said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If he will furnish to the House a Return of the names of the Civil Officers of the Royal Engineers who have died on foreign service during the past ten years; and, why their widows have not had pensions allotted to them, as is the case with the widows of the other officers of the Royal Engineers, and whether the Government purpose to make them such provision in future?

, in reply, said, he should be happy to give a list of the names asked for. With respect to the second Question of the hon. Baronet, his answer was that those officers referred to were under the Superannuation Act, and therefore were not entitled to the advantages alluded to.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Government intend to extend the operation of the Naval Savings Banks to all the ships in the Mediterranean Squadron, and to the Navy generally, and when?

, in reply, said, the experiment of establishing savings banks on board Her Majesty's vessels had been tried with success on board the Victory, Lord Clarence Paget's flag-ship in the Mediterranean. During the first three months of its establishment there were 292 depositors, and the amount deposited upwards of £3,500. The result had been considered so satisfactory by the Admiralty that they had directed the establishment of savings banks on board all the ships composing the Mediterranean squadron. They were not, however, prepared to extend them generally throughout the navy until they had had further experience.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, When he proposes to bring in his Bill for the better regulation of the Importation of Foreign Cattle; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take into consideration the expediency of appointing Quarantine Ports for store stock, as well as the slaughter of fat stock at the place of disembarkation, coming from places known to be infected?

said, the Order for the appointment of quarantine ports was passed on the 10th of November, 1866, and the Order for the slaughter of cattle at the place of disembarkation on the 26th of May in that year. Therefore the two provisions which the hon. Member desired to see carried out had already been fulfilled. It was quite true that an exception was made with regard to the Metropolitan Cattle Market, because there was great difficulty in supplying that market with a sufficient quantity of meat. An Order had been passed permitting cattle to be sent direct from the ports of Southampton, Harwich, and London, to the cattle market for the purpose of immediate slaughter, but under restrictions which it was supposed would prevent the spread of the cattle plague. With regard to the other part of the Question, any port might be made a quarantine port if desired, but the expense was so great—no less than £2 per head—that importers were not very eager to see a port turned into a quarantine port.

said, he wished to know, whether it is intended to compel the slaughter of cattle at the place of disembarkation?

said, that under the Order he had just alluded to, all fat stock imported from abroad had to be slaughtered at the port of disembarkation, except at the three ports he had named, and from those places they must be sent direct to the Metropolitan Cattle Market.

said, he wished to ask the noble Lord when he intends to bring in his Bill for the better regulation of the importation of foreign cattle?

said, the Bill had been introduced into the House of Lords in order to save time, owing to the press of business in that House, arising from the protracted discussions on Reform. He believed the second reading of the Bill would be taken in the other House in about three-quarters of an hour.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether it is proposed to delay the publication of the Report upon the state of Education in America and Canada, addressed by the Rev. James Fraser to the Middle-class Schools Inquiry Commission, and the Commission appointed to inquire into the Schools in Scotland, and transmitted by the last-named Commissions with their Report (see p. xxi.), but not published therewith?

said, in reply, that all the Reports of Royal Commissioners came within the province of the Home Department alone, and he was not able to give, in consequence, a very precise answer to the Question. He understood that the Scotch Commission had had this Report in type before them; and they had made frequent allusions to it in their Report, which was laid on the table on the 15th of this month. He saw Mr. Fraser's Report about half an hour ago, and he had been informed that it would be kept back until the Middle-class Schools Inquiry Commission had made their Report.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill this Session to amend the Act for the Relief of the Poor in Ireland, to the extent of granting outdoor relief, in like manner as under the Act for the Relief of the Poor in England and Wales?

said, in reply, that a larger power existed in Ireland than in England for granting outdoor relief, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman there was no intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to propose any alteration in that law.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that in Ireland no property not exceeding £4 in value is rated; and therefore that the proposed Parliamentary Rating Franchise could not devolve on occupiers in that country at or below that amount; and, if so, whether he proposes to establish a lower Parliamentary Franchise in England than in Ireland?

Sir, the first Question of my hon. Friend appears to me not to be stated in exactly correct language. It assumes that no property in Ireland not exceeding £4 in value is rated; but I believe I am right in stating that all property in that country under £4 in value is rated. Therefore, the foundation of my hon. Friend's first question is incorrect. With regard to the second Question, Whether Her Majesty's Government propose to establish a lower Parliamentary franchise in England than in Ireland, I think it would be more convenient if my hon. Friend would wait till my noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland brings forward the Irish Reform Bill; but, at the same time, I may be permitted to remind my hon. Friend that for the last five-and-thirty years the franchises in England and Ireland have not been identical.

said, he would beg to call the attention of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to the List of the Gentlemen whom the hon. Member for Meath proposes to nominate on the Select Committee on the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether a Minister of the Crown or a Law Officer ought not to be placed on that Committee?

, in reply, said, his attention had been drawn to the constitution of this Committee. He regretted that the names had been placed on the Paper before he had been afforded an opportunity of approving the constitution of the Committee. He concurred with his hon. Friend that it was desirable to have a Minister of the Crown among the Members; and he had already taken some steps with that view.

rose to call attention to the mode in which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have dealt with the claims of the Non-Capitular Members of Cathedral and Collegiate Churches to increased stipends; and to move for Copies of the Questions which have lately been issued by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to the Non-Capitular Members of Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and the Replies thereto. The Cathedral foundations were of two kinds—the old, existing before the Reformation, and the new, established after that period. In the year 1864 an Act was passed by which the minor corporations of the old cathedrals were enabled to surrender their estates to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for commutation payments. Last year a clause was introduced in a Bill, empowering the Commissioners to deal with the claims of members of the new cathedrals; and in June a number of such claims were preferred. Some of the claimants, to their great surprise, found that no action had been taken with respect to their claims until February last. A few months ago a Committee was formed to investigate those claims, and certain Queries were sent out; but he understood that no steps were to be taken in the matter until all the answers had been received and all the claims had been investigated. Now very great injustice would arise from the adoption of that course. He anticipated that his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Mowbray) would answer him by saying that this was a large question, and that nothing could be done until the whole matter had been investigated. But if his right hon. Friend would refer to the 18th section of the Act, he would find that power was given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, where there were surplus revenues at their disposal. In some of these cases there was no surplus; but where there were such sums, and the claims were of a pressing nature, they ought to be taken into consideration at once. In some cases no inquiry at all was necessary, for the matter was fully before the House. He would take the case of Carlisle, respecting which a correspondence had taken place between Mr. Livingston, one of the minor canons, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; that case had been established by evidence taken before a Committee of this House, by Returns, and by public correspondence; but it appeared from the last letter, written in 1865, the Commissioners had declined to take any action. The case of the minor canons of Carlisle was one of peculiar hardship. Some few years ago the Dean and Chapter surrendered their estates for a commutation payment of £5,800 a year, and then reduced the number of minor canons to two, giving them only £150 a year each, without residence, or allowance for residence. Now, his right hon. Friend must be well aware that two minor canons were quite insufficient for the discharge of the duties which they were required to perform. It had hitherto been the opinion of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that these questions could not be dealt with except through the Chapter; but having heard that the Dean and Chapter of Westminster were about to surrender their estates to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and that a scheme was in course of preparation, and knowing that the non-capitular members of that foundation, and especially the chorister boys, were anxious their interests should be protected, he wrote to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, asking them whether they would take care that under the new scheme the boys should receive payment in accordance with the spirit of the statutes; but the Commissioners replied that any action which might be taken on the subject would be independent of the transaction then pending with the Dean and Chapter. Now that answer was in direct contradiction of the letter which had been addressed to Mr. Livingston, and so opposed to all the previous policy of the Ecclesiastical Commission, that he was anxious to have some: distinct declaration on the subject as regarded the future. Under all the circumstances he hoped the Government would grant the papers, and do justice in the best and most speedy manner.

supported the Motion. There were other cathedral cities besides Carlisle that were specially interested in this question. He desired to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mowbray) to the case of Peterborough Cathedral. He had received a letter from one of the minor canons, pointing out the miserable stipends they received. He believed that the authorities did not like to have old minor canons, whom they regarded as an inconvenience; but they ought to remember that old age must be an inconvenience to those canons.

said, he had no hesitation in acceding to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck), although he could not quite understand his hon. Friend's complaint. His hon. Friend had gone back to the year 1840; but the question in the case really arose on the construction of the Act passed last Session, which was wholly of a discretionary character. That Act had not received the Royal assent till almost the last moment of the Session; and as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were in the habit of separating in the month of August for their vacation, it could not be considered by them till November, when they resumed their meetings; but the episcopal members of the Board did not attend at that season of the year; so that it had been necessary to postpone action till February. The question was a large one, and affected all the cathedrals in England; but his hon. Friend might depend upon it that the Commissioners would continue to give it their most careful consideration.

believed that the minor canons of Carlisle had a very good claim on the funds, and the right hon. Gentleman had not shown any reason why they should not receive a share of the money. He thought that the clergy connected with a cathedral had the first claim on money which arose out of the cathedral property. The income of the minor canons was very small, and he could bear testimony to the satisfactory manner in which they discharged their duties. He hoped some alteration in their position would be speedily effected.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to further continue for a limited period the Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland) Act, said: I am sure that the events which have been taking place in Ireland during the last few months must have prepared every Member of the House for the proposal which I now submit — namely, that the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act should be continued for a limited period. I can assure the House that only a deep conviction that such a step is absolutely necessary in the interests of the peace of the country; would induce me to propose this measure. The events of the last few months are so fresh in the memory of the House that it would only be taking up its time to refer to them at any length. An organization, which has existed for four or five years, in spite of every precaution that could be taken by the Government, culminated on the 5th of March in a most abortive attempt at insurrection—an attempt which from its utter want of success would have been ludicrous, but that the disturbances occurred at so many places, were so widely spread over the land, and so many persons took part in it. Its existence may be said to have lasted but a few hours. Soon after dark on Shrove Tuesday night a number of men appeared in arms in various parts of Ireland, and committed in many ways decided and unmistakable acts of treason. But so destitute was the movement of vitality or of any element of success that by twelve o'clock on the following Thursday there were not five-and-twenty men to be found assembled in arms against the Queen's authority in any part of Ireland. I believe that result was brought about very much by the precautions taken by the Government and by the loyal population of the country, and also by the extraordinary fidelity, courage, and loyalty displayed by the Irish constabulary. To the constabulary I think the country owes a deep debt of gratitude, for wherever any attempt at disturbance took place these faithful and loyal men were found at hand in sufficient force, unaided, to arrest the progress of revolution. I also believe that had it not been for the power which the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act had placed in the hands of the Government the suppression of this insurrectionary movement might have been much more difficult. The existence of this power in the hands of the Government enabled us, several days before the outbreak took place, to seize and imprison several persons who Lave turned out since to be prominent leaders of the conspiracy, many of whom had arrived in Ireland but a short time before for the purpose of taking part in the outbreak. The result was, that the insurrectionary movement was paralysed throughout Ireland; and when the long threatened attempt was made, those who were to have taken a leading part in it were already in custody. I am happy to say that, at this moment, so far as we can see, there appears to be every sign of a complete collapse in the organization; but there are also symptoms which show that the utmost precaution, and the most constant vigilance, is still necessary. In proof of this, I will refer to a circumstance which occurred in Dublin a few days ago, when a man was induced to accompany some of his companions to the banks of the canal, and was there set upon and fired at repeatedly. It was quite evident that those persons who committed that act supposed that Aylward had been giving information, and they made a most desperate attempt to take his life. Nothing can show the fear and terror which this organization creates in the country more than the fact that though this young man has been in custody some days, he has shown no disposition to give up the names of those persons who attacked him, although they must be perfectly well known to him; on the contrary, he has shown every disposition to keep his secret, and it is quite clear that the terror and fear under which he is labouring will prevent him from making any effort to bring his assailants to justice. There is a considerable number of persons in custody at present under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant, and it would be most unwise and most unsafe to release those persons suddenly; and I believe their release could not be effected at once without considerable danger to the safety of the public. I can assure the House that, according as this movement shows signs of decay—as soon as the Government are assured that these men can be released with safety—they will be gradually set free; because we have always held it as our opinion that the powers of the Act should not be exercised for purposes of punishment, but only for the purpose of placing under restraint those persons whom the Government are perfectly satisfied are conspiring against the welfare of the State. It is not my wish at present to enter into any question which might give rise to debate or to difference of opinion. On a future occasion there will be ample opportunity for any Gentleman who desires to do so to express his opinion upon the subject. I think it my duty, however, to state very shortly the number of persons in custody, and to put the House in possession of all the information on this subject which I possess. The number of persons now in custody under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant amount altogether to 211. The number of arrests that have been made since I last addressed the House on the subject on the 26th of February has been 142; but among those persons are several who have already been sent to trial and dealt with according to the law of the land. Since that time thirty-one persons have been released from custody; and, I am happy to say, that the last arrest the Government found it necessary to make, under the powers of this Act, were made on the 23rd of April, nearly a month ago. I think that may be regarded as a favourable symptom in this respect — that it shows that the means which have been taken have already been sufficient to repress this movement. A great deal has been said with regard to the number of persons released by the present Government, and a question was put to me the other day which appeared to indicate an opinion that the Government had acted in an unwise manner in releasing so many prisoners last autumn. The figures I will now bring under the consideration of the House will show, I think, that the releases then made were not made without due consideration, and were attended by no evil consequences to the State. The total number of arrests that have taken place since the Habeas Corpus Act was first suspended, in February, 1866, is 961, and of those 778 have been released by the late and present Governments. The present Government, as well as the late Government, gave instructions to the constabulary to keep a particular watch over those persons who had been released; so that over that class a more than ordinary vigilance was maintained. But although in every case in which sufficient evidence was obtained orders for re-arrests were issued, not more than twenty-six out of the 778 persons released have been re-arrested; and those figures show that the course taken by the Government in releasing that large number of people was not attended with any special disadvantage, and has exercised a cautionary influence over them. I propose, with the sanction of the House, that the operation of this Act shall extend to the 1st of March next. When the Government proposed the re- newel of this Act in February last, I was particularly anxious that Parliament should have an opportunity during the present Session of expressing an opinion upon the subject. If there was any likelihood that Parliament at a shorter period than that I have mentioned would be enabled to deal with the question I should have had no objection to fix upon that term. But looking to all the circumstances of the case, looking to the period of the Session and the necessity that exists for its prolongation, I believe the House will best perform its duty by continuing the Act until the period when we shall have the earliest opportunity of considering the subject after the re-assembling of Parliament. When I moved the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in August last I made a similar proposal, believing that Parliament could thus again direct its attention to the matter at the most convenient opportunity if the Government of the day should think that any necessity for such a course existed. I earnestly hope and believe, however, that when that time arrives it will be found that those extraordinary powers will no longer be necessary; and I am persuaded that by now continuing the authority vested in the Government, and which they have endeavoured to exercise in a manner that has met, I think I may say, with approbation, we shall take that course which is the most likely to put an end at the earliest possible moment to that conspiracy and that organization which have proved so great an evil and so bitter a curse to our country. The noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to renew for a limited period the Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland) Act.

said, he would not offer any opposition to the Motion, but he trusted the noble Lord would take the second reading at a time which would afford them an opportunity of discussing so important a subject.

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that as he had addressed the House at some length in asking for leave to bring in the Bill he need not now detain them at any length. There had been few objections to the principal clauses of the Bill. The proposal that the jurisdiction should be taken from the Justices of the Peace and given to the sheriffs, and that the decision of the sheriffs should be final, had met with general approval. The objections which had been raised were to the 3rd clause, which proposed that hares and rabbits should be struck out of the game list. By doing this, it was said, poaching would be encouraged, and trespassing would also be increased. But those who made this objection seemed not to be aware that there existed in Scotland a very stringent Trespass Act, which provided that anyone who leaped a fence, or who made his cattle or horse leap a fence, shall be fined £10 Scots; and if this law was not sufficient to prevent trespassing, there was another mode of preventing it, quite irrespective of the Game Laws, and that was by taking out an interdict against the trespasser. Now, if he had to choose between the present Game Laws and the interdict, he would choose the interdict as the more stringent of the two. But he did not propose to repeal the Game Laws by this Bill. They would be as much in force as ever. His great object was to reduce the number of hares and rabbits. It was not these animals that poachers went in search of, they preferred higher game. Besides reducing the number of hares and rabbits, the Bill would have the effect of improving the relationship between landlord and tenant, and putting an end to excessive game preservation, which was calculated to prevent the progress of agriculture in those districts in which it existed, and tenants were not inclined to invest that amount on their lands which they would otherwise do. He trusted, therefore, considering all the circumstances of the case, the House would consent to the reading of this Bill a second time. He did not wish to see the game in the country exterminated. His desire was that there should be a sufficient number to afford fair and legitimate sport; and for this reason he asked for this small concession from the landlords. And let them remember that a timely concession was always a wise step. The resistance to just demands but increased the opposition. He asked the House to assist him in putting down a system which was unjust in itself, a temptation to the poor, an agricultural grievance, and a national loss.

, in seconding the Motion, said, that the question of the Game Laws in Scotland had reached that point at which some legislative interference was necessary; and he thought that satisfactorily shown by the fact that there were before the House two Bills, one proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Linlithgow, and the other by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), proposing to deal with this question. No one seemed to suppose that the existing state of the law could long continue, and be feared that unless it were settled, and settled speedily, the dissatisfaction now arising between the landlord and tenant, and which was now only commencing, would increase to a degree that all would be sorry to see. Therefore, he thought it their duty on this occasion to take the two Bills before the House, and consider which was the most deserving of support. The tenant-farmers in Scotland were the class most particularly interested in this question, and they had worked very hard to bring it under the attention of the House, Looking at their general knowledge and at the petitions that had been presented, they could come only to one result — namely, that there was a general preference for the Bill of the hon. Member for Linlithgow; and there was no doubt why that preference was so strongly expressed. The grievance these tenant-farmers complained of was the destruction committed by the hares and rabbits, and the remedy was provided in the 3rd clause of the Bill, which struck hares and rabbits out of the game list. It did not follow that if this clause was adopted, therefore hares and rabbits would be extirpated. Their numbers would no doubt diminish, and this was a concession which ought to be made to the well - grounded grievance of the tenant-farmer. He should therefore cheerfully support this Bill on two grounds—first, that it was calculated to do good in its provisions; and secondly, it was the Bill of the two which was calculated to afford a settlement of the question.

said, the subject of the Bill was undoubtedly one of the greatest importance, and also one of very great difficulty. The Bill related to a question between landlord and tenant — not to any question between the landlord and the public. After the best consideration that he had given to the subject, it appeared to him that this Bill and the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) should be referred to a Select Committee, in order that they might see whether, without unduly interfering with the contract between landlord and tenant, some relief could not be given in what were in some cases undoubtedly very great and perhaps growing evils. But he could not help thinking that this question of landlord and tenant could only be satisfactorily settled by good feeling between them. His hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew said he thought this a subject for legislation; and to a certain extent it might be so. But no legislation would regulate the relations between landlord and tenant half so well as mutual co-operation and mutual respect. Those alone could secure the results which they desired to see; and he thought the very worst thing to do in the relation between landlord and tenant would be for the law to interpose between the agreements which landlord and tenant might choose to make. Neither could he suppose that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. M'Lagan) was altogether opposed to game preservation. Whatever else might be said of it, the love of sport, and all that sport implied, had been of more benefit to Scotland than to almost any other country. It had enlarged their markets, brought an influx of many persons who would not otherwise have come, had brought a great deal of traffic to Scotland which was not there before, and had been of great benefit. It would therefore be a great mistake to make an onslaught on the Game Laws. The love or the power of sport kept proprietors or occupiers resident. On the other hand, sport should be sport — and it seemed to him that the present complaints had arisen from spoiling sport; but they could only look for a remedy for this by the good sense and good feeling of the people. As regarded the Bill, in the first place he objected to it because it was a Bill eminently in favour of the poacher. The adoption of the proposition to take hares and rabbits out of the game lists would be tantamount to extirpating game. It would be impossible by the mere law of trespass to prevent a poacher coming upon land for the purpose of taking game. The result would be that night poaching, especially in some districts, would become so prevalent that the preservation of game would become impossible. The crops of the tenants, too, would become more damaged by the depredations of the night poachers than by the swarms of hares and rabbits which might abound in their neighbourhood. He agreed with his hon. Friend opposite that it would be right to give the tenant a power of keeping down hares, for by that method he was convinced the tenant would become his own game preserver. There was one provision in the Bill which he thought would be very useful, and that he would strongly recommend for adoption, and that was removing these kinds of cases from the justices to the sheriffs. It was impossible not to say that the mode of deciding cases between landlord and tenant, in which the landlords alone were judges, could not be good. He would, moreover, suggest that, to prevent litigation between landlord and tenant, in case of damage being committed, the amount of that damage should be estimated by a valuator, to be appointed by the sheriff. He thought that with much that was valuable in the Bill there were also some other matters that merited stricter inquiry, and it was his intention to move at the proper time the reference of this and another Bill upon the same subject, also on the Paper, to a Select Committee.

said, he had intended himself to propose the reference of the two Bills to a Select Committee. His intention arose from no hostility to the measure proposed by his hon. Friend. He thought his hon. Friend had done quite right in bringing this Bill before the House, although he did not believe his proposals were those which it was most advisable to adopt. It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman, the late Lord Advocate, hit the right nail on the head when he said they must look more to public opinion than to legislation. He (Lord Elcho) remembered when he first put up as a candidate in 1847, a gentleman came down from London to oppose him on the subject of the Game Laws; and from that time up to the present the subject had been more or less discussed, and he did not know whether it was in consequence of the subject being discussed at farmers' clubs, but latterly there had been more discussion, and it was now considered that something should be done. But he strongly thought that the hon. Gentleman in his mode of dealing with the question was not on the right tuck, and he had ventured in his Bill to take a different tack, though he had the same object in view. His hon. Friend proposed four clauses, of which three were in favour, not of the farmer, but of the poacher. One of those clauses removed hares from the Game Law, so that a man might destroy hares on another man's land without being prosecuted for killing game. The usual jurisdiction was abolished not in the interests of the farmer, but of the poacher; and the same might be said of the abolition of the cumulative penalties. Whatever his hon. Friend might say, there could be no doubt that if the law of trespass were the only remedy provided, the damage to the crops would be serious, and the result in the neighbourhood of large towns perfectly terrible. The first to complain of the alteration in the law would, he believed, be the farmers themselves. They had heard a good deal lately, in connection with Hyde Park, about the impossibility of putting the law of trespass into operation, and it would be absurd to imagine that an interdict could possibly be taken out at the quarter sessions against a poacher. As an instance in support of his argument, he might state that an hon. Baronet, a Member of that House, possessed a large estate on which he did not preserve the game. That hon. Baronet received a petition from his tenants asking him to preserve the game and employ keepers, because their lands were overrun with poachers. In America, where there was no lack of freedom, stringent laws were made in each State not only for the preservation of game, but even for the preservation of small birds; and in France, though a permit de chasse could be obtained from the Prefect of a district—who declares when the season opens and when it closes — the person so licensed could shoot only on grounds where he had the permission of the owner, and if he pursued game elsewhere he could be brought before the nearest magistrate, and his gun would be confiscated. He maintained, therefore, that his hon. Friend had not adopted the right way to deal with this question in the Bill which he had brought before the House. His own Bill, on the contrary, had been framed on a different principle. The law of England vested the game in the occupier, and the law of Scotland in the owner of the soil. As the occupier of the land was the one who suffered from any depredations that might be committed, he proposed to give him the control of the game, and thus to assimilate the law of Scotland in that respect to the law of England. He proposed to give the owner the right to enter and kill game. This had been criticized as inconsistent, and as making a difference between the law of England and that of Scotland; but if the object were to diminish game, there could be no objection to the landlord helping the tenant. His Bill would not effect much, but it would put the tenant in a better position. Legislation could not do much as between landlord and tenant. In a letter to the tenant farmers of Great Britain the hon. Member for Birmingham had said—

"No change in the law can do as much for you as you may do for yourselves. At present the right to the game is in your hands, unless you consent to transfer or reserve it to your landlords. When you take a farm, and you give up the full control of all that lives upon it, you sign over your own subjection to the system against which you so loudly and justly complain."

This was the truth of the question; it was entirely a matter of arrangement between landlord and tenant. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. Fordyce), whose name was on the back of the Bill, had led the tenantry of the country to believe he was prepared to go further than it did, to regulate contracts, and perhaps to prevent landlord and tenant entering into any private contract for the preservation of game. The hon. Member had wisely abstained from attempting to give effect to his views. The question of jurisdiction in poaching cases was one which he had carefully avoided in his Bill, because he did not wish to overload it. He hoped that the two Bills would be sent before a Committee, and that the result would be the production of a Bill that would do away with much of the unkindly feeling that existed between landlords and tenants. He admitted that the hare was a social evil in Scotland now, in that it caused so much bad blood; but his own feeling was that this was a question of private agreement and that it could be settled without coming to Parliament at all, first by not preserving to the extent that was done in some places, next by landlords agreeing to give their tenants hares and rabbits, on the understanding that the tenants will help the landlords to preserve the winged game.

said, the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. M'Lagan) had reason to congratulate himself on his success in bringing the subject before the House. The support he had received showed that the Bill was in many respects a reasonable Bill, and only one opinion had been expressed as to the able manner in which it had been introduced. He would advise his hon. Friend to accept the proposal made by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. If it were necessary to decide between the two Bills, he should have no hesitation in voting for the Bill of the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire, but if the Bills went upstairs a Committee might make out of the two a better Bill than either was by itself. The preservation of game had been in many parts of the country a great grievance to the farmers, and therefore, in the name of his constituents, he thanked the hon. Member and the noble Lord for bringing the subject before the House.

said, the tenantry of England had no wish to see the Game Laws entirely repealed; nor were they opposed to fair and legitimate sport. It was almost impossible to preserve too much winged game, for they were hardly any injury to the fanner, except when a preserver bought a large quantity of eggs—they were probably his neighbour's, and possibly his own — and had them hatched close to a tenant's corn or grass. In that case the damage might be considerable from the quantity of grass or corn trampled upon and destroyed. It was impossible to have too many partridges; they might harass late wheats or early peas; but they lived on insects for so large a part of the year that they did, on the whole, far more good than they did harm. The best way of preserving winged game was to allow tenants to have the control of the foot game. He had that morning received a letter from an extensive land agent and successful farmer in Norfolk, who was convinced that ground game ought not to have a right to legal protection. We had in England no officer corresponding to the sheriff in Scotland; but, generally speaking, the great bulk of the English public were satisfied with the administration of the Game Laws by the magistrates, believing that they tempered justice with mercy. If they did not, the press and public opinion would soon make them do it. He believed the magistrates, as a body, would be glad if these troublesome Game Laws could be administered by some other authority. The first time he sat on the bench a stupid man pleaded guilty to looking after a rabbit and was fined 6d., but the costs amounted to nearly £1. The man could not pay and was sent to prison, and his wife and children became chargeable to the parish. That was the fault of the law itself, and not of those who administered it. Both Bills before the House proposed remedies for the increase of game during existing tenancies. In England they had few leases; but it was quite possible for a yearly tenant to enter upon and improve a farm that was comparatively free from game, and afterwards, at the whim of his landlord, or change of owners, he might be eaten up and half ruined. There was an estate in Norfolk in which the public took great interest. Some five or six years ago, when this estate passed into the hands of the present proprietor, there was hardly any running game. The farmers had leases, but the hares and rabbits now swarmed to such an extent that no food was left for the support of the tenants' flocks, and during this winter even the underwood was eaten and the timber barked. But he had yet a stronger case to illustrate the evil. Soon after the purchase of the estate one of the leases fell in, and, in order to be correct in his statement, he would, with the permission of the House, read an extract from a letter he had received from a widow lady, a tenant on the estate.

"In 1862 the agent was very pleased to secure a man of character, education, and capital, to take this farm. He expressed a wish to see our banker's book, to make sure we had funds for the purpose. The rent was fixed at a high rate, and there was hardly a hare to be seen upon the farm; and, in answer to my husband's inquiries upon that point, he was assured he would never be injured by game."

The gentleman referred to unfortunately died in 1865, having during the last few months of his life expressed his uneasiness at the alarming increase of hares. Still they multiplied, and in the spring of 1866 his widow addressed a note to the agent, stating that, after expending some thou- sands on the farm, she, for the first time, expected some return, and now the hares were destroying everything. But the foot game was not killed, and this lady writes—

"The agent consented to have the damage valued. The valuation was drawn up by a gentleman chosen by the agent himself, and overlooked and approved by another of the most practical farmers in the neighbourhood; so that I naturally expected to receive a cheque for the same, but regret to say I have been informed the valuation is to be set on one side, and have been offered less than half the amount on the plea that, after all, it is at the option of the landlord to do as he pleases in such matters."

What was the amount of the valuation?

The damage was valued at £575, and the offer was £250.

What was the extent of the farm?

About 800 acres. Now, if this was the way enterprizing farmers were treated on the estate of such a landlord, what could they expect from small and needy landowners? It was quite time, in his opinion, that tenants should have some legislative protection which would prevent them from being ruined by such an increase of game. He should have great pleasure in supporting the second reading of the Bill.

said, that he was not one of those who expected much good to result from legislation on the subject of the game grievance. The only enactment going to the root of the matter would be one making contracts for the preservation of hares and rabbits on arable land illegal, and though he was personally in favour of this, he did not think it had any prospect of passing this House. At the same time, he believed the Bill of the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire would effect a sensible mitigation of the evils complained of. His proposition was to take hares and rabbits out of the list of game, and place them in the position of rats and mice and other vermin. And why should they not? It had been said that this was equivalent to handing over the game to the poacher; but, in the first place, it should be kept in mind that the proposition only extended to hares and rabbits; and in the second that persons found would still be liable under the Day Trespass Act as trespassers in pursuit of game. No doubt it would still be in the power of proprietors to insert game clauses in leases; but the advantage to the tenant would be that for a breach of such, he could be treated civilly. The other provisions of the Bill were equally satisfactory. Great dissatisfaction was felt in Scotland at the way in which justice is administered in regard to the Game Laws. With regard to the Bill of the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) the tenant farmers had paid little attention to it, believing it to be trifling with the question. He should like to have heard from the noble Lord the reasons which had induced him to propose to make deer game, but had listened in vain to his speech, For his own part he would strongly recommend the hon. Member for Linlithgow to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, and to have both Bills sent to a Select Committee. He did so with regret, but only because he perceived if this course was not taken, the Bill of the noble Lord would, in all probability, pass, which he should regret still more.

said, he should be sorry for it to go forth that all Scotland was labouring under an over-preservation of game. He had recently attended a county meeting at which it was stated that game, instead of being exterminated ought to be encouraged; in his county and in the county of Stirling the tenants were not at all unwilling that a reasonable quantity of game should be kept up; while, on the other hand, it was not the interest of the landlords to keep up an unreasonable quantity, and so depreciate the agricultural value of their estates. He agreed with the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Read) that winged game rather benefited than injured the crops. He recollected a case where a noble Lord, when shooting on the land of a tenant who complained of the quantity of game, opened the crop of one of the birds, and showed that it was full of beetles. Under these circumstances, if that House came to the conclusion that it was necessary to legislate for the reduction of game, he hoped that they would exclude winged game from the enactment. He was sorry to hear the remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the change of jurisdiction from the justices to the sheriffs. He did not think anything had occurred to justify them in throwing a stigma on the Justices of the Peace, who acted, he believed, conscientiously, and in accordance with what they believed their duties demanded. County justices were, the greater number of them, persons residing in the towns, such as agents of banks, gentlemen in charge of estates, and professional writers; and it was very rarely, indeed, that the gentry came on the bench when poaching cases came before it. All knew that the Justices of the Peace in England did their duty efficiently and well. Why do not the justices in Scotland get the same mete of praise? He trusted there would be no interference with the jurisdiction of the justices in Scotland.

said, he did not see why this discussion should be prolonged, as they all seemed agreed that these Bills should be sent to a Select Committee. He merely rose to say that, in the district of burghs which he had the honour to represent, a district closely contiguous to a part of the country to which the hon. Member had referred, there was, at the last election, much feeling expressed in favour of some legislation with respect to game, and, if it were necessary now to go to a division, he should certainly vote in favour of the Bill of the hon. Member for Linlithgow.

said, the question had been treated as one solely between landlords and tenants. But the State was also interested, first, in preventing such a multiplication of game as would furnish temptation to crime, and so increase the criminal classes; and secondly, in seeing that land was properly cultivated. Thirty years ago in this country the right of property in game was not admitted at all. The State reserved to itself the same dominion over game which our Norman Conquerors had asserted. Even now the owner and occupier enjoyed only a qualified right to destroy the game; and as the rights of the State had never been surrendered, it was open to the State, without injury to private rights, to abandon the game to anybody who chose to kill it.

said, he could not admit the truth of the statement which had been made in the course of debate, that the administration of the Game Laws by the magistrates in England was satisfactory. On the contrary, he believed that the administration was eminently unsatisfactory to the people at large. No doubt the magistrates did their duty conscientiously; but the public naturally ascribed to those interested in the administration of the Game Laws an undue bias as owners and game preservers. The whole subject of the Game Laws, whether in Scotland or England, was one which it would be well to refer to a Select Committee. As between landlord and tenant, he agreed that it was more a question of contract than a question for legislation. The chief object of the Game Laws was the protection of the tenant against the poacher. They had been lately told that in Wales they did not know the difference between a squirrel and a fox. At any rate the people there knew very well what a hare was, and poachers would rather have a hare than a pheasant. If you removed the protection which the tenant had against the poacher, especially in the neighbourhood of large towns, and allowed the poacher to go over the farmer's ground in pursuit of hares, you would never have a proper system of cultivation.

said, he quite concurred in the propriety of referring the Bills to a Select Committee, provided they had efficient trespass laws. For his own part, he should have no objection that hares and rabbits should be no longer game. In Scotland the Law of Trespass, which dated back to 1600, was quite unworkable and required alteration. As to the jurisdiction of the justices in these cases, he should have liked to hear some better ground alleged for the proposed change in this respect, and could not help thinking that it would be an undeserved slur upon the justices to transfer this jurisdiction to the sheriffs. He approved generally of the proposal to give the tenants greater facilities than they now had for recovering damages from the landlords. He hoped that out of both Bills might come useful legislation.

said, he hoped the law of Scotland on this subject would be assimilated to that of England. He held that the English Jaw was right, and that everything should be let with a farm, when there was no express provision or contract to the contrary, and whatever was to be excepted, whether timber, minerals, or game, should be an express provision from the operation of the lease. Much of the evil complained of even in England arose from the contracts entered into not being sufficiently explicit. He was, however, happy to say they were acting in the Midland Counties on the principle which had been adopted in Lincolnshire—namely, the embodying in writing the terms of their contract, which agreement might afterwards be stamped and constitute a legal document. It was, then, the fault of the landlord, and still more so the fault of the tenant, if either did not insist on such provisions as should secure him from injury, from dilapidation, from game, or from any other cause. The different circumstances of property as they occurred could not be defined specifically by statute, they could be met only by specific agreement between the parties. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) said there was an obligation on the part of landowners and tenants to provide food for the people of the country, a doctrine which he (Mr. Newdegate) recognised as that on which the system of protection was founded. The hon. Member had adverted to the fact that the Game Law was a remnant of the feudal system; that system had been abandoned and game had by law been rendered property. The reservation of the right of sporting, and game, and damage by game, were matters which ought to be the subject of an express contract between the landlord and tenant.

said, he believed there was no system in Scotland more condemned than that by which Justices of the Peace were allowed to decide on game cases, and he further believed that there could be no improvement of a small kind which would be hailed with greater satisfaction than a transference of that jurisdiction to the stipendiary magistrates of Scotland—the sheriffs. An hon. Member had said that the owner of land never appeared on the bench when a case in which he was concerned came on. That might be true; but he (Mr. M'Laren) was not at all sure whether the very fact of his being on the bench and withdrawing from it, might not have a modifying effect on the judgment of his brother justices. The noble Lord (Lord Elcho) said the Bill of the hon. Member for Linlithgow was approved by the Chamber of Agriculture in Scotland. If that was so he thought that the highest character that could be given to the Bill, because the Chamber of Agriculture consists of about 800 farmers and landowners in all parts of Scotland, who had the greatest influence among the farmers of Scotland. He had heard a good deal said about these Bills in Scotland, and all he had heard led him to the conviction that the Bill of the noble Lord was a little worse than no Bill, because with what it did it docs no good, and in regard to the clause which would make that game which now was not game it did a little harm.

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that it was of the very simplest character. When the present system of registration was established by the Reform Act of 1832, it was provided that persons possessing certain qualifications might claim to be registered for any qualification; and a person possessing several qualifications in any borough or county might be registered for each. It was also enacted that when the voter went to the poll he might be asked three questions—namely, whether he was the person whose name appeared on the register, whether he had already voted, and whether he still retained his qualification. By the Act 6 Vict. c. 18, the third of these questions was abolished. In consequence of the fact that a voter's name might appear on the register several times it was difficult, and at times impossible, to prevent electors voting over again, and although there could be no statistics on the subject it was believed to be frequently done. This was obviously contrary to the intention of Parliament, and the simplest way of securing the object which Parliament had in view was to say that no man should appear more than once on the same register. It would greatly simplify the work of registration and lessen the expense of elections if every elector were only permitted to appear upon the register in respect of one qualification. The proposal of this Bill was that an elector having various qualifications might be objected to on that ground, and on proof of the objection the revising barrister might strike off every repetition of the name after its first occurrence, unless the voter chose to make his election as to which qualification it would be convenient for him to vote in respect of. In Nottingham—the borough he had the honour to represent—there were last year 976 persons whose names appeared more than once upon the register, the majority of them having their names on twice, a considerable number three times, and a few appearing as many as four times; so that on the whole the surplus number of names on the register was 1,136, in a constituency the apparent number of which was 6,921. In other large boroughs the same inconvenience prevailed. In Manchester, in a constituency of 22,700, there were 1,250 double entries; in Bath, with a constituency of 3,200, there were 276 double entries; in Newcastle-on-Tyne, with a constituency of 7,460, there were 830 double entries; and in the City of London, with a constituency of 17,530, the number of double entries was 2,000. Where a man was only permitted to vote once there was no sufficient reason why a voter should be upon the register more than once, and some such measure as this was the more necessary at the present moment, because they were engaged in passing a Reform Bill which would largely increase the present constituencies. And not only did the Government Bill increase the numbers of the constituencies but it added to the variety of qualifications, and the larger the number of electors, and the greater the number of qualifications in respect of which they were entitled to vote, the larger must be the number of double entries, and the greater the evil of which he complained. Members representing counties had stated to him that the Bill would be objectionable as regarded counties, because it would take away from the voters the privilege they now enjoyed of recording their votes at any polling-place in any part of the county. But only a very limited number of persons would be affected by his proposal, and probably the great majority of the electors knew which polling-place was the most convenient for them, and would be able to select, without the least hesitation, the qualification in respect of which they desired their names to be retained. If it were inconvenient for an elector to attend before the revising barrister in person to select his qualification, words might be inserted allowing him to be represented by his agent; but he was much more anxious to deal with boroughs than counties, and from borough Members he had heard no objection to his measure. He should be happy to receive any suggestion from the representatives of counties with respect to the part of the Bill which affected their constituencies, or at some future stage it would be open to them to move the omission of the clauses relating to counties. He believed the Bill would operate very advantageously in boroughs, and he questioned whether it would do any harm in counties. He did not know whether the principle he wished to lay down prevailed in Scotland, but it had been adopted in Ireland, and he had never heard that any inconvenience had arisen from it. What he was proposing was not any novelty in the law of registration, but merely an improvement of the machinery, and intended merely to give efficiency to the law which already existed. Upon these grounds he asked the House to read the Bill a second time.

I cannot imagine what can be the use of this Bill. The noble Lord (Viscount Amberley) has said that it need not be applied to counties; but as an illustration of the inconvenience of such a measure, if enacted, let me take the case of my own particular county. I register in two places in Kent; and by doing so, if I happen to be in London I am enabled to vote at Greenwich, if at home I can vote in the neighbourhood of my own house. If this Bill passed into law, I should be obliged if at home to come up to Greenwich to vote. And then with respect to boroughs; suppose a man who is a freeman is also a £10 householder—I speak of the state of things which exists under the present suffrage—if you make him elect upon which qualification he is to be put upon the register you leave it open to an objector to call his qualification in question, and then perhaps he loses his vote to which he might be entitled in respect of the other qualification. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), whom I see opposite, represents a borough in which there are a good many people of the same name; and if there were twenty, thirty, or forty John Smith's, the difficulty they would have in establishing their right to get upon the register would be greatly increased by this Bill. It is obvious that in the case of the John Joneses and the William Williamses objectors might easily take advantage of the Bill to deprive them of their right to vote. The noble Lord appears willing to give up the principle of his Bill as far as counties are concerned; but I do not see what good would be gained by it in respect of boroughs. The noble Lord says that great inconvenience has arisen from the present system of double entries; but I have never heard any complaint upon the subject. The lists are made out in the different parishes by the overseers, who are acquainted with all the electors, the double entries are put in the different lists, and are as well known as any of the other arrangements with respect to the constituency. In the borough which I represented there were the old scot and lot voters and £10 householders, and I never heard of any difficulty arising at elections from these different qualifications. With great respect to the noble Lord, I think when a Reform Bill is pending in this House which involves the question of registration it is hardly worth while to bring in a Bill which merely unsettles the existing law, which, as far as the noble Lord has explained, has not created any degree of dissatisfaction, and has not been productive of personation. It is not as if because persons were enabled to register in different places they were also enabled to vote in different places, nor are the cases of personation to be traced to the fact of the same name being on the register for more than one qualification. Personation is a mere matter of fraud, and would occur without any similarity of name. I trust the noble Lord will not press the Bill to a division, because there is really no grievance at all worth remedying. Indeed, I must say if there be any grievance, it is of that infinitesimal kind which hardly deserves to take up the time of the House.

thought that as far as the counties were concerned, the Bill might be termed a Bill to facilitate frivolous objections. As far as his position as a voter in the West Riding of Yorkshire was concerned, having many qualifications, he was utterly indifferent to any such objections being raised against him. In reference to the borough with which he was connected there were more cases of double entries than in many other towns, it being divided into many small parishes. Nevertheless, he had never heard of any injustice being done or inconvenience arising from those double qualifications. If the electors of that town were polled as to their views upon this question he had no doubt that the noble Lord would find that the opposition to his measure would come us much from those who were identified with his political opinions as from any other party.

said, that although he looked upon the Bill as containing provisions which it was desirable to pass into law, he should not, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, press it further at present.

objected to the clause as it stood, and proposed that, with the view of making the law on the subject with which it dealt simple and plain, the seller of land should be prohibited from bidding at sales at which he caused it to be stated that the property was to be sold without reserve. If, however, a reserved price was announced, then the auction should be left open and the matter left to right itself. He made that proposal in order that no unnecessary restriction should be imposed in those cases, and in making it he was aware that he had the authority of several ex-Lord Chancellors against him; but, although he had the greatest respect for their authority, he did not think the clause was one to which in its present shape the Committee ought to assent. It was represented that the auctioneers were favourable to the Bill, whereas the view which they took of it really was that the latter part of it was good, and that sooner than lose that part they would not oppose the passing of clauses which they believed would be inoperative.

said, that the auctioneers had not only agreed to, but had petitioned in favour of the entire Bill, the objections which they entertained to it having been removed since it had taken its amended shape. It, besides, was sanctioned by the authority of Lord St. Leonards, who was intimately acquainted with the subject, as well as by that of another ex-Lord Chancellor, who was a member of the Government to which the hon. Gentleman had belonged. It introduced, as seemed to be supposed it did, no new restrictions, and was intended to do away with a very doubtful exception established by the Courts of Equity to a well known rule of law which invalidated a sale at which more than one puffer was employed. There could, he maintained, be no more gross system of fraud than that which the hon. Gentleman sought by his Amendment to legalize, and which was somewhat like those practices which one might witness on a racecourse, where two or three confederates were in league to take in the public. If these Amendments were carried, it would be practically the same thing as rejecting the Bill, for there would be no chance of such a measure passing in the House of Lords; and, if such Amendments were made, then, as Lord St. Leonards had said, the title of the Bill ought to be altered to "a Bill to legalize fraudulent Sales by Auction."

said, the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) did not propose to legalize fraud, but to enable persons owning land to sell it without a number of minute restrictions, which would prevent them from effecting a sale without being involved in a Chancery suit. If fair notice were given that the sale was to be a sale with reserve, all the bidders would be put upon their guard as to the conditions; and it was idle to say that a fraud would be practised upon them. He should like to hear the opinion of the Attorney General whether it would not be better to confine the clause to a simple declaration that the sale was either to be with or without reserve, or whether it should go on to specify that the right to bid was reserved. There was an extraordinary recital at the beginning of the clause to the effect that owners of land were engaged in selling their property in an illegal manner; and he should propose that the first four lines and a half of the clause containing the recital should be omitted.

said, they had already agreed to the 4th clause, which affirmed that there was now a conflict between the Courts of Law and Equity in respect to the validity of sales of land by auction where a puffer had bid, although no right of bidding on behalf of the owner was reserved; the Courts of Law holding that all such sales were absolutely illegal, and the Courts of Equity under some circumstances giving effect to them; but that even in Courts of Equity the rule was unsettled. It could not therefore be wrong in a subsequent clause to follow that up by saying, as was done in the recital to which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets objected, that many such sales of land as now conducted were illegal.

said, the clause to which the hon. and learned Attorney General referred related to an entirely different question. He denied that there was any illegality in the mode of selling land referred to in the clause, and therefore he would vote for the omission of the words that said so.

proposed to omit the words requiring the specification of the person in whom the right of a reserve bid is vested.

assented to the Amendment.

proposed to leave out from "be" to end of clause, and insert—

"With reserve or to that effect, it shall be lawful for the seller, or any person or persons on his behalf, to bid at such auction in such manner as he or they may think proper."

There were combinations among buyers which ought to be provided for as well us combinations among sellers. He was afraid that by the Bill they were striking a blow at the principle of sales by auction. The old doctrine was a good one—caveat emptor—let the buyer take care of himself. It was, he thought, the business of every purchaser to make up his mind as to the value of the property for which he was bidding and how much he would give, quite irrespective of the persons who were bidding against him.

said, that the measure had been introduced into the other House by a noble and learned Lord who was not only an ex-Lord Chancellor as he had been described, but who had been the master and the great authority on this subject of vendor and purchaser from the early part of the present century, if not before. The Bill had also the sanction not only of an ex-Lord Chancellor, but of an expectant Lord Chancellor, the hon. and learned Member for Richmond. It was said that a buyer ought to take care of himself; and no doubt these sham biddings would have no effect on an experienced and strong-minded man. But there were others who might be led in the excitement of a sale by sham bidders and puffers to give more for the property than it was worth. But was there no such thing as legislating for the protection of weakness and inexperience? He thought it right to legislate on this subject. Buyers might say they would not purchase and go away, and that would not deceive any one; but it was very different when the seller put up a dummy to deceive persons in the auction-room.

, whilst admitting the great authority of Lord St. Leonards in interpreting the law as it stood, thought that any hon. Member of that House was quite as capable as that noble Lord of dealing with this matter, which was simply that of saying how an auctioneer's business should be carried on. The clause as it stood provided that the seller should state in writing his reserved price; but this would simply lead to a very large sum, which would afford perfect protection, being named in each case. There could be no fraud if the public were told that the sale was with reserve. The Amendment asserted the right of the seller to protect himself against those who made a livelihood by attending sales of landed estates for the purpose of asking damaging questions with a view to depreciate the value of the land, and afterwards to buy it themselves, and have a "knock out," the proprietor not being allowed under the clause to interfere, though he happened to be standing by.

said, the subject had received a good deal of knocking about; but, as one not learned in the law, he desired to express an opinion that it was unnecessary and unreasonable to require a man to state in writing what he would take for his property, as generally a seller had full confidence in his auctioneer, and would be perfectly willing to leave the whole matter to him. Intending purchasers ought to be protected against sham bidders attending the sale in the interest of the owners. He objected to any provision which would permit dummies to bid and thus deceive bonâ fide bidders. Such a proceeding was tricky, and not honest, and he was afraid the Amendment would legalize it. He also suggested that the words "or to that effect," should be omitted, as they were calculated to give rise to litigation.

then moved the insertion of the following clause:—

"It shall not be lawful for any auctioneer to place out at interest, for his own use and benefit, any sum of money which he may have received as deposit on any property he may have sold by auction, but if any such interest be obtained for such deposit it shall be paid and accounted for to the purchaser who has made such payment."

expressed a hope that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Selwyn), having undertaken to deal in the manner contemplated by this Bill with the sale of land by auction, would also bring in a Bill assimilating the law with regard to the sale of other descriptions of property.

said, that the Bill had reference exclusively to sales of land, and to the practice of opening the biddings in Courts of Equity, where it was not likely that property other than land would frequently be disposed of, and hence there was no such incongruity as might be supposed in special legislation. He admitted that it would be very desirable to deal, if possible, with "knock-outs" and frauds of various descriptions; but it was imposing rather a wide and difficult task upon a private Member to require him to initiate legislation having for its object to make all horsedealers, teadealers, and others honest. His humble services were at the disposal of his hon. Friend if the Government thought fit to introduce such a Bill.

thought the Government would act wisely in declining the invitation.

said, that as the Government had aided so strongly in getting this Bill through Committee, they were rather committed to extending its principle to other kinds of property.

said, that his hon. Friend the Secretary for the Treasury and his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Selwyn) ought to put their heads together and frame a Bill applying to other kinds of property.