Lords Sitting of 25 August 1887

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Forestry [No. 240].
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Metropolitan Police* (242); Savings Banks and Government Annuities * (213); Sheriff of Lanarkshire* (244).
Second Reading—Conveyancing (Scotland) Acts Amendment (233); Open Spaces (Dublin) (213), negatived; Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts Amendment (238).
Committee—Trustee Savings Banks (221–215).
Report—Stannaries Act (1869) Amendment* (228).
Third, Reading—Lieutenancy Clerks Allowances * (231); Public Works Loans (234), and passed.

CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 233.)
(The Marquess of Lothian.)
CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 233.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time said, he greatly regretted that the Bill had been introduced so late into their Lordships' House. It dealt with a

  1777
  question in which many of their Lordships were greatly interested, and involved technicalities of law which they should have a full opportunity of discussing. Many noble Lords who were now absent, he knew, would have attended had they been aware that the Bill would be proceeded with this Session. However, the measure had in another form been before their Lordships on a previous occasion. The subject was not altogether new, and he could shortly place before their Lordships reasons for giving a second reading to the Bill. Its principle had been approved unanimously by the other House of Parliament. The object of the Bill was to amend the Conveyancing Act of 1874. He might briefly explain the change effected in the law of Scotland by that Act. The system of feus which resulted from the old military system of feudality had existed for a very long period. Lands were held for a tenure which involved the rendering of certain military services, and in course of time these services were commuted for a money payment known as feu- duties, and money payments were taken from the tenants when the lands changed hands under the name of casualties. There were two different kinds of casualties—one was payable by the heir-at-law when he succeeded to lands, and generally amounted to double the annual feu-duty. That was called a relief. The other kind of casualty was paid by his successor, who was not the heir-at-law, but took by bequest, sale, or by any other way in which the lands held in feu were passed. In this latter case the casualty amounted to a much larger sum than that payable by the heir-at-law. It was generally equivalent to one year's rental of the lands held in feu. Their Lordships would see at once that this casualty payable by the "singular successor" was a very heavy burden on the laud held in feu, and in order to avoid and escape the payment to the superior of this heavy burden, a system was devised which, by means of a legal fiction, enabled the singular successor to evade the payment of the composition. It was done in this way:—The singular successor was not entered directly as vassal of the superior, but the heir-at-law was by an agreement entered as the direct vassal, and consequently only double the amount of feu-duty came to
  1778
  the superior, instead of the year's rent of the land in question. It was a question, how far purchasers availed themselves of this practice. By the Act of 1874 the system under which, by reason of the legal fiction to which he had referred, the heir-at-law was able to be interposed as between the singular successor and the superior became impossible, because by operation of the Statute the singular successor held directly of the superior, and therefore there was no possibility of the heir-at-law being interjected so as to enable the singular successor to pay only the smaller instead of the larger casualty. How far the Act of 1874 was intended to make this alteration had been a matter of discussion. Several law cases had been brought in consequence of the doubt cast upon the interpretation of the Statute, and one of these had been before their Lordships' House. Although eminent Scottish Judges differed in opinion on the interpretation, on appeal to their Lordships' House, the decision of the majority of the Scottish Judges was unanimously confirmed—namely, that it became impossible under the clause which this Bill proposed to amend that the heir-at-law should be interposed as between the superior and the singular successor. Although there was great difference of opinion on the subject, he was advised by the present Law Officers of the Crown in Scotland, and he was informed that it was also the opinion of the late Lord Advocate and the late Solicitor General for Scotland, that the effect of this Bill would be simply and solely to restore things to what they were previously to the passing of the Act of 1874. It would simply make now by Act of Parliament that legal which was done before by a legal fiction. He did not mean to say that there was an improper evasion of the law in that legal fiction; because it was recognized as justifiable after the very strong expression of opinion in the House of Commons, and after the view expressed by the present Law Officers of the Crown on the effect of this clause. Their Lordships would agree that they would by this measure do away with an undoubted hardship, and impose upon, the vassal the same duties which had been exacted from him before. After the decision of their Lordships' House, there could be no doubt whatever of the effect

  1779
  of the Act of 1874, and he questioned very much whether those who passed the Act ever anticipated that such results would follow from its interpretation. With regard to the second clause of the Bill, there could be very little doubt of the desirability of passing it. Its object was that trustees should not be liable to the larger casualties which they might be called upon to pay as singular successors whilst they represented the heir-at-law. It was quite possible that trustees might be called upon to pay the larger casualties, simply because they were not the heir-at-law. The purpose of the clause was to do away with the possibility of au injustice of that kind. He trusted that their Lordships would give a second reading to the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he re-cognized the difficulty in which the Government had been placed by the conduct of Public Business in the House of Commons; but he could not help observing that a great number of Peers in Scotland and others interested in this Bill had no idea that it was to be proceeded with so late in the Session. Many noble Lords would otherwise have been present to discuss a measure which affected so large an amount of property. At the same time, he would be reluctant to oppose the second reading, not only having regard to the position of the Government, but to the fact that he agreed with his noble Friend opposite, in at least one-half of his speech. One of the main objects of the Bill it was most desirable to attain. The reform which it proposed to effect was one which he entirely approved of in one respect—that was, the removal of the trustees of an estate from, the position of being accounted, by a mere technicality, singular successors in the estate. That was provided for in Clause 2; but he was compelled to say that he thought the 1st clause was open to the most serious objections in point of public principle, and that it would inflict very great hardship on the proprietors of the land in Scotland. He regretted that it was necessary for him to go back a great way. It was impossible to treat these rights of property without going back to their history and origin. The Secretary for Scotland had touched on the
  1780
  question of the feudal law. There were a great many persons in England who thought it was sufficient to condemn anything to say that it was feudal; but in. Scotland the word "feudal" had no such public prejudice against it. On the contrary, feudal tenures in the modern form were the popular tenures. They were very unlikely in Scotland to have any of the difficulties with which they were threatened in England about the enfranchisement of leaseholders. Most Scotsmen refused to build at all, except on feus which were a perpetual tenure, and feus were popular investments. Trustees continually invested in them, and the property of minors and the funds of widows and children were put into feus. A great many of the burghs of Scotland were proprietors of feus, and a great deal of their income depended on feus and on the casualties arising therefrom. This Bill therefore dealt with a most important subject and with a vast amount of property, touching, as it did, the funds of minors, widows, children, and public corporations, who were all concerned in the present state of the Feudal Law of the country. He ventured, therefore, to say, that if there was any part of this Bill which was not contentious it would be well to proceed with that during the present Session, and to delay the contentious part of the question to a future occasion. He wanted to point out to their Lordships some important objections to the first part of this Bill. In modern times feus were seldom given of agricultural estates, but almost always for building purposes. In ancient times, however, estates were given on the same tenure, and the universal condition of those feus was an annual feu duty, sometimes almost nominal, and sometimes substantial, depending upon the particular occasion. Occasional dues were also required—such as in England, under copyhold tenure, were known as fines, but which in Scotland were called casualties, because they only occurred as particular cases arose. During the Middle Ages great abuses arose in this direction, heavy dues being exacted for marriage and wardship of minors. A remarkable historical change had taken place in these dues owing to the alarm and panic excited by the Rebellions of 1715 and 1745. The alarm passed away, but left some permanent effect. It attracted the attention of Parliament and

  1781
  of public men to the state of the Feudal Law in Scotland, and led to a great reform, principally under the guidance of one of the most eminent and celebrated men that Scotland had ever produced—namely, Forbes of Culloden, long President of the Court of Session in Scotland and one of the greatest lawyers and statesmen of his day. The anxiety to which he had referred gave rise to an Act passed in 1747. It was passed early in the year, and Forbes of Culloden died at the conclusion of the year; but it was his contribution in the main to the future government of the country. He earnestly wished that those Members of their Lordships' House who were interested in this particular question would look at that Statute. They were now dealing with the question of agrarian reform; but, as far as he could see, modern Statutes upon that question were characterized by a total absence of any intelligible principle. At that time there had been no weakness in removing tenures, or incidents of tenure, which were at variance with public policy; they were condemned, and they were swept away. On the other hand, there had been no weakness in refusing to make those alterations compatible with justice and private rights. The principle of the Act of 1747 was to abolish all those casualties which were dangerous to the public interest, but to abolish them by the principle of commutation. Some were abolished absolutely, such as those on wardship and marriage of minors, and all those which were deemed contrary to the interests of the State or to the improvement of land tenure in Scotland. But the superiors whose rights were swept away were entitled to compensasation from their tenants or vassals, and the duty of seeing what should be the commutation price was laid upon the Court of Session—the highest Court in Scotland. This Act, however, did not abolish the payment of the casualty to be paid on a change of family, the ancient principle of Feudal Law being that the superior had given the land to the vassal and his heirs for ever, and if the land was sold a casualty of a year's rent was demanded. From 1747 to the present day casualties upon the succession of a purchaser had been regularly paid, and they were as much part of the income from feus as the annual Feu Duty. He must
  1782
  direct the attention of their Lordships to a singular circumstance connected with these casualties. The casualty did not merge until the death of the seller. Of course the seller of an estate might live for 20 or 40 years after the sale; and during the whole of that time the title of the purchaser would be incomplete under the Feudal Law. He need not tell their Lordships how disagreeable it was to hold an estate with an imperfect title. In order to avoid this a device was set up. A mid-superiority was created. That was the state of things until the other day. For many years he believed this device was never tested. No such case actually arose until 1821 to deprive the superior of his casualty. Then it was found that as it was possible to interpose a mid-superiority between the tenant and the superior, it might be found possible to carry it further, so as to deprive a superior of his casualty. That was the state of matters down to 1838. A Commission of a very powerful character was in that year appointed to look into the question in Scotland. The Commissioners recommended that all these mid-superiorities should be done away with, and the fact of a man being duly infefted ipso facto constituted him vassal of the superior. This recommendation of the Commission of 1838 was never carried into effect until the year 1874. He was then in communication with the then Lord Advocate, and other Members of the Government at that time; and they pointed out to him that the Bill was drawn up in strict accordance with the recommendation of the Commissioners of 1838, that it was in strict accordance with the general course of reform in land tenures in Scotland, and they also stated that it proceeded on the principle of the Act of 1747, and gave the power of commutation to the vassal for these casualties, and fixed the commutation rate. For one and a half casualty every vassal could free his property from liability for these casualties. That was the main hinge of the Statute of 1874, and it was the principle on which Parliament had always acted in the abolition of duties, imposts, dues, or customs. He confessed that in 1874 he thought the commutation rate very low. A year's rent might be obviously due within seven months, and the vassal would escape, and the estate would be

  1783
  free for ever by paying the casualty, which, would be thus due in a few months, and a half more. The then Lord Advocate held that it was a very low rate of commutation; but it was a great object of public policy to get rid of these casualties, and in other respects it was an important improvement of the Feudal Law. He at once assented to these reasons, and was a willing party to the compromise of 1874. Some persons said that there was no bargain in the matter. True, there was no personal bargain. There could and ought to be no personal bargains in questions of this kind; but on the face of the Statute there was that compromise and balance between opposing interests which had marked the progress of all reform in these tenures in Scotland. On the one hand, the vassal was relieved of a great number of legal forms and barriers which it was necessary to go through in order to complete his title; and, on the other hand, a power of redemption was given to him as against his superior. From his own experience, as well as on the highest authority in Scotland—that of the late Lord Curriehill—he knew that the exaction of these casualties were as much accounted a regular part of the feudal duties as the annual Feu Duty. Lord Curriehill was the greatest conveyancing lawyer in Scotland, and had mainly to do with the drawing up of the Act of 1874. Parliament had been told in "another place" that these casualties were easily evaded, and that the Act of 1874 had done a great injustice in closing the door to evasion. That was a mistake. The Judges of the Court of Session on several occasions when these questions had come before them, although with all reserve judicially, had distinctly found that the evasion was one of a statutory obligation. By the Statute of 1747 all these customary obligations became statutory obligations; and the Court of Session had particularly alluded to them as statutory obligations. It was an entire misrepresentation of the fact to suppose that the Act of 1874 was drawn up in contempt of the rights of the vassals. With regard to the general question, how far this was contrary to public policy, he did not profess to say. As matters now stood, as affecting large estates, he did not think a change would lead to the improvement of land. He was, nevertheless, disposed to admit
  1784
  that everything in the nature of casualties should, if possible, be abolished, that all obligations between man and man should be as clear and definite as possible, so that each party might know exactly what he had to pay and what he had to receive. Uncertain duties, merging at uncertain dates, were against public policy; and he would at once consent to the abolition of them on the established principles of commutation. But he earnestly pressed on their Lordships that they should not devise inconsistent principles. They ought not to abolish these casualties by the opening of a side door of a delusive character. By the 1st clause of this Bill they would go back on the great reform of 1874. They would re-enable persons to interject a mid - superiority between the superior and the purchaser of land. They would go back to the simplification of title by menns of collusive titles. It was against public policy to abolish these casualties in that way. He would readily submit to any compromise in this matter which the Public Authorities in Scotland and Parliament, acting under the advice of the greatest lawyers and statesmen in Scotland, would be willing to name as a commutation of these duties. But this clause would not abolish casualties. The object of public policy was not attained. These casualties would remain. His best authority for this statement was the fact that Clause 1, as now drawn up, simply postponed the casualties for one generation, or one death. The heir of the seller might enter, and enable the purchaser to elude the duty. This was true; but then his heir could not again do so. They would then revert exactly to the same state of the law in which these casualties merged on particular occasions. A most unseemly state of the law it was. They would have a man hunting for the possible heir of the last seller, who might be gone to Australia, or be already dead; and the man must make a bargain, or bribe another to lend his name for delusive and collusive purposes. Was that a reform of the law of tenure? On the contrary, it was going back to the system which was abolished in 1874, which was recommended to be abolished by the Commission of 1838, and which was unquestionably against public policy. He would venture to urge that it was the object of the Government not merely

  1785
  to relieve trustees from an unjust interpretation of the law—at least from an interpretation of the law which imposed upon them unjust consequences—and to all that he entirely assented. But if they also wished to deal with the question of casualties by abolishing them altogether, in order to simplify title, they should postpone Clause 1 until another Session. Their Lordships must not suppose that this affected only large estates of agricultural property. But there was a prospect of agricultural estates in Scotland coming into a greater number of hands. One estate which had been held by the same family for 700 or 800 years had this year been unfortunately brought to the hammer, and bought in comparatively small parcels by a large number of persons. These persons and their heirs would, of course, be liable, under the term, of their respective feu-duties, to these casualties; and he was quite willing to admit, and hold strongly, that, while the continuance of these casualties was not a public evil, so long as they were confined to a few large estates, it would be a serious mischief if a great number of persons, holding small parcels of land, were called upon to pay them. He was, therefore, in favour of the principle of abolition on the old principle of commutation. He thought the law ought to be made compulsory. He would like to call the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to the fact that these casualties had been practically abolished, even as regarded small building feus. This clause would not deal equitably with the subject, and would have the result of complicating matters. Legislation on great questions of this kind with reference to a particular case was always rather dangerous. He was not prepared to say that it was always unjust or unnecessary. A particular case might call the attention of Parliament to a grievance which was general. There was no delicacy in referring to a special case which had attracted public attention. That was the case of the son of one of the most distinguished men that Scotland had ever produced. He alluded to Sir Charles Lyell. He believed it was still sub judice. The substance of it, he understood, was that the son, being his father's proper heir, and being entitled to enter on his estate on the ordinary relief duty, was, or might have been, liable to pay the heavy casualty of a
  1786
  singular successor, because the property was under trust, He believed that it was a grievous injustice which arose out of a mere technicality of the law when the estate was left in trust. He entirely agreed with the Bill, so far as the 2nd clause was concerned, which dealt with a real injustice and evil which had arisen by accident out of such a technicality. What he proposed was to push forward that part of the Bill which was not contentious, and leave the remainder, which was not so urgent, to a new Session of Parliament.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he endorsed the views of the noble Duke that the Secretary for Scotland should postpone the contentious portions of the Bill. In his opinion, the 1st clause had been badly drafted, and its language was uncertain. During the Recess attention might be given to the subject, and more statesman-like and satisfactory proposals might be submitted next Session. The effect of the present Bill would be to revive an old device, and to render the new machinery more complex than it was before. It was not his intention to oppose the second reading; but he trusted that when they went into Committee his noble Friend would adopt his suggestion.
  LORD BRAMWELLdesired to express an opinion on this Bill, even, though it related to a question of Scotch law. He might mention the curious fact that there was once a case in which six Scotchmen were equally divided in opinion, and he was left to give the casting vote. He did not quote that case in order to prove that he was right, but to show that he might without impropriety say a few words on the present Bill. His view was entirely in accord with that which had been presented to their Lordships by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll). The title of the Bill was, no doubt unintentionally, misleading. As a question of conveyancing, the 1st section was a retrograde one. That clearly appeared from a judgment given by Lord Blackburn, who, although an English lawyer was by birth a Scotchman. It was manifest that in the opinion of the noble and learned Lord the system of conveyancing, which the 1st section of this Bill proposed to reintroduce, was a complicated system, and open to serious objection. But the Bill was not merely one of con-

  1787
  veyancing; it was a question of a transfer of value. That was to say, the effect of the 1st clause would be to diminish the value of all superiorities, and to augment the value of all feus, because the effect of it would be that the superior would not be able to get his year's value from the purchaser, so that the present feuar or vassal -would be able to sell for a better price. He was justified in that view by a report which had been sent to him by a committee of the Society of Writers to the Signet. That committee stated that the effect of the measure would be simply to enable the vassal to retain money which was really due by him to the superior. There seemed to be an idea that this could only happen once; but that was a mistake. The same thing would recur every time a vassal died after having sold an estate; and there would be no limitation whatever on the time to which the measure was proposed to extend. He had heard no valid reason why the old system which was abrogated by the Act of 1874 should be re-introduced. That Act was really a bargain made by the Legislature between the superiors and the vassals. The superiors obtained the right to enforce payment of a year's value, and got rid of the device by which vassals could avoid paying it; while, on the other hand, the vassals got a right of redemption which formerly they did not possess. If it rested with him to say whether Clause 1 was a just and righteous clause as between superior and vassal, he should say no. But, looking at the state of the House and the period of the Session, when scarcely a Scotch Peer interested in the matter was present, he thought it would be a little hard to force this clause through if the question was even doubtful.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he concurred so far with his noble Friend, and doubted whether it was altogether true to say that this was a Conveyancing Clause at all. It was really a question of the alteration of the law in regard to property, and he doubted whether, in the circumstances, it would be an appropriate exercise of their Lordships' time to deal with property without full notice to those who were interested in the matter. He had some reason to think that those who were interested in the matter were under the impression that
  1788
  this part of the Bill was to be dropped, and he thought his noble Friend in charge of the Bill would do well to adopt the suggestion of the noble Duke, and drop the contentious portion of the Bill, and proceed with the non-contentious portion.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he would acquiesce in the suggestion of the noble Duke. After the strong expression of opinion from all quarters of the House, he felt that if he were to press the 1st clause there would be grave risk, not only of the loss of the clause, but of the whole Bill. Rather than lose the Bill, he would prefer to move that the 1st clause should be expunged. The 2nd clause was a very valuable one, and would deal with a question which had excited a considerable amount of public attention. If a measure for dealing with casualties was to be introduced into Parliament, it had much better come as a Bill treating the subject de novo than that it should be handicapped by the 1st clause of this Bill. Without committing himself as to what the Government would do next Session on the subject of casualties, he assented to the course suggested, and whether it was possible or not to deal with casualties in general, he would move to expunge the 1st clause.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

OPEN SPACES (DUBLIN) BILL.—(No. 213.)
(The Lord Ardilaun.)
OPEN SPACES (DUBLIN) BILL.—(No. 213.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the measure had come up from the House of Commons, and its object was to confer the same powers on the Corporation of Dublin in regard to useless and unnecessary roads as were exercised by the Grand Juries outside the city. It would enable the Corporation to narrow such roads as were unnecessarily wide, in order to save unnecessary expenditure. In the House of Commons it was proposed to insert these powers in the General Open Spaces Bill, which he (Lord Mount-Temple) had charge of in their Lordships' House; but the con-

  1789
  struction of that measure rendered it impossible to insert these provisions, seeing that the Bill dealt only with amendments of the existing law.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a —(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he hoped that their Lordships would not read this most extraordinary Bill a second time. The Bill provided that—
  "It shall and may be lawful for the Corporation to narrow such roads as the borough surveyor may report to be unnecessarily wide, and to stop up any roads which may appear to them to be useless."
  No provision was made in the Bill as to what was to happen to anyone's property affected by such a proceeding. No machinery was provided for awarding compensation, or for dealing with frontages. For the Corporation of Dublin and its borough surveyor to be absolute masters of other people's property, and to have power to stop up any roads which they might choose to consider unnecessary, would be an extraordinary state of things. And that was the whole Bill. If any of their Lordships had had questions affecting the closing up or the narrowing of roads before them at Quarter Sessions they would know what a large amount of consideration they involved—how many witnesses it was necessary to call on the one side and on the other, and how difficult it was to arrive at a decision. Everyone received a hearing. But here, forsooth, it was proposed to settle such matters on the mere ipse dixit of the borough surveyor. It seemed to him, moreover, a strange thing that in a Bill called an Open Spaces Bill, power should be sought for closing up roads. The whole Bill was so crude and devoid of machinery and lacked all protection to the public or to the owners of property that he hoped their Lordships would not read the Bill a second time.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEsaid, he quite admitted that the clause to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack took exception was not a proper one. But the Bill had come up with the unanimous assent of the House of Commons, and he recommended their Lordships to consider whether they might not be able to suggest a better clause than the present one in Com-
  1790
  mittee, especially as the principle of the Bill was not objected to. If their Lordships read the Bill a second time, he promised that the promoters would modify the clause and remove the objections to which it was at present exposed. It was a measure which was eagerly desired by Irish Members connected with Dublin, and he could see no harm in giving to the City of Dublin the same powers as were exercised outside of it under similar precautions. He trusted their Lordships would not reject the Bill.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS)said, the Bill only contained one operative clause, and that was stated to be one which they ought not to pass, and so stated by the noble Lord who moved the second reading. If that clause was expunged, nothing would remain of the measure for their Lordships to consider. It contained a principle which everyone objected to, and, instead of reading the Bill a second time, he suggested that it should be dropped, and that the noble Lord should introduce another Bill of a less objectionable kind, allow it to be properly discussed by their Lordships, and send it down to the other House.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEsaid, he had not stated that the principle of the clause was objectionable, but that its method was faulty in having no proper securities against abuse or carelessness. He thought that Dublin should have the same advantages in regard to narrowing and closing unnecessary roads as the rest of Ireland possessed.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.

TRUSTEE SAYINGS BANKS BILL.
(The Lord Elphinstone.)
TRUSTEE SAYINGS BANKS BILL.

  (NO. 221.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Lord Elphinstone.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Duke of BUCKINGHAM and CHANDOS)said, he must take occasion to call attention to a few of its provisions which he deemed objectionable. In the first place, the Bill had come upon some of those who, like himself, were trustees of savings banks with considerable surprise. The Bill, which had not been

  1791
  circulated before it was read a second time, contained powers which were unusual; and although hg believed no trustees of savings banks would object to inquiry into the stability of the institutions with which they were connected, still, looking to the evils of panic unnecessarily excited, he urged that there should be some real provision that inquiry should not be demanded where it was not necessary. The Bill provided that the Treasury might issue a Commission of Inquiry if satisfied, on the representation of such a number of the depositors as they might consider sufficient, that an inquiry was reasonable. There should be some indication of the number of depositors who should have the power of claiming this inquiry; and also there should be some indication of the class of persons to whom the conduct of the inquiry should be intrusted.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he agreed to what the noble Duke had said as to the class of persons to be intrusted with this important duty, and. what he should propose in Committee was, that, instead of the ordering of the inquiry being in the absolute discretion of the Treasury, the function of the Treasury should be to make an application to a Judge of the High Court, who should, on being satisfied that there was reason for making an inquiry, delegate the power of making an inquiry to a Master of the Supreme Court of Judicature in England or Ireland, or an Advocate or Writer of the Signet selected by the Court of Session in Scotland. With those Amendments the difficulties felt by the noble Duke would, he thought, be in great part removed.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly: Amendments, made: The Report thereof to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed. (No. 245.)

PUBLIC LIBRARIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 238.)
(The Earl of Crawford.)
PUBLIC LIBRARIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 238.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was a consolidating and amending measure.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Crawford.)
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)observed, that this Bill, which, as the noble Earl had said, was a consolidating and amending one, appeared to him to be a useful and practical measure.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE (No. 1) BILL.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that on the 31st of January last, when the second reading of the Women's Suffrage Bill was moved, an Amendment moved by the noble Marquess the Head of the Government, that the Bill be read a second time, both at the end of six calendar months or of six lunar months, was agreed to. That period had elapsed. The end of that time happened to be a Sunday. He wished that the Bill should be put down for next Monday or Tuesday; but that was considered by the Clerk of Parliaments to be out of Order. He now desired to proceed with the second reading of the Bill.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)supposing that six calendar months were the legal period, said, he thought that the proceeding of the noble Lord would not be out of Order, and that the Bill could be allowed to go forward.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that he would put the second reading of the Bill down for next Tuesday, when it would take precedence of Motions and other Business.

  TRUCK BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with several of the amendments agreed to, one agreed to with an amendment, and several disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement, and with a consequential amendment to the Bill: The said amendments and reasons to be printed. (No. 239.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.