistent with clerical functions. The history of the disabilities of the clergy was remarkable. For instance, at one time clergymen were excluded from hunting, on the ground that it was inconsistent with their duties; but a statute was passed which declared that it was necessary they should have that excellent exercise for the purpose of carrying on their duties more efficiently, and it was one of the prerogatives of the Crown that when a Bishop died his pack of hounds should go to the Crown, or that in lieu thereof compensation should be paid. In the performance of secular duties clergymen were admirable examples to the rest of the community. Nearly a third of the Bills in the Journals of the House dealt with subjects—such as Augmentation of Benefices, Burial Fees, Church Patronage, Ecclesiastical Endowments, Marriage Law Amendment Act, Poor Removal—in the discussion of which clergymen would be able to take part and give to the House the advantage of their knowledge and experience. He thought Parliament ought to abolish an Act that was passed for the purpose of excluding a man whose political opinions were adverse to the Minister of the day. Being unable to exclude him individually, they excluded the whole body of clergymen. He spoke as a Churchman, and as one who did all he could for the Church; and he asked the House to say that the clergy should not be treated as a different social order from the rest of the community. He was quite satisfied it would be beneficial to the Church if some clergymen were to come within an arena like the House.

, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, congratulated his hon. Friend on the array of authorities he had pressed into his service. Even the venerable "Brother Bragge," of political poetry, had made his appearance; and he presumed that Brother Bragge and Brother Hiley were kept in reserve. The present state of matters was that clergymen, whether with or without a cure of souls, could not sit and vote in the House, and his hon. Friend wished to alter that state of things. On previous occasions his hon. Friend promoted a Bill to allow clergymen who had not a cure of souls to sit and vote in the House. He (Mr. Beresford Hope) thought there were sufficient reasons even against that measure, and he had the satisfaction of carrying the House with him. There were already plenty of elements of disturbance in the House, plenty of heart-burnings, plenty of faction—he was not accusing one side or the other, but only that human nature, of which they were all sharers—plenty of misunderstanding, plenty of class grievances, plenty of everything which distempered debate and paralyzed wise counsels. Was it desirable, then, to introduce fresh elements of discord by bringing in what he must as a Churchman, a Christian, and a citizen say would be a most pestilent specimen of the genus citizen—namely, the political parson who would use his partizanship for his political advantage? He might either be a rich rector, with aspirations, or a discontented curate, with a grievance. In either case, he had his pulpit to preach in, his school to lecture in, his parish vestry, his meetings for mothers, for fathers, and for uncles, and did they want to introduce that man into Parliament also? Did they want to have the scandal of a man being able to spend his Sunday mornings and evenings in preaching his political speeches from the pulpit, and upon weekdays inflict his tedious sermons on the House? Did they want such a man to be able from the rising of the sun until 4 o'clock to be able to canvass in his cassock, and then come down to the House and be addressed as the hon. and rev. Member for So-and-so? He should regard the introduction of "political parsons" to the House as a fresh scandal to good order and religion and piety. His hon. Friend had given a list of a dozen Bills which he thought ought to be canvassed and traversed by clerical Members. He (Mr. Beresford Hope) prophesied, however, that if clergymen were admitted in sufficient numbers and of sufficient variety of clerical opinions to influence a debate, the non-clerical Members of the House would rise in revolt against them. In order to attain his hon. Friend's Utopia, half-a-dozen High, half-a-dozen Low, and half-a -dozen Broad Church clergymen would have to be secured. It was urged that it was hard that there should be no clergymen in that House, seeing that there were Bishops in the House of Lords; but it should be remembered that a clergyman would enter the House of Commons after a contested election and with constituents at his back. The election of a Bishop, on the other hand, was a ceremony which might be very abhorrent to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), but it had not much effect on his position in the House of Lords afterwards, and he had no constituents. The Bench of Bishops in the other House might be a valuable part of the Constitution or it might not. That was not the question before the House now, but it depended on totally different considerations; and to attempt to darken counsel and mix up that matter with the present discussion was only to show how trivial and imaginary was the grievance alleged in the case and how weak was the ground for the Bill. In conclusion, he trusted that the House, considering the present state of Public Business, would not encourage even so respectable a Member as his hon. Friend to air his crotchet at the expense of the national time; but that the House, which had already, before getting into Committee upon the one single Bill of importance, taken 200 divisions during this Session, would, if necessary, have its 201st division that morning for the purpose of relieving itself from the present annoyance for the rest of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

, in supporting the second reading of the Bill, said, he would not attempt to follow the heated rhetoric and habitual prophecies of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He could not, however, share in the apprehensions entertained by that right hon. Gentleman as to the dangers that were likely to arise from the possible introduction of a clergyman into the House if a constituency could be found to return him. He thought, moreover, that if any clergyman were to resort to the objectionable means to acquire a seat in that House which the right hon. Gentleman had so graphically described, the constituency would know how to deal with him and would emphatically reject him. He maintained, further, that Horne Tooke's Act, which it was now proposed to repeal, was entirely unconstitutional, having been directed, not only against an individual, but against the privileges of a class without the smallest justification. All persons who were liable to be taxed for their lay possessions were in justice and on constitutional grounds eligible to be returned to Parliament if they were untainted by crime and subject to no legal disqualification. This was the result of the arrangement made between Clarendon and Archbishop Sheldon in 1655, as was proved by the cases cited in Bragge's Report of 1801, for all the cases in which clergymen, having spiritual fees, had been elected and were disqualified by vote of the House occured before 1655, and all cases, notably those of Gordon and Rushworth, in which their seats were unchallenged, occurred after that date. Horne Tooke himself had stood twice for Westminster before he was elected for Old Sarum, and no one thought of saying that votes given, to him were thrown away. The clergy had ceased to be represented, for purposes of taxation, in Convocation, and, therefore, they got votes for the House of Commons and were eligible for seats there. Mr. Horne Tooke had been a clergyman. He had abandoned his living at an early period, and he took a very active part in politics. He was a very considerable politician, as well as a very considerable scholar, and also a great advocate of constitutional progress and reform. The passing of the Act against him was a scandal, being dictated by antipathy to a single individual. It was intended that the Act should be confined to the clergy of the Church of England, or rather to the united Church of England and Ireland; and the question might well be raised whether the united Church of England and Ireland, having now ceased to exist as it did before the Irish Church was disestablished, any person could really be brought under the penalties of the statute. That, however, he said only by the way. The Scotch Presbyterian minister was somewhat differently placed from the Anglican clergyman, not being a minister when he left his benefice. He held, however, that a clergyman was not a clergyman in the eye of the law or within the range of spiritual authority unless actually in possession of a cure of souls. After Catholic Emancipation was conceded the same disabilities as attached to the Anglican clergy were extended to Roman Catholic priests, and he would not have the least objection to see a provision inserted in the present Bill stating that if an Irish constituency elected a Roman Catholic clergyman to that House their choice of such a Representative should be respected. The passage of Horne Tooke's Act was an invasion of the rights of a section of the community, and he hoped to see the day very speedily arrive when it would be repealed.

said, he did not desire to enter into any historical discussion of Horne Tooke's case. It was enough to say that the Preamble of the Act which it was now sought to repeal declared that it was passed to remove doubts which existed as to the eligibility of persons in Holy Orders to sit in that House. They had nothing to do now with the motives which might have induced men to vote for or against that Act; they had only to consider that the Preamble expressed the mind of Parliament in passing it. Persons who found that they had made a mistake in entering the Church had already been relieved by the Act of 1870; and the present Bill was intended to carry that Act a step further in a direction which he did not think would be indorsed by the opinion of the House. The Bill was designed to admit beneficed clergymen as well as unbeneficed to the House, and if it passed they might have Dean Stanley sitting in the House both as Dean of and Member for Westminster. The Canon Law and the Common Law were brought into accord by Horne Tooke's Act; but by passing the present Bill the discord between the two systems of law would be restored. There was, he maintained, no necessity for the change, inasmuch as clergymen were now represented in their lay capacity by their local Representatives, and in their clerical capacity in Convocation, and in the House of Lords. This Bill was principally promoted, as was well known, in the interest of an individual. He objected to that. He objected to the alteration of the Oath to please an individual, and he opposed that Bill on the ground that it was intended to meet the scruples of an individual or of a few individuals. The only argument that he could see in favour of the Bill was that if they were to have the Member (Mr. Bradlaugh) who had taken up so much of the time of the House introduced, it might be desirable to have a countervailing element in the presence of some of the clergy. They might, if this Bill were passed, have the hon. and rev. Augustus Smith, M.P., advertised to preach in some Northampton church on the text "Fear God and honour the King." He must oppose the second reading, seeing there had been no Petitions or meetings in favour of this measure.

said, he was as anxious as any Member to open the portals of the House to every man whom a constituency might think it right to return, without imposing on him any religious disabilities; but he was sorry that it should have been thought necessary by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken to impart into the present discussion any reference to the unpleasant scenes which the House had witnessed with regard to the hon. Mem- ber for Northampton. At the same time, he could not see his way to support the Bill, which would admit into the House clergymen having the cure of souls. That would be a very incongruous state of things. They might have a clergyman using his pulpit as a rostrum on Sundays to preach an election address. That would be a scandal. He was very much opposed to clerical justices of the peace, and had formerly introduced a Bill to disqualify them, and he must oppose the present proposal. If clergymen felt anxious to enter the House, there was an Act—to which he (Mr. Hinde Palmer) was a party—already in the Statute Book of which they could avail themselves. Holy Orders imposed certain disabilities on clergymen, and unless they divested themselves of their clerical character he could not agree to the removal of those disabilities. The Bill before the House he regarded as unqualified in its nature, uncalled for, and one that ought not to receive the encouragement of Parliament.

said, the Clerical Disabilities Act of 1870, which he had been instrumental in passing, had in every way successfully carried out the intentions of its promoters, and had not only enabled a large number of gentlemen to retire from the Church, but had admitted three or four Members to that House. Although ready to vote for the second reading of this Bill, he could not give it his entire support unless clergymen holding cures of souls or offices under State appointment were excluded from its operation. It was said that this Bill was aimed at one person, and the hon. Gentleman opposite said he should oppose it on the same grounds that he opposed the Oaths Bill. But the opposition to the Oaths Bill was aimed, not at the admission, but the exclusion of one person. If, however, it had been permissible to pass Horne Tooke's Act for the purpose of excluding one person, the House might fairly be asked to pass a Bill to admit one person; but he supported the measure on broader grounds. He desired to see a disability removed. The Clerical Disabilities Act required the person taking advantage of the relief it gave to retire from the Church; but he wanted to know whether they could not go a step further, and provide that a person in Holy Orders, if he had ceased to hold preferment, should not be required to divest him of his reverend character before obtaining admission to that House? If a clergyman became a Peer he could enter the House of Lords without divesting himself of his clerical character, and he saw no reason why the House of Commons should not be placed in the same position as the other House in that respect. Why should they compel a clergyman to divest himself of his black coat before entering that House? He did not see that the House would have suffered in any way if the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) and the hon. Member for Waterford County (Mr. Villiers-Stuart), who had resigned Holy Orders to become Members of the House, had not been compelled to do so, and had, if they pleased, attended in their places in clerical costume and retained the title of "Rev." Therefore, he saw no objection to the repeal of Horne Tooke's Act, but on the conditions he had named as to excluding beneficed clergymen. So long as the Church of England was connected with the State, it would not be right that clergymen of the Church should be placed in the same position as ministers of other Denominations. Whenever the Church was separated from the State—and he hoped that time might be far distant—then they might agree to place clergymen of the Church in exactly the same position as those of other Denominations.

said, the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) said that the Act of 1870 had worked exceedingly well. Why, then, alter it? This Bill proposed the repeal pure and simple of Horne Tooke's Act. But a Bill without reservations or restrictions or limitations would only bring the law back to the state of confusion which existed before Horne Tooke's Act was passed. The hon. Member for Southwark, who always addressed the House with perfect confidence, laid down as a fact about which there was no doubt that, whatever the law, clergymen had sat in the House. If there was no doubt about the question, how was it there had been so many inquiries before Select Committees? Horne Tooke's Act was not passed in a day or a week. It was the result of inquiry, grave delibe- ration, and animated debates. He found it laid down that, from the time of Edward I. to the year 1800, neither that House nor the Constitution of the Realm had ever recognized the right of clergymen as such to sit in Parliament. If clergymen had in fact sat, it was because the House had not recognized them as such. But whenever the House took notice of the return of clergymen it declared the return void. Reference had been made to Rushworth's case; but it would, he thought, be found that that completely broke down. Rushworth was ordained a deacon at 21, and only exercised his calling for two months, and the Committee which seated him expressly distinguished his case. As to the Bishops in the other House, they had been placed there either by statute enactment or in great official capacities; therefore, the case of the Bishops was no argument at all. They did not go through contested popular elections; they did not sit for Macclesfield or Boston, or even so immaculate a city as Oxford. He would remind the House of the words used by Lord Temple, who, in 1801, said—

"I conjure you to pause well….. before you allow priests to desert their pulpits, to search for fame on the benches of the House of Commons, and force them to leave the plain and beaten road of religion, to wander in the crooked and uneven paths of politics; and finally, before you sink the sanctity of the clerical character in the chicanery of private prejudices, of party, and of faction."—[Parl. Hist. xxxv. 1368.]

said, he did not attach much importance to the argument that clergymen would be damaged by taking part in contested elections. What they were really dealing with was Horne Tooke's Act. They could not ignore the circumstances which led up to that legislation; on the contrary, he thought they must take them into their present consideration. Clergymen had sat in that House previous to Horne Tooke's Act, but no objection was ever taken to them before. He asked, was this a time for continuing that disability? He believed there was nothing to apprehend from the introduction of clergymen to that House; and as the law at present stood, it operated against those who were too conscientious to relieve themselves of Holy Orders, whilst it did not prevent others who availed themselves of recent legislation for that purpose from sitting in the House.

said, the arguments that had been advanced seemed largely to preponderate in favour of the second reading of the Bill; but he could not support it on the ground adopted by some hon. Members. He could not adopt the grounds advanced by his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers), or by the hon. Member who had just spoken. They had put it on the ground that clergymen were entitled to sit in that House until Horne Tooke's Act was passed. He believed the opposite opinion was the true one, and he had looked carefully into the matter. He believed that the greatest Parliamentary names were found in favour of the distinct and clear declaration that clergymen were ineligible to sit in the House of Commons. He might mention the names of Addington, Sir W. Scott, Mr. Law (afterwards Lord Ellenborough), Lord Eldon, and Mr. Charles Williams Winn; and this weighty roll of distinguished lawyers declared clearly on this point. As to the present Bill, it would be necessary that it should be altered. They could not take it for granted that but for Horne Tooke's Act clergymen would be entitled to a seat in that House if elected. The ground on which he would support, generally, the second reading was not because the law had been so hitherto, but because he was against the principle of religious disabilities interfering with seats in that House. That was the principle on which the Party to which he belonged had constantly acted; and step by step, and degree by degree, they had removed all the disabilities which existed by the law of Parliament or the Statutes of the Realm. He must ask, however, with regard to this Bill, what the promoters meant to do with the disabilities of the Roman Catholic clergy? Because it was impossible to pass this Bill in its present form without dealing with the 9th section of the Emancipation Act. Under that Act, Roman Catholic priests were subject to certain penalties if they sat in that House; and it would be impossible to admit one class of priests and exclude another. He thought, before the Bill went further, this was a point which the hon. Member in charge of the Bill must very seriously consider. No doubt. an old days the Secretaries of State were nearly always clergymen; and Ambassadors were more often clergymen than not. Gardiner was the Minister of Henry VIII., and the religious and secular elements were combined without difficulty. There was another difficulty, which it would be well if the hon. Member took into consideration, and that was the question of Crown patronage as it would effect clergymen. Would a clergyman holding a seat in the House, accepting preferment from the Crown, be required to vacate his seat? The object of the Act of Queen Anne was clear; and he thought this question would be a thorny one for a Committee to determine. A point was raised as to clergymen being engaged in corrupt practices. Well, they all hoped that under the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General those practices would cease to exist. But there was a much more formidable danger which threatened the right hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) and the right hon. Member for Oxford (Sir John Mowbray), and that was the formidable rivals which this Bill would, when carried, raise up. He should not be surprised to find his right hon. Friends determined opponents of the Bill, for a more formidable rivalry he could not imagine. It had been advanced by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Hinde Palmer) as an argument against the Bill, that it would create a new evil by tempting clergymen to turn their pulpits into political rostrums; but he (Sir William Harcourt) did not think that that was an evil which would be "created" by this measure, inasmuch as they had already had some experience of it. He did not think, therefore, that that was an argument that they need be afraid of. There must be some restriction in the Bill upon beneficed clergymen; and, subject to the considerations he had advanced, and on the general principle that religious disabilities ought not to be allowed to interfere with the choice of constituencies, he would support the second reading of the Bill.

protested against the historical disquisition, not of "Historicus," but of the learned Professor the Member for Southwark, and urged, as an argument against the Bill which had not been mentioned by any of the previous speakers, that the Church was one of the Estates of the Realm, and as such was properly represented by Lords Spiritual in the other House of Parliament, and that it was unconstitutional for the Church to seek to extend her rights in that House. If clergymen were admitted into the House of Commons, there would be a demand that the Bishops should retire from the House of Lords.

said, he rose for the purpose of referring to the point mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary with regard to the disabilities of Roman Catholic clergymen. He would have great pleasure in supporting this Bill if it went the whole way in the direction it professed to take; but it did not go the whole way. The Bill proposed to remove the present disability of clergymen of the Established Church to sit in the House; and he contended that if one denomination of the clergy were to be allowed to sit in the House he did not see why the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland should be excluded. If the Bill passed it would keep out the clergy of all Denominations, except those of the Church of England, and this at a time when the doors of the House of Commons were being thrown open to Infidels and Atheists. He should like to see in that House the Bishops and Priests of Ireland, and he believed they would make efficient Representatives of the Irish people. He had no doubt, if the law were altered, they would see in that House as the Representative of Tipperary, Archbishop Croke with Mr. John Dillon. He should be very glad to see in that House Dr. Nulty, who was, perhaps, better acquainted with the Land Question than any Member of that House. He should like to see in that House Canon Doyle and Father Sheehy, because they would be a great advantage to its deliberations. The Bill, if passed, would exclude the Irish Catholic and Protestant clergy; and if it were passed they would soon have a new and a lively agitation in Ireland, because the Catholic and Protestant clergy of that country would not submit to lie under the disabilities which had been removed from the clergy of the Established Church in England. If the Bill were passed, the Irish people would send those clergymen to the House of Commons to fight out their battle in the same way that Mr. Bradlaugh was doing, and then it would be found that Parliament would have to legislate upon the subject. If the hon. Member who had brought in this Bill would adopt the suggestion of its Seconder, he (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) would be glad to support it; and he believed that other Irish Members would be prepared to do the same.

said, that the Act of 1870 had relieved the clergy from the professional grievance—complaint of which was made by some persons on their behalf, but not by themselves. He might refer to the case of barristers and officers of the Army, to show how inconsistent the two functions of being Members of Parliament and being actively engaged in their Professions were with the proper discharge of their duties in the latter capacity. The combination of the two functions exercised a demoralizing effect on the Bar as a Profession; the same result would be produced in the case of the clergy if they sat in that House, seeing the vast amount of patronage which was in the hands of the Government. Suppose a number of aspiring and able clergymen constantly attacking the Government, and hon. Members could easily conceive how great would be the temptation to stop their months by giving them some ecclesiastical preferment. Suppose the Dean of Westminster, as had been suggested, were in the House, he might in a little time become Prime Minister, and then recommend himself to the Archbishop of Canterbury and hold the two Offices together, as they had been held together before. They would thus be going back to the state of things that existed in the time of Henry VIII. It was an error to suppose that constituencies might return whom they liked, and that the House was bound to admit the person elected. Clergymen in that House would not represent the Church, but their own particular opinions, or the opinions of their constituency or of their Party. The benefit which the Bill proposed to confer was not desired by the Church, and he hoped the House would not assent to the second reading.

rose to a point of Order. He had to complain of the manner in which the Bill had been introduced. It was religious in its manner and aims, and ought, he maintained, to have been brought in in Committee of the Whole House.

said, it was so introduced.

said, he was reminded by the present debate of a scene once enacted in the National Convention of France, when one Anacharsis Clootz made his appearance there as the representative of All Nations. It seemed to him that if the ultra-Liberal disposition to remove all restrictions were to prevail, aliens, now excluded, would be admitted to seats in that House, and then Mr. Speaker would occupy a position analogous to that of Anacharsis Clootz. If the restrictions upon the admission of Atheists were to be removed, he should see little reason for maintaining them against the clergy. Until professed Atheists were admitted, he should abide by the exclusion of the clergy. He asked the House to consider for a moment the probable consequences of the measure it was now invited to assent to. It was his belief that the clergy were best represented by the Bishops in the House of Lords; but the authority of the Bishops was contested, and even openly defied, and if beneficed clergy were admitted to that House, their action might further weaken the authority and power of the Bishops. He saw no advantage to an Episcopal Church in counteracting the authority of the Bishops; and that must result from the admission of the inferior clergy to seats in that House, for their admission would inevitably encourge those among the clergy who were inclined to rebel against the authority of the Bishops. It was upon the practical ground that the measure tended to introduce a principle of confusion into the Constitution of this country that he took objection to it. Moreover, the admission of the clergy to seats in that House was not demanded by any considerable section of them. On the contrary, he believed that the wishes of the clergy pointed in a distinctly different direction. His hon. Friend (Mr. Leighton) had stated that many persons objected to the clergy acting as justices of the peace, and, no doubt, that was the case; but he (Mr. Newdegate) did not concur in that objection. The function of a magistrate was consistent with the Constitution of the Church of England, which defined herself to be a congregation of faithful men, and her clergy as citizens. There was, however, a broad line of distinction to be drawn between the making and the administration of the law. The clergy of the Church of England were peculiarly bound to obey the law, and he (Mr. Newdegate) held that they were peculiarly adapted and qualified to administer the law as justices of the peace; and he believed that their admission to seats in that House would be the introduction of an element of weakness, or he might rather say an aggravation of an element of weakness in the Church, that would be without any countervailing advantage to the House itself.

said, the real question to be decided was whether there was any good reason for the exclusion of a large body of highly intelligent men from the House, and he had failed to hear a single sound argument against their admission. It was a matter for a man's own conscience to settle whether his duties as a beneficed clergyman were or were not compatible with those which he would have to discharge as a Member of Parliament. But there were many clergymen who were not beneficed, but who objected to make the declaration under the Act of 1870 which they must do before they could become Members of the House; and why should Parliament exclude them? The true test of qualification was that a Member should be the choice of a constituency, and it was not for the House to say that such or such a man should not be elected. It was absurd to suppose that a clergyman could be defiled more than any other man by having to pass through the turmoil of a contested election. He was glad, he might add, to find that no speaker, not even the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), had opposed the Bill on the ground that if it were passed its provisions should be made to include the Roman Catholic clergy.

said, he was in error in stating that the Bill had been introduced in Committee of the Whole House. It had, however, been brought in in a perfectly regular way, in accordance with the precedent set in Horne Tooke's case. He would only add that if the Bill were read a second time he should be prepared to refer it to a Select Committee, by whom the various suggestions made for its amendment might be considered. He should also be prepared to introduce a clause providing that any clergyman taking advantage of the Bill should resign his benefice or preferment, and sign a declaration that he would be incapacitated from holding a benefice or preferment in future.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that its object was to diminish the evils of the long-credit system which obtained so largely in this country by limiting the period during which debts under £100 could be recovered to 12 months. Among the upper and middle classes it was a common thing for bills to run on for three or four years, and, as the result, people were tempted to buy articles which they could not really afford; minors ran up enormous bills without the knowledge of their parents or guardians, and wives and daughters in a similar way deceived their husbands and fathers; while the tradesman charged an excess of 16 or 17 per cent, or even more—there was a tailor's case not long ago before the Courts in which as much as 50 per cent was charged—to recoup him for the loss he sustained by waiting so long for his money. He heard the other day of a man owing as much as £14,000 to his fruiterer. The lower class, though affected in a lesser degree, suffered a good deal from the "tally" system. On the whole, therefore, the Bill would, no doubt, be of great public advantage. Tradesmen, as a rule, he believed, would welcome it, though he was not surprised to hear that it had been condemned by some of the West End tradesmen, who, having a wealthy clientèle, were interested in keeping up the long-credit system with its attendant surcharges, Even to West End tradesmen, however, it would probably in the long run prove a boon by saving them from the bad debts which very frequently led them into bankruptcy. Under a ready-money system the co-operative stores, which. had done so much harm to tradesmen, would have no raison d'être, and the tradesmen of the lower class would reap a direct and immediate benefit from the Bill by receiving the ready money which now went exclusively to the publican. He believed the working classes very seldom paid for necessaries on the spot. The long-credit system was peculiarly English. It was, at all events, quite unknown in France and America, the principal commercial rivals of England, the ready-money system obtaining almost entirely in those countries. Financially, English society at the present time was in a very unhealthy state, and the habit which so many people had of living beyond their incomes was greatly stimulated by the long-credit system. As minor evils of this system, it would be within the knowledge of many hon. Members that young men at the Universities ran themselves head over ears into debt, and that people who were not careful with their receipts were not unfrequently made to pay a bill twice or thrice over. He was aware that there was another Bill before the House on the same subject—the Limitation of Actions Bill—which had come down from the Lords in the name of Earl Cairns. But that Bill applied to all debts, no matter of what amount, and did not limit credit to less than three years. He thought that in the case of large commercial transactions interference of this kind would produce great embarrassment. Hence he had restricted his own Bill to debts incurred on account of necessaries, for which a year's credit seemed ample. It would be well, of course, to allow some interval to elapse before it passed into law, so that tradesmen might prepare for it; but a period of commercial depression like the present was, perhaps, the most favourable for securing the public acceptance of its provisions. People, he believed, would welcome any legislation which promised to enable them to bring their expenses within their diminished incomes, and which would place the country at large in a sounder financial condition. Of course, he did not propose to make the Bill compulsory; it would always be open to people to contract themselves out of it. The limit of six years now set to the recovery of debts was a purely arbitrary one; and it seemed to him that 12 months, so far as sums under £100 were concerned, would be in every way a more convenient one. The noble Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

said, no doubt, the subject was an interesting and important one. He entirely agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock with respect to the evils of long credit; but the question was whether the Bill which he had now introduced would have the effect he had in view. Under the Bill, the tradesman would not be able to refuse credit altogether; but he would—except in cases of special debts exceeding £100—be able to give credit for 12 months, and recover the amount within that time. The consequence would be that although the credit would be limited from six years to 12 months, they would not diminish the number of times during which credit was given. They would put a weapon into the tradesman's power of being able to give the credit, and of having the excuse to enforce payment within 12 months. The Bill, therefore, would not abolish the evils of the credit system; on the contrary, its effect would be, in some measure, to aggravate them by giving a kind of legislative sanction to credit in the case of the smaller transactions of life, and by producing a crop of summonses at the end of every year. Besides, the foolish undergraduates and dressy women, to whom the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had referred, would be tempted to raise their bills to more than £100, so as to escape the limitation of credit proposed in the Bill. There was a Bill before the House, sent down from the House of Lords, which had been introduced by Lord Cairns, and had received the approval of the Lord Chancellor, reducing the limit for special debts to six years, and for simple contract debts to three years. To that Bill, which would obviate the evils attending the present Bill, the Government were prepared to give their assent; and it would be perfectly open to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, when that Bill came into Committee, to move Amendments embodying his present proposals.

saw the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) in his place, and he wished to state publicly that he had considerably changed his opinion on the subject of imprisonment for debt since they both sat on the Select Committee on that subject a few years ago. Without pledging himself to any definite measure, he should like to see an alteration of the existing law, provided that some provision was inserted preventing the fraudulent contracting of debts. He thanked the noble Lord for having brought the subject under the notice of the House; but, speaking for the Friends with whom he usually acted, he preferred the Bill of Earl Cairns, which, he thought, would secure the advantages which the noble Lord desired without the inconveniences which would attend the present measure. He hoped the noble Lord would agree to the postponement of the further discussion of this measure until Earl Cairns' Bill was brought forward for consideration.

said, he had put an Amendment on the Paper that the Bill should be read on that day six months, and he did not feel inclined to withdraw it after what had been said from the two Front Benches. He did full justice to the intentions of the noble Lord, but objected to the principle of the Bill. The chief argument against the Bill was that it was not wanted. The shopkeepers had made no demand for the measure; on the contrary, they were opposed to it. If, as the noble Lord contended, co-operation had been caused by the high prices charged by shopkeepers, why not let co-operation bring down the prices of West End tradesmen? The noble Lord had also said that minors and wives could run up bills without the knowledge of their guardians or husbands; but, in point of fact, the law took good care that neither guardians nor husbands were charged too much. No people would be so much affected by this Bill as the working classes. He was well aware that credit had many evils, and that it might be abused; but there were times when it was of the greatest advantage, and when it prevented working men from falling into a state of absolute destitution. He did not think this measure was wanted. The period of limitation was at present six years; and even, as the law now stood, the Judges did not look with favour on any person who pleaded the Statute. In conclusion, he moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

seconded the Motion. There were, he said, several objections to the Bill, and the chief one was that it did not apply to either Ireland or Scotland. There ought to be a provision in it to prevent Irish landlords recovering their rack rents when a year in arrear. As it stood, it would be so much waste paper. If, too, it were framed in such a way as to prevent shopkeepers charging frightful prices for articles of household use, it might be of avail, and should have his support. Under all the circumstances the measure was unworthy of the consideration of the House, and he hoped the Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott) would be accepted.

thought the House was much indebted to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock for introducing this question. It was a mistake to suppose that the working classes did not want the Bill. At the annual meeting of the Trades' Unions Congress, which represented more than 1,000,000 of our organized working people, a demand had been made for a number of years past for a measure of this kind. Credit such as this Bill was designed to limit was the bane of the life of the working classes. It was not natural credit, but artificial and false credit, from which they suffered, and from which the Bill would relieve them. He also thought the noble Lord had rendered another service in eliciting from the Attorney General and the late Home Secretary their strong language in support of the abolition of imprisonment for debt.

said, he should not have risen at that late period of the debate, had it not been for the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General on the subject of cedit. He had held the office of County Court Judge for many years, during which he had had ample experience of the habits and necessities of the working classes; and he was convinced that credit was a great boon to them. There were periods, when from want of employment and from sickness in their families and other causes, they were obliged to have credit for food and clothing. At these times the tradesman was their best friend; and he must add, from his own long observation, that the tradesman was kind and forbearing to the debtor. If the artizan could not obtain credit, he would frequently have to go to the workhouse. If the Bill of the noble Lord were to become law, one of two things must happen. Either the tradesman would not give credit at all, which would leave the working man in great stress; or, if the credit were limited to one year, he would prosecute his claim for the debt long before the expiration of the 12 months—the time to which the Bill limited credit for small debts. As regarded imprisonment for debt, he had had many opportunities, during the period he had set as Judge—nearly 20 years—of conferring with the artizan on that question, and he had invariably found that he did not desire the short imprisonment now lawful to be abolished. Workmen frequently had neither goods nor furniture; and if the tradesman could not put this pressure upon them to induce them, to keep up their payments, made generally by instalments, he would withhold credit from them altogether.

remarked, that although he differed from the noble Lord on many important questions, he had the highest opinion of his views on these small, minor matters. He was surprised to find, however, that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), whose name was on the back of the Bill, had written a letter to a newspaper stating that his name had been placed there without his authority, and that he was, in fact, opposed to the measure. He saw opposite him three Members of the Fourth Party, or three-fourths of the Party, and he hoped some one of them would explain this discrepancy.

, said, he considered that the discussion had been, on the whole, satisfactory, as opinions had been generally expressed in favour of a considerable limitation of the period during which debts should be recoverable. As far as the present Bill was concerned, he would not trouble the House to go to a division. His object was to get an expression of opinion, and that object had been attained. After what the Attorney General had said, he would ask the House to allow the Amendment to be negatived, and then to have the Order read and discharged. If that were done, he should be quite satisfied. He had not seen the letter referred to by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had drawn up the Bill, and it was with his consent that his name had been put on the back of it. If there was any explanation required, it should be given by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham.

said, he thought that such a change as was proposed by the Bill would tend to the improvement of the condition of the people.