asked the Under Secretary of State for India, in reference to his answer of the 8th of February 1875, Whether anything has yet been done, or is to be done soon, as to Factory Legislation in India?

Sir, the matter at present stands thus:—In March last year a Commission was appointed in Bombay to inquire into the subject. The Commission made its Report in July, 1875, the majority being adverse to any legislation upon the subject. The President and Dr. Blaney, another member of the Commission, however, were of opinion that a simple legislative Act would be beneficial both to masters and operatives. The Government upon receiving this Report determined to make further inquiries, and the Collectors of Surat and Broach are now collecting evidence. A final Report may therefore shortly be expected, and upon that the Government of Bombay will base their action.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether an official inquiry into the circumstances of the breaking out of scurvy on board the "Royal Sovereign" will be, or has been ordered by the Board, when and where it will be held, and whether the report will be published?

, in reply, said, that a searching inquiry had been ordered at Falmouth, where the Royal Sovereign put in. That inquiry would be continued to-morrow in London, and the Report, when presented, would be laid upon the Table of the House, together with other Papers relating to scurvy in the Mercantile Marine, which he regretted to say had lately increased. The owners of the Royal Sovereign had freely placed at the disposal of the Boarb of Trade all the documents and invoices showing from whom their stores were purchased.

, in rising to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the parochial system is unsuitable and inadequate to the reasonable requirements of the inhabitants of the Metropolis; and that the subject deserves the best attention of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to remove by legislation the great evils which at present exist,"

said, that the Motion differed in some respects from that which he proposed last year. He now went a step further and said that the subject was one which deserved the attention of Her Majesty's Government. The history of the City of London would probably be well known to most hon. Members. Very soon after the Norman Conquest a Charter was granted which created the Corporation of the City of London; this continued to exist down to the present day. Since that time very few alterations were made in it, which showed the wisdom and foresight of those who prepared it. King James I. had a very just impression that the size of London would become so great that it would at last be unmanageable, and he wished to make some serious alteration, with a view to control its size. In the reign of King Charles II. some effort was made to bring outside wards within the municipal enclosure, and Farringdon and Bishops-gate Street Wards were accordingly included. There were also established Bills of Mortality, means of recording the deaths, and of arriving at other statistical knowledge relating to London. But the limits of the Corporation had remained to this day more or less as they were originally established. It was to London outside the walls that he wished to draw the attention of the House. In 1855 a very considerable alteration was made by Sir Benjamin Hall, subsequently Lord Llanover, who created an outside corporate system, in which there was a single body made up of various local Boards. By Sir Benjamin Hall's Act, in addition to a Council selected by the Vestries, there were local Boards which were elected by the ratepayers. How had the local Boards done their duties under the Act of 1855? The following duties were imposed upon them; they had to superintend the paving and lighting of London and the cleansing of streets; and, what was still more important, they had to inspect vaults and cellars; to prevent overcrowding of dwellings; and to appoint inspectors of nuisances and medical officers of health. Those duties, he believed, it would be acknowledged were most imperfectly performed. As regarded paving, hon. Members of the House had ocular evidence of that. If any further evidence were needed, he might quote that given before a Committee of that House in 1866 by Mr. Beal, a prominent vestryman, who said—

"No one can look at the streets of the metropolis, particularly the back streets, without being struck by their very bad condition."

Perhaps the Vestries were not altogether to blame for the lighting, which was a fault resulting rather from the system, under which powerful companies had to be opposed by weak Vestries, so that it was not surprising that the public suffered. As to cleansing, we occasionally saw a watercart, but our roads were allowed to be in a dirty condition, and the dust was sometimes intolerable. It was the duty of Vestries to remove dust and refuse from houses. He was informed that that was extremely imperfectly done; that unless servants gave something in the shape of a bribe to dustmen, dust was not removed at all, and that it was a perpetual source of annoyance to householders. With regard to houses in Southwark, in the parish of St. George, Dr. Rendle, in his letter printed in the Appendix to the Report of Mr. Aytoun's Committee, said—" Most of the houses are, from various causes, too unclean to be safe." They could not be otherwise; water for purposes of cleanliness was almost everywhere deficient. In two houses the people said—"We are in a dreadful state; our rent has been raised from 7s. to 8s. a-week, but we can get nothing done." One woman appeared quite terrified, and assured her landlord, who was there, that she "had not informed." It is useless to expect the poor, lodgings being scarce, to speak out. "The foul smells are scarcely endurable," said one. Another said—" They do the outside, but not the inside." Of the 96 houses visited 30 stood as follows:—The water-closets were entirely without water, and there was not the least attempt at a supply, although the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, s. 81, ordered "sufficient water supply to closets." There were water closets with water supply through a straight pipe without valve or tap, and privy gases were admitted easily and directly into the drinking butt. In three places, the, closets not being fit for use, the open yards were used instead. In four places the one closet for five houses was open to the observation of boys in the next street, and the soil was heaped up and running out at the door. Of the 96 houses visited 42 required the inspector; some were without any water supply, some without water receptacles, and some had rotten or broken receptacles; "they let the water out as fast as it runs in." All the houses, with two or three exceptions, were without covers to butts, and so, as one woman said, "every bit of dust and dirt comes in." These, if cleansed, would become filthy immediately, from the atmosphere in these close, filthy places, from drains and dung-heaps close at hand, from refuse, rags, and dead animals wantonly thrown by children into the open butt. In two cases the small open casks were standing in pools of liquid night-soil. In a very large number the supply was quite insufficient—15 houses with 181 inhabitants had water receptacles holding 456 gallons, 2½ gallons to each person. The 25 & 26 Vict., c. 102, s. 77, ordered a supply not exceeding 30 gallons per individual. Prom this evidence it appeared that the Vestry did not order, or the orders were not carried out. This state of things he (Sir William Fraser) ventured to say was attributable in no small degree to the system of government which now prevailed in the metropolis. It was the opinion certainly of some of the vestrymen that in the Vestries there were persons one would not wish to see there if London was to be well governed. Meetings and elections of Vestries were, according to Mr. Beal, not unfrequently held in public-houses, and only a small number of vestrymen attended. For instance, in the parish of St. James, where there were 30,000 ratepayers, he understood, that only 25 ratepayers attended to elect the 60 vestrymen. The election of the vestrymen was conducted by a few individuals, and appeared to be a mere nominal proceeding. He thought it was well worth the attention of the Imperial Government to remove this state of things from London, which as had been said, contained more inhabitants than Portugal, Holland, and Scotland. Various schemes at different times had been proposed for the improvement of this state of things. One was to extend the power of the Lord Mayor and Corporation, and make one vast corporation of the whole of the metropolis, including about 4,000,000 souls. Another was to take the Parliamentary boroughs and make them into municipal boroughs, with mayors and common councils of their own. It was also proposed by other reformers to give the Secretary of State for the Home Department larger powers, and to place the population of London under his control. There were other schemes, but these, he thought, were the principal ones. Although the task might be difficult, he could not help believing that some scheme might be devised, not to create a Utopia, but to improve materially the condition of the inhabitants of the metropolis. He did not ask that we should attempt to make of London

"Some faultless monster whom the world ne'er saw."

At that moment Her Majesty's Government had a very loyal majority, and the present seemed a fitting opportunity for dealing with this question. We found that greater cities had existed than the metropolis in past days. We resembled the Romans, who retained possession of the world for many centuries, not so much by their soldiers as by their admirable method of government. Like the Romans, we had but little public taste; but with regard to the power of organization, he believed no people ever existed in the world who were capable of so much organization as the British. The give-and-take—the power of forbearance must have immense influence in all municipal institutions, and the population of London were most patient and enduring. Perhaps it might be asked, if he thought things were so bad, why he did not bring in a Bill to remedy them? But for any unofficial Member of the House to carry a Bill on that subject was quite impossible. It would require the whole power of a strong Government to accomplish it. He would, however, offer two very humble suggestions, the adoption of which might somewhat lessen the existing evils. The first was to diminish the number of the parochial districts; and the second to have the central body elected, not by the vestries, but by the general body of the ratepayers. He appealed to the Government to take the matter up, and endeavour to remedy the grievances of the people of this great metropolis, who, as he had said, were more numerous than the population of Scotland, and who surely deserved that some attention should be paid to their wants. In that way the present generation might leave the local administration of London in a considerably better state than they had found it. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the Resolution.

seconded the Motion.

said, he was induced to join in that discussion only because he had for several years past taken an active part in reference to two of the points mentioned by the hon. Baronet—namely, the supply of gas and water. He had listened to the hon. Baronet, and thought his complaints were very small and trivial in comparison with the magnitude of his Motion, and the only suggestion the hon. Baronet seemed to have to make was, that they should diminish the number of the parochial authorities. There were at present 23 parishes carrying on local administration with an average population of 100,000 each. There were and must be complaints at all times of local government, and both last year and this year the head of the Local Government Board had given notice of intended measures for its improvement. But he maintained that there were no bodies who were making greater progress than the constituted authorities now existing, and there were no Petitions from the inhabitants of the Metropolis complaining that the vestrymen were improperly elected or failed in their duty. Water had been supplied with great care to every district. He did not think that any great abuse existed if nothing more could be said than that some old lady had been called on to pay sixpence on account of her water-butt on entering upon her property. Was that a sufficient reason for coming forward to ask for a sweeping change in the government of the metropolis, a subject which had puzzled some of their greatest legislators during the last 20 years. He was satisfied that every measure that was brought forward for the improvement of the condition and comfort of the inhabitants of the metropolis would receive proper consideration from the Metropolitan Board, who had performed their duties in a very efficient manner, for the benefit of the metropolis generally, especially as regarded the supply and purity of gas. Unless more distinct complaints could be brought forward he did not think the hon. Baronet could hope for success in the prosecution of his Motion.

said, he was astonished at the charming description given by the last speaker of the admirable way in which those who supplied the public with gas and water did their duty. If everything was really so satisfactory as the hon. Gentleman said, the consumers must be very ungrateful, for they found considerable fault with those articles from time to time. He did not, however, quite understand what the hon. Baronet (Sir William Fraser) wished, for he had not pointed out any mode of setting things right if they were wrong. He was not aware that the persons whom the hon. Baronet wished to seek were not there already. There were a great many persons appointed to look after them, and to set them in a proper condition, but he did not see that his hon. Friend had shown any mode of setting things right if they were really wrong. He had looked into these matters some years back, and had considered whether by a different division of the metropolis its condition might not be improved, but the plan he had approved had not been taken up. For himself, he did not say that the Metropolitan Board of Works had not performed their duty to a certain extent, but he thought that the metropolis would be better governed if the City were extended, so as that one body should embrace the whole of London, and perform its duties without any clashing between one authority and another. The hon. Baronet had said that everything was very wicked, very shocking, and very uncomfortable, but he had not made any suggestion for remedying the evil. He left all that to the Government. It was sincerely to be hoped that whatever the Government might say or do in the matter would redound to the advantage of the community.

, speaking as the Representative of a metropolitan constituency, maintained that the work of cleansing, lighting, &c., in the metro- polis was very well done indeed, considering the difficulties the Vestries and district Boards had to contend with. If any one went to his borough, he hoped not as an intending candidate for Parliamentary honours, they would find it as well paved and lighted and cleaned as the City of London. In that respect London was certainly better off than Glasgow, Manchester, or Liverpool. It was all very well for the hon. Baronet to find fault with vestrymen; but they gave much valuable time from day to day in discharging the duties of their office, and they were men, many of them of good ability, and discharged these duties in a way creditable to themselves and useful to the public. The hon. Baronet spoke slightingly of vestries because some old woman had had her water-butt empty, and some other, old woman was grumbling about her dust-hole; but what scheme had the hon. Baronet to propose for the better government of the metropolis? None. The government of London was a work of immense difficulty, and for his part he would say it was—

"Better to bear the ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of,"

It was easy to grumble about the way in which vestrymen and others did their work, but he should like to see any Lord or Baronet who complained of this maladministration on the part of vestries and district boards, looking after the sweeping of the streets, the dust carts, and nuisances themselves. Instead of attempting to upset the existing state of things, for which it would not be easy to devise a better, he hoped the hon. Baronet would withdraw his Motion, and leave the matter to the Government, who would no doubt do what was proper.

said, he felt bound to say a few words on the subject, though he did not propose to follow the hon. Baronet into the history of the Corporation of London, which had nothing to do with the present question. The hon. Baronet contended that the parochial system was unsuitable and inadequate to the requirements of the metropolis. He (Sir James Hogg) must confess he had some difficulty in understanding what was meant by the parochial system of London, and he could not conceive how anyone who took the trouble to prepare speeches for that House could fall into such a mistake as to speak of the local management of the metropolis by that name. He was bound to take exception to much of what the hon. Baronet had stated in support of his Motion in saying that the parochial and district Boards had not fulfilled their charge in respect of paving, lighting, and cleansing. As regarded the paving, in attempting to make out a case against the authorities, he did not even bring up his statistics, but had contented himself with quoting from a Report dated as far back as 1866, and relying upon the evidence of Mr. Beal, who had made himself notorious in connection with the subject. As for the charge that some of the back streets of London were not kept in such admirable order as could be desired, it was no doubt true, and he (Sir James Hogg) hoped the Vestries concerned would do their best to improve matters. As to lighting, the hon. Baronet had some complaint to make, but said he did not blame the Vestries or district Boards. Why, then, did he bring up the question at all? The quality of the gas was not under the control of those bodies, and all they could do was to endeavour to get it as good as possible. The Metropolitan Board, for their part, had done and would do their best, in conjunction with the City of London, to improve the gas supply, and to have it placed under better regulations. Last Session he ventured to bring in three Bills, backed by the Corporation of the City and the Metropolitan Board, to deal with the subject, but, unfortunately, he did not meet with as much support as he should have liked. Two of the Bills had, therefore, to be given up, but one—the Regulation Bill—was read a second time and went before a Committee. The alterations then made upon it had been accepted by the Corporation and the Metropolitan Board, and were embodied in a Bill which he should bring before the House on the earliest possible day for the second reading. It was futile to say there was no central authority, because the Metropolitan Board was really a central authority to all intents and purposes; and although he did not wish to speak in any laudatory spirit of the work of that body, yet as a simple matter of justice he wished to show that they were striving to do their duty to the metropolis at large. The question of dust was no doubt of some importance. He had himself received many complaints about it, and he thought more attention ought to be paid to it by the various Vestries and district Boards. Whenever he received complaints of that kind, he invariably sent them to the authorities concerned, and at the same time brought them under the particular notice of the representatives of those bodies sitting at his Board. Those complaints, he believed, had received every attention, and he hoped the evil would gradually diminish. He remembered, when he held the position of a vestryman, the medical officer had reported that there were cellars and places inhabited by poor people, and in which human beings ought not to live; but if those poor people were turned out, the question was, where were they to go? Under the admirable Artizans' Dwellings Act he hoped this evil, too, would be greatly mitigated, if not entirely removed, by the combined action of the various bodies concerned. The water supply of London had been complained of. Well, it was at least a question whether it was not superior to that of many large cities and towns in England, and reports which had been made on the subject showed that, at all events, it was not the detestable compound it was said to be. The hon. Baronet said he had been informed that Vestry elections were often held in public-houses. Though he (Sir James Hogg) had himself been several times elected as a member of local Vestries, he had never heard of any such elections taking place, except at a large public building hired for the purpose. He quite agreed with the hon. Baronet that a large number of people did not attend to these matters, but that was the fault of gentlemen of intelligence and standing, who, instead of going on the local and district Boards, and giving attention to local affairs, contented themselves with finding fault with those who had to discharge that duty. The hon. Baronet proposed to diminish the parochial areas, and that the members of district Boards be elected by householders directly and not by the ratepayers only. He also suggested that members of the Central Board, meaning the Metropolitan Board, should be elected directly instead of being chosen by the Vestries and local Boards they represented. With respect to the first point there were Returns showing that the local areas were at present sufficient to ensure fair elections, while as to direct representation on the Metropolitan Board, the members who were sent there by the various local Vestries and district Boards brought with them a large amount of practical knowledge and varied experience, and did honour to the districts which sent them; and he could personally testify to the admirable manner in which they discharged their duties. Of course, it was for Her Majesty's Government to say whether a certain portion should be brought in by direct representation. The hon. Baronet said the City of London did not wish to join the Metropolitan Board on account of the debt, but he was not aware that the City had no debt. The debt of the Metropolitan Board was consolidated, and with regard to that consolidation, it was clear that it was a great public advantage in every way to have one stock at 3½ per cent, instead of having one part at 4, another at 4½, and another at 5 per cent, and all running for different periods. Since the Report to which the hon. Baronet alluded was made many of the evils referred to had been ameliorated, others were being ameliorated, and he could assure him that whenever any evils or defects were pointed out they would be attended to, and would receive full consideration, not only from the Vestries and district Boards, but from the Metropolitan Board, who would endeavour to exercise their powers for their removal or amelioration.

said, the hon. Baronet who had brought this matter forward had it greatly at heart, because many years ago he had it under his consideration, and had brought it before Parliament more than once. The hon. Baronet called everything he could to his aid; for, unlike the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), who brought the subject forward in the sunshine of June or July, he took advantage of the wet and snow of February. He hoped, however, he would be excused if he did not enter into any lengthened statement on the question at present. He did not gather that it was the wish of the House that they should just now discuss what would be the best form of government for the whole of the metropolis. The Motion referred to the parochial system; but the original parochial system had, to a con- siderable extent at all events, been changed by the legislation which led to the formation of district Boards. No one could say the present system was perfect; no one could say it might not be amended, but it was more difficult to say the best form of government to adopt. They would have in the course of the present Session several very practical points brought before them bearing on this question. If he understood rightly, they would have the great question of the water supply to the metropolis brought directly before the notice of the House, and they already had notice that they would have to discuss the whole question of the gas supply; and, further, the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire would again bring forward his Bill and invite discussion upon it. When those schemes were put forward in a practical shape, he should be prepared, on behalf of the Government, to discuss them, to raise objections to them, or to say what he could in their favour, as the case might be. With all these particular schemes before them, he thought it would be better to postpone any lengthened discussion until other opportunities occurred. The hon. Baronet might be quite sure that the attention of the Government must necessarily be directed to the subject by those various measures, and he hoped, therefore, that the Motion would not be pressed to a division. It would, no doubt, be embarrassing that there should be a Resolution that this question deserved the immediate attention of the Government, and he hoped the Government would be allowed to wait until the schemes to which he referred were brought forward.

said, although the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was satisfactory as far as it went, yet it would have been much more satisfactory to have heard something approaching a promise not only that the attention of the Government would be directed to this subject, but that the House might hope to have something approaching to a measure dealing with the grievance. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Truro (Sir James Hogg), he did not think there was much to argue. He regretted to hear expressions used which they were not accustomed to, such as "futile," applied to the remarks of a Member. Although, no doubt, there was an assembly in Spring Gardens where language of that description was sometimes heard, he trusted it would not be imported into that House.

, in rising to move that leave be given to bring in a Bill to explain the Law relating to Cheques or Drafts on Bankers, said, that before 1854 cheques were distinguishable from bills of exchange in several important particulars. They were payable exclusively to bearer on presentation in cash; they were unstamped, and were assignable by delivery. In 1854, however, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), in one of his Stamp Acts, assimilated with cheques to bearer cheques to order, which were' to be unstamped. In 1856 legislation took place to enable the crossing upon a cheque to become an essential and integral part of the cheque itself, so that the crossed cheque became payable only through a banker. In 1858 a further change took place with regard to the stamp duties, the cheques upon bankers, whether payable to bearer or to order, were to be stamped with a penny stamp. Another clause was introduced into the Act of 1858. A banker was responsible for the genuineness of any endorsement upon a bill of exchange which was addressed to his house, and which he paid; but a banker, from the very necessity of the ease, when the now instrument of which he was speaking was introduced, was exonerated from any liability as regarded the responsibility for endorsement, so that, so far as that responsibility and the stamp duty were concerned, cheques became very different documents from bills of exchange. Under the then provisions of the law those cheques to order became one of the safest and most convenient mediums of making payments, either for trade or personal purposes, and to a large extent did away with the necessity of using Bank-notes. The money for them could be received by nobody but the person for whom it was intended, for if one of those cheques fell into the hands of a thief, he could do nothing with it, being crossed to a banker, unless, indeed, which was very improbable, he happened to have a banker of his own, or a confederate who was in that position. In the event, therefore, of the cheque being presented for payment the banker would have the means of tracing the thief and bringing him to justice. Under the operation of a form of payment so convenient, not only trading operations, but personal payments or tradesmen's bills were easily dealt with, and on the cheque, when once paid and returned with the endorsement of the payee, there was a full discharge of his claim. Within the last 12 months, however, the security and convenience of that form of payment had been very rudely assailed. Mills and Co. drew a cheque for £21 on the Union Bank of London, payable to the order of Smith, who, having endorsed the cheque and crossed it with the name of his own bankers—the London and County Bank—gave it to his clerk to pay into his account. The clerk was waylaid by a thief, who stole the cheque, and passed it to a man named Thurger for £8 10s., who in his turn passed it on to a person with the initial "C." a customer of the London and Westminster Bank, who paid the cheque in there, and the bank, not looking particularly to the nature of the crossing, presented it to the Clearing House, and there, equally without examining the crossing, the Union Bank by pure inadvertence paid it. Smith, when he discovered his loss, applied to the Union Bank, which he held to be responsible to, him. The Union Bank, however, not unnaturally disliked to pay twice over, and said they would fight the question of responsibility. They accordingly fought it, and, unhappily for the trading community, they succeeded in the suit, which was tried in the Court of Queen's Bench, when Mr. Justice Blackburn decided that Smith, the plaintiff in the case, had no valid claim, because "C." the holder of the cheque, was a honâ fide holder, and was, therefore, entitled to the money which he received. Against that decision there was an appeal to the Superior Court, when the judgment of the Court below was affirmed; the argument of Mr. Justice Blackburn as to the inexpediency of not restraining the negotiability of the document being there re- peated, while the Judges evidently felt that there was something wrong, because they did not deny that nothing could be more distinct than the provisions of the Act of 1858, which set forth that any banker paying a cheque crossed with the name of a banker to any other banker than the person named in the crossing should be held to have done wrong. But as no penalty was attached to that provision, it was maintained that if it was intended to be anything more than a caution, it ought to be carried further by means of legislation. Now, that was what he proposed to do. The Judges in both Courts, he might add, contended that "C." must be held to be the bonâ fide holder, and had assumed that it was so admitted on the part of the plaintiff; but he was in possession of a statement of the attorney for the plaintiff, in which, in the most distinct terms, he repudiated the idea that his client or himself had for a moment admitted the bonâ fide ownership of "C." They, on the contrary, maintained that the cheque, being crossed with the name of a specific banker, constituted a warning to him which precluded him from becoming the bonâ fide holder. As to the question of negotiability which had been raised, he believed that it was in the case to which he referred a perfect figment. Negotiability involved the existence of a bargain, and in the case of bills of exchange there was a bargain, and the price to be given for them, therefore, became matter of negotiation. A cheque, however, was subject to no bargaining, and it was payable immediately. The only price which could be given for it was the amount which it bore upon its face. Nor were these cheques negotiable in the same way as bank notes. Bank notes passed from hand to hand without responsibility for their nominal value. Cheques were the creation of the individual for his own convenience; whereas bank notes were the creation of the sovereign power. They were paper money, and the banks which had the delegated power of issuing them paid a considerable revenue on account of that privilege into the Exchequer. If cheques were to be placed on the same footing, it would enable the individual of his own motion to do that which the banks could only do by the delegation of the State, and thus the Exchequer would be deprived of a con- siderable amount of revenue. To make a crossed cheque transferable like a bank note would be impolitic and destructive to the purposes for which it was created by the drawer. It was not created to pass from hand to hand, but to make a payment from his own banker to another individual. The House would, therefore, see that the negotiability stipulated for as an attribute of crossed cheques was most unreal, and, if it could be realized, would be most destructive and impolitic. Further, the drawer wanted to make a payment through his own banker to a certain individual and to get a receipt; and if it was delayed there were two risks, as the banker might fail, in which event the drawer might have to pay the money over again. The simple remedy he had to propose was—first, that a banker having paid a cheque wrongfully, in violation of the statute, should not thereby be discharged from the liability intended to be imposed upon him by the directions of the cheque; and, secondly, that he who should steal, or whose confederate should steal, a crossed cheque should not by that theft acquire a title in a document which was distinctly, from its nature and contents, not intended to pass from hand to hand. His Bill was confined to these two points, and he hoped it would receive the sanction of the House. In conclusion, the right hon. Member moved for leave to introduce the Bill.

, in seconding the Motion, expressed, as a man of business experience, his thanks to the right hon. Member for the City of London for having proposed it, as it dealt effectively with a subject of great importance to the commercial classes in this country. He regretted his right hon. Friend had not been one of the counsel in the case; for if he had been retained the result might have been different. Although, no doubt, an appeal might be preferred against the judgment of the Court, having regard to the constitution and strength of that Court, he did not think there would be much chance of such an appeal being successful. There was one point in his judgment, however, on which he might be allowed an observation. The Judges seemed to have assumed that the presenter of the cheque was a bonâ fide holder of it; but by the Act 21 & 22 Vict. it was distinctly laid down that the crossing of a cheque was an integral part of the cheque itself; and, therefore, how any person could be a bonâ fide holder who taking a cheque so crossed paid it to one when it was crossed to another banker he was at a loss to conceive. But for present purposes we must accept the judgment of the Court, and deal with it as we found it. He was glad to think that further legislation on the subject had been suggested by the Lord Chancellor himself. In his opinion, the Bill now introduced by his right hon. Friend was so moderate in itself, and so well calculated to remove the grievance occasioned by the judgment, that he trusted it would receive the sanction both of the House and of Her Majesty's Government.

said, he did not desire in the least to oppose the introduction of the Bill, which might prove to be a very excellent and beneficial measure. On this point, however, he did not at present wish to pronounce any opinion. He believed that the Bill, if it were to be operative in the direction in which it was intended to be operative, must be a Bill to restrain the negotiability of crossed cheques. That might be a very wise and politic measure to introduce, and he would say nothing further on that point; but, as the decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench and the Court of Appeal seemed to have been arraigned, perhaps the House would pardon him if he made a remark or two about that. The facts of the case, which had been already detailed, were very short and simple. Mills and Co. had drawn a cheque in favour of Smith, payable to Smith's order. After Smith indorsed it, it was stolen from his clerk, and it went through a few hands, or a number of hands, until it came, as was admitted, for value, into the hands of "C." According to the view which the Courts took of the matter, that cheque could not be paid to anybody but "C." It could not be paid to Smith, and if the Union Bank of London committed an error in paying it—as they undoubtedly did—still they had not done any injury to Smith, the plaintiff in the case; because under no possible circumstances could he have recovered the amount for which the cheque was drawn. Therefore, the whole judgment of the Queen's Bench and of the Court of Appeal—over which the Lord Chancellor presided—was founded on this—that the Act of 1858 did not by its provisions restrain the negotiability of cheques—that cheques crossed in this way were negotiable, and that this particular cheque having been negotiated. Smith, who was the plaintiff, could not be damaged by its having been paid in the way it was. And now he would say a few words concerning the negotiability of a cheque. The law at present was—it might be desirable to alter it, but the law at present was—that a cheque made payable to bearer was negotiable—that was to say, it might pass from hand to hand. It was a mandate to the banker with whom the drawer had assets to pay the money to anybody who presented the cheque. So with regard to a cheque payable to order; it was a mandate to the banker to pay the money to any person who might be authorized to receive it. The meaning of negotiability was that the document passed under such circumstances from hand to hand. This was the law, and the view the Courts took was that there was nothing in the Act of Parliament which interfered with or altered the law in this respect. In his humble opinion, that view was perfectly sound and right. Reference had been made to some admissions supposed to have been made by the plaintiff's attorney or counsel with respect to the fact that "C." was a bonâ fide holder for value. Whether he was or not was a question of fact, with regard to which he knew nothing; but he did know that the question could not have been brought before the Court to be disposed of as a legal question unless it had been admitted or taken for granted that "C." was a bonâ fide holder for value; because if the question had been left at large whether "C." was a bonâ fide holder for value, that was a matter which would have been disposed of by a jury, and not by the Judges. Having made these remarks, he did not wish to offer the least opposition to the Bill.

agreed in the expediency of the Bill being brought in, though he thought that the judgment of the Court of Law ought not to be challenged. In the case referred to the proper appeal was not to the House of Commons, but to the House of Lords sitting as a judicial tribunal. It would be unfortunate if this House were to proceed on the ground that the judgment of the Court was wrong. It was better to assume that the judgment was right, and to say it was desirable to alter the law. He thought the judgment was right for technical reasons, with which he would not trouble the House; but he would endeavour to show that it was desirable to alter the law, and that this Bill would do it effectually. The law laid down was that although if a person who had a cheque given to him crossed it to a particular bank, yet if it got into the hands of a bonâ fide holder, the crossing of it, even if it had been stolen from the payee, would be no protection, and it might be presented through any banker for payment. That seemed to him dangerous, because the object of crossing was to prevent its being paid by any banker except the banker whose name was crossed upon it. Such a payment was, however, held to be good in the case which had been referred to. He did not agree with his right hon. Friend that cheques were not negotiable. They were. They passed from hand to hand constantly; but if they went through a dozen hands it ought to be provided that they should ultimately be paid only though the banker whose name was written across them. It was an unfortunate feature of the case under consideration that the cheque was stolen, and yet that the thief was enabled to give a bonâ fide title to another holder, so that by that means the latter was enabled to procure payment of the amount for which the cheque had been drawn. If the Bill which his right hon. Friend asked leave to introduce passed, the thief would not be allowed to take advantage of his theft, nor would a person who had stolen a cheque be able to give a better title to another person in respect of it than he himself possessed. By that means the inviolability of the cheque would be maintained and a panic such as the judgment in question had occasioned among the commercial community would not again occur.

regretted that occasionally Judges started new and ingenious points which gave rise to great inconvenience. People went on with their business believing that they were acting in strict accordance with the law, when suddenly a question arose, ingenious counsel started a novel point, it was adopted by the Judge, and long-established usage and practice was at once upset. For his part, he held that a person who took a crossed cheque was party to a contract. If it was crossed to a particular banker, he agreed that he would receive payment through that particular banker, and not in any other way—the drawer having secured himself against loss by the crossing of the cheque. That appeared to be a sensible and intelligible view of the case, and when he was told that the holder of the cheque in the case alluded to was a bonâ fide holder, he demurred to the assertion. Even though he had given full value for the cheque, he was not, in his opinion, a bonâ fide holder—for this reason, that he was a purchaser with notice. He saw on the face of the cheque that it was crossed to a particular banker. That was notice to him and ought to have excited his suspicion. It was not generally negotiable. If it had been, it would be payable to bearer, and if he took the risk of accepting the cheque after notice, he had no reason to complain if he lost his money. His right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London had, he thought, done good service to the commercial community by introducing a measure which would have the effect of placing the law on the subject beyond the reach of doubt.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he should like to quote an argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, founded on the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners who had been appointed to consider the subject. They reported that it was important that the mind of the Civil servant should be set at ease as to his position in case his health broke down, or that he was other- wise incapacitated; next, that when a Civil servant had spent the best part of life in the public service and was suddenly incapacitated, they thought public opinion would not allow him to starve; and thirdly—and this last was the main ground on which he based the measure—that many persons were kept in the service after they had become unfit to fulfil their duties, simply because their removal would be a hardship. Actual experience of the latter ground had shown him the necessity for some such measure as he submitted to the consideration of the House, and which he might say he did at the request of the Corporation of Liverpool. They had been told that in one Corporation the retention of officials who had been meritorious public servants and who had lost their health by their devotion to the service and were no longer able efficiently to perform their duties had cost the town no less than £70,000. He would mention one case with the circumstances of which he was personally acquainted. It was that of the medical officer of a large town who had conferred great benefits not only on the community among whom he had laboured, but on the public at large. This gentleman was just able now to carry on his work. If, however, an epidemic should break out, and if he were to break down, and was unable to discharge his duties, would not the loss to the town be ten times greater than if they provided him with a decent retiring pension? Yet it would be unfair to turn him out without some provision for his old age. The present Bill, which was supported by nearly all the Corporations in the Kingdom, provided that before a pension was granted to a public officer the approval of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State should be obtained; that the superannuation should not exceed the rate of pensions granted under the best tables to public servants; that the grant of a pension should be voluntary on the part of the Corporation or the public body; that no grant should be valid unless sanctioned by two meetings of the Council, the second of which was held at the interval of a month from the first, two-thirds of the members of the Council being present; and that the Council or public body might, if they thought fit, make arrangements to deduct certain portions of the officers' salaries or emoluments to form a fund out of which such superannuation might be paid. As the Bill also provided all necessary checks he hoped the House would consent to the second reading of the measure.

said, that as he opposed the same Bill in the year 1873, he must oppose the Bill now before the House. He opposed it on the broad principle that the tendency of legislation of this kind was to treat people as children and not as grown-up men; whereas what the House ought to encourage, especially in persons in the receipt of large incomes, was a feeling of independence, self-reliance, and thrift. Now, the system of pensions and superannuations struck at all these principles. He opposed this measure also on account of the experience already obtained as to the effect of granting pensions and superannuations in the public service. If the same principles were introduced into municipal corporations, the increase of local rates would become so enormous that they would be perfectly unbearable. What had been the increase of pensions and superannuations in the public Departments during the last 80 years? In 1844 the amount of superannuations and pensions was £627,400; in 1854 it had increased to £706,400; in 1864 it was £850,300; while in 1874, according to the last Return issued, it had increased to the enormous amount of £1,080,700, an increase of £453,300 in 30 years, or at the rate of 72 per cent. Looking at its working in the public service, it was probable that if the principle were introduced into municipal corporations it would cause a great increase of rates. The fact was that the House as holding the purse-strings of the nation would be compelled to meet this matter face to face. He wanted to know, if this Bill should pass, where the principle was to stop? The hon. Member had quoted individual instances of hardship; but if we legislated on individual instances we should make bad laws, and do what the House would, individual grievances would occur. If the principle of superannuation were extended to municipal corporations, did the House suppose it would end there? If mu- nicipal corporations were excluded, all other bodies would be prevented from claiming the same privileges; but once open the door by this Bill, and why-should not Boards of Guardians and Local Boards be permitted to grant superannuations? [An hon. MEMBER: Local Boards do.] He was not aware of this. They could compensate for removal from office; but Local Boards had no power to grant superannuation allowances. Other Boards, such as school boards, had been established which made heavy demands on the rates. They were told that in the metropolis alone the enormous sum of £25,000 last year had been spent in getting children out of the streets and making them go to school. If the House would remember the number of persons now employed under school boards, they would be able to estimate the drain upon the school boards if all these officials were able to claim superannuation allowances. The local rates were growing enormously, and he would ask hon. Members whether they were prepared to vote for a measure which, if carried to a logical conclusion, would add largely to the rates? In the appendix to the fourth annual Report on the Local Government Board for 1874–5 would be found a statement of the sum levied as poor rates in England—only a portion of which went to the poor, while a large proportion went to other purposes. In 1840 the amount levied under the head of poor rates in England was £6,067,400; in 1844, £6,990,100; in 1854, £7,317,900; in 1864,£9,680,400; in 1874,£12,851,000. Within the period embraced by the Returns the increase had been £6,783,000, or at the rate of 112 per cent, and he did not think it would stop there. Then, if it was proposed to give superannuation in respect to men receiving from £300 to £600 a-year, why not also superannuate the labouring man when he was broken down in health or overtaken by accident? for he did as much in his way to produce the wealth of the country as any official of a corporation. He opposed the Bill on the ground that they ought to teach the people habits of independence, self-reliance, and thrift; and, because he believed it to be opposed to that principle, he moved that it be read a second time that day six months.

said, that the large increase in pensions was due to a corresponding increase in the number of Civil servants and the total amount of wages; and he considered pensions to be deferred wages. The granting of pensions secured efficient services at a price lower than that at which they would be obtained if there were power to turn a man away at any time without any provision for his future maintenance; and it had been generally considered that the allowance of pensions was an advantageous method of paying for public services. The Bill did not affect the position of persons who were in the service of the Government; but the same principle was of course in existence there and elsewhere. In the Bank of England they considered that pensions were only a part of salary. They were only deferred salary; and it was considered that the service of the Bank was more efficiently and economically performed because pensions were given. This, therefore, was by no means so one-sided a question as it had been represented to be. Although manual labourers were not pensioned, they were not usually turned away after many years of faithful service; and he would appeal to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) to say whether the men in his establishment were turned away penniless in their old age. He would also appeal to the Members of the Government to say whether the granting of pensions did not work advantageously in the public service. They were given by almost every bank and by many private establishments; and all that the Bill proposed was that the municipal service of the country should not be an exception to a salutary rule. He agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Fielden) that every encouragement should be given to working men to lay money by. Was that not done already? Had they not their clubs to provide against calamities which might occur to them in life? He thought this Bill a wise and prudent one, and should therefore vote for the second reading.

said, he thought the argument of the hon. Member who had last spoken was a strong one against the Bill. He also said pensions were a part of salaries, and the consequence of the passing of this Bill would be that a great number of municipal servants whose services had been fixed without any view to a pension, and consequently on a liberal scale, would put pressure upon their different municipalities to give them pensions in addition. This showed that the argument of the hon. Member cut two ways. Undoubtedly, if they gave municipalities this power of superannuation, they would open up a field for unlimited jobbery, for municipalities would be subjected to constant pressure for superannuation allowances. He would have been surprised at the hon. Member for Liverpool bringing forward this Bill, but for the fact that he brought forward the same Bill three years ago, when there was, though not a majority, a large minority against it and it failed to pass. If it were, as alleged, that the Corporation of Liverpool was anxious to superannuate one of its officers, let the Corporation bring in a Private Bill for the purpose, and not saddle the whole of the country with a jobbery Bill for superannuating all municipal officers merely to please Liverpool.

said, he thought he should explain to the House the vote he meant to give upon this question. He should vote for the Bill of the hon. Member for Liverpool, because his (Mr. Cross's) name was on the Bill when it was introduced in 1873. He had the misfortune to differ from the hon. Member for Yorkshire (Mr. Fielden) on is question when his name appeared on the Bill in the place of that of his lamented friend, formerly the Member for Liverpool, Mr. Graves. After the remark of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Anderson) that this was a Liverpool Bill, it was only right that he should state to the House that a short time ago a large deputation waited upon him at the Home Office from very nearly all the municipal corporations of England, strongly pressing upon the Government to take up this measure. On the part of the Government he declined to take up the measure; but, having given his opinion three years ago that better men would be obtained for the public service, and at lower salaries, and still adhering to that view, and believing also that a great saving would be effected to the public, he should, as an individual Member, support the second reading of the Bill.

said, he wished to make a remark or two on what had fallen from the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) in reference to pensions for labourers. His hon. Friend doubtless knew many manufacturers who employed 2,000, 3,000, or even 5,000 men. He (Mr. Bass) employed only about 2,000; but he thought it would be hard if he were called upon one day to give pensions to every one of those 2,000 men. If the Bill were passed, he believed it would be employed for Party purposes, and that Liberals or Tories who happened to be in power in a corporation would avail themselves of the measure to grant good pensions to officers who had favoured their views. On all grounds he thought the measure a most injurious one to the public interests, and he should join the hon. Member for Yorkshire in opposing it.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to assimilate the law of Scotland relating to the granting of Licences to sell intoxicating Liquors to the Law of England. It was unnecessary to adduce any argument to show that the need for some reform of the licensing law had long been felt in Scotland. He believed that every Scotch Member would admit that such was the case, and he was certain the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department must have learned that it was so from the numerous deputations which from time to time had waited on him on the subject. There were two great defects in the Scotch method of granting licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors. The first of these consisted in the fact that there was an appeal from the licensing Courts to the county justices of the peace assembled in quarter sessions, and that the decisions in licensing cases of the burgh magistrates and the justices in petty sessions were liable to be overturned to any extent on appeal. The second grave defect in the Scottish system was that it permitted of canvassing and of bringing up the justices of the peace to vote in the Appeal Courts, a practice which had given rise to very great scandal. He did not propose to say anything about the latter result of the system, which was notorious; but in regard to the first-mentioned defect—that of allowing the justices in quarter sessions to overthrow the proceedings of the burgh licensing magistrates—he might state that he found from two Returns laid before the House two years ago, that in four years to which they referred, 223 licences, or one-seventh of the entire number of licences then in existence in Glasgow, were granted in that city by the justices in quarter sessions on appeal, after their refusal by the licensing magistrates of the city. Both these evils would be avoided under the English system. The first—the overturning of the decisions of the licensing magistrates—was avoided by the enactment that in the case of applications for new licences, a refusal on the part of the licensing magistrate was final. There was no appeal against their decision. The system of canvassing, which had excited so much dissatisfaction and comment in Scotland, was avoided under the English system by the institution of licensing committees, to whom was intrusted the responsibility of confirming the licences granted by the inferior Court. He proposed now to explain very briefly the working of the English system. Under it, as he had said, the local magistrates in Brewster Sessions were entitled to refuse absolutely all and any applications for new licences that might be brought before them, and no appeal existed against their decision. Each year a licensing committee of not more than 12 or less than three individuals was appointed by the quarter sessions, and to this committee was intrusted the responsibility of confirming such licences as might be granted by the inferior Courts. They could not increase the number of licences granted, because no appeal existed to them in the case of refusal; but they could restrict the number granted in case they thought the inferior Court had granted licences in too large numbers. In the burghs a joint licensing committee was intrusted with the same duties. This joint licensing committee was composed of three members nominated by the licensing committee of the county, and three members nominated by the licensing committee of the borough, and their functions were the same as those of the licensing committee of the counties. The essential difference, in fact, between the Scotch and English systems of granting licences was that the functions in Scotland of the Appellate Tribunal were, in practice, almost purely expansive, while in England they were purely restrictive. It might be asked, Why introduce all this machinery? Why not simply do away with appeals altogether? The suggestion had been made again and again by the corporations of the different towns of Scotland; but it was open to this great objection—that it would entail an alteration in the law which would seriously affect the interests of holders of existing licences, whereas by adopting the English system they would avoid the difficulty. Under the Bill before the House, the interests of the holders of existing licences would remain precisely as they now stood, and regulated by the same provisions as those that now existed. The system which had been adopted in England also possessed another advantage over the simple proposal to abolish appeals, and this advantage was that in case of the simple abolition of all appeal, the inferior Court of licensing magistrates would, if so disposed, have it in their power to grant any additional number of licences. In the working of the English system an effectual check was put upon the abuse of such a power by the existence of the licensing committees intrusted with the function of restricting the issue of licences to such a number as they might judge to be fitting. The present Bill was introduced and printed last year, so that ample time had been allowed for its discussion in Scotland. He would, therefore, ask the Government to allow it to be read a second time that evening; and, in the event of their considering it desirable that the country should express a further opinion in regard to its merits, he would postpone the Order for going into Committee until such date as would afford ample time for full consideration. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time.

The Government are willing to consent to the second reading of this Bill. It originated, I believe, in a suggestion which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department made in a remark to a deputation that waited upon him last year. While the principle of the Bill is, in our opinion, correct, I venture to think there are some matters of detail, which it is unnecessary to specify at present, which may admit of some improvement in Committee. If necessary, we shall propose Amendments on the Bill and give every facility for considering them.

appealed to the hon. and learned Member for Salford, who had charge of the measure, not to press the Committee stage at so early a period after it had been read a second time. Under another name this Bill was in reality the Infanticide Bill of last Session, which had been opposed, and many persons then absent from the House were not, he believed, aware of the identity of the two measures. Further time, therefore, ought to be given to consider its provisions. He objected to the measure because, by diminishing the punishment for a particular class of offence, it sought to make it more probable that juries would find guilty those who were charged with that offence, which in itself was an unsound and unsatisfactory mode of legislation. When women were charged with infanticide, it was always a most painful and difficult task for juries to decide upon the case, as it was a well-known fact that women otherwise of sound mind might become absolutely irresponsible beings during and immediately after childbirth, and he therefore objected to the Bill on the ground of its too great severity, because it attempted to make juries find verdicts of guilty when they would otherwise not do so. He also objected to the Bill on the ground of its too great laxity, because when murder was proved it did not become a lesser offence when it was inflicted by a mother upon a child. He suggested to the House that it was altogether unusual that they should be asked to go into Committee upon such a Bill within a week of the opening of the Session.

also opposed the Motion for going into Committee. He objected to the Bill because its title was misleading, because it created a new class of offence, and because it was a cruel measure, totally uncalled for by any facts before the House and the country; and he did not consider that Parliament would increase its dignity by voting for anything of the kind.

said, that the Bill in its present form had passed through Committee last Session, and received the approval of the House and of the Prime Minister, who stated that it was a Bill which the House desired to pass. His reason for wishing to take the Committee so early was because it was most important that the House of Lords generally should have an opportunity of considering it fully. One of the Law Lords was to take charge of the Bill. The Bill was founded on the unanimous recommendation of the royal Commission on Capital Punishment—four of the Commissioners being Members of the existing Cabinet—the Duke of Richmond, the Earl of Derby, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Secretary of State for War, and another being the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright). The report of that Royal Commission was founded on the recommendations of many eminent Judges. The Bill had been read a second time on four occa-times in this House without opposition, and the lawyers of the House, including the recorder of the City of London, the Attorney General of the late, and the Attorney General of the present Government, and the hon. and learned Members for Durham, South Derbyshire, South Warwickshire, and Beaumaris—subject to certain Amendments—were unanimously in its favour. It was only towards the close of last Session that the measure, when it reached its final stage, experienced any opposition from the late hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance), whose loss as an old and respected Member of the House they all deplored. When it was considered that out of 51 murders, 50 were infanticides, it would be seen that it was most urgent that the matter should be dealt with by law, and that could not be done except on the lines of this Bill. In his opinion, no social question was of a more pressing nature, or more deserving of the immediate attention of a reformed Parliament.

failed to see that any such Bill as that introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Salford was recommended in the Report of the Capital Punishment Commission. The Bill would inflict punishment unnecessarily severe. The Capital Punishment Commissioners contemplated cases where the death of the child had followed the grievous bodily harm inflicted, but here no mention was made of any death. The Bill also proposed to add a count for felonious wounding to a capital charge, but it was not right to give the jury an alternative, by which they might release themselves from finding on the charge for murder. He should to-morrow ask permission to introduce a Bill strictly following out the recommendations of the Commission, and particularly that portion of it by which the crime of infanticide could be dealt with, and therefore he appealed to the hon. and learned Member to allow his Bill to stand over for the present.

also hoped that the Bill would not be pressed forward that evening, inasmuch as it would effect many alterations in the criminal law with respect to which further discussion was requisite. For his own part, he objected to piecemeal legislation on the subject of the criminal law. The chief object of the Bill was to create a new crime; but apart altogether from that, there were several of its provisions that were objectionable. One of its sections, for instance, proposed to repeal a portion of the Criminal Consolidation Acts, and for this and other reasons he should certainly oppose it.

supported the Motion for going into Committee on the Bill. The question had been frequently and fully discussed, and all the facts connected with it freely announced. In reality, the Bill was a very simple one, although attempts had been made to mystify it. Any one who considered the present state of the law could not fail to arrive at the conclusion that an alteration was, to say the least of it, desirable. The Bill proposed to repeal the proviso contained in Section 60 of the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, which enabled a jury to find a woman guilty of concealment of birth upon an indictment for murder. Concealment of birth had nothing to do with the principal charge, and it was wrong to allow a jury to shirk the responsibility of deciding as to the offence to which the evidence pointed by finding the prisoner guilty of a different offence of which there might be but slight evidence. It was objected to the Bill that it created a new crime. But whether it were a new crime or a modification of a crime already known to the law mattered not, if it had the effect of getting rid of undue severity of the law on the one hand, and the uncertainty of conviction on the other. It was only the further development of a principle already known in the administration of the criminal law, by which a prisoner indicted for an attempt to commit a felony was not entitled to an acquittal because the evidence proved not only that he had been guilty of the attempt but also of the actual felony. At present, if on a charge of malicious wounding, the evidence proved not only that the wound was inflicted, but also caused death, the prisoner must be acquitted of that charge, but might be again indicted for murder; but under the present Bill the jury might convict of the malicious wounding though death might have been caused thereby, and the prisoner could not again be indicted for murder in respect of the same facts. That he believed to be a real improvement in the law. It lessened its severity, and rendered convictions more certain.

joined in the appeal made to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Salford not to press on the measure at once, but to allow time for its consideration. His opinion was mainly in favour of the Bill, which, he thought, might in Committee be made a very useful measure. The subject with which the Bill dealt was of a very subtle character, and it required an intimate knowledge of the criminal law to enable hon. Members to understand it thoroughly. He believed if his hon. and learned Friend would yield to the appeal made to him from both sides of the House, he would find in the course of a short time that hon. Members would become well acquainted with the subject, and they would then see that the Bill was not deserving of the epithets which the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) had used towards it. He therefore joined in the appeal for a postponement.

said, he had no desire to press the Bill with undue haste. His reason for bringing the measure forward so early in the Session was that last year it was kept in a state of suspended animation for two months, awaiting the third reading, and was at length dropped because there was not sufficient time left for its passage through the other House. In consequence of the appeal which had been made to him he would willingly postpone the Committee stage.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that from time immemorial the office of clerk of the peace of the County Palatine had been a sinecure, the duties being entirely performed by deputy; but in 1872 an Act of Parliament was passed by which, on the death of the then occupant of the office, who was still living, the sinecure clerkship was to be done away with, and a really active clerk of the peace appointed, and it was provided, in addition, that there should be two deputy clerks of the peace appointed by the Chancellor of the Duchy. The magistrates of the county, however, were unanimously of opinion that this last provision would not work well; that the two deputies appointed by the Chancellor would be practically independent local clerks of the peace, with whom the magistrates would have to deal instead of with one head clerk, and that there would necessarily be a divided responsibility which would be attended with great inconvenience both as regarded the criminal and civil business of the county. The Bill now before the House had been brought in with the approval of the justices, and it sought to repeal the clause empowering the Chancellor of the Duchy to appoint deputy clerks of the peace, and to enact that the appointment of those officers should be intrusted to the clerk of the peace himself, as was the case in all other counties.

denied that any inconvenience had been shown to exist sufficient to justify a change in the present law, which was the result of a compromise, and was, he considered, a step in the right direction. It was a mistake to think that the sub-division of business which the hon. Member complained of did not exist in other counties. In Yorkshire the business of the county was much sub-divided, and it was the opinion of many able magistrates that subdivision should be carried to a greater extent in Lancashire also. The point to which the present Bill applied was, he admitted, not one of great public importance; but inasmuch as no adequate reasons had been assigned for changing the law, he moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

seconded the Amendment.

supported the second reading, and stated that in 1875 the whole of the magistrates of Lancashire assembled at Preston and unanimously agreed to promote this Bill.

, as a magistrate of Lancashire, felt bound to say that a large majority of the magistrates were anxious that the Bill should be passed.