cordance with that policy, he hoped that the House would agree to the passing of the present Bill. COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN said, that last Session reasons were given why this Bill should not be proceeded with before the Report of the Judicature Commission was presented, and he had found it desirable to yield to those representations. He would advise his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. West) to postpone the Bill for a short time, until the Report appeared. MR. CARDWELL said, that on the remonstrance as to the Judicature Commission the Bill had been hung up for two years, and yet its promoters were now taunted with acting in indecent haste. If the Report of the Commission should prove to be in favour of this court being done away with, by all means let it be abolished, but meanwhile it was only fair that the inhabitants of Lancashire should enjoy the benefits which would be conferred by the Bill. He hoped the House would now allow the Speaker to leave the Chair, in order that Progress might be reported, if his hon. Friend would not proceed further with the measure for a reasonable time, but wait in order to see whether the Report of the Judicature Commission would be in the meantime presented. MR. BAZLEY said, that in Liverpool and Manchester the inhabitants were generally strong supporters of the Bill, as a measure for the extension of legal conveniences to the whole county, which were now in a great measure confined to Preston. MR. SERJEANT SIMON said, he would withdraw his Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday 19th April. The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Tuesday, 6th April, 1869. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-Second ReadingLord Napier's Salary * (37); Mutiny *; Marine Mutiny. Reported with Amendments-East India Irrigation and Canal Company (31). Report-Habitual Criminals (32-41). GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT AMEND MENT BILL, 1867.-NOTICE. THE DUKE OF ARGYLL said, that in consequence of certain Questions that had been put to him by his noble Friend the Marquess of Salisbury and other noble Lords, he had to state that he intended to proceed with the Bill introduced by Sir Stafford Northcote on behalf of the late Government, in the last Session of Parliament, relative to the constitution of the Council of India; and. that he would make a statement with respect to it on Thursday week next. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY asked if it would contain any new clauses relating to the financial control of the Council of India? THE DUKE OF ARGYLL replied that it would not. HABITUAL CRIMINALS BILL.-(No. 32.) (The Lord Privy Seal.) REPORT. Amendments reported (according to Order). Clause 4 (Power to apprehend holders of license on suspicion). He THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said, that in the law as it stood there was no provision authorizing the temporary committal of a ticket-of-leave man to any county or borough prison. therefore proposed to insert in Clause 4 words enabling a magistrate to commit. such a man to any prison within his jurisdiction, there to remain until he could conveniently be removed. Amendment moved in Clause 4, line 6, after ("to") insert ("any prison within his jurisdiction, there to remain until he can conveniently be removed to"). Amendment agreed to. Another Amendment moved in line 7, after ("confined") to insert " In order that he may there undergo the term poor and friendless man alone would be of penal servitude to which he is liable under the subjected to such severity. said Penal Servitude Acts or some of them." Amendment agreed to. Amendment moved, to leave out lines Clause 5 (Penalty for breach of con- 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. ditions of license). THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said, he Amendment moved, to add as separate could not accept the Amendment, since paragraph at end of clause it struck at the very root and principle “ There shall be repealed so much of the fourth of the Bill. The object of the Bill was section of the Penal Servitude Act, 1864, as re- two-fold. First, it made certain proquires the holder of a licence to report himself visions binding on persons under license; personally once in each month." and the object of the second part of the Amendment agreed to. Bill, which included this clause, was to Clause 10 (Person twice guilty of place men who had been twice convicted felony and not punished with penal of serious offences, but had been senservitude to be subject to the super- tenced by the Judges to the alternative vision of the police). sentence of imprisonment instead of penal LORD ROMILLY proposed the omis- servitude, in the same position as those sion of that portion of the clause which who had been so sentenced, and who authorized imprisonment for twelve held a license under the Penal Servitude months, with or without hard labour, Acts. Persons against whom there had upon mere suspicion. Common justice been repeated convictions were fredictated this Amendment; for, as the quently sentenced at sessions and Assizes clause stood, a man who had done no- to imprisonment for six months or two thing, but whom a policeman suspected, years, and it was only right that such and as a magistrate thought justly, persons, having committed more than might be consigned to prison over and one felony, should be put in the same over again, and this might go on during position as licenses with respect to police the whole of a man's 'existence. If the supervision. The object of the Bill was magistrate were bound to have evidence to strike at the “habitual criminal” of a single fact of any description he class, men who formed notorious gangs should not complain, nor did he object and were well known to the police, but to the commital of persons found in against whom no actual proof of crime any place under circumstances justi- might for a long period be established. fying the belief that they were about The clause would empower their arrest to commit or aid in the commission under certain safeguards, and the magisof a felony; but he could not approve trate would then call upon them to show the imprisonment of persons on a mere that they were not getting a livelihood suspicion that they were getting a liveli- by dishonest means. His noble and hood by dishonest means. It was true learned Friend feared that magistrates that such persons must have previously might, from corrupt motives, oppress committed two offences, and that the these men and imprison them without object was to punish them when about just cause ; but for his own part he had to commit a third. If all police consta- more confidence in the administrators bles and magistrates were exempt from of justice, and it must be borne in mind the passions of human nature he should that these proceedings would be public, offer no objection to the proposal ; but and would be reported in the newsif they had any feeling of dislike towards papers, and that the persons arrested a man who had been twice convicted it might be defended by counsel. The would enable them to inflict a punish- chief officer of police, as a responsible ment which should only be inflicted when man, would be very careful in giving there was evidence of his intention of authority for an arrest, and the magiscommitting a felony. He did not be- trate would have to be satisfied that the lieve the people of this country would prisoner was pursuing dishonest courses. tolerate such an arbitrary power, which He thought, therefore, that the clause would practically operate as one law for was sufficiently guarded. the rich and another for the poor; it LORD CAIRNS begged to make a being obvious that no magistrate would suggestion that the wording of this commit on mere suspicion a rich man clause should be assimilated to that of who had plenty of friends, and that the Clause 4, to which no objection had been offered, so that it should stand that a person being brought before a magistrate must make it appear, to the satisfaction of the magistrate, that he is not getting his living by dishonest means. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY thought this would aggravate rather than relax the stringency of the clause. In its present shape the magistrate must have reasonable grounds for believing that a person was getting his livelihood by dishonest means, and he believed the class on whose behalf the noble and learned Lord opposite objected would prefer this to the form suggested by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns). He regretted that the framers of the Bill, in providing such large and exceptional powers as those provided by the Bill, had not employed words having meanings better known to the law. He doubted whether there was any legal definition of "dishonesty," and he feared that magistrates in country districts, little accustomed to the administration of the law, might construe anything opposed to their own views of morality as "dishonest." He should prefer the word "illegal." The noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) had proposed as a security that the chief officer of police must authorize the apprehension of suspected persons; but suppose that suspected person had been already apprehended. Suppose that a police constable had arrested a man upon a charge that was not sustained, the intervention of the chief officer of police would thus be set aside, and the constable and the magistrate between them might send the man to prison for a year, with hard labour, because he could not prove that he was not getting his living by dishonest means. He thought that it would have been more satisfactory if the sanction of the chief officer had been required as an element in the conviction of the man. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said, he had no objection to the Amendment suggested by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns), but he had no wish to make the clause more stringent than it was already. EARL GREY thought there was serious objection to punishing a man on the mere suspicion of a police-constable and magistrate. LORD CAIRNS urged that the 4th and 10th clauses, having the same object, should be couched in the same terms. VOL. CXCV. [THIRD SERIES.] He preferred the language of the 4th clause, for it was rather anomalous to inflict punishment in case it appeared to the magistrate that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the prisoner was getting his livelihood by dishonest means, whereas it was quite consistent with Parliamentary usage to do so in case a suspected person failed to make it appear to the satisfaction of the magistrate that he was not getting his livelihood by dishonest means. He would propose, therefore, that the latter form be substituted. 66 THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, that as the clause now stood the prisoner was to prove that he was not getting а livelihood"-not "his livelihood"by dishonest means. How was a man to prove that he was earning no money by dishonest means? He might, indeed, repel any allegation to the contrary; but how could he rebut it? Could any Member of their Lordships' House prove that he was not getting a livelihood by dishonest means? It seemed to be hoped that magistrates would put a lax construction on the clause; but if they happened to be logicians the provision was one under which not only every man who was listening to him, but every man in the three kingdoms, might be sent to prison. LORD ROMILLY suggested that a greater security would be given by substituting "magistrates" for "a magistrate,' so that no magistrate singly was armed with this power. THE LORD CHANCELLOR thought that words to the effect that the prisoner must prove that he was not getting his livelihood by dishonest means would meet the justice of the case. Amendment withdrawn. "First. If, on his being suspected by a constable or police officer of getting his livelihood by dishonest means, he fails to make it appear to the justices or magistrate before whom he is brought that he is not getting his livelihood by dishonest means." THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY moved to insert at end of clause "When a person is convicted under this section of an offence which subjects him to the supervision of the police, the record of his conviction shall contain a statement to the effect that he is subject to the supervision of the police in the pursuance of this Act for a period of seven years commencing from the date of his conviction, or I words to the like purport, but the omission of any | from the date of the last of such convictions no such statement shall not exempt any person from such license as aforesaid shall be granted to any the operation of this section.” person whatever in respect of such premises; and any license granted in contravention of this sec. Amendment agreed to. tion by the Excise or otherwise shall be void." Clause '12 (Amendment of Sect. 4 of This provision would give the magisthe Vagrant Act). trates control over beer-houses as well as LORD ROMILLY moved to leave out, public-houses. in line 27, the words (“was unlawful or THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY rethat his intent,”). As the clause stood, gretted that melting-houses were not to an ordinary trespasser might have been be subjected to some restrictions. Were visited with severe penalties. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said, he matter were hidden, might frequently it not for those houses stolen plate, no had no objection to the Amendment; but be discovered, but whenever plate was he thought his noble and learned Friend stolen it was taken to these places , and had over-rated the effect of the clause. within two or three hours after the robIts object was not to add to the punish- bery was melted down. He trusted that ment authorized by the Vagrant Act, the Government would at no distant day but to render it unnecessary to prove feel themselves in a position to deal with any overt act. At present a policeman these establishments. might see a man lurking about a house, EARL GREY objected to any discreevidently intending to break into it, but tion being left to the magistrates as to he could not apprehend him unless the shutting up such houses after conviction, man did something incipient to breaking and thought that premises as to which in. His noble and learned Friend pro- there had been two convictions should posed to limit this provision to cases of be invariably debarred from a license felony, and the object of the Bill being for a certain time. The owners of these to deal with the graver class of crimes, houses sometimes possessed an influence he would not object to the Amendment. over the magistrates, who would, thereAmendment agreed to. fore, be reluctant to exercise severity. The EARL OF KIMEERLEY said, that There was to be no discretion in the the words of the clause were too vague, case of the tenant, and there should be and proposed to define such houses in the none in the case of the landlord. following terms: THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, that it was introducing a new principle “ Lodging-house, beer-house, public-house, or other place where excisable liquors are sold, or to make a landlord responsible for the place of public entertainment or public resort." character of his tenant, and he could Amendment agreed to. not see why it should be applied exclu sively to this particular kind of property, THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY moved The effect would be that the value of an addition to the clause, ("or allow the every public-house in the kingdom would deposit of goods, having reasonable immediately fall. No landlord could be cause for believing them to be stolen”). certain thať his tenant would not come Amendment agreed to. under the operation of this clause, and THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY moved unless he had been unduly careless it would be hard to make the landlord an Amendment in page 6, line 3, to suffer. leave out from ( and if”) to the end of It was unwise to attempt to the clause and insert prevent crime by indiscriminate severity “ And any license for the sale of any excise towards persons guilty of no crime, nor even of able liquors or for keeping any place of public any carelessness. As to melting. entertainment or public resort which has been houses gold and silver could easily be granted to the occupier or keeper of any such melted in any good kitchen fire, so that house or place of resort as aforesaid shall be for the surveillance of those establishments feited on his first conviction of an offence under would not prevent the evil referred to this section, and on his second conviction for such an offence he shall be disqualified for a period of by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftestwo years from receiving any such license; more- bury). over, where two convictions under this section EARL GREY contended that if a landhave taken place within a period of two years in lord had two successive tenants who respect of the same premises, whether the per- carried on business in the same objecsons convicted were or were not the same, justices or magistrate may, if they or he so think tionable manner it was not unjust to fit, direct that for a term not exceeding one year suspend the license for a year, the was did so several times guilty knowledge might reasonably be inferred, and the same argument applied to the receiving of stolen goods. Such evidence would not in itself be conclusive, but it would be put before the jury as an element in the case. THE EARL OF HARROWBY also of opinion that the punishment was not excessive, and he objected to an invidious discretion being left to the magistrates, who were often on friendly terms with the owners of the houses. THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND quite agreed with the noble Lords. He thought that two successive tenants of bad character argued carelessness on the part of the landlord, and that a discretionary power would involve conflicting decisions. LORD ROMILLY agreed with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) that it was a new principle to make the landlord answerable for the propriety and morality of his tenant. The large brewers had necessarily an enormous number of public-houses, so that they could not be excessively fastidious as to their tenants' characters, and the persons who took public-houses were of a peculiar character, for they must be persons who were not afraid of a little tumult. He thought their Lordships would act very harshly if they were to impose such a penalty upon persons presumably innocent without great consideration. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY thought cases of hardship might occur if no discretion were left to the magistrates. However, as the clause stood, a landlord would for his own interests look very sharply on his tenants' conduct. He admitted that the discretionary power proposed might be somewhat invidious, but this objection applied to all discretionary powers. Amendment agreed to. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY moved to add as a separate paragraph at end of Clause 14 Moreover, where proceedings are taken against any person for having in his possession stolen goods, evidence may be given that there were found in the possession of such person other goods stolen in two or more other robberies within the preceding period of twelve months, and such evidence may be taken into consideration for the purpose of proving that such person knew the goods to be stolen which formed the subject of the proceedings taken against him." This addendum was intended to carry into effect the suggestion that the law as to guilty knowledge in the case of receiving stolen goods should be assimilated to that in the case of uttering base coin. A person might in one instance unintentionally utter base coin, but when he Amendment agreed to. Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended (No. 41). House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday, 6th April, 1869. MINUTES.] - NEW MEMBERS SWORN-Henry Solicitor General for Scotland added. IRELAND-ST. PATRICK'S DAY IN DUBLIN.-QUESTION. MR. R. FOWLER said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true, as reported in The Times and other Newspapers, that at Guard Mounting in the Castle Yard, Dublin, on St. Patrick's Day, the populace "indulged in revelry of a dangerous form, and afterwards expressed their hatred of England by groaning and hissing the National Anthem in the presence of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland ?" MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: Sir, I was almost sorry when I saw on the Paper the Question of the hon. Member, because it tends to give something like importance to circumstances of the most trivial nature. But of course I have made it my business to ascertain the facts, both officially from the Police Commissioners and from persons in the suite of the Lord Lieutenant, and perhaps the best thing I can do is to read a sentence or two from the Report of the Commissioners of Police, which is more |