Commons Sitting of 5 June 1872

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Trade Partnerships [No. 228].
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Defamation of Private Character* [99]; Queen's Bench (Ireland) Procedure* [126].
Committee—Registration of Borough Voters [15], put off.
Report—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* [158–187].
Withdrawn—Middlesex Registration of Deeds* [52].

REGISTRATION OF BOROUGH VOTERS BILL— [BILL 15.]
(Mr. Vernon Harcourt, Mr. Whitbread, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Collins, Mr. Henry Robert Brand, Mr. Rathbone.)
REGISTRATION OF BOROUGH VOTERS BILL— [BILL 15.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, 'That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Vernon Harcourt.)
  MR. MATTHEWS, in rising to move "That this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," said, that the Bill proposed
  1242
  to mix up the municipal registration with the Parliamentary registration, which ought to be kept wholly separate from each other; and that the changes which it was proposed to make in Parliamentary registration by it were such as, in his opinion, would be far from improvements upon the present system, and were not likely to be satisfactory to the country. He would remind the House that under the present system the lists were made up roughly by the overseers, who by means of their intimate acquaintance with the rateable premises in their parish, and with the persons whose names were on the rate books, were well acquainted with the qualifications of the individual voters; and that the present law provided against any mistake being made to the prejudice of the voter, for both these lists and the lists of freemen, which were prepared by the proper corporate officer—the town clerk—were then revised by revising barristers, who were so selected as to be quite free from local prejudice and partiality. Although there might have been instances when the revising barristers had failed in discharging their duties satisfactorily, in the main their work had been admirably performed; and precautions might be taken in future to prevent Judges being influenced in making these appointments rather by kind feeling and friendship than by the fitness of those whom they selected to fill them. But under the Bill the persons selected to prepare the "borough list" might be violent partizans, appointed with the view of giving an unfair advantage to one party over their political adversaries, for the Bill proposed the appointment of a new officer, to be called the registrar, who would supersede the persons on whom at present devolved the making the preparatory list. He would also have to exercise a large share of the appellate and judicial authority at present discharged by the revising barristers. He would be empowered to revise the lists in secret, and he would have to affix to them his own judgment on any point raised with reference to the qualification of the several voters, and besides that he was made objector general and notice server, and taxing master as well. The office was to be filled by the clerk to the guardians, or the clerk to the assessment committee, a man not only unqualified to discharge

  1243
  the duties, but whose time was already too much occupied to be able properly to undertake and discharge the additional duties it was proposed by the Bill to cast upon him, for the clerk to the Board of Guardians usually had the whole of his time occupied in conducting the business of his office; and even were he to find time to look after his duties as registrar under the Bill, he would be unfitted for the post, in consequence of his want of that individual knowledge of the voters which the overseers now possessed. The Bill went on to direct that the registrars should make up their lists from materials to be furnished them by the overseers, the very persons who it assumed were incompetent to make them up; and the list of lodgers was to be prepared by information collected by letter-earners and rate collectors, who were, to say the least, wholly irresponsible persons. How would it be possible, for instance, in a borough like Westminster, where there were 3,000 lodger votes on the register for the registrar to ascertain that the lodgers on the existing list were still qualified? When he came to make out the list, or to know who were qualified to be put on the new list, even with the power to be conferred on him of employing letter-carriers and rate collectors to assist him—thus relying on the worst form or hearsay evidence—an immense expense would be inflicted on the borough for a house-to-house visitation to inquire into the lodger claims. If the registrar were a political partizan the lodgers put on the list would, in all probability, be of one complexion of politics; but the practical result would be that the register for the time being would be taken, and all the names he found there would be transferred to the new list without inquiry. Then, the secret powers to be given to him were most objectionable and wholly unprecedented, and were powers that ought only to be exercised by the revising barrister in his revision Court, for here they had an irresponsible officer giving judicial decisions in private, and they were binding unless an appeal be made, and even in that event no costs were to be given against the registrar, however partial or unsatisfactory his decision might have been. On the other hand, no one could appeal to the revising barrister against the registrar's decision without being liable to pay costs
  1244
  to the registrar, and those costs could be allowed on each ground of objection, so as to swell the expenses to which the objector would be exposed. He believed the real object of the Bill was to substitute the registrar for the revising barrister, and that these discouragements in the way of appeal to the latter were deliberately framed for that purpose; but he doubted whether the House would consent to such a transfer of duties without any security for the fitness of the persons who were to perform them. Again, there was to be no appeal from the revising barrister without giving security for costs, and he might be required to state a case on facts as well as on law. As to the expense of the machinery, overseers and town clerks now supplied preliminary lists gratuitously, though in some cases they were helped by the assistant overseer who was a salaried officer; but under the Bill overseers and town clerks were to be paid for the work, while the registrar was to be paid such sum as the local authorities might think fit, and he was empowered to employ and pay letter-carriers, assistant overseers and others, whose assistance, indeed, he would probably require, especially in the preparation of the lodgers' list. All these expenses were to be charged on the local rates, a fact which he commended to the notice of hon. Members who urged the pressure of local taxation. The Bill also gave large powers to the Home Secretary and the Privy Council to vary the regulations for the conduct of the registrar and to alter the dates of the publication of lists and notices, powers to which he objected, for the provision that that the Orders in Council or the Rules of the Home Secretary should be laid before Parliament was generally a mere form. It might be said that the Bill followed the Report of a Committee of that House; but useful and valuable as that Report might be, it did not hint—at least to any ordinary mind—that judicial powers were to be conferred on the registrar, and the analogy of the Scotch system on which it relied was inadmissible, there being no local official in England of the standing and competency of the valuation assessor in Scotch burghs. The Bill, in short, was an attempt to do that which no machinery was in existence to accomplish. He had received various communications, which

  1245
  showed that the Bill was viewed with dissatisfaction in English boroughs; and admitting that every person qualified should be placed on the register with as little trouble and expense as possible, he deprecated facilities which would be likely to lead to the registration of unqualified persons. In conclusion, he could not say that the present system was perfect; but he did not think the Bill was the best calculated to introduce effective amendments, and should therefore move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  SIR CHARLES WINGFIELDsaid, he must object to judicial powers being conferred on local officials, who were frequently selected for the purpose of promoting party interests. The Select Committee had argued, indeed, that a responsible position would make them superior to party considerations, but he could not concur in that sanguine expectation. At the election of 1868 in his borough, both the late and the present clerk to the guardians were election agents, and though the Bill might prevent such officials from being agents again, how could they be divested of party bias, or how could the opposite party have confidence in their management of the registration? In fact, he was afraid the Bill would make the election of these officials keen political contests, as involving the control of the borough registration, and that it would likewise augment the cost of registration associations, for the preparation of the list by the registrar, as well as its revision by the barrister, would have to be watched over. Were, however, the registrar appointed by the Government at a sufficient salary, and his impartiality as little open to suspicion as the revising barristers, the Bill might be useful, but the expense of an independent officer being deemed too great, he preferred the retention of the present system. It was true overseers and vestry clerks might be partizans, but their powers were limited, and there being several of them they were probably divided in opinion, whereas the registrar would have larger powers and would belong to a particular party. In conclusion, he must say that he would rather see the present law on the subject maintained, than have it amended as it was now proposed, and for that reason, he would second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Matthews,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, that it was a very great satisfaction to him to find that the person by whom the opposition to the Bill was led was a representative of the sister country, although the measure itself only referred to England. He, however, believed that had the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) devoted his attention to the Bill at an earlier stage of its existence he would have avoided misapprehensions both as to the Bill and the existing law, for with regard to clerks to the guardians, they were already the registrars in Ireland, where the hon. and learned Gentleman's denunciations of them would probably excite some surprise. The Bill was based on the Report of a Committee, for which he (Mr. Y. Harcourt) moved in 1869, and which was agreed to without objection, and that Committee reported unanimously in favour of the scheme proposed by this Bill. In 1870 a Bill was drawn by an able draftsman in accordance with that Report; but it was thought desirable that that Bill should not be proceeded with until people in the country had had an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it. They were favourable to the Bill, and in 1871 it was read a second time and passed through Committee, and that part of the Bill which the hon. and learned Member had criticized was sifted by the Committee, and was settled by them after a careful discussion. The Bill too had been largely discussed in the country, and he had received numerous deputations from most of the large towns urging him to proceed with it; in fact, only yesterday, the town clerk of Manchester, together with some experienced overseers of Manchester, expressed to him a great desire that the Bill, with some Amendments to be proposed by the hon. Member for Manchester, should pass into a law. They were anxious that it should become law for this reason among others—that

  1247
  it would greatly diminish the cost of registration in that town, for the present mode of making out borough registration lists were most defective. Take the case of a borough containing 18 or 20 parishes. In every parish there was an overseer, who was nominally responsible for making out preliminary lists of persons in his parish entitled to vote; but as a general rule the overseer took no part in making out the list; he neither directed nor oversaw anything at all in the matter, and knew nothing about it. It was the rate collector that made out the preliminary list after communication with the election agents on both sides. The consequence was that the preliminary list contained the names of many persons who ought not to be in it, and also omitted several who had a right to be inserted in it. Hundreds of objections were then sent in, on the chance that the parties objected to would not attend the revising barrister's Court and support their franchise, and thus numerous good votes were struck off at great expense to the parishes and the county, and vexation to the parties concerned. This Bill would remedy another grievance—namely, that relating to the registration of lodgers in the list of borough voters. He should not be surprised if the House doubted it, but he was informed that the number of lodgers on the register was under 5,000, and from having seen the very small number of lodgers on the register in some places, he believed that was a correct representation. The explanation was, that the overseer did not go about from house to house as the rate collector did, and therefore he did not obtain the names of lodgers who ought to be put on the register; but with a view to afford a remedy, the Bill provided that the registrar might employ postmen who were going about the streets all day long to obtain the names of lodgers entitled to be put on the register. Another object they had in view was to combine the municipal with the parliamentary register. At present everyone knew that the municipal register was a farce, and that no one cared anything about it. But if they could combine the two the result would be that they would obtain at once a good Parliamentary and a good municipal register, and at the same time effect a considerable saving. With reference to the person who should be
  1248
  chosen to superintend the registration, the Bill proposed that he should be the clerk of the guardians, as was the case in Ireland and in Scotland, in both of which countries the arrangement worked perfectly well. He cared, however, very little what officer was selected for the work, provided that the duties were concentrated in a single person and not divided among a number. Objection had been taken to the powers proposed to be vested in that officer under the Bill, especially to his proposed power of putting lodgers on the register. Well, but was it not universally admitted—indeed, had he not shown it—that the present condition of the lodger franchise was most unsatisfactory, the fact being that the difficulties of getting on the register as a lodger were so great that very few of them were able to avail themselves of that franchise? That was an evil that could only be remedied by appointing an officer, like the registrar, whose duty it should be to put qualified persons on the register as lodgers, and to keep them there so long as they were entitled to remain. He admitted that one of the main objects of the Bill was to get rid of the expensive form of working the registration by registration associations and election agents, and he was convinced that if they could substitute the Scotch for the English system it would be an immense improvement. In regard to the revising barristers, to whom his hon. Friend had referred in such severe terms, he would say that, though he had not a word to say against them, yet it was well known that the greater part of what they had to do was to correct mere clerical errors that had crept into the preliminary list, and that voters were kept hours, and sometimes days, in Court in order to secure that correction and save their vote. The Bill proposed that the registrar should correct such errors, without compelling the voter to go before the revising barrister for the purpose. There was, however, no intention to arm the registrar with judicial powers in the matter, and if any one was aggrieved by his decision he had his appeal to the revising barrister as now. He admitted, with his hon. and learned Friend, that if there was a strong opposition to the Bill, he, as a private Member, and at that period of the Session, could not hope to see it passed; but he would observe that half

  1249
  the time of the House was allotted to private Members, and the question was, could they not make use of it? If private Members were resolved that they never would allow a private Member's Bill to pass, then the time allotted to them was virtually thrown away. He must repeat that the Bill was based on the recommendation of the Select Committee; that it had passed the second reading and gone through Committee last year; that the alterations then made were now found in it, and that the second reading of it this year had been agreed to unanimously; and he did therefore hope that the House would not now refuse even to go into Committee on it, for if they did it would appear to be almost impossible for a private Member ever to hope to pass a Bill.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he thought that the Bill was one that ought to be rejected; and, if so, the sooner it was done the better. He confessed that though his experience had not been small, he was unable to understand the measure, the changes it would introduce being so numerous and intricate. He considered that the overseers now did the work fairly and carefully, and that the clerical errors left by them in the list were few; and he strongly objected to the proposal that the clerk of the assessment committee should have the power of correcting the list—of correcting it when he chose—for it did not appear that he was to be liable to any penalties if he failed to do so. [Mr. V. HARCOURT: No, no!] Well, however that might be, another objection to the appointment of that officer for such duties was, that a political aspect would in consequence be imparted to the elections of guardians, which would be most undesirable. It would be much wiser, therefore, for the promoters of the Bill, considering that it was much longer and much more difficult than the Ballot Bill, to admit the hopelessness of their being able to pass it that Session, withdraw it, and bring it forward in an improved form next year.
  MR. BRISTOWEsaid, he highly approved of the new system of lodger franchise, which he would do his utmost to facilitate; but where he disliked the Bill was, that it increased the cost to the ratepayers to a very serious extent. Another objection to the Bill was, that it would reduce the cost of registration to intending candidates. It proposed, too,
  1250
  to place excessive authority and power in the hands of persons utterly unfit to discharge the duties—not that the registrar would be unfit himself, but that in vast number of cases where they decided objections they would be thought to exercise a political bias. There could be no doubt also that the appeals from the registrar to the revising barrister would become more numerous under its provisions.
  MR. PELLsaid, that if the Bill did get into Committee, the Amendments sure to be proposed would be fatal to it, and, therefore, it would be better for the House, instead of wasting time, to devote itself to some other and better legislation. He should like to know who wanted the Bill. It was true it had been read a second time, but rather in a perfunctory way, and after a statement by the Home Secretary that the Government would support it, provided Amendments were introduced to make it less unacceptable. He hoped, however, they should never come to the time when those Amendments would be moved. If the Bill were carried, the work of registration would be more embarrassed than ever, for the proper officer was empowered to employ assistants, such as the assistant overseers, and the rate collectors, and even to apply to the Post Office for aid. All that varied assistance would only lead to greater embarrassment. This, he thought, was an attempt to legislate for England in the same terms as Scotland, whereas the position of the two countries was entirely different. The effect of the Bill would be to relieve candidates of expenses at the cost of the ratepayers, and the man who claimed the vote and whose business it was to substantiate his claim of the trouble of doing so. In effecting that, however, it should be borne in mind that there was nothing worth having that was not worth taking some trouble about.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, he thought it a strong argument in favour of the Bill that it would reduce the expenses of candidates, for one of the great dangers of the day was the evil of Plutocracy, and that was a danger which hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to be as anxious to lessen as those on the Ministerial side of the House. The fact was, this Bill had been introduced in consequence of practical evils felt by the electors. In the town which he had the honour to repre-

  1251
  sent (Liverpool), one of the two parties into which the constituency was divided took, previous to the last election, no fewer than 6,000 objections, principally to the claims of working men, of which only 2,000 could be sustained. Was that a system which could be said to work well, which subjected the electors to such hardships? It was said that the registrar would be a political personage; but that would not be the case, because he was an officer upon whom the eyes of everybody would be fixed, and if he did his work badly it would be known at once by the number of appeals to the revising barrister. In conclusion, he must say he thought that the objections to the Bill were most unsubstantial, and he hoped that the House would assent to the measure being considered in Committee.
  MR. WHARTONsaid, he moved last year in Committee the rejection of the 16th clause, providing for the appointment of a registrar by the corporations, on the ground that he would be a political partizan. To that belief he still adhered. The Bill would increase expense, and on that very ground he was surprised it should have been brought in by an avowed economist like the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt). It was proposed to create double expense, because, in addition to the revising barristers, who by-the-by would be reduced to nonentities, and be paid for doing nothing, there were to be registrars who were to do their work, and there were to be two sets of lists, which at present were not required. In the interests of the ratepayers, therefore, he protested against the Bill.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he must contradict the assertion of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, and must maintain that the Bill was in no sense of the word the Bill of the Committee upstairs, and that many of its provisions were directly in the teeth of the feelings and opinions of that Committee. The moment the measure came down to the House it became, by some mysterious manipulation, utterly changed in its character, with the view of placing in the hands of the Town Council the appointment of an officer who, above all others, ought to be kept utterly independent of municipal feelings or opinions.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he thought the Bill contained some very important
  1252
  improvements on the present system, and therefore he was in favour of going into Committee upon it, in order that they might render it as efficient as possible for its objects, and get rid of those provisions which were admittedly objectionable. If it did nothing else, the measure would effect a very large reduction in the expense of registration, which in his mind would be a great advantage to the ratepayers. Under those circumstances, he hoped that the House would never assent to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Matthews), which, if carried, would throw out the Bill altogether.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he was surprised that no Member of the Government had as yet condescended to express his opinion upon the merits of the Bill. He believed that the Government approved of the measure, and he therefore thought that the House ought to have some explanation from the Ministerial Bench as to their views upon a question of considerable importance before they proceeded farther with the Bill. He hoped that if no Member of the Cabinet was present before the close of the debate the House would show its sense of the course pursued by the Government by refusing to go into Committee upon the Bill.
  MR. ASSHETONsaid, they had already been assured that the Bill was not the Bill recommended by the Select Committee which sat to consider the subject, but that it had been altered in many of its material particulars. The present system certainly had this merit—that it suited all boroughs alike, whether they were large or small; and he was convinced that the system which they were now asked to substitute for that would not suit all boroughs. He thought, therefore, that the sooner they got rid of this Bill the better.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he must express his regret that other and important engagements had prevented the Home Secretary, who had been present during the earlier portion of the debate, from remaining and replying to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Matthews); but he believed that he himself could state the position of the Government with some exactitude. The Bill was brought in last year based upon the recommendations of a Select Committee,

  1253
  and it received considerable attention at the hands of Her Majesty's Government, so that it was hardly fair to suppose that they had not carefully considered it. He strongly repudiated the notion that a measure of that kind should not be brought in by a private Member of the learning and experience of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. The Bill had received the approval of the Government, although they reserved to themselves the right of criticizing its details in Committee, and no one could deny that, at all events, many of its proposals were in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee. If the hon. and learned Member for Oxford proceeded to a division upon the Bill he (Mr. Winterbotham) would support him.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, that inasmuch as the Government had declined to deal with the question of rating dockyards in accordance with the hope which they had held out to that effect, on the plea that the whole subject, after the result of the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) required consideration, it was scarcely fair that they should accede to any proposal which would have the effect of increasing the burden of local rates.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he wished to save the time of the House, and as he had all along recognized the fact that it would be impossible to carry the Bill unless with the assent of both sides of the House, he should not persist in his attempt to carry it further in the face of the strong opposition which it encountered.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that before the Bill could be withdrawn, it was necessary that the Amendment should be withdrawn. Would the hon. and learned Member for Dungarvan consent to withdraw his Amendment?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he thought the most convenient course would be for his Amendment to be carried.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he did not care which way it was.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Committee put off for three months.

DEFAMATION OF PRIVATE CHARACTER BILL— [BILL 99.]
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Cross, Mr. Denman.)
DEFAMATION OF PRIVATE CHARACTER BILL— [BILL 99.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. RAIKES, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the necessity for providing some better protection for private character had only been too largely shown in recent times. He did not wish to refer to any recent incident which had impressed the public with the deficiencies of the law in regard to this matter; but the facts to which he made this passing allusion would be sufficiently fresh in the minds of hon. Members to enable them to appreciate the necessity for providing some more stringent protection against the taking away of private character. The only statutory penalty for a defamatory libel which existed now was one year's imprisonment where the libel was true, and two years' imprisonment where it was not true; in both cases without hard labour. The first object of the present Bill was to accompany those penalties with hard labour at the discretion of the Court before which the offender was convicted. With regard to the even greater offence of endeavouring to practise upon the fears of any person, and to extort money either by the accusation, or by the threat of accusation, of some odious and disgraceful offence, that was at present punished by the very severe penalty of penal servitude for life; but he confessed that, judging from the operation of the law, that penalty did not seem to have a sufficiently deterring effect, and persons had been found willing to run the risk of such a penalty, believing that they were sufficiently protected by the natural fears of their unfortunate victim. Another form of punishment would, perhaps, be more deterrent, and might be tried as an experiment in these particular cases, and he had therefore incorporated in the Bill those clauses which formed the body of an Act passed a few years ago for the better punishment of robbery with violence, and which provided that an offender might be flogged. The House, justly and properly, was always unwilling to resort to severe personal penalties; but it was the law at present that a person who extorted money by the

  1255
  threat of an abominable charge might, if under 16 years of age, be punished by whipping, and no one would consider that an adult offender preying on society in that way was deserving of a less disgraceful punishment than that applied to a juvenile criminal. He therefore merely proposed by the Bill to extend to any person found guilty of extorting money by threats of accusation the penalty which was now inflicted on young persons who did the same thing. The third feature of the Bill was to subject to these penalties any person found guilty of extorting money by a threat to accuse the chastity of a woman, and whatever might be the opinions of hon. Gentlemen with regard to flogging offenders, there would be little difference on this point—that a man who endeavoured to extort money from a woman's fear by threatening to rob her of that character which was of greater value than anything to her deserved a very severe punishment indeed. But he would ask any hon. Gentleman who objected to the flogging clauses of the Bill not to move the rejection of the measure at this stage, but to move the omission of those clauses in Committee. There was one other point to which he wished to call attention. Many gentlemen interested in the operation of the criminal law had noticed that prosecutions for this class of offences only too frequently failed, or were not brought forward at all, from the natural reluctance of the victim to expose himself to the torture of cross-examination on such matters as those which formed the body of the charge. He would have been glad if he could have embodied in the Bill any proposition which would have exempted the prosecutors in these cases from a torture which was so great as practically to defeat the operation of the law; but he felt that if he did so he should encounter an additional opposition, and he had therefore refrained. At the same time, if any other hon. Member proposed such a clause in Committee it would have his support. Hoping, therefore, that any opposition that might be offered to the Bill would be reserved for the Committee, he would conclude by moving the second reading.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Raikes.)
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON, on behalf of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), said, that hon. Gentleman intended to oppose the flogging clauses of the Bill; but he did not know that he entertained any objection to the principle of the measure.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he trusted the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) would withdraw the flogging clause in Committee, or, at all events, that the House would pause before it adopted such sensational legislation. It was thought proper to flog garrotters because it was justly considered that acts of brutal violence should receive punishment in kind; but such offences were of a very different kind from those which would come under the Bill. Flogging was a description of punishment which should be reserved for habitual offenders, who were dead to every sort of penalty except that which went home to their physical feelings. By adopting the flogging clauses of the Bill Parliament would run a great chance of brutalizing our criminal code without giving any compensating advantage.
  MR. STRAIGHTsaid, he would also express a hope that the flogging clauses would be withdrawn from the Bill, for he did not see how flogging would be likely to lessen the number of these offences. The other clauses of the Bill were, however, of considerable importance; and, with regard to them, he had often heard the Judges express regret that persons convicted of most objectionable libels could not be sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour. He did not hesitate to say that something ought to be done to prevent the repetition of a class of offences, of which there had lately been an instance in one of the metropolitan police courts; and although the 4th clause might require alteration, he hoped the Bill would be read a second, time.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he was unwilling, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, to take upon himself the responsibility of opposing the Bill; but he must reserve liberty to oppose it, if necessary, at a later stage. He agreed in much that had been said by the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) with regard to the flogging clauses; and he felt also that there were very grave doubts as to whether the penalty of flogging

  1257
  was applicable simply as a means of increasing the intensity of punishment. The Preamble declared that the law at present was found to be insufficient; but those clauses materially changed its character. The 4th clause seemed to be open to greater objections than had been stated, because it must be remembered that the analogous crimes for which this punishment was now inflicted were criminal offences.
  MR. DENMANsaid, that although his name was on the back of the Bill, he must not be held responsible for all it contained. He thought its main principle a very good one, believing that there were certain offences, such as those mentioned in the 4th clause, which at present were not regarded with sufficient severity by the law, and that they were of an analogous character to certain other offences now punished very severely, so that there was no reason why the same punishment should not be applied to the analogous crimes. He did not assent to the principle that the punishment of whipping could only be applied to offences of violence. On the contrary, he thought that the infliction of that punishment for such offences might suggest the idea of lex talionis, and he was not sure, when that view was taken, that the brutality they wished to prevent would not be increased. But it was well worthy of the consideration of the House whether whipping might not be advantageously inflicted for offences which were disgraceful, shabby, or morally brutal.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he reflected with gratification that he had induced the House to attach the punishment of whipping to garrotting, for he believed that the result had been most satisfactory. What the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Denman) had said as to the fitness of this punishment would not quite serve as its true test, because the law already punished with flogging very different crimes, such as attempts upon the life of the Queen, and also wilful destruction of works of art. In both cases it had been as successful as in the case of garrotting. There were two points to be considered in attaching any punishment to a crime. First, it should be asked whether the punishment was the one most likely to prevent a repetition of the crime; and the general recommendation of flogging was, that
  1258
  few people were likely to incur that punishment a second time if they could avoid it. It was, moreover, undesirable to multiply needlessly punishments by which a great number of men were maintained at the public expense in prison because they had violated the public interests; and if a more rapid mode of punishment could in every case be found which would be equally effective, great economical advantage would be gained. There was also another consideration as to whether the punishment was suitable to the probable motive of the crime and to the character of the criminal upon whom it was meant to operate; and, in that respect, he would instance the successful manner in which the classes of cases he had before referred to had been treated. A morbid vanity of the lowest description generally led to these crimes, and an equally vulgar castigation by bodily pain was their best deterrent. Whether these rules applied to the offences dealt with by this Bill he had not had time to consider; but he thought the subject might fairly be discussed, and would suggest that the Bill should be considered with the Bill already before the House, proposing to inflict flogging for some other crimes.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he was glad it was understood that, by assenting to the second reading, the House did not commit itself to the provisions of the 3rd clause; but, at the same time, he hoped that the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) would persevere with that clause providing for flogging, and that he would take the sense of the Committee upon it, for he (Mr. Talbot) was of opinion that if flogging were to be inflicted for any crime it should be inflicted for attempts to extort money by odious accusations. It would be only a permissive penalty, to be inflicted at the discretion of Judges of Assize; and he thought they might trust to the Judges of the land, backed by public opinion, not to inflict the penalty except in extreme cases. He believed, also, that the lower classes would be in favour of this penalty.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday 2nd July.

MIDDLESEX REGISTRATION OF DEEDS BILL— [BILL 52.]
(Mr. Gregory, Mr. Cubitt, Mr. Goldney.)
MIDDLESEX REGISTRATION OF DEEDS BILL— [BILL 52.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. GREGORY, in moving that the Bill be read a second time, said, it was identical with one introduced by him last year for the abolition of the registration of deeds in Middlesex. His Bill was read a second time last year, and there was an express understanding that the Government would bring in a measure on the same subject this Session. Unfortunately, the Government had been unable to redeem this pledge, and he had, therefore, felt it his duty to re-introduce the Bill. Having explained the provisions of the Bill last Session, there was no occasion to repeat them, and he would conclude by moving the second reading of it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Gregory.)
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he strongly objected to the Bill, for the reason that the measure would put an end to a system of registration which had existed in Middlesex since 1709, and had been productive of nothing but good. Soon after its introduction here it was adopted in Yorkshire, and subsequently was extended to Ireland, where the titles of estates would, but for its operation, be far more difficult of investigation than they now were. For the last 10 years a good deal had been heard about Land Transfer Acts, and it was understood that a comprehensive measure would be proposed by the Government next year. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would withdraw this Bill and wait to see what were the proposals of the Government.
  MR. R. TORRENSsaid, he would remind the hon. Member who had just sat down, that there was a marked distinction between the system of registration which existed in Middlesex and that existing in Ireland and Scotland. In Ireland and Scotland registration was treated as notice to every person dealing with the land; but that was not the case in Middlesex, the result being that, notwithstanding the most careful search, purchasers and mortgagees there were not protected in their titles. Having
  1260
  been for many years employed as registrar, he could say that such a system was quite useless, and only added to the cost of conveyancing. He should therefore support the Bill.
  MR. A. H. BROWNsaid, he had in his hand a memorial signed by 209 solicitors in London who deprecated the discontinuance of the registration. He was willing to admit that reforms were necessary, but should certainly oppose abolition. The object should be rather to establish other registries in counties where they did not now exist.
  MR. LEEMANsaid, he did not think it right that a private Member should bring on a question of this importance, really affecting owners of property not only in Middlesex but in Yorkshire, until the Government had the opportunity of bringing the whole subject before the House and dealing with it generally. He hoped that the hon. proposer of the Bill would withdraw it, and wait for the introduction of a general measure to be brought in by the Government.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, that there was almost a unanimous feeling in Yorkshire in favour of the system of registration; and, in his opinion, an improved system of registration would greatly facilitate the transfer of land. He, therefore, deprecated any measure which would tend to weaken the principle of registration.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he could testify to the assistance afforded by the Registry of Middlesex in preventing frauds which would otherwise have been triumphant, and in detecting frauds. The Bill, in abolishing that useful system, would also lead to a considerable expenditure of money; and, moreover, its abolition was not in accordance with the intentions of the Commissioners. He also thought the hon. Gentleman who had brought in the Bill must by this time be convinced that it was hopeless to attempt to pass the Bill this Session, and therefore he (Mr. Denman) hoped, he would withdraw it, leaving the House to wait for a comprehensive measure on the subject being introduced by either the Government or a private Member. He would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the

  1261
  Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Denman.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  COLONEL BERESFORDopposed the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought the Bill was devised in the interest of certain professional men; but he was very jealous of anything which would in any shape or form destroy the principle of county registration, and he was in favour of a system of county registration in every part of the United Kingdom. He recommended the promoter of the Bill to study the system in operation in Yorkshire and to endeavour to extend it to all other parts of the kingdom. He objected also to the mode in which retiring allowances were provided for.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he must oppose the second reading of the Bill on this short ground, that registration was a good thing in itself, but the Bill did not deal with existing abuses. The proper mode of dealing with this question was to keep the good, which was the registration, and get rid of the abuses in the administration of the office. The Bill, moreover, proposed to deal with the question in a crude and unsatisfactory manner, and he would therefore vote against it.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.