Commons Sitting of 25 July 1871

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—John Leslie, esquire, for Monaghan.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Public Health and Local Government [269]; Real Estates (Title and Conveyance)* [270]; Civil Bill Courts (Ireland)* [267]; County Boundaries (Ireland)* [268].
Second Reading — Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act (1869) Amendment* [241].
Report of Select Committee—Metropolis Water (No. 2) [No. 381].
Committee—Elections (Parliamentary and Municipal) (re-comm.) [103]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Limited Owners Residence Act (1870) Amendment* [261]; Registration of Voters (No. 2) (re-comm)* [256–266]; Sunday Observance Prosecutions [235]; Lodgers' Goods Protection (re-comm.)* [254].
Third Reading—Industrial and Provident Societies Amendment* [240], and passed.
Withdrawn—Metropolitan Buildings and Management* [135].
The House met at Two of the clock.

ARMY—MARTINI-HENRY RIFLE.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. OSBORNEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, after the adverse opinions on the Martini lock so generally expressed at the late Wimbledon meeting, the Government intend to proceed with the manufacture of that arm; if they will consent to an independent inquiry into the cause of the defects

  217
  shown to exist in the lock arrangements; and if the attention of the Secretary of State for War has been called to these defects by opinions placed in his hands of some of the most eminent mechanical engineers in the kingdom?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the adverse opinions assumed in the Question of the hon. Member have not reached me. On the contrary, the opinions which have reached me have been eminently favourable. A careful inquiry was made by the Committee, the result of which was at variance with the existence, assumed in the question, of defects in the lock arrangements. Rival inventors have sent in opinions of mechanical engineers favouring their respective inventions. These opinions have been considered by the Committee, by whom eminent engineers were examined. I am of opinion, and this opinion the House after full debate has confirmed, that there is no ground for disturbing the decision of the Committee in favour of the Martini-Henry rifle.
  MR. M. T. BASSinquired whether some of the most practical and scientific men at the Wimbledon meeting had not declared that the spiral spring was unsuitable for the military service?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid that, as no Notice had been given of this last Question, he could not say what passed at Wimbledon, but he repeated that the opinions which had reached him were favourable to the Martini-Henry rifle.
  MR. OSBORNEsaid that he would take another opportunity of reviving the subject.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS COMMISSIONERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALLENasked the Vice President of the Council of Education, Whether, after the recent decision in the case of Emanuel Hospital, it is the intention of the Endowed Schools Commissioners to proceed with such of the schemes in the provinces as have met with opposition, or whether they are prepared to re-consider them, with a view to giving satisfaction to those whose interests are affected thereby?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, in reply, that the Commissioners would proceed to carry out the Act as they had endeavoured to do up to the present time, and, if any rival schemes were proposed, they
  218
  would give such opportunity for the expression of opinion as the Act provided, and consider any objections which might be made. In the case of the Emanuel Hospital the scheme proposed by the Commissioners and approved by the Government had been dissented from by the House of Lords, but that circumstance did not in the slightest degree affect the position of the Commissioners in carrying out the Act.

ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]
(Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce, The Marquess of Hartington.)
ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 24th July.]
  Bill considered in the Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Mode of taking the Poll.
  Clause 4 (Regulations as to tender of Votes).
  MR. GOLDNEYmoved an Amendment in line 18, which was merely verbal, and introductory to another to be moved at the end of the clause. The verbal Amendment in line 18 was that the words "claimed to be" left out, and the word "as" be inserted in their place. The object of the second Amendment which the hon. Gentleman intended to move, as consequent on the first, was that the real voter, in the event of his having been personated at an election, should not be shut out from voting, but should have his vote received in the same manner as any other elector, the presiding officer being required to mark the voting paper with the voter's name, to insure identification afterwards. By the present law it was absolutely necessary for a person to have voted to make a case of personation complete, and means were provided for a challenge by either candidate of the votes. If there were to be provisions in the present Bill against personation, it was clearly necessary that there should be some means of identifying the voting paper. The clause as drawn took away the right the true voter would clearly have of giving his vote, and he could not see any justification for the exclusion of the real man because he happened to be an hour later in coming to the poll than the man who had personated him.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, in referring to the very wide subject of personation, said that by this unfortunate

  219
  Bill which had been brought in by Government, not only to disfranchise an honest voter, but to enable a dishonest voter to vote with impunity, if a dishonest man came and personated another at the polling-booth, and if his vote were not challenged his vote was taken, and was always valid in favour of him for whom it was given. But when the real man came, his vote was to be sealed up as a tendered vote in the mode described in the section, and was handed over to the keeper of the ballot papers, and could only be used when some legal proceeding was taken in order to set aside the election. Before the clause went further, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would explain or defend this provision.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the first Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Goldney) was merely verbal. Whoever voted, the act of voting was claiming to be a particular elector. "Claiming" was, he thought, the right word to use. The Amendment proposed at the end of the section was an important one, and the reason he could not accept it was that it would put the law on a perfectly different footing from that on which it stood at present. He did not believe that personation would be increased by this Act, but some hon. Members did, and they were entitled to their opinion. It had been frequently stated in the course of the discussion that personation existed at the present moment. Now, where there was personation, what happened? A man went up and tendered his vote orally, and he found somebody had voted in his name. He was not at present able to vote. He tendered his vote, and his vote was kept aside as a possible vote to be counted in case of a scrutiny. The same provision was made under the new system of voting. The voter found that a person had signed a voting paper he ought to have; he tendered his vote, and the returning officer was bound to take and keep it separate, to be used in case of a scrutiny. In either case the tendered vote was to be used in case of a scrutiny, not otherwise. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Goldney) in proposing this Amendment, went on the supposition that the second man was necessarily the right voter; but it was just as likely that the second man might be the personator. He therefore thought that that was a
  220
  sufficient reason for declining to assent to the Amendment.
  MR. GOLDNEYreplied that the difficulty he had in the matter was that a man who was, by the present law, in a bad position, was placed in a very much worse position by the Bill, because if a man claimed now to vote as a certain person his vote was reckoned where he had been personated, whereas by the Bill he was shut out.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERbelieved there would be greater precaution under the new Bill than under the present system. It would be an entirely new principle to admit two votes on the same day by two persons claiming to be one person.
  MR. CORRANCEsaid, that as a scrutiny was almost impossible by the Bill the vote would be lost unless the Amendment was adopted.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the difference between the present and the proposed system was this—that as soon as a man voted, if he was personated, the candidate against whom he voted had a direct interest in immediately proceeding against him; but by the new system the agent was uncertain how the man voted, and therefore the interest of the prosecutor was lost, and he (Mr. Newdegate) did not know how a scrutiny could take place. It appeared to him that the case presented by the hon. and learned Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) was perfectly good.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that the point raised by the Amendment indicated a break-down in the system of voting proposed by the Bill. If there was no safeguard to the voter that his vote would have due effect, then the whole system of voting came to be a fallacy, because any man's vote was at the mercy of any personator who came first. It was said there would be a scrutiny, and ultimately the true voter would be righted; but where was the temptation to a scrutiny, and where was the money for a scrutiny? The men who would be personated would most likely be persons in a poor position in society, and unknown to the agents or returning officers, and these poor men would not therefore have any means or legal knowledge to prosecute their case. It might not be worth the while of the defeated candidate to follow up a scrutiny, which would be very expensive and very doubtful in the result; and the consequence

  221
  would be a total confusion of right and wrong in the whole voting. He asked his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council where was the morality and advantage of secret voting over the old system of voting? It was said that the old system produced intimidation. Well, granting for the sake of argument that it did, and intimidation was no doubt a bad thing, yet everything had its price, and there might be too high a price at which to get rid of intimidation; and he contended that by the provisions of this Bill they were paying too high a price for it. The existence of this clause was damnatory of the whole Bill; it was damnatory of the whole system of voting, because the whole system of election was reduced to uncertainty as regarded the identity of everyone of those voters who claimed, to elect the Members of that House. On that ground he supported the Amendment.
  MR. LIDDELLbelieved that the crime of personation would become very rife under the system of secret voting. He wanted to know how, if the process of secrecy was complete, a scrutiny could possibly take place. The vote could not be followed.
  MR. JAMESsaid, he thought that personation would be increased to an unlimited extent if the Amendment were adopted. The result of the Amendment was that if the right person had gone to the poll and the wrong person went an an hour afterwards, the vote of the wrong person must be accepted. They did not wish to trust a presiding officer to decide whether a vote was good or not, because if dishonest he might admit 20 votes for one qualification. If this Amendment were carried it would give facilities for any number of persons to poll in respect of one qualification. The Amendment would, in fact, create an unlimited power of personation. What was necessary to be done was not to let people vote twice over, but to keep the wrong votes out of the ballot-boxes, and when the proper time arrived he should move the insertion of a clause which would have the desired effect. If this was done, the system would be as perfect as that existing at the present time.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought Parliament ought not to stereotype existing abuses, but rather to remedy them if possible. Under the existing system no two votes could be recorded for the
  222
  same qualification; but now they were about to enact that two votes might be received for the same qualification. Under the proposed system, if A and B voted for the same qualification there was no knowing for whom the one who first polled recorded his vote. Under the existing system it would be recorded for whom A voted, and B's vote would be placed in the margin and would await the result of a scrutiny, when the matter would be sot right. Suppose that under the new system there should be a scrutiny, and that B proved that he was the right person that had been personated, there would be no power to say for whom A voted, nor from which candidate a vote should be taken away. If this were so, then they would for the first time establish the principle that two votes might be received for the same qualification. It was assumed by those who supported the Ballot that the personators would be political opponents of the voters personated; but he thought, on the other hand, that electors would be personated under a system of secret voting by their political friends, and he repeated that there was nothing to prevent two votes being given for the same qualification.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said it was provided by Clause 3 that, when the ballot paper was handed to a voter, a tick would be placed opposite his name on the register, and thus the possibility of giving two votes in respect of the same qualification would be non-existent if the Bill passed in its present form. To pass the Amendment would at once admit the possibility. The question of the mode to be adopted for striking off votes improperly given would arise on the 22nd clause.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked whether they were not for the first time establishing the principle that the presiding Judge would be bound to allow two votes for the same qualification?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Supposing the argument and the assumptions of the hon. Member to be correct, and also that they had passed Clause 22, no doubt what was said would be correct. He did not, however, admit the correctness of the statement, and he would not further enter into the question until they came to Clause 22.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKcontended that the question really arose under the present clause. There was no

  223
  power under the proposed system to remove a personated vote from the ballot-box. Under the present system the vote of the personator, when he was discovered, was removed from the poll, whilst under the proposed new-fangled system the dishonest vote would remain upon the poll. Possibly these false votes might carry the election.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that he had repeatedly given his answer in reference to this point. They were perfectly aware that the particular vote could not be struck off; but they thought that this small evil would be more than compensated by the great advantages which would be conferred by the Bill. He would not anticipate the discussion upon Clause 22, which referred to the power of striking off particular votes.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYwished to observe that the only person who was to sustain inconvenience through the ballot secrecy was the honest voter. The rogue who personated was to have his vote placed in the ballot-box, and unless you could prove agency you could not touch his vote in any way; and it must remain in the box. But when the voter who had been personated went up he was bound to place his name upon the ballot paper, and thus would be deprived of that secrecy which was so valuable to the rogue. Then before the scrutineers the person who had been defrauded of his vote would have publicly to claim in accordance with the ballot paper upon which his name was written. Even if he should prove his title to vote he would not in effect get the vote, because in all probability his ballot would be neutralized by the person who had voted for his qualification. The secrecy would operate to defraud the honest man of his vote and prevent his having any redress.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman could hardly have heard the earlier part of the discussion. So long as personation existed the voter personated would run the risk of losing his vote. Under the present system he would lose it entirely, unless there should be a Petition and a scrutiny. Something similar would exist under the new system; but it was believed that under the new system personation would be less likely than formerly; especially as the personator could not know whether the real man had voted or not.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYdenied that the circumstances were the same in the two cases. In open voting the vote of the personator was struck off, and that of the real person placed upon the register; but under the new system they would have both votes recorded. When the man personated proved his right, his vote was registered, but the false vote would not be struck off.
  MR. JAMESsaid, this was not a new objection, nor did it come originally from the Opposition benches. He himself urged it on the Motion to go into Committee on the Bill; but on that occasion he admitted that there were countervailing advantages, which outweighed the objection, and ought to prevent its interfering with the progress of the Bill. Hostile personation was in almost every instance accompanied by bribery, and could be dealt with under the 22nd clause of the Bill. On the other hand, in the case of personation by a political friend, the rightful voter would receive more than justice, in that two votes instead of one would be recorded for his own candidate. The very fact of the Bill being a Ballot Bill would do away with many of the inducements to personate, and if the penalties for the offence were increased personation would speedily come to an end.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GOLDNEYmoved an Amendment to provide that a second ballot paper should not be given to a person claiming to have been personated as an elector until the first one had actually been put into the box and the vote completed. As the clause stood, the second paper could be given after the first one had simply been "delivered" to the claimant.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERaccepted the Amendment.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought that the danger of personation being resorted to was increased by every step taken to render its detection matter of increased difficulty.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he thought the danger to be expected from the personation of a dozen or two of voters was reduced to nil by the vast increase in the numbers composing the constituencies.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that in one of the Ridings of Yorkshire at the last Election there was only a difference of

  225
  eight in the number of votes recorded for each of two candidates, though upwards of 15,000 electors voted on the occasion. In the case of another constituency the Liberal candidates were defeated by one because they had the foolish modesty not to vote for themselves. The question, then, of a dozen votes was of the utmost consequence.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, another difficulty might arise. What was to prevent a person who desired to assist a particular political party, but did not care to face the penalties attaching to personation, going to a voting place, obtaining the ballot paper of a political opponent, and carrying it away in his pocket, so depriving the voter of his right to the franchise?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, such a case was provided against by a clause in the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved the insertion of words in the clause to the effect that the ballot papers given to voters who had previously been personated in the same election should be of a different colour, in order to prevent the vote being counted twice.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the object of the Amendment was to guard not against personation but mistakes. The proposed precaution was, in his opinion, almost superfluous, but he had no objection to it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the clause provided that on the occasion of any poll taking place at a Parliamentary election, if any person whose name had been struck out of the register of electors by the decision of the revising barrister applied for a ballot paper, the presiding officer should upon the applicant answering certain questions and taking a certain specified oath deliver to such applicant a ballot paper. It was, he thought, highly desirable that claims disallowed by the revising barrister should not be re-opened until the next Registration Court should be held. With that view he would propose as an Amendment the omission, in page 6, of the words commencing "if at any poll," in line 24, to the words "such applicant," in line 29, inclusive.
  MR. BOWRINGsaid, that he hoped that his right hon. Friend the Vice Pre-
  226
  sident of the Council would find it consistent with his duty to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster. He saw no reason for so great an alteration as the proposal contained in the clause would in practice effect. In large constituencies hundreds of names were annually struck off by the revising barristers, owing to death, removal, or other loss of qualification, and the percentage of cases in which there was any chance of the barrister's decision being reversed was extremely small, and yet, under the clause, the whole of the persons so struck off were to be allowed to tender their votes, thus causing, as he feared, needless obstruction at the polling-booths. He had himself placed a Notice on the Paper to limit the right thus to tender votes to the case of individuals who had given notice of appeal against the decision of the revising barrister; but he should prefer to see the Amendment now under consideration adopted, as he thought it desirable that the register of votes, as settled at the revision, should be final, subject of course to such emendations as the superior Court of Appeal might direct.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he hoped the Amendment would be accepted. There were enough complications without this one in the Bill.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the clause simply allowed the law on this subject to remain as it was at present.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that personally he should be glad if the Committee determined that the register should be deemed conclusive for the year. The Government would accept the Amendment if such was the wish of the Committee.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, the clause would be unworkable in Scotland, where the register was conclusive until the next registration.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, perhaps the better way would be to make the required provision in the Registration Bill, which had been introduced by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke).
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, several extreme cases occurred during the last Election which it would be necessary to provide against. He thought some provision ought to be introduced to facilitate appeals from decisions of the revising barrister.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would take time to consider whether such a provision should be inserted in the Bill.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the number of his constituents was largely increased by the last Reform Bill. His opponents objected to about 300 working men who were on his side, and the revising barrister decided in favour of the validity of the votes. An appeal was thereupon made to the Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed the decision of the Court below; but if the ultimate decision had been otherwise, in all probability he should not now have represented the borough. He thought it desirable that appeals should be heard more speedily than at present.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Regulations as to spoiled ballot paper).
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he hoped it would be clearly understood that provision would have to be made for accidental errors in the filling up of the ballot paper.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that under the clause, if a voter inadvertently spoilt his paper, he might go to the presiding officer and get a fresh one, the spoilt paper being retained in order that the returning officer might make up his account of the papers.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that a man who spoilt his paper must disclose to the presiding officer and the other persons in the booth the way he intended to vote, and thus violate the secrecy so strongly insisted on by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he hoped the clause would be carefully considered with reference to other parts of the Bill.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the exhibiting and proving the spoilt voting-paper to the satisfaction of the presiding officer might lead to collusion. If the presiding officer opened it and examined it in the presence of the agents, the way the man intended to vote might be discovered. The voter should hand it to the presiding officer folded up, and the latter destroy it without opening it.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would think over the point, with the view of introducing the provision required in another part of the Bill.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had not produced the promised amended schedule, and it was very inconvenient to discuss on this clause the possible mistakes that might be made in a document that was not before the Committee. He (Mr. Lowther) suggested that all the regulations applicable to the filling up of ballot papers should be posted up in large letters and in conspicuous places in each polling booth, and that the ballot paper itself should, contain nothing but the names of the candidates.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the course suggested by the hon. Member had already occurred to him; and in a short time he hoped to be able to place the first schedule upon the Table, the frame of which would, he thought, be approved by the hon. Gentleman.
  COLONEL SYKESobserved that since the year 1714 the Directors of the East India Company had been virtually elected by ballot, in the shape of voting papers, which were deposited in a box.
  Clause agreed to.
  Supplemental Provisions.
  Clause 6 (Time of notice by Parliamentary election).
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved to omit the clause, with a view to the insertion of a new one, shortening the time of notice.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 7 (Day of elections in municipal boroughs in England) agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Supplemental provisions as to nomination).
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that there having been plenty of time to look through the Bill and see what could be omitted, without endangering its main objects, the Government had come to the conclusion that the clause might be dispensed with. Every part of the clause already had force in the existing law, excepting the sub-section providing for the withdrawal of candidates between the day of nomination and the day of election; and in regard to that, he thought the discussion on the 2nd clause of the Bill pointed to the desirableness of not interfering with the law as it now stood.
  MR. LIDDELLsuggested that as extensive alterations had been, made and

  229
  the matter was getting rather complicated, it would be desirable to re-print the Bill.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would be prepared to act upon the suggestion if at the end of the sitting the House had reached the end of a clause, where they could conveniently pause.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked whether, if the whole of the clause were omitted, it would not be necessary to substitute some provision as to withdrawals of candidates. He inquired because he had some personal experience of how matters of that kind might be worked.
  MR. GOLDNEYreferred to several of the sub-sections forming part of the clause, and said that if these matters were not now discussed and dealt with, extensive alterations would be rendered necessary upon the Report.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE, referring to the proposed omission of sub-section 1 of the clause, which gave power to the returning officer, with the consent of a Secretary of State, to appoint as the place in which the election is thereafter to be held, such towns in the county as he thinks most convenient to the electors, said, that if the Bill were altogether silent on this point grave difficulties must arise, in cases such as those of Kent and East Kent, where the place for the election was an open common. It would be necessary, he supposed, to move out the ballot-box and the whole of the furniture—in short, to hold a sort of electioneering "Feast of Tabernacles."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not think the absurdity spoken of was likely to arise, as the election, legally speaking, was the nomination, not the polling.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, the difficulties under which the Committee laboured already would plainly be increased by the omission of this clause. Clause 2 had been extensively altered, and was, it seemed, to be reprinted; but the discussions and suggestions upon that clause had frequently turned upon Clause 8, which was now to be omitted.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he intended to provide for the withdrawal, but it did not appear to be necessary to do so now.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, a man might be nominated, and in consequence of being unable to withdraw himself might be saddled with considerable expense, although his nomination might have been made without his consent.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he might thus find himself forced into an expensive contest.
  MR. JAMESsaid, it was clearly absurd to hold that a man nominated without his consent should not be allowed to withdraw.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would give consideration to the point.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, if a man was not allowed to withdraw himself from candidature he might be put to great expense.
  MR. PELLsaid, a man might be nominated who was not in the country.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, a candidate might not always be nominated by his friends. One or two candidates might be nominated, at an expense of £100 each, to break the constituency into fragments, and ensure the success of the other side. He thought it would be desirable to retain sub-section 8.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, it would be most desirable that a power of withdrawal should be retained for all candidates.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that what had just been stated showed the advantage of the clause being postponed till Clause 18 had been decided. At present a candidate who was nominated must serve, if elected. There were difficulties in the way of providing for withdrawal.
  MR. C. S. READremarked that eight or ten persons might be proposed where only two could be elected; and a man might be proposed for two places. Surely it was absurd to say in such cases a candidate might not withdraw.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought a candidate should not be allowed to withdraw without paying a fine. A Liberal grocer might be a candidate and withdraw, after putting the county or the borough to the expense of preparing for a contest. Such fickleness should not be allowed to a candidate.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he hoped the sub-section would be postponed. There would be a serious difficulty connected

  231
  with the withdrawal of candidates. But if they were not allowed to withdraw nothing would be so easy as to nominate several people, advocates, perhaps, of the Permissive Bill, on which there happened to be a strong feeling amongst a minority, and a great party might be broken into small fractions and a man returned, not as the representative of the majority, but of one of the minorities. The only way of preventing this was by introducing some system of preferential voting. He would have an opportunity of discussing the point when they reached the new clauses.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that after the nominations had been made and the returning officer had issued the voting papers with the names of the candidates, it would be impossible for any of them to withdraw.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that it was impossible that these details could be satisfactorily settled at present. The better course would be to adopt simply the principle of the Bill and leave the details for future consideration.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERrepeated that he thought the best plan would be to omit the clause; but, of course, he proposed that course on the clear understanding that it would not prevent any part of the clause being brought up again subsequently.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that it would be very convenient if the right hon. Gentleman would state now, or as soon as he could, what clauses he intended to strike out, and what clauses he intended to persevere with. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had spoken of the corrupt withdrawal of candidates as one of the dangers that would have to be guarded against in future. He was glad that the hon. Member had formed such an excellent opinion of the character of the candidates that would be introduced under the Bill. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman, and he thought it quite likely that some of the gentlemen who appeared at public meetings in London would be only too glad to enter a sham candidature, take the money, and go back by the next train. It was not the electors that he wished to protect—for if they were foolish enough to be deceived by such men they deserved no pity—but the ratepayers, upon whom it was proposed that the expenses of elections
  232
  should fall. In regard to the question of withdrawal, it must be remembered that this Bill would offer much greater inducements to candidates than now existed, and the question was therefore one that well merited attention.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that the unexpected withdrawal of this clause by the Government was attended with inconvenience. It had been admitted that the withdrawal even of single Amendments by hon. Members should be given notice of, and surely that rule ought also to apply to the withdrawal of an entire clause by the Minister in charge of the Bill. The inconvenience was the greater because many hon. Gentlemen certainly left the House last night under the impression that the further progress of the Bill was likely to be suspended until autumn.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would undertake, after the close of the present sitting, to go carefully through the Bill, and either before, or on next Thursday he would state what clauses, if any, the Government did not think it necessary to proceed with.
  Clause struck out.
  MR. GOLDNEY, being of opinion that it would be impossible to get through this clause at the present sitting, moved that the Chairman should report Progress with a view to the re-printing of the Bill.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped that the Motion would not be pressed. If they did not get through Clause 9 today he should be willing to re-print the Bill as far as they had gone.
  THE CHAIRMANreminded hon. Members that the Bill could not be reprinted during its progress through the Committee; but such clauses as had been agreed to might be printed on a separate paper.
  Motion withdrawn.
  Clause 9 (Supplemental provisions as to polling).
  MR. R. N. FOWLERmoved in page 9, leave out sub-sections 1 and 2, to and including "placed," in line 17, and insert—
  "Every polling station shall be a separate room or separate booth, and shall have the name of the parish; and if such parish is divided, the names of the streets or other local divisions within such parish the voters of which are al-

  233
  lotted to poll at such polling-place, placed in a prominent manner."
  The hon. Gentleman said that the object of his Amendment was that the voter might know, without trouble or doubt, the place where he was to vote.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, to leave out from the words "A separate room," inline 9, to the word "booth," in line 12, inclusive.—(Mr. Robert Fowler.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not think it advisable to be too precise in limiting the discretion of returning officers of boroughs, who, generally speaking, were desirous of consulting the convenience of the inhabitants. In large places several polling-places were sometimes necessary. He did not state that that ought to be done; but he thought it ought to be left to the discretion of the returning officers.
  MR. HERMONasked, whether the managers of schools would be deprived of a grant from the Education Department if an election were held in their rooms.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that he would bring up a clause on the Table which would prevent the Education Department from prohibiting the use of national schools for the purpose of polling.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 161; Noes 78: Majority 83.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERmoved to omit sub-section 2, for the purpose of inserting the words which he had previously proposed. He considered it most important that every effort should be used to prevent mistakes at the polling-places. Mistakes sometimes occurred under the present system, which was generally well understood, and he should not be surprised if, at the first election under the new system, a great many false returns would be made owing to mistakes having arisen.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, to leave out from the word "Where," in line 13, to the word "allotted," in line 20, both inclusive.—(Mr. Robert Fowler.)
  MR. J. LOWTHERremarked that the Interpretation Clause did not sufficiently define the meaning of the word "room."
  234
  A distinction had been drawn between separate rooms and other rooms. He imagined a room to be a place which had a separate door, and not a class room in a school, which ought to be clearly excepted.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERobserved, that the word "room" did not appear at all in sub-section 2, and therefore that the remark of the hon. Member did not apply to it. He could not consent to the striking out of sub-section 2.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 156; Noes 62: Majority 94.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKrose to move an Amendment to the effect that no voter should be allowed to vote in any parish or ward except that in which he resided.
  And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman, left the Chair, to report Progress.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.
  It being now Seven of the clock, the House suspended its sitting.
  House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

PUBLIC HEALTH AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.—LEAVE.

  FIRST READING.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to Public Health and Local Government, said, that the measure which he wished to introduce was simply the Report of the Sanitary Commission in the form of a Bill. The first task of the Commission was to consolidate into one statute all the laws relating to sanitary matters and to local government which had been passed piecemeal during the last quarter of a century. Those laws, which were of the most heterogeneous character, included the Nuisances Removal Acts, Prevention of Diseases Acts, Sewage Utilization Acts, Sanitary Acts, and the General Local Government Acts of 1848 and 1858, besides a mass of subsidiary statutes relating to the consumption of

  235
  smoke, for preventing the adulteration of food, for making provision for local improvements in towns, and for the management of streets and highways throughout the country. In the present Bill at least 20 Acts were reduced into one. Many of these were inconsistent with each other, distinguished things not different, clubbed subjects totally distinct, omitted some things, repeated others, and it was desirable not only to reduce such a multiplicity of statutes on one subject, but to put an end to a large mass of actually conflicting legislation. They were, for the most part, a series of experimental Acts, introduced by hon. Members, each of whom had some particular object in view at the moment, and who seldom took the trouble to refer to what had already been passed by Parliament. The Sanitary Commission, which was appointed two years ago, included several Members of both Houses of Parliament, eminent physicians, officers of the Royal Engineers, civil engineers, distinguished lawyers, besides official persons now or formerly connected with the permanent departments of the Government. Legislation on sanitary subjects had ended in Executive inanition, and in the present state of things the removal of nuisances had often still to be effected by the very expensive process of suits in Chancery, so that the law, such as it was, was not only ineffective, but in proportion to its inefficiency was extremely expensive, while the multiplication of conflicting laws multiplied offices and salaries, every separate detail, however inoperative, having its own complete machinery. The second important object of the Sanitary Commission was, therefore, to consolidate the authorities throughout the country, and in systematizing the heterogeneous character of the law to reduce the multiplication of authorities. Among these were various kinds of local boards, and Improvement Commissioners, Sewer Authorities, and Nuisance Authorities, while in rural districts matters were sometimes referred to vestries, sometimes to the Boards of Guardians, and sometimes with, sometimes without, intervention of the justices. He would appeal to hon. Members whether, if some public work or ordinary sanitary operation were wanted, or some nuisance had to be removed in the neighbourhood of their own homes, they would know ex-
  236
  actly what authority, if any, they could refer to. The third object of the Commission was to remove the extraordinary anomaly that the application of these sanitary laws was entirely optional, and that it depended upon every locality whether it chose to adopt the powers and incur the responsibility which the law ought to throw upon all alike. The Commissioners had, however, no need to propose the constitution of new authorities, but simply to indicate some existing authority which ought to carry out the law, and in no instance had they proposed anything new. The boroughs of the kingdom had their own Town Councils or Commissioners. In other towns local boards were proposed always to be elected, and in rural districts it was found by the Sanitary Commission that Boards of Guardians were the most fit body to carry out the sanitary laws. The large towns of the kingdom — such as Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and others—were not thus interfered with by the Bill. They had their own local Acts as well as authorities, which were mostly sufficient, and the Bill only gave them facilities to merge their own legislation, if they pleased, in the general law of the kingdom, or to adopt into their local Acts those provisions of the general Act which might appear to be suitable. He had no doubt that very general use would be made of any offered facilities to effect such objects through provisional orders. The fourth point which demanded the attention of the Sanitary Commission was the existing confusion caused by the areas of local government overlapping each other. The Petty Sessional divisions, and the Poor Law Unions, for instance, seldom coincided in area, and very frequently ran into two or more counties, while the highway districts, only optionally formed at all, were often inconveniently exceptional in their boundaries. The want of coincidence of areas of local jurisdiction of various kinds occasioned needless official expense and conflict.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYcontinued. The fifth object of the Bill was the simplification of the central authority required to preside in London over

  237
  all local authorities throughout the kingdom, for their assistance, stimulus, and uniformity of action, and he had been astonished at the opposition made to this provision as proposed in the recent Bill of the President of the Poor Law Board. Was it thought that any central authority was necessary, or was it thought that the local authorities of the country could be carried on more effectually than now without a central authority? The object of a central authority was to set local government in motion. There were hundreds of instances besides those of total local inaction in which the local authorities wanted highly skilled and experienced engineers to assist them in local works, and there were cases in which a central referee was absolutely necessary for appeals. But was it thought that the present central authority was the best that could be devised? It was scattered through four several Departments of Government. Some of the subjects of local government were referred to the Home Office, some to the Privy Council, some to the Board of Trade, others to the Poor Law Board. The proposition for the union of such multiplied central authorities was, least of all, open to the opposition of those who disliked centralization. The Bill contained nothing that could increase the expenditure of the country; but, on the contrary, its principle was to strengthen local government by simplification. There was a general feeling against any change of local authority which would have a tendency to increase the rates, and the connection of the rating question with that of the simple organization of local government had caused mistaken opposition to the President's Bill; but in every proposition contained in the present Bill there was fiscal economy. The Bill created no new authority and no new officers. It contemplated, on the contrary, a reduction of offices and corresponding economy. Nothing came out more clearly in evidence than that waste was occasioned by want of centralization and by the unnecessary variety of officers. The result of the present inanition of sanitary legislation was a great amount of preventible sickness, debility, and mortality. Thousands of persons died every year in this country from preventible causes, and the power of a still larger number to work and gain their livelihood was diminished by sani-
  238
  tary neglect. A large proportion of the pauperism and poor rates of this country would be obviated by such a measure as was now under consideration. There was no reason why the great mass of the inhabitants of our towns should breathe tainted air and drink foul water, and the Bill was designed to carry out the existing law, now inoperative, so as to reduce the preventible causes of sickness and death. With respect to the Bill which he asked leave to introduce, the first part would repeal and re-enact, in amended and consolidated form, all the existing sanitary Acts as far as they applied to England and Wales, such clearance of the Statute Book was a necessary preliminary to the great object of a single and complete sanitary code; but though that Bill contained 450 clauses it would be found that nine-tenths of them were mere re-enactments of the existing law. It would bring all the country within sanitary districts, and enact that there should not be any district without a recognized responsible sanitary authority, while to the sanitary authorities would be given full powers for all that they were, and, in fact, are now, called upon to do. The whole kingdom would be under some now existing urban or rural authority, made to act for those purposes, while facilities would be given for combining such authorities for joint purposes. He also proposed to simplify the areas of rural jurisdiction by doing throughout the country what Lord Eversley and other magistrates had already done in one county—namely, Hampshire. Of the 600 Poor Law Unions in this country more than one-half overlapped the boundaries of counties. Petty Sessional divisions seemed carefully to have been disregarded in forming unions. It was most desirable, as far as possible, and by using every opportunity, to obtain a rectification. The third part of the Bill would propose the concentration of the various central authorities in one department, and this part of the Bill would still not be rendered unnecessary by the Bill for this purpose of the President of the Poor Law Board—which he hoped would pass this Session—because when they came to reduce into one Act all the law on the subject, they would find it absolutely necessary to repeal every existing Act, and in re-enacting to specify distinctly under each head the provisions

  239
  applicable to it. In the next part of the Bill all the powers would be enumerated and described, which were to be given to every local authority with respect to water supply, the prevention of disease, all kinds of local improvements, and many other matters which were now dealt with separately owing to the confused state of the law. The last part of the Bill referred to audit, legal proceedings, appeals, and borrowing powers, and in this respect the existing law would be very materially improved by past experience. Of course, he could not expect to carry the Bill beyond its first stage in the present Session; but if introduced it might be circulated throughout the country and discussed during the Recess, and he felt confident that when it was seen to be possible to reduce all the sanitary laws into one not very bulky Bill, the Government would no longer be able to delay satisfying a demand which he thought would be universal that something equivalent to his Bill should be passed during the next Session. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to Public Health and Local Government, ordered to be brought in by Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY, Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY, Mr. STEPHEN CAVE, Mr. WHITBREAD, Lord ROBERT MONTAGU, Mr. RICHARDS, and Mr. M'CLEAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 269.]

LEGAL EDUCATION.—RESOLUTION.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question proposed [11th July],
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a General School of Law should be established in the Metropolis, in the government of which the different branches of the legal profession in England may be suitably represented; and that, after the establishment thereof, no person should be admitted to practise in any branch of the legal profession, either at or below the Bar, or as an attorney or solicitor in England, without a certificate of proficiency in the study of Law, granted after proper examinations by such General School of Law."—[Sir Roundell Palmer.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. JESSEL, in opposing the Motion, remarked that after the most eminent lawyer in the House, and the acknowledged head of the English Bar had supported it, he could not expect to ob-
  240
  tain for his opposition much attention. He, however, felt it to be a public duty to state to the House the strong objections which he entertained. In the first place, he objected to the Motion as being vague and indefinite in its terms, which did not convey the exact form and substance of the institution which it was proposed to found. It stated that it "was desirable that a general school of law should be established in the Metropolis;" but the word "general" conveyed no idea to his mind. He supposed that "a school of law" meant an institution in which law was taught, and taught by lectures. The Resolution went on—"in the government of which the different branches of the legal profession in England may be suitably represented." He was at a loss to understand what "suitably represented" meant; but he supposed that it meant that each branch of the profession should elect members of the Governing Body. If this were so, then it was intended that attorneys and solicitors would have a considerable share in the government of this school of law. It was then proposed that—
  "No person should be admitted to practise in any branch of the legal profession without a certificate of proficiency granted after proper examination by such general school of law."
  He took this to mean that the same body that taught should also examine with a view to the granting of certificates, and that it was a very serious question whether this would be the best course to adopt. It appeared to him to be a strong course to pledge that House by a simple Resolution to future legislation, and afterwards to ask the Crown to grant a charter on the faith of future legislation. The hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) had devoted a considerable portion of his speech to what he called the main principle to be embodied in his Motion—namely, that articled clerks and students for the Bar should be educated together. But it might happen that the Governing Board to be established might not be equally convinced of the necessity of having these two classes educated together. In order to show the necessity for so great an innovation as the establishment of a great school of law to supersede existing teachers and modes of teaching, it was requisite, as lawyers said, "to make out a case," and the way

  241
  in which that had been done by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond did not commend itself to his mind. Certainly, the terms of disparagement in which our existing system was spoken of by his hon. Friend were such as struck him with surprise and mortification. It appeared to him that the kind of sweeping condemnation in which the hon. and learned Member for Richmond had indulged was expressed in far stronger language than the circumstances warranted. It was a condemnation far wider and more sweeping than was consistent with accuracy. In the last century, in Blackstone's day, it was the fashion to talk of English law as the perfection of reason. Exaggeration in one direction had brought its natural result, exaggeration in another. He did not concur in great eulogium of English law in the last century, nor in the depreciation of it in this century. He believed that English law was the law best adapted for the English people. He did not believe it was the best possible system of law, or deny that it was capable of great improvement; but he believed there was no system of law in the world so well adapted to the wants and wishes of the English people as the present system. With all its imperfections and shortcomings, there was no jurisprudence in the world so dear to the people among whom it existed. It must have extraordinary merits, because it was not only esteemed, but loved and reverenced by the English people. His view of English law was, that it was unscientific because it was pliable, and had grown up among the English people in accordance with their desire, and their wants and requirements. It was not a system that had been manufactured by doctrinairies and jurists. It had been made for the people and by the people, and was continually expanding with the progress of their civilization. He did not agree with his hon. and learned Friend that the defects in our legislation resulted from the law not being studied. We all knew pretty well from what causes those defects sprung. One of the many causes was that we were a free people, and that our legislation was the work of a popular Assembly, and that we sacrificed to some extent accuracy and science to that enjoyment of freedom and liberty which enabled that popular Assembly to enact laws for the
  242
  country. He did not think that any system of lectures, that any establishment of professors, would be a cure for the occasional mistakes in our legislation. He had been not a short time at the Bar, and he had often heard Judges say the statutes were very difficult to comprehend; that the Legislature's intentions were not very well expressed; and he had often thought that if Judges, instead of giving vent to those expressions of discontent, had honestly and fairly applied their minds to ascertain what really the meaning of a statute was, they might have succeeded without much difficulty in finding out the meaning and intentions of the Legislature, and might have spared themselves unpleasant comments in regard to the Legislature. It appeared to him that all that was wanted to secure an effectual study of the law was a sensible and effectual system of examination. That examination must be conducted by an independent body of examiners; it must be searching and thorough. He did not believe that the 19th century was a century of teaching by lectures. He believed that learning would be much better acquired through books. Where printing was common the demand for books was sure to meet with a ready answer in the shape of supply. If the examination was able and thorough, we should find men who would discover the best means of acquiring the knowledge necessary to pass the examination. If they were of opinion that the knowledge could be best attained through lectures, then no doubt lecturers would be found in London and its neighbourhood, and in every great town in this kingdom. Once establish examination, once lay down that no man could be admitted to practise the profession of the law unless he had a competent knowledge of the law, and he was quite satisfied that education would be found, whether it was in a garret by the side of a rushlight, or in a magnificent lecture-hall illuminated by a thousand gas lamps. As regarded either knowledge of the law or practice of the law, he did not think the Bar of the 19th century had degenerated, and more he did not claim. The Bar was not employed by the outside public, but by solicitors, why professed to have a competent knowledge of the profession, and who employed advocates who would win their cause. But the matter did not stop

  243
  there. Barristers every day of their lives had to undergo a competitive examination, not only in the presence of their clients—the solicitors—but in the presence of the Judges and of jealous and watchful colleagues at the Bar, who very soon discovered whether they possessed the necessary qualifications of knowledge and ability. He thought the practice of admitting to the Bar men who knew no law, and who only wanted to be dubbed barristers for the purpose of qualifying themselves for certain appointments, should be stopped. He thought a man who had no learning ought not to be a member of a learned profession. If he (Mr. Jessel) was told that the scheme of teaching and examining proposed by his hon. and learned Friend was to be self-supporting, that implied—"You shall attend my lectures and pay my fees, or I won't pass you." In other words, the examination would be so framed that nobody could pass except the man who attended lectures. If they established a single teaching body, and that body, through its examiners, was to be the only avenue to a learned profession, they established the worst of all monopolies—the monopoly of teaching. He looked upon a gigantic monopoly as a monstrous evil, and if there were no other objection to the scheme propounded, this alone should be sufficient to cause its rejection or modification. He objected to the government of the superior by the inferior branch of the profession. There were certainly some very excellent exceptions; but, as a rule, the present education of attorneys and solicitors did not entitle them to the position of becoming a portion of the government of colleges or Universities of law. The test of the school was its success, and he objected to the establishment of a school of law by anticipation that should have a monopoly of legal teaching. There would be some ground for chartering a successful school, and giving it to some extent exceptional privileges; but to give them by anticipation was without precedent or example. Another most important question was, whence were the funds for the support of the proposed University to be derived? When it was said that the State ought to establish a legal University, it might be supposed that it was intended that the State should furnish
  244
  the funds necessary for its support; but he was afraid that when the matter came to be laid before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would, in trenchant and emphatic language, say—"If these gentlemen want a school of law for their own purposes, let them pay for it out of their own pockets." A suggestion had been made, however, that that institution might be made self-supporting. But how was that to be done except by levying a heavy fine, irrespective of the goodness or the badness of the teaching it provided, upon those who sought to enter the legal profession, and by giving it a complete monopoly of legal teaching to the exclusion of the really good legal education which was offered by the Inns of Court to their students at a trifling cost? The association to which the hon. and learned Member for Richmond belonged was certainly not of the opinion that such an institution could be self-supporting, and in their prospectus they pointed to large funds supposed to be under the control of the Inns of Court, and the Incorporated Law Society, as being applicable for its support. The great bulk of barristers and attorneys opposed the scheme. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Richmond had presented a Petition in favour of it signed by 365 barristers; but, so far as he knew, there was not a large number of practising or working barristers amongst them, and some of them were lecturers, who might, perhaps, hope to be selected to fill the chairs and professorships proposed to be created; but 365 was a very small proportion of the Bar of the country—not more than one-sixth of the whole. They were told that 18 Queen's Council had signed the Petition. He was ignorant of their names, and he could not say anything about them; but, so far as he was aware, there was no man of eminence at the Bar who approved of the scheme except the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Richmond. There had been a great deal of canvassing for signatures, and he had a right fairly to assume that the great majority of the profession were opposed to the scheme. At a meeting of the Benchers of Lincoln's Inn, held for the purpose of inviting co-operation, a resolution was agreed to condemning the proposed change. Of the 26 Benchers present, 18

  245
  voted with the majority, and 8, including the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Richmond, with the minority. With regard to attorneys, he observed there were no Petitions from individual members of that branch of the profession. The Petition from the Incorporated Law Society had led him to make inquiry as to the reason why it was so anxious for a change. He found that the more eminent and experienced members of that society, who formed the council, were opposed to the change, and that a large majority of the younger members had called a general meeting and outvoted the council. Thus the Petition was got up and presented in the name of the Incorporated Law Society—in other words, this was a case in which the tail had outvoted the head. The four or five provincial societies which had petitioned in favour of this scheme were so obscure that he could not tell what proportion of the profession they represented; but he could not help thinking that they might have got up their Petitions according to the plan adopted by the Incorporated Law Society. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that it had met with the support of some of the Judges; but on examination it turned out that the only Judge who had expressed an unqualified approval of the plan was a puisne Judge in India. Again, the hon. and learned Gentleman had asserted that the Lord Chancellor and 11 of the Judges of this country had given a "general" approval to the proposition; but had they given to it a "special" approval? As regarded the Lord Chancellor and several of the Judges—those who served on the Commission of 1854 and 1855—they did not approve of this scheme, unless their opinion had since undergone a great change, for they recommended a totally different plan, and one which had commended itself to the Inns of Court, and to the majority of that branch of the profession. This was a subject which had been investigated over and over again. A Committee of that House was appointed to consider it in 1846, consisting of the late Lord Truro, then Sir Thomas Wilde, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Rutherford, and other eminent lawyers. After a long and elaborate inquiry that Committee reported in favour of the scheme now adopted by the Inns of Court. Their Report stated that the in-
  246
  stitutions or colleges of law that were desired were to be sought for rather by the application, if possible, of old establishments than by the creation of new, on account of the guarantee which the former gave of order, efficiency, and permanency; and that such institutions were to a great degree to be met with in the existing Inns of Court, which might together form a species of law University. The Committee also recommended compulsory examination, that the appointment of the professors should be made by the Inns separately, and that the final examinations should be left to a body of examiners appointed by the Inns of Court in common. The meaning of that suggestion was, that the Council of the four Inns should select the examiners, while the Inns separately should appoint the teachers; so that as far as possible the selection of the examiners should be separated from the selection of the teachers; and then that all matters of a common nature might be discussed and executed by a joint body elected from the Benchers of the four Inns. In substance that had been all carried out excepting that which he admitted to be a very vital point—the establishment of a compulsory examination. Again, a Royal Commission, consisting of the present Lord Chancellor at its head, Sir John Coleridge, Sir Joseph Napier, Sir Alexander Cockburn, Lord Westbury, and others, was appointed in 1854—
  "To inquire into the arrangements in the Inns of Court and of Chancery for promoting the study of the Law and Jurisprudence, the revenues properly applicable, and the means most likely to secure a systematic and sound education for students of Law, and provide satisfactory tests of fitness for admission to the Bar."
  The Commissioners unanimously reported in favour of a preliminary examination for admission to the Inns of Court of persons who had not taken a University degree. That had been done, and the very form of examination which they recommended had been provided. They also recommended that there should be an examination, the passing through which should be requisite before a student was called to the Bar. That had not yet been done. Lectures had been established by the Inns of Court on the very subjects which had been pointed out by that Commission. The scheme recommended by the Commission was entirely different from that

  247
  now proposed by his hon. and learned Friend, and was almost identical with that proposed by the Inns of Court. With regard to the latter scheme, he admitted that the Inns of Court had been rather late in their conversion to the principle of examination. But still, not very late, because the notion of examination was a modern—19th century—one. Examinations for the Army and the Civil Service were things of yesterday; examinations for the medical profession were not very much older; and, for the reason he had already given, there was not such a pressing need of examinations in the legal profession as in the other professions he had named. In 1863 Lincoln's Inn proposed—and at a later period he believed the other Inns were willing to adopt—a resolution declaring that in the opinion of that Bench the creation of a legal University, to which the various Inns of Court might be affiliated, and through which degrees should be conferred, was desirable; and in passing that resolution he thought that Lincon's Inn affirmed the principle of examination. At a later date the Inner Temple passed a resolution making examination compulsory. To that Lincoln's Inn did not at that time agree, and it fell through in consequence. But all the four Inns were agreed in the necessity and propriety of an examination, and why should they not carry it out? It was represented that they were so frightened at the competition of the articled clerks of attorneys and solicitors that they did not want the system of education for students at the Bar, and that for articled clerks to be under the same management. But how stood the facts? Articled clerks generally served from 16 to 21, giving an average age of 18½ years; whereas law students generally entered at 20 or 21, and went out at from 23 to 24, giving an average age of about 21½ years. Again, the majority of the Chancery Bar—and the same, he believed, was approximately true of the Common Law Bar—had enjoyed the enormous advantage of a University education; whereas but a very small percentage of attorneys and solicitors had enjoyed the same advantage. The result was that in the former case they had a trained man, who had gone through a course of mental training and culture, and who was three years older than the average
  248
  articled clerk; and were they to force him to attend the same lectures as the man who, whatever might be his natural abilities, possessed an inferior education? Again, the articled clerks were numerically something like ten to one as compared with the students at the Bar; and, therefore, if they both attended the same lectures, they would have their classes composed of a very large number of young untrained persons, and a very small number of older and trained persons. Again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his evidence before the Commission stated, as the result of his experience of teaching in the Universities, that compulsory attendance at lectures was a great disadvantage to clever men; that it might be some advantage to inferior men, but that a clever man could employ his time much more profitably in chambers; and that lecturers must pitch the tone of their instruction not to suit a few of the cleverer students, but the great majority of their audience. What would happen? If they put such a great majority of articled clerks to study in the same class with the older and better trained students of law, they would bring about what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had so well described, and make the lectures wholly useless. That certainly was the feeling under which this resolution had been come to. What was the next point? That the Committee were of opinion, and recommended that there should be a compulsory examination of the students before they were called to the Bar or allowed to practice, and that the four Inns of Court should establish such examination. That was substantially the scheme assented to by the four Inns of Court. They had come to those resolutions, and undoubtedly they would be acted upon. Why should their action be superseded by an unknown and untried body? But it was said that Inns of Court, whatever might be thought of them by Committees of the House and by Royal Commissions, had fallen into a state of decay and decrepitude, and were utterly unable to conduct these examinations or to name examiners, for that was all they would have to do. And then there followed what he must call general abuse of the Inns of Court. They were called "mere ropes of sand"—rather an odd term to apply to societies which had held together for upwards of three centuries,

  249
  and had grown in numbers, wealth, and power. "They were held together," it was said, "by dinners and occasional councils;" but might not that be said of other and more influential bodies? Perhaps even Cabinets might be said to be held together by dinners, not frequent, and councils more than occasional. The Inns of Court were held together by the esprit de corps which so frequently kept together the members of professions, and even of trades in association—by professional practice, and by the intimate knowledge and the respect, esteem, and friendship which the members had for one another. Then, they were told, they were badly governed, and that the government fell into the hands of the less distinguished members. It might be quite true that such members attended to the routine business of the Inns; but when they came to the question of legal education the members of the Bench took an active part in everything which concerned it. Lord Westbury, for very many years when at the head of the profession, even after he was Attorney General, was a prominent and active member of the Legal Education Committee. Then, it was said, they did not represent the Bar. They were self-elected nominally, but not really so. In Lincoln's Inn they consisted entirely of Judges and Queen's Counsel, and in the other Inns almost entirely so. In substance, they owed their appointment to the favour of the Crown which made them Benchers because it made them Queen's Counsel or Judges. He said, without fear of contradiction, that in the best sense of the term they did represent the Bar as being the most eminent members of it. Then it was said their efforts were purely professional. He admitted they had professional ends in view; but it was a mistake to suppose that they excluded or wished to exclude country gentlemen who desired to learn the law. Then, it was said, there was a precedent for this Motion in the case of the University of London. But that precedent was rather the other way. Mr. Tooke, in 1835, carried an Address to the Crown to incorporate not the present University, but a totally different body—what was now called University College. It had been established for many years, since 1827, and had been remarkably successful. It had 400 students, and a body of professors of the highest
  250
  class. It had given proof of its excellence, and Mr. Tooke recommended the House to enable Her Majesty to grant a charter with power to confer degrees. The Address was carried, but a new arrangement was made embracing King's College and other bodies entitled to participate in the benefits of a University. The new University was moderately successful; but after a time some one started the idea that it did not matter where men obtained their knowledge so long as they passed a test examination satisfactorily. The charter was then surrendered, a new one was granted, and the University had since been a most successful examining Board. Applying that example to the present case, he would say, if the Inns of Court did not within a reasonable time establish an independent and efficient Board of Examiners; if they did not fairly fulfil their trust in this respect, he should be ready to vote an Address to the Crown to establish a Board of Examiners; but he preferred leaving the matter to the profession, who had its interest at heart. In conclusion, he protested energetically against the adoption of the Motion in the terms in which it was couched; he protested, in the name of freedom of competition, freedom of teaching, freedom of learning, and of the free access of all classes to these professions, which was the life and soul of them, and which entitled them to the esteem of their fellow-countrymen; and he thanked the House for the patience with which he had been listened to.
  MR. G. B. GREGORY, while appreciating the motives of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), entertained doubts as to the expediency of his proposals, so far as they affected his own branch of the profession, and, for one, he dissented from the Petition of the Council of the Law Institution. The scheme of the hon. and learned Gentleman was supported by young and ambitious spirits, who desired an absolute fusion of the two branches of the profession; but he wished on public grounds to keep them distinct. The attorney, from identification of himself with his client, was less likely than the barrister to see the weak points of a case, and, while the attorney must be competent to conduct all kinds of business, the barrister, with great advantage to all concerned, could make equity, or

  251
  common law, or bankruptcy, or any other branch of law his speciality. The system of examinations established by the institution to which he belonged worked well on the whole, and the only question with him was whether it had not been carried too far. They were three in number—namely, the first preliminary examination in the groundwork of general education; the second examination on legal matters; and the final examination—and a man must pass the third before he could be admitted to practise. It was originally a test examination; but the introduction of prizes and scholarships had made it, to some extent, competitive, which caused young men to cram too much, instead of attending to the practical part of the business. On this account he had on one occasion, as examiner, to lower the standard rather than exclude the candidates. If the examination were made more of a test and less of a competitive examination, it would answer its purpose very well. He feared the fusion of the two branches of the profession would result in turning those who might be good attorneys into indifferent barristers. In reference to the present arrangement, by which a solicitor who desired to become a barrister was compelled for three years to abstain from practice as an attorney, he quite thought with the hon. and learned Member for. Dover (Mr. Jessel) that that rule might well be modified.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Jessel) had, in his able speech, sufficiently indicated the view taken by the Inns of Court of the proposal which was under the consideration of the House. He (Sir Francis Goldsmid) therefore desired, to address himself to the subject not as a Bencher of Lincoln's Inn, but as having long taken a share in the management of one of the great teaching bodies of the Metropolis—University College, London. If he rightly understood the scheme now before the House, the new law school was to be the only authority having the right to admit to the Bar, and was at the same time to give instruction in law. To any such proposal he decidedly objected, on the ground that it would create a new monopoly, since every other teaching body would be put at a disadvantage as compared with this child of the State, with which it would be almost
  252
  impossible to compete. The only thing really necessary was compulsory examination as a condition of being called to the Bar, and it was the want of this that had caused the failure of the schools of law already in existence. University College had instituted classes, and had secured the services of eminent teachers—sometimes of able young barristers, sometimes of men of higher standing in the profession; and a similar course had, he believed, been taken by King's College, London, and by the Inns of Court. But all these classes had had very little success in consequence of a legal examination not being a necessary preliminary to being called to the Bar. In these days of examination and competition young men would not spend their time in receiving instruction unless it were indispensable for entering the profession which they intended to pursue. It appeared to him that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) was open to the same objection as had originally attached to the Institution recently founded at Cooper's Hill, for training Civil Engineers for the East India service. Early in the Session, he (Sir Francis Goldsmid) had brought that subject under the notice of the House; and in accordance with the Resolution then passed, the Government had since modified their scheme, and had not only determined to allow other persons besides those trained at Cooper's Hill to enter the service, but had also provided that the examinations of young engineers, whether educated or not educated at that establishment, should be conducted by independent examiners. On the same principle, he contended, that if the new law school was to have an exclusive right to call to the Bar, it ought not to teach at all, but to leave the task of teaching to the other bodies which were ready to supply all necessary instruction. He trusted that the House would not sanction the present scheme, not for the sake of preserving any old monopolies, but because he was strongly opposed to creating a new one.
  Debate further adjourned till Tuesday next.
  The Clerk at the Table informed the House, That Mr. Speaker, having retired, was unable to return to the Chair during the sitting of the House.
  Whereupon, Mr. Dodson, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

SUNDAY OBSERVANCE PROSECUTIONS BILL— [BILL 235.]
(Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Winterbotham.)
SUNDAY OBSERVANCE PROSECUTIONS BILL— [BILL 235.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Question again proposed, "That the Clause
  (If twenty householders resident in the neighbourhood shall sign a memorial complaining of the commission of any such offence, then, and in such case, the said officer shall and he is hereby required on receipt of the said memorial to proceed against the party or parties so complained of: Provided always, That nothing in this Act contained shall limit or affect the right under the said Act of King Charles the Second of any justice or justices of the peace of any city, borough, or town corporate where the said offences shall be committed to convict the offenders of the same upon his or their view,)—(Mr. Thomas Chambers,)
  —be read a second time.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMopposed the clause on the ground that it would practically render the Bill inoperative. Mr. Bee Wright, who had been frequently alluded to, did not stand alone in this matter, and all that was required under his hon. and learned Friend's proposal was to get 19 more like-minded men, householders in the neighbourhood, who would co-operate with him.
  MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he did not require 20 fanatics to act in concert. The Act of Charles II. was a law not for persecuting people, but for protecting them. In fact, it was that statute which prevented workshops from being kept open and agricultural operations from being carried on during the Sunday. He would remind the Committee that only once in 200 years had a person like Mr. Bee Wright taken the proceedings which were so justly complained of. Under the clause, 20 residents in the neighbourhood must be got together in order to get the law in motion, and he thought this was a sufficient safeguard against abuses.
  MR. D. DALRYMPLEsaid, that nothing was easier than to get signatures for any purpose if persons only took the trouble to go round and ask for them. If such a clause as this were adopted, it
  254
  would be the duty of all those who wished to see Sunday observed, but observed in a proper spirit, to vote against the third reading of the Bill.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that hitherto Sunday had been properly observed in the main, because an impression existed in the public mind that the law was opposed to Sunday trading. Latterly, however, an individual had started up who, by ill-advised prosecutions, had done his best to render the law odious. In one case a poor woman had been convicted no less than 17 times for—[An hon. MEMBER: Violating the law]—violating the law, no doubt, but in much the same way that hon Members did when they bought cigars at their club, and paid the porter at the door. As soon as it was proposed, however, to put the law in force against persons in a higher position in life the magistrates suddenly discovered that they were not called upon to act. The effect of forcing the subject upon public attention must, if they were not careful, be to sweep away the law of Charles II., the existence of which, in its general results, had proved beneficial. He regretted that the Home Secretary had not taken the matter into his own hands. If the Amendment here proposed were agreed to, associations everywhere might take up the proceedings commenced by Mr. Bee Wright, or might force the police to do so, and the result would be that there would be far more prosecutions than ever.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, that the Amendment, if carried, would nullify the intentions of the Government measure, and would give renewed vitality to the Act, which at present was rendered powerless by the action of the magistrates. It was a mistake to suppose, however, that the Rev. Bee Wright was the originator of those prosecutions. Before his time a very respectable association existed, against the members of which he had nothing to say, except that they were of those who seemed to think that they could never serve God unless they were prosecuting man.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department himself was not present, as the same arguments which had proved efficacious elsewhere might have have convinced him in the House. His representative,

  255
  the Under Secretary, of course had his brief, and could not depart from it. The police, with whom the Government proposed to leave the discretion, had the power in their hands at the present moment, but did not exercise it. What reason was there to suppose that they would do any better in future than in the past? He denied that this was a question of rich against poor; it was one in which the deepest interests of the poor themselves were concerned. The form of Sunday trading which he most complained of was that to be seen in many poor and crowded parts of London, where perfect fairs were got up and held for the sale of altogether unnecessary and even ridiculous articles. No inspectors of weights and measures were present, because no duty was required of them on Sunday, and the poor, of course, were utterly victimized. An instance of the unsatisfactory working of the present system might be seen in the New Cut; one-half of which lay in the borough of Southwark, while the other belonged to the borough of Lambeth. In the Southwark portion, under the provisions of a local Act, the Sunday nuisance had been entirely swept away; but in the Lambeth district, where there was no local Act, the parish authorities shut their eyes to the nuisance, and the police would not interfere. The Government proposed to leave the matter in their hands. Now, it was quite childish to suppose that the police would do what they had not hitherto done. The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. T. Chambers) proposed that 20 persons should be authorized to call upon the police to put the law in motion, and considering that a reasonable proposition, he should give it his support.
  MR. LOCKEadmitted the possibility of abuses arising from the practice of Sunday trading, but contended that those abuses were slight in comparison with the hardships inflicted upon the very poor, who were not to be permitted to purchase articles of which they stood in need on the only day on which it was possible for them to do so. If the Bill passed, the police would be responsible to their superiors for the mode in which they carried it out, and could not therefore become as disagreeable to the poor as Mr. Bee Wright had been, that person being only answerable to his employers, a body of gentlemen whose
  256
  satisfaction with their servant would be in proportion to the amount of annoyance and inconvenience he inflicted upon the poor.
  SIR HENRY HOAREsaid, that if the permissive principle contained in the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. T. Chambers) was adopted by the House, he should move that not less than two-thirds of the inhabitants of any particular place should have the power to put the law in motion. As Member for Chelsea he had had ample opportunities of observing the hardship inflicted upon the very poor by the fact of their not being allowed to make purchases of necessary articles on Sundays. No modification of the principle of the Home Secretary's Bill would be satisfactory.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERexpressed a hoped that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not consent to a violation of the law which would lead to a desecration of the Sabbath.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMexplained that the object of this legislation was not to repeal the Act of Charles II., or to recognize the right of every individual to do what he pleased as to the day and manner of trading. The whole scope of the Bill was simply to place the enforcement of the Act in the hands or under the control of public authorities, so as to prevent public scandal or a public violation of the Sunday. If the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. T. Chambers) was rejected, he should be prepared to move the insertion of a clause giving the power of enforcing the law to justices of the peace, whether stipendiary or otherwise.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought that if the Under Secretary of State introduced words to carry out this intention, and giving power of enforcing the Act to any justice having jurisdiction within the Metropolis, the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone might be content with such a provision.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not accept such a proposal, for the public needed protection.
  MR. T. HUGHESapproved of the clause proposed by the Government, and hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Marylebone would not press his Motion to a division, because

  257
  that would convey a wrong impression to the public outside.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he thought it would be desirable not to confine the power of putting the law in motion to the police authorities, but to include with the magistracy the churchwardens or overseers, in order to avoid the difficulties pointed out by the hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. Talbot). In the borough of Southwark the parochial authorities had taken effective proceedings with regard to the New Cut.
  MR. NEWDEGATEconsidered that it would be objectionable to rely entirely upon the police in reference to the Act. He objected to this, that there seemed to be something in modern Liberalism which objected to the action of the individual citizen, and would transfer everything to the administration of the police. This seemed to him to be reverting to despotism. He approved the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hinde Palmer) that the churchwardens should be empowed to enforce the law. He would support the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. T. Chambers) if he went to a division.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 60: Majority 34.
  New Clause—
  (Any such prosecution or other proceeding may nevertheless be instituted, by or with the consent in writing of any justice of the peace or stipendiary magistrate having jurisdiction in the place where such offence is committed.
  No such prosecution shall be heard before the justice of the pence or stipendiary magistrate by whom or with whose consent the same has been instituted.
  Nothing herein contained shall affect the provision of the said Act by which any justice of the peace having jurisdiction in the place where an offence is committed is authorised upon his own view to convict the offender,) — (Mr. Winter-botham,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he could not understand why a magistrate should be permitted to convict an offender on his "own view," and yet should not be allowed to do so on information laid before him by somebody else. The fault was, however, that this clause which Government wished to introduce in order to please both sides, was absolutely inconsistent. He strongly objected to a magistrate being permitted
  258
  to convict upon his "view." That meant if a magistrate went to some place and saw people selling periwinkles he might convict them, and if they did not pay he might send them to the stocks, for there were the words of the Act itself. It was impossible for the Committee to understand the effect of what it was proposed to do unless they carefully considered the phraseology of this Act of Charles II., which dealt with many other things besides buying and selling—such as drawing a stage coach, and matters of that kind. The sole object of the present Bill was to place the power of giving effect to the "spirit" of the Act, not to the "letter" of the Act in the hands of some responsible authority, and he regretted very much that the Home Secretary had not confined himself to the original Bill which met all difficulties. He trusted, therefore, that the Under Secretary of State who had charge of the measure would look into the matter before the Report, and strike out these objectionable words.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMpromised that he would carefully re-consider the question with the view of amendment on the Report, if such should be found necessary.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 64; Noes 24: Majority 40.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEmoved to leave out, in line 2, the words "justice of the peace or," with the view of leaving the jurisdiction in the matter to the stipendiary magistrate alone. It was not a power that should be placed in the hands of an ordinary justice of the peace, and indeed an hon. Member of the House and a magistrate was himself one of Mr. Bee Wright's committee.
  Amendment proposed to the Clause, to leave out, in line 2, the words "justice of the peace or."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, it was impossible to accept the Amendment. The clause only gave power to the ordinary justices to give their assent to the prosecution; the case must be heard by the stipendiary magistrate.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that as stipendiary magistrates were not general over the country, the Act would be

  259
  practically inoperative if the clause was left as it stood.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that London was really under the jurisdiction of stipendiary magistrates, who were carefully trained lawyers, responsible in their functions for the peace and good order of the Metropolis, and to them the matter ought to be left. There were, however, in Middlesex and Surrey a great number of other magistrates who had no legal training, and any one of whom would thus be enabled to compel the stipendiary magistrates to proceed with prosecutions in spite of their better judgment; and it must be remembered that the Act was most stringent and positive in its terms, so that they must either convict and fine—or refuse to recognize the Act of Parliament at all, which was in every way objectionable—and simply brought the law into contempt, as was the case at this moment. He thought it perfectly scandalous that the magistrates had been for months fining poor people under this Act; but the moment the rich were touched, came to the determination that they need not in future take any notice of the law on the Statute Book.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 68; Noes 17: Majority 51.
  Amendment proposed to the Clause,
  To insert after the word "committed," in line 4, the words "Provided that nothing in this Clause shall extend to the district within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works."—(Mr. Locke.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment amended by leaving out the words "Board of Works," and inserting the words "Police District."
  Question put, "That the words
  'Provided that nothing in this Clause shall extend to the district within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police District,'
  be inserted after the word 'committed,' in line 4."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 12; Noes 72: Majority 60.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "instituted," in line 7, to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Collins.)
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 55; Noes 29: Majority 26.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

  REAL ESTATES (TITLE AND CONVEYANCE) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. GEORGE GREGORY, Bill to amend and extend the Act 25 and 26 Vic. c. 53, for facilitating the proof of title and the conveyance of Real Estates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GEORGE GREGORT and Mr. PEMBERTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 270.]

  CIVIL BILL COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND, Bill to amend the procedure of the Civil Bill Courts in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND and The Marquess of HARTINGTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 267.]

  COUNTY BOUNDARIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The Marquess of HARTINGTON, Bill to make provision for the separation from Counties in Ireland of detached and isolated portions of land separated from the same by the sea, and for the annexation of such lands to Counties more conveniently situated, ordered to be brought in by The Marquess of HARTINGTON and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 268.]
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.