said, before the House went into Committee on the Bill, he wished to make an appeal to the Government, and especially to the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for its policy. He regretted that the Premier was not in his place to hear what he had to say, because the subject to which he wished to direct attention was of transcendent importance; but, at the same time, he admitted that considering the labours he had lately undergone the right hon. Gentleman might well be excused if he was not in the House at 12 o'clock on Saturday. The country could not fail to be gratified by the extraordinary spectacle that had been presented in Ireland, and especially in Dublin, during the last two days. He would not undertake to say how many thousands had taken part in the procession of yesterday; but the House might form some idea of the depth of popular feeling that had been evoked, from the circumstance that a whole fleet of steamers had been taken up to convoy Irishmen, not fewer than 10,000 in number, back to their native soil to do honour to the memory of O'Connell, in addition to the many, many thousands assembled from all parts of Ireland itself. The whole of the proceedings passed off with an order, a regularity, and a good humour almost unparalleled, and in confirmation of which he would read to the House the description given in the leading English journal of the procession. The London Times said—

"The conduct of the people, however, was in this instance beyond all praise, and this is one of the most remarkable and gratifying features of their carnival. Throughout the whole length of the procession and the crowds who witnessed it there was not a drunken or disorderly person to he seen. There were very few constables anywhere in view. The vast concourse were singularly quiet and tractable, and the utmost good-humour prevailed. There was no jostling or rude laughing, such as have led to violent encounters on other occasions, but all seemed ready to bear and forbear in a considerate and friendly spirit. So gentle and well-tempered were they that in the thickest parts of the throng, where it was difficult to thread one's way by slow and sinuous steps, women were carrying infants in their arms without the slightest fear. The promoters of the festival had ample proof that their confidence in the people was well founded and their organization perfect. In its material as well as its moral aspect the demonstration was eminently gratifying."

Again, the Assizes recently concluded in Ireland with the result that, in many instances, there was hardly any occupation for the Judges at all, and that as regarded crime the country was reported to be not only in a good and satisfactory position, but as contrasted with this country and other parts of Her Majesty's dominions in a marvellously gratifying position. Well, these things being so, there was one black cloud which overshadowed the proceedings of yesterday. At a certain interval in the procession there was heard the music of the Dead March in Saul, and as described in one of the English morning papers—

"At Carlisle Bridge, the great black flag was promptly taken out and held in a prominent position before the platform, whilst all around at brief intervals men stood waving black bannerets bearing the inscription, 'Still in chains.' A curious effect was given to this demonstration by festoons of chains liberally hung over the tops of each banneret, and cunningly clanked at fitting opportunities."

This was the proclamation of popular sympathy with the 40 political prisoners still in. miserable confinement. Last Sunday London had witnessed a great and orderly gathering in Hyde Part, called together to petition for this amnesty. For his own part, he had declined to attend that demonstration on Sunday, not because he thought it wrong to take part in works of mercy on that day, but because he knew that in this country these meetings on Sunday were objectionable to great numbers of our fellow-countrymen. Still the object of that meeting had his heartfelt sympathy, and he wished now to put it to the Government, to the House of Commons, and to the country whether the time had not arrived when all such meetings should be rendered unnecessary by the exercise of the clemency of the Crown. He knew well that nearly all the political prisoners now in suffering were military prisoners, and he at once admitted that such prisoners must naturally expect to be judged by a harsher standard than civilians. If soldiers violated the pledges under which they enlisted and took part in insurrection, they were, if that insurrection was successful, at once raised by historians into the highest ranks of chivalry; but if the movement was abortive, then they must expect a severer judgment, and be prepared to pay a heavier penalty. Lot the House, however, consider for one moment what the Fenian rising was. It was really the outcome of the disbandment of the great American armies in the War of Secession, and for his part he had always wondered that the dissolution of so large a military host, composed as it was of all sorts and conditions of men, should have brought in its trail so small an amount of disturbance to Europe. The Irish insurrection was formidable; but what would it have been, if the great mass of the farmers and people of Ireland had taken part in it? No one could predict the desolation and misery that it might have entailed. But it was put down without extraordinary difficulty, and undoubtedly there was now no active trace of it. But lot the House realize to itself what was being done by the prolonged imprisonment of these 40 men? Throughout Ireland, and in many circles in this country also, those who utterly condemned and abhorred the Fenian insurrection were beginning to feel very intensely the sufferings that were inflicted on them, and during the coming winter there would certainly both hero and in Ireland be great gatherings of people brought together with the object of stimulating and claiming the clemency of the Crown. He thought it most unwise in the present tranquil condition of affairs to give unnecessary occasion for these huge demonstrations. The Irish had intense domestic sympathies, and deeply felt for those who had for seven long years languished in jail, and whose families mourned for them in their affectionate hearts as they would mourn for the dead. Was any good object to be accomplished by a further exhibition of implacability on the part of this country? The might of England had put down with ease the rising of Fenianism; it had inflicted great, even appalling, punishment, on those who had participated in it. Was vengeance never to cease, and a time of mercy never to arrive? He would make but one further observation, and he prayed that the Government might be guided by a true spirit of wisdom and statesmanship in the advice he would give to the Crown. There was—and he thought it a sad and solemn thing—a widespread belief in Ireland that the Administration itself was not averse to mercy, but that its hand was stayed and its arm shortened by the military authorities. Such a feature he looked upon as disastrous, and he was most desirous to prevent any further spread of it. There was no jewel in the Crown of Her Majesty so resplendent as the attribute of mercy and forgiveness, and to that tender spot in the heart of the Sovereign he appealed to say—"Justice is satisfied—go in peace—sin no more."

, in supporting the appeal of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), said, it had frequently been asserted that the feeling of sympathy which existed for these prisoners was confined to those who were favourable to Fenianism, but the proceedings at the O'Connell celebration yesterday showed that another idea predominated even over the feeling of respect for the memory of Mr. O'Connell, and that was the desire for an amnesty. It could not now be doubted that amnesty was the wish of the (entire Irish nation; and when that was the case, surely the British House of Commons would not refuse to pay some attention to that demand. With regard to the prisoners being military prisoners, he would point out to the House that there were many countries where less stable Governments had had to deal with such men. Sometimes they had been executed; but, since 1848, there had been many occasions where countries had been far more disturbed than this country or Ireland had been, and yet the prisoners had been released from imprisonment. Surely it was not too much to ask this country, which was remarkable for its stability, to follow the example of the countries which had no stability, when the men in question had already suffered a considerable punishment. It might be said that any concession made to these men was a concession to Fenianism, and should, therefore, be refused. Well, he could not say at that moment Fenianism existed as a secret society in Ireland. The aspect of the organization had changed recently. It had ceased to be a secret society, and had now assumed the form of a democracy, and now took part in the constitutional struggles of this country, such as elections, in that shape. He would ask the Government to take that view of it, and to come forward and meet this constitutional spirit and grant what the people of Ireland most desired, and give a pardon to the few unhappy men who still remained in prison. All the Irish people had gained this Session was a Coercion Act—of mitigated character, it was true, but of increased length. But even if they had an improved Landlord Bill, a system of University Education, remedying the defects of the present system, and the Poor Laws rectified, he believed that the Irish people, even if conscious of practical legislation of this character, would not remain satisfied so long as these men were allowed to be in chains. He was of opinion that the exercise of clemency towards the Fenian prisoners would lead to a renewal of kindly feelings, and would effectually remove the difficulties which now existed against such a renewal.

expressed his regret that these men should be punished, while the chief actors in their conspiracy, though well known to the Government to be the Romish priesthood, were not only unpunished and unexposed, but, while carrying out their "veiled rebellion," were allowed to tax the public in near £2,000,000 a-year for police, about £1,000,000 for their educational purposes, and to bring discredit on the administration of the laws by the Peace Preservation Act.

said, there was a growing feeling that something should be done to allay the aggravated excitement occasioned in Ireland by the continued confinement of persons who had been imprisoned mostly for political offences. He hoped the House would take the matter into kindly consideration, and carefully consider whether mercy might not be extended to most, if not all, of those who were now confined. He ought to say he could not altogether sympathize with his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) in the terms in which he had brought the question before the House. The House ought not to be influenced by menaces of agitation. Last Sunday he took the trouble to go to the meeting at Trafalgar Square, and to examine the ranks as they passed through Piccadilly, for the purpose of ascertaining what the classes were who took part in the demonstration. He was impressed with the orderly and resolved aspect of the people, who were, however, not of the better classes. He knew that in his own borough not only Roman Catholics of position, but also many who were Protestants were anxious to see this question in some way or other satisfactorily settled. But though crowds and demonstrations might be very effective as far as concerned their influence on the popular mind, he did not think they ought to be allowed to interfere with the policy of the Government. Apart from that, he thought there was a strong case indeed. The point was simply this, was the Government, by continuing to confine these persons in prison, really doing anything to effect the object they had in view—namely, to deter people from committing similar offences in the future? He thought that when that question came up, it ought to be fairly met and fairly answered by the Government; because, whatever might be the opinion of the military authorities as to the probable consequence of allowing these men, most of whom were military offenders, to be set free, they all knew that it was not the military authorities who dictated public policy. If it were, that policy would be narrow and disingenuous. The question to consider was, whether these men had suffered sufficiently and efficiently, and whether it was not time that the Government should show that in its wrath it could remember mercy. He thought that the time had come when it would be wise to extend leniency to the prisoners. He thought the effect of it would be that in Ireland itself it would be felt, if granted now before greater agitation went on, to be a generous concession not wrung by demonstration from the Government. He thought it would be politic that the Government should endeavour to forecast the future—the time when these demonstrations might assume such importance that it would be considered that the Government had only given way because the concession was forced from them by popular demonstrations. While on his legs, he might be allowed to say that it had been his intention at this time to have called attention to the duel which took place last night between the Leaders of the two front benches, for the purpose of saying that he—and he believed many others besides himself on that side of the House below the Gangway—did not entirely concur in the conclusions of either right hon. Gentlemen. They were not prepared to concur in all the criticisms of the noble Marquess upon the different measures of the Government on the one hand, and, on the other hand, they could not altogether accept, as accurate, some of the strange explanations of the First Minister. They desired it to be understood in the country that as long as the front Opposition bench continued to be, as it was, an unfaithful representative of the opinions of the whole rank and file of the Liberal Party, a divided leadership and an undecided one, it could scarcely expect to receive the support of the country, or be able effectively to oppose, or even to assist the Government in carrying wholesome measures through the House. But, as usual, when important matters were under discussion, the front Opposition bench happened to be empty. It would not, therefore, be proper that, in their absence, he should continue these remarks. He would simply say that he wished it to be understood that there were many hon. Members below the Gangway on that side of the House who did not concur in all the animadversions of the noble Lord on the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers.

said, he did not take the same view of the matter; but, leaving that question, he was anxious that the House should arrive at some practical conclusion. He was one of those who for some years opposed any release of the military political prisoners; but two years ago he thought the time had come when they might with grace and advantage, and with a view to conciliation to Ireland, release the prisoners, and he had signed a memorial to that effect. He believed there was scarcely ever a time in the history of the country when the Irish people were, as a whole, more prosperous, more generally loyal, or more obedient to the laws, and when there was a fairer prospect of a future for Ireland than the present. He would not counsel the Government to yield to clamour; but in order to prevent an agitation that might become embarrassing, seeing the growing feeling of sympathy for these men, he thought they would do well at once to wipe out what was really the last personal grievance which the Irish people had on this question. There was no doubt that the sympathy of the Irish people was centring around these men, who had already suffered so many years' imprisonment. Before that sympathy became too deeply seated, he would urge the Government, in their wisdom and consideration, to extend the hand of mercy to these men, and release them from their confinement.

, in joining, as an English Member, in the appeal on behalf of the political prisoners, said, he had, as a rule, abstained from taking part in these Home Rule debates; but, at the early part of last year, he became convinced that the time had arrived when these prisoners ought to be released. The year which had passed since then had only tended to intensify his desire for their release, and to demonstrate the propriety on the part of the Government of doing this act of grace and mercy, for he admitted it would be an act of mercy to release these men. We had admitted by legislation that less extreme measures in Ireland were now required, and yet we were allowing these prisoners to languish in their gaol. We had had order vindicated in Ireland. The bulk of the people were loyal to the Queen. It was admitted that they were contented with the English Crown, and with the Queen; and if that were so, he saw no reason for refusing this prayer for an act of mercy. He considered the Government would do well to yield to the prayer at once. The sooner it was done, the more effective would it be in its results upon the affections of the Irish people.

, in moving as an Amendment, "That this House will, upon this day two months, resolve itself into the said Committee," said, he wished to call attention to the difficulty of getting a proper definition of the term "trade mark." There had been proposed various definitions, but none which would be effectual and comprehensive for the purposes of a statutory registration of trade marks. The definition in the Act of 1862 in reference to the fraudulent imitation of trade marks was a most extensive one; but in the Bill it was proposed that there should be a far less extensive definition. A good deal of difficulty must arise from having one definition in reference to fraudulent imitation and another in reference to registration. He really thought it would be better for purposes of registration not to undertake the difficult task of definition, but to simply use the term "trade marks "and leave the definition to the ordinary Courts of Law. He recognized the exertions which had been made by the President and Vice President of the Board of Trade with a view to settling the question; but he wished to point out some difficulties which ought to be before the mind of the House in dealing with it, and urged that the greatest care should be taken not to prejudice valuable rights or to inconvenience the complicated and extensive operations of trade.

said, the opposition arose upon points of detail which would be considered in Committee.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 28, after "distinctive," insert "device, mark, heading." It had been deemed undesirable by the Select Committee to take the unworkable definition of the previous Act. The Bill with the present Amendment would, he thought, put an end to the practice of pirating trade marks, by giving a property in them to the owner on registration.

moved, at the end of the clause, the addition of the words—

"But the provisions of this Act conferring a special jurisdiction on the Court as above defined shall, not excepting so far as such jurisdiction extends, affect the jurisdiction of any Court in Scotland and Ireland in causes, actions, suits, or proceedings relating to trade marks; and, if the register requires to be rectified in consequence of any proceedings in any such Court in Scotland or Ireland, due notice of such requirements shall be given to the registrar, and he shall rectify the register accordingly."

said, the paragraph was framed by the Solicitor General for Ireland and himself in conjunction with the Vice President of the Board of Trade, it being thought desirable that causes should be tried in the country in which the mark was registered.

said, that when the Bill was last in Committee his Amendment was under consideration. He had proposed an Amendment in page 14, line 6, after the word "registrar," to insert the words—

"Regard being had to the rights of the several persons interested in such laud, and in particular to the selection of such person as may for the time being appear to the registrar to be entitled according to law to be so appointed."

Progress was then reported. He had since given the subject his most careful attention, and he still thought his Amendment was the best that could be adopted, and that it would be better to leave the Registrar to select the proper person to be registered than to lay down any definite rule which should be applicable to all cases.

regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to insist on his Amendment. He believed it would, to some extent, defeat the object of the Bill, which was to provide a cheap transfer for small properties. Under this clause any small property would instantly, on the death of its owner, become the subject of judicial investigation, and the dread of that expense would, in practice, keep such properties off the register.

moved the omission of the clause, on the ground that it would interfere with one of the fundamental objects of the Bill. The clause provided that, subject to any registered estates, charges, or rights, the deposit of the land certificate, in the case of freehold land, and of the office copy of the registered lease in the case of leasehold land, should, for the purpose of creating a lien on the land to which such certificate or lease related, be deemed equivalent to a deposit of the title deeds of the land. One of the objects of the Bill was to prevent the increase of encumbrances, and this clause was inconsistent with that object. There had been a large number of cases in which priority of encumbrances formed the subject of trial, and the question was one which gave rise to a great amount of litigation.

said, he could not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that difficulty and confusion would arise from the clause, nor could he admit that it was inconsistent with the rest of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman had given such a general support to the Bill that he was sorry to have to stand by the clause in opposition to the view entertained by him. It would give an additional facility in many cases to the raising of money for temporary purposes, and he was unable to see any objection to it.

hoped that his hon. and learned Friend would not 'press his proposal to a division, having regard to the fact that the Court of Chancery had held that, notwithstanding an Act of Parliament, a deposit of deeds was sufficient to give priority of claim to land.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 31, line 15, after "standing," insert "the registrar shall hold his office during good behaviour." He argued that as some of the duties of the registrar would be of a judicial character, he ought to hold his office on the same terms as the Judges, and not as an ordinary civil servant.

said, he could not accept the Amendment, which would be contrary to the general scope and purport of the Act, the intention of which was to place the registrar in the same position as Parliamentary counsel. Secretaries to the Treasury, and other officers of the kind, who no doubt, in form, held office at pleasure, but practically during good behaviour.

moved, after Clause 59, to insert the following Clause:—

(Power to remove land from register.)

"Every registered proprietor of freehold or leasehold land may, in the proscribed manner, remove such land or any part thereof from the register.

"The removal shall be completed by the registrar entering on the register a minute thereof.

"All estates, charges, rights, interests, equities, and powers, subsisting in, on, or over any land at the time of its removal from the register shall continue to subsist in, on, or over the same notwithstanding such removal; but such land, estates, charges, rights, interests, equities, and powers shall, from and after such removal, be held, enjoyed, exercised, transferred, transmitted, dealt with, and disposed of in the same manner and with the same incidents and effect in all respects as other unregistered land and similar estates, charges, rights, interests, equities, and powers in, on, or over such land.

"All the provisions in this Act contained as to notices, cautions, inhibitions, or other restrictions upon or against any transfer of or other dealing with registered land shall, so far as the same are applicable, extend to any removal of land from the register; and no removal of any land from the register shall take place without the previous consent, to be testified in the proscribed manner, of every person entitled to any registered charge thereon."

The power of removal would encourage registration, which was voluntary. With this power, a landowner could safely register, knowing that he could secure the advantage if registration worked well, and improved the marketable value of registered land, and that he could, by the exercise of the power, at any time obviate a contrary result. Without the power, many would not try the experiment. Conveyancing Counsel and Solicitors would in many cases decline to advise their clients to adopt a registration, which was to be final in its character, and the benefits of which remained to be ascertained by experience. The clause had been, he said, approved by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory).

expressed an opinion that without a provision of the kind the Act would be a dead letter. The Act was entirely experimental, and prudent solicitors would not put their clients' property in a position from which, if the Act did not work well, it could not be withdrawn.

could not conceive anything more calculated to create confusion.

said, he must remind hon. Members that the House of Lords, after full consideration, had come to the conclusion that it was not desirable to give the power. No sufficient reason had been adduced in support of the clause.

said, that Clause 5 left the House with the words "of service or of hiring," and it had been returned by the Lords with "or" changed into "and." For that change there was no trace of any Amendment having been moved in the other House, and that being so, he believed that, according to the practice of the House, they were entitled to adhere to the clause in the form in which it left that House.

explained that the words had been altered by the officers in the other House from no political motive, but under the idea that the alteration was necessary for the intention and sense of the clause. The Amendment had not been communicated, however, and he should wish to have the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair upon the facts before the House.

said, that no Amendment having been communicated to this House by the House of Lords, this House could not take notice of what had not been communicated to it.

observed that it was clear that the gravest inconvenience might arise from an alteration being made in a Bill under such circumstances, and at the very close of the Session.

pointed out that on former occasions, when a similar thing had occurred, the mistake had been once rectified by the officers of the other House, and the same course would, no doubt, be again followed in this instance.

said, he believed that the alteration in the printed Bill had been accidental, and this House could only deal with the Bill as it came from the House of Lords.

who had given Notice of his intention to move the omission of the clause, and the substitution of a new clause in lieu thereof, said, that a clause which had been much discussed in the House had come back in a new shape, but anxious as he had been that it should not apply invidiously to any portion of Her Majesty's subjects, he thought it extremely doubtful whether the clause, as it originally stood, was not better than the one sent down from the Lords. He was surprised at this, because it had been announced, with some flourish of trumpets, that it was fortunate we had a House of Lords, which took a calm view of these things. He thought it was a matter of great rashness at that late period of the Session to have introduced two new offences into the Bill, and there could be no doubt but the change which had boon made, if it remained unaltered, would give rise to an enormous amount of litigation, and to long and envenomed contests between masters and men. For instance, it was now stipulated that a person influencing another must, before becoming liable, do so "wrongfully." The extraordinary result of that was, that a man might use violence or intimidate a person, but he would not be guilty of an offence unless he could be proved to have acted wrongfully. For his own part, he should have supposed that the fact of a man using violence with this intent was proof of a wrongful act. It was difficult what would be an offence under these words. He did not intend to move an Amendment on the point, but wished to note it as an instance of how they might "darken counsel by words without understanding." Again, whereas by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which no one held to be too lenient, no intimidation or threats were criminal unless they would justify a justice of the peace in binding over the person to keep the peace, now, as the clause was drawn, any kind of intimidation was made a substantive offence. That showed what new and difficult questions had been opened up without the slightest necessity. He should presently move to omit the words "or intimidates," in order to take the opinion of the House on the matter. Another provision was, to the effect that attending at or near a house or place of business merely to obtain or communicate information, and not with a view to intimidate, should not be deemed to be watching or besetting within the meaning of the Act. That created a new offence by implication, for it followed that a person "attending" to intimidate was guilty of an offence; but if that was meant, "attending" should have been included in the catalogue of offences, and not left to be inferred from the statement that the converse should not be an offence. Nothing could be more dangerous or unfair than the use of ambiguous expressions of this kind, especially in a measure which ought to be easy of interpretation, being, as it was, a law between the rich and the poor. The springing of an offence of this kind suddenly upon the country seemed to be one of the most imprudent pieces of legislation he had ever seen, and he was astonished that such a mistake should have been made.

pointed out that it would be convenient to consider the Amendments in the order in which they stood.

said, he would at all events read to the House a clause which, if he had the power to pass it, he would insert in the Bill—" Every person who, with a view to compel another person"—

said, it would be inconvenient to discuss such a new clause. What they were dealing with at present was the word "intimidates."

said, the natural effect of the view he took would be to endeavour to amend the clause as it stood, so far as they could, and in the end to substitute another clause for it, if it did not prove satisfactory. He now moved the omission of the words "or intimidates."

said, the clause in its present form was really less strong that it had been before. In its original form the words were "who threatens or intimidates;" but there was a question raised as to whether a threat was sufficient to bind a man over for, and therefore the word "threatens" was omitted. Intimidation, however, was another matter altogether, and the clause in its present form, instead of its being stronger than it was, was weaker. [Mr. LOWE: No, no!] In his view it was weaker. It now provided that not only must there be some action on the part of the offender, but it must have a certain effect on the person whom it sought to intimidate.

said, whatever might have been the intention of the noble Lord who made the Amendment in the House of Lords, the effect would be to leave intimidation wholly without qualification or definition. As the Bill stood before, the intimidation was to be such intimidation as would justify a justice of the peace in binding over a person; but as it now stood, the word "intimidates" was left entirely without qualification, so that the justice would have to decide as to what it might be. No doubt, the intention was to follow the Charge of the right hon. and learned Recorder, but that right hon. and learned Gentleman really defined what he meant by intimidation, using the words, "such an exhibition of force as is calculated to produce fear in the minds of ordinary men."

pointed out that they were now on quite a different part of the clause—namely, the word "intimidates" alone.

said, he simply wished to show how the word "intimidates" ran through the whole clause, and governed the end as well as the middle. The word used alone was liable to the grossest abuse. The words were—" Uses violence to or intimidates such other person, or his wife or children, or injures property, or." A new enactment to protect against violence or injury to property was not required. There ought to be some definition of the word in the sense laid down by the right hon. and learned Recorder, and then they would know what was meant. Unless some definition or limitation was introduced, the effect would be that they would have a recurrence of all the trouble they had already had. The law ought not to be left in so vague a state as it was left in by the Bill in its present form.

said, that in the old Act the word used was "coerce." It was now proposed to substitute the word "compel." Of the two, he preferred the first as the more accurate definition of what it was intended to prevent or punish. The word "compel" was too vague and indefinite a phrase to use in the case of a criminal proceeding.

called upon the Government to give some answer to the arguments which had been used. They ought to make it clearly understood what had been done, not by the Home Secretary or the Government, but by those who had considered this matter in the House of Lords. If the clause stood as it was, workmen would be placed in an infinitely worse position than they were in at present, and the House of Commons would be giving up the fruits of their labours, not to dispassionate and calm consideration on the part of the House of Lords, but to what he must characterize as hasty legislation. Under the Act of 1871 a person, in order to be convicted under this part of the clause, had to threaten or intimidate another person in such a manner as would justify a justice of the peace in binding him over, and that must be done with a view to coerce. If they had a severe law, they inflicted that severe law only upon a guilty person; but under a vague law the penalty might be inflicted upon an innocent person. The right hon. Gentleman now stepped in with words which lessened the penalty, and thought it necessary to get rid of the word "coerce." To find a person guilty of threatening required some act to be proved. It was a definite crime. But by striking out the word "threatens" and leaving only the word "intimidates" the result was that no overt act, nor anything done, would be required to ensure a conviction—a mere look, a mere walking up and down, merely "making a face" at a workman's child would be all sufficient, if the child was intimidated thereby, for the clause said, "who intimidates such other person, or his wife, or children." He appealed to Her Majesty's Government not to change their policy, but to adhere to it—to adhere to what the House had accepted.

said, he was very much astonished to find so many words uttered on so narrow and simple a question. The word "intimidates "did not mean something passive, but implied some action on the part of the person intimidating, with a view to prevent a man from doing that which he had a right to do, and which he could otherwise do. If a child or a wife or the man himself were unreasonably frightened, the Judge who tried the case would ask—" What was it that frightened you?" There must be an action on the part of the intimidator to cause fear; it was not merely the use of words which constituted the offence.

moved to add after the word "intimidates" the following words, "by threats of personal violence or injury." He considered in a matter of this kind that some clear definition should be given to the meaning of the word "intimidates," and he thought the best way to accomplish this was by adopting the Amendment he proposed.

said, the act committed would always be sufficient to indicate whether there had been intimidation within the meaning of the section, and he could not assent to the Amendment. It was possible to make a man do something against his will without using violence.

hoped the Amendment would be adopted, and said he thought some clear definition ought to be given to the word "intimidates." The interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman would extend the range of the Bill to the whole community.

said, hon. Members seemed to forget that the clause was qualified by the words "wrongly and without legal authority."

then moved the insertion of the words "or peaceably to persuade," the object being that persons who might attempt to persuade a man to leave his employ should not come under the penalty for watching and besetting which was provided for under the section.

said, it was clear peacefully persuading was not illegal, and there could therefore be no object in inserting the words in the Bill.

said, the Lord Chancellor had stated that his new clause had been drawn strictly in accordance with the Charge of the right hon. and learned Recorder for the City of London. In that Charge peaceable persuasion was not held to be an offence, but heretofore it had been held by many Judges to be an offence, and, as such, had been punished within the limits of the old statute by the magistrates. If the words were not inserted, they would be able to do as they had hitherto done, contrary to the intention of the Legislature, and the old complaint and disaffection would be left where they were. He hoped the House would not leave an old grievance unredressed.

said, if the question was so self-evident as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War said it was, there could be no objection to the insertion of the words.

said, that as the Opposition intended to divide against the clause as it stood, he wished to read the Amendment which, if they were fortunate enough to overthrow the clause of the Government, they intended to propose in its place. It was to leave out Clause 9, and insert the following clause:—

"Every person who with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing anything which he has a legal right to do, or to do anything from which he has a legal right to abstain—1, persistently follows such other person about from place to place; 2, hides any tools, clothes, or other property owned or used by such other person, or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof; or 3, follows such other person with one or more persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road; or 4, besets or watches the house or other place where such other person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, with a view to compulsion as aforesaid, and not merely to obtain or "communicate information, shall be liable on conviction thereof by a court of summary jurisdiction, or on indictment, to a fine not exceeding-twenty pounds, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months."

said, that the great boon which the working classes had got was not contained in the clause, but was to be found in the Bill itself. This clause was simply intended to put into fresh language the words of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. He should never shrink from the provisions laid down in that Act, nor from the words he had expressed upon the subject. The law he wanted to have in force was that laid down in the Charge of the right hon. and learned Recorder of London; and that law, so far as he could determine it, should be enforced. The right hon. Gentleman had tried his hand once before, and had endeavoured to strike out the words "serious annoyance" altogether. The right hon. Gentleman now tried his hand again, and having just voted for retaining the words "peaceable persuasion," he had now the boldness and hardihood to ask the House to vote for a clause specially leaving out the words "peaceable persuasion," which two minutes ago he voted to insert. He could not have a stronger justification than that given by the right hon. Gentleman himself for resisting the proposed clause.

would remind the Home Secretary that if the words "peaceable persuasion "were not to be found in the proposed clause, the word "intimidates" was also not in it. He believed that if the Home Secretary had been left to his own counsel, he would have consented to the insertion of such reasonable words as "peaceable persuasion." The right hon. Gentleman, he must admit, had conducted the Bill in a most equitable and conciliatory manner, and he regretted that he had at the last moment refused to insert the words "peaceable persuasion." As he had said, the clause was free from the word "intimidates," and on that ground he supported it. He did trust the House would have the courage to deal equitably in this matter, and to show liberal feeling towards the working man. The Government had dealt with these things in a manner, which, if they had been in Opposition, they would have regarded as revolutionary if introduced by the Liberal party.

thought he might claim to know something of the working classes as well as the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), and he could assure the House that the working men were exceedingly desirous to be protected from the tyranny of those-whose combination would coerce them into compliance. The words proposed to be inserted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lowe) were perfectly useless, because the magistrates on every bench in the Kingdom would require no such Amendments in order to guide their decisions. He should, therefore, oppose the clause.

considered he should not be doing his duty if he did not ask for attention to this Bill. It was a Bill of great importance, because it sanctioned a very bad principle indeed. He should, perhaps, have had greater respect for the policy of the Government if they had shown more thoroughness in what they had attempted; but the Bill, which began by asking if three new Judges were needed, had ended in a request for merely two new Judges. That certainly showed that even in the opinion of the Government themselves their original proposition was not one which ought to be supported, and he looked upon their present proposal as being equally uncalled-for. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had a very great acquaintance with the county of Lancashire; and what was the position of Liverpool in that county as to local Judges? Counting everybody who could be counted, there were not more than four local Judges in Liverpool. He (Mr. Maitland) believed that the number ought more properly to be said to be throe, while in Glasgow at the present time they had five inferior Judges, in addition to three others that were in the county. Therefore, they had something like eight local Judges connected with Glasgow and its surroundings; while in Liverpool, which was not inferior in importance and population, and which, in fact, did more business, there were only three, or at the most four, local Judges. He should like some explanation of this anomaly, because if the people of Glasgow were to have these two additional Judges, he did not see how they could refuse Liverpool a similar number. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: We only ask for one more.] They asked for two, because they asked for a stipendiary magistrate, who was to be all intents and purposes a Sheriff substitute. Altogether, he did not think this was a charge which ought to be made on the Consolidated Fund. The Scotch Members had been charged with obstructing the policy of the Government in regard to the Sheriffs (Scotland) Bill. In their previous Bill the Government proposed to very largely increase the Sheriffs of Scotland—he believed by at least 20—which would have caused a charge of £40,000 per annum, and this he did not think would have been a very gratifying result, and he was glad they had succeeded in getting the previous Bill withdrawn.

said, that the entire judicial system of Scotland required revision, especially as regarded the manner in which some of the Judges and officers of the Courts received their salaries. It was open to grave objection to have salaries of the Courts and Sheriffs of Scotland drawn in two separate accounts—one the Civil Service Estimates, and the other the Finance Accounts, rendering it impossible to ascertain the numbers of different officers or the rates of salary. There was also another objection to the practice of remunerating parties by fees. He believed the Lord Advocate was paid in five different ways. He did not begrudge the right hon. and learned Gentleman his salary, and if he had his way he would make it more. But it should be conditional on his whole time being devoted to the business of Scotland, and that he should be prohibited from appearing in any appeal or other cases. In conclusion, he strongly objected to a Bill of that nature being proceeded with at the fag-end of the Session, when many of the Scotch Members, having left town, could not be present to take part in the discussion.

said, he should be ready, when the proper time arrived, to discuss the question of the entire judicial system of Scotland; but that Bill had really little to do with the matter. It dealt with a pressing want which was felt at this moment. When he was in Glasgow last year, he took great pains to ascertain whether the want was a bonâ fide one or not, and he came to the conclusion that there was a real and actual want of an additional Judge for that city He, therefore, hoped that the House would allow the Bill to proceed, as it only asked for one Judge, and not two, as stated by the hon. Member.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 22, to leave out "funds from which the salaries of sheriffs are payable," and insert "Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

objected to the proposed change. He did not want the additional charge to be put on the Consolidated Fund. It was a source of great inconvenience to have public officers paid in two, or more ways; at present, some salaries were inserted in the Civil Estimates and annually voted by Parliament, whilst some salaries were inserted in the Finance Accounts, as part of the sum voted, in the lump, as a charge on the Consolidated Fund. The result was that no hon. Member could ascertain the numbers and salaries of the Sheriffs, and other officers of the Sheriff Courts, owing to the whole being inserted in lump sums without information as to numbers or rates of salary. He believed that the last Act passed, about five years ago, rendered this mode of paying salaries to Sheriffs quite unnecessary.

said, the officers of the Treasury had stated that the Consolidated Fund was the proper phrase to use in the Bill.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would not proceed with the Bill that night. The House had been engaged on Government Business up to that late hour, and also until 3 o'clock on the previous morning on the same business. He hoped hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill would consent to the adjournment of the debate.

rose to Order. He believed the hon. Member for Bath had already spoken in the course of the previous debate.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

regretted that the hon. Member should have thought it necessary to interfere. He understood it was believed by some hon. Members on that (the Liberal) side of the House that the Bill was intended to serve the interests of the Conservative Party at the expense of those who sat on the Liberal side. He failed to see how it could do so, but he failed especially to see on what logical grounds any radical like his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee could oppose a Bill for such a legitimate extension of the franchise.

rose to move the Adjournment of the House. The Bills remaining on the Paper were six in number, and were all Private Members' Bills, and he certainly understood that when the House met on Saturday afternoons it was for the Business remaining to be disposed of at the end of the Session, and in order to facilitate the Government Bills. It would do no harm if the debate on the present Bill were postponed. The 3rd Bill—Offences Against the Person—was one which would give rise to a great amount of controversy, and could not be decided without some hours of time being consumed upon it. Then there would be a debate upon the Infanticide Bill, which was a Bill which had not passed the House of Lords, and therefore could not be carried at once. The next Bill— Increase of the Episcopate—was op-posed by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side. The Lords' Amendments to the Offences Against the Person Bill could be considered in ample time for the Bill to pass into law, and therefore it would not stop the measure to adjourn the House on the present occasion. There were two other Bills which might be said not to have been debated at all. This Bill could not be proceeded with at the extreme end of a sitting. It gave rise to matters which would require to be discussed at considerable length, and a number of matters were mentioned, to which he should presently have to allude, but he would not enter into minute details on the present occasion. There were a number of questions which were neither exactly representative questions nor franchise questions, but lay between the two. In 1869 there was a great deal of excitement on the registration question, and immediately after the first General Election many householders felt very keenly the difficulties in the way of their exercise of the franchise. A Committee was moved for in the House by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone). The Committee was appointed, and was presided over by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), and he (Sir Charles Dilke) spoke with certain knowledge of its proceedings, because he attended every meeting, and took the evidence on one branch of inquiry. The result was that a Report was drawn up and agreed to by both the Liberal and Conservative Members of the Committee. The Report not only dealt with questions of registration proper, but also questions of franchise. The Report was never acted upon in the House of Commons. A Registration Bill founded on it was introduced three times—once by himself, once by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, and on the third occasion by some other hon. Member. On one occasion he succeeded in carrying this Registration Bill through the Committee; but it was defeated by the party opposite by their tactics on the third reading. As an instance of the inequalities it was proposed to remedy, he might mention that when a lodger removed from one floor to another he lost his franchise. This was a great handship, and one that ought to be remedied by legislation. It would be monstrous to attempt to proceed with the present Bill now.

said, it was not right that objection should now be made to proceeding with the Bill, when there had been no objection to its being placed upon the Paper for that day. It was not owing to any fault of his that the Bill had not come in at an earlier period of the Session. He would, however, consent to adjourn the debate, if the hon. Baronet opposite would withdraw his Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

said, that Private Members' Business had been postponed to make way for Government Business as was usual on Saturdays, and it was only fair that they should have the fag-end of what was usually a Government sitting for the discussion of their measures. His Bill—the Offences against the Person Bill—had been waiting for six weeks for the consideration of the Lords' Amendments, and he hoped they would be considered now.

said, the suggestion of his hon. Friend opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was a reasonable one. What the hon. Baronet said was very fair; Saturday was not ordinarily accessible to Government Business, and it was not desirable to take Business that would lead to much contest; on the other hand, the Private Members had been very good to the Government, and he thought that the present difficulty could be compromised by withdrawing the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and, the other Bills being adjourned until Monday, that they should at least take the adjourned debate on the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Offences Against the Person Bill.

said, he hoped, if the other Bills were adjourned, that his Bill, the Increase of the Episcopate Bill, should be put in such a position on the Paper for Monday as to ensure its being brought on at an early part of the evening. A Bill of the importance of the Increase to the Episcopate Bill demanded the serious consideration of the House. It was one which had gone through all its stages in the House of Lords without any Amendment, and that, as he contended, gave it a claim on the serious attention of this House.

said, he was never more astounded in his life than at the statement just made by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. The Bill of which he had charge met with only a negative support from the Government in the Upper House.

said, an adjournment of the discussion of the Bill of the hon. Member for Christchurch until Monday would be fruitless, for the Bill would be just as distasteful then as now, and nothing could be more unfortunate than that a measure of the kind should be passed by a private Member.

supported the Bill, and urged that it should be proceeded with that evening.

said, he had pursued a legitimate course in opposing the Bill. He protested against controversial measures brought in by private Members being discussed on days appointed for Government Business at the end of the Session.

moved the adjournment of the debate till Monday.