Lords Sitting of 26 July 1887

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—British Settlements* (189).
Second Reading—Trust Companies (151); Accumulations (81), negatived; Merchandise Marks Law Consolidation and Amendment (170); Public Libraries Acts Amendment (No. 2)* (185).
Commit tee—First Offenders (re-comm.) (182).
Committee—Report—Water Companies (Regulation of Powers)* (172).
Report—Bankruptcy Offices (Sites)* (76); Metropolitan Open Spaces Acts Extension (168–190).
Third Reading—Copyhold Enfranchisement (180); Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment * (184), and passed.
Withdrawn—Merchant Shipping (Transfer of Registry, &c.) (59).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Reading—Local Government (No. 9)* (188).
Committee—Report—Local Government (No. 5)* (146); Local Government (No. 7)* (166).

TRUST COMPANIES BILL.—(No. 151.)
(The Lord Hobhouse.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD HOBHOUSE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was difficult to find proper persons to be trustees under wills and settlements.
2
Trustees had very burdensome duties to perform, and under the existing law they could not receive remuneration for their services unless special directions had been given by the creator of the trust that they might do so. The object of this Bill was to enable Companies to discharge trusts—a function which Corporations could not now undertake, because no profits were derived from the trusts, and because Corporations could not be appointed to fiduciary positions. No doubt the innovation he was proposing was a considerable one, but our present system of the discharge of trusts by wholly unpaid volunteers was as unsatisfactory from the point of view of the owner of trust funds as it was from that of the trustees themselves. Persons intending to create trusts had, in the first place, to find some friends competent and willing to perform the duties; not unfrequently they had to resort to their solicitors to become trustees, but the solicitor must be paid somehow, and the combination of the two offices was a; dangerous thing. There was no trust of long standing in which a change or several changes of trustees did not occur, Every one of those changes involved the original trouble of the choice of trustees, besides trouble and expense in the transfer of securities, while such transfer involved some risk to the property, for

3
which agents must be employed and money must be in a single hand for some space of time; and in a considerable proportion of the cases in which trust funds had been lost, the loss had occurred while property was in transitu. He thought that of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects trustees were about the most ill used. They had a great deal of trouble; they had some risk; they had no pay; they had no thanks; and they usually had a great deal of blame cast upon them. Although not paid, they did not enjoy the position of ordinary unpaid bailees, but were visited by the Court of Chancery with extreme rigour, and treated as though they were enemies of the human race, whom it was necessary to restrain by severe examples from doing wrong. He referred to the case of "Driver v. Scott," and "Bartton v. Beard," as illustrations of cruel hardship. He did not pretend that Trust Companies would be perfect, but he thought they would possess these advantages, which would induce a number of people to employ their services. In the first place, they would always be at hand to be chosen. Then we should have trustees who would be always competent, always willing, who did not die, who did not fall ill, who did not go abroad, who did not become too busy to attend to the trust business, who, being paid, would expect no thanks, would be indifferent to reproach, and might suffer some loss without feeling the sense of cruel injustice which embitters the minds of trustees in cases such as those he had referred to. For instance, Mr. Rigby, Q.C., after saying that it was not likely that such Companies would be an unmixed advantage, added—
"I have myself been so much impressed with he hardship of existing rules of law with reference to unpaid trustees, that I should welcome any well-considered scheme of legislation on the basis of the note which you send to mo I have not been without experience of the working of Trustee and Executorship Companies in the Colonies, and, on the whole, my opinion is that they do good."
Mr. Romer, Q.C., also stated—
"It is clear that now-a-days men of business, of means, and of ability, cannot be obtained to take upon themselves the duties in question; the duties being onerous and attended with heavy responsibilities, while the performer obtains no remuneration, and very often no thanks. It is getting even difficult to obtain a person to fill the offices in question, who has any one of the qualifications I have mentioned or
4
any qualification for the post at all, and I think that something ought to he done, and that speedily."
Mr. Lewis Fry, a solicitor who had conducted a large practice in Bristol, wrote—
"The idea of such an association as you have in view is not new to me, and I entirely approve of it. When I was in practice T more than once made an approximation to your scheme by advising clients to appoint a firm of public accountants in whom I had great confidence as professional trustees at a commission."
Another solicitor, in large practice in Lincoln's Inn, remarked that—
"If the law were altered so as to enable trustees to he paid for their work, I believe the existing Insurance Companies or some of them would at once lay themselves out for this class of business, and I should have often found it very convenient in practice to have such a body to recommend."
With regard to the appointment by Trust Companies, and executors, and administrator? he had ventured to consult the highest authority in England. He had given a copy of the Bill to Sir James Hannen, who said in answer—
"I entirely approve of the objects of your Bill. I would suggest that power might usefully be given to the Probate Court to appoint the proposed Corporations to act as administrators pendente lile."
So much for principle and authority. As regards experience, we had none in England. For some years the South-African Colonies and the Colonies of New Zealand and Victoria had adopted the; system he proposed; and there might be other Colonies, of which he did not know. Colonial opinion was favourable to them. He had seen something of their working in two appeals, he believed the only cases that had come before the Judicial Committee. It would be remembered that Judges dealt with the pathology of human institutions, and saw their seamy side. They were not asked in until some wrong had been done or alleged and a quarrel had arisen. Of course, disputes and friction would arise with paid trustees, as with others. Then their doings were subjected to severe I criticism by their opponents. But even in those cases of complaint, it was not suggested that any instance had occurred of deflection or malversation of trust funds. The strong impression on his mind was that these Companies were playing a very useful part in the communities where they had been adopted. It was certain that they were largely

5
used and had attracted public confidence. In the United States of America the system had been at work n great many years. He had communicated on the subject with the eminent lawyer, Mr. Phelps, who represented the United States in this country, and he wrote to him as follows:—
"The Trust Companies, as they are called in the United States, have been very Successful, and have proved very useful. They transact a large business in the custody, investment, and application of trust funds in various ways; and they are reckoned among our soundest institutions. They do also a considerable deposit business upon which they allow moderate rates of interest, and are much employed for the custody of securities and collection of dividends and coupons thereon. They are frequently named as trustees to whom corporate mortgages are executed. My opinion is strongly in favour of the usefulness, safety, and convenience of such institutions under proper restrictions and regulations."
But he did not expect the House to be satisfied with his opinion. He could quote the testimony of other lawyers of great experience. He had now given to the House all the help he could in the way of principle, authority, and experience, and he would go on to explain the mode in which it was proposed to launch the new system. The Bill had three main objects. The first was the removal of those disabilities which prevented Companies from having a chance of starting; the second to provide due safeguards before they started; and the third was to provide official control to regulate them when they had started in their business. The first object was provided for by allowing Courts and persons, who had authority to appoint trustees, to choose Companies for the purpose, and by allowing the Companies to receive payment for their services. The second object was met by Clauses 12 and 18, which provided that before a Company could start in business it must have a subscribed capital of £100,000, of which £50,000 was to be deposited in Court to be invested in the name of the Paymaster General, and to be a security for the beneficiaries in priority to the claims of any other creditors of the Company, and that the Board of Trade should be empowered to require a further deposit whenever they might think it needful. By Section 18 a Company was required before starting in business to state in the articles of association a scale of charges, and there would be certain re-
6
strictions as to the alteration of such charges. The other clauses of the Bill sought to attain the third object. Clause 16 provided that the Companies should be under the same liabilities and rules as individual trustees. By Section 21 power was given to the Board of Trade to inspect the affairs of these Companies and to appoint an auditor at the Companies' expense whenever needful; an annual statement would have to be made to the Registrar, and by Clause 23 the beneficiaries might without action and in a summary way have an account taken of any funds that belonged to them. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Hobhouse.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HALSBERY)said, he confessed that he had not had an opportunity of mastering the whole of the proposals made by the Bill; but one thing struck him as somewhat startling—namely, that these Corporations were to be entitled, he supposed, to speculate with the trust funds. He understood from the noble and learned Lord that, besides getting remuneration, the Companies were to use the trust funds for commercial adventures. [Lord HOBHOUSE dissented.] If he were wrong he would withdraw the observation. He would only say, that if there was one thing more than another to be guarded against it was that trust funds should be used by those who managed them. The measure would require very careful examination; and while he would not oppose the second reading, he trusted that before further progress was made with it an opportunity would be given to their Lordships to thoroughly master its details.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that the practice introduced by this Bill had already been in operation in the United States and in various of our Colonies; but the introduction of what he might call a foreign system into this country: required great care. He would recommend their Lordships to read the Bill a second time, as he believed it to be a well conceived attempt to provide for a great want in our legal system; but he thought the measure should not be further proceeded with until it had been carefully examined in detail. He quite agreed with the principle of the Bill as to the delegation of trusts; but there

7
ought to be the most satisfactory guarantees that the trust funds should be preserved intact. He would advise his noble and learned Friend to be content with the second reading of the Bill then, and to re-introduce it next Session, when it could be referred to a Select Committee.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, there could be no doubt that the position of a trustee was one of very considerable risk. Latterly that risk had narrowed down to the general honesty of those who were conducting the legal affairs of the country. In individual eases now and then the risk had become felt, and had involved the most lamentable consequences. It was a risk from which no trustee could absolutely free himself; for it was impossible for any trustee to give that personal attention to every detail, every action, which alone could insure his complete security. On the other hand, it was very difficult to refuse a trusteeship, though many would gladly do so. There was scarcely any trustee who knew whether any property which he believed to be his own was really so, or whether it was liable to; meet the defalcations of those who managed the trust. This measure would, to some extent, meet a much-felt want, and, if its provisions were carefully considered, might be of public service. He had always looked forward to the time when they might see the creation of an official trustee with absolute security for the cestuis que trustent; and he did not think such a measure as this would stand in the way of such a proposal. He trusted the noble and learned Lord would not carry the Bill beyond a second reading that Session.
LORD BRAMWELLremarked that, though not so well acquainted with the Law of Trust as he was, or ought to be, with the Common Law of England, it would not be amiss that he should express his goodwill towards this Bill. One advantage that the Bill possessed was that it was entirely voluntary in its application, no one being bound to employ these Companies as trustees. He Believed that at present trust funds were more often wasted by improper investment, under pressure from the cestuis qua trustent, for the purpose of obtaining higher interest, than from actual dishonesty. That danger would be avoided if the Companies were trustees, as no pressure could be brought to bear to
8
tempt them to invest in dangerous securities. He sincerely hoped the Bill would pass into law.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly.
LORD HOBHOUSEsaid, that he should not proceed further with the Bill this Session, but would, as had been suggested by his noble and learned Friend, bring it forward again at an early period next year.

COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
(The Lord Hobhouse.)

(NO. 180.) THIRD READING.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
On Question, "That the Bill do pass?"
Moved, to leave out Clause 5, and instead thereof to insert the following Clause:—"In making any valuation under the Copyhold Acts the valuers shall take into account and make due allowance for all customs of the manor, fines, heriots, reliefs, quit rents, chief rents, and all other incidents whatever of copyhold or customary tenure, including payments, if any, which the lord may demand for permission to do acts which otherwise would involve forfeiture of the copyhold tenement, and all other circumstances relating to or affecting the land to he enfranchised, including, in manors where the fines are not fixed, ail facilities for the improvement of such land."—(The Lord Hobhouse.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)remarked that the object of this clause had been already fully discussed by their Lordships, and that an Amendment embodying it had been rejected by the House. He trusted that the House would adhere to its decision on the point.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that he desired to support the Amendment.
LORD BEAMWELLsaid, that when the question was last before their Lordships he was afraid if the word forfeiture was not put in the lord would not be compensated at all, where his noble and learned Friend was afraid that if it was put in the lord would be compensated twice. His noble and learned Friend now proposed a clause which would compensate the lord once, and with that he was satisfied, and he would withdraw his opposition, which he had thought it right to make.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he hoped their Lordships would adhere to the decision they had arrived at after full discussion.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) had accepted the Amendment, and his opinion having great weight, it might have led the Select Committee to the adoption of it also. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Hobhouse) had tried to meet the views of those who held that the lord should be compensated for what he would lose while he should not be compensated for what he would not lose. He had himself put down an Amendment to the same effect.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he had not in the least changed his opinion. The noble and learned Earl (the Earl of Selborne), the noble and learned Lord (Lord Hobhouse), and the late Lord Chancellor (Lord Herschell) thought there was danger that the lord might be compensated twice over, and all he said was that if they were satisfied that this Amendment would relieve them of that difficulty, then he had no objection to it.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that the right of forfeiture stood on all fours with the right of escheat. It was a right which conveyed no present income or advantage. It took effect very rarely, but when that happened it brought in so much value that the mere chance of it had a present small value. That present small value had been allowed to the lord for 35 years under an Act deliberately passed, and he had not heard a word which would lead him to recede from the vote which he gave the other night.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYobserved that he could not understand the principle upon which the noble Marquess coupled escheats with forfeiture.
Clause agreed to.
Further Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ACCUMULATIONS BILL.—(No. 81.)
(The Lord Herschell.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD HERSCHELL,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that its object was to prevent testators from directing that their property should be left to accumulate for a period of 21 years after death. The
10
measure would abolish the right which was given to testators by Thellusson's Act of 1799. The Bill came from the other House, where it was agreed to without opposition, and where it was, moreover, supported by the Attorney General. No one would be more unwilling than himself to limit the disposing power of a testator with respect to the objects of his bounty, but he could not conceive that a testator had any natural right to insist that for a certain length of time his property should not be distributed at all. The power of accumulation was a mischievous power. It no doubt gratified the posthumous vanity of a certain number of testators, but it inflicted grievous hardship upon those who were excluded by its instrumentality from enjoying the property left to them. The power of accumulation served no good public end, and when it affected real property was the cause of very substantial and serious injury, for nothing could be more mischievous than to tie up real estate in such a way as to prevent the owner from dealing with it for 21 years. The property remained in the hands of trustees, whose only duty was to collect the income derived from it. Such a state of things could not be beneficial to the tenants who lived upon the estate. The system of accumulation was in opposition to the whole tendency of modern years, which had been in the direction of promoting actual and effective ownership of land. It had been pointed out that it would be reasonable to retain the power of accumulation for certain specific purposes, such as the payment of a testator's debts and the raising of portions for his younger children. He was quite willing that these proposed exceptions to the operation of the Bill should be considered. The point upon which he relied was the prevention of accumulation for the gratification of posthumous vanity. The measure had been received with general favour in the other House, and he trusted that it would not meet with opposition from their Lordships.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that he approved the object of the Bill as explained by his noble and learned Friend, He was, however, dissatisfied with the drafting of the measure, which he feared would go further than was intended and he saw no good reason for abolishing these exceptions to the Thellusson Act, when the accumulation was for

11
payment of the settler's debt, or for raising childrens' portions, to which his noble friend had referred. Great care must be taken in amending the measure. It was proposed by the Bill to repeal Thellusson's Act, which permitted accumulation for 21 years only. Now if they were to begin by repealing that Act, and subsequently to say in general terms that accumulation would be allowed for certain specific purposes, they might be permitting accumulation for those purposes for an indefinite time. The Bill did not make it clear whether accumulation was to be forbidden unless there were some person who, if he were of full age, would be entitled to the income.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he could not help thinking that the Bill was based on an erroneous and bad principle. The noble and learned Earl had criticized some of the provisions of the Bill; but he thought that the principle of perpetually interfering with the disposition which people were allowed to make of their money was one which ought to receive no encouragement at the hands of their Lordships. Persons knew the circumstances of their own families best, and he did not believe that eases of mere wanton accumulation were frequent. The noble and learned Lord had pointed out that the Thellusson Act was a restraining Act. But there were exceptions to its operation, and accumulation was expressly allowed for the purpose, either of paying the debts of the testator or of raising fortunes for children. There were no such exceptions in the present Bill, and he hoped the House would not read it a second time.
LORD HERSCHELLrose to reply, but—
LORD HALSBURYpointed out that as there was no Amendment the noble and learned Lord according to the Standing Order had no right of reply.
After some discussion,
LORD HALSBURYsaid, that for the purpose of enabling his noble and learned Friend to address the House, he would move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(Lord Halsbury.)
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he could see that alterations might be made with advantage to the Bill. He held that cases of accumulation for mere accumulation's sake were more numerous than the Lord Chancellor supposed. If he did not know of such cases he would not have brought forward this Bill. His noble and learned Friend (the Earl of Selborne) had pointed out that in some respects the Bill went too far; if that were so, he would be happy to consider those points in Committee. In the other House the Bill met with no opposition, and was actually supported by the Attorney General. It was not treating the House fairly for the Government to oppose a Bill of this character which was unanimously approved by the other House, especially as it could be easily amended in Committee.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he must protest against the idea that the Government were to be debarred from criticizing and opposing the Bill of a private Member, simply because the Attorney General had spoken in its favour, and it had received the unanimous approval of the House of Commons. The noble and learned Lord himself had admitted the desirability of Amendments such as would entirely alter the Bill. In these circumstances the taunt thrown out was quite undeserved.
On Question, that ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 19; Not-Contents 36: Majority 17.
Resolved in the negative.
Bill to be read 2a on this day three months.

MERCHANDISE MARKS LAW CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Stanley of Preston.)

(NO. 170.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord STANLEY of PRESTON),in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, remarked that the fraudulent use of marks had been greatly detrimental to the trade of this country. Indeed, that was a fact which was only too notorious, and therefore he hoped he should be excused if he did not enter into details, and if he confined his remarks to a few explanatory words as to

13
the circumstances under which the measure had been brought forward. In 1862 an Act was passed dealing with the fraudulent use and the forgery of merchandize marks. That Art was full and complete, and might have been a useful measure but for two unfortunate defects. First of all, there was the necessity of proceeding by indictment; and, secondly, the proof of fraudulent intent was thrown to a very great degree on the prosecutor. Last year a Bill was introduced by his Predecessor in Office (Mr. Mundella), with the aid and advice of the Cutlers' Company of Sheffield, who had themselves experienced great difficulty in dealing with all the eases relating to trade marks that were brought under their notice. That Bill fell through, and when the present Government came into Office it became his duty to consider in what manner they could best deal with this subject. They introduced a Bill for amending the Act of 1862, and shortly afterwards a Bill to consolidate and amend the law, and to incorporate into one Act the Act of 1862 and the Amendment Act. In the meantime Mr. Mundella re-introduced the Bill of the previous year, and by arrangement, a strong Select Committee was appointed in "another place," and these three Bills were referred to it. This Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, was accepted with hardly an alteration by the House of Commons, and in that form it came up from the other House to their Lordships. In its passage through Committee elsewhere the provisions of the Bill were made rather more stringent. The burden of proof was transferred from the shoulders of the prosecutor rather more distinctly to those of the defendant. In other words, the presumption against the defendant was considerably increased. There were some persons who might think that the measure in its present form was somewhat too stringent; but, if he might judge from the tone of the deputation he received, there, was an earnest desire on the part of all sections and classes of the various trades that this foul blot should be erased, and honest trade encouraged throughout the country. It was impossible not to sympathize with such an object as that. He ought, perhaps, to add that if the Bill passed through Parliament it was hoped and intended that similar legislation should be introduced both in India and
14
the Colonies. The Government, in fact, were already in communication with the various authorities in those countries with that object. They hoped that throughout the Dominions of Her Majesty there would be a common agreement to act upon the lines of the legislation which was now proposed to their Lordships. He did not know that it was necessary for him to enter in detail into the provisions of the Bill, but he might mention that an essential change had been made in regard to one of the provisions of the Act of 1862, for it was now proposed to do away with the cumbrous process by indictment, and to deal with these cases by summary conviction, giving, however, a right to a person aggrieved by any conviction to appeal to a Court of Quarter Sessions. There were also clauses in the Bill which were required to protect the watch trade. The British hall mark was looked upon by many in the trade as an indication of British origin; but that was not so. Large numbers of foreign watches were brought to the Assay Office to have the hall mark affixed, and a large trade had grown up of late years in that way. He believed that to a large number, at all events, of those engaged in the watch trade the clauses introduced into this Bill would be entirely satisfactory. In asking their Lordships to give the Bill a second reading, he wished to point out what discredit had been thrown on the trade of the country owing to the use of fraudulent marks. The Government had received representations from all parts of the country that this Bill would meet the objects at which they aimed, and they believed that much might be done by its means to eradicate present frauds and to protect those who were entitled to trade marks in the legitimate use and legitimate value of those marks.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Stanley of Preston.)
LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he should support the Bill, but he wished to point out that it did not in its present form deal with one of the greatest frauds now perpetrated, which was injurious to the farmer and injurious to the poorer classes, and that was the practice of selling foreign imported meat as English meat. He contended that the I butcher should be compelled to mark his meat British and foreign, and to distinguish between the two. Instead

15
of putting all in together at 8d. or 10 d. per lb. he ought to be compelled to put in foreign meat at 5d. or 6d., and so give the poorer classes the benefit of buying cheaply.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE,interposing, pointed out that the noble Lord's observations had no bearing on the present Bill, which appeared, by its title and preamble, to refer to trade marks only.
LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he had thought that it might have been possible under the Bill to deal with a practice which was doing great injury to English farmers and to the poorer classes.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he was extremely glad that this measure appeared likely to pass into law this Session. There could be no doubt that the kind of commercial immorality which it was intended to check had been in some places only too prevalent, and had had a most mischievous effect on trade. It was therefore essential that practices such as those dealt with in the Bill should be put down in the most effectual way possible; and it was better to run the risk of some little inconvenience from the severity of the law than to pass a Bill too weak to deal effectively with the evil. There was, however, one matter to which he desired to call attention. It had been brought to his notice by the evidence taken before the Commission which had been dealing with this subject. There was one kind of fraud so prevalent that it was admitted on all hands to be disastrous and that was the use of some mark or combination of marks for the purpose of leading people to believe that the goods were manufactured by some person other than the person who really manufactured them. He thought it was essential to put a stop to that practice, and he believed it was possible to do so by some Amendment entirely in the spirit of the Bill. If after closing the other avenues to fraud this one were left open it would be made more use of than ever. He believed that the whole of the honest exporters of Manchester would be well satisfied that the fraudulent use of trade marks should be stopped. He was sure that the observations he had made were in harmony with the desires and wishes of the noble Lord opposite, and that he would do his best by this Bill to encourage the conscientious and deter the fraudulent manufacturer.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he hoped their Lordships would give every assistance to the passing of this measure, as it was intended to put an end to a great and growing evil. At the same time one could not help feeling that the Bill was rather a reversal of our whole Criminal Law in throwing the onus upon the alleged culprit of proving his innocence. No doubt it was necessary sometimes to adopt what was called coercive legislation, and the well-conducted portion of the community gladly consented to it, in order that those who were not in favour of honest and fair dealing might, be compelled to refrain; but care should be taken not to arouse sympathy in the wrong direction by going a little too far. In one or two instances the Legislature had acted as it was proposed to do by this Bill, and had thrown the onus of proving his innocence upon the alleged culprit; for instance, those found in possession of Government stores were called upon to account for the manner in which they became possessed of them. Therefore, what this Bill sought to do was not absolutely contrary to our whole I system of legislation, though he thought some safeguards must be placed upon it, and the severity of some of the sections of the measure must be moderated.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

FIRST OFFENDERS BILL.—(No 182.)
The End of Belmore.)

COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to order) (on Re-commitment).
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (Conditions as to abode of the offender).
LORD BRAMWELL LORD BRAMWELL moved its rejection. The clause provided that before releasing any offender the Court must be satisfied that he had a fixed place of abode. It would be much better to omit this provision and allow the tribunal freedom of action.
Moved, to omit Clause 3.—(The Lord Bramwell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, that the powers of the Bill were to be used by Courts of Petty Session all over the country.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 struck out.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 (Act not to apply to Ireland).
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN THE EARL OF MILLTOWN moved its rejection. There was no reason why the Bill, if a good one, should not apply to Ireland as well as England.
Moved, to omit Clause 6.—(The Earl of Milltown.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that this clause was inserted at the instance of Representatives of Ireland. Probably the same persons who now objected to this mitigation of the Criminal Law being applied to Ireland would one day be anxious that it should do so.
Amendment negatived.
Remaining Clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next.

BRITISH SETTLEMENTS BILL [ [H.L.]
A Bill to enable Her Majesty to provide for the government of Her Possessions acquired by Settlement—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a. (No. 189.)

METROPOLITAN OPEN SPACES ACTS EXTENSION BILL.—(No. 168.)
(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
REPORT, [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment moved on Tuesday last on Report, read.
Debate resumed accordingly.
The said amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Further amendments made: Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 190.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.