Commons Sitting of 27 May 1873

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—Resolutions [May 26] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Marriages Legalization, Saint John's Chapel, Eton* [179]; Registration of Births and Deaths* [180].
Committee—Juries (Ireland)* [166], debate adjourned.
Committee—Report—Conveyancing (Scotland)* [108–178].
Considered as amended—Registration (Ireland)* [165].
Third Reading—Thames Embankment (Land)* [152]; Metropolitan Tramways Provisional Orders* [172]; Shrewsbury and Harrow Schools Property* [164], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT FOR THE WHITSUN RECESS.
On Motion, "That the House at rising adjourn to the 5th June."
MR. T. HUGHESsaid, he had no objection to offer to the Motion:—on the contrary, he and those who agreed with him, as they saw no chance of defeating the usual Motion for adjournment over the Derby Day in this Parliament, were grateful to the Government for altering the time at which the House ordinarily adjourned for Whitsuntide, so as to comprise the Derby Day in the regular holidays, inasmuch as it relieved them from the humiliation of being parties to voting a special compliment to a national sport which they believed more than any other tended to injure the morals of this country. What he rose for on the present occasion was to call the attention of two right hon. Friends of his on the Treasury bench, whom he saw in their places, to a matter which was intimately connected with the subject before the House—the adjournment over the Derby Day. The House would remember that for the past two years he had introduced a Bill entitled the Betting Bill. It would also be remembered that to a great portion of that Bill considerable objections were urged; but he hoped hon. Members would likewise agree in their recollection that as to one portion of the Bill—namely, that portion of it which proposed to extend the Betting Houses Act of 1853 to Scotland—there had been an unanimous consent on the part of the House. In support of that

495
proposal, he had produced to the House Petitions from a number of persons charged with the administration of the Criminal Law in Scotland, and amongst others there was a remarkable Petition from the Board of Police of Glasgow, signed "J. W. Watson, Lord Provost." That Petition stated that the provisions of the Betting Houses Act of 1853 were by this Bill proposed to be extended to Scotland, and that if so extended, the duty of enforcing them would fall on the petitioners. The Petition went on to say the Act had been of great service in England and Ireland, but, so far as Scotland was concerned, it had resulted in the establishment of a number of houses in Glasgow, and other towns, for doing precisely that which by the Act was forbidden to be done in England and Ireland. As he had said, the opinion of the House was quite unanimous as to the expediency of extending the provisions of that Act to Scotland, but he was, nevertheless, unable to carry his Bill through last year. He must confess, however, that from what fell from his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and also from what passed between himself and his right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate, the impression was left upon his mind that they were decidedly in favour of the proposal to extend the Act to Scotland, and that either one or the other of them would have undertaken to introduce a Bill for that purpose in the course of the present Session. He now, however, found himself in this unfortunate position—his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had his hands so full that he could not undertake to deal with the matter this Session; and his right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate had quite forgotten that he gave any promise—or rather he had forgotten that any such idea ever came into his head as that he was to propose the extension of the Betting Houses Act to Scotland during the present Session. He really trusted, however, that one or other of his right hon. Friends would even yet give the House some assurance that this would be done. The need for it was as great as ever. In proof of this he would mention that as he came down to the House he had made a very bad investment of 1½d. in the purchase of The Sportsman, one of the popular racing journals, and he found in that journal advertisements relating to no less than
496
11 houses in Glasgow which were kept up by Englishmen for the very purpose of fostering a system which the Betting Act was passed to put down in the rest of the United Kingdom. This, he said, was a most unblushing and shameful proceeding. No doubt it was a very difficult thing to deal with this matter. There were a great number of persons who, taking a common-sense view of this matter said, it was quite impossible to prevent this curse of betting by Act of Parliament. He was quite prepared to agree to that position. No doubt betting could not be put down by law. There was a very notorious person who was employing the time of three of Her Majesty's Judges in the neighbourhood of that House, and who was said to have used the celebrated phrase—"There's some folks has plenty money and no brains, and some folks has plenty brains and no money." He quite agreed with the conclusion to which that saying pointed. As Mr. Biglow said—
"The right to be a cussed fool Is free from all devices human, And common, as a general rule, To every crittur born of woman."
There always would be plenty of fools in this country, and plenty of rogues to pluck them; but he contended that it was the business of the House not to put special facilities in the way of rogues, and therefore he thought it was only for the credit of the House that some step should be taken immediately to extend the Betting Houses Act to Scotland. At that period of the Session it would be perfectly futile for any private Member to undertake such a duty, or otherwise he would himself take up that portion of the question by re-introducing that part of his Bill which contained the necessary clauses; but, under the circumstances, he did appeal to the Government to do this, and so to wipe away this scandal from the country.
THE LORD ADVOCATEhoped the House would permit him to say that his hon. Friend had rather misapprehended what at least he intended to say to him in conversation yesterday. It was merely this—that he (the Lord Advocate) had no recollection whatever of the conversation which he stated had taken place between them in the course of last Session. But if he had said on that occasion that he was not aware of any distinction between England and

497
Scotland which would make a law which the House thought good for England objectionable in regard to Scotland, he expressed exactly the impression he entertained at that moment. But if his hon. Friend (Mr. T. Hughes) was right in saying that a measure which merely proposed to extend the English Act to Scotland would meet with no opposition, it appeared to him that such a measure would be as likely to succeed in the hands of a private Member as in the hands of the Government.
MR. MILLERhoped the Government would see its way to bring in a measure to extend the Betting Houses Act to Scotland. It would be a very short affair in their hands, but it might be a very long and tedious one in the hands of a private Member. It was a great grievance to the people of Scotland to be afflicted in the way they were by these betting-men coming down from England and from all quarters to carry out their schemes.
MR. GORDONalso hoped a Bill would be brought in by the Government, for he did not see any hope of a private Member carrying such a measure. There was no doubt it would meet with some opposition, and if it met with any opposition at all, a private Member would in that case be utterly helpless.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the state of the case was this—the Government did introduce a Bill on the subject, which met with very considerable opposition, and the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) then stated that he would move at the commencement of this Session for a Select Committee to enquire into the whole subject with a view to legislation. He had no doubt that a Bill amending the present Act and dealing in a satisfactory manner with this subject would require a good deal of time for discussion, and it could only be introduced with the chance of being carried on condition that some other measure of the Government was laid aside. For that the Government was not prepared. On the other hand, a measure extending the Betting Houses Act to Scotland would, as his hon. Friend said, meet with no opposition at all; and if it met with no opposition, the rule relating to Opposed Business not being taken after half-past 12 would not apply, and therefore in the hands of a private Member it would be just as likely to come to a satisfactory
498
issue as if it were in the hands of a Member of the Government.
LORD ELCHOasked what Business would be taken after Whitsuntide, and when the Army Estimates would be discussed?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Bills put down for Thursday week were not, perhaps, of special interest to the mass of the House. They included the Merchant Shipping Bill and the Juries Bill. On the following Monday the second reading of the Judicature Bill would be taken, and on the succeeding Thursday the Committee on the Bills of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) would be proceeded with. The Government proposed to begin with those Bills on the previous Tuesday morning, and they would go on, in all probability, continuously through the week.
House at rising to adjourn till Thursday the 5th day of June next.—(Mr. Gladstone.)

VISIT OF THE SHAH OF PERSIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DENISONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, In what manner it is proposed to mark the national sense of the importance of the visit of the Shah of Persia to Great Britain?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the hon. Member will understand that I have had no time since his Notice was given to institute the inquiries necessary for a detailed reply to his Question. The day on which we are apprised that the Shah of Persia will probably arrive in this country is the 18th of June, and in the interval all proper arrangements will be made. Her Majesty's Government have a deep sense of the interest attached to the visit of that Eastern Potentate to the countries of the West, and they have every desire to show their sense of that interest. The Shah has been invited to be the guest of Her Majesty, and will be received at Buckingham Palace, and the hon. Member may rely upon it that full consideration will be given to what should be done during the period of his stay.

  METROPOLIS—STREET TRAFFIC REGULATION—HYDE PARK—QUESTION.
  MR. HERBERTasked the First Commissioner of Works, If his attention has been called to the almost total stoppage

  499
  of traffic in some of the streets approaching Hyde Park on last Saturday afternoon; whether, considering the crowded state of Piccadilly, Grosvenor Place, and Hyde Park during the season, he would take into his consideration the desirability of throwing open Constitution Hill to the public for carriage and cab traffic; and, whether experience has shown that any inconvenience has resulted from opening the road in St. James's Park, opposite Buckingham Palace, for a like purpose, or the road opposite the Horse Guards for Members of the House of Commons?
  MR. AYRTON,in reply, said, that his attention had not been called to the state of the traffic on Saturday afternoon, but he had experienced, in common with other people, the great inconvenience that resulted from the stoppage of traffic at the point to which the hon. Member referred in his Question. It was no doubt a very serious inconvenience, not merely to the general traffic of Piccadilly, but to any persons who happened to be passing on foot. At the same time, it was to be remarked that this stoppage arose from the happy condition of a great number of the inhabitants of the wealthy parish of St. George's, Hanover Square, who, at certain periods of the day, enjoyed themselves and afforded great delight to other persons in looking at the equipages in which they drove to the Park. That being the case, it was peculiarly incumbent upon the local authorities of that parish to make proper arrangements, as far as they had any connection with those forming the wealthy inhabitants of the district, and it was also incumbent upon the Metropolitan Board of Works, if they thought the subject was one of magnitude, to take it into their consideration in order to see what could be done; and if they could not carry out what was necessary without the assistance of Her Majesty's Government, then to make proper representations on the subject to himself (Mr. Ayrton), so far as they might relate to any property in his charge. The property in Constitution Hill was not in his charge as regarded its enjoyment. It was in the enjoyment of His Royal Highness the Ranger, who was the proper person, subject to the control of Her Majesty's Government, to regulate the Park. The local authorities ought to communicate with him on
  500
  the subject if they found the resident inhabitants of their districts were suffering great inconvenience, or the public at large. When they did that he (Mr. Ayrton) had no doubt that the representations would he properly received and duly considered. But in regard to the third Question, he was not aware that any inconvenience had resulted from opening the road in St. James's Park, or the road opposite the Horse Guards, for Members of the House of Commons.

CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIAN MAP.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EASTWICKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that a Copy of the Russian Map mentioned in "Ocean Highways," page 79, referred to in a question on the 15th of May, is in the Library of the United Service Institution, and that it shows a green line which marks the Russian Frontier as extending to the south of Marv?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, although I have the honour of being a Member of the United Service Institution, I cannot undertake to say whether a Copy of the Russian Map mentioned in the Ocean Highways is in the Library of that building or no; but, with all respect to the hon. Member, I must remind him that this work is not an official publication, and that our Foreign Office can hardly be held to be responsible for its maps or contents. I think, however, there must be some misapprehension in the matter, as in the maps I have seen the line extending to the south of Merv marks, not the Russian Frontier, but that of Afghanistan.

GENEVA ARBITRATION—PRESENTATION TO THE ARBITRATORS.

  QUESTIONS.
  SIR THOMAS BATESONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to propose a Vote for the purchase of plate or other testimonial to be presented to the Swiss, Italian, and Brazilian Arbitrators in the Geneva Award; and, if so, whether he will state when that Vote will be proposed?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, it is the intention of the Government to propose a Vote for the purpose of defraying the expense of the purchase of plate as pre-

  501
  sents or marks of acknowledgment to the three independent Arbitrators—the Swiss, the Italian, and the Brazilian—at Geneva, and that Vote will, of course, come before the House during the present Session. I cannot state at what time it will be proposed; but Notice will of course be given before the opinion of the House is taken upon it.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXwished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether any communications had passed between his Government and that of the United States in reference to the testimonial which was proposed to be given to the Arbitrators, for the ratepayers of the United Kingdom had a greater interest in this matter? ["Order."]
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, there have been communications.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CHIPPING NORTON MAGISTRATES.—QUESTION.
  MR. CORBETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in "The Times" newspaper of the 23rd instant, to the effect that sixteen women were on the 21st instant committed to the gaol at Oxford by the magistrates sitting in petty sessions at Chipping Norton in Oxfordshire, some for seven days and some for ten days, with hard labour, on a charge of coercing or interfering to prevent men from going to their work, on the farm of one Mr. Hambridge; and, whether he will cause to be laid upon the Table of the House, a Copy of the depositions or evidence taken by the magistrates in the case, together with a Copy of any record or memorandum of record of the conviction of any one of the said women, and also a Copy of one of the warrants of commitment made out by the officer of the court to be delivered to the governor of the gaol to whose custody the prisoners were committed?
  MR. BRUCE,in reply, said, he informed the House yesterday that he had received no communication on this subject either from the magistrates or on behalf of the imprisoned persons, nor had any such communication yet reached the Home Office. He had seen the statements referred to in the Question of the hon. Member with respect to these women, and he had thereupon written a letter to the magistrates which they
  502
  would have that day. As to the Papers for which the hon. Gentleman asked, he had not yet seen them; but he did not anticipate there would be any objection to their production if they were moved for. He might, perhaps, be allowed to add that it was a mistake to suppose that the convictions had been made under the Masters and Servants' Act, nor was it so stated in the public Press. They had been made under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and it had been affirmed that that Act visited with exceptional severity offences committed by the working classes. The fact was, however, that it limited and defined the cases in which the action of masters or workmen could be punished, and was greatly less severe than the previous law. The charge against the women in question was one, he supposed, of intimidation for having proceeded in large numbers and used violent language with the view of preventing workmen from going to their work. Under the Law as it stood previously to the passing of the Act any person who was convicted of preventing a man from working by threats, molestation, or intimidation was punished as for a criminal act; but the Law as it now stood very considerably narrowed the scope of the criminal law, for unless the offence was such as to justify the magistrates in binding the parties to keep the peace, or was "molestation" in one of the forms described in the Act, there could be no conviction.
  MR. BOWRINGsaid, he hoped, as the sentence would expire during the Whitsuntide Recess, the attention of the right hon. Gentleman would be directed to the subject.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, it was not his custom to wait until Questions were put to him in that House before taking the necessary action in any matter, after he had received the requisite official information.

  METROPOLIS—THE THAMES EMBANKMENT.—QUESTION.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether it is true that the Board proposed to dispose of the vacant land in Cannon Row, abutting on the Thames Embankment, for building purposes, thereby preventing the construction of

  503
  an approach road from Parliament Street to the Embankment by the Whitehall Club, in continuation of Derby Street?
  COLONEL HOGG: Sir, in answer to the Question of my hon. Friend, I beg to state that it is the intention of the Metropolitan Board to dispose of the vacant land to which he refers for building purposes, and as that land is immediately between the Embankment and Derby Street, the construction of an approach to the Embankment from that street will certainly be prevented. The question of the approach referred to has been frequently before the Board; but it has not been thought desirable to undertake the work, for it would greatly diminish the value of their land. The gradients of the existing street are bad; while to make a suitable thoroughfare would necessitate the removal of the whole north side of the street, involving an expenditure, in the Board's opinion, more than the value of the suggested approach would justify.

  CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 108.]
  (Mr. Secretary Bruce, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Winterbotham.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress, 19th May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Right of any person to succession as heir may be challenged within ten years).
  MR. GORDONmoved to leave out "10," and insert "20," the object being to extend the period from 10 to 20 years within which the right of a person to an estate of inheritance in land by succession as heir might be challenged. The Bill proposed not to require any registered title at all. The great safety and security of titles hitherto in Scotland had been that they appeared on the register, and that there was no security in a title which did not so appear. His Amendment was clearly in accordance with the principles regulating the rights of parties in Scotland, and which had given so much security to those rights—namely, that no prescription should count until there was a title on the register, and that the period of prescription should be 20 years in reference to heirs.
  Amendment moved, in line 39, to leave out "ten," and insert "twenty."
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he had heard a good many people, both lawyers and and those who were not lawyers, discuss this matter, and he had not heard one who had not objected to the proposed period of 10 years.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could not consent to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. They had heretofore had two periods of prescription in Scotland—one of 40 years applying to the title to the estate, and the other of 20 years, applying to the title of a person to be heir. These were two totally distinct things. The law which provided 40 years' prescription as to title also provided that after 20 years' possession as heir the right of the party as heir could not be disputed. He proposed to preserve the same proportions as at present between the two periods of prescription. The reduction of the prescription of title to an estate to 20 years, and the possession to a faulty title of the heir to 10 years, had been demanded in Scotland with almost perfect unanimity. It should be remembered that the period of 20 years was established at a time when things went much more slowly than at present, and particularly in Scotland. The rapidity with which intelligence flew, the general knowledge which was possessed all over the country as to the ownership of estates, was much greater and more accurate now than formerly, when the safety of the public required that a period of 20 years should elapse before the title could be put beyond all challenge. Now, however, the period might very fairly be reduced to one-half. The Solicitor General for England had informed him that it was proposed, with the general assent of the legal profession in England, to reduce the period of prescription in England from 20 to 10 years; and surely if this were considered sufficient with regard to general prescription in England, a similar period in the case of the right of the heir in Scotland could not be regarded as unsafe.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEthought there was a good deal to be said in favour of shortening the period of prescription where it could be done safely and consistently with the rights of claimants; but he must say that he

  505
  could not recognize the distinction which was made—although it had existed so long in Scotland—between title by purchase and title by inheritance. His hon. Friend had done away with the security of the judicial inquiry in the case of inheritance, and consequently he had taken the question entirely out of the category in which the Lord Chancellor had put his Land Transfer Bill. Further, it could not be said that the proposals in the Lord Chancellor's Bill were part of the English law until that Bill had passed both Houses, and he for one questioned whether that House would adopt so short a period of prescription for England as 10 years, unless it were accompanied by a provision for some special inquiry as to the succession to an inheritance.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALthought it strange that in the course of this discussion so little allusion had been made by hon. Gentlemen who came from the north of the Tweed to a little country called England. He should have imagined that the laws and the experience of England with regard to real estate would have had some little weight with those who were considering changes that were about to be introduced into the Scotch law. What was the experience of England? In ancient times the limitation to claims to land was 60 years; but this period had been found too long. The main object of limiting the period of prescription was to quiet people in their possession of real property, and to prevent unfounded and vexatious claims; and it was found from long experience that the number of successful claims made by persons alleging their titles to estates after the lapse of a considerable period of time was so small that it was not worth while to leave the door of litigation open for so long a term in order that these exceptional claims might be entertained. The result was that in 1834 the period of prescription, or as it is called in England limitation, was cut down from 60 to 20 years; and this alteration of the law had worked so successfully that during the present Session, and as he believed with the approbation of the legal profession and of the public, the Lord Chancellor had introduced a Bill into the other House to shorten the prescription of 20 years to 10 years; and whether the Bill were passed or not, it would afford an indication of what was
  506
  the opinion of the great majority of professional men on the subject. Scotland, however, was not invited to go so far as this. At present the Scotch period of prescription was 40 years, and the Bill under consideration only proposed to reduce that to the period which was still the English law, but which it was hoped would be cut down one-half. In Scotland, moreover, there was a register, which did not exist in England, and this gave an additional security to the titles of the people of that country.
  MR. GORDONsaid, it was a mistake to suppose that Scotch lawyers had taken no notice of what happened in England; but the fact was they had found that the system adopted in Scotland was the wisest. This was proved by the circumstance that the Lord Chancellor's Bill proposed to borrow a portion of the Scotch system as to registration, which he considered was essential to the provision of proper facilities for the transfer of land.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  An Amendment made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Possession to be primaâ facie evidence of heir's right in questions with tenants, &c.)
  MR. GORDONsaid, he thought the present law was well understood, and he submitted that it would be better to leave it on its present footing than to adopt this clause, which was condemned by conveyancers generally.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that in his own opinion the law as it at present stood was sufficient; but unfortunately some uncertainty was held to exist, and in a recent important case of disputed succession, tenants had refused to pay their rents pending the dispute. They had been ordered to pay, but he thought it well to make the law certain. He therefore asked for the withdrawal of the Amendment.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that this being merely a declaratory clause, there could be no objection to it.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to, with an Amendment.
  Clause 14 (Legal remedies to prevent entry preserved.)
  MR. GORDONsaid, that by the existing law—now declared by the preceding

  507
  clause—a man who obtained possession was entitled to draw the rents until his claim was set aside; and then he very often contrived to retain the rents. He thought it essential that power should be given to the Court to deal with such cases, and would therefore move to insert at end of clause, the words—
  "And it shall be lawful to any person claiming right as heir to an estate in land to apply to any Court of competent jurisdiction, and such Court may, notwithstanding the completion in the person of another of a title under this Act, regulate from time to time, during the dependence of such question, the possession of such estate, and may allow possession to either or to neither party, as such Court may deem just or expedient, or may otherwise deal with such estate, as regards the interim possession and care and management thereof as if no such title had been made up."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had had this matter in view in preparing the clause as it stood, and thought he had thereby provided for every case with sufficient safety. The object of precluding the possibility of doubt in this matter was, however, quite sufficient to call for the introduction of some words, but he thought the words proposed by his hon. and learned Friend were not well adapted to obtain the end in view. He should propose to add the following words as better accomplishing the purpose—
  "And it shall be lawful for a Court of competent jurisdiction to regulate possession, pending such trial, as such Court shall see just, notwithstanding of the completion under this Act of the title of any person as heir."
  MR. GORDONsaid, he would accept the words of his hon. and learned Friend.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Words added.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Recovery of duties and services not being casualties.)
  MR. J. HAMILTONmoved an Amendment the effect of which was to revest in the superior the estate of property in the event of non-performance by the tenant of his feu-duties.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, this was rather a technical matter, and it was a process that was not at all common in Scotland, for he never saw such a process during the whole course of his professional experience. He, however, thought it very proper that such a process should be retained, and he would adopt the Amendment with some alterations.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that this was by no means a matter which never occurred. The Corporation of Edinburgh had about 3,600 of these feu-duties, which produced upwards of £8,000 annually. The value of the small feu-duties consisted in the casualty of a year's rent on death or other change, and to compel the superior to recover these small sums by action before the Sheriff would be virtually to extinguish the right, for the expenses would be greater than the sums recovered. It was therefore absolutely necessary to retain this power.
  Amendment made.
  Further Amendments made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Redemption of Casualties.)
  MR. GRIEVEmoved, in line 3.5, after "cent" to insert—
  "The Sheriff of the county where the land lies shall have power, on application from either party, to fix the value, and his judgment shall be final, and not subject to review."
  He thought this form was rather better than that of which he had given Notice.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the provision of the clause was this—in the first place, parties were to have the power to have casualties redeemed on any terms that might be agreed upon. These terms might in some cases be too low, and in others they might be too high; but, as a general rule, they would be fixed by persons of experience in such matters. It was very desirable to avoid litigation and expense, and therefore he did not approve of the Sheriff being brought in. He hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with the fixing of a casualty and a half as a maximum.
  MR. CRAUFURDthought the Amendment worthy of consideration. There were plenty of cases in which there was a feu-duty of a few pounds, and yet in which the real value of the property had through time increased to an enormous amount. One might, for example, have a feu-duty of 5s., and have a house built on the feu worth £20,000. In such a case the superior was not likely to enter into any agreement for the commutation of the duty unless a very large sum were offered in payment. He believed the clause as it stood would not meet the justice of the case, and he suggested that the Lord Advocate should either accept the Amendment of the hon Member for Greenock, or propose some other

  509
  way of putting the provision into harmony with the rest of the clause.
  MR. M'LARENthought the chief objection to the provision was not that stated by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Craufurd). Whenever it appeared to the feuar that he would have to pay a large sum to be allowed to redeem, his plan would be not to make any offer at all. The real objection, however, as it seemed to him, was this, that no means wore provided of obtaining a real valuation. The object of the Bill was to abolish these troublesome casualties, and yet no means were provided for carrying it out. In England the practice was for the Commissioners to form a sort of jury, and try each case on its particular merits. Arrangements for commuting casualties were thus very much facilitated.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the clause had been framed as it stood because the option being given to the vassal, it was thought right to give the superior the same. He quite appreciated the remark made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, that it was advisable that these casualties should be put an end to, and agreed with him that if any other course could be suggested of meeting the difficulty, it would be well worthy of consideration. Hitherto he had not been able to see his way to deal with the matter satisfactorily, but he would renew his attempt, and see if he could not find some means of obtaining the end they all had in view.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 17 (Redemption of casualties by a Mid Superior) agreed to.
  Clauses 18 to 21 agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 22 (Form of Conveyances).
  MR. GORDONsaid, the clause as it stood merely made the registering voluntary, whereas it was of the essence of the thing that it should be made compulsory:—he would therefore move to add at end of clause the words—
  "That no deed or conveyance, instrument, or writing, whereby any real burden upon land is assigned, conveyed, or transferred, shall be effectual in competition with third parties unless the same is or shall he recorded in the Register of Sasines in the same manner as any heritable security, and such deed of conveyance, instrument or writing, shall take effect in competition
  510
  with third parties only from the date of such registration."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was prepared to assent to the Amendment with a slight verbal alteration, leaving out the word "conveyance," so as to bring it into harmony with the rest of the Bill, which only mentioned "instrument or writing."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 23 to 26 agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Fees of conquest abolished).
  MR. GORDONmoved to omit the clause, the effect of which, he said, would be to centre the whole property in one.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he was decidedly opposed to this clause, which he considered was against the present policy of Parliament. As he understood this clause, if the middle one of three brothers died intestate, the property would go to the elder brother. He was in favour of division of property, and not of cumulating property, and therefore he objected to this clause.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, not being a lawyer, had overlooked one thing well known to the forensic profession—namely, that it was the eldest son who succeeded to his father's estate and his heritage. There was no distinction with respect to fees of heritage excepting in the succession of a younger son who had not succeeded to his father's estate, and who had a living elder brother. That was the case where the distinction operated. The younger son had succeeded to nothing. It affected a case like this, where a brother, who had a younger and an elder brother still living, and who might have acquired a considerable estate, died. His property, according to the present law would not go to his younger brother, but to his elder brother, who had succeeded to the family estate, and thus the property tended to increase and concentrate in one individual, and not to divide the inheritance. But he objected to the law as it stood; because it was a capricious and unsatisfactory thing to have two modes of legal succession, and to have to inquire in determining who the feuar was, whether the deceased's property was the product of his own industry, or whether he succeeded to it as heir,

  511
  giving him one succession in the one case and another succession in the other. But so far as the proposed law would operate, it would be exactly the reverse of that supposed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 28 to 40 agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 41 (Certain offices abolished).
  On Clause 41, which abolished the offices of Sheriff of Chancery, Sheriff-Clerk, Sheriff-Clerk-Depute, and Macer, of Chancery, and of Presenter of Signatures, and of Clerk to the Presenter of Signatures, and enabled the Commissioners of the Treasury to award full compensation, payable out of moneys voted by Parliament,
  THE LORD ADVOCATEmoved, in line 42, after "Treasury," to leave out to end of clause, and insert—
  "Who shall be empowered to award to each of such officers such compensation as the said Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury may deem just and reasonable, having regard to the terms by which such officers respectively hold their appointments, and to the net average amount of the emoluments received by them, and such compensation as may be awarded shall be subject to the provisions of the 20th section of the Act of the 4th and 5th years of the reign of His Majesty King William the Fourth, chapter 24, entitled 'An Act to alter, amend, and consolidate the laws for regulating the pensions, compensations, and allowances to be made to persons in respect of their having held civil offices in His Majesty's service.'"
  MR. WESTfeared, in regard to the question of compensation, that the effect of it would be, where given to men in early life, that they would be tempted to remain idle during the remainder of their years. He thought compensation should be given contingent on their being willing to accept certain offices, on the appointment to which the compensation should cease.
  Mr. TREVELYANproposed to insert after the words "such compensation," "not exceeding two-thirds of the salary or net emoluments of their respective offices." He denied that the gentlemen who performed the duties of these offices had fulfilled public services to which public pensions were granted. It was quite evident that some of these gentlemen would be superannuated in a time of life in which they could assist themselves by taking business of another description. It was well known there
  512
  had been gentlemen performing official duties in Edinburgh who had assisted themselves by their pens to a considerable extent. The largest income ever gained by a literary man was gained under these circumstances.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the first word "compensation," to insert the words "not exceeding two-thirds of the net average emoluments of their respective offices."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  MR. CRAUFURDthought the matter might be safely left to the Treasury, who were never very lavish. Scotland paid more than Ireland, and it only got one-fourth of what Ireland got. He was not saying that what Ireland got was right or wrong; but he thought they should think a bit before they tried to cut the compensation down. He referred the hon. Member to the Camperdown Commission, and he asked him after that was he prepared to starve their public officers, who did their work marvellously well? He certainly did not think the Treasury, if let alone, would be guilty of any extravagance.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEobjected to be bound by any limits, and hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
  MR. MUNTZthought the allowance of two-thirds sufficient, and believed the hon. Member (Mr. Trevelyan) was right in pressing for a division.
  MR. ANDERSONagreed that public servants ought to be paid well, and also agreed that many public servants were not well paid; but this was a question of compensation for the abolition of offices, and came within a totally different category. The principle of allowing two-thirds compensation was a very wholesome one indeed, and he trusted his hon. Friend would press his Amendment.
  MR. GORDONsaid, he knew that Scotch office-holders had considerable reason to complain of the way they were paid, and thought that in justice to Scotland there should be a reconsideration of such matters. He did not put his support of the Lord Advocate's Motion on such a ground, but he believed that in the abolition of offices there should be a considerable amount of discretion given to the Treasury.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, it was clearly admitted many officers were underpaid,

  513
  but this clause did not limit the Treasury in giving what they thought right as compensation.
  Question put, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 80: Majority 55.
  Remaining clauses, and Schedules, amended, and agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday 5th June, and to be printed. [Bill 178.]

  JURIES (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 166.]
  (The Marquess of Hartington, Mr. Bruce.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Debate arising;
  And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate was adjourned till Thursday 5th June.
  The House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.
  After short time—
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Muntz,)—put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock till Thursday 5th June.