, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he thought the House would agree with him that there was now no need of argument upon this subject, and no longer any reason for stating a case in favour of this measure. It was not too much to assume that all Parties in that House were now agreed that the opposition which had been for so many years offered to that measure, or to measures of a similar import, had been unfair and unwise; and they all also recognized how imprudent it had been to deny to Ireland the reforms which had been so long enjoyed and so much appreciated in Great Britain. Bearing in mind, therefore, the great awakening of the conscience of this country in regard to the long and grievous misgovernment of Ireland, he felt it was only necessary for him now formally to make his present Motion to have it assented to by all parties. A measure of this kind has been before the House almost yearly for quite a number of years. Such a measure has even received the assent of this House. It would not be necessary for him to quote many statistics to prove the very great inequality of the municipal franchise between Ireland and Great Britain. He might mention, however, that in Ireland they now had only one burgess to 40 inhabitants, whereas in Great Britain they had one burgess to about every six of the population. For instance, the City of Dublin, having a population of 249,602, had only 6,644 burgesses on the roll; while Sheffield, with a population of 284,508, had 50,987 burgesses. Belfast, with a population of 208,122, had 6,051 burgesses on the roll, while Bristol, with a population of 206,874, had 27,723 burgesses on its roll. The City of Cork, with a population of 80,124, had only 2,059 burgesses; while Blackburn, with a population of 104,000, had 18,446 burgesses. A comparison of the numbers on the burgess rolls of the two countries would show that, while in Ireland the proportion of burgesses to population was one to 40, in England the proportion was one to six of its population. In fact, it was quite unnecessary to point out the inequalities in the municipal franchise between the two countries. When they had now a Parliamentary franchise being within one step of manhood suffrage it was unnecessary to expatiate on the absurdity of maintaining in Ireland, as the basis of the municipal franchise, a £10 rating, which was equivalent to about £15 rental. The Bill would assimilate the municipal franchise in the two countries. On a former occasion a like measure was objected to by a Belfast Representative on the ground that no extension of the franchise was desired there. It was easy to understand why the narrow-minded and illiberal oligarchy who, in Belfast, enjoy a mono- poly of the municipal franchise, so close that the Catholics, though one-fourth of the population, have no representation on the Municipal Body; and, it is needless to say, Catholics dare not aspire to a share of the good things in the gift of the Corporation. But, so far from being an argument against extending the franchise, surely the existence of such a state of things in Belfast but points the moral. The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

said, that, having regard to the thin attendance in the House, and especially in his own part of the House, it would be ridiculous then to expect a very exhaustive discussion, or an effective division on that Bill. But it was important that the facts should be known, and the reason for the substantial difference which undoubtedly existed in the state of the law as between England and Ireland in regard to the municipal franchise should be understood. It was quite true that the municipal franchise in Ireland and England was not the same, although the Parliamentary franchise was much the same. The old line had up to the present been maintained of having a £10 municipal franchise; and the reason of this was the extraordinary difference between the number of householders competent to obtain the franchise in Ireland and England. In Ireland he was sorry to say that there was extreme poverty, and amongst the lower classes there was an enormous number of persons who occupied dwellings of merely nominal value. He would not trouble the House with exact statistics to show that the municipal boroughs in Ireland contained large numbers of tenants of houses of £4 valuation and under £4. There was also an almost entire absence of the middle-class population to be found in England. It was, therefore, obvious that the result of the lowering of the franchise in Ireland would be to elevate to supreme power in the Municipalities in Ireland those who paid only a miserable modicum of the rates, or whose rates were paid for them by the landlords. If there were a larger number of Members present he would be in a better position to offer an effective opposition to the Bill, and the House would be surprised to find what would be the real effect of the measure as regards the very large number of voters which it would place upon the Register, and the very small amount of rates which they contributed. In municipal matters, where they were dealing with the expenditure of rates, he had never admitted that the present arrangement was satisfactory in England as to those who had the main burden of paying the rates; and still less would it be so in the case of Ireland, with the enormous mass of poverty-stricken occupiers in the large towns there, and with the absence also of the strong middle class which existed in England. The obvious effect of a measure like the present would therefore be to place the whole municipal power in the hands of persons who had no substantial pecuniary interest in the community. He believed that such a change would be made more fittingly when the Home Rule Bill was passed. He would quote a very pregnant sentence from a speech made by Earl Spencer at Newcastle in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman oppositte (Mr. John Morley), in which he stated that the condition was that—

"Every Town Council, every Board of Guardians, and every Local Board outside Ulster was full of disloyalty to the Government."

He thought that this was a condition of affairs which was not very likely to be improved by the operation of this Bill. He did not, however, suppose that this was an argument which would have very much force with the Government or the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. John Morley), seeing the obvious manner in which he treated those Members sitting in the portion of the House where he (Mr. Lewis) sat. The manner of the right hon. Gentleman and the matter spoken by him afforded very pregnant evidence of the sympathy which lay between the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members below the Gangway, and of his determination to do as much harm as he could to the loyal population which he (Mr. Lewis) had the honour to represent. He would mention, as a specimen, the extraordinary statement which the right hon. Gentleman made as to the uses of the Arms Act, than which nothing could more clearly show that all his sympathies were with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. Anyone who had been present at Question time during the past three months, and who had noticed the manner as well as the nature of the right hon. Gentleman's answers, must have been driven to that conclusion. The Loyalist Members were quite aware of it. They knew that the forces which they had to contend against at the present time were not only enormous outside the House, but that the demonstrations of enmity inside the House which were made against them by a Representative of the Government were most painful to witness. [Home Rule laughter.] That might be a laughing matter to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway; but to him and his Friends it was serious. As long as he had a seat in the House—and he had been four times returned by an Irish constituency—he should not hesitate to speak quite as plainly on Irish affairs as if he were an Irish-born Representative. The City of Derry, which had a population of 30,000, and which would be one of the Municipalities affected by the Bill, had never, so far as he knew, petitioned in favour of a reduction of the municipal franchise, because he believed they were perfectly satisfied. [Home Rule cheers, and "Oh!"] It was very easy for hon. Members below the Gangway to arrange their chorus of interruptions, and the Loyalist Members were perfectly accustomed to it; at any rate, he had been for six or seven years. He used to be frequently met with the jeering remark that the House would never see him back again, and, therefore, he need not be listened to. That assertion was often repeated with considerable vigour prior to the two last Elections, and he remembered that the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) used to be particularly emphatic on the point. Well, the Nationalist Party did their best at the last Election for Derry, and they sent the hon. Member for Sligo to contest the seat with him. The hon. Member did not like the look of it and went away, and then they sent a bigger apostle (Mr. Justin M'Carthy). The constituency had been made as democratic as the lowering of the franchise to almost manhood suffrage could make it; but the people of Derry were true to their old principles of loyalty and love of law and order, and so, very much to the surprise of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway he (Mr. Lewis) was again returned. [Mr. SEXTON: By 39 votes.] It was his duty to his constituency, who did not want this Bill, to ask the House to reject it; but he was placed in a difficulty by the absence of many of his hon. Friends, and therefore if he took a division by way of protest it would be in the hope of making more effective opposition at a future stage of the Bill.

The hon. Member who has just sat down appears to me to have travelled, in some of his observations, pretty wide of the mark. I hardly think that the hon. Member could be considered in Order when he thought fit to deal with a matter so insignificant as my sympathies and my way of dealing with Irish Questions in this House. But as he has done so, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say one word in self defence. I have felt that I have not always been fortunate enough to win the approval of hon. Members opposite in my answers to Questions; but I have yet to learn that there is any justice in the charge that my manner towards Members sitting on the other side of the House has been otherwise than courteous, or such as they have a right to expect from a Minister of the Crown.

I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon. I assure him that I had not the least idea of objecting to his manner towards us individually, but merely to his manner towards us as a Party.

I am not a subtle enough metaphysician to distinguish between my manner towards hon. Members opposite as individuals, and towards them as a Party. If I have not been fortunate enough to secure the approval of hon. Members opposite, it is because the Questions have very often been ill-founded, and my answers to them have almost always consisted of the very driest statement of fact. As hon. Gentlemen must know, those answers are supplied to me by official authorities on the spot, who are entirely free from any sort of bias. I am glad of the opportunity of saying this, because charges have been brought against me of giving prejudiced answers. I observed that the charge was recently made at a meeting in Ulster; and I wish to say, as I should be ready to say to a larger House than this, that my answers to the Gentlemen who represent Ulster have been as considerate, as straightforward, and as inoffensive as my answers to any other Gentlemen. The hon. Gentleman regrets that he is not surrounded by more of his Friends, and he thinks that if he were so surrounded on the present occasion there would be a chance of more effective opposition. Well, there was a debate in 1882 on the second reading of a similar Bill, and on that occasion the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) and the hon. Baronet who now represents Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry) declined to oppose the Bill. I am not sure, therefore, that if the hon. Member for Londonderry had more of his Friends here now, he would succeed in his opposition to the Bill any better than he is likely to do as it is. He has also changed his grounds. His arguments to-day are very different from the arguments he used in 1882. At that time the hon. Member said plainly what he has only stated obscurely to-day—namely, that he did not believe that Municipalities in England and Scotland had worked well, and that still less did he suppose they would work well in Ireland. If, however, the hon. Member thinks that he would get the Conservative Party to support him in the contention that popularly elected Municipal Bodies in England and Scotland are a failure, I very much doubt whether he would get the Leaders of the Conservative Party to support him in any such contention. So far as the Bill is concerned, the Government will offer no opposition to the second reading. The Conservative Members in the last Parliament did not oppose the second reading of the Bill; the Chief Secretary for Ireland, my late lamented Friend Mr. Forster, did not oppose it; and still less, therefore, is it likely that a Parliament elected on a broader franchise would oppose it. I confess that the arguments that weigh with me strongly in favour of the Bill are not the belief in popular representation merely, but the facts that were brought out by the inquiry into the state of the towns of Ireland last year. The Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes sat for a time in Ireland. In Waterford there is a population of 29,000, of whom 700 are on the municipal roll. What is the condition of Waterford? Its condition was described by several witnesses, and the evidence given to the Commission showed that its state is really and truly terrible. The overcrowding and all the other evils are really at their maximum, and as a result the death rate of Waterford is reported to be as high as 42 per 1,000. You may ask what connection that has with the municipal franchise. The witnesses examined, who were officials, were perfectly clear that the Councillors returned as at present on the restricted franchise represented either middlemen directly or the interests of middlemen. They admitted that the effect of the extension of the franchise in a town like Waterford would be to create a public opinion which would return members to the Council who would see that the law was administered, and its powers used in the interest of the population as a whole. I dare say that the hon. Member for Londonderry would tell us that a new Council, elected on a very wide suffrage, would play ducks and drakes with the money of the better class ratepayers. What I say is, that it would mean the improvement of the sanitary condition of towns like Waterford. The poorer ratepayers would compel the owners of property to do that which in England, at all events, we expect the owners of property to do, and systematically exact from them by law. That is the only illustration with which I will trouble the House, of the connection between an extension of the municipal franchise in Ireland and the improved condition of the towns of Ireland. I do not doubt that other illustrations might be given. This fact is very remarkable—that while the death rate of Ireland, as a whole, is lower than the death rate in England, the death rate in the towns of Ireland is very much higher than in the towns of England. I do not think it is a very speculative contention to suppose that very much of the bad sanitary condition of the towns of Ireland is due to the fact that so large a proportion of the population has little or no voice in the control of the Municipalities. I do not think at present, in view of the condition of the House, that I should be justified in dwelling at any length on the arguments put forward by the hon. Member opposite; and I will simply content myself, therefore, with saying that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to support the second reading of the Bill.

said, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had referred to some remarks of his in a former debate; and in reference to those remarks he wished to state that, while he did not then oppose the second reading of the Bill, he could not help feeling that if the Irish municipal franchise were to be reduced without other steps being taken at the same time it would lead to many of the difficulties which the hon. Member for Derry had referred to. There could be no doubt, however, that if a measure of this kind were to be introduced by a responsible Government it might do good, because it would, in all probability, be founded upon the recommendations of the Select Committee which sat for a number of years on the subject, and of which the late Mr. Isaac Butt was a prominent Member. If this Bill dealt comprehensively with other matters with reference to municipal government as well as the extension of the franchise, he should have been prepared to assent to its principle. As the condition of the working classes had been referred to, he might say that the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes showed that the condition of the housing of the working classes in Belfast was better than even in any town in England or Scotland, and was very different indeed from the state of things in Dublin, Waterford, and elsewhere in Ireland. He did not intend to divide the House against the second reading of the Bill; but he hoped that if it went further the Government would make it a measure of their own, and introduce other matters into it besides the reduction of the franchise. He thought that the reduction of the franchise alone would be a very great calamity; and, therefore, although he did not oppose the second reading, he would take steps, if the Bill went further, with a view to the introduction into it of other matters for the benefit of the Municipal Corporations of Ireland.

said, he observed that the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) had made a communication to the hon. Member behind him, indicating a desire that the opposition to the Bill should not be pushed any fur- ther. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No.] Well, in making the observation he simply relied upon the evidence of his visual organs. He was, indeed, not surprised that the noble Lord should take that view, for seven or eight years ago it was on this very question of municipal franchise that the noble Lord showed that first insidious approach to Democratic principles for which he had since, in so many ways, become signalized. With reference to the observations of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, the right hon. Gentleman need not have occupied a moment of his time in answering the uncalled for, and, he might add, the cowardly attack made upon him by the hon. Member for Londonderry City (Mr. Lewis). Undoubtedly the Chief Secretary, by the ability with which he had supported popular and just principles, and by his high character, enjoyed the respect of men of all opinions throughout the country; and he would venture to add that the Chief Secretary, in all his behaviour to the Members of that House, had displayed a strict and unvarying adherence to facts, and a high regard for the principles of Parliamentary intercourse, qualities for the lack of which the hon. Member for Londonderry had long been conspicuous. He thought it was very unfortunate for those who wished to maintain the existing system of corporate vote in Ireland that the defence of that system should have fallen to an Englishman, and, above all, to the particular Englishman who had spoken. He was sorry that the defence of the fortress should have fallen to the Member for that City, which, under the existing restricted franchise, returned men like him, who, as the hon. Member for North Armagh would say, "is in temporary retirement"—in penal servitude in fact. Yes; it was a Member of the Corporation of the City represented by even a pre-eminent member of that Corporation, who was sent to gaol for having set fire to his own house, and the police of Derry had now a list of probable aiders and abettors. Perhaps it would be too much to insinuate that any other members of that Corporation were guilty of like offences. That was the kind of Corporation in existence in that City represented by the hon. Member; and when the existing franchise re- sulted in sending to that Body men who were sentenced to penal servitude for the crime of arson, surely the hon. Member would admit any change would be for the better.

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. As a matter of fact the hon. Member is incorrect in saying that this took place in the present Corporation. It was a former Corporation; and I would remind the hon. Member of a similar case in the Dublin Corporation—the case of Mr. James Carey.

Well, Carey did not burn his house; and Carey was put into the Corporation by the political friends and supporters of the hon. Member for Derry City. His proposer and most of his assenting burgesses were Tories. He (Mr. Sexton) was not certain whether in the Derry case that gentleman was a member at the time he committed the crime; but he had been one, and was elected on the present franchise. He was glad to see the hon. Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry) taking part in the discussion, for he doubtless understood the subject, and was qualified both as a baronet and an alder man——

I never was a member of the Corporation.

Well, there was a namesake of the hon. Gentleman a member. It would have been interesting to have heard a few remarks as to Belfast from the hon. Gentleman. Would the hon. Gentleman say that the sanitation in the districts for the working classes was anything like what it ought to be? He had had at best some experience of Belfast — he had spent some days there—and had no hesitation in declaring that the lighting, sewerage, and paving in the working classes' districts were a disgrace to civilization. It would have been interesting to have heard something about the fact that in a population of 250,000, with 70,000 Catholics, the Municipal Body would not admit one solitary member of that religion to their Board. It would be interesting to know why that was so—why not a single Catholic official was appointed, except, indeed, one solitary scavenger. It would have been interesting to learn how it happened that the Corporation of Belfast gave the then Town Clerk a higher salary than some Cabinet Ministers in England, £2,075 a-year. The hon. Member for Derry City insinuated that he (Mr. Sexton) had been a candidate for its representation. So far from that being the fact, he presided at the assemblage which selected his hon. Friend the Member for Longford, and he was not surprised that the latter was beaten, for he confined himself to expounding his views at public meetings. But the hon. Member for Derry City followed his inveterate custom of canvassing alone. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Yes; he began every morning before the rising of the sun, and did not conclude till the going down thereof. One of the only two arguments in his speech was founded on the assertion by the hon. Gentleman that Lord Spencer stated that the Irish Corporations were disloyal outside these two remarkable Bodies. [Mr. LEWIS: Hear, hear!] Yes; the two exceptions were remarkable—one, a Corporation whose members were sent to penal servitude; and the other a Body that robbed the ratepayers to pay a Town Clerk a monstrous salary. But the hon. Member had given a free translation to Lord Spencer's words—a very free translation. If the hon. Member wished to be logical, he would remember that if the Irish Corporations were disloyal, they were disloyal on the present franchise. Could they, then, be any worse? What harm was there in extending the franchise if they had reached so low a point and were disloyal? To extend the franchise could not make them worse, whilst it might improve them. So the hon. Member's argument went for nothing. But that argument was, in effect, that the Corporations were disloyal and they must keep them so. He was not surprised that the hon. Member belonged to a Party or a political faction that always found, exercise for his functions in promoting the provocation to disloyalty and disaffection amongst the Irish people. He well remembered that statement of Sydney Smith, who said—

"The dissatisfaction of the Orangemen is the Irish rainbow, and when I see it in the sky I know that the storm is over."

The dissatisfaction of the hon. Gentleman was to him one of the most cheering signs in the horizon of Irish politics, for when the body of the Irish people began to be well affected towards the Government, and Members like the hon. Member for Derry City and his kind had to find fault with the discretion and good taste of Ministers of the Crown, then there was a chance for the peaceful and final settlement of the relations between Ireland and the Government. Another argument of the hon. Member was that the people contemplated to be enfranchised by this measure lived in houses of mere nominal value. The hon. Member should congratulate himself that circumstances happily enabled him to live in a house even of nominal value. Perhaps if the hon. Member had to depend for a living on his own intelligence and exertions, he would not have even so good a dwelling or be able to pay the rates. It was not because men were poor that they should not have a vote; indeed, such men had a better right to a voice in the matter than such men as the hon. Member, who, doubtless, lived in a palace. He congratulated the Tory Party on the stolid demeanour they had evinced during this discussion, and the noble Lord on the indication he had given of his opinion that the opposition to the Bill had better, perhaps, never have been raised.

said, that the hon. Member for Sligo was undoubtedly one of the ablest men of his Party and of the House of Commons; but he did not think that he was quite so influential as he supposed himself to be. The hon. Member for Sligo had asserted that he had intimated to the hon. Member for Londonderry that he did not intend to divide against the second reading of this Bill. [Mr. SEXTON: I inferred it.] He could assure the hon. Member for Sligo that he had done nothing more than ask the hon. Member for Londonderry whether he did intend to divide the House upon the Motion, and that the hon. Member had replied in the affirmative; but no suggestion that he should not do so fell from him. He had been in favour of the lowering of the municipal franchise in Ireland ever since the year 1877, and he had supported it on the ground that he had supported many other Irish measures—namely, that a safe means of maintaining the Union in the two countries was the establishment of similar laws and similar institutions in both of them. It was all a matter of local government, and he still firmly believed that the best way of maintaining the Union would be by establishing similar institutions in Ire- land to those they had in England and Scotland. If a division were taken he would have voted against this Bill, for the extremely good reason that he thought it perfectly absurd that the House of Commons should now be considering so small a matter when it was on the eve of considering so large a matter as the entire government of Ireland, If the principle of the Government with regard to their Irish policy was worth anything, it was obviously not worth while to divide on this question. In the language of the Prime Minister, they would be simply passing a law which would go to Ireland "in a foreign aspect and a foreign garb." The whole policy of the Government with regard to the future government of Ireland was that the House of Commons was not competent to deal with such peculiar matters as the municipal franchise. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) did not agree with that principle; but, at any rate, that was the principle now before the House, and that was the principle they were asked to act up to. He was quite surprised, therefore, to find the Chief Secretary for Ireland welcoming this Bill with so much warmth and cordiality, when he had declared over and over again that the House was not competent to deal with such a matter. This was not the time to bring forward such a Bill. If the Government of Ireland was to be given over to an entirely new Body, it was obvious that that was the Body that should deal with a question of this kind; but until that was settled he did not think that the House of Commons could consider such a Bill.

said, they might have been prepared to learn that the noble Lord the Leader of the Tory Democracy was prepared to vote against a reduction of the municipal franchise if he had had the opportunity, and that he only regretted that the opportunity was not afforded to him. The reasons put forward by the noble Lord for the course he intended to take were on a level with the principles which had guided his action in another matter. He said that a larger measure being under the consideration of Parliament no small measure should be carried by the House. He should not be doing the noble Lord an injustice when he said that it was the boast of himself and those with whom he was connected that they would prevent the passage of the large measure. The noble Lord and his Friends were never tired of expressing their conviction that this larger measure should not pass, so that he was doing two things equally effective—he was keeping up an irritating inequality, and hindering the smallest step in municipal reform, whilst covering himself with the excuse that a larger measure was being considered. If the statements made by the noble Lord were accurate—and everything that the noble Lord stated was accurate, as he (Mr. Bradlaugh), from personal experience, had reason to know—there was no chance of the larger measure becoming law, and the noble Lord was simply using it as a cover to hinder this smaller concession; and he (Mr. Bradlaugh) hoped the second reading of the Bill would be agreed to.

I rise, Mr. Speaker, to move, with the permission of the House, the second reading of the Probation of First Offenders Bill. Its object is set forth somewhat more fully than usual in its Preamble. It will not, therefore, be necessary for me to detain the House with any lengthened explanation of the reasons which induced me to seek permission to introduce it. The support I have ground for hoping the measure may receive in several quarters of the House will afford evidence of the public good those experienced and hon. Members, whose names appear with mine upon the back, trust it may effect. Let me say, Sir, at the outset, that this Bill has not been framed in any spirit of sentimental philanthropy towards those who are guilty of criminal offences, and more especially towards hardened and habitual offenders. I hold a strong opinion with regard to them that such social pests are less burdensome to the public whilst in prison than at large. This Bill is designed solely to meet the case of those guilty of first offences of a minor character. There can be little doubt, Mr. Speaker, that many first offences are the result of inexperience, surprise, and extraordinary temptations, and various extenuating circumstances, rather than the product of a criminal and habitually vicious mind. Hon. Members who have had either judicial or magisterial experience will recall, I feel sure, to their minds many instances in which they have felt the difficulty of dealing properly with such cases. The public interest demanded that some punishment should be inflicted, and it has not been easy to pass any sentence sufficient to meet the case, and yet not of a character in its after effects, if not in its actual duration, to make the pursuit of an honest calling exceedingly difficult. I submit to the House that the object of legal punishment is fourfold—(1) the protection of society; (2) the deterring of others; (3) the expiation of the offence; (4) the reformation of the offender. The protection of society and the deterrent effect upon the public mind are best achieved, Mr. Speaker, by the certainty of detection. It is on this ground that I shall venture, so long as I have the honour of a seat in this House, to claim the generous consideration of hon. Members towards the police of the country, whose mission it is, by vigilance, to prevent crime being committed, and, by activity and ability, to detect its perpetrators. But the reformation of the offender is far from being the least important factor in the administration of the Criminal Law. I have the highest judicial authority for this, and I am not guilty, Mr. Speaker, of any breach of confidence if I mention that some of the most experienced opinions in the country are more than favourable to the principle of this Bill. There is nothing more difficult to wipe out than the taint of prison. It hangs like a millstone round the neck to the very edge of the grave. There is the difficulty of obtaining employment, the fear of recognition by prison companions, the terror of denunciation, and, not least of all, the moral contamination and degradation. An unbroken career of crime, a constant battle with society, ending in a long sentence of penal servitude, thus but too often succeeds the few weeks' or months' imprisonment given for a trivial first offence. In Boston, Massachusetts, a system of probation was instituted in 1878 in order to meet this evil, and the complete success which has attended its operations has led me to take the earliest opportunity of bringing the matter before the House of Commons. The results of the first five years' work are so remarkable that I shall make no apology for reading to the House an extract from the official Report—

"In reviewing the records of the five years' work of probation, we are met first by the discouraging fact that 223 persons threw away the opportunity offered them to reform without punishment, and had been surrendered and sent to prison, and that 44 others of the same character had absconded to escape punishment. We must also add to these 107 who did well while on probation, but had since been convicted of some offence. We therefore have a total of 374 persons to count as lost. But when we examine further, and find that this loss amounts to less than 15 per cent, and that 2,187 persons, or more than 86 per cent, so conducted themselves while on probation as to merit the approval of the Court before which they were convicted, and have since led respectable lives, there would seem to be substantial reasons for encouragement. The probation system saved the State in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, in five years, more than 82,000 dollars in prison expenses, and a large sum, also, by the recoupment of the costs of prosecution. But," ends the Report, "who can estimate the value of a change from a course of vice and crime to one of rectitude and usefulness in hundreds of lives, or the value of cheerless homes made peaceful and happy."

The House will thus recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the good to be effected by the enactment of this measure does not rest merely upon sanguine, theoretical speculation. The principle has been well tried under a judicial system similar to our own, founded by common ancestors; and propositions, too, for its adoption in other territories occupied by the Anglo-Saxon race are, I am happy, Sir, to know, now before more than one Colonial Legislature. The Bill does not, in point of fact, introduce any new feature into our criminal jurisprudence; it simply recognizes and extends the practice sometimes resorted to of discharging first and youthful offenders in trivial cases without imprisonment. The present practice of releasing upon recognizances, to come up for judgment when called upon, is not extensively resorted to, because it errs rather on the side of excessive leniency. All further knowledge of the prisoner is lost to the public authorities; he has no great incentive to reform; and there are no means of bringing him up for judgment if his conduct is unsatisfactory. The House will observe that the Bill is limited in its operation to offences for which imprisonment may be inflicted in contradistinction to penal servitude, which is the penalty attaching to all serious crimes. I may also point out that as two years is the maximum legal duration of imprisonment, that is also the maximum period of probation under the Bill. The conditions of probation in Massachusetts are analogous to those attaching to police supervision in this country under the Prevention of Crime Acts, and neither there nor here do they press in any way harshly upon the persons subjected to them. These conditions are, briefly—that a supervisee or probationer shall report himself once a month, either personally or in writing, sleep at a declared address, get his living by honest means, and not move out of one district or into another without giving notice. These conditions, while enabling the Police Authorities to exercise sufficient surveillance, give them very little trouble, spread over a large area as the duty is. Under the same conditions, liberty is accorded to persons sentenced to penal servitude before the full expiration of their sentences, and nothing has contributed more to the admirable discipline maintained in convict establishments in Great Britain. Persons may also be subjected to them, under 34 & 35 Vict. c. 112, s. 18, who have been guilty of certain offences; and while the conditions in no way oppress the honestly disposed, and may be relaxed under special circumstances, they act as a great deterrent against crime, and as a great incentive to keep straight, for a breach of any one of the conditions entails 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour. This would be the liability also with the probationers under the Bill; and as they would not be given the benefit of its provisions in any serious case, sufficient punishment would be held in reserve over them, and without the expense or trouble of re-trial if their conduct was unsatisfactory. There may be some few persons, and possibly some hon. Members, who have conceived a prejudice against police supervision, arising from the unfounded complaints of a few worthless men that it had hindered them from obtaining honest employment. I can assure the House, however, from an experience of more than six years as Director of Criminal Investigations, during the whole of which time I had many hundreds of convicts on licence and police supervisees under my control, that such an opinion is far from justified by facts. I do not say that a policeman had never been guilty of an excess of zeal; but during the period of my connection with the Metropolitan Police no charge of undue interference against this class of persons was ever substantiated against them. Nor am I travelling beyond the facts when I say the honourable attitude of the police throughout the country towards the class of persons in question is gratefully recognized by the various excellent Associations existing for the assistance of discharged prisoners. I venture, Mr. Speaker, to claim for this Bill that it will, if enacted—(1) recoup to the public the expenses of many prosecutions; (2) save the people the expense of maintaining many hundreds of persons in prison; (3) hinder the manufacture of habitual criminals; (4) gain to the State many honest citizens, by establishing powerful incentives to reform, and giving first offenders the hope of leading useful lives, without absolving them from the consequence of crime, or diminishing the safeguards demanded by social order. On all these grounds then, Sir, I beg very earnestly to commend the Bill to the consideration of the House and of Her Majesty's Government, and to move that it be now read a second time.

said, he had listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Gentleman. He had brought forward many reasons which ought to weigh with those who had to consider this Bill; and he would promise the hon. Gentleman that they should have the fullest consideration from the Government. But he would remind the House that the hon. Gentleman had brought in the Bill on the 21st of January, but did not circulate it until Monday last; and, therefore, he (Mr. Childers) had practically only had 36 hours in which to consider the proposal and take advice upon the subject. He need not tell the House that upon a question of this kind, which made a very enormous change in the Criminal Law so far as it affected punishment, was one upon which he could not venture to make any recommendations without not only full consideration, but without consulting those, whether Judges or magistrates, who had to administer the police law, as well as to the police authorities themselves. In the time since the circulation of the Bill it had been absolutely out of his power to do a tithe of what it would be necessary for him to do in this matter. He had, however, gone as far as he could, and even in this short time the conflicting opinions he had received were such as to satisfy him that it was a difficult subject to deal with. The change made was practically this—that it should be in the power of a Court in future, in the case of an offence that might be punished with imprisonment, to put the offender under the system of police surveillance. That, as the House would see, was a very momentous and serious change. He said nothing against it, but it would be his duty to study it most carefully; and he would, therefore, appeal to the hon. Gentleman, after the speech he had made, to allow the debate on the second reading of the Bill to be adjourned for three weeks or so, in order to enable him to obtain the necessary advice upon the subject.

said, that as the right hon. Gentleman desired it, he had no alternative but to postpone the second reading until the 20th instant. He had, however, hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have consented to the second reading that day, when the Committee stage could be taken at the right hon. Gentleman's convenience. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present: House counted, and 40 Members being found present.

said, he would appeal to the Home Secretary to allow the present stage of the Bill to be taken, on the understanding that the Committee stage should be postponed for three weeks.

, in supporting the Bill, said, he would appeal to the Home Secretary to allow it to be read a second time. There were many cases, particularly as to young domestic servants, prosecuted for some trifling theft, where offenders were degraded and ruined by being sent to prison.

said, he thought the Bill would make a very salutary change, a change, however, which was not so large as the Home Secretary seemed to suppose. As the law stood at present it was quite possible for a Judge of Assize, or Chairman of Quarter Sessions, to pass a sentence of a day's imprisonment, which meant immediate discharge from the dock, and to follow this by police supervision. The change, therefore, only amounted to this—that it gave Judges and Chairmen power to do for a first offence what they could now do for a second. With considerable experience, he was of opinion that it was of great importance that a prisoner, though guilty, should not be sent to prison in certain cases for a first offence, but should be subjected to a term of police supervision. In his own county—Worcestershire—the police had admirably carried out their duties of supervision, and he did not remember one case of hardship or oppression. If this additional duty was imposed upon them he believed the police would discharge it in a kindly spirit. The Bill, no doubt, proposed an innovation; but he believed it was in the right direction.

said, he was in favour of the principle of the Bill.

said, he wished to call attention to the fact that there were four out of the first six Bills that had been put down in a prominent position among the Orders, of which none had been printed. He wished to emphasize the exceeding inconvenience of that practice, because it necessitated the presence of Ministers who were responsible for the conduct of Government Bills, and who must be early in their places to see that such Bills were not moved by any other Member present. In the case of the last—the Merchandise Marks Act (1882) Amendment Bill—the hon. Member in charge of it was aware that the Government were preparing a Bill which would cover all the points which his Bill dealt with.

said, that he must remind the Home Secretary of his attitude upon this question on a recent occasion. He was astonished that the right hon. Gentleman should have allowed the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) to make the remarks he had made. He entirely agreed with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman; but it would be in the Home Secretary's recollection that some four or five weeks ago he (Lord Randolph Churchill) appealed to the House to put a stop to the practice of obtaining leave to bring in Bills and Members not troubling to have them printed and circulated. He, at that time, appealed to the House to take some strong action in the matter, in order to avoid the recurrence of the inconvenience, and the Home Secretary got up and pointedly disagreed with him, although the general feeling of the House was undoubtedly in his favour; so that if the scandal had reached so great a height that four Bills had been put down, none of which had been printed and circulated, the blame lay with the Government, and principally with the Home Secretary.

said, that the noble Lord was quite mistaken in making this attack upon him. The noble Lord attacked him as if he was a schoolmaster, and as if he was to tell his hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) whether he might or might not make a speech in which the noble Lord agreed. That was absurd. The noble Lord was entirely mistaken. He had always held the same doctrine as his hon. Friend. He made no such remarks as the noble Lord had attributed to him. He was not even in the House on the occasion.

I beg your pardon. My recollection is perfectly distinct on the point.

Then the noble Lord's recollection is quite in error. I could not have said that which I have always resisted to the utmost on half-a-dozen occasions.

said, that on the question of fact he must appeal to the Speaker, because the action he took would be in the recollection of that right hon. Gentleman. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) suggested to an hon. Member below the Gangway that the Order should be read and discharged on a particular Bill, on the ground that the Bill had not been printed. It would be in the recollection of the Speaker and the House that the Home Secretary disagreed with his remarks.

That is a totally different matter.

You said you were not there.

Order, order!

said, that he hoped he might be allowed to say, in explanation, that he did not agree with the proposal of the noble Lord that the Order should be discharged. That was a totally different question. It was in accordance with the Rules of the House that, under the circumstances of the particular case, the Order should be discharged. He believed it was sound doctrine that merely because a Bill was not printed was no ground for discharging the Order. But that was not the point of objection of his hon. Friend (Mr. Acland).

said, that perhaps he ought to say that the noble Lord was perfectly correct in this respect—that a reference was made to him (Mr. Speaker) on a question as to whether a certain Bill should be put off to that distant date. He then stated, from the Chair, that it was unusual and highly inconvenient that, in the absence of the hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill, it should be so put off; because the hon. Gentleman might come down some time later, and find that the Bill had been discharged in his absence. On the present occasion a Bill had been put off; but only on the authority of an hon. Gentleman acting on behalf of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to remove doubts which had arisen in the interpretation of the Act of 1884. The decision of the Courts had been that an employé occupying a separate bedroom could vote at an election, while an employé not occupying a separate bedroom might not do so. The result of that decision was that in the case of employés in large establishments not occupying a separate bedroom they were not at present enfranchised. The defect in the law had arisen without any intention on the part of either side, and he had brought in this Bill in order to remedy it.

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Fowler) would adopt words in Committee which would make unnecessary any appeal to the Courts of Law to decide that only men were included in the provisions of the Act. He had himself raised the same question when the Representation of the People Bill, 1867, was before the House; and it was only after a lengthened argument that the Judges decided that women were not enfranchised by that Act. The question of woman suffrage must be decided apart from the Bill, and on the general principle. What he desired, he would suggest, could easily be effected by adopting in the Bill the same language as was found in the Act of 1867, and also in the Act of 1885, so as to prevent any doubt arising that the word "man" did not also include "woman."

said, he truly believed that the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Fowler) wished to extend the franchise as far as he could, and did not merely desire to extend it so as to help his own Party without reference to others. He would, therefore, appeal to the hon. Baronet, as another Bill was on the Paper, and would shortly be reached (The Parliamentary Franchise Bill), to terminate the discussion on this Bill, and then they could co-operate together to support this other measure, which was a real measure of enfranchisement.

said, he would also recommend the hon. Baronet, for the same reason as that stated by the hon. Member for North- ampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), to withdraw the second reading of the Bill for the present, as a more comprehensive measure was on the Orders of the Day, and would soon be reached.

asked, why a disability should be sought to be got rid of with reference to one class of persons, and not with reference to another? This Bill was to relieve the deserving class of shopmen and warehousemen in large towns; but it seemed to him that they could not enter into the consideration of whether certain classes were more worthy than others who were excluded. Instead of the House passing a fragmentary Bill like this, and then considering another which proposed to carry these changes to a logical conclusion, it ought to leave the matter to be taken in hand by the Government, so that it might determine the extent to which the enlargement of the Franchise Act was to be carried. The proper course would be to adjourn the debate, so that the Government might have an opportunity to make up its mind as to what it was desirable to do.

said, that if he had spoken earlier he should have appealed to his hon. Friend not to press the Bill at the present time, but to allow the Order to be discharged or adjourned for two months, as he (Mr. Childers) had already stated, in answer to a Question, that the Government considered it would be wise and necessary to introduce during the present Session a Bill to deal with the question of registration, and particularly with questions of borough representation. He had also stated on a former occasion that it was not wise to tinker with the Representation of the People Bill and the other Acts which were incorporated with it. There were, no doubt, weak points in the Act that had been brought out in the Registration Courts, and it would be desirable in due time to deal with them; but he doubted whether it would be possible to do it that Session. He should deprecate dealing with these matters in a piecemeal way as it was proposed to do, for there were many points which the present Bill did not deal with at all. It dealt with a fringe only of the subject, and left many important points untouched. He would, therefore, very much prefer taking up the whole question in a Government measure. The Government, therefore, this Session would introduce the Bill in reference to registration which they were already pledged to introduce. The other Bill, dealing with the intricate question of the franchise, would be dealt with next Session, as there was not time to deal with it in this. It would be better to discharge the Order relating to this Bill; but if the hon. Member preferred it the debate might be adjourned for two months.

asked if it was to be understood that the Government would introduce next Session a Bill dealing with the whole question?

said, yes; that next Session they would deal with the whole question of the franchise.

said, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman he would ask leave to adjourn the debate for two months.

said, that the main scope and object of the Bill was to give to any two justices or a single stipendiary magistrate the power of pronouncing decrees of judicial separation if it was shown that a wife had been deserted by her husband. Such a Bill would be viewed differently by those who took different views as to the desirability of granting facilities to sever the matrimonial tie; and beyond that there was the question of granting the power proposed to such a tribunal. He did not say that it might not be necessary to grant to poor persons greater facilities for availing themselves of the law; but this Bill would enable the magistrates empowered to do so—and he desired to speak of them with all respect —however unlearned in the law they might be, to pronounce the decree, without the husband being convicted of desertion, and merely upon proof being given that he had deserted his wife. The law had already taken one very important step in the way of giving power to magistrates. Under the Matrimonial Causes Act, in case a husband was convicted of aggravated assault, if it was shown that the woman was in actual peril, the magistrates might pronounce a decree of judicial separation. But this Bill appeared to open a wide door to collusion between man and wife, who might agree to leave each other, and then allege that there had been desertion; and no remedy was left in case it should thereafter be found that there had been collusion. The 2nd clause of the Bill gave an extraordinary power — a power which he was not aware was given to any other tribunal. It enabled an application to be made, a summons to be granted, and an order made, although the husband had never been served with notice at all. He would admit that the present law was cumbrous in the case of desertion, because the wife must either go to the Poor Law Guardians, get assistance, and put them in motion, or go and live with some relation, who would supply her with necessaries, and in that indirect way raise an action against the husband. Some shorter and more direct remedy was required, and he hoped it might have been possible to evolve out of this Bill a reasonable proposition to meet the grievance he had stated; but he was afraid it did not afford the means of providing a remedy. He could not agree to the provisions of the Bill as it stood.

, in supporting the Bill, said, that the objections of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General referred to details which could very well be considered in Committee. The principle of the Bill was that of securing maintenance to married women who had been deserted by their husbands, and to secure for them the equivalent of a decree of judicial separation. It was impossible that poor women could employ solicitors, so as to avail themselves of the remedies now provided. It was easy to make this Bill say that the husband should have been convicted of desertion; and in cases of divorce substituted service of a summons was already known.

said, that this law, for anything that appeared in it, would apparently apply to Scotland; and he wished to say that he shared the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. He thought the power given in the Bill was a very dangerous one to confer upon persons with slight skill in administrating such a very delicate jurisdiction. It would be dangerous to give the proposed jurisdiction to even stipendiary magistrates, who were supposed to be appointed for their knowledge of the Criminal Law. There could be no greater evil to society than that these orders should be made matters of course, and granted without the gravest consideration and fullest appreciation of the evils they were likely to carry in their train. He should suggest that, if the Bill was to become law now, when they had the Married Women's Property Act there should be some provision for husbands deserted by their wives. The provision of the Bill relating to the custody of children was already met adequately by the Infants Bill.

said, there was no doubt that the Bill would meet a large number of cases of desertion, and in that way would remedy hardships that occurred in the case of many poor women; and, after all, the objections to the Bill were not so serious as they had been made to appear. The only order that could be made was one for the payment of a certain sum by the husband, and that order could be varied upon the application of either the husband or the wife to a Court of Law. Some such measure would, he felt certain, act as a restriction on the desertion of wives.

said, he deeply regretted that the Government were opposing the Bill. He remembered a case where a man, earning £200 or £300 a-year, owing to drink became entirely unable to earn anything; and the only way in which his wife was able to obtain relief was by taking one of the roundabout courses referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, and going to the workhouse. He thought it would be better to let the Bill go into Committee, to see whether some better means than those which existed could not be found for dealing with such a difficult question. He thought it very hard that a woman deserted by her husband should have no other means of obtaining relief from him except by going into the workhouse.

said, he believed that the House would be reluctant to give to magistrates the power of granting judicial separation, although it would probably be willing to see an improvement of the machinery by which a wife might obtain a subsistence. The Government would object to any provisions of the Bill except those which, in their opinion, had been shown to be, and were admitted to be, necessary; but they did not oppose the second reading. He hoped that the Committee stage would be put off to such a time as would enable the Government to bring up Amendments for consideration.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to preserve life, and to prevent accidents in the working of quarries, by compelling sufficient safeguards to be taken, as in the case of mines.

said, it was the intention of the Government to introduce a more comprehensive measure which would embrace this subject; and, under these circumstances, he trusted that the hon. Member would not press the Bill.

said, he was perfectly satisfied with the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, and would withdraw the Bill.

, in rising to move, as an Amendment—

"That it be an Instruction to the said Committee that they have power to extend the provisions of the said Bill to all houses, shops, and buildings, or any part thereof, occupied or used by any club, society, or association in which intoxicating liquors are sold or supplied to the members of the said club, society, or association, for consumption in the said house, or shop, or building, or any part thereof,"

said, he wished to know what was the principle which the House had given its assent to when it agreed to the second reading of the Bill? Was it that drinking on Sundays was a wrong in itself, or that the meeting together for conversation and social enjoyment in public-houses was idle and frivolous waste of time, and also a wrong thing? He hardly knew on what other principle the entire closing of public-houses on Sundays could be affirmed. If the object of the Bill was to prevent people from spending their time in idle gossip, and from drinking on Sundays, that object was in no way carried out by the Bill as it stood. The Bill, in its present shape, referred to nothing but public-houses, and these places formed but a very small proportion of the agencies by which drink was distributed on Sundays, and only a very small part of the means by which people assembled to waste their time on that day. There was no doubt that if this Bill passed in its present shape it would lead to an enormous increase in the number of what were called drinking clubs. It was notorious that the effect of closing public-houses in Cardiff had been to extend and increase to an enormous extent these drinking places; and he was told that an active member of the temperance organization there had deplored that he was ever a party to closing public-houses on Sunday, having become convinced that it had been the means of greatly increasing drinking on that day. If they were to affirm the principle that drinking and meeting together for social converse was wrong, then they ought to affirm it honestly all round and impartially, and especially to affirm it where it would touch themselves, because if they were to put an end to the compromise by which public-houses were allowed to be open at particular hours on Sunday, they might be preventing other people from doing that which at present they could do themselves. The answer to that would be that a club was nothing more than a private house, in which people collected to talk and drink, if they pleased, as in their own house. He was astonished that in these days, when so many legal fictions were being abandoned, such threadbare and flimsy pretexts should exist at all. A club was no more a private house than a public-house, and the only difference between it and a licensed public-house was that the consumption must be upon the premises, and that there must be some sort of subscription and membership. But the subscription might be only half-a-crown, and there might be 500 members. He was told that there were many such clubs in a large district in the neighbourhood of Leeds; and if there were generous rules for the admission of strangers by members, no one could help imagining that more grievous public-houses did not exist, and that these clubs encouraged the evils attributed to public-houses to a larger degree. He had heard of these drinking clubs held at places with a rental of 1s. 6d. per week, and in all these places drinking took place from morning to night. An hon. Member had told him that publicans were greatly in favour of the Bill, because if it passed as it stood they thought they could turn their houses into clubs, and so get rid of police control and the rates and taxes they now had to pay. It was notorious that drinking clubs prevailed in some Lancashire towns, and he only avoided giving particulars because he did not like to single out particular places and clubs. He had, however, a list of them and their members, which he believed would astonish some hon. Gentlemen. Now, such legislation as that went beyond the spirit of fair compromise, and would give rise to far greater evils than any that at present existed. If idleness and drinking were to be discouraged on Sundays, what, he would ask, could be easier than the simple alteration he suggested—namely, to provide that the word "premises" should be taken to mean—

"Any place or building occupied or used by any club, society, or association in which intoxicating liquors are sold or supplied to the members."

What could be fairer than that? If they did not pass the Instruction, they would be open to the charge that they were content to place burdens upon others which they objected to bear themselves. Every hon. Member ought to be anxious to get rid of an imputation of that kind. He trusted that hon. Members who had shown so much courage in extending to humble people that most useful law, that they should stay at home on Sundays and not drink at public-houses, would with equal courage apply the principle to themselves, and prohibit unlicensed as well licensed houses from opening on Sunday. By passing the Instruction they would snow their desire for really effective legislation, and get rid of the reproach that they made one law for the poor and another for the rich. No doubt hon. Members on his side of the House would be glad to carry his proposition into effect, and, if necessary, to shut up the Carlton Club on Sundays. Thus, by abstaining from going to their clubs, in which they now, perhaps, were wicked enough to indulge in social converse, and even in political discussion, on Sundays, they would set a good example to the humbler classes for whom it was proposed to legislate by this Bill.

seconded the Amendment.

said, if the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee that day he would undertake to move immediately to report Progress, as he did not see in their places one or two of his hon. Friends who usually sat opposite, and who had put down Notices of Amendments. He believed the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Addison) was perfectly correct in moving the Instruction. He (Sir Joseph Pease) could not attempt to vie with the hon. and learned Gentleman in regard to technical knowledge of the Forms of the House; but he believed the Instruction of the hon. and learned Gentleman was so entirely outside the scope of the Bill that he would not, under the Rules and Orders of the House, have been able to move it in Committee on the Bill, though he was quite at liberty to move it on the Motion to go into Committee. He could not, however, help thinking there was a great absence of logic in the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend. By the Bill he (Sir Joseph Pease) did not intend to deal with the privileges of either the rich or the poor in regard to clubs. He had left the rich man his club, and he had left the poor man his club; and when the hon. and learned Gentleman called the attention of the House to the position of things in Wales, he (Sir Joseph Pease) must remind him that the great difference between that Bill and the Welsh Sunday Closing Act was that this Bill allowed the poor man to go into the public-house for two hours during the Sunday afternoon, and two hours during the Sunday evening, in order that he might procure for home consumption his dinner and supper beer. He (Sir Joseph Pease) had never said that the Sunday drinking of a glass of beer was wrong, or that Sunday conversation was wrong. All those things were conjured out of his hon. and learned Friend's own consciousness. If he accepted the Motion he should go far beyond the scope of the Bill, and beyond that which he believed to be absolutely necessary. He had made careful inquiries, so far as his own district was concerned, and he could, without hesitation, say that there was no working men's club in Durham or in the North Riding of Yorkshire in which intoxicating liquors were sold on Sunday. Taking it as a whole, he objected to the Instruction to the Committee as entirely outside the scope of the Bill. If the poor man thought he was robbed in any way of his rights in regard to his frequenting the public-house, the Bill would allow him to go to his club; and he had sufficient faith in the working men of the country to believe that if they did think it necessary, in consequence of the passing of the Bill, to establish clubs, they would be found to drink in moderation. He trusted that his hon. and learned Friend would be content with the speech he had made. He (Sir Joseph Pease) would assure the House that he had no wish to interfere with the reasonable facilities of the people to obtain liquor on the Sunday. He hoped the House would support him in resisting this Instruction.

said, he earnestly protested against the Bill, the object of which was to further restrict a particular and respectable trade, without, in the least, checking the evils of intemperance in other respects, which it left altogether untouched. For instance, the Bill did nothing to stop drinking on steamboats, or to regulate the hours of sale on board. The whole object seemed to be to put further restrictions on a licensed trade, and to drive people to drinking clubs, which were open during the time of Divine Service, and were frequented by hundreds of women as well as men. It was a grievance that while the Temperance Party were endeavouring in one direction to stop what they considered a small evil, they were actually encouraging by their silence, or want of legislation, a very much larger evil, which was gradually springing up in all the great towns.

said, that as he did not see the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill, or any of the hon. Members whose names appeared on the back of the Bill in their places, he begged to move the second reading.

asked, if it was competent for the hon. Gentleman to move the second reading of the Bill?

said, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Everett) was perfectly in Order. The Bill was now the property of the House, and any hon. Gentleman was at liberty to move it.

resuming, said, he was anxious that the Bill should proceed, because it affirmed a very important principle, or, at any rate, went a long way towards affirming an important principle—that of manhood suffrage. He was confident that every hon. Member who, like himself, carefully watched the progress of the County Franchise Bill, must have come to the conclusion that the only intelligible foundation on which they could stand in regard to suffrage was that of manhood suffrage. There was no qualification possessed by a man so high as that of manhood; and on that ground he thought that the sooner they incorporated in their legislation the principle of one man one vote, the sooner they would arrive at the goal which everybody admitted to be most desirable. It might be feared that property would be endangered if power were put in the hands of men without any regard as to whether they possessed property or not. If there was a wish on the part of the poor men to rob the rich men of their possessions, he knew of nothing to prevent them doing so now. They had the advantage of numbers, and the property of the rich was distinctly within their power; but he was glad to think that there was the same honest principle abiding in the poor man's mind as in the rich man's mind. He had pleasure in moving the second reading of the Bill, because it contained provisions for removing many of the difficulties now connected with registration. Everyone who had had to do with registration was aware how greatly it was complicated by the great variety of suffrages now in existence. This Bill would sweep away all suffrages except one—namely, that of manhood; and it would, therefore, make the work of registration infinitely more simple than it was now. Having said this much in favour of the principle of the Bill, he wished to add that he had no desire, against the will of the House, to persevere with the second reading, if he was to understand that Her Majesty's Government intended to deal with registration this year, and with the suffrage question next year. He trusted that the Government would see their way to adopt, in regard to the suffrage, the only final and intelligible resting place—namely, that of manhood suffrage. They would thus sweep away all registration difficulties, and stand upon the ground which was most conducive to the highest and best interests of the country in which they lived.

said, that the hon. Member (Mr. Everett) had probably not heard the discussion which took place on the Franchise Bill in charge of the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir Robert Fowler). He (Mr. Childers) then explained that Her Majesty's Government intended to bring in a Bill on the subject of registration, though they did not propose to deal with the franchise during the present Session. This Bill went much further than the Bill of the hon. Member for the City of London, and practically gave the franchise to everyone who lived in the same house during the month of June, provided he had possessed the electoral status for six months. He would, however, express no opinion upon it; but would only ask that it should be adjourned to the same date as that to which the other Bill was adjourned, and for that purpose he would make the requisite Motion.