1899.] The Money-lending Bill. [121
unusual course of moving its recommittal in respect of the clause under which women councillors and aldermen were recognised, on the ground that the House was taken by surprise when the clause was passed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir M. Hicks- Beach, urged the mover not to press his amendment, hinting that the other House might be trusted to do what they both wished. Mr. Labouchere (Northampton) also thought it best " to leave the lords and the ladies to fight it out," and this view prevailed for a while, but the spirit of both parties was now thoroughly roused, and the women's rights question was warmly debated on the platform and in the press.
The example of Lord James of Hereford in introducing a bill for dealing with money-lenders had been followed by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Russell of Killowen, with a measure for checking corruption. In presenting the bill (April 20) Lord Bussell had explained that its object was to check, by making them criminal, a large number of inequitable and illegal secret payments, all of which were dishonest, and tended to shake confidence between man and man, and to discourage honest trade and enterprise. The preamble was in effect a copy of the finding on this subject of a special committee appointed by the London Chamber of Commerce. The first two clauses of the bill made the gift, offer, receipt and solicitation of any corrupt payments criminal offences. Sections 7 and 8 made it an offence either to receive, make or offer a secret gift in considera- tion of the recipient giving advice to a third person for the benefit of the donor. Another clause in the bill was aimed at the prevention of giving false receipts, which were the result of making deductions in lieu of bribes. The bill provided that though a witness might give answers tending to criminate him- self, it would be in the discretion of the judge to grant him a certificate of indemnity. The Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Halsbury, whilst welcoming the bill as a much-needed reform, feared that the difficulty of devising means by which the practices could be put down would be found insurmountable. No discus- sion, however, took place on the proposal until the motion for its second reading (June 6), in which Lord Eussell explained at some length what had occurred since its introduction. The bill had been widely circulated among chambers of commerce, and these had generally approved its principle, though some took excep- tion to details, and he should himself propose amendments in committee. The Bishops of London and Winchester spoke warmly in support of the principle of the bill, and made certain suggestions as to its application.
Two days later (June 8) the bill was formally considered in committee ; and, after some discussion as to whether it should be referred to a standing committee, was finally dealt with by the whole House. No steps, however, were taken to proceed with the bill beyond that stage, and it was ultimately dropped as was the Money-Lending Bill, although in the latter case the bill had
