Page images
PDF
EPUB

concealment, he held that they would soon die away, and that the practical advantages greatly outweighed them; and he concluded by avowing openly that the object of the Committee was to see whether some system of secret voting could not be devised.

Mr. Hardy, for the Opposition, consented readily to the inquiry, on condition that it was conducted bona fide and impartially, and not as a mere cloak for persons who had already changed their minds. He suggested, too, that intimidation by mobs should be a subject of inquiry.

Mr. Gladstone replied that the Committee was proposed, without any foregone conclusion on the part of the Government, as a mode of obtaining information on all points connected with elections, and would not by any means be limited to the Ballot. The collective opinion of the Government went no further than this, that the recent extension of the franchise had altered most of the conditions under which elections were conducted.

The Committee was agreed to and appointed, the Marquis of Hartington being the chairman, and a very full and searching inquiry into electoral corruption and abuses took place, a large mass of evidence affecting various parts of the country being taken. Towards the close of the Session the Committee presented their Report, which, although it exhibited a considerable diversity of opinion among its members as to the practical measures to be adopted, was considered to add a good deal to the strength of the case in favour of a secret mode of voting at elections.

The provision of some further legislative securities against the spread of contagious diseases among cattle, which had been for some time a cause of great alarm to agriculturists, was one of the first subjects on which the House was called upon to legislate after its meeting. Two rival projects were presented: one, a Bill of Lord R. Montagu; the other, a measure proposed on the part of the Government by Mr. W. E. Forster. The noble lord, on moving the second reading of his Bill on March 9, said that it was necessary, owing to the powerlessness of the present system to keep out the rinderpest-an argument which he illustrated by copious quotations from the evidence given before the Select Committee of last year, and from the history of the cattle plague. He preferred to accustom the trade to run in certain grooves, though there might be restrictions, rather than expose it to sudden shocks, as would be the case under the Government Bill. He insisted on the advantages of his measure--the establishment of permanent markets for foreign cattle, the concentration of slaughterhouses, &c.; and as dead meat could travel more cheaply and in a better condition than live animals, he maintained that the system which he advocated would reduce the price of butchers' meat. One of his objects was to reduce the profits of the middle-man--the butcher-and thus to increase the price to the producer and reduce it to the consumer. He urged that his Bill should be referred to the same Committee as

C

the Government Bill, so that the House might have the opportunity of forming a judgment on the two systems.

The rejection of the Bill was moved by Mr. Headlam, seconded by Mr. Norwood, who considered that the establishment of separate and permanent markets was a return to the old principle of protection, and that the practical result would be the destruction of the foreign trade and a great rise in the price of meat.

Mr. W. E. Forster, speaking for the Government, objected to the Bill on three grounds- that it would not prevent the spread of contagion; that it did not define the discretion for suspending the rule of compulsory slaughter; and that in the long run the cost of providing separate markets at the outports must fall on the Consolidated Fund. The Government Bill proceeded on what he maintained was the true principle, of presuming that there would be health rather than disease; but at the same time taking powers to exclude the disease whenever it broke out. It also gave greater facilities for the establishment of markets at the ports; and, as a proof of this, he mentioned that the Markets Committee of the London Corporation, if this Bill were passed, would recommend the formation of a separate metropolitan market. He urged Lord Robert Montagu to withdraw his Bill, and to follow the more convenient course of moving amendments in Committee on the Government Bill.

The Bill was rejected, after some debate, by a majority of 253 against 197.

The objects of the other measure were clearly explained by Mr. Forster on moving for leave to bring it in. He explained that, as regards the home trade, it would re-enact, almost as they stood, the present arrangements for "stamping out" the cattle plague, and would give some new powers with regard to sheep. It was also proposed to give the Privy Council power for checking other diseases besides the cattle plague, as well as the diseases of sheep and horses, and it contained other provisions for regulating the traffic in cattle, and particularly for securing to cattle in transit an ample supply of water. As to the foreign trade, it transferred from the Queen in Council to the Privy Council the power of prohibiting the import of cattle from any country into any port, of prescribing from time to time the countries from which cattle might be brought, and of defining areas at ports into which cattle might be brought, but out of which they could not be taken alive. There were also provisions at which Mr. Forster glanced slightly for encouraging the formation of markets.

Lord Robert Montagu expressed his approval of the first part of the Bill, but objected to the provisions of the second part that they could never be effectual for the purpose of stamping out the cattle plague. The House, however, took a different view, and Mr. Forster's measure, after considerable discussion, was passed into a law.

Mr. Goschen, who had succeeded to the office of President of the Poor Law Board, took an early opportunity after Parliament

:

met to introduce two measures for amending the system of assessment of rates-another of the subjects glanced at in the Speech from the throne. One of these was a Bill to provide for uniformity of assessment in the metropolis. The Union Assessment Act of 1862 only applied to unions, and there were in the metropolis several parishes, which, although existing side by side with unions, were yet excluded from its operation. The Bill accordingly proposed to enable those parishes, which were twenty-two in number, to establish union assessment committees, and to place them thus on the same footing with the seventeen unions to which the Act of 1862 applied. The Bill also sought to accomplish another object. At present the poor-rate, the county-rate, and other rates in the metropolis were levied on different principles, but this Bill would place them on the same footing, and, if possible, establish one basis for local and imperial taxation within its limits. The right hon. gentleman, in bringing in the Bill, entered into details of the provisions to be adopted for the attainment of a common basis of action. The Bill would lay down a maximum scale, leaving a discretionary power below the amount. The Board would not have power to hear appeals as between unions, but a paid assessor would be appointed for that purpose.

Mr. Goschen also moved the introduction of a Bill for amending the law with respect to rates assessed upon occupiers for short terms, and, having described the widespread dissatisfaction among the working classes at the abolition of the system of compounding, stated that the Government proposed that the rate-book should still be the basis of the register, and that the occupier should still continue to be rated, but that he should be allowed to deduct the full amount of the rate from the landlord. It was proposed that the rate should be paid in quarterly instalments, and that no rate should exceed two weeks' rent, so that no tenant would be obliged to pay a greater amount for rent than that which it would be in his power to deduct from his landlord. It was also proposed that the Bill should have a general application, and not be confined, as the existing law was, to boroughs only.

In the discussion which arose on the introduction of this Bill Mr. Bright referred to the case of Birmingham, where 5000 distress warrants had been taken out, entailing great distress upon the people-distress aggravated by the conviction that it was wholly unnecessary.

Another measure, of which the initiatory steps were taken before Parliament entered upon the engrossing subject of the Irish Church, was the Bill for the better repression of crime, which was produced by the Government to meet the urgent demands of the public for a more effectual protection of life and property, and a more vigorous mode of dealing with that dangerous class who make crime their regular trade and pursuit, preferring to prey upon the industry of others rather than to exercise their own. In order to facilitate the progress of this Bill it was determined to introduce it first in the House of Lords, under the charge of Lord Kimberley, the Lord

Privy Seal. The noble lord, in moving the first reading of the Bill, stated at length the principles on which the Government proposed to legislate for the repression of crime, inasmuch as their intentions involved a considerable change in the criminal law. The noble earl traced modern legislation on the subject. He said that on account of remonstrances from Western Australia, the Government in 1864 gave notice that transportation would entirely cease in three years from that date. Accordingly transportation had now ceased, except in the case of Gibraltar. The system of releasing convicts on ticket of leave followed. The noble earl proceeded to refer to the Commission which inquired into the subject some years ago, and the recommendations of which formed the basis of the Act of 1864. The ticket-of-leave system had been very successful under Colonel Henderson. Real, hard, patient industry and good conduct were required to be shown by the convicts before they were released. In the case of the three convict establishments, the earnings of the convicts in the value of work done had nearly been equal to the entire cost of their maintenance. With regard to the supervision of licensed convicts, as it was intended to propose still further supervision, it was important to inquire into the existing system. At present the supervision was far from effective, one of the defects being the want of better communication between the police in different towns. He thought there was no occasion for alarm as to the condition of crime, for so far from there having been any great increase, there had been rather a decrease, comparatively with the growth of population. Notwithstanding this his lordship submitted there were two reasons for further legislation on the subject-one general and one special reason. The general reason was, that the country had by greater experience seen the necessity for it, and the possibility of repressing it. With regard to convicts, there were at present 1566 men on ticket of leave, and 441 females. In ten years' time it was estimated there would be 3000 convicts on ticket of leave. Having quoted statistics relating to other criminals, his lordship proceeded to discuss the question, how could they deal with this enormous mass of crime and this army of criminals? It had been suggested that men who had been convicted several times should be kept in penal servitude for life. He could not endorse that principle. The best mode which he thought of dealing with the men under life sentences was, when they became old and infirm, to remove them from public works; and if not to release them, simply to place them under restraint and exclude them from the public eye. His lordship thought that a certain class of confirmed criminals should be put under a special code of laws, and that the burden of proof of an offence should be transferred from the prosecutor to the defence. The main principle of the measure which he was about to propose was that any man, after having been repeatedly convicted, should be able to be called upon to show that he was earning an honest living; and if he failed to do that, then that he should be amenable to im

prisonment. The Bill proposed to extend police supervision, and to throw on the criminal the burden of proof that he was leading an honest life. A register would be kept of all the licences granted, and any person holding one might be summoned by the police before a magistrate, and called upon to show that he was earning an honest livelihood. Failing to do so, he would then be remitted to undergo his original sentence. In the case of persons convicted of felony a second time, it would be a part of the sentence that they should be subject to police supervision for seven years, and during that period they might be summoned by the police to show that they were pursuing a decent calling, and in default be imprisoned for one year. A similar provision would apply where licensed convicts were found in suspicious circumstances and about to commit a crime. For third convictions the sentence would never be less than seven years' penal servitude. In the case of receivers of stolen property, after the first conviction they would be required to show that the goods were not stolen, and would not be allowed to plead simple ignorance of the fact. The Bill also dealt with the case of vagrants. It would not interfere with the liberties of the innocent, while it would circumscribe the movements of criminals and greatly strengthen the administration of justice.

The scheme thus described by Lord Kimberley was received with considerable approval by the House, but some noble lords suggested the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee. This, however, was objected to, as being likely to cause the "shelving" of the measure, and it was resolved to discuss the scheme more fully at the next stage. The second reading having been moved on a subsequent day, a debate took place. Lord Romilly analyzed the measure, and pointed out some points in it which required consideration. He threw out a suggestion in order to the eradication of the criminal class-which now was principally recruited from the families themselves of the offenders--that the children of felons should be removed from the control of their parents and educated at the expense of the State. The present opportunity might also be taken for securing more equality in the punishments inflicted by magistrates at the different Quarter Sessions.

Lord Hylton thought even the present obligation on ticket-ofleave men to come up at certain intervals for inspection proved a great impediment to their keeping honest employment. This Bill would increase that evil.

Lord Shaftesbury praised the objects of the Bill, but feared that in shutting up all avenues to honest occupation it might drive criminals to desperate courses. The provision of the Act of 1864 obliging them to report themselves to the police was, on the testimony of Sir Richard Mayne, useless or mischievous. This Bill extended still further the principle of supervision, and would put excessive powers in the hands of the police. The numbers of the class actually living by crime had, he believed, been exaggerated. The direction which measures for the repression of crime ought t

« PreviousContinue »