, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he understood it was not the intention of the Government to offer any opposition to the second reading, and he thought it would be more convenient to postpone the consideration of the measure till the House went into Committee. He would not therefore detain the House more than a few minutes. The Bill contained eight clauses, which were intended to carry into effect seven distinct measures of amendment in the law. With respect to five of those measures, and possibly six, he thought he might venture to say that no difference of opinion existed, and when the time should come to consider the entire Bill in Committee—although, undoubtedly, explanation would be necessary, and some discussion might be thought appropriate—he did not imagine that any opposition would be raised to any one of those five, or possibly six, clauses. One clause, however—the third—stood upon a different footing. By this clause it was proposed to render admissible as witnesses the parties accused in all criminal cases. With regard to this clause he would not be dealing fairly with the House if he did not at once state that, although he rejoiced to say this clause had the approbation of more than one of Her Majesty's Judges, whose high authority was entitled to every consideration, yet he was quite aware that in the profession of the law, as well as in that House, a very great difference of opinion might be expected to be expressed and enforced by the votes of Members of the House when the clause came to be considered in Committee. He would only further say that in asking that the Bill be now read a second time without opposition, and he hoped without discussion—inasmuch as it would be necessary to discuss every clause in Committee—he should not assume that Her Majesty's Government, or any individual Member of the House, by assenting to the second reading, implied any approbation of any particular clause in the Bill. A Bill had been brought in by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the county Cork (Mr. Scully) which sought, in somewhat different language, to effect the same object as the third clause in this Bill. He (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) conceived that it would be somewhat inconvenient to discuss, upon the two separate Bills, at two different periods of time, exactly the same measure of legislation, and such was the case with his hon. Friend's Bill and the third clause of his own. He, therefore, appealed to his hon. and learned Friend to postpone the second reading of his Bill.

said, he felt no indisposition to yield to the wish of his hon. and learned Friend, though for himself he thought it would be more convenient to discuss the principle of the Bill upon the second reading. The point, however, was comparatively unimportant, for his own Bill merely embodied in one clause the proposals which were spread over three or four clauses of the present measure. He understood that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government that his own Bill, that of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and a third Bill, having the same object, should be discussed together. It was rather anomalous, certainly, to find Lord Derby's Attorney General in the foremost rank of law reformers, while the Law Officers of a Liberal Government opposed his efforts. The anomaly, however, formed only part of that still greater contradiction under which Conservative Liberals sat on the Opposition side of the House, and Liberal Conservatives filled the Ministerial Benches. The state of things was not one which commanded his approval; these political "crosses" and admixtures of Conservative Southdowns with the Liberal Cotswolds never could lead to good results. To outward appearance everything was smooth; but for all that the black hoof peeped out occasionally, and he thought Her Majesty's Ministers would become more sincere and earnest reformers if they were compelled for a time to occupy the Opposition Benches. He gave the hon. and learned Member opposite credit for being a sincere legal reformer; and he hoped the Attorney General would likewise become as earnest in this respect as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, for otherwise his official position would enable him to hinder useful changes. Among all men, and especially lawyers, there was a tendency to cling to familiar ideas which, from constant daily habit, became stereotyped in their very nature. At one time he, too, held such stereotyped opinions, but when he became a legal reformer the first thing he did was to tear up by the roots all those legal notions imbibed in a long course of years. In compliance with the appeal made to him he should postpone his Bill to the same day as that selected by the hon. and learned Member.

said, the House desired to approach all subjects such as the present without anything like party spirit; it was, therefore, with regret he heard the insinuation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that law reform was made a matter of competition between one side of the House and the other. The practical tendency of any change that might be introduced, and whether the administration of justice would be improved or impeded thereby, were the grounds to which the House ought properly to direct its attention, and he could not see what that had to do with political differences between one side of the House and the other. He gave every credit to his hon. and learned Friend for the sincerity of his desire to amend the law, and he was confident that on these and other occasions the true course was to do justice to each other's views and intentions. The present Bill consisted of eight clauses, nearly all of which dealt with different subjects. Without anticipating the discussion upon the Bill, he might say that if the measure were confined to the first two and the eighth clauses, there might be very little difference of opinion in relation to them; but as to every one of the others, he felt very considerable doubt. The third clause especially, enabling the accused parties in criminal cases to become witnesses in their own behalf, of course subject to the usual right of cross-examination, seemed to him repugnant to the spirit of our whole legislation. He thought that if adopted, instead of working in the interests of justice, it would go far to introduce a system of moral torture like that prevailing in some parts of the Continent; and he doubted very much whether innocent persons would be likely to gain so much as his hon. and learned Friend hoped, while the system might very possibly operate in favour of the guilty. It was his duty to state that the present views of the Government were opposed to the application; and of course the views of the Government on such a matter were the views of the noble and learned Lord his immediate superior, which were entitled to so much weight. It was very desirable, on a matter of such grave importance, that the opinions of all who were most conversant with the working of the laws in England and Ireland should be obtained; and if it should turn out that before the day mentioned by his hon. and learned Friend the Government were unable to obtain the necessary information from the Judges and others whom it was their duty to consult, he felt sure his hon. and learned Friend would not oppose any reasonable proposition of adjournment. He also deemed it expedient that the discussion, when it took place, should not be upon a Wednesday, on which day the attendance of Members was usually limited, but should take its place with the ordinary business of the House, at a time when professional men were released from their engagements, and when the question, though a legal one, might be submitted for the opinion of the House at large.

wished to receive from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Suffolk (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) some assurance that the Bill would not act retrospectively, inasmuch as anxiety was felt on the point by the parties in such cases as that of "Shedden v. Patrick," now awaiting a hearing before the House of Lords, who in the event of a new trial might have the whole proceedings gone over again, but under a different state of the law, should the Bill pass.

said, he hoped the Attorney General would reconsider his decision with regard to the third clause. There were many cases to which the principle of that clause might be extended with advantage. Take, for instance, a case of libel. If a prosecutor proceeded by action, the defendant could give evi- dence, but if he proceeded by indictment, the defendant's mouth would be closed. Why should a person indicted for libel not be allowed to give evidence as well as if he were a defendant in an action for libel? There were many cases in which, without interfering with the old established views of the profession, alterations might be beneficially made. At present it frequently happened that a man was convicted because he was not allowed to give evidence on his own behalf, or have the evidence of his wife taken. He would suggest that there would be inconvenience in taking the Committee so early as that day three weeks, inasmuch as the assizes would not be all over until after Easter.

said, he regretted the union of so many subjects in one Bill. Some of the provisions were so objectionable in principle that he thought the discussion upon it ought to have been taken on the second reading, and the Bill sent to the Committee with the approval of the House or thrown out altogether. Hon. Members would, for instance, recollect that in the case of actions for breach of promise the exception which it was sought by the Bill to dispense with was made deliberately when the change in the law of evidence was adopted. He might perhaps be allowed to observe with regard to such actions that he never knew one of which he could not say that, in his opinion, it would have been better that it had not been brought on for trial; but if they were to have breach of promise trials at all it was evident that they would be greatly multiplied if the plaintiffs themselves were allowed to give evidence of the promise. Then with regard to another class of cases, the result of the proposed change would, he thought, be that that class of actions which were now brought nominally by fathers on behalf of daughters would be converted into actions for breach of promise, and he, therefore, maintained it was right that those actions should stand on a different footing from other causes. He had as great a desire as the hon. and learned Gentleman himself that the courts should on all occasions arrive at a just conclusion; and, therefore, he might be permitted to say the law of evidence as it stood led, in almost every instance, to a just conclusion, and that it was wiser to submit to such slight evils as it might occasion, rather than invite greater. When it was borne in mind how an accused person was protected from the moment when he was taken into custody—how he was warned when taken before a magistrate not to say anything to criminate himself—how on the trial everything connected with his past life was excluded, and any allusion to any previous conviction shut out, so that he might be tried on the particular merits of the case itself, it would be at once seen how sweeping was the alteration proposed. Under its operation the defendant would be liable to be examined, and then cross-examined, as to his whole career by the opposing counsel, who would not think he had discharged his duty unless he put a pressure upon him, which, in many cases, a man would not be able to resist; so that while a person with a nimble tongue might be able to go through the ordeal without suffering any damage, another not gifted with the same expertness of speech might—although innocent—be convicted simply because he did not happen to be able to give a ready answer. He thought that such a system would be worse than the interrogation in France, when that was done by the Judge himself—though the Judges in some instances, he feared, forgot their judicial capacity. They ought to be sure that there was something very objectionable in the present state before they adopted such an alteration; but he confessed he had not heard any grievance alleged which could render it necessary for them to have recourse to so great a change in our judicial system. It was, however, said in support of the change that the parties to an action in civil cases were allowed to give evidence, and that that mode of procedure was attended with advantage. But in such cases each of the parties concerned, it should be recollected, had a deep interest in the result; while the prosecutor in a criminal case would for the most part give a good deal to be out of it, caring little in many instances whether the accused person was convicted or not; again, in the case of the most heinous criminal offences the prisoner would often be left to tell his story without contradiction, the only person whose evidence could have convicted him having been entirely removed from the scene. Then, again, if a man were prepared to give evidence, and his counsel should think it inexpedient that he should do so, it was obvious that the retort on the other side would be that the allegations made against him could not be contradicted, although of course there might be many reasons independent of a man's being guilty which might lead him not to wish to come forward as a witness. On the whole, to render prisoners competent though not compellable to give evidence on their own behalf would, in his opinion, so far from being an improvement, tend to prejudice the course of justice. Such an alteration in the existing law, if proposed at all, was one which he thought ought to be introduced to the House with all the influence and authority of the Government, who alone could obtain such an attendance as would secure for it more attention than it was likely to receive in the hands of a private Member. For his own part he believed the proposed alteration was by no means called for, and that it would operate more or less in violation of the principles of justice.

then fixed the 22nd instant for going into Committee on the Bill, expressing a hope that in the meantime the Attorney General would be enabled to appoint some other day for its coming on, when there would be a chance of having its provisions discussed in a full House. In answer to the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop), he begged to say that it was by no means his intention that the Bill should act retrospectively.

reminded the hon. and learned Gentleman that his Act of 1858 had—though he felt assured contrary to his intention—a retrospective action, He was afraid the Shedden case, which had already been attended with great expense, might, under the operation of the Bill as it stood, should a new trial be allowed, be tried again in the Probate Court under entirely new conditions.

said, that before these Bills were committed, he would endeavour to obtain from the Government an opportunity when they might receive that attention in a full House which the hon. Gentleman wished.

said, he would allow his Bill to follow the same course.

rose to move that the Chairman be directed to move the House that leave be given to bring in a Bill for the abolition of Fines for non-attendance at a place of Divine worship on Sunday. The hon. Member said, that the legislation on this subject dated from the time of Queen Elizabeth, early in whose reign a law was passed, providing that everybody should forfeit a small sum who did not on the Sabbath attend the parish church. A still more stringent measure was, however, passed in the 23rd year of the same reign, and was expressly revived in the reign of James I., the object being, he believed, to force the Roman Catholic population of this island to conform to Protestantism. After the Revolution an Act of William and Mary gave relief to the Protestant Dissenters, but it was not till the reign of George III. that a Bill for abolishing pains and penalties in the case of Roman Catholics was introduced into the House of Commons. That Bill, however, did not dispense with the penalties to which those who absented themselves from Divine service on Sunday were subjected by the Act of Elizabeth. Now, this being the state of the law, this subject had been recently brought before the public by the occurrence of two cases in which some very severe and stringent measures had been carried out against working people for not going to church on Sunday. He would deal fairly with the House, and at once admit that these persons were not convicted and punished under the Act which he wished to repeal. One happened at a place called Legh, in Lancashire. Some labourers had been discovered to have saved their hay on Sunday, and a fine was imposed upon them which it appeared they could very ill afford to pay—and indeed as one of them said, it would have been much better if the magistrates had relieved them out of private charity than fined them—and consequently their goods were seized under a distress warrant. The conviction was afterwards quashed in the Court of Queen's Bench, he believed on the ground that as the people were farming on their own land they did not come under the description of labourers. The other case occurred at Driffield, in Yorkshire. A man named Isaac Watson was fined—not indeed for not having gone to church, though it was at first supposed that he was punished under the Act of Elizabeth; but it turned out afterwards, as the result of an investigation by the Home Office, that the conviction was under an Act of Geo. IV., and was founded on a contract between the man and his mistress (who was the tenant and manager of a farm) that he should attend public worship at church on Sunday. The Home Office were of opinion that if there was any special contract between the parties, the man was liable to be punished for having infringed it. It might possibly be objected to his Motion that upon neither of these occasions did any distress warrant issue under the Act he proposed to repeal, nor was any one fined under that Act. To that his answer was that in either case that course might have been adopted had the parties been a little more deeply read in the law. They might have been prosecuted under the Act, and as the magistrates would have had the lex scripta before them, however repugnant to their feelings it might have been, they would have had no alternative but to inflict the penalty. He believed that no portion of the community would deprecate the enforcement of the statute more than the clergy of the Church of England; but there was no security that the Act might not be put in force any day by a malicious or ill-disposed person; and he (Mr. Clifford) must confess he should deem it a very unfortunate thing if such an event were to happen, as it would naturally lead the uneducated to suppose there was one law for the rich and another for the poor. He trusted that for these reasons the House would assent to the Motion. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution.

regretted that he had only just then entered the House, having been able only that moment to leave a Committee upstairs; but as he understood allusion had been made to the case of Watson, which occurred in his county, he wished to state what he understood to be the facts of the case. The apparent charge upon which the man had been punished was for not going to church on Sunday; but the truth was that the offence he had committed was a breach of the contract he had entered into with his mistress. It was the custom in that part of the country for farm servants to be hired by the year, and it had been the habit of the lady occupying the farm in question to make it a condition with her labourers before she engaged them, that they should attend some religious service on Sundays. That was not an illegal condition, nor was it in his opinion an unreasonable condition. At all events, her labourers had the option of either agreeing to the condition or not. Watson did agree to it, but did not fulfil his engagement; and the lady accordingly took him before the magistrates. All that Watson had to say for himself was that he considered he had a right to do exactly as he chose on Sundays. He did not say he objected to go to church. The magistrates, as the engagement was not denied, felt that they had no alternative but to convict. They dealt with Watson, however, in the most lenient manner: they did not inflict a fine, and they only imposed the costs of the summons. He would appeal to the House, under these circumstances, whether this man had a right to complain of being had up for breaking his engagement.

confessed his disappointment at hearing the observations of the noble Lord (Lord Hotham). When the noble Lord rose, he (Mr. Neate) thought he was going to explain matters, and to repudiate on the part of the magistrates with whom he was connected any intention whatever of repealing this Act. Instead of that, the noble Lord had actually endeavoured to justify the conduct of the magistrates in the case referred to. He (Mr. Neate) wholly deprecated the course taken.

said, he believed that what the noble Lord had stated was quite right—namely, that the magistrates! had exercised the jurisdiction conferred on them by convicting the man in question of a breach of engagement. He thought that the mistress of this man did not actually insist upon her servant going to church; but she was naturally dissatisfied at his refusal to go to any place of worship.

thought the magistrates ought to have declined to have anything to do with the matter. The sooner Acts of Parliament like these were swept from the statute-book the better it would be. They were wholly unsuited to the present times—and indeed to any times—and the thanks of the House were due to the hon. Member who had introduced this Bill. Surely it was sufficient punishment for a servant to be dismissed from service if he would not conform to the rules of the house and attend some place of worship on Sunday, without being liable to be fined and punished by an Act of Parliament. Such laws as these fell upon the poor people of the country, who had just as much right to think for themselves as any Member of this House. It was not because a man had contracted to be a servant that therefore he was not to be allowed to think for himself as much as any one else in a more favoured position in life. He contracted to perform certain services, and so long as he performed them properly, neither his master nor mistress had any right whatever to interfere with his religious opinions, whatever those opinions might be.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to facilitate the traffic of the metropolis and to improve the communications across the Thames by opening the present toll-bridges for the free use of the public, said, it was necessary to say little more in its support than that in a metropolis of 3,000,000 persons there were only three free bridges connecting the northern and southern parts of London. About a century ago Westminster Bridge was built, and a little while afterwards Blackfriars. London Bridge has since been rebuilt at the expense of the city, and these are the only free bridges of the metropolis. Every one knew that the northern portion of the metropolis was overcrowded, that the streets were overloaded with traffic, and that there was a difficulty in finding house accommodation, in consequence of those whose occupations or business was connected with this great City being confined to the north side of London, by the want of free bridge accommodation. No persons suffered more than the working classes from the pre- sent state of things, and none would receive a greater boon from the opening of a free communication across the river to the south side, where land was to be had cheaper, and where there was room for the metropolis to spread. As it would be necessary to provide funds, he proposed to enable the Metropolitan Board of Works to levy a rate over the metropolitan area not exceeding one halfpenny in the pound for a term not exceeding twenty years. He proposed that the district in which the toll-paying bridges were placed should also be taxed to the same amount as the tax levied upon the whole metropolitan district by the Board of Works. He also proposed an additional coal tax of 1d. per ton. A fund of between £50,000 and £60,000 would thus be raised, without bearing heavily on any particular interest, which would be applied for the purpose of gradually buying all the present toll-bridges. He had taken power to enable the City of London, jointly with the Metropolitan Board of Works, to acquire Southwark Bridge. He also proposed other powers, which would enable the Government to dispose of Chelsea Bridge. The contrast between London and the city of Paris was remarkable. While London had only three free bridges, Paris had twenty-three. Seven of those had belonged to private companies; but since 1848 the municipal authorities had bought them all, for the purpose of throwing them open to the public. Waterloo Bridge was built in the very heart of London, and it was thought that the traffic would be so large as not only to pay 10 per cent to the shareholders, but also to provide a surplus fund to pay off the capital, and to enable the bridge to be thrown open to the public. So far, however, were these expectations from being realized, that the original adventurers had never received a farthing. It was now certain that the public would not in any sufficient numbers pay tolls, and that tolls acted as a deterrent to the use of bridges. Southwark Bridge, on the other hand, had been thrown open free as an experiment, and almost within two days the traffic had been increased ninefold. If the measure should pass a second time, he would ask the House to refer it to a Select Committee.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to improve the system of registration of writs relative to land in Scotland, and to amend the law relating to inhibitions and adjudications, said, the Bill related to the same subject as one which had already been brought in by the hon. and learned Lord Advocate, and he therefore felt bound to give some explanation of the reasons which had induced him to propose his own measure. There had long been in Scotland registers of writs relating to landed estates. Those registers were of two kinds—one, what are called "particular registers" for counties, accessible to all at some central place in the county, or group of counties united, and a "general register" kept in Edinburgh, in which those who had lands in more than one county might register them together. In the course of time it had become the custom to register lands lying within one county only either in the particular counties in which they lie, or in the general register at Edinburgh, in the option of the party. The consequence was, that, if a man wished to obtain information in reference to a landed estate, he had now to search two registers—the general register in Edinburgh and the particular register in the county. The object of the Bill of the learned Lord Advocate, as well as his own, was to do away with one of these registers, and in future to make only one registry competent. The two Bills correspond, except in one respect. The mode in which the Lord Advocate proposed to effect the object was by abolishing all the particular registries, and requiring all writs relative to land to be brought up to one general registry in the Register House in Edinburgh. He proposed to bring the whole registers of all deeds throughout Scotland to Edinburgh, and to have them given in and recorded there. Now, his (Mr. Dunlop's) plan was to abolish the central registry and keep up the particular registries. He thought there ought to be in each particular locality the register of each particular district, although afterwards the record books might be sent up to Edinburgh and kept there. There had never been, so far as he understood, any objection raised to the manner in which the deeds were recorded in the local register, or any complaints made of the writs being incorrectly registered in particular localities. The reason for wishing to bring them all to Edinburgh and to abolish the local registries seemed to him to be mainly a sort of theoretical idea of centralizing the whole matter in Edinburgh. Now, he had no feeling whatever against Edinburgh—he had resided and practised there many years—but his opinion was that it was best to keep up the particular registers of the several counties. The great object in view was to secure the convenience of those who are called upon to register writs in connection with landed property, and he could not see how that convenience was to be secured if the Bill of the Lord Advocate was adopted. There was also a further point. The particular registries were situated in various counties, and the salaries and fees now received by the officers attached to these amount to £9,600 per annum. If those registries were abolished, in addition to the cost of establishing a new central office in Edinburgh, it would be necessary to make compensation to those whose future services will be dispensed with; whereas by maintaining the present local registries, no compensation would be required. He understood that the Lord Advocate would not oppose the introduction of this Bill, and he would put it down for a second reading for the same day as that on which the Bill of his learned Friend will come before the House. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to improve the system of Registration of Writs relative to Land in Scotland, and to amend the Law relating to inhibitions and adjudications.

seconded the Motion.

said, he not only did not object to the introduction of his hon. Friend's Bill, but he rejoiced at it, and should be glad of any aid and assistance he could afford in accomplishing the object both had in view. The introduction of these Bills was in itself an admission that there was a grievance to be remedied, and the question was reduced to this— what was the best remedy? It appeared to him that his own Bill offered the best, for it went beyond the Bill of his hon. Friend. No doubt there was some' hardship in abolishing ancient local offices to which the local practitioners conceived themselves entitled. But the question was not a matter in regard to the profession in the provinces or in Edinburgh. It was one that related to the landed interest, and to those who had an interest in land—the owners of land, and those who buy and sell land and lend money upon it. The question was whether they were to be taxed in order to keep up these provincial offices, or whether the House should adopt the proposition he made, that the fees for the general expenses of the transfer of land should be reduced? Now, what was the state of the matter? These particular registers were not kept in each county, but in twenty districts, some of them extending over one county, and there was also in Edinburgh a general register. These registers were both established by an Act of Parliament passed more than 200 years ago, in 1617. Somewhere about the beginning of this century, it was found that these local registers were in great confusion, and arrangements were made by which they were transmitted to Edinburgh, not at particular intervals, but the keepers of the local registers having only one book, transmitted it when filled to the general registry. When land was transferred, and the search for encumbrances was made, it was now necessary to search in Edinburgh both the general and the particular registry, because the district register being transmitted to Edinburgh it remained at the General Register House, and must be searched there. In addition to that it was necessary to search the current volume of the particular register in the district in which the property was situated. And there were at least two other registers in the Register House that must also be searched. The inconvenience and expense of all this was manifest; and what his Bill proposed was this—that the county registers shall be entirely abolished in each district; that a register in Edinburgh shall be kept as a county register, and all writs be registered there. In that manner they would save the expense to the holders of land and dealers in land of keeping up these twenty establishments, and reduce them to one. What was of still greater importance, and what his learned Friend's proposal did not touch at all, we should enable the persons employed to make the indices and abstracts of these registers, which alone were to be searched to keep their work up. At this moment they were five years behind, and even more than that in some cases. If his Bill be adopted, the registers in future would be made up in Edinburgh alone, and it would be possible to keep them up day by day; and thus there would be a great saving of expense in the matter of search. The hon. Gentleman said that the public had shown that they prefer the particular to the general registers by registering their deeds in the particular and not in the general register; but he ought also to have informed the House that the public had also indicated that it was utterly indifferent to them, whether they transmitted their writs by post, or delivered them personally, for there was a return appended to the Report of the Commissioners employed to investigate the subject, by which it appeared that a much larger proportion of writs—in one district four-fifths—were sent by post. Now it was quite as easy to send the writs to be recorded in Edinburgh by post, as it was to send them to be recorded in Glasgow, Aberdeen, or Forfar by post. And what were the advantages of adopting the system of a general register? In the first place, instead of keeping up twenty local registers there would be only one register; and that way then would be the benefit, not of centralization, but of having all the registers more efficiently kept under one superintendence and management by a uniform system carried out by a body of clerks skilled in the work. Centralization has nothing whatever to do with the matter, but the simple question was how to keep our registers in an efficient condition. Was it not better to do that, and to place the whole of them under one management, than to have the work spread over twenty different districts, where neither superintendence, uniformity, or skill could be of the slightest avail? No doubt there were a certain number of persons connected with the local registers who had a material interest in retaining them. In Glasgow the fees received amount to about £5,000 a year, in Aberdeen to £1,200, and in Forfar to upwards of £1,000; while in other parts the amount of the fees was also very considerable. Now in regard to the matter of compensation, it could be shown that the Register House was not only a self-supporting institution, but that there was a large balance of fees received, amounting, I believe, to between £7,000 and £8,000 a year. He thought it very hard that the landed interest should be taxed to the extent of a surplus of £7,000 or £8,000 a year, in order that that sum should be paid over to the Exchequer. What he desired to do, but what we should never be able to do if his hon. Friend's suggestion was adopted—was, in the first place, to make the system of registration such that you would be able by turning to the indices of the general register to make searches with the greatest possible facility; and secondly, to reduce the expense, already very heavy, upon the transfer of land. It was in order to take a step in that direction that he had been induced to propose his measure; but it was absolutely essential as the first step that we should bring these registers to one focus. That was the first thing to be accomplished, and it was perfectly certain that registration by post was quite as secure and convenient as by personal attention and attendance at the office. If that were so, no interests would be involved in this question, except that of the keepers of the local registers. Of course it would be the duty of the House to consider the position in which they would be placed; and, if considered reasonable, to grant compensation.

, in reply, said, that his hon. and learned Friend had stated that the grand object of his Bill was to facilitate the search of the registers, and that it was incompatible with registration in the country that the books could be searched with that rapidity and care which was desirable. Now, it was true that hitherto the books had not come up rapidly, and that there had been great delay and inconvenience. But why was it that these books have not come up? It was because the Register House in Edinburgh had sent out large oblong forms, all of a size, to small as well as to large districts, and they had not been sent up to Edinburgh until they were entirely filled. The result of that has been that several of the registers have got behind; but the remedy for that is what I propose to do in this Bill—namely, to require the registrars to send them up every six months.