, in moving—

"That the Resolution of the Standing Orders Committee of the 19th day of February last, with respect to the Felixstowe, Ipswich, and Midlands Railway Petition, together with the said Petition, and the Bill annexed thereto, be referred back to the said Committee, and that they have power to inquire whether there are any special circumstances which render it just and expedient that the Standing Orders should be dispensed with in respect of the said Petition,"

said: I rise for the purpose of asking the House to pass this Resolution as a favour, and not as a matter of justice. It has reference to a Bill called the Felixstowe and Midlands Railway Extension Bill. Felixstowe forms part of the constituency which I have the honour to represent. It is a watering place; and, although not very large, is one of the most pleasant watering places on the Suffolk Coast. It is situated at the mouth of the River Orwell, opposite to Harwich, and only separated from Harwich by the mouth of that river, which, I may say in passing, is the most picturesque waterway on the East Coast of England. Distant about 12 miles at the head of this river stands the enter-prizing town of Ipswich. At Felixstowe there has just been constructed a dock capable of accommodating vessels of the largest draught of water at any state of the tide, and the dock is connected with a railway which now terminates at the town of Ipswich, or rather in the parish of Westerfleld, just adjoining the town of Ipswich. There are about 13 miles of railway now connected with the Felixstowe Dock; and in the scheme I have now to ask the House to sanction the proposal is to connect with it some 50 miles more of railway, in order to bring Felixstowe Dock and Railway into connection with the town of Cambridge, and there to unite it with the Midland, London and North-Western, and Great Eastern Railway systems. I need hardly say that the scheme would be of great benefit to the district through which it is proposed that the railway should pass. It would pass through a part of Suffolk which is singularly destitute of railway accommodation, and which, greatly needs it; and the dock at Felixstowe would be opened out for the development of Continental traffic between the Midland Counties and the North of England and the sea. It would thus be of advantage to a large number of people, and when completed the country would be richer by one more railway, giving facilities for travel and for conducting of all kinds of business. The plans relating to this line were at an early period of the Session duly deposited and went before the Standing Orders Committee, but were thrown out by them. Now, I have no fault whatever to find with the Standing Orders Committee for throwing out the plans. There were inaccuracies of detail in the plans deposited by the engineers—inaccuracies in no way germane to the feasibility of carrying out the plan, but still inaccuracies quite sufficient to justify the Standing Orders Committee in the course they took, in throwing out the Bill on the ground of its failing to comply with the Standing Orders of the House. The Petition I now present to the House asks the House to allow the Bill to be sent back again to the Standing Orders Committee, and I will explain in a few words the grounds upon which I venture to ask for this indulgence. I do not ask it in the least degree on behalf of the promoters of the Bill. I feel that the promoters suffered from their own fault, and that they have only their own engineer and themselves to blame for the position in which the Bill was placed before the Standing Orders Committee. But it appears to me that there are special circumstances at the present time which make it desirable that, if possible, the great works connected with this proposed railway should be carried out. There is a singular dearth of works of this kind before the country at the present moment, and there is a large amount of labour anxiously, and, I am sorry to say, in vain, seeking for employment. The works connected with the construction of this railway are estimated to require an expenditure of something like £1,000,000, and that money, I am positively assured, is ready to be advanced at once, so soon as the necessary formalities authorizing the construction of the railway shall have been gone through. Therefore, if the House will give its permission to the request I make there will be employment provided for a large amount of labour. What I ask the House is that it will, by allowing the Bill—the plans in connection with which are now, it is believed, perfectly correct—to go back to the Standing Orders Committee, thus opening the way for employment to a very large number of persons. It is quite within the power of the House to do this, although I am aware that it is a very unusual course for the House to take. It is not, however, a course without precedent. I hold in my hand particulars of a precedent which occurred in 1875 in reference to the Edinburgh Street Tramways Bill, when the House granted a similar indulgence to the promoters of that measure. Now, it seems to me that in the present state of the labour market, and of trade generally, it would be a very great pity indeed if the House should refuse this indulgence. I am informed that all the money is ready to be spent, and that it is kept from the men who are desirous of getting employment only in consequence of the position in which, through certain technical but really unimportant inaccuracies in its accompanying plans, the Bill has been placed. If ever there was an occasion when it was fitting that the House should do what, I admit, is an unusual act, this is one of those occasions, and I earnestly hope that the House in its kindness will allow the Bill to go back to the Standing Orders Committee. I would not ask this indulgence if I had not first availed myself of the opportunity of mentioning the matter to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John R. Mowbray), who is Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, and who so ably presides over the proceedings of that Committee. I think I am not misrepresenting the right hon. Baronet when I say that if it is the wish of the House that the Bill should go back, looking at the special circumstances of the case, he will not be prepared to oppose it. I have been waited on by two or three deputations of working men, and by a gentleman representing the Mansion House Relief Committee, and by another gentleman from a Trades Organization in London, representing something like 27,000 men. Both of these Bodies and these deputations have earnestly requested me to take up this matter and to lay it before the House. I therefore ask the House, in these unusual circumstances, considering the great depression of trade, to grant the favour which I have now the honour to solicit at its hands. The money is ready, and, if the Bill is allowed to pass, by September next the works will actually be commenced, and some hundreds of working men will be very grateful to the House for the facilities given to them to obtain employment. I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.

I rise for the purpose of most heartily seconding the Motion which has been made by the hon. Member for the Wood-bridge Division. The line traverses a district which I have the honour to represent, and if it is made it will be a source of great convenience to the agricultural and manufacturing classes in that division. There are many farmers there now who have to send their produce 13 or 14 miles to a railway station who will be very much benefited by the construction of this line. I should not myself have ventured to make the appeal which my hon. Friend has so eloquently made, although I feel as much, or even more, interested in the success of the Bill than he is; for I feel that the patience of the Standing Orders Committee has been sorely tried by this Bill having failed to comply with those proper conditions which are laid down by the House in reference to Private Bill legislation. But the circumstances with regard to the industrial population in my division are so very peculiar, and so very pressing, owing to the low rate of wages the agricultural labourers are receiving at the present moment—in some instances as low as 9s. a-week—in addition to which it is the fact that a great many of them are unable to obtain work, while not only they, but many mat weavers, have been on short time during the whole of the winter, and that this railway, if proceeded with, will afford employment for hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of deserving men, and will give a stimulus to trades which are at present but languidly carried on in the division. These are the reasons which induce me to join in the appeal which my hon. Friend has made. I have no hesitation in saying that if the House is disposed to grant this boon it will prove to be a very great benefit and a very great blessing to hundreds and thousands of deserving labouring men who have recently had the privilege of the franchise given to them by this House. I believe that, in every way, they are worthy of that privilege, and also of any measure for their assistance which may be brought forward. There is one special circumstance connected with this case to which I think I am entitled to allude. There are, I am informed, 1,500 men who will shortly be thrown out of employment by the suspension of the operations at the Felixstowe Dock, with which the proposed railway will be connected in some measure; and owing to the cessation of the large relief works, which were started some time ago at Ipswich, for the simple purpose of giving employment to those in want of work, there will be a large number of men thrown idle upon the locality. The construction of this railway will find them the means of subsistence, and, therefore, I beg most heartily to second the appeal which has been made by my hon. Friend.

It may appear a somewhat ungracious position to occupy when I rise to oppose the Petition which the two hon. Members opposite have made to the House, and which they have said they make, not as a matter of justice, but as a matter of grace. I should like, however, to draw the recollection of the House to the history of the Bill. I do not dispute a single word that has been stated by the hon. Member who introduced this Motion in regard to the necessity of this railway, or in regard to any of the facts he has brought forward in reference to it. But that is not the question for this House at the present stage. It is rather a question to be considered when the Bill comes before a Committee of this House, and it has to be proved in proper form before that Committee. What is the history of this Bill? In 1885 the same Railway Bill was brought before the House of Commons, and it was then thrown out by the Standing Orders Committee because it was so full of blunders that it could not possibly be passed. The Standing Orders were suspended in order that the promoters might have another chance; but the result was that the Bill was not proceeded with. Surely if the promoters of this Bill were so anxious about their scheme after it had once failed to pass the Standing Orders Committee, and they got leave to bring it in again in an amended form, they would have availed themselves of the opportunity? I suppose, presumedly, it was for want of funds. The hon. Member now informs the House that there is £1,000,000 at the disposal of the promoters; but he did not tell us who has it ready, or where it is. If anybody is prepared to advance £1,000,000 for a purpose of this sort, he will probably look to get it back from the subscribers who will support the undertaking hereafter. As I have said, the Bill was not proceeded with in 1885, and now, in 1886, the same Bill has been brought forward again. It has failed before the Standing Orders Committee on precisely the same points upon which it failed in 1885. The promoters of the Bill, who are so anxious to get this railway constructed, did not take the trouble to remedy the blunders they committed in 1885. Every single error was repeated, and the Bill was thrown out by the Standing Orders Committee on precisely the same grounds. The hon. Member now comes forward and asks us to reinstate the Bill. I listened with great attention to his remarks to see if I could find any special grounds to justify the course we are asked to take. The only ground I could find was, I admit, a strong one; but it is simply a sentimental ground—namely, that in order to provide work for the unemployed, this £1,000,000 will be set loose if the Bill be allowed to go before a Standing Orders Committee. Now, I wish to point out to the hon. Member that the people he wishes to benefit would not be benefited even if this railway is started, because railways are not constructed by agricultural labourers, but by navvies who are brought from various parts of the country, and whose regular business it is to go from place to place constructing railways. The only people who would be benefited by the construction of this railway besides these navvies would be those whose food they would eat and whose beer they would drink. There is another objection, but it is one which will be better dealt with by the authorities of the House than by myself—namely, that if this Petition is granted now, and the Bill is sent upstairs, it will be almost impossible for it to reach the House of Lords before the day after which no Bill can be read a second time in that House. Therefore, those who oppose the Bill—and I need not remind hon. Members that there are generally two sides to every question—the opponents, as well as the promoters of the Bill, will be put to the expense of contesting the matter again before the Standing Orders Committee, and they will suffer, as they have already suffered, in their purse through having to oppose a measure which I venture to think cannot be very seriously intended. I think that this Bill is one of those financial undertakings which have been introduced into Parliament in recent years, but which have always been regarded as objectionable. It is quite possible that if the Bill is passed, and the capital is raised, and the railway commenced, that we shall have a repetition of what occurred in the case of the Hull and Barnsley Railway last year, and that preference debentures will have to be created in order to enable the promoters to carry out the undertaking. If on a question like this the Standing Orders of this House are to be ignored, I think we may as well do away with our Standing Orders altogether. They exist for certain purposes, for the protection of opponents as well as promoters; and when a Company has shown so little attention, and has on more than one occasion refrained from complying with the Standing Orders in the past, I do not think they come here with a very good grace to ask the House to suspend its Standing Orders in order that they may proceed with their Bill. I trust that the House will not give its consent to the Motion of the hon. Member.

Perhaps it may save the time of the House if I interpose thus early in the debate, and state shortly, as Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, the views which we take. The hon. Members who have moved and seconded the Resolution have stated explicitly that they do not appear on behalf of the promoters of the Bill. Had anyone appeared here on behalf of the promoters I must have called attention myself very strongly to the circumstances which have been brought before the House by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Essex (Colonel Makins). It is quite true that the promoters came before Parliament last year with a Bill identical with the present, and we suspended the Standing Orders then in order to enable new plans to be deposited. Those plans were not deposited, and the Bill was withdrawn. The promoters came this year with the old Bill, and have deposited the old plans with the same identical errors which we pointed out last year, and the promoters certainly are not entitled to any favour or indulgence from anybody. As to the appeal which has been made to me as Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, I have nothing to do with it in that capacity; but it is for the House to consider whether, owing to the great want of employment which exists, they will be induced to take a liberal view of the matter. I have received deputations from working men in London with regard to this Bill, and also representations from Lord Charles Bruce on the part of the Mansion House Fund, desiring that the work may be allowed to proceed in the interest of the unemployed, having regard to the depression of trade and the large number of the labouring classes who are now out of employment. That is a matter of policy for the House to consider. If the appeal were made on behalf of the promoters I would certainly ask the House not to grant any indulgence to them; but I understand that it is made in the interests of the unemployed, with a view of promoting the construction of new works. I understand that the money is ready, and that new plans are ready to be submitted. Therefore, if the House is inclined to grant the indulgence asked for, I shall have nothing to say in opposition to the Motion.

I would venture to join in the appeal which has been made to the House. I have received a large number of deputations myself from persons who believe, whether rightly or wrongly I am unable to say, they can get employment in connection with this railway if the Bill receives the sanction of the House. It is only on their behalf that this favour is asked at the hands of the House. I quite feel how excessively difficult it is, if we are to have Standing Orders at all, that we should sanction their violation. This, however, seems to be a very special case; and I think that the men who may be able to get employment if these works are commenced, ought not to suffer because of the negligence of the promoters of the Bill.

I think, before we allow a Bill like this to go back to the Standing Orders Committee, we ought to have a little more information with regard to the capital which is alleged to be ready to pay the expense of constructing this railway. As I understand the matter, the promoters of this Bill have already failed on two or three occasions to comply with the Standing Orders, in consequence of their inability to obtain the capital. It seems very strange that within two months of the time when, as I understand, railway enterprize has been in a position of more difficulty than it was ever in before, the promoters should suddenly be able to command £1,000,000 if they receive this favour from the House. Unless we have more information on the matter than the bare allegation that the money will be forthcoming, I think it is the duty of the House to vote against the Bill, because it will only lead to false hopes being raised which will never be realized.

I may say at once, in rising to oppose the Motion, that I am a Director of the Great Eastern Railway. I think the House will be prepared to admit that the promoters have placed themselves entirely out of court. In this Session they have made no attempt to rectify the errors which they committed in a former Session; and I am informed that the errors contained in the Bill this year even go beyond those of the measure of last year. No doubt, an appeal to the House, with a view to find employment for a number of labouring men, is a different matter. I understand that the promoters of the Bill have been for some time acting as if they were without any money at their back. A very surprising statement is, however, now made to the House—namely, that there is £1,000,000 at somebody's bankers ready to be utilized in connection with this undertaking. But we have no evidence that if this railway is sanctioned the £1,000,000 will be forthcoming; and we all know that, in these days of depression, so large a sum of money is not very easily found. Therefore, until we have some evidence that this £1,000,000 is ready, I would ask the House not to believe that it is lying at a banker's ready to be expended in the making of this railway. If it were really there, I admit that it would be quite a different thing; but even if it were available, and the Bill should be passed by the Standing Orders Committee of the House of Lords, it is quite impossible that it could get through by the 30th of June next. Fresh surveys would have to be made; fresh contracts to be entered into; and it is quite certain that the railway could not be commenced in the course of the present year. Therefore, the construction of this line in that case, even if £1,000,000 is forthcoming, would not afford the means of relieving the present depression, or of providing work within any reasonable period for any now unemployed.

I am anxious to say a word before the House divides. After the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down I think the House ought to be very suspicious of the remarks made by Directors of Railways. Where it is evident that their own interests are concerned, they are not very likely to study the interests of the general public against their own. The hon. Member wants to know where the money is for the making of this railway. Now, it is well known that so much per cent has already been deposited for the construction of the line, and the line itself is to be made for the purpose of benefiting the property of a great landed proprietor, who is prepared, I understand, to advance the funds necessary for the construction of the railway. After the appeal which has been made by two hon. Members who represent that part of the county of Suffolk through which the railway will run, and looking at all the circumstances, and the speech we have just heard, I think the House may well reconsider the position in which it stands in reference to the Bill, and allow it to proceed. The Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee has told the House that no doubt the promoters have no locus standi before the House. But the appeal is made on another ground—namely, that there are great works to be executed, and that representations have been made urging my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John R. Mowbray) to allow the Bill to proceed, in order that employment may be given to a large number of deserving men who are now unhappily thrown out of employment. I must say that, looking at the whole facts of the case, I trust the House will be prepared to assent to the request which has been made to them in favour of the Bill, and that they will allow it to be proceeded with in the way suggested.

I have some knowledge of the district through which it is proposed to carry this railway, and I know that there is a very strong desire on the part of the trading population, as well as on the part of the working classes of the district affected by the measure, that the works should be executed if possible. I have no interest in the railway myself; but the reason I have risen to support the Motion of my hon. Friend is that representing as I do the class that will suffer most from the railway not being constructed, I would humbly ask the House to accede to the wish of my hon. Friend, and to allow the Bill to proceed, so that thousands of hungry men and women may be fed.

In rising to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months, I may say that I was not aware that my hon. Friend who has moved the second reading of the Bill intended simply to make that Motion formally and without comment. I am told that it is a somewhat unusual proceeding to move the rejection of a Bill of this kind which has received the approval of one of the Departments of the State. I, therefore, apologize to the House for the course which I feel myself compelled to take. But there are exceptional circumstances in this case which justify a departure from the usual course in dealing with Bills of this nature. In the first place, it seems to me that this Bill proposes, under the guise of a law, and a very useful law, to inflict a great injustice on the inhabitants of this district and on those of the neighbouring town of Portsmouth. The inhabitants of the district are very strongly opposed to this scheme. As an illustration of the feeling against the proposal, perhaps I may read an extract from a letter which I have received from the Vicar of the parish, who has constituted himself the champion of the cause of his poorer neighbours. He says—

"In fact, it is not too much to say that there is not one single inhahitant in its favour, apart from those persons who are either personally interested or who are under the influence, direct or indirect, of the promoters. There are a large number of parishioners who are afraid of offending somebody if they take an active part; but nevertheless they are sincere in their opposition to the measure, which threatens to rob them of that free, unrestricted use of a common which has been their undisputed right for centuries."

The inhabitants of the parish have sent a Petition to this House, passed by a large majority at a public meeting, in which they say—I will not read the whole of the Petition, but merely a few words—

"It is not desirable, in the interests of the commoners and of the public generally"—

[Cries of "Order!"] I was not aware that I was not in Order in quoting the words of the Petition. I am sorry that my want of experience of the Forms of the House should have led me into error; but if I am not able to read the actual words of the Petition, I believe it will not be irregular to state that the Memorial urges in the strongest language that this scheme is designed only in the interest of one or two individuals, and that nobody will benefit by it but those individuals. That Petition was carried in a public meeting, at which I believe 113 voted for the Petition, and only 39 were induced to vote against it, even after the strongest pressure had been brought to bear by those who are personally interested in the scheme. Then, again, although this scheme was brought before a Committee of the House of Commons, and was passed by that Body, yet I would urge that that Committee was anything but unanimous in the matter. It was carried by the casting vote of the Chairman, the Committee, as a whole, being equally divided. I should be very sorry to say anything against the Land Commissioners, who have sanctioned the scheme. They are public servants, and I am quite sure they are actuated by the strongest desire to do that which is for the benefit of the public. I disagree with them in the proposal; but I would be the last person to say anything against public servants who have not an opportunity of replying in this House. But, notwithstanding this, and speaking not only of this scheme, but of other schemes which I have seen and examined, I think they are a little too much inclined to overrate the rights of the wealthy landowners, and to underrate the rights of the commoners. I also think that they are a little too much permeated with the traditions—the unfortunate traditions as I look upon them—of the Inclosure Commissioners, which still, to some extent, seem to govern their proposals. Those traditions as to the importance and desirableness of inclosing as much land as possible, no doubt, had their justification some 40 or 50 years ago, when it was of importance to cultivate as much land as possible in order to produce as much food as possible; but circumstances have altered, and now it is, in many cases, more expensive to grow food than to import it. Another argument, which is of more importance now than formerly, is the necessity of keeping open the lungs of the great towns by means of these open spaces. It was only the other day that the House rejected, and justly rejected, another scheme—a scheme of the Governors of the Charterhouse. It related to an ancient historical building; the present scheme relates to an ancient common. There is this difference between the two schemes—that whereas the promoters of the Charterhouse scheme were actuated only by the purest of public motives, although many of us thought them wrong, in this instance the Bill is promoted only by those who would get a certain personal and selfish advantage from it. I think, therefore, the House ought to reject it by even a larger majority than they did in the previous case. Now, this common is a most beautiful one, facing the sea, on Hayling Island, opposite the Isle of Wight. It extends over the whole length of the southern side of the Island. Colonel Sandeman, the chief promoter of the scheme, in his evidence, said with regard to one part of the common which it is proposed to enclose, that—"It was proposed to do so mainly because no other use can be made of it," and that it was "uneven with nothing but shingle and gorse upon it." I cannot agree with the opinion that common land is of no use because it has nothing but shingle and gorse upon it, and is uneven. In my belief the common is a most picturesque one, facing as it does the sea—a most beautiful sea—and it is seen to the highest advantage at the present time. If I could only picture it to hon. Members as it is now, I am satisfied that I should insure the success of my Motion. This gorse, if of no use, is, at this moment, an object of the greatest beauty; and I venture to think it is a great mistake—and a view too commonly held—that these wastes, as they are called, are of no use. Then there is this other point in regard to the proposal. I have examined very carefully the deposited plans of this proposal, and I have visited the district in order to look at all the surrounding circumstances. I find, to my great surprise, a circumstance which was not before the Committee of which I was a Member—namely, that the deposited plans excluded from the common, as they did not form part of it, certain recent illegal inclosures. I certainly do not blame the Commissioners for this. One of them told me they had no option in the matter, and that they could only deal with that part of the common for which they had a requisition from those who applied to them; and, of course, in this case, the promoters did not include these illegal inclosures which they have themselves illegally made. At the same time, however, I think the House should be very cautious in sanctioning and stereotyping such illegal inclosures, which would greatly strengthen the hands of those guilty of such illegalities and weaken the power of their poorer neighbours in the district. It is proposed to take out of the common, in addition to the illegal inclosures to which I have referred, one acre, four and a-half acres, and 10 acres. I have not very much to say against the proposal to take the one acre. It is proposed to reserve it for the purpose of paying the cost of the maintenance of the common. I do not think that the price even of one acre is really required for that purpose. I do not think, using the words of the promoters of the scheme, that it is necessary to improve the common at all; all that is required is to leave the common as it is. I do not believe that the promoters can improve the common which is already sufficiently beautiful by constructing a Marine Esplanade. Then it is proposed to take four and a-half acres for the purpose of paying the costs of obtaining this scheme. Now, I do think that those who are to benefit by it should themselves pay the cost of getting it; and I cannot see why so large a piece as four and a-half acres should be taken from the common for that purpose. Why take four and a-half acres? These four and a-half acres are a beautiful hollow in the common which happens to lie in front of the residence of the Sandemans, who are the chief promoters of the scheme; and if this portion is inclosed it would project in a most offensive way into the common. Anyone coming along in future upon the landward side of the common would have to make a considerable detour in order to get round these four and a-half acres. But why should it be proposed that these four and a-half acres, if they are necessary to be sold for the purposes of this scheme, should be sold to the promoters and to no one else? If it is really desired to get the greatest amount of money for the purpose mentioned, surely the land ought to be sold by public auction. Then it is proposed to take 10 acres of the common in exchange for allotments for the poor. This proposal has a captivating sound about it, and it might be thought, without examination, to be beneficial to the poor; but, as a matter of fact, no allotments are required in this district. There was evidence before the Committee that there were very few cottage gardens or field gardens. Now, I have caused a very careful inquiry to be made, and I find that almost the whole of the cottages which are without gardens, that are actually on the common, are used by lodging-house keepers, and are let to visitors in the summer. They are mostly kept by widows who could not keep up a garden if they had one. A considerable portion of the cottages which have gardens are unlet, and it is therefore clear that there is no necessity for the proposed allotments. But the question is, is it a fair exchange? It is proposed to give, in the neighbourhood of good agricultural land, 10 acres in exchange for a similar acreage taken from the common, and to turn the latter into building land with a frontage to the sea. In the first place, it is not only proposed to take 10 acres from the common, but it is also specially provided by the Bill that the 10 acres that are necessary for the development of building are to be taken out of the common. That shows the spirit in which the scheme is promoted. It does not mean 10 acres, but a great deal more, that the commoners will have to give up. Again, the labourers are expected to pay rent to the lord of the manor for their allotments; but the lord of the manor is not asked to pay rent—he is to have the land for nothing. I endeavoured, but found it difficult, to get from the witnesses examined before the Committee any evidence as to the actual value of land fronting the sea. I failed to get any satisfactory answer; but the chief promoter of the scheme said that it had only a prospective value. The solicitor to the lord of the manor said that it was only worth 10s. an acre to let except for its prospective value. Now, will the House believe that at that very time when this evidence was given on oath before the Committee the lord of the manor, whose solicitor swore to this fact, anticipating the decision of the House of Commons, had agreed to sell a portion of these 10 acres to the chief promoter of the Bill at the rate of £400 per acre? I am perfectly aware that it is what is called an accommodation price, and that it is only about half-an-acre that the lord of the manor has agreed to sell in this way; but what value can you attach to the evidence of the man who spoke of the land as being worth £50 per acre when he had only sold one-twentieth part of it for £200? The agreement says—and if the House is curious to know how I got the information, I may say that I have it from the son of the lord of the manor himself, who is strongly opposed to the scheme—the agreement relating to the title to the land says that there was no title whatever. The one only argument I have been able to hear for granting this scheme is, that unless it is approved the lord of the manor will arbitrarily inclose the whole common. This argument is used in a letter to The Times this morning by one of the solicitors engaged in the case, who asserts that the common is the absolute property of the lord of the manor and of the copyholders; but the writer loses sight of the fact that a single copyholder can prevent any in-closure, and that any of the commoners who have rights of pasturage, turbary, of cutting furze, and of digging gravel can assert those rights, and prevent any illegal inclosure. An attempt was made last week to force the hands of the House of Commons, and to impress these arguments upon them by actually inclosing a portion of the common, A body of workmen were brought over from Portsmouth or Chatham, or somewhere from a distance, for they hardly ventured to employ local workmen, for the purpose of erecting a fence upon the common. I do not think it ought to be described as a lawless proceeding, although it was so described to me this morning; but I am told that the commoners took the matter into their own hands and asserted their rights by pulling down the fence. Well, Sir, I very much doubt whether if these commoners had been wealthy and powerful any attempt would have been made to inclose the common; but it is because the wealthy landowner presumes upon the weakness and poverty of his neighbours that these encroachments are made. There is a very strong feeling, not only in this district, but throughout the country, that there has been too many of these encroachments by lords of the manor. It is not suprising that in these days we should hear something of a cry for restitution. I have heard the word "ransom" lately. It is a word I do not particularly approve of, and it does not commend itself much to hon. Gentlemen opposite; but this is a case in which ransom is demanded by the rich from the poor; it is a case in which a wealthy lord of the manor says in effect to his poorer neighbours—"Unless you give me this bribe, I will take the whole into my own hands, and, no matter what your rights may be, I will inclose the common." I do not think the House will be prepared to sanction such a course. In his letter to The Times this morning, the solicitor says that if property is not to be deprived of its rights, this Bill ought to pass. I think the use of that expression is a mockery. It is a mockery to talk of rights of property when the scheme ignores rights as real as those of the lord of the manor, but which the commoners are not in a position to maintain in a Court of Law. I am sorry to have taken up so much of the time of the House; but it is not only in regard to Hayling Common that I have felt it my duty to bring this question before the House. The House must remember that this is only a typical case, and that it has been, or will be, reproduced in numerous instances all over the country. It is highly desirable that this kind of thing should be stopped by the House of Commons. I myself would like to see the law strengthened, and the presumption of law made against the man who incloses, instead of leaving it to the poor and weak to assert their rights, if they desire to do so. Those who make these encroachments are indulging in nothing less than a game of brag, in the hope that nobody will be bold enough to resist them. I trust the House of Commons will throw out the Bill, not only on behalf of the commoners of Hayling, but also on account of the numerous poor commoners throughout the country, whose rights are similarly threatened. Those hon. Members who are in favour of the preservation of open spaces will certainly support the rejection of the Bill.

I have great pleasure in seconding the Motion of my hon. Friend, the object of which is to prevent, as far as possible, an encroachment upon the rights of the public. This is an attempt to take away the land of the poor, and to give it to wealthy English landowners. I hold that no one has a right to sell that which belongs to posterity; and I hold further that the system we have adopted of allowing private persons to inclose common lands is a false one. I trust the Government will see its way to place on the Commission someone more directly connected with the working classes than any present Member of it. I am thoroughly opposed to any further encroachments of this kind. We have had more than enough of them already, and I hope that the House will support my hon. Friend in resisting the further progress of this Bill.

I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.

seconded the Motion.

I know how much the House dislikes anything like a discussion on a question of this kind; but I also know how anxious the House is to arrive at a just conclusion. I am one of those who never for one moment put myself in opposition to the views or wishes of the House. Therefore, I propose to be as brief as possible in the remarks I feel it my duty to make upon this question. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex (Mr. Buxton) has stated an undoubted fact—that it is seldom, indeed I believe this is the only time, a question of this kind has come before the House on the second reading of a Bill of this nature. I do not object to its being brought forward when there are good grounds for it; but I hardly think my hon. Friend has put those grounds before the House as fairly as he might have done. I think he will admit—I am quite sure he will not deny—that the Committee on the Bill, of which he was a Member, did, as far as I, who was the humble Chairman of the Committee, was able to judge, their best to endeavour to elicit from the witnesses all the evidence that could be collected. We cross-examined the witnesses minutely and most carefully; and I think that if hon. Members had heard the evidence of those who were opposed to the scheme, they would agree that, as far as the Committee were concerned, they were fully justified in passing the Bill. I would like to say one word in reference to the Commissioners. My hon. Friend has made a strong statement about them. He says that the Commissioners very often look to the interests of those who are rich and large landowners rather than to the interests of the poor. Now, I have served upon the Committee which took this Bill into consideration for many years.

The hon. and gallant Baronet has somewhat misunderstood me. I said they gave too much weight to the rights of the lords of the manor and rather undervalued the rights of the commoners. I do not mean to say that they have been intentionally guilty of any act of unfairness.

There are several questions to be considered. In the first place, the rights of the lords of the manor. I do not think there is anybody in this House who is prepared to deny that where the lord of the manor has rights, he ought to be compensated for those rights if they are taken away. In this case, the lord of the manor has not asked to be compensated. The lord of the manor has agreed—and I think the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Arch) was rather taken with this point—that land shall be provided for allotments for his poorer neighbours. We are all anxious upon the subject, and the Committee endeavoured to obtain the best land that could be procured in Hayling Island for allotments for the poor. I am glad to see that the hon. Member assents to that proposal. The lord of the manor agreed to give up 10 acres of the best agricultural land in his possession on Hayling Island, to be selected by the Commissioners. It is freehold land worth £75 per acre, and the land on the common that he is to receive is absolutely worth nothing. ["Oh!"] Yes; that is the absolute fact. It is worth nothing unless building speculations are carried out. I thought I said that at the commencement. If these building speculations are not carried out this land is worth absolutely nothing. It is not worth at this moment £5 an acre, and no man would give 5s. an acre to rent it. All that I say is, that the Committee had, in the first place, to consider the proposal by the Commissioners that 10 acres of agricultural land should be exchanged for the 10 acres it was proposed to give up. I think the Committee were perfectly justified in agreeing to that proposal, because they knew very well that if building speculations are to be carried out there will be a large employment of labour; and they had reason to believe also that the cottagers want some land for their allotments. Therefore, it was provided, and we thought it right to agree to the proposition, that the lord of the manor should have 10 acres somewhere else for the 10 acres he was prepared to give up. We may have been, right, or we may have been wrong, but we thought it was only an act of justice to the lord of the manor. As to the rights of the commoners, they have been carefully looked after, and will be absolutely maintained intact. It was also agreed that, as far as the parish was concerned, no extra rates should be placed on the parish without its consent, and that three conservators should be elected by the ratepayers, and three by the copyholders. Then comes the question of the interests of the general public in the matter. I am anxious in the interests of the general public that all these open spaces should be preserved; but the present is not a case of inclosure, but of regulation, and I venture to say that the regulation of that common would be of great advantage to the prospect of South-sea, Portsmouth, and the neighbourhood. Will anybody get up and say that at the present moment this common is not in a terrible state, covered with glass bottles, old hats, and rubbish, all of which the inhabitants would be glad to see cleared away? I venture to say that in the interests of the public, in the interests of the copyholders, and in the interests also of the lord of the manor, it will be a wise thing to settle the question while we can. I do not know what my hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Courtney) may have to say, or whether he will suggest that if the House disapproves of this arrangement the Bill should be referred back to the Committee for reconsideration; but I am afraid, that if such a course is taken, the lord of the manor may refuse to give his consent to relinquish rights which he is now willing to dispose of, and I am afraid that he and others who have power over the common may find it to their interest to agree among themselves to the inclosure of the whole of the common. I can only say that it was with the view of doing the best I could in the interest of all parties concerned that I, for one, gave my vote as I did in the matter.

As I consider that it has been in consequence of the vote which I gave in Committee that this subject has been brought before the House, I desire to say a word upon the subject. I think the Committee would have very little to complain of in regard to the way in which the case was brought before them, if it had not been for the fact that the opponents of the scheme were unable to go to much expense. Their case was represented before the Committee by the Vicar of the parish. He was evidently in favour of having the question disposed of, and all his evidence went in the direction of a compromise. Since that time meetings have been held in Hayling Island, at which the lord of the manor has entirely changed sides on the question, and a Petition against the inclosure has been signed by the great majority of the inhabitants. If the Committee had had that expression of opinion before them, I need not say that it might, perhaps, have materially affected their decision. As to what fell from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell), I should like to remind him that a short time ago the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr L. Cohen) gave us a list of inclosures which have taken place in regard to common lands. I know that there are many difficulties to be contended with in the matter, and that in some instances the landowners and lords of the manor are not to be blamed for the course they have taken.

I desire to say a word in explanation of the course which I propose to take. I should be sorry if it were thought that in giving my vote on this question I was opposed to granting allotments to labourers; but if hon. Members will look at the matter they will see that allotments are not required in this case. We have it on the authority of the Vicar of the parish, and also of an Independent minister, that there is at this moment under offer to the labourers land suitable for allotments, which cannot be so let, and that the labourers, who certainly are the best judges in their own case, prefer to retain the independent rights they possess in this common. I was very much surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) talk of the value of the land proposed to be given up as merely a prospective value; he cannot be aware that the agent of the property has already made an offer himself to rent one acre, not at 5s., but at £30, a-year for 99 years. That does not look as if the land merely possessed a prospective value. It is certainly not a prospective offer; but it is contingent on this scheme passing the House of Commons. I think the hon. and gallant Baronet could not have heard the remark which fell from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Buxton) when he told the House that a small portion, comprising only half-an-acre, had been agreed to be sold for £200. It is probable that Hayling Common may require regulation; but what I object to is the price that is to be paid for its regulation. I think that the Land Commissioners, unintentionally, no doubt, misled the public when they said that this was not an inclosure scheme. It is a scheme which proposes that one-eighth of the common should be inclosed, and that is pro tanto an inclosure scheme. I shall certainly give an earnest vote in favour of the Amendment.

As a Member of the Committee I wish to say a few words before the House goes to a division, in order to prevent the House from being misled in the matter. It is said that the Bill proposes to take away a certain portion of common land on the Island of Hayling. But the Bill contains a provision by which the lord of the manor is to give 10 acres of his own best agricultural land in exchange for 10 acres of shingle; and it is a mistake to suppose that those 10 acres are to be taken out of the common. It is extremely easy for hon. Members to run away with an idea, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Buxton) and the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) have, who talked about inclosures going on all over the country, and maintained that the House of Commons is called upon to put down its foot upon them—it is easy for hon. Members to express that view. But the House has provided the means of looking closely into the circumstances of this case, and I am sure that no Committee ever approached the business they had in hand with greater care than the Members of the Committee upon this Bill did. It was our desire to see that ample justice should be done to all parties, and that any opposition to the scheme should be fully brought out. It is not the case of poor men who could not be heard. A noble Lord who owns two acres of land down there was heard before the Committee. I knew his case privately, and I questioned that noble Lord most closely in order to get out everything he had to say against the scheme. He was altogether unable to make out any case against it, and he owned as much to me afterwards. The hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Arch) very frankly expressed his desire before the Committee to provide allotments for labourers; there are 67 cottages in the neighbourhood of the common which are without gardens at all, and it is proposed that 10 acres shall be given by the lord of the manor, not from the common, but taken from agricultural land in exchange for shingle, in order to provide allotments. It is altogether an error to say that there is no need for allotments, considering the number of cottages in the neighbourhood of the common which are without gardens. Personally, I would not build a cottage, nor have one built, that had no garden allotment. I cannot understand hon. Members getting up here and saying that allotments are not required. We have the evidence of the Vicar of the parish, who owned that they would be a great boon. When asked if 10 acres would be sufficient for allotments, he said that they would be quite sufficient; but he never said that allotments were not required. There is no ground whatever for the assertion that this is an Inclosure Bill. It is a Preservation Bill against the encroachments which have been going on on this common, and I noticed myself on the maps a very large space indeed which has been encroached upon and inclosed, and which cannot now be recovered. The landowner is now anxious to purchase part of this land, and I beg to say that, as far as I can see, there is no reason why he should not purchase it fairly. It must be sold to somebody in order to cover the expense of this application, and why should it not be sold to him? I may remind the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Buxton) that there is such a thing as having inclosure on the brain. I am afraid the hon. Member must be suffering from something of the kind, because two other cases which came before the Committee, which were wholly unopposed, were watched by the hon. Member for a long time, as if upon some ground which was not before the Committee they must be objectionable. I say that this scheme has been fully and fairly considered by the Committee, and, although it was only carried by the Chairman's casting vote, the House would do no injustice in passing the Bill; whereas, if it is thrown out on the grounds stated, there will be a greater chance of injustice being done in the matter.

I will not detain the House more than a few minutes; but I think that I ought to make one or two observations. In the first place, I must point out to the House that after all this Bill comes before the House with some authority in its favour. The Land Commission approaches a matter of this kind with a good deal of experience, and, I think, with a judicial temper, and is able to examine the facts far more carefully and accurately, and to come to a correct appreciation of them better than the House can possibly do. The scheme of the Land Commission was afterwards referred to a Select Committee—a Hybrid Committee—specially appointed to consider these Bills. It was their duty to hear witnesses and sift all the facts; and that Committee, although, in this case, by the narrow majority of the Chairman's vote, approved the scheme of the Land Commission, and recommended its adoption by the House. Under these circumstances, the House ought to hesitate a little before they set aside what has been thus deliberately decided. They ought to support the decision of their own Committee, arrived at after full inquiry and examination, after having received a Report from the Land Commission, and after having heard all the evidence. It would, I think, be unfortunate to set aside their decision after the case had been fully sifted and deliberately threshed out by the Committee. My own impression is in favour of standing by the Report of the Committee in a case like this. [Cries of "No!"] I am surprised at the amount of feeling shown about the matter, and to find that there are Members below the Gangway who seem to think that the decision of the Land Commission ought to be discredited in these matters. The question has been discussed as if the proposal was to inclose the whole of the common. The scheme is primarily one for regulation, with the inclosure, at the outside, of about one-eighth of the common. Out of 120 acres 105 are to be maintained as a free and open space. I have the authority of the Land Commission for saying that the whole common which it is desired to regulate has hitherto been left absolutely unprotected, and subject to spoliation of all kinds, and therefore it has been felt that it is desirable to make some provisions for its regulation in the same manner as we have regulated the commons in the neighbourhood of London. The only question before the House, therefore, is whether the conditions of the regulation are such as are reasonable or not. In order to carry out these provisions four and a-half acres of the common are, it is true, to be sold at a price to be fixed by the Land Commission. The right of purchasing is to be given to a neighbouring proprietor; but if that proprietor refuses to give the price fixed upon by the Land Commission, then the land is to be sold by auction in order to defray the expenses of the Bill. In regard to the other 10 acres, as has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Manchester (Sir James Fergusson), they are to go in exchange for 10 acres of agricultural land; and, on the whole, the advantage will be with the inhabitants, who will get 10 acres of good agricultural land for allotments in exchange for 10 acres of common land. It is said that allotments are not wanted. In the evidence given before the Committee it was shown that allotments are wanted and badly wanted; and the same view was arrived at by the Land Commissioners. Since then a gentleman, who was a strong opponent of the whole scheme, has offered land of his own for allotments; and the conditions are therefore somewhat changed since this scheme was drawn up and approved by the authorities. I would, therefore, strongly urge upon the House not to take upon itself the determination of the question and the responsibility of throwing out the Bill, but to refer the whole matter back to the Committee to see what they are prepared to recommend under the changed conditions. That, I think, is the best step the House can take, and it will give all parties who are interested in the matter ample opportunity for bringing their conclusions before the Committee. I would, therefore, strongly recommend that instead of throwing out the Bill now it should be sent back to the Select Committee with an Instruction to re-examine the facts—such as those which the hon. Member for Shropshire (Mr. Jasper More) has brought under the notice of the House. I certainly do not think the House, in the absence of further information, ought to reject the Bill.

I notice that this Bill has on the back of it the names of two Members of Her Majesty's Government—the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Childers) and the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Broadhurst). But so far we have no information as to what course Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter. The hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees has thrown out a suggestion which I am inclined to think may posssibly meet the approval of hon. Members near me who are in favour of the Amendment. ["No!"] Then, if it does not meet the approval of my hon. Friends, neither does it meet that of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, and I shall have nothing more to say upon that point. I had thought that it might be possible, by recommitting the Bill, to take further evidence, so as to prevent the scheme being converted into an Act of spoliation. I, for one, should be inclined to support that course; but in the event of such a course not approving itself to the House, and in the event of Her Majesty's Government not being able to give us some assurance that the measure will not be proceeded with—at any rate, with their sanction, I shall feel it my duty, and I hope I shall be supported by the House, to resist this Bill to the utmost. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down talked a good deal about the dignity of the House, and he apparently wishes us to understand that it is altogether beneath the dignity of the House to defend the public rights against the encroachment of individuals. The broad principle upon which to argue a question like this is not whether due care has been taken in making provision for allotments, or anything of that kind, but whether you are not dealing with public rights—namely, the rights of commoners, which are the inalienable rights of the public and of posterity. Are we prepared to sacrifice the rights of posterity to suit the exigencies of the present moment? It is not the question whether the copyholders and the lords of the manor, and others interested in this common, have agreed to this scheme. The question is, "What are the public rights? The public rights descend to posterity, and they are not to be deliberately thrown away year by year by votes of this House. All public rights should descend to posterity; that is a clear issue. Hon. Gentlemen have told us that this land must be sold. I say there is no "must" about it. There is no earthly reason why you should give this land to the landowners to convert into valuable building sites. We have been told that an offer has already been made for an acre of it for building purposes at a rent of £30 a-year for 99 years. That, then, is not prospective value. It shows that this is a valuable property; and it is all very well for a landowner to pose as a benefactor to the public by offering to give away 10 acres of land, which may be worth next to nothing, in order to secure to himself the enjoyment of land which is worth from £300 to £400 an acre. That is one of the most curious instances of generosity the House has ever been called upon to witness. I am reminded of a saying of the late Earl of Beaconsfield, who described a certain course of policy as one of "blundering and plundering." I think I cannot do better than stigmatize all such attempts as this—and there have been hundreds of similar cases all over the country—as a policy of robbery and jobbery.

The hon. Member complains that the House has heard nothing from either of the Members of the Government whose names are on the back of the Bill. I think it is right that I should state that Her Majesty's Government have really very little authority in matters of this kind, and that they have had no part whatever in framing these schemes, which are drawn up by residents in the neighbourhood, or by those possessing common rights over the land proposed to be dealt with, with the sanction of the Land Commissioners; and the only part which the Government takes in the matter is to move the Parliamentary stages in this House of the respective schemes, very often, I apprehend, with a very slight knowledge indeed of the contents of the measures intrusted to their care. In the present instance, I should like to make the frank confession that, up to 4 o'clock yesterday, I knew nothing whatever about the merits of this proposal. I knew that there was such a scheme in existence; but as to the precise proposal, or plan, or anything of the kind, nothing has ever come before me, and there was no necessity, under the system by which these schemes are prepared, that it should. With regard to the suggestion that has been made by my hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees, that the Bill should be referred back to the Committee upstairs, that is certainly one way out of the difficulty in which we are placed; but it is for the House to determine the question for itself. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Buxton) and those who are acting with him are prepared to accept that suggestion. It is for them to decide. The Government do not wish to exercise any influence or authority whatever in disposing of the question. I suppose my hon. Friend knows perfectly well the considerable responsibility he incurs in moving the rejection of the scheme. He does it, however, with full knowledge of that responsibility, and with a very large experience of similar questions in regard to commons. I presume that be is prepared to accept that responsibility. At the same time, I should like it to be understood by the House that, as far as I understand, the question of allotments is not by any means a pressing question. The Land Commissioners, who have always, as far as my experience goes, studiously maintained the rights of the residents in the neighbourhood of these commons, did in this, as in other similar cases, insist upon provision being made for allotments; and, as I have said, the necessity for providing allotments is not urgent. An hon. Friend near me stated that there has been a recent addition made to land available for allotment purposes. I have received a letter from the locality, written by a working man, who says that there has been ground available for allotments for a long time past, but that the whole of it has not been hired by those who live in the neighbourhood of the common.

Because it is in the wrong place—not suitable for the commoners, while this land is very convenient.

I do not understand that to be the case; but the statement made by one of the witnesses has been flatly contradicted. I have only mentioned the matter in order that the House may have as full knowledge as possible of the real bearings of the question before the House. It has been stated in evidence that there were only 13 cottages possessing allotments. In the communication already referred to, which I received from an inhabitant, the reverse appears to be the case—namely, that there are not more than 13 cottages without allotments. That is a very different circumstance from that of a locality in which there is a large demand for allotments. However, I have only risen for the purpose of explaining to my hon. Friend that, as far as I am concerned, as representing the Government on this occasion, we have no very strong feeling either way, and it is for the House to decide whether it will accept or reject the scheme.

As a general rule, I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees that it is desirable, before rejecting a Bill of this kind, to refer it back to the Select Committee by whom it has been considered; but in the present case I would remind the House that this scheme was only carried in the Select Committee on Commons by the casting vote of the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) the Chairman—a Gentleman for whom we all have the highest possible respect, but who entertains an exaggerated view of the rights of lords of the manor. We have also before us the fact that one Member of that Committee has also come forward and admitted that he was mistaken in his views, and that he is now prepared to vote against the scheme. Therefore, under these circumstances, the only effect of referring the Bill back to the Select Committee would be its rejection, and the House may save the Committee that trouble by rejecting it themselves. My hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees has contended that the House ought to pay great respect to the views of the Land Commissioners; but I may say that the only way in which the Society for the Preservation of Commons, with which I am connected, has effected its objects has been by rejecting the views of the Commissioners, and fighting case after case on its merits in this House. It appears to me that in that manner only can we hope to induce the Commissioners to take a larger and more public view of their duties in these cases. I do not propose to go into the merits of this scheme; but I have come to the conclusion that as the real purpose of the scheme is not the regulation of the common, but selling a portion of the ground, I trust the House will reject the Bill.

I wish to say a few words in the way of explanation. I must say that when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) makes a personal accusation against me of having unduly favoured the lords of the manor, he is unjust, and altogether mistaken. I repudiate the accusation most strongly; and I am bound to add that the right hon. Gentleman is, I regret to say, exceedingly apt to make remarks of that kind of other people.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the proceedings at the Spring Quarter Sessions, held at Wicklow, as reported in The Wicklow People on the 24th April. When the Chairman, Mr. Darley, said—

"I congratulate you and all other officials connected with the county Wicklow. I have just come from the counties of Kildare and Carlow. In the county of Kildare I was presented with white gloves, equally handsome as those which I have just had the pleasure of receiving from Mr. Kennedy, there being no criminal cases there. In Carlow also there was no criminal case, and at Baltinglass there was only one case upon the calendar, and that was taken out of our court and sent to assizes. The consequence is that I have had no criminal cases to try in the county of Kildare, the county of Carlow, or the county of Wicklow. That speaks very well for the peaceful condition of these counties. I hope such a state of things may long continue. So far as the county of Wicklow is concerned, I must say that, from my experience, I have been always able to point out that there has been no crime of a very serious character within its borders. Therefore, I have greater reason now for congratulating the magistrates, you gentlemen of the grand jury, the high sheriff, and the other county officers, upon the peaceful state of the wide and important area over which their duties extend;"

and, is the peaceful condition of these counties a fair specimen of the state of most Irish counties?

The state of the county of Wicklow, and of the neighbouring counties of Kildare and Carlow, is eminently satisfactory as regards crime of every kind; so satisfactory, indeed, that I hardly think it would be correct to take those counties as representing the state of Ireland generally. At the same time, it is right to say that the Returns of agrarian crime from the whole country do not show any serious amount of such crime at present.

asked the honourable Member representing the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the carriage roads between Buckingham Palace and Hyde Park Corner, between Storey's Gate and Marlborough House, between the Horse Guard's Gate, Whitehall, and the Duke of York Steps, between Storey's Gate and Buckingham Palace, are maintained directly or indirectly from public funds contributed by taxes or rates; and, if so, by what authority and in what manner is their use by the public restricted; and, if, considering the great pressure of traffic in the streets, especially at this season, and the inconvenience and expense occasioned by such restrictions to many inhabitants of the Metropolis and visitors thereto, Her Majesty's Government will take steps for their removal or modification?

, in reply, said, that the roads in question were maintained out of the funds voted in respect of the Royal Parks. The restrictions as to the use of the roads had been laid down in former times, and had been maintained in the Parks Regulation Act, 1872. The First Commissioner of Works was not aware of any intention on the part of the Government to make any alteration in the use of the roads.

gave Notice to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, no restrictions inconsistent with public safety, the exigencies of traffic, and the comfort or convenience of the Royal Family, should be placed upon the use of roads in the Metropolis and other populous places maintained by rates or taxes."

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Postmaster General will cause inquiry to be made into the reasonableness of the frequent complaints of the inhabitants of Kiveton Park, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, about alleged defects in the system of delivering and collecting letters in the district, with a view to the removal of all grounds for such complaints?

The matter to which the hon. Member has called the attention of the Postmaster General is now being inquired into; and as soon as the facts are ascertained a communication shall be sent to the hon. Member.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, What are the special objects of the expedition now being organised to proceed to Thibet under Mr. Colman Macaulay; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will urge upon the Indian Government the promotion of the interests of commerce, by appointing to that expedition a gentleman well versed in mercantile affairs?

The object of the Mission is to confer with the Chinese Commissioners and the Lhassa Government as to the resumption of commercial intercourse between Thibet and India. In reply to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, I have to say that the Secretary of State has been in communication with the Government of India on the subject, but that, looking to the delicate nature of the Mission, it has not been thought advisable to interfere with the arrangements already made by adding a special commercial Representative. I may add that Mr. Elwes, who has been given permission to accompany Mr. Macaulay, is competent to obtain all requisite information on commercial matters.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that Sergeant Hooly, 2nd West Suffolk Regiment, canteen steward of Cork garrison, was dismissed from that position for having accepted a cheque for £24 for his own use (after he had been in office only two months) from the contractors for the supply of the garrison canteen, namely, the Dublin Branch of the Junior Army and Navy Stores; whether, in consequence of this discovery, the contract was withdrawn from the Junior Army and Navy Association, and entrusted to a local firm; whether this Association and the Army and Navy Co-operative Association supply most of the regiments in Ireland; whether the shareholders of these Associations consist largely of military officers; whether he is in possession of any evidence to show that the men of the Army would prefer to have the option of dealing locally for their supplies; whether he will have an independent investigation into the present system; and, whether he will have a Return presented to this House of the names of all Army officers who are shareholders in the Supply Associations above mentioned?

It is reported by the General Officer at Cork that the garrison canteen sergeant was found to be in possession of a cheque for £23 10s. from the Junior Army and Navy Stores, which he alleged was intended as a present to him. The man was dismissed from his position, and the Committee of the canteen are stated to have transferred their custom from the Junior Army and Navy Stores to some other quarter. With regard to the remainder of the series of Questions put by the hon. Member, I must disclaim any official knowledge. The affairs of canteens are managed by their own committees—an arrangement believed to be very acceptable to the soldiers. It is well known that a large number of the canteens obtain their supplies in whole or in part from one or other of the large Co-operative Societies; but I should be unwilling to seem even to limit their independence by requiring Returns upon the subject. I believe that many officers are shareholders of Co-operative Societies; but I have no Returns on the subject which I could present to the House. I may point out that, under the Companies Act, every Limited Liability Company is bound to have a list of shareholders accessible to individual members of the public who may desire to consult it.

In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to ask a Question which is expunged from the Question which appeared on the Paper, which I humbly consider I am entitled to put. I wish to ask——

Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to put that Question.

inquired whether the right hon. Gentleman had received remonstrances from the traders of Aldershot complaining of officers being shareholders in the Army and Navy Co-operative Stores, and having exclusive dealings with the stores as against the traders in the town; and, whether a Return would not be procured showing the names of the officers who were at that particular period at Aldershot, and who were shareholders in the Army and Navy Stores?

That is a statement referring to a cognate case, but not the same case. I believe it is true that in a private conversation my right hon. Predecessor did give what information he could obtain as to the names of certain officers who were shareholders; but it was not the kind of information which can be furnished as a Return to this House, because we have no special means of obtaining it, and it is information which is open to any member of the public who chooses to inquire. With regard to the definite Question put by the right hon. Gentleman, I may say that such a Memorial as he speaks of has been received, and no doubt the whole question of the canteen arrangements and their dealing with stores is a fit matter for debate; but I can hardly be expected, in answer to a Question, to give an opinion on the subject.

Arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to know whether it may not become the duty of Army officers to sit in judgment on complaints as to the quality of goods supplied by Associations such as these in which they themselves may be shareholders?

I take it that it would be very improper if they did so; but I am not aware that it is the case.

But will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether it is the case?

That is the very thing I cannot do. I can inquire which officers have sat on the complaints; but I can have no definite official knowledge whether these officers are or are not shareholders in the Co-operative Societies which supplied the goods complained of. Judging from my general knowledge of the subject, which is not very deep, I believe the pecuniary interest of any individual officer in any of these Societies is extremely limited.

In consequence of the highly unsatisfactory replies of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give Notice that on going into Committee of Supply I will call attention to the alleged coercion of committees of garrison canteens by officers to deal with Co-operative Societies.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is true that, if, after repeated applications on the part of local collectors of Income Tax for payment, the tax is remitted direct to the Comptroller, the poundage is not paid to the local collector, although he had all the trouble; and, whether he will order that the poundage be paid in all cases where every effort had been made by the local collector to secure payment?

Poundage is payable only to collectors on the sums recoverable by them. No alteration in the present system is necessary or advisable.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is true that local collectors of Income Tax in Ireland outside the city of Dublin have to pay postage on all Correspondence relating to the collection of Income Tax; whether the local collectors within the city of Dublin are saved this considerable expenditure by sending their letters through the free official post; and, whether he will see that the former be placed on the same footing as the latter by ordering that their official letters be sent free through the post?

The poundage covers all expenses incidental to the performance of the duties of the office. The privilege referred to in the second part of the Question is taken into account in fixing the remuneration of the collectors. There is no necessity for altering the present system. In Dublin the collection is made from house to house; in the country the tax is, as a rule, collected from the landlords or agents with much less trouble and expense.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that, under the instructions of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, two prisoners suffering from smallpox in its acutest stage were removed from Shrewsbury Gaol to the Atcham Workhouse, a distance of five miles, the one on the 7th March, the other on the 26th April; whether, in consequcence of the virulence of the disease, no officer of the prison was sent in charge of the prisoner, David Lewis, to the workhouse; whether the inevitable exposure of the prisoner during the journey endangered his life; whether the sentence of David Lewis was unexpired, and was commuted by the Home Secretary for the purpose of endeavouring to give technical legality to the removal; and, whether he will inform the House of the date on which the notice of the commutation of sentence was received by the governor of the gaol, and the specific reasons for such commutation?

Yes, Sir; it is true that these two prisoners were removed suffering from small-pox, but not in its acutest stage. On the contrary, they were in a condition in which they might properly be removed. The prisoner Lewis was removed in charge of the Sanitary Inspector, who was specially asked by the medical officer to undertake this duty because of his exceptional experience, such as a warder could not possess, and not in consequence of the virulence of the disease. The prisoner was removed in a covered conveyance. The patient is now going on satisfactorily, and there is no reason to think that his health was in any way affected by the mode of removal. In accordance with the usual practice, having received a certificate that the prisoner's removal was desirable on medical grounds, I advised the remission of the remainder of his sentence—namely, two months of a 12 months' sentence. The instructions for the removal reached the prison on Monday, the 26th. The usual Order of the Home Office was received on the following day. I have no reason to doubt that the removal was, under the circumstances, expedient, and that all proper care was taken in the case. I may add that the prison is at present undergoing partial reconstruction, and there is no available space for the insulation of a case of this nature; and, moreover, I understand that the workhouse infirmary at Atcham is used for infectious cases, including small-pox cases.

said, it would partly depend on the condition of the prison whether, if a prisoner was affected with disease of this kind, he should be removed. In the present case, it would clearly have been wrong to keep him in prison.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it be true that the Government, whilst taking tenders for the building of cruisers lately from various builders, made an exception in favour of a Belfast shipyard, and ordered two vessels, without previously having contracted what the price had to be; and, if it be true, and it be not against the public weal, would he explain to the House the reason for that course?

It is a fact that the Admiralty, in August last, ordered two gunboats from Messrs. Harland and Wolffe under the circumstances stated in the Question of the hon. Member. The reason for this course was an experiment to test the value of the system of paying the actual cost of wages, material, and other direct expenses, with a due proportion of the fixed and trade expenses of the concern, and a commission of 5 per cent on the whole as the sole remuneration and profit of the transaction. Though the latter terms, which were agreed to by the late Government, are unusual, I am informed that Messrs. Harland and Wolffe have built ships and engines for several important shipping firms and Companies in Liverpool and elsewhere to the value of over £2,500,000 sterling upon this system.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Constable Hayes was stationed at Arney, county Fermanagh, on the 16th of August 1885; whether, on the evening of that day, he went to a friend's house, being then off duty; whether he remained at this house until half-past nine, and left at that time, reaching his barrack at a quarter to ten; if, on arriving at his barrack, he found the door closed against him, although his leave of absence extended to ten o'clock; whether he was reported by Sergeant Clinton; fined in the sum of 7s. 6d. by the county inspector; and, at his own expense, transferred to Lisnaskea; whether Constable Hayes demanded an inquiry, which was refused; was he within his right in asking for this inquiry; and, whether it will be granted? Also, Whether a constable named Tuohy was transferred from Arney, county Fermanagh, at his own expense, to another station, because he refused to sign a false statement at the request of Sergeant Clinton as to the number of hours he was out on patrol duty?

, in reply, said, that on the evening in question the constable was absent without leave from half-past 7 o'clock to a quarter past 10 o'clock. He was charged with this, but denied it. The County Inspector, however, having investigated the circumstances, considered him guilty, and fined him 7s. 6d. He did not appeal for an inquiry, and he was transferred, not at his own, but at the public charge. In answer to the second Question of the hon. Member, Constable Tuohy was transferred to another station at his own request for having preferred a charge against a sergeant, which on investigation proved to be frivolous and vindictive. He had endeavoured to represent that an obvious clerical error was a wilful and deliberate false entry, and the course taken, under the circumstances, was considered perfectly justifiable; and in neither case was an inquiry called for.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Why no medal or clasp has been given for the Battle of Ginnis, one of the most decisive actions fought in Egypt, and attended with most important results?

Her Majesty's Government fully recognize the important results of the battle of Ginnis, and also the high qualities displayed both by officers and men who were engaged in it. In granting medals or clasps, however, it is essential to have regard in some degree to the severity of the fighting. In the battle of Ginnis the casualties only amounted to nine killed and 26 wounded, including the Egyptian Forces. Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government think that it will be sufficient to award the Egyptian medal to all the troops employed. This is the same medal as was given to all troops employed up the Nile.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the fishermen on the Shannon above the Great Lax weir, at Limerick, allege that certain structural changes have been made in the weir, and particularly in the Queen's Gap, by the Shannon Fishing Company, whereby free passage of fish is prevented, and the means of living of a number of fishermen seriously affected; and, if he will direct the Fishery Inspectors to hold an inquiry into this matter with the least possible delay?

The allegation mentioned in this Question was the subject of judicial investigation before the magistrates at Limerick, and a fine was imposed on the owner of the weir; but the decision was reversed on appeal. The Inspectors of Fisheries inform me that, according to the decision of the Court in the case of "The Duke of Devonshire v. Foot," they have no jurisdiction in such matters, and could not, therefore, hold an inquiry with any advantage. That decision, was to the effect that no order which the Inspectors might make could deprive magistrates of the power of hearing and determining complaints of this nature.

said, as this was a matter which had been dealt with by the Land Courts, he doubted whether any advantage would accrue from a Government inquiry; but he would make further inquiries on the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can inform the House what is the annual amount of the salaries in the Civil Service which, under the provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill, will be placed at the disposal of the Irish Government?

This Question is down without Notice. I can only say that if the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Estimates he will, I am sure, be able, with very little trouble, to extract the information he requires. But if he wishes to have it on official authority, his best course would be either to address the Question to a Representative of the Treasury, or to call for it by way of a Return.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that one of his predecessors in office, in reply to a Question on 26th February 1885, as to the damage to the Arklow Breakwater, stated—

"The recent storms have caused a slight subsidence, which is of no structural importance, and has been remedied at a trifling cost;"

whether, after many ineffectual attempts on the part of the Harbour Committee, representing the ratepayers, who have guaranteed repayment of the loan of twenty thousand pounds, to get an inquiry, the Engineer of the Board of Works, who designed the Breakwater, reported, 20th April 1885, that the sand foundations had been scoured out by the sea, which scouring out extended under the storm wall for its entire width of nineteen and a half feet; whether his attention has been called to a paper just laid upon the Table, from which it appears an additional sum of ten thousand five hundred pounds will be required to carry out the recommendations of Messrs. Stevenson and Stoney, which sum it is proposed to charge upon the rates; whether he is aware that the ship and boat owners from the first condemned the plans of the Board of Works; and, whether the ratepayers will be called on for a fresh guarantee under all the circumstances of the case?

The statements in the first two paragraphs of the Question are substantially correct. Before the extra expense, £10,500, involved in Messrs. Stevenson and Stoney's recommendation is incurred, the consent of the Town Commissioners to that amount being charged on the town rates would have to be obtained. With regard to paragraph 4, I am informed that the ship and boat owners of Arklow, though at first objecting to the design of the Board of Works' engineer, have from time to time disagreed among themselves. They, however, appear to be now in favour of the execution of the works in accordance with the original design, with slight modifications, with one exception—namely, the Northern groins. No decision has yet been come to as to Messrs. Stevenson and Stoney's plan. If the additional expenditure of £10,500 is incurred, it would have to be guaranteed in the same manner as the £20,000.

asked, would there be any objection to lay the Papers on the Table of the House in reference to this case?

I will consider that point.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that a British Regiment has been detained on duty up the Nile for two successive summers; and, whether, considering the unhealthiness of the climate, that Regiment will be relieved, and orders given that any Regiment so stationed will be relieved annually?

Up to this time the position of the battalions on the Nile has necessarily been determined according to the exigencies of military duty by the General Officer commanding in Egypt, who is best able to decide as to the state of health and fitness of the regiments under his command. With the present reduction of the Force the battalions longest in Egypt are being withdrawn; and I have no doubt that Sir Frederick Stephenson will make the best arrangements open to him for the relief, in due course, of any which may be in unhealthy positions.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to a Letter from Mr. Adam Young, one of the Secretaries to the Board of Inland Revenue, addressed to the Civil Service Inquiry Commission, 1875, and published in the Appendix to their Third Report (page 66), which states that a slight addition to the salary of First-class Assistants had become necessary, and that that the average time in reaching that rank was two years, Whether there is at present any officer holding that rank with under four and a-half years' service; and, whether any addition, such as was stated to be necessary in 1875, has since been made to the salaries of these officers, whose number has increased from 227 in 1875 to 316 in 1886?

The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and to the second part of the Question in the negative.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a Question with regard to the further progress of the debate on the Government of Ireland Bill. Sir, last night the right hon. Gentleman referred to some precedents which I had quoted for the continuance of similar debates de die in diem; and he then said if I was right in my reference to the precedent of the Reform Bill of 1866, he would give way at once on that question. Well, Sir, I was not right as to that precedent. As my noble Friend the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) reminded us, that debate was not continued de die in diem from its commencement, but an interval of one day, which was a private Members' day (Tuesday), was allowed to elapse. Subsequently the debate was resumed on the Thursday, and was then continued de die in diem until its termination. That precedent, therefore, being in exact accordance with the present position of the debate, I would now ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether, looking to the importance of the debate, the great interest in it over all other Business, and the necessity for many reasons of bringing it to as early a conclusion as is compatible with its proper conduct, he will not propose that it should be continued on Friday and subsequently till it is concluded?

I said on the previous occasion that I would not enter into precedents, and that it would be a false position in which I should place myself if, as mainly responsible for the conduct of the Business of the House, I were to set up a controversial tone against the right hon. Gentleman in favour of delaying the progress of Public Business. I stated that when we could forecast the probable course of the debate, and the number of Members who were likely to address the House, we would then, if we saw occasion, ask the House to give us what is called its whole time I will, however, consult my Colleagues before Thursday, and then will announce what course we intend to propose that the House should pursue on Friday and all subsequent days. I am bound to be a little reserved upon this question, because I think that it is perfectly possible that the demands of the Government for an unusual appropriation of the time of the House might extend to other stages of the Bill besides the second reading.

I omitted, Sir, to state in asking the Question that having communicated with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings), who had given Notice of a Motion which is first on the Paper for Friday, he has authorized me to say that, in the circumstances, he would willingly waive his right to that evening.

asked the Prime Minister, Whether, before assenting to the right hon. Gentleman's request, he would consult with other hon. Gentlemen who, like the hon. Member for Stockport, had Notices on the Paper for Friday, and ascertain whether they also would be willing to give way?

Yes, Sir; I will examine the list of private Members' Motions between this and Thursday, so that, we can know what can be done.

, in rising to call attention to the law and practice relating to capital punishment, and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived for the abolition of the death penalty for the crime of murder,"

said, that there had been during the last few years several Motions on this important question. He had hesitated whether to make his Motion in the form in which it appeared, or to adopt a more qualified one in favour of the view which had been expressed by the Royal Commission that the crime of murder should be divided into two classes, for one of which death, and for the other penal servitude, should be inflicted. After consideration, he had come to the conclusion, as he believed the time had arrived when the death penalty should be altogether abolished, that it was better to advocate that course. Two right hon. Gentlemen below him in times past (Mr. Childers and Sir William Harcourt) had expressed their views in the sense of his Motion, though he did not know whether the responsibilities of Office would allow them to do so on the present occasion. It was now 20 years ago since the Royal Commission had examined the whole question. Five of its Members were in favour of total abolition. Of these, Lord O'Hagan made a separate Report, in which, while expressing his view that capital punishment should be abolished, he said that the abolition ought only to take place after the lapse of a certain time. No doubt, it was necessary to have the death penalty in savage societies; but as civilization and Christianity advanced that necessity diminished, and the time had now come when, with safety to the State, milder measures might be resorted to. The question for the House to consider was, could they repress crime by sparing the lives of those whom we now hanged, and would our lives be quite as safe if their lives were spared and other punishments were awarded them? Our Criminal Code, as he had stated before in that House, used to be one of the most severe and barbarous that ever existed in a civilized country. Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton had stated that in the Reign of Henry VIII., 72,000 robbers were hung; and that between 1749 and 1771, 109,000 suffered the same penalty. The Tudors, the Stuarts, and the House of Brunswick successively increased the number of offences for which death was inflicted. Up to the beginning of this century shoplifting and other minor offences was punished by hanging. But those offences were not found to increase—they diminished in number—when the punishment was mitigated. In the same way it might reasonably be expected that, with the abolition of capital punishment, murders would not increase. A very useful Paper in regard to this matter had been drawn up for the information of the House as to the figures and effects of the abolition of capital punishment in foreign countries somewhat similar to our own. In Belgium there had been no execution since 1873, and there had been no increase, but a positive decrease, in the capital offences. There were other countries—he would not go through the long list of them—but in the Netherlands and in Holland the same thing had occurred, and the capital crime had gone on decreasing instead of increasing. He was asked, "What with regard to Switzerland?" The Swiss found that they had to go back to their old law and re-instate capital punishment as a matter of law; and each federated Canton could resume the death penalty, but only some had done so; but he believed no execution had taken place. Yes; but Switzerland was a very peculiar country. It was one of the most drunken countries in the world, and a large amount of the crime that was committed there arose from drink. In Rhode Island, and one or two other of the United States, the abolition of capital punishment had not hitherto tended to an increase of crime; and it was a fact that, wherever it had been tried in America, no State had gone back upon the course it had adopted. With regard to the fact as to its being a deterrent upon our own criminal population, he had his doubts upon the matter. He believed it would be found that long terms of imprisonment were a much greater deterrent. There was a case some time ago in the county of Durham in which a man of the name of Fury gave himself up out of penal servitude, and confessed to the murder of a woman in Sunderland, in order that he might be hanged, and so get rid of a lifelong servitude in gaol. Another point to which he wished to call the attention of the House was that the number of our executions had been gradually diminishing during recent years. In the six years from 1872 to 1878 there was an average of 24 executions per annum; while from 1878 to 1884, the next six years, the number was only an annual average of 14. It seemed to him that, considering the increase in the population, the House could draw a strong inference from this, to the effect that human life had been just as safe during the last six years, when there were fewer executions, as it was during the first six years, when the executions were 24 a-year. He believed that hanging murderers would never teach a community the sacredness of human life; and he would like to ask whether they could safely trust to a fallible tribunal to inflict a penalty which could not be recalled? The Judge might err, the jury might err, or the evidence might err. There could be no doubt that there were a great many innocent persons who had been sentenced to death; and it was a remarkable circumstance during the last few years how many persons had been rescued from gaol for crimes of a very grave character of which they were innocent. He could give a very long list of them, but he would not trouble the House with it. He might add, however, that Sir Fitzroy Kelly had stated that he had made out to his own satisfaction cases where 22 were sentenced to death who were innocent, and seven of these were executed. There was one case which he (Sir Joseph Pease) should specially like to mention. It was the case in which three men were tried at Durham not very long since for the murder of a policeman under very aggravating circumstances. One of those three men owed his life to the present Chancellor of Exchequer, who sent down specially from the Home Office, and made inquiries which resulted in the man's life being saved. In that case it was notorious that the more guilty man was acquitted, and a man who was innocent of the actual murder, though accessory, was hung. Since executions had been carried out inside prisons reporters were sometimes admitted and sometimes not. We heard sometimes of a short drop and sometimes of a long one. Occasionally we heard of an amateur executioner, or a Baronet assisting at an execution. These things ought to be put a stop to if executions were continued; but the best way of stopping them was to stop the executions. There were many horrible incidents attendant upon executions. There was a case to which he would briefly refer. It was that of a poor woman named Cotton, a notorious murderess, who was confined in Durham gaol. That poor woman was kept in gaol from August, 1872, till the spring of 1873, because she was not fit to be tried owing to the fact that she was near her confinement. She was tried in March, 1873, and executed March 19. She was kept through all the pains of maternity in order that she should be hung six months after the crime which she committed in 1872. That was one of those things which he thought led the people rather to sympathize with the criminal than to vindicate the law by the present barbarous mode of punishment by hanging. If that woman, instead of being hanged, had been imprisoned for life, it would have produced a more salutary effect, and afforded greater warning to criminals of that class. There had been cases in which ropes had broken, and half-strangled men had fallen to the ground, and had been kept in agony and suspense until other ropes were adjusted. At Liverpool once the executioner was so obviously under the influence of drink as to provoke a solemn reproof from the chaplain. Recently the weight of the convict and the length of the drop resulted in decapitation. He thought he had shown that in those countries in which capital punishment had been abolished there had been no increase in crimes of murder. In Belgium, Spain, Holland, and other States, the death penalty had been abolished with safety to the community. Why, then, should we not adopt a more humane plan than the one now in force? There was another point, however, which he should like to bring to the attention of the House, and that was the extreme youth of those who suffered the death penalty. In 1880 there were 13 persons executed. Of those four were under 21, 23, 22, and 24 years of age. In 1881 11 persons were hanged. Of these five were under 24, 22, 20, and 21 years of age, In 1882 12 persons were hanged. Of these one was only 17 years old; another only 19; and a third only 22. In 1883 13 were hanged, and of these persons one was under 24; one under 23; one under 22; and one under 21 years of age. In 1884 there were 15 executions. Out of these four persons were respectively 18, 25, 21, and 23 years of age. One-third of all those criminals were mere boys, and they were hanged for crimes committed in passion. It was a fact that jealousy came in very much as the cause of the execution of these young people. It was well known to the prison authorities that the "street sneak," as he was described, was the worst criminal of any class, and gave the most trouble. In 1885, out of 21 persons who were hanged, not more than eight were more than 25 years of age. Then, again, there was the very interesting inquiry as to how far insanity had to do with murder. It was established by medical reports that 10 per cent of our convicted murderers were found to be insane, and therefore unfit to be hanged; whilst only one in 1,000 of other convicts were found insane. A letter he had received from a lady connected with the New York Penitentiary stated that one of her best helpers was a woman who had been convicted of a murder committed in jealousy. As regarded the treatment of criminals, he thought the evidence which had been collected in America, Belgium, Holland, &c. was very strong, and proved very clearly the efficacy of humane methods and the abandonment of barbarous customs. He had himself received communications from those in charge of these criminal establishments, showing that in many cases the criminals, when brought under higher influences than those to which they had previously been subjected, I grew tractable and good. That showed what might be done if we adopted a more humane mode of treatment of our prisoners. The better classification, order, and regularity that were being brought about in our prisons under the Act of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) were far more conducive to preparation for the life hereafter than the death sentence and confinement in the condemned cell. If a convict were a calculator of chances—and he (Sir Joseph Pease) had the authority of Parliamentary Returns for what he was about to state—he might speculate upon the possibility of escaping execution from 20 years' averages. The chances were, if he was convicted, four to one that he was not hung; but if he was a burglar, the chances of being sentenced were three to one against him. With regard to the Amendment of his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Howard Vincent), he (Sir Joseph Pease) thought there was a good deal to be said in favour of it, if the House did not feel disposed to accept the Motion which he submitted. He believed that some such recommendation as that suggested in the Amendment ought to have been carried out long ago. Certainly the time had come when they ought to endeavour to treat condemned persons as human beings, for he was convinced that the worst thing which could be done to them was to hang them. In all these cases the Home Secretary had a duty which he was sure no one would envy. It was his duty to weigh all the circumstances of the case, with a view of finding whether he could recommend the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. He was not at all afraid of the action of the Home Secretary; but he was sure it was not the wish of the Gentlemen filling that Office to have this duty placed on their shoulders. It ought to be the duty of the jury to say whether the execution should take place or not. Instead of a prerogative of mercy there ought to be a prerogative of law; and the former, if used at all, should only be brought in in extraordinary cases, when the Home Secretary might feel that he ought to exercise the power which Her Majesty had placed in his hands. He might be asked if he had looked at those cases which had occurred in the Sister Island? He had. He would first refer to the murder of Sergeant Brett at Manchester. Three men were hanged for the murder of Sergeant Brett. He believed that not one of those men had intended to murder that officer. They intended to blow the lock off the prison van which contained the prisoner whom they desired to rescue. No doubt they were doing an unlawful act, and were in the eye of the law guilty of murder, as death ensued, and accordingly they were hanged. He believed if those men had been placed in penal servitude no spirit of vengeance would have been aroused in the mind of the Irish people; and he believed that those men would, when in course of time sufficiently punished for their crime, have been restored to liberty. Then they had the Maamtrasna case, with respect to which a large number of the Irish people did not believe in the guilt of the men hanged. He believed if those men had been sentenced to penal servitude for life the effect would have been far more satisfactory. By this means, too, if it were found that a prisoner was not guilty of the crime with which he was charged, he could be restored to life and liberty. Again, there were the PhŒnix Park murders, one of the most atrocious crimes of modern days. He believed that the murderers in this case had thrown back the cause which he advocated many years. He thought that the effect of those criminals being detained in lifelong imprisonment as a punishment for their crime would have had a much more deterrent effect on others, and would have been just as effective in its eventual operation. He was of opinion that the time had come when they could safely alter their Criminal Code in this respect. It was not necessary to stop at the half-way house suggested by the hon. Member opposite, because they might with safety to the State and to human life abolish a law which began in barbarity, and which in its operations bore too evident traces of its origin. In successive generations our Criminal Law had been improved and ameliorated step by step. It was a better law than it was when, with half our population, we hanged 2,000 of our fellow-citizens every year. He asked the House to take another step in advance, and, by adopting his Resolution, pave the way for such an alteration in the Criminal Code as would abolish the ghastly punishment of the gallows. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the Motion which stood in his name.

, in rising to move the following Amendment:—

"To leave out from the word 'House' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'it is desirable that offences for which the penalty of death now follows a verdict of guilty, unless remitted by Her Majesty, should be divided into three categories, as recommended by a Royal Commission in 1866, and in order that executions, when necessary, may be carried out with every regard to humanity and decency, an experienced person should be selected by the Government for the purpose, and adequately remunerated from public funds,'"

said: Mr. Speaker, I have the deepest respect for the motives of my hon. Friend in submitting this important matter to the notice of the House of Commons, and I greatly regret that I am compelled to take an opposite view upon this question. It is, I feel, a serious responsibility to advocate in Parliament the continuance of a system which may deprive a fellow-creature of life; but the well-being of society requires that the fear of death shall restrain the violence of human hatred. It has been so ordained in Scripture. It has been found necessary in well-nigh every State, in every generation. It is, I have no doubt, in a large measure owing to the calm temperament of the British people that murder and assassination are so much less frequent in this country than in many others. But it is also owing to the certain knowledge that if life is maliciously taken the penalty will be death, that culpable homicide in this great Metropolis, embracing thousands of every race in the world, is only from one-eighth to one-twelfth what it is in many great Continental cities with considerably less than half the population. Capital punishment was abolished in Switzerland in 1874; but there was such an immediate increase in the crime of murder in many places that it was quite clear that some urgent steps must be taken for the safety of the people. On the 18th of May, 1879, a Commission appointed to consider the re-establishing of capital punishment, in accordance with the prayer of 30,000 Swiss subjects, declared that the number of crimes formerly punishable by death had greatly increased during the preceding five years, and that this increase had been still greater in Germany. In fact, the augmentations since 1862 had been 100 per cent. and in Wurtemburg, where the death penalty had been abolished, not less than 200 per cent. The Federal Chambers thereupon re-instituted capital punishment, and their decision was approved and confirmed by the people on an appeal to the wide electorate of that happy country. Eight Cantons forthwith re-introduced capital punishment; and although it is true that no execution has taken place, it is retained as the great deterrent against the crime of murder. It is for these reasons that I venture to dissent from the Motion of the hon. Baronet, aiming as it does at the total abolition of capital punishment. The first part of my Amendment is to leave out the words after "House," and insert—

"It is desirable that offences for which the penalty of death now follows a verdict of guilty, unless remitted by Her Majesty, shall be divided into three categories, as recommended by a Royal Commission in 1866."

The recommendations of the Royal Commission to which I refer in my Amendment are these—(1.) That the punishment of death be retained for all murders deliberately committed with express malice aforethought, such malice to be found as a fact by the jury. (2.) That the punishment of death be also retained for all murders committed in or with a view to the perpetration, or escape after the perpetration, of murder, arson, rape, burglary, robbery, or piracy. (3.) That in all other cases of murder the punishment be penal servitude for life, or for any period not less than seven years at the discretion of the Court. The result of the present state of affairs is far from satisfactory. There is no question, Mr. Speaker, I was more frequently asked during the six and a-half years I held the Office of Director of Criminal Investigations than whether a householder was justified in shooting a burglar; and I always said that, in my humble opinion, it would be the most honourable avenue to the gallows. Our law, if I may take it from the Report of the Royal Commission of 1866, and which was composed of the most eminent legal authorities of that day, is as follows:—

"No provocation by words, looks, or gestures, however contemptuous and insulting, nor by any trespass against lands or goods, is sufficient to free the party killing from the guilt of murder, if he kills with a deadly weapon, or in any manner showing an intention to kill, or do grievous bodily harm. Therefore, if a man in a sudden fit of passion, aroused by insult to himself or his wife, kills the person who offers the insult, he is by law liable to the same punishment as the assassin who has long premeditated and brooded over his crime."

From this unsatisfactory state of affairs we have, Mr. Speaker, not only the risk of unjustly sentencing to death, but not unfrequently a miscarriage of justice. Juries directed as to the state of the law, and having, as a rule, only circumstantial evidence before them, naturally hesitate to find a verdict the result of which would be, in all probability, to condemn a fellow-creature to an ignoble death, against which, under all the circumstances, both reason and common sense alike revolt. I therefore submit the first part of my Motion to the earnest attention of the House, and respectfully urge its adoption, even after this unaccountable delay of 20 years of the Home Department. The second part of my Amendment is—

"That executions, when necessary, may be carried out with every regard to humanity and decency. An experienced person should be selected by the Government for the purpose, and adequately remunerated from public funds."

The terrible scenes which, even allowing for some exaggeration, have in late years taken place at more than one execution will be within the recollection of the House. They are well described in a Petition presented by the hon. Baronet himself on behalf of the inhabitants of the City of Norwich. It states—

"That the community has been outraged by the recent scenes which have been enacted in carrying out the capital sentence of the law, decapitation resulting in some instances; in others the death struggles have been unduly prolonged."

I consider, Mr. Speaker, that infinite good has been effected by the abolition of public executions. But I hold it to be a gross scandal that the selection of the person to discharge the painful duty of carrying out the extreme penalty of the law—an office requiring, believe me, Sir, no little courage and experience—should be left to the accidental choice of the Sheriff. It is disgraceful that the remuneration of any person—nay, more, his humble livelihood—should be dependent upon the number of murders committed, the non-remission of the sentence of death, the number of human beings he can launch into eternity, and, still worse, that it should be a matter of bargaining whether he will take a double or a treble job on reduced terms. It is imperative that so long as the penalty of death remains for the crime of murder the law of the land, the Home Secretary should take Parliamentary powers to appoint a proper person as executioner, place him under proper discipline, and remunerate him adequately out of the public funds for his odious though necessary task. I therefore, Sir, beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name to the Motion of the hon. Baronet opposite the Member for Barnard Castle.

, in rising to second the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. H. Vincent), said, he had listened with great attention to the arguments in support of the Motion which had been brought before the House by the hon. Baronet (Sir Joseph Pease); and he must say that he could not help wishing that the Motion had been the same as that which had been brought before the House by the hon. Baronet on a previous occasion, because his recollection was that the Motion which he had heard on a previous occasion differed very little indeed from the Amendment which had just been moved by his hon. Friend opposite. The hon. Baronet had, however, on the present occasion dealt with the question in a wide and more sweeping manner, and had asked the House to pass an abstract Resolution of very grave import; and he had, undoubtedly, a great advantage in his favour in so far as the principles which he advocated were very difficult to resist. The hon. Baronet said the punishment of death was a barbaric mode of treating criminals; but he (Mr. Lockwood) respectfully submitted that the question was not whether the punishment was barbaric, but whether or not it was deterrent, and he contended that it was deterrent. Other punishments were also barbaric—for instance, the punishment of flogging; but, unfortunately, it had been found to be a necessary mode of treating them, and the records of the Criminal Courts showed that it had been attended with extremely beneficial results in reducing the frequency and the brutality of the crimes for which it was inflicted. He could speak upon this point from experience in his professional capacity. The hon. Baronet had adduced certain instances which he contended justified him in asking the House to come to the conclusion that the dread sentence of death had on many occasions been carried out upon innocent persons. That was a terrible thing to contemplate; but it appeared to him (Mr. Lockwood) that the House would not be justified in coming to such a conclusion upon the evidence adduced, and upon which the hon. Baronet relied. With regard to the convict Charles Peace, he (Mr. Lockwood) remembered very well the attempts made by the convict to postpone the carrying out of the sentence, one of which was the confession that he was connected with a murder at Manchester. He (Mr. Lock-wood) was consulted in the matter, and the result of his inquiries was that he did not believe that Peace had anything whatever to do with the murder. The hon. Baronet had also mentioned a case in which three men were charged with murder. The hon. Baronet said one was found guilty who was not guilty, and the one who was found not guilty was really guilty. He (Mr. Lockwood) was astonished to hear the hon. Baronet make such a statement respecting a man who had been acquitted by a jury. The other prisoners were convicted, the one, he (Mr. Lockwood) ventured to think, properly, and the other improperly. The case was brought to the notice of the Home Secretary, who instituted an inquiry; but, so far from that being a proof which should convince the House that the death penalty should be done away with, it was, to his mind, an instance which showed that the law was administered with great care and with sufficient caution. In one case, so careful was the Home Secretary in the administration of the law, that the person was respited from time to time whilst a Commission was sent out to America to make inquiries, and the prisoner was ultimately executed. Then, as to the doctrine of chances, the hon. Baronet said that, taking the number of persons accused of murder, the chances against the conviction of a prisoner were four to one, which he considered to be a proof of the public feeling against the death penalty. But it was really owing to the system under which persons were over and over again indicted for murder, where no man in his senses would allow them to go to the gallows. Why, if a man went out to shoot a duck, and in the act of shooting the duck he killed a man, he was indicted for murder. It was certainly four to one that such a prisoner would be acquitted of the crime of wilful murder; and he (Mr. Lockwood) thought the chances ought to be a good deal more than four to one. But while the chances against conviction pointed out by the hon. Baronet did not prove that the penalty of death should be done away with, they certainly formed a strong argument in favour of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, that there should be degrees in the crime of murder; and, that being so, he hoped that the hon. Baronet would accept the Amendment cordially. The Report of the Commission, to which the hon. Member for Sheffield had referred, recommended that before life should be forfeited for the crime of murder it should be proved that the crime had been committed with malice aforethought; and he (Mr. Lockwood) submitted that the law should be altered in accordance with that recommendation, so that before a man could be convicted of murder in the first degree, the onus should rest upon the prosecution to prove that the crime was committed with malice aforethought. In favour of this view they had the opinion of men of great eminence and experience, such as Lord Bramwell, Lord Martin, Mr. Justice Wills, and Mr. Justice Stephen. On the other hand, they had the opinion of men of great authority and experience to the effect that the death punishment acted as a very effective deterrent to crime; and it was with that view and in that spirit that he (Mr. Lockwood) seconded the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield, in the sincere hope that the debate might, at least, have the effect of drawing the attention of the Legislature to the crying evils which existed.

said, that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had asked him to say a few words upon this subject, because it had been his painful duty for more than five years to have to consider this subject with very great care. He might say that he had not approached the consideration of this matter in any spirit of hostility to the view taken of it by the hon. Baronet behind him—in fact, in former days he had recorded his vote in that House in favour of the abolition of the punishment of death. He had, however, stated before—and it was his duty to repeat the statement—that he did not adhere to his former opinion. In changing his view of the matter he had not arrived at the conclusion that the punishment of death ought to be largely and extensively applied. He believed that in former days that punishment had been applied in a brutal, a cruel, and in an unnecessary manner. No doubt in succeeding years the tendency of opinion—he was not speaking of uninstructed popular opinion, but of the opinion of thinking men—was in favour of diminishing the number of cases in which the gravest penalty of the law was inflicted; and that diminution had been effected, he believed, with absolute safety to society, and with great advantage to the community, and he did not shrink from expressing his opinion now that the number of cases in which the penalty of death was inflicted might with advantage be still further reduced. The character of the cases in which the prerogative of mercy might with advantage be exercised more frequently he would divide under two heads, one of them being provocation and the other insanity. In regard to provocation as a ground for remission of penalty, that principle was much more widely accepted now than it had ever been before, and, he believed, rightly so. Then, he thought that the fact of a man not being completely master of his actions, through his mind being disturbed, it might be, by some hereditary taint of insanity, was a matter that ought to be taken into account. Neither he nor his immediate Predecessors in Office had thought that they were bound by the strict legal interpretation of insanity as laid down by the Judges in the House of Lords, which he had always thought was much too narrow; and he believed that a much more liberal interpretation had been adopted in all cases where the prerogative of mercy was to be exercised. He desired to take that opportunity of saying that he very strongly held that the severity of all punishments might be relaxed with safety and with advantage. When he was at the Home Office he had remarked upon the very marked and very satisfactory diminution of crime in this country during recent years; and his view of the matter had met with the approval of Lord Sel-borne, and of Sir Edmund Du Cane, the experienced head of our convict prisons, who both agreed with him that penalties of far less severity, and of greatly diminished length, would have an equally deterrent effect, and might be resorted to with perfect safety. Referring to the question put in issue by his hon. Friend, he thought there were cases in which it was impossible, in the present state of opinion in this country, that they could dispense safely with the punishment of death. He would not refer to matters which involved other considerations, like Irish murders, but would notice only two cases which took place during his official tenure. One was a murder in a railway carriage by a man named Lefroy; the other was a case where a man was deliberately murdered by his own brother in the most cruel and systematic way. He did not believe that in either of those two cases the opinion of the country would have been satisfied unless there had been a capital execution. In the case of those deliberate murders it was, in his opinion, impossible to dispense with capital punishment. Coming to the Amendment of his hon. Friend opposite, he claimed to approach it with the greatest possible desire to find a solution of the problem by means suggested by the Amendment. No man who had held the Office of Home Secretary but must desire that the decision in these cases should be removed, if it could be safely done, from his shoulders to those of the Judge and jury. In 1882 he examined this question as carefully as he could, with a view and with the desire to give effect to the Report of the Royal Commission of 1866, and he drew up a Memorandum with the object of giving effect to those recommendations. He desired, at any rate, to give effect to the spirit of the recommendations of the Commission, and he found that those views had been accepted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, his Predecessor in Office in 1881. It seemed to him that this was a question which could be approached safely without any chance of any considerable difference of opinion in Parliament on the subject. Accordingly, he drew up a Bill for the purpose of giving effect to those conclusions. The Bill proposed, in its 1st clause, that murder should be of two degrees; and, in the 2nd clause, it was provided that whosoever should unlawfully with intent to kill any other person cause the death of such person should be guilty of murder in the first degree. It also provided that the intent to kill should be presumed from doing an act or omitting to do any act, the natural and probable consequences of which would be to cause death. Then the intent to kill might be negatived by circumstances which might be proved to exist, and there must be that control over his will which governed an ordinary man in his action. In order to constitute the crime of murder in the first degree, the jury must expressly find an intent to kill. Then the 3rd clause, which embraced all other murders, made them murders in the second degree, and provided that they should be punishable with penal servitude for life, or for any less term as the Judge might see fit. Then the Bill provided that in the case of murder in the first degree, if the Judge was of opinion that the sentence of death should not be executed, he might pass a sentence of penal servitude for life, or any less term as he might think fit. Those were the main provisions of the Bill which he drew up. He then took the opportunity of consulting with persons who were best competent to advise him in this matter. Among others he consulted Sir George Grey, Mr. Justice Fitzjames Stephen, Mr. Justice Hawkins, and most of the Judges. He was bound to say that the conclusion he arrived at was not satisfactory to his mind. No man should take the responsibility of voting on this subject unless he had tried himself to frame a definition on the subject which would hold water. He tried to frame a definition; but he found that it was not satisfactory, because it included cases which ought not to be included, and excluded others which ought to have been included. He devoted many weeks of conscientious labour to this question, and he abandoned the attempt, because he satisfied himself that the thing could not be done, as he desired it to be, in accordance with the Report of the Commission. To give an example, deliberate premeditation was considered to be of the essence of murder, and rightly punishable with death. Among the most premeditated, the most deliberately premeditated, murders of modern times, which the merciful spirit seldom visited with death, was the crime of infanticide. The definition of murder laid down by him would include infanticide, and that illustrated the difficulty of drawing these definitions. When he set to work he thought there would be little difficulty in drawing definitions; but after consultation with Sir George Grey and some of the most eminent of the Judges he gave up the attempt. As things were now, very great care was taken by Judges and juries in these cases. And, moreover, there was now an interval of about three weeks between sentence and execution, instead of 24 hours, as in former days, so that there was ample time for the clemency of the Crown to be exercised. Moreover, every care was taken that whenever reasonable doubt surrounded a case the presumption should be in favour of mercy. For these reasons, although he had every disposition to accept the principle embodied in the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite, he could not support it; and, for the reason he had previously stated, he could not support the Motion. If other persons were more successful than he was in finding definitions which were thoroughly satisfactory, he should then be prepared to support the principle of the Amendment; but he could not support any general Resolution of this character, unless he could see clearly that the matter could be properly carried out. With regard to the execution of the capital sentence, no doubt cases had occurred which had greatly shocked the public sentiment on that subject. But he failed to see how the remedy which was proposed would cure the evils alluded to. There was no person holding the office of public executioner; but anyone might be employed for the purpose of carrying out the sentence of the law by the Sheriff. As a matter of fact, the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, being responsible for the executions at Newgate, had been in the habit of selecting a person to carry out executions, and their choice had practically been adopted by the Sheriffs throughout the country. When a vacancy took place in this office, the Sheriffs of London received as many as 600 or 700 applications; and they took the greatest pains, no doubt, to choose the best person they could find for the office. He did not see how the Government could do better than this. The more respectable classes of the community, unless they were very eccentric, would not take the position of an executioner; and as men were not born executioners, the best men that offered must be taken. He did not see how it was possible for the Government to make a better choice than the Sheriffs of London now did. He might remind the House, further, that it was an old Constitutional principle that the execution of the sentences of the law should not be in the Crown. It was part of our ancient system of local government in this country, and the execution of the sentences of the law were still vested in the Sheriffs. No doubt, if there were reasons for departing from the ancient principle and adopting a new system it would be done, and the old doctrine would not be allowed to stand in the way; but, in the present case, he did not see how the Government would be likely to appoint a better man. For the reasons he had previously offered, he was unable to support either the Motion or the Amendment.

said, he thought most Members of the House must have listened to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a very great feeling of disappointment. Of course, nobody expected that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to support the original Motion. Formerly the abolition of capital punishment was the burning question; but those days had passed away, and many who some years ago were in favour of the total abolition of capital punishment had changed their views, and were now in favour of limiting that punishment to a small and well-defined class of cases. The vast majority of the Members of that House were most anxious to see the punishment of death limited, as far as possible, to those cases of murder in which the general public conscience and the general public opinion admitted the application of the penalty of death to be appropriate. But it was believed by everybody that, according to the present state of our law, there was a very great number of cases in which people were tried for murder and sentenced to death, and in which no person would think of carrying the sentence into execution. It was not desirable that persons should be sentenced to death in cases where they could not possibly be executed. Convictions in such cases, and the necessity there was for the Home Secretary to interfere with the due course of law, were extremely detrimental to the interests of public justice. Therefore there was a general desire on the part of all persons concerned in this question that the definition of murder should, if possible, be so limited as to apply only to those cases in which death would be the proper and appropriate punishment. The Royal Commission of 1866, which was composed of lawyers and statesmen of the highest eminence, recommended that such an alteration should be made in the law; but now, 20 years afterwards, they were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that such an amendment of the law was practically impossible. The right hon. Gentleman would find a solution of the difficulty if he turned to the clauses of the Bill for establishing a Criminal Code that was introduced in that House many years ago by the late Sir John Holker. The right hon. Gentleman could not even hold out a hope that better provision would be made in future for the carrying out of executions. It was a disgrace to our civilization that in this 19th century, when all were agreed that the sentence of death ought to be carried out in the most decorous and humane way that the resources of knowledge and science could devise, we were almost the only nation in the world which left the carrying out of that solemn sentence to mere haphazard, and the bungling incapacity of any person who undertook the task. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER dissented.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer shook his head; but there had been cases where the High Sheriffs of counties had been glad to lay hold of almost anybody who would undertake to carry out the sentence of the law. Moreover, there had been cases in recent times where the sentence had been carried out by wholly incompetent persons. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find it possible to prevent the recurrence of scandals which had horrified the public, and which, if repeated, would put a stop to capital punishment altogether. In conclusion, he expressed a hope that hon. Gentlemen would vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield, by way of showing the desire they cherished in regard to this important subject.

said, the mode of inflicting the death penalty which prevailed in this country was very barbarous. It was a happy augury that public opinion revolted against the mode of inflicting death; and he hoped that was a presage that the time would come when public opinion would revolt against the sentence of death itself. There were other modes of taking life besides the barbarous way of hanging a man by the neck until he was dead. The present method of putting criminals to death in these days of anæsthetics was barbarous in the extreme; and if the punishment was to be inflicted some less painful and revolting form of death might be devised. He hoped that even in the most aggravated cases of murder it would ultimately become unnecessary to take the life of the offender, but to commit him to a life-long period of penal servitude. He hoped, however, that his hon. Friend would carry his Motion to a division, and to a successful division.

said, he agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, so long as the punishment remained, it was absolutely necessary that as little pain as possible should be inflicted. When he was last at the Home Office he appointed a Departmental Committee to consider how that could best be done, and had called the most eminent men in the country to his assistance. He understood that the Committee had not yet reported; but he was assured that they saw their way to carry out what he had long at heart. He had come to the conclusion that, if properly carried out, hanging involved as little pain as any form of death. Every Secretary of State from the days of Sir George Grey had pronounced against the advisability of making the executioner an officer of State, and in favour of holding the Sheriff responsible. As to the main question, he believed the death punishment was absolutely necessary in order to deter men from the crime of murder. After a long experience at the Home Office, and after careful consideration of the question, he was convinced that in the present state of society it would not be safe to abolish capital punishment, which was the greatest possible deterrent to the crime of murder. Still, he thought it should only be resorted to in cases of murder with malice aforethought, which was the most aggravated case of murder. The Royal Commission of 1866 recommended that a distinction should be drawn between one murder and another. Sir George Grey was Seeretary of State at the time, and he prepared a Bill to carry out the recommendation. The Government went out, and Mr. Walpole, who succeeded Sir George Grey at the Home Office, found that his Predecessor's Bill would not hold water. He did not despair in the matter, and thought that the Committee of Judges who prepared the Criminal Code could satisfactorily deal with the question. He should certainly render all the assistance he could in endeavouring to find a definition of the crime of murder by which, at all events, the operation of the law might be confined to fewer cases. Though he could not, therefore, vote for the abolition of the death punishment, he should vote with the Mover of the Amendment, which he believed was the course suggested should be adopted by the Royal Commission and the Judges who had drawn up the Criminal Code.

said, that, as he had only held his present Office for three months, he had thought it better that his right hon. Friend (Sir William Harcourt), who had been Home Secretary for five years, should speak first. His right hon. Friend and himself had on a former occasion expressed an opinion in favour of the abolition of capital punishment; but on a reconsideration of the question he had come to the conclusion that public opinion was not yet ripe for such a course, and that it would not now be wise or safe to vote for the Motion. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt), when at the Home Office, devoted a considerable portion of his time to the collecting of information from Judges and others who were specially competent to give advice upon this question with regard to the dividing of murder and manslaughter cases into three categories, and he did not see his way to adopt the recommendation of the Royal Commission upon the subject. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) who spoke last was in Office as Home Secretary for seven years after the Report of the Royal Commission was presented, but did not take any steps with the view of adopting the recommendation of the Commission in this respect. The right hon. Gentleman had also been in Office since his right hon. Friend had collected the information to which he had referred, which information formed a very considerable fraction of the Records of the Department, and yet he had arrived at no decision in the matter. In these circumstances, was it not hazardous that the right hon. Gentleman should now advise the House in a single sentence to adopt in principle what in practice he was unable to carry out? The Government could not advise the House to arrive at the conclusion at which the right hon. Gentleman wished them to arrive, and they felt it to be their duty to oppose both the original Motion and also the Amendment.

wished to explain, in reference to the remark of the Home Secretary, that during the seven years the late Conservative Government were in Office they took no steps to deal with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, that at the desire of Sir John Holker, then Attorney General, the question of categories was dealt with in the Criminal Code Bill.

said, there was no reference in the Criminal Code Bill to three categories; it had no connection with that.

said, that the definition of murder in the Criminal Code Bill corresponded with two of the categories recommended by the Royal Commission of 1866.

said, that a definition of murder could not correspond to two categories.

said that, as the Amendment was said to be impracticable, he would suggest that the House should adopt the only alternative, which was to vote for his Motion, and thus get rid of the whole question of capital punishment.

Mr. Speaker, the question to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is one of very great importance to the ratepayers of this country, embracing, as it does, the necessity of passing a comprehensive measure for the valuation of real property for the purposes of Imperial and local taxation. One of the first questions which the Chambers of Agriculture took up was that of the rating of metallic mines, woods, and plantations; and one of the first Acts passed, for which the Chambers of Agriculture pressed, was an Act for that purpose. The Acts 25 & 26 Vict. and 27 & 28 Vict, were professedly framed for the uniform rating of real property liable to be assessed for the relief of the poor. In 1884 I obtained a Return of lands that were entirely out of occupation, and that Return showed that in 1881–2 99,521 acres were unoccupied, and in 1882–3 the acreage was reduced to 51,617 acres that were void and allowed to go to waste, and were consequently relieved from both Imperial and local taxation. The Income Tax returned, in the first of the periods mentioned, amounted to £2,328 19s. 10d., and in 1882–3 to £1,374 13s. 3d. The local rates also suffered. The poor rates and other rates chargeable upon that property would have been considerably in excess of these sums. Therefore, the result of allowing that land to get into that condition was to place an increased burden upon the surrounding property. The same policy is still carried on, I am sorry to say, for only last Saturday I heard of an estate which was included in the Return of 1884 being still in the same disgraceful state, the herbage having been allowed year after year to grow up and rot down. The proprietor—a wealthy man—whose previous tenant was ruined by an excessive rent, repeatedly refused to let the land at a rent which a tenant could afford to pay. The disgraceful state of such property should, I think, form a matter for the serious consideration of the Head of the Local Government Board and of Her Majesty's Government generally. It is abominable that any landed proprietor should allow the grass on his land to grow up, fall down, and rot upon the ground without being utilized for the benefit of the people of the country, while so many millions of money are being sent abroad to obtain food to supply the wants of the people. The principle laid down by the 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 96 is that no rate shall be of any force which shall not be made upon an estimate of the net annual value of the several hereditaments rated thereunto—that is to say, of the rent at which the same might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year. If that provision of the Act were carried out, this wealthy proprietor would not escape the payment justly due to the rates of his district. There is another little grievance, although it is but a small one. Formerly, when that Act was passed for rating real property, it applied to parochial rating. We have now adopted a system of Union or district rating, and not parochial rating. The Union Chargeability Act for the relief of the poor, and the district rating for the highways, bring all the property in the different parishes under the same head. Yet if a man occupies a farm, with a small rivulet running through it, which places one-half in one parish, and the other half in another, he has to pay in excess upon that portion which has no buildings upon it. Five per cent being allowed on that part upon which there are no buildings, and 10 per cent upon the rest, although it is all part of the same farm; whereas if it was all in one parish 10 per cent would be allowed upon the whole. These maybe looked upon as trivial matters; but when the authorities are preparing—and we hope to see before long a good Valuation and County Government Bill—I trust that we shall have these inequalities and grievances redressed. As I have said, one of the first objects of the Chambers of Agriculture was to obtain power to rate metallic mines, woods, and plantations. The Act for carrying out that object was passed in 1874. Previously, underwood was rated at its value as underwood; but the heavy timber in the woods was not rateable, yet, when felled and removed, it does serious damage to the roads; but now, on appeal, the proprietor is able to obtain a reduction of 50 per cent in the rate, seeing that the land is to be assessed at its value in an unimproved state, on the supposition that everything has been cut down and carried away. Therefore, instead of getting some little assistance towards the rates from what we all felt to be a most valuable property, we get nothing whatever towards the rates; but, on the other hand, that which was formerly rated at its value as underwood pays upon a reduction of about 50 per cent. Hedge-row timber frequently seriously reduces the value of cultivated land. In one instance, I happen to know that a neighbour of mine offered to pay his landlord 10s. more per acre for his farm if he would consent to fell the hedge-row timber; but the landlord refused. The principle advocated by the Chambers of Agriculture was that no land should be rated at less than the value of the surrounding land of the same class. Then, again, a large portion of the landed properties in the country are overrun with game. That is not so much the case now as it was before the Hares and Rabbits Bill was passed; but it now has a material effect upon the annual value of the property. The principle adopted by the Assessment Committees is that the rating should be imposed in accordance with what the land is rented at. Therefore, the rent of farms which are overrun by game being reduced, the rates are also reduced, and an additional burden is placed upon the surrounding property. In my county the rating of woods has long been a burning question among the ratepayers of the different Unions. In the county of Hereford there are some 38,000 acres of woodlands in an area of some 500,000 acres. Therefore, these are most serious questions. In one Union the Assessment Committee valued 418 acres of woodlands at £186 10s. The rate was appealed against. The Chairman of the Assessment Committee was also the Chairman of Special Sessions and Quarter Sessions, and he was a consenting party to the making of the rate. Nevertheless, when the appeal came before him at Special Sessions the assessment was reduced to £57 10s., being about 2s. 10d. per acre. The Assessment Committee felt much aggrieved at the decision, and regarded it as unjust. They, therefore, employed a competent surveyor to assess the property; his valuation was £154 10s., with which they then assessed it. An appeal was made to Quarter Sessions, and it was then rated at £79 16s. 6d., or little more than one-half the amount the Assessment Committee placed upon it, and amounting only to 3s. 9¾d. per acre. Now, that land, if it was divested of timber and cultivated, would be worth at least four times the amount at which it is now rated. There are large quantities of wood in the same Union which are now rated at 14s. an acre, and yet this property is assessed at only 3s. 9¾d., although a good portion of the land covered by the timber is near the mansion, and consists of plantations, ornamental ground, belts, and clumps of trees. To show the feeling that this mode of assessment has excited, I will, with your permission, read a passage from a letter which I hold in my hand from a ratepayer of the district. He says—

"Our recent rating appeals have brought before me very strongly the injustice and unfairness of the present law, even when carried out fairly; and, of course, that injustice is greatly intensified when the Act is not fairly carried out. Previously to the last year, I think, the woods in this Union have been pretty fairly assessed according to the present Act."

The writer proceeds to say—

"As the law at present stands, whether the Assessment Committee appeal to Special Sessions or Quarter Sessions, they have to go before one class of Judges—namely, Magistrates, who are chiefly landed proprietors, and who, while being also judges, have a right, which you will see in the case before us was exercised, to attend and practically prevent an appeal from their decision. When this case was before the Quarter Sessions at Hereford, Mr. W. H. Cooke, Q.C., intimated that the Assessment Committee were liable to be indicted for conspiracy for having obtained new valuations of the woods after the decision of Special Sessions; and, as you will see, Sir Richard Harington practically repeated the threat at a meeting of Guardians."

It certainly will appear somewhat singular that an Assessment Committee appointed under an Act of Parliament for levying rates being threatened with indictment for conspiracy, because, in the exercise of their duty, they, feeling that injustice had been done by the Justices in the Special Sessions after having called to their assistance a qualified surveyor to value, presumed to appeal. Well, Sir, in the Report of the Assessment Committee upon the decision of the Court of Quarter Sessions they say—

"There appears to be a larger quantity of ashbed than was accounted for to the Committee. 418 acres was the quantity accounted for and rated, but there appears to be 50 or 60 acres of land not rated at all."

This Report goes on to say—

"The value put by the Court of Quarter Sessions upon the appellant's woods and lands is, in the opinion of your Committee, too low. Your Committee would, therefore, recommend that, in order to place the matter upon a proper footing and to insure that the appellant should berated in comparison with other ratepayers in the Union, the whole of the appellant's lands and woods in the parishes appealed against should be scheduled and valued by some competent and independent person or persons."

Further on the Vice Chairman said—

"He thought that the incidence of the rates should be fairly and properly treated, and a rich man, because he happened to have land in his possession, should not have it assessed at a nominal sum. The woods throughout the Union were rated, on an average, at 14s. per acre, and it was manifestly unjust to single out one gentleman and assess the virgin soil of Herefordshire at 3s. or 4s. per acre."

Allow me, Sir, to make another little extract from the same Paper, and to quote the language of the Chairman, who was, as I have said before, also Chairman of the Court of Quarter Sessions, Chairman of the Special Sessions, and Chairman of the Assessment Committee under whom all of these different valuations were made. This gentleman said—

"With regard to the rateable value of the land in question, members of the Assessment Committee would not forget that land with timber growing upon it had, by a special provision, to be assessed at its unimproved value."

That is the manner in which, under the Act of 1874, the rateable value is to be assessed by the Court. The effect of this system of procedure is this. The Guardians have strongly protested against the result of the appeals; and as those who attempted to amend the valuation list were threatened with an indictment for conspiracy, the newly-elected Guardians have refused to act upon the Assessment Committee. Turning from the Bromyard to the Newent Union, I have here a letter from a tenant farmer, who informs me that a few years ago he took a farm at a rental of £270 a-year, but that the Assessment Committee in that Union assessed him at £365. He writes of the farm he occupies as—

"Some of the poorest arable land in the county, which, during the past three years, has not paid the cost of cultivation; whereas in the Bromyard case the appellant, a country gentleman, a man of wealth and position and influence, obtains in all cases the full reduction asked for, and gets the whole of his costs, whilst I have to pay the full costs myself, £200. I paid last year two rates, one at 1s. 4d. and the other at 1s. 5d. in the pound, a sum of £13 9s. 2d. more than if I had been rated at the actual gross rent."

Now, he had appealed to the Assessment Committee, then to the Special Sessions, and lastly to the Quarter Sessions, with the result he had named. He took the land when, in consequence of the depressed times, it was lying idle, and had been advertised to let for some weeks. He took it at the highest rent that could be obtained; but the Assessment Committee placed the value at 35 per cent more than the rent he has to pay. The injustice with which he has been treated has created a strong feeling of discontent not only in his mind, but in the minds of other people. Four or five very excellent men of business—men of judgment, and well qualified to give evidence of the value of the farm, gave evidence before the Quarter Sessions; but their evidence was of no avail. The person whom the Assessment Committee had themselves employed to value the land was present in Court; but the Assessment Committee were afraid to call him, because he, like the tenant's valuers, had placed a less value upon it. Turning from that Union, I come to the one in which I live myself, and there an arbitrary rule is laid down that rent shall be taken as the value by the Assessment Committee. The men who hold under liberal landlords are, in these times of severe depression, able to obtain a great reduction in their rent; but the men who hold under needy landlords are unable to get such an advantage; and, in addition to paying excessive rent, they have also to bear an undue proportion of the rates. I have shown that one Union adopts rent as the basis; another Union sets rent at defiance; whereas all should be treated alike, in order that they may pay upon a uniform and equitable basis. This is a serious matter, and one which ought to be carefully considered by the Government when preparing a County Government Bill. There are many expenses incurred by the proprietors of land in erecting buildings and making drains, and in effecting other improvements, and yet no allowance is made for these things from the Property Tax. It is surely right that when a landlord expends heavy sums in permanent improvements that he should be allowed an abatement, and not have to pay Income Tax when he does not receive any rent, but is put to considerable expense in erecting what is requisite for the use of the holding, and which does increase the annual value of the holding afterwards. I hope I have said sufficient to show that there are inequalities which amount to gross injustice existing in our system, and that there is room for a full and comprehensive measure of relief. I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.

, in seconding the Motion, said that it was noticeable as regarded taxation that the poorer the property the more heavily was it taxed. There were many descriptions of property which at the present time escaped taxation altogether. The value of the land of this country had greatly increased, and one of the ablest statisticians estimated the present value of landed property at something like £2,000,000,000 sterling. He would like to get a Return of the proportion paid by these £2,000,000,000 towards the Imperial and local taxes of the country. It was also said that £10,000,000 sterling annually went into the pockets of landowners in the shape of rents and royalties from mines. He would like to know how much these paid? Then, as to ground-rents, he did not see why they should be exempted. It was the greatest possible anomaly that ground-rents should not be subject at all to local taxation. In the Mid Lothian Manifesto it was held out to the nation that local government, which would afford the means of remedying all these matters, would be dealt with in the present Parliament. He sincerely trusted that that pledge would be redeemed, and hoped the Government would bring in a measure on the subject.

said, he objected to being asked to deal with so important a subject on an abstract Resolution; but the hon. Member (Mr. Duckham) who had brought forward this Motion was justified in calling attention to it, because there was no one who did not feel that the question of the assessment of property was not on a satisfactory footing. There were two systems, one for Imperial and one for local purposes, and the local assessments were again divided into rural and urban. There was no great principle by which these assessments could be regulated except that laid down by the Courts—that the value of the property was what a solvent tenant would pay for it. That was a rough and ready method of finding the value, and nothing more. But he was afraid that, whatever principle might be laid down, it would still come to this—that valuation was a matter of opinion. For his part, he doubted very much whether any broad general principle could be laid down upon which assessments were to be made. It seemed to him, however, that the direction in which they could satisfactorily go would be to constitute some better and more efficient Court of Assessment, some more satisfactory tribunal for deciding assessments, than existed at present; and if the question was to be dealt with in a large and comprehensive spirit, it would necessarily involve the equalization of the burdens between real and personal property, for which they had contended for so many years on his side of the House.

said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down always spoke with authority on this subject; but he could not agree with him that the Motion of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Duckham) did not go in the right direction in this matter. The hon. Member seemed to think that it would be impossible to lay down any general principle for dealing with assessments. It seemed to him, however, that it was impossible to deny that a comprehensive measure for the purpose of assimilating the assessments for the purpose of Imperial and local taxation was absolutely essential and necessary. He had himself introduced a Rating Bill in 1873. If the fates willed it he should be glad to repeat the experiment of 1873. The Bill was thrown out in the House of Lords, but was, in a practically unchanged form, passed in 1874 by his Successor the right hon. Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth). That Act determined the classes of property to be rated, and to a certain extent the method of valuation to be followed. The hon. Member for Herefordshire had pointed out defects of which he was not disposed to deny the existence. But the Bill was closely discussed, clause by clause, and line by line, by men who, with their experience of their own estates, knew much more of the subject than he did himself. His hon. Friend had pointed out defects in the 4th section of the Act, which dealt with the assessment of plantations and woods. It was very likely that the experience of 13 or 14 years had revealed defects which it was impossible to foresee at the time. It was said that Unions were in some cases disposed to regard the interests of proprietors rather than of the community. It had been thought that the Assessment Committees would regard the interests of the parish rather than of individuals; but if that partiality were displayed, no doubt a legislative remedy ought to be applied. He should be happy, if opportunity were afforded him, to deal with those questions, and also with the much larger question of local government generally. No doubt there were defects in methods of valuation; but in 1873 it was thought wiser, and it was wiser, as a general rule, to go upon the broad principle of what a hypothetical tenant would pay, and leave the Assessment Committees to work the question out. It might be now that they could go a step further. Two or three methods had been suggested of ascertaining the valuation of mines, and other suggestions might be made with regard to property of other kinds. No doubt, also, the machinery of assessment required some change. Those were sensible provisions which made the Assessment Committees the primary Assessing Bodies, subject to appeals to the Petty and Quarter Sessions. But there were difficulties in the course pursued with respect to different properties in different Unions. It was desirable, not only in the interest of local, but also of Imperial taxation, that these differences should be done away with. In 1869 a Valuation Act was passed for the Metropolis; and in another Bill—a Valuation Bill—which he had also brought in in 1873, he had followed the lines of that Act. He thought the only way of settling this question with regard to Imperial taxation was to introduce the surveyor of taxes. But he found that there was considerable jealousy of that proceeding in the Union and other County Authorities. It was, however, impossible to secure uniformity of valuation, not only as between Union and Union, but also between county and county, for the purpose of local and Imperial taxation, unless some authority intervened which represented the country as a whole.

said, he thought there was a general concurrence of opinion that the present law of assessment was unsatisfactory, and also that perhaps no system could be devised which would be entirely satisfactory to everybody. He thought they might likewise gather from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) that the state of things at which we had arrived imposed upon us a special difficulty in regard to this question. It was pretty certain that, whatever course was taken to amend the law of assessment, the lines of the Metropolis Valuation Act must be, to a certain extent, followed. The main purposes of that Act, according to its Preamble, were to provide a common basis of value for the purposes of government and local taxation, and to promote uniformity of rating property in the Metropolis. Those, however, who had followed the history of this matter must be aware that the passing of that measure had increased the difficulties which Parliament must encounter in dealing with the subject in the country as a whole. There were two tendencies in reference to assessment. Generally speaking, the Assessing Bodies for local purposes desired to make assessment as high as possible; but for Imperial purposes the desire was to make it as low as possible. The result of the conflict of these two ideas in the Metropolis had been to raise the valuation for Imperial purposes above its average in the country; and consequently there was a disposition on the part of those who represented the country outside the Metropolis not to encourage the extension of the system which was the basis of the Metropolis Valuation Act. In the Metropolis that subject presented less difficulty, and the right hon. Gentleman had indicated perhaps the only mode of dealing with the case in the country generally—namely, by the importation of the surveyor of taxes. He hoped that, in any measure applicable to the whole country, care would be taken to deal with the defects in the Metropolitan Act. As an instance of points requiring attention, he might refer to that of appeals to the Assessment Committee. In some parts of the Metropolis sufficient notice was not given of the time when appeals to the Assessment Committee would come on for hearing, the consequence being that many persons were obliged to submit to an unfair assessment or else appeal, at much greater cost, to the Quarter Sessions. He trusted that whenever a general system was brought forward for the whole country the machinery of the Metropolis Valuation Act would be carefully overhauled.

I rise to fulfil a pledge I gave to the House when carrying through the Bill for giving compensation for damage done in London during the riot on the 8th of February last. The Bill I now ask leave to introduce, which is entitled a measure "To Provide Compensation for Losses by Riots," will extend to the whole of England and Wales, and is framed mainly according to the provisions of the Metropolitan Act. I will give the House one or two of the leading features of the measure, and will then ask for it a first reading. It will give compensation to the insured as well as to the uninsured—that is, it will allow the uninsured to stand in the shoes of the insured. Power is given to the Secretary of State to lay down general regulations under which the claims should be submitted. The area within which the contribution is to be made will be that of the police district in which the damage is done. If, for instance, it was done in a town having a police force, then the police rate of that town would bear the expense; in the same way, if it was a county, the police rate of the county would bear it. There are, however, two exceptions. One is where the county has been divided into districts under a special Act, the only instance of which, I believe, at present, is Lancashire. There the district, and not the county, would bear the expense. The other exception is where a borough has come to an arrangement with the county, under which the county police does the police work for the borough. There the expense would be shared between the county which provided the police and the borough itself, according to the proportions agreed upon for sharing this expense. That is really the whole scope of the Bill. On other points, as I have said, it will follow the provisions of the measure which became law the other day for London. I do not propose that it shall be retrospective, although possibly some clause of a retrospective kind might be introduced of a very limited character. The Bill, however, will not be generally retrospective, any more than the London Bill was. It will be circulated in a few days, and I will ask hon. Gentlemen to postpone their criticism until they see it. In conclusion, I beg to ask leave to introduce the Bill.

I will not do more than offer a few observations on behalf of several hon. Members who sit on this side of the House, who urged this question on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and to whom the right hon. Gentleman gave the promise to bring in the Bill as soon as it was in his power. So far as I can judge, the measure appears to carry out the ideas of those Members of the House who spoke on the previous occasion, except in one respect—and that was the last point to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded—namely, that it is not to be retrospective. Amongst the strong cases that were brought forward by way of argument, and pressed on the attention of the Government, was the particular case of Nottingham. I see the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Carvell Williams) in his place, and probably he may be inclined to say a word on the matter. If the Bill is not made retrospective at all, the case of Nottingham and one or two other places will be altogether left out of the Bill. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will not refuse, on the part of the Government, to consider any cases of a retrospective character that may be properly brought within the purview of the Bill.

I am glad to acknowledge the promptitude with which the right hon. Gentleman has fulfilled his promise to introduce this general measure; but my satisfaction is somewhat diminished by the statement he has made, that the Bill is not to be retrospective in its character. The measure, in that respect, will be quite inconsistent with the provisions of the London Bill, in consequence of the passing of which the present Bill was promised. The Bill to give compensation to those whose property was injured through riots in London was wholly retrospective. I do not see how any distinction can be logically drawn between payments on account of occurrences that have happened in London, and payments on account of similar occurrences that have happened in the country. I still venture to press on the right hon. Gentleman the propriety and necessity of reconsidering this point. And at least I wish to express this hope, that he will provide in his Bill that wherever the Local Authority is willing to give compensation, it shall be in the power of that Local Authority to do so. I have reason to believe that that would meet the wish of the town, a division of which I have the honour to represent. The Corporation of Nottingham has funds to pay for damages. They are not unwilling to pay the compensation, but they are prevented from doing so by the present uncertain state of the law. If the authorities in that and other towns are willing to pay they should have permission to do so; and I must say I should be better pleased with the Bill if it contained a provision of even a more general character, so that relief might be given to those who have suffered from riotous proceedings during the past few months.

I do not see the use of carrying on a discussion on this Bill at the present moment. I will myself set an example—I will say no more, except that I am glad the opportunity has arrived for remedying what is really a very serious defect in the law.

I have no right of reply; but with the permission of the House I will state that the point concerning the individual case of rioting mentioned shall be considered. If this were made a generally retrospective Bill it would be found impracticable to carry it out. If I rightly understand the hon. Member, he proposes that if it is the desire of the Local Authority that compensation should be paid to persons who have suffered losses through riots within certain limits of time, power should be given them to pay it, and that the measure should be made retrospective to that extent, the proposal is one to which I will undertake to give the best attention.

I beg to move the second reading of this Bill. I venture to think that, at all events, the object of this Bill is one which will commend itself to Gentlemen on both sides of the House, for I think there is nothing which we are more generally agreed upon, and there is nothing more desired in the way of land reform in the country, than that it should be possible to transfer land from hand to hand in a more simple, easy, and inexpensive way than it is possible to adopt at present. The matter is one that strongly affects wealthy persons, and that affects still more strongly poor persons sons and is one that lies at the root of all reform which it is hoped to effect in regard to the land of this country. But while that is the main and large object I have in view, the approach I venture to make to it on this occasion, by the measure I now ask the House to read a second time, is of a very humble and limited character. The Bill I have brought in applies only to Scotland, and it would be impossible to extend it to England under present conditions, because England does not possess the machinery and arrangements which exist in Scotland, and which make it possible to proceed in Scotland on the lines which the Bill suggests. In Scotland, as in England, there have been for a good many years past a great many changes tending towards the simplification of conveyancing. These have been chiefly in the direction of lopping off unnecessary and tortuous stages of the process of the transfer of land, and partly, to a great extent, in lopping off superfluous phrases in the deeds by which that transfer is effected. There have been Acts passed for shortening the language used, and though these Acts in Scotland have been of a voluntary character, yet they have been accepted in Scotland by the Profession, and acted upon almost, I might say, universally, on their being first brought forward. But whilst we have done a great deal in this direction, there is still considerable difficulty and considerable complexity in the process of the transfer of land, and that arises chiefly from the fact of the language in which the description of the land is couched—the language which is in England called the "parcels," or the statement of the exact part and portion of the land that is the subject of transfer. Now, in Scotland the description is, perhaps, carried back to a degree which exceeds anything existing in England. It is quite common in the conveyances of Scotland to find that you draw back the description of the land to some events that took place 500 years ago. If I were to read to the House some of these descriptions it would weary hon. Members. I will not trouble them; but I merely mention the fact—thoroughly well known to Scotsmen—for the information of English Members. There are many conveyances which carry back the description to the survey and assessment and revaluation which was made in the Reign of Alexander II.—before the days of Bruce and Wallace; and if we wish to come down later than that we add to the description of the pieces of land the conditions under which they were held at the time the last transfer took place. If it has not happened that they have been transferred—which is common enough—for 50 or 100 years back, then we are told in these conveyances that the lands are such as were possessed by an individual whose name is now entirely forgotten, and are bounded on the north by the lands of another individual, who is also equally forgotten, and similarly on the south, east, and west. Therefore, when you come to deal with the sale of such lands you are obliged to throw aside as utterly useless all those legal descriptions of the land which you find in the title deeds. To find what is actually transferred you are obliged to come to the land itself and inquire what is the property which the person who is going to sell is in possession of. You have to get someone to show you the limits of the land—to show you what it is the owner is in possession of, by himself or his tenant and what is the subject to which this elaborate and ancient language of title deeds applies. I admit, of course, that in some perfectly modern conveyances in regard to land in towns, or in the immediate neighbourhood of towns, which is very valuable, you find the subject described otherwise—by so many feet stretching along such a street at right angles with such another street, and so on. These are the most accurate and clear descriptions of modern times; but they are not the kind of description which is given to the bulk of the land in the country which passes by conveyance. In dealing with property under such titles as these it is absolutely necessary to employ lawyers, for none but lawyers can trace out these ancient title deeds; and they have to employ other persons to identify the lands and see whether they correspond with the language of the ancient form of the title deeds. This is the cause of much expense and complexity; and the probability is that, when the transfer is completed, no none but a lawyer is able to comprehend it. I venture to think that instead of endeavouring to apply these ancient descriptions to the present state of the land, we should try and identify estates by their present actual state; and that we are able to do in Scotland in a way that is not possible in England. The Motion which has been discussed to-night on the subject of the valuation of real property points to the adoption of machinery for England which we have in Scotland. We have in Scotland a County Valuation; and in the Valuation Book we have a description not only of every separate estate, but of every separate possession. There is a separate entry for every property held by every different occupier. There is more than that in Scotland. Local taxation there was originally levied on the owners alone, and not on the occupiers at all; and, though it has been partially extended to occupiers, still the owner is the person chiefly responsible. The person most fully burdened is the person it is most important to find out and state accurately. Well, for this reason it is the case that the owner is entered in the first column of the Valuation Roll of Scotland, which, for the information of English Members, I will translate into "Rate Book;" the second column gives the name of the tenant; the third the occupier, who may be under the tenant; and the fourth the annual value, to be fixed by an officer appointed by the county who is generally Surveyor of Taxes also. Thus we have on the Register, in every county and in every burgh in Scotland, a statement of the actual state of ownership and of possession of every inch of land. I propose to take that Register as the basis of land ownership, and to provide that it shall be in the power of every person who desires to sell and every person who desires to buy a property so entered to effect their purpose by simply substituting the name of the purchaser for the name of the seller in the Book, so that the name of the purchaser being so substituted for the name of the seller will give him the same legal rights as the seller possessed. I venture to say that nothing can be more simple, comprehensive, or complete. By the means I propose you will have whatever property belonged to the seller transferred just as it is, complete, with all its rights and appurtenances, to the purchaser. I do not profess to do more. I do not profess to meet the desire which some sellers have of laying down conditions, reserving certain rights for their benefit; but in the great majority of cases in which it is desired to transfer the whole right of a subject from one possessor to another possessor, the system I have drawn up in this Bill is capable of taking effect completely. There are precautions to be taken. In order that there may be no fear whatsoever that there will be any flaw or error in the transaction as to the persons who are parties to the sale, I propose to take two precautions. In the first place, the seller will make an application for a form. The assessor will transmit it in a registered letter addressed to the person who is registered as the possessor; therefore, it will only reach the hand of the true owner. The true owner when he receives that form will fill it up, sign it, and send it back to the assessor to be entered in the Transfer Book, which the assessor is to keep. But I provide in the Bill that the conveyance in this way shall convey only the right of the person who signs the transfer; and, consequently, if by any chance a person signs the transfer who is not the true owner, it will carry nothing away from him. It will be merely a piece of waste paper, and will not affect the rights of the true owner, so long as it is not signed by him. That places no difficulty in the way of a bonâ fide transaction, because the purchaser will only purchase from the person he knows to be the true owner. He will receive the rights of the true owner which will be sufficient for him. This system will absolutely prevent the true owner from suffering from any perjury or duplicity whatsoever. In Scotland, we have another admirable institution that does not generally exist in England, and that is a Register of Deeds which has been in full operation for 300 years. Now, that Register of Deeds has an advantage which is not enjoyed under the local Registries in England. It has the advantage that, according to the law of Scotland, the Register is accessible to the public; it is notice to all the world, and no deed can take effect until it is registered. In order to secure to this new method of conveyance all the advantages which belong to this form of Register, I propose that the assessor—the public officer to whom the transfer has been sent—shall, after entering the transfer on his own local Valuation Book, transmit it to the Sasine Office in Edinburgh, where it will be registered, and this will have all the effects of infetment on a disposition. The Keeper of the Register of Sasines in Edinburgh, on receiving the transfer, will deal with it exactly as he does with conveyances sent at present, entering it in the proper Register, under the head of the property to which it refers, and under the name of the owner who appears in the index. Everything will be done with these new conveyances which is done with the old ones. In this simpler method we obtain all the securities and advantages of the existing system, with this great advantage added—that it can be carried into effect by common, plain, persons who understand each other, without the necessity of lawyers at all. It would be possible, under this Bill, for two ordinary persons to effect a transfer without other assistance than that of their own plain common sense. We know what is the experience of the Registers at present. We know what sums are necessary to enable the Government to maintain these Registers; and so far as the State charges are concerned, the payment for a transfer will not be greater than it is at present. There is a profit out of the Register of Sasines in Edinburgh, and I propose in Committee on the Bill to move certain words which will fix the cost of transfer at rates which will be sufficient to pay the whole expense, and which will not be more than the sum for which we can transfer stocks, or shares, or ships—namely, about 2s. 6d. per cent. There are some details in the process I propose which I fully admit will be proper subjects for consideration in Committee, if the Bill should be permitted to reach the Committee stage. There is the question as to the method of transferring portions of property. I have sketched out a method of doing that. It is suggested that it is not complete; but I would point out that it admits of amendment. I will not, at this stage, refer to the manner in which the difficulty may be overcome; but will merely remind hon. Gentlemen that the difficulty applies to only a small part of the measure, and is one which may easily be removed by a slight adjustment of the language used in the drafting. I will not detain the House longer by entering upon a full explanation of the details of the Bill. I frankly admit that the principle is new as applied to land; but it will apply to land those principles with which we are so familiar as applied to property in stocks and shares and to property in ships. Speaking as a lawyer, I do not see that there is any real difficulty in applying these same principles to land. The difficulty has always been said to lie in the fact that whereas stocks and shares are of a somewhat specific character, or are, at all events, capable of being exactly defined, land is more difficult to define. But I venture to say that, in this Bill, by using the Registers that are existing, I have provided a means of making the definition as clear and specific in the one case as the other. The result of the Bill will simply be that in the cases to which it will apply—for I have not said it will be applicable in all cases—it will open to purchasers an easy and inexpensive method of obtaining a transfer. If they are not satisfied with the method, they can resort to the old one. It is optional, and not compulsory; but I am sure that, in spite of its optional character, if it passes there are a large number of persons who will avail themselves of it. I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.

I am sure that all of us will heartily sympathize with the hon. and learned Gentleman in the object he has in view in introducing his measure. He has rightly said that the titles to land in Scotland have been greatly simplified in recent years, and I sincerely hope and firmly believe that that process of simplification is not at an end. While it is true that a great deal has been done, still the landlords and tenants in Scotland are satisfied that many improvements tending to simplify titles to land may be effected. But I am afraid that anyone who is familar with Scottish titles to land, and the practice of dealing with Scottish land by way of sale and incumbrance or otherwise, must feel that this Bill does not afford a practical or feasible method of accomplishing the object its authors have in view. I think the first essential object of every system of land transfer must be reasonable certainty and security of title. You must know what the subject you are dealing with is, and you must see on what footing the title stands. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in saying that for that purpose we have in Scotland, besides the system of conveyancing or transfer, that of registration, not the same as that in England, but which, having many common features, has one thing which does not exist in England which we regard as of great value. We have in Scotland a system of registration by which after the conveyance has been made it is put on record. This record is a public record or register which is accessable to everyone, whether it be an intending purchaser or a lender, or a person having any other interest in the land, and thus you have an element of certainty in the title. But what is the proposal of this Bill? It is to substitute for a conveyance containing a description of the subject—not an unnecessarily long description, but just enough to identify the subject—one which need not contain any such description at all, and might not be an identification. We have, both by statute and custom, enormously curtailed our description; and I venture to say that the descriptions that are in Scotch conveyances are no longer than is necessary to identify the subject; at any rate, if they are not it is bad conveyancing, and it needs no Act of Parliament to rectify the evil. The object of the description can only be to make it clear what the subject is. But what is the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend? He proposes that the conveyance should not contain any description at all; he proposes to use what is called a Register, but which I, with great respect, say is not a Register at all. He proposes the Valuation Roll for the purpose of identifying the subject. I do not intend to go into a wrangle on the snbject of Scotch conveyancing; but I should like the House to know exactly what that means. This Valuation Roll is the Roll on which all the local rates are charged, and the entries vary from year to year, the object of the Roll being to bring out a money sum so that the person who has to collect the rates will know what sum to charge the ratepayer. But these varying entries do not discriminate between different subjects, and the record is not a permanent one, but is made up every year. What my hon. and learned Friend proposes to do is to say—"I will not give you a description which will enable you to identify the subject, but a Roll giving the names of the proprietor, occupier, and subject, which is prepared to bring out the value of the subject for the purpose of laying on the rate." If you desire to get at the identification of the subject you will require to go behind the Valuation Roll to the Register and examine the man's title; so that the Bill, so far from being a simplification of transfer, would be the reverse. It would drive you back to the description on the Register, which it would be a very easy thing to go to now, when the Bill is new; but I do not know what would happen if this system of conveyancing went on for 10, 20, or 30 years, and you ceased to have any description at all. But my hon. and learned Friend proposes to have recourse to the real Register after all. He proposes, in the first place, to have this Register, which is not a Register at all, but a Rate Book, and then to put the entry in the Rate Book on to the true Register. I have explained what the object of the true Register is. It is to enable everyone to see how the true title stands, and what the subject is. What will be the value of the Rate Book after the transfer to the Register? The value of the Rate Book would be totally inappropriate to that Register. Not only would this be a bad system of getting the description into the conveyance, but it would destroy the utility of the Register we have already. There are many other objections to be taken to the Bill as it stands, and I should have to apologize for wearying the House if I went into them. I do not see how it could be possible that there could be, not only security, but intelligibility, in any title framed on this system—at all events, for any length of time. I quite understand this—that if we were dealing with a new country like Australia, or portions of the United States of America, where you have the land drawn out in numbered lots, you could find all you wanted by consulting an authoritative Government map, and would be able to dispense with descriptions of the subject; but in an old settled country, where land has become of great value, especially near towns, where descriptions run into yards, feet, and inches, until it is of great monetary importance to know exactly what the subject is—such a description will not do. Now, even if these objections were not valid—and they seem to me to be unanswerable to anyone who knows anything about Scotch titles—I would point out that if the provisions of the Bill are valid in regard to properties transferred as they stand and without sub-division, what is to be the case when you propose to sub-divide properties? It is all very well if you can find out what the subject is; but my hon. and learned Friend, no doubt, felt that the system would not do in its original form, except in conveying something which had already got a definite "local habitation and a name," so to speak. He felt there would be some difficulty in dealing with the case of selling off pieces of an estate. What is his proposal in Clause 8? It is that the proprietor or his agent shall meet the assessor on the ground to

"fill up the transfer with such description of the parts of the subjects to be transferred as he shall deem sufficient for identification,"

and so on. It is assumed that when a person wishes to sell or convey a part of the subject he can still do without a professional description, and that conveyancing will disappear—that you are to do without the professional gentleman in the person of the lawyer, just as some people would do without the services of the doctor or the clergyman—perhaps not the clergyman. No doubt, this would be a very desirable thing if it could be done; but the proprietor is to call in the assessor—a gentleman whose business is not to frame descriptions of the subject, but to put a value on it for purposes of rating. It would seem as though the adjustment, being effected by a public officer, were taking place in the public interest. But who is he to adjust the matter with? He cannot adjust it with himself, and he has no antagonist or opponent to deal with. Apparently this is to be the invocation of a public officer to adjust with a man himself the description of his own property. What would be the validity of that against a neighbour or anybody else? If a man is only acting with himself, let him make the adjustment himself—he does not want the assistance of the assessor or anybody else, and the adjustment could not be more invalid. I would point out that the assessor is not an official chosen or appropriate for such a purpose as this. He is chosen because he is a man who knows the letting value of land; and he goes about with a book filling up the Roll, upon which the rates are levied, and discharging a function altogether inappropriate to the character of the work which would have to be done under this Bill. I leave it to the House, and to anyone who knows anything about this subject and can appreciate the importance of a title, whether it is possible that the method proposed could have any practical value or useful purpose. The hon. and learned Gentleman says the measure would not render his system of conveyancing universal or compulsory, and that the old system would be retained; but that would only lead to additional confusion, the proper course for amendment of the Law of Conveyancing to take being in the direction of simplifying descriptions of the subject, and bringing about brevity in the language used. I venture to think that whilst my hon. and learned Friend deserves the thanks of the House for some of the suggestions he has made, which may lead to something, the Bill, as it stands, would not be available or practicable as a Conveyancing Bill at all. I do not see how it could be made useful in Committee—if I did I should have the greatest possible pleasure in assenting to the second reading. I do not see how, in any form or shape, the objections I have pointed out could be met; therefore, I put it to my hon. and learned Friend whether he thinks it necessary to press a Bill which is open to such very grave objections?

Some years ago I sat on a Select Committee which took a great deal of evidence on the subject of conveyancing in Scotland. I remember the experience we gained on that Committee excited such considerable admiration on the part of some of us for the system which prevailed in Scotland, that we were anxious to see it carried into effect in England. When we had to consider a Bill for the improvement of the Registry in Yorkshire, we incorporated into it, so far as we could, the Scotch system, in the hope that it would be introduced generally throughout England. I do not think you can have anything very much better than the Scotch system of conveyancing; and I do not think any hon. Member from Scotland does well when he introduces a measure to interfere with a system which has worked so well, and which is so well adapted to the country. The Bill is against the operation of the existing system, because it introduces a new element into the registration. It would make the Rate Book govern the Register, instead of the Register govern the Bate Book. Anybody on the Rate Book would have the right to make a conveyance under the Bill and transmit it to the Registrar. But what evidence of title does the Rate Book contain? It is merely for the purpose of the assessment of the property, and does not profess to be in any way a register of title. Again, all that a person could convey would be such an interest as he happened to have in the property, and a purchaser might find that this was merely a tenancy for life, or that it was subject to charges and in-cumbrances of all kinds—in fact, that he got little or nothing for his money. I must say it goes to my heart to have to oppose a Bill which its framers believe will have the effect of dispensing with the services of us—the lawyers, for such measures always bring us new clients. The best customers we have are those who make their own wills; their relatives come to us afterwards. So would it be with those who do their own conveyancing; they or their descendants would come to us to put right their work, and we should have all the benefit of the consequent litigation, instead of the small profit on the original transfer.

I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate that the thanks of the House are due to the hon. and learned Member who has moved the second reading of the Bill; and I hope that good results will attend his efforts, and that the attention of the Lord Advocate will be directed to this very pressing matter. There is less excuse for delay in amending the law in Scotland than in England, for the very simple reason that in Scotland there already exists, in perfect working order, all the machinery that is necessary for the purpose of recording, registering, and preserving title to property. The Lord Advocates of Scotland, whether belonging to one Party or the other, have not neglected the subject of the simplification of title. I know the efforts of 1868, and how, by the Act of that year, no less than 11 Acts of Parliament were either totally repealed or repealed in part, and that titles were very much simplified. I also know how in that year another Act of Parliament was passed, collecting, so to speak, the Registers into one, doing away with the County Registers, making one Central Register. But this only shows how much easier it is for Scotland to deal with this question of titles. The main defect pointed out in the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman is that it does not provide for a description of the property, which is, after all, the difficulty in the matter, because there is no difficulty whatever in transferring property as easily as a share in a ship, or a table, or anything else, if the particular property can be described. It seems to me the hon. and learned Member's proposal could be simplified in this way. It is true that the assessor does not have in his Valuation Roll or Rate Book the boundaries of the property and the names of the persons who occupy the contiguous property; but he is generally a gentleman accustomed to the making of plans, and if the transfers were accompanied by plans, that would be an improvement which might very well be adopted, as it has been with advantage in other countries. Whatever may be the result of this Bill, I trust that the matter, having been brought forward, will lead to further consideration; and that ultimately a Bill will be introduced dealing with the further simplification of titles in Scotland.

It is not necessary to trouble the House with many observations after what has fallen from the Lord Advocate; but as the Motion that the Bill be read a second time this day six months stands in my name, I beg to offer some observations upon what has passed, particularly as to what has fallen from the last speaker, as to the Rate Book official making plans. The official referred to may not be a person accustomed to the making of plans. He may never have seen one in his life; he may know nothing about the ownership of property or about the disposition of it, and yet he may have imposed upon him, in addition to the simple duty he already performs of preparing the Valuation Roll for the purpose of levying a rate, the duty of ascertaining the ownership, the exact boundary, the rights and incidents of all the property of all the owners, or reputed owners, or persons who assert themselves to be owners, and desire to be put upon the Valuation Roll, in the district. That would be a task so prodigious as to utterly prevent the performance of his ordinary duties. I never heard of a Rate Book being accompanied by plans either in this or any other country, and I have travelled in a great many. I should have come across them if they had existed. But what is the object of this Bill? The scope of the measure—if I understand it aright—is this. The hon. and learned Gentleman who brings it in finds existing in Scotland what is considered a perfect system of registration of conveyances—for the information of lay persons I will use the word "transfers." Transfers from A to B, and from B to C, and from C to D, are entered as they occur in this Register. I could conceive, if the proposition were that a simple entry on this Register should in future be substituted for a deed of conveyance, and simply refer to the deed of conveyance that last occurred on the Register, and the purchaser wishes to have a much more simple conveyance than he would get if he went to his lawyer to have a formal deed of conveyance prepared—I can conceive that it would be much more simple for him to apply the machinery of this Bill to this Register, so that the Registrar of Deeds could have before him Mr. Q and Mr. R, the former to say—"I wish to transfer the particular property described in the last conveyance on the Register to me to Mr. R." It would be a simple process before the Registrar for Q to have an entry in the Register made so as to convey to R all that had been conveyed to him by P. But what does the hon. and learned Gentleman do? He makes the Rate Book the basis of the transaction—a book prepared for another purpose by an accountant. The assessor will have an entry in his Rate Book, "John Smith"—or, as we are speaking of Scotland, I will say "Donald Cameron"—as the reputed owner in possession, without any description of the property transferred beyond its name, say, "Whiteacre." The acreage of the land is perhaps stated, but not its boundaries—only the annual value, which is required for the purpose of rating the reputed owner—it may possibly be only the owner for life, and very often is only the owner for life—and upon that evidence a document is to be prepared transferring "Whiteacre" from "Donald Cameron." That document has to go to be recorded by the Registrar of Deeds, who is not concerned to see whether "Donald Cameron" was the last man on his Register or not in respect of "Whiteacre," or whether "Whiteacre" is the property comprised by the description in the last registered title document or not, so that the purchaser starts a new title on the Register. The question would arise in the mind of any subsequent purchaser whether "Whiteacre" was really the property that "Cameron" possessed, and he would have to go through the long process which he would have done if the old system had been adopted. He would have the additional difficulty put on him that if many years had elapsed the purchaser and his advisers would have to examine the land, and likely enough take oral testimony as to whether in 1886 the property to be purchased was the property which passed by the last registered deed to "Cameron." That is not all. My experience is this—that not one transaction in real property in 100 is simply between A and B, or B and C, and of such a simple description as to be conveyed in a stereotyped form. In testimony of that I may point to several Acts that have been passed from time to time in both countries for the simplification of conveyance. Why have they not been availed of by the public? It may be answered—"Because the interest of the Legal Profession is against them." But I deny that. The reason is, they do not adapt themselves to more than one case in 100, and because there are modifications in the covenants—provisions containing reservations, and so on—all of which have to be provided for by special definitions. As the Lord Advocate pointed out, this is not a Bill which can be made into a good working Bill in Committee; otherwise I have so much sympathy with the object of the hon. and learned Member, which is to bring about a simplification of transfer, as would induce me to say that I would vote for the second reading. But there are two clauses in the Bill not only mutually destructive to themselves, but, dynamite-like, they explode the whole Bill. The person who buys from "Donald Cameron" will only acquire from him such rights as he had; but there may have been none. The hon. and learned Gentleman says in Clause 11—

"But such transfer shall only convey such right as may legally pass under the testamentary disposition on which it is founded."

What is he obliged to do to make a basis of future title? Why, in the very next clause he would enact—

"A transfer duly made and recorded in the Register of Sasines under this Act shall be deemed to form a title on which the positive prescription may run to the same effect as if such transfer had been a charter followed by sasine."

That is to say, it is called a transfer, though he has said it

"shall only convey such right as may legally pass under the testamentary disposition on which it is founded,"

which may be no right at all; and yet when it is put on record on the Register of Deeds it shall constitute a title, and shall be as good

"as if such transfer had been a charter followed by sasine."

These two things are utterly inconsistent. For these reasons I object to the Bill.

I rise to support the second reading of the Bill, my name being on the back of it. It contains a simple remedy for the present inconveniences of registration. Perhaps it is too simple for many of those who have spoken since I entered the House. There can be no question that the proposals which are made in the Bill will reduce the fees of a considerable number of those who have spoken against the measure, and I suppose that goes a long way towards the objections that have been raised. The simplicity of the Bill is too apparent for many who are interested in drawing out for us long lawyers' deeds for the possession of property, which, in my travels over the world, I have found quite unnecessary elsewhere. It seems to me that the idea which this Bill embodies is to give a good title, or, at all events, to give the same title to the new proprietor—to the gentleman who buys the property—as that possessed by his predecessor; or, in other words, that the party willing to buy enters into the possession of the former proprietor, or, as we should say in Scotland, simply goes into his shoes. If the purchaser chooses to take that responsibility, whatever are the encumbrances on the property or the defects of its title, that is a matter for him entirely. If he holds the property by having bought it and paid for it, surely he is to be at liberty to enter into possession; and if exchange can be accomplished on much more economical terms than we are accustomed to, I think that would be to the advantage of the general community, and the main body of those who are engaged in buying and selling heritable property. That is the main feature of the Bill. We wish to make heritable property as easily transferable as other property, and we see no reason why its conveyance should be so hedged by lawyers' phrases and words which seem unnecessary, and which we are willing to dispense with. The fees payable in Scotland are not less than ½ per cent on all the property exchanged. There will be a considerable saving by the introduction of this plan to the community at large. I believe that the Representatives of the Legal Profession are unnecessarily alarmed, because the probability is that 10 or 20 times the amount of property will change hands which does now, and that it will be done more simply and cheaply than it is at present. People now are terrified at the long processes they have to go through to get property transferred; therefore I think that the Lord Advocate has acted unwisely with regard to the position he has taken up in regard to this Bill. I do not think that any of the objections which have been urged against the measure can be justified; and I think I am fortified in the position I assume when it is considered that the Convention of Royal and Parliamentary Burghs have sent a Petition to Parliament in favour of the Bill, a fact which should go a long way towards calming the fears of the English Members. I am quite sure, having regard to the common sense of the people of Scotland, that the provisions of the Bill now before the House will very shortly become the law of the land. I trust, while we do not go in for Home Rule, that we shall by-and-bye come to consider why we may not have a little more of Home Rule than we now possess; that we shall be guided by common sense in our affairs, and not entirely by those who are supposed to be the guides of public opinion. I have visited our Colonies, and found that a much cheaper and better system of the transfer of property in land existed there, and I see no reason why we should not take a lesson from them and adapt ourselves to the growing wisdom of the age. For these reasons, I hope that the House will assent to the Motion for the second reading of the Bill. There are, no doubt, differences of opinion in connection with some parts of the question; but the sponsors for the Bill are perfectly willing to consider them in Committee, and there, I hope, the Lord Advocate, with all his legal knowledge, will give us his assistance in perfecting the Bill.

Sir, the hon. and learned Member who moved the second reading of this Bill has made the usual stereotyped attack against the bona fides of lawyers. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman uses the expressions I refer to in a Pickwickian sense; but it seems to me that he forgets that if there is any part of the Legal Profession which has no anxiety to make transfers of property indisputable, it is that represented by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. With regard to the Colonial system alluded to by the hon. Member who has just spoken, I can conceive that there might have been much more ground for what the hon. Member said if he had supplied us with a Bill shadowing out what is done under the Colonial system and the way in which they prove their titles there. There are many Members who may not be so intimate with the system; and I say that if it be so sufficient, so good, and so admirably suited to this country, where properties are divided into small and curious proportions and shapes—if it be so applicable to the condition of things here—it is a great pity that it is not embodied in this Bill. The hon. Member said that, in his opinion, the Government should assent to the principle of the Bill and allow the matter to be threshed out in Committee; but the fact is, there is nothing in the Bill which admits of being threshed out in Committee. It is a proposal for using a book, which in Scotland is useful for one purpose only, for a purpose for which, in its inception and in the mode of its employment, makes it absolutely unsuitable. I am convinced that the great mass of Scotchmen will not readily assent to the proposition that they are safe in taking a title of land which consists simply of an entry on the Valuation Poll, and that the description of the property in the Valuation Poll is sufficient. As evidence of the unsuitability any entry in the Valuation Roll is for the purpose of giving any person a title to land by a mere reference to it, we have only to look to the use to which Valuation Polls may be put in our Courts of Law. The object of the Valuation Poll is to fix the value of property, and to enter some person from whom to get payment of the rates; but so clear is it that the Roll is only for fixing value and nothing else, that it is no evidence of proprietorship in a Court of Law; and yet you are now proposing that the Valuation Roll shall be sufficient evidence to satisfy a person in taking over property. Our Registration Acts for the purpose of Parliamentary franchise make use of the Valuation Roll; but so clear was it to the Legislature when these Acts were passed that it would be futile to use it as evidence of ownership of the subject, that in the Registration Acts for the purpose of the franchise it is expressly declared that the Valuation Roll shall be evidence of value and of nothing else—that is to say, that when the question is whether A B shall be placed on the Register, the fact that the property is of a certain value shall be proved by the Poll; but that whether A B is owner or occupier of the subject cannot be decided by the Valuation Roll. In other words, while the value of the subject is taken from the Roll, evidence to prove ownership has to be taken from other sources. Evidence has been given in many cases proving that the proprietor entered in the Valuation Poll was not the true proprietor at all, which shows that for the purpose intended by the Bill—namely, the transfer of land—the Valuation Poll is absolutely useless. From what I have shown, I think it must be plain to the House that it would be absurd to base a system of title of land on such a document as the Valuation Roll of a county, or to suppose that it would, in the hands of any surveyor or assessor, make up a title satisfactory to the parties concerned. I am of opinion that the transfer of land should be simplified only in the sense in which it can be of real value to the people—namely, by insuring that there shall be no difficulty or dispute about title after the transfer has taken place. But for that purpose the Bill would not be of the slightest use, inasmuch as it will only provide work for lawyers. I think, therefore, that the course taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate with regard to the Bill is essentially the right one for the House to follow.

Sir, I think it would be a great pity if any disposition were shown in this House to throw cold water, so to speak, upon any proposal which had for its object the simplification of the transfer of land. I venture to think, however, so far as relates to the present discussion, that that is by no means the case. As the Lord Advocate has pointed out, the simplification of deeds has already been largely carried out, and where the transfer of land is not now less costly I think that the cause must be one of two things. In the first place, the transfer may not be a simple transfer of the subject from the vendor to the purchaser; it may be, and very often is, complicated by conditions of various kinds, modifying the rights of the persons having interest in the property, or creating new rights and interests. That is a serious and a natural source of expense. But the plan which the hon. and learned Member for Fife (Mr. Boyd-Kinnear) has proposed to the House does not apply to that class at all; it is only applicable and can only be applied, as he has explained, to simple transfers. The other cause of expense is where the investigation of title is long and complicated. In the case of simple transfer our present form of conveyancing gives a complete remedy—that is to say, a reference to the last description of the subject on the Register. But, instead of that, the hon. and learned Member proposes that, instead of reference to deeds already on the Register, a method which supplies a complete and satisfactory description of the subject, he makes reference to the Valuation Roll, which, as it has been pointed out, affords no means of identification whatever. The entry in the Rate Book is a statement of value only; it is not a statement of ownership; and if you want to ascertain who are the owners, of property you must go behind the Valuation Roll—that is to say, to the deeds. The argument which I submit to the House is that a much better means is already provided by the law than the hon. and learned Member offers—namely, recourse to the last description of the subject on the Register; and, as I have pointed out, conveyance of that kind is no more costly than the means which he proposes. If a purchaser desires to be his own lawyer, it is as easy for him to avail himself of the simple form provided for him by the present Statutes as it would be under this Bill. I venture to think that this is a proposal which will not commend itself to the House, and I consider that the grounds of objection to the Motion before the House stated by the Lord Advocate are entirely conclusive.