The manufacturing operatives there got relief in a time of exceptional distress; but as soon as the distress disappeared they returned to their usual employment, and altogether ceased to be a burden upon the rates. His opinion was that the same thing would apply to the very small farmers and labourers of Ireland, if they got relief for a month or two during an exceptionally bad time, or during a severe winter, before the crops became fit for use. Then, as soon as the period of exceptional distress had passed away, they would find themselves able to support themselves; and, instead of being regular paupers, permanently chargeable upon the rates, they would become quite independent. MR. TREVELYAN said, he hoped the House would allow him to make a personal statement. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), like all eloquent speakers, had asked a good many questions, one of which he (Mr. Trevelyan) thought he was bound to answer. He was well aware that Father M'Fadden had made laudable exertions during the past winter, and that he had, undoubtedly, got money from many quarters which he had distributed to the great relief of his flock. it had reference to something which had occurred on the 20th of March this year, which happened to be the last day before the Easter Vacation. On that day a Clerk came down from the House of Lords-a Clerk in a peculiar wig-and brought with him a packet of Bills from the Upper Chamber. He (Mr. Warton) was very much interested in one of the measures which was in the packet-a Bill upon which he felt very stronglynamely, the Payment of Wages in Publichouses Bill. Whether that was a good or a bad Bill was not of the slightest importance in regard to the matter to which he was drawing attention; but being anxious to learn something about it, and to oppose it, and to prevent its too rapid progress through the House, he had gone to the Clerk at the Tablealways a most courteous gentleman-with a Notice of opposition in his hand. He had made inquiries of this gentleman, being anxious to ascertain the procedure in regard to Bills brought up from the House of Lords, and to learn it from the right source; and he had been told that, although the Bill had been brought in, no one had moved it. The Clerk was good enough to tell him that his suspicions were correct-for he had suspected that no one had moved the measure. He had naturally concluded from this that the Bill was not being advanced a stage at all. He was aware first reading to a Bill brought up from that it was always customary to give a the House of Lords without opposition; but he had not quite understood-nor did he yet quite understand-how the proceeding was done. He did not know whether the laying of it on the Table constituted a first reading, or whether MR. WARTON said, he was sorry to the Question was openly put from the have to take up the time of the House Chair? If the Question were put openly on this occasion; but he wished to do so from the Chair they would know where for the reason that he had endeavoured, they were, and would be able to give for the last two or three months, to find such opposition to a measure as they an opportunity to draw the attention of wished. However, on the occasion to the House to a certain matter without which he referred, although he had a being successful. The matter to which Notice of opposition ready in his hand, he alluded was one of considerable im- he could do nothing, as nothing seemed portance. It was a matter involving to be done with the Bill. When they the right of procedure; and, seeing that met again on the 29th March, after the Prime Minister was in his place, he the Easter Holidays, what did he find? hoped the right hon. Gentleman would Why, he found this Notice on the Paper give him his attention whilst he dealt "Payment of Wages in Public-houses with such an important subject. The Bill-Second Reading." On this he point he wished to raise was as to Bills had appealed to Mr. Speaker; but Mr. brought down from the other House, and Speaker would not assist him. He Question put. The House divided:-Ayes 82; Noes PARLIAMENT-ORDER OF BUSINESS- OBSERVATIONS. Mr. T. P. O'Connor At any asked whether it was right that a Bill, of which they had not seen the first reading, should be put down for the second reading on the day following the first reading-for as they could not do anything during the Vacation it was really the day following-and he had been answered in the affirmative. He had asked Mr. Speaker whether, in the spirit of the Half-past Twelve Rule, there ought not to be the same breathing space between the first and second readings, and Mr. Speaker had told him the proceedings were perfectly regular. No doubt that was so; but it was because they were regular, and because they were dangerous, that he wished now to bring the matter before the House. Subsequently, he was told that the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley) had done something or said something-what it was he did not know. The hon. Member might have gone up to the Table, and said he wanted the Bill to be read a first time; but whether he had done so or not he (Mr. Warton) could not say. rate, the Question was never put from the Chair. He preserved most carefully the catalogue of Bills as they appeared in the useful list published every night. Well, the list contained, under the head of Bills which had come down from the House of Lords, the name of the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, which had come down in the same packet as the Payment of Wages in Public-houses Prohibition Bill, tied with the very same piece of red tape. It was dated as having came from the Lords on March 20. These two Bills were brought in on the same night, laid on the Table in the same way, and the same thing was done with them, yet one was put down for second reading, whilst a record was simply placed against the other"Brought from the Lords." He was not able to move a Resolution; but he mentioned this matter in order to induce Mr. Speaker, or the House, or Her Majesty's Ministers, to say something about the Rule adopted, or which ought to be adopted, in this matter. The first reading of these Bills should be put from the Chair, or moved by someone, so that they might know where they were. He drew attention to this matter as much in the interest of the Liberal Party as of Her Majesty's Ministers, because the Liberal Party was now in a majority; but the day might come when they would be in a minority, and when Bills of which they disapproved might be brought up from the House of Lords. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present, House adjourned at a quarter before HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, 25th June, 1883. MINUTES.]- PUBLIC BILLS-First ReadingLocal Government Provisional Orders (No. 6)* (122); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8)* (123); Drainage (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2)* (124); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9)* (125). Second Reading-Tramways Provisional Orders (110); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3) (111); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 4) (104); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2) * (89); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 3)* (99); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5)* (100); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) (102); Local Government Provisional Order (Highways) (103); New Forest Highways* (101); Forest of Dean (Highways) (98). Committee-Sea Fisheries (83-127); Criminal Law Amendment (69-128). Report Marriage with a Deccased Wife's Sister (56-129). Third Reading-Lord Alcester's Grant (95); Lord Wolseley's Grant* (96), and passed. kind of immorality dealt with in the Bill. He thought, upon the whole, the Scottish people were very much like other people, and that the immorality of Scotland was about on a par with that of other parts of the United Kingdom. On that ground, he asked that Scotland should be included in the Bill. He was one of those who thought it very desirable that legislation of this kind should be made applicable, as far as possible, to the whole of the United Kingdom. If a Criminal Act of this kind were made applicable only on one side of the Border, all that those who wished to evade the law, and carry on the hideous traffic in young girls, would have to do, would be to go across to the other side, and carry on that business from that country with impunity. He would move the omission of the clause. Amendment moved, "To leave out Clause 2."-(The Marquess of Lothian.) THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE said, the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lothian) had raised very interesting questions. He (the Earl of Dalhousie) did not feel it necessary to follow him in his speculations, but would confine himself to saying that the Government would accept the Amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 3 (Procuring woman under age to be a common prostitute). On the Motion of The Earl CAIRNS, the following Amendment made:-In page 1, line 10, after ("prostitute ") insert ("Or procures or endeavours to procure any woman to leave the United Kingdom, or to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom, for the purpose of entering a brothel abroad, whether he shall or shall not inform the woman of such purpose.") THE EARL OF ABERDEEN said, he would propose the insertion of an Amendment, which would have the effect of bringing under the penalties of the Act any person who endeavoured to induce any woman to lead an immoral life, although there might be no fraud. THE MARQUESS OF BATH said, before it was accepted, he would point out that such a Proviso would be the cause of unlimited and unbounded extortion in every direction. The Marquess of Lothian THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE said, that he would, if it were now withdrawn, consider the subject before the Report; but he could not pledge himself to accept the Amendment. Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 4 (Procuring by fraud defilement of girl under age). On the Motion of The Earl of MILLTOWN, Amendment made, in page 1, lines 16 and 17, by striking out the words ("under the age of twenty-one years"). Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 5 (Abusing woman twelve years of age). under THE EARL OF MILLTOWN moved an Amendment, applying the penalties of the Bill to attempts to commit the offence specified, as well as to the actual commission of the offence, on the ground of the great difficulty in proving the completed offence. Amendment moved, in page 1, line 23. after ("abuses") to insert ("or shall attempt to carnally know and abuse.") -(The Earl of Milltown.) THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE opposed the Amendment. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, he thought the Amendment unnecessary. Attempts to commit the offence were already dealt with by law, and were punishable by two years' imprisonment, with hard labour. Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn. THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTER, in moving an Amendment to empower the infliction of corporal punishment upon an offender, said, that their Lordships Iwould be of one mind as to the undesirableness of unnecessarily augmenting corporal punishments, on account of its demoralizing effect; but, in this case, it was useless to consider that objection, for he thought all their Lordships would agree that it would be utterly impossible to further demoralize those who were sufficiently demoralized to be capable of committing a crime of this kind. They had simply to consider what punishment was most likely to deter those who might be disposed to commit the crime, or would be most painful and | might commit. Yet this Amendment was disagreeable to those who had committed really a proposal of that nature, inasmuch it. Those who were acquainted with as by it a man might first be flogged the administration of the Criminal Law and then sent to penal servitude for life. were of opinion that no punishment was Perhaps the Amendment might be more more feared or disliked by criminals acceptable if it had some limits as to the than corporal punishment. If that was age of the prisoners to be so punished, so, it was the best possible reason for and as to the number of strokes to be attaching this punishment to this most inflicted. atrocious offence. At present, it might LORD DENMAN said, that that very be inflicted for robbery from the person morning a case had been reported in the with violence, and it was credited with newspapers of a boy having been senhaving diminished the crime of garot- tenced to six strokes from a birch rod ting some years ago. But the crime in for stealing young ducks; but if the question was one that far more deserved punishment were authorized, it would that punishment than knocking a man be necessary to fix the number of lashes down and stealing his watch. Not long to prevent the power being abused. He ago, in his diocese, a man attacked a would, therefore, suggest that the punishlittle girl and flung her away in a statement should be limited to 25 lashes. of insensibility; and, if that man was scourged to the bone, would it not serve him right? There was, unfortunately, among the lowest class, a superstition as to an advantage to be gained by committing this offence; and that superstition rendered it still more desirable to prevent the commission of the crime by corporal punishment. It was emphatically a poor man's question, as the children of the poor were most liable to become the victims of this crime. For these reasons, he proposed that the Court might adjudge an offender to be privately whipped," and the number of the strokes, and the instrument with which they shall be inflicted, shall be specified in the sentence." Amendment moved, In page 2, line 2, after ("hard labour") to insert ("and the court before which such offender shall be tried and convicted may, in addition, adjudge such offender to be privately whipped, and the number of the strokes, and the instrument with which they shall be inflicted, shall be specified in the sentence.") (The Lord Bishop of Rochester.) THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE said, he fully sympathized with the intentions of the right rev. Prelate; but he thought it would be impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment, seeing that, beyond importing what would be an entirely novel proposition as regarded the law into the clause, persons who were convicted under it would be, as the clause now stood, liable to a lengthened term of imprisonment, or penal servitude for life. Nobody would dream of flogging a man first and hanging him afterwards, no matter what offence he THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, he deeply regretted that Her Majesty's Government could not accept the Amendment. He should like to know the reason why? The offence was one of the most horrible that could be conceived, the most defenceless class of the community was especially exposed to it, and a widely-spread superstition made it far commoner than it would be. The men who committed it were unable to foresee what was involved in penal servitude for life; but they understood the pain arising from corporal punishment. If ever corporal punishment was a just instrument to be placed in the hands of a law-giver, for the purpose of repressing odious crimes, it was in the present Therefore, if the Amendment were pressed to a Division, he should vote for it. case. EARL STANHOPE remarked, that the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill had said that acceptable if it had some limit of age of the "Perhaps the Amendment might be more un prisoners to be so punished." THE BISHOP OF LONDON said, hej Women and children could, of course, fully agreed in the Amendment; but he be excluded, and the Press would not must object to the suggested limitation report indecent details. of age, because flogging was not only more deserved, but was more felt, by a hardened ruffian than by a boy. EARL CAIRNS said, he freely agreed with the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Fitzgerald) that they ought to be extremely careful before they sacrificed the great benefits which arose from the publicity of our Courts. At the same time, this was a matter which had been very much considered by a Committee of their Lordships' House; and they came to the conclusion that, in these cases, the injury which would be caused to public morals by the publicity of the proceedings would be greater than any benefits which could be gained by such publicity. It appeared to him that nothing but evil could result from al LORD BRAMWELL said, he did not think the Amendment imported anything novel into the law, because the punishment of penal servitude for life and a flogging could already be inflicted for highway robbery with violence. If their Lordships only knew, as well as he (Lord Bramwell) did, who the persons were who committed these offences, they would find that, in all probability, the anticipation of a flogging would have a far greater deterring influence upon such persons than anything else; and particularly upon those who com-lowing a general concourse of men and mitted it on defenceless children under the influence of a detestable superstition. THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY said, he also believed that flogging would have a more deterrent effect than any other punishment. He once took the opportunity to put the question to a number of the criminal classes, and he found that they preferred months of imprisonment to one flogging. THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE said, that, seeing the great unanimity that prevailed among their Lordships, the Government were only too glad to be coerced in this matter, and would accept the Amendment. LORD ELLENBOROUGH said, before the Amendment was agreed to, he must remind the Government and their Lordships of the difficulty which was experienced in "another place," with respect to flogging in the Army. Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly. THE EARL OF MILLTOWN proposed, as an Amendment, to omit the last paragraph of the clause, which empowers the magistrates to exclude the public from the Court during the hearing of a charge. Amendment moved, in page 2, line 2, leave out from ("labour") to end of Clause. (The Earl of Milltown.) LORD FITZGERALD, in supporting the Amendment, said, he believed that publicity and the pressure of public opinion were necessary safeguards to the administration of the Criminal Law. women to be present in Court; and if the public were admitted, reports of the proceedings would be published that must be injurious to public morals. He regretted that there were newspapers which published cases that had better be left unreported. LORD TRURO said, he fully agreed with his noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns). He (Lord Truro) was of opinion that reports of indecent cases tended to suggest to the minds of uneducated people offences which they would otherwise never think of committing. THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH, in supporting the Amendment, said, he wished to call their Lordships' attention to the deterrent effect that would be produced on many persons in a superior station in life, contemplating a crime of this kind, by the knowledge that there would be a public trial. It was not an uncommon thing for persons of the upper and middle classes to entreat a magistrate to hear their case in private, because they did not wish their names to be exposed. And the magistrate, was often highly praised for refusing that request, on the ground that the dread of a public trial had the effect of seriously deterring a person who contemplated committing an offence. This consideration might be fairly set against the injury to public morals of which the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns) had spoken. THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON said, it should be remembered that the Bill only empowered the Court, if it should think fit, to order the public |