Sitting of 9 July 1857

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Dulwich College; Public Works (Ireland); Edinburgh, Canon-gate, and Montrose Annuity Tax Abolition.
2° Lunatics (Scotland); Court of Session (Scotland): Metropolitan Police Stations, &c.
3° Registration of Long Leases (Scotland).

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. ALCOCKsaid that, on the second reading of this Bill there was no opportunity given of discussing the principle of it, and after a few words on that occasion the Bill passed that stage. He would take this opportunity of stating his opinion upon the provisions of the measure. His great objection to the principle of the Bill was, that it was compulsory, and he felt strongly that from the moment the House created compulsory powers, they would destroy voluntary efforts in favour of education. He was surprised the supporters of the Bill did not study the effects of a similar measure in the county of Middlesex. Three years ago an Act had been passed,
  1156
  enabling the magistrates of Middlesex to do that which was now sought to be effected throughout the country; but not a single step had been taken to put that Act into operation. The reason was, that the magistrates could not agree as to what should be done, and no persons were as yet agreed as to what should be done, with their criminals. It was evident that this question was in a state of transition as was apparent from what took place on the discussion of the matter in the other House. Lord Brougham, Lord Carnarvon, and others, who discussed the question a few days ago in the other House, admitted the difficulties of the subject; and, therefore, they very wisely came to no decision with regard to it. The plan proposed would impose a great burden, on the country. In the case of the county of Surrey, what would be the effect on the rates? The number of criminals in the year would be about 600, or 1,800 in three years, not calculating the recommittals. The average expense of maintaining the children in the establishment at Redhill, and for repairs was last year £27 6s. 5d. per head, and he might therefore fairly assume, that the average expense of maintaining the juvenile criminals now detained in the prisons of the county of Surrey would be £25 per head at the least, or £45,000 on the whole, which was as much as the whole of the county rates of Surrey. Thus, by this single Bill, they ran the risk of doubling the rates in the county of Surrey. Then the building would cost at least £100,000 for the whole number of criminals, in addition to the £45,000 a year, which would be a permanent charge on the county. If such was the expense in Surrey, what would be the expense for the whole country? Now, the population of Surrey was 700,000, and of the United Kingdom 28,000,000. So that Surrey being one-fortieth part of the United Kingdom, the entire cost for the maintenance of all the reformatory schools throughout the kingdom—supposing the measure were eventually extended to Ireland—swould be not less than £1,800,000 per annum. It was said that the maintenance and repairs would be paid from the Consolidated Fund. But what matter was it to the counties, whether they paid this in the shape of an indirect tax through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or directly, by means of a county rate? In either ease, the expense would have to come out of the pockets of the ratepayers? He would also ask, if the

  1157
  measure were good for England, why it should not also be applied to Ireland and Scotland. He believed what he stated was perfectly true, and hoped the House would pause before they passed the Bill. He now moved that the Bill, be committed that day three months.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he would second the Motion, believing that the Bill was quite unnecessary, and therefore inexpedient. Since the passing of the Juvenile Offenders Act of 1854, thirty-six reformatories had been certified, and twenty-eight founded by voluntary efforts, with the assistance of the State, and the sum given to these institutions rose to a very large amount. In fact, the State had already given ample encouragement to private promoters to come forward and establish these schools. He further objected to the measure, that in the event of its becoming law, it would place those institutions under four different kinds of control. First, the Home Office would send an inspector to see that the money granted by the State was properly applied. Nest, the Council of Education would send their inspector to see that their money was properly applied. Then the justices of the peace who had the control of the money raised by county rate, would, of course, have some voice in the matter. And when all this had taken place, he should like to know what amount of control would be left to the private promoters and supporters of these institutions. He believed that the measure would discourage all voluntary effort, and that in consequence a great blow would be inflicted on the cause of reformatory schools in this country. On the whole, he was disposed to think that, though the State should have the power of punishing criminals, their reformation had better be placed in the hands of private individuals than of public departments. He did not believe that the ragged schools would have been so well attended, if the expense was borne by the rates. He was afraid that, if the reformation of their criminals was thrown entirely on the State, these institutions would become mere off-shoots of the gaols. As regarded the county rates, he could appeal to all the country Members to justify him in asserting that they were high enough, already.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that he was anxious to clear the ground for discussing this Bill before the debate proceeded any further. Most of the observations of his hon. Friend (Mr. Alcock) really had no reference to the Bill on the table, but rather to the Bill of last year; and in fact, after having listened to them most attentively, he apprehended that his hon. Friend could not have read the Bill before him. The Bill of last Session had been withdrawn in deference to representations which had been made to him by the friends of reformatory schools. The present Bill was introduced instead, and was not a compulsory Bill at all. It would not compel the magistrates to impose one farthing upon the rates for these reformatories, nor would it compel the managers of them to receive aid from county or borough rates. His hon. Friend was also mistaken in the version he had given of the proceedings in the House of Lords in reference to Lord Carnarvon's Bill. That Bill was opposed by his noble Friend Lord Granville, and its consideration was only adjourned at the instance of Lord Brougham, and other Members of that House, who expressed themselves favourable to its provisions, because they knew that the present Bill was to be discussed here, and would, in all probability, go tip to them in a few days. If, then, his hon. Friend carried his Amendment, the result would be to defeat the intentions of those noble Lords who pressed the adjournment of Lord Carnarvon's Bill, in order to wait until this Bill came before them. The observations which his hon. Friend had made proved that he had not much faith in the discretion of his brother magistrates for the county of Surrey. The alarm also, which he expressed respecting the matter of expense was, in his opinion, entirely unfounded. The magistrates were already intrusted with very extensive powers with regard to gaols and lunatic asylums, and there was no reason for supposing that they would not exercise the powers to be given to them by this Bill as discreetly as they exercised their present powers. The object was to have less criminals in the country in future, and when it was said that the Bill was not necessary, he had only to say that there were several districts which had no institutions for the reformation of young criminals. He had

  1159
  received earnest representations from populous districts, requesting him to provide for the extension of these institutions. And he thought that no vain fear of interfering with voluntary efforts should prevent them from doing so. At the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) and with the view of rendering it unnecessary in all eases to establish separate institutions for every county or borough, he had given notice of a clause for enabling the magistrates of a county or borough to make arrangements with any reformatory institution to receive from their county or borough a certain number of children to be agreed on in consideration of periodical payments. Thus, the necessity of entailing a large expense on the ratepayers for the establishment of separate institutions would be avoided. As the Bill had been read a second time, and the morning sitting was limited, he hoped the House would allow it to go into Committee, when his hon. Friends would have full opportunity of discussing and considering the clauses one by one.
  MR. BRISCOEfelt great regret in opposing any measure brought in. by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, but as he had for many years of his life paid great attention to this subject, he felt bound to oppose this Bill, on the ground that it would throw a heavy burden on the ratepayers of counties who were already sufficiently taxed. He believed that a compulsory rate would destroy the efforts now made in support of reformatory schools, and that these schools would never be so efficient when under the charge of the State as when conducted by those whose hearts were enlisted in the cause. The best friends of these schools remonstrated against the Bill—[Sir G. GREY: The last Bill.] No doubt the former Bill was of a more objectionable character, but this was not a good Bill. He had attended a great many meetings in West Surrey, by all of which he was requested to oppose this Bill. There were fifty-five certified reformatory schools in existence, thirty-five in England and twenty in Scotland. He believed the result of the Bill would be to destroy the voluntary efforts of individuals. The Government already contributed 7s. per head towards the support of these schools, and had acted with great wisdom in so doing. That ought to be nearly enough in itself to support these schools. If they went on in this way to burden the counties, the
  1160
  country would be soon saddled with a new national debt. He believed these schools could be properly conducted only by those who had their hearts in the business, and not by magistrates or the representatives of magistrates, and that if the Bill passed, the schools would be converted into juvenile prisons.
  SIR EDWARD KERRISONsaid, he should support the Bill. A system of reformation should, in his opinion, form part of the treatment of juvenile criminals, under the guidance of persons who felt an interest in the matter. The time had arrived, indeed, when the reformatory system should be made of general application throughout the country. It should not, however, be left entirely in the discretion of the managers of reformatory schools to receive or reject children, but it should he in the power of any chairman of quarter sessions, or any Judge, without reference to the managers, to send boys committed by them to these schools. Unless a measure were passed, empowering justices to provide fit and proper places as reformatories, they would continue to have small schools in different parts of the country, but they would be altogether inadequate to the wants of the country; and he thought this Bill would have the effect of providing proper buildings on eligible sites for the purposes of these schools. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Alcock) had greatly exaggerated the expense the Bill would occasion, when he stated the probable cost of maintaining a reformatory in that county would amount to £45,000 a year. He (Sir E. Kerrison) lived in a county, the population of which was about half that of Surrey; and he believed that for an annual expenditure of £2,000, they would he able to maintain a reformatory amply sufficient for the accommodation of the juvenile criminals of that county. It was not reasonable to rely upon voluntary effort alone for the support of these establishments. The offences being committed against the ratepayers, the ratepayers should maintain them. He wanted to see voluntary contributions given in aid of emigration, and the placing boys out—to such schools, for example, as those which the hon. Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) proposed to establish—the preventive schools and ragged schools. So far as the power to be vested in the justices was concerned, he did not agree with those who thought that they would abuse that power.
  MR. HACKBLOCKsaid, he could not support the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. He would admit that the financial objection was formidable, but there were higher considerations than money involved in the present question. He had been present at meetings in the county of Surrey, at which resolutions were passed in favour of the present measure, and he was entirely in support of it himself, and begged to tender his best thanks to the Government for bringing it forward.
  MR. BUXTONremarked that he had studied the Bill closely, and it struck him with much force that the measure was utterly needless. He had himself some connection with a reformatory, and he must say that he saw no reason why persons who took an interest in such institutions should not be called upon to subscribe for their support. He was glad to have some assistance from the Government; but it appeared to him that it was unnecessary to supersede voluntary effort altogether, and that Government, instead of superseding, should only supplement the exertions of private individuals. He was persuaded that the reformatory movement was advancing with sufficient rapidity, and that if they had the patience to wait a few years, the demand for those institutions would be abundantly supplied. If this Bill passed, there would be meetings in town halls, attended by the lord lieutenant of the county and the bishop of the diocese, at which resolutions would be passed in favour of large reformatories to be established under it, but the effect would be to transfer the management of reformatories from those whose hearts and heads were enlisted in the work to those who felt no interest at all in the matter. No doubt the measure would do a great deal of good, but it would work one certain evil, for it would be the death of all private enterprise. Besides, he did not like adding to the burdens already borne by the ratepayers; he shrank, indeed, from searching out more burdens than those which at present rested upon their unlucky shoulders. And his objection to the measure was the greater when he recollected the ratepayers would have no voice whatever in the expenditure of the money, for the magistrates were to meet together, and were to tax the ratepayers. The Bill was opposed to the principle that the people should tax themselves.
  MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, that be regretted that the debate had been continued
  1162
  so long, as he believed that the observations which bad been made might very well have been withheld until the Bill was in Committee, and he should not have risen but for the determined spirit in which the two knights for the county of Surrey had buckled on their armour against the Bill. They had said that the Bill would impose a great additional burden on the ratepayers; but if it were true that the effect of this measure was to increase expenditure, then they were totally wrong in what they were doing, and had been doing for some time past. He believed, however, the effect of the measure would be to diminish crime, and therefore ultimately to diminish expense. It was true that they were in a transition state, but he trusted they were on the way towards a better state of things. It was not, however, by leaving the present state of things in existence that they could ever arrive at a more perfect condition of things. On the contrary, the longer the remedy was delayed, the greater would be the extent of the evil they would have to contend with. With regard to the objection that the Bill would destroy voluntary exertions, he denied that experience justified that objection. The institution of Redhill, which was a model institution, had been referred to as an institution supported by voluntary efforts. Redhill received something like £6,000 or £7,000 from the State, and only £800 a year from voluntary exertions. Some of the most ardent friends of the reformatory movement were in favour of the measure, which he thought would give an impulse to, but by no means destroy, voluntary exertions. He thought that the magistrates, composing as they did the practical upper classes of the country, would start these institutions efficiently, and voluntary aid would flow in freely and naturally. Thus they would combine two most desirable objects—namely, a fair assistance from the Government, and at the same time all the zeal and interest which could be supplied by voluntary effort.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he belonged to a county in which, as yet, no reformatory had been established, but he should prefer to remain in their present state than have an institution which was entirely in the hands of the State, because he believed it would fail, and, by so doing, check the efforts of those who might be disposed voluntarily to devote themselves to the reformation of children. The reformatory movement was one of the most

  1163
  important and interesting which bad taken place in this country for many years. But as the value of reformatory institutions very much depended on the mode in which they were conducted, he should oppose the present Bill. He did not think the time was yet come for proposing such a Bill. He was not disposed to take Redhill as a model. In Redhill there were forty criminals placed under one superintendent. That was too large a number. The best reformatory he ever saw was in Hamburg, and there were only thirteen criminals under the superintendent there. Time should be given to the friends of the reformatory schools to carry out the system to greater perfection.
  MR. BECKETT DENISONsaid, he gave the Bill his most cordial support. He had studied the subject for many years, and he was quite sure that, if well handled, this would be one of the most important and valuable measures that Parliament had ever passed. He therefore hoped that the House, without further discussion, would proceed to the consideration of its clauses in Committee.
  MR. GARNETTsaid, he would admit that the Bill was very different from the one introduced last Session, but there was this vital question involved in it—namely, whether it was wise to leave the beaten track which the reformatory system had hitherto taken, that of combining voluntary contributions with Government aid, or whether they should adopt the system of establishing schools by means of county rates. That, and that only, was the real question at issue. Referring to the history of reformatories, he was satisfied that the system had worked well upon the whole, and that it was unnecessary to disturb it and adopt another. It had neither failed, nor had it disappointed the expectations of its friends; so far from that, he believed it had exceeded those expectations in every instance.
  MR. BAINESobserved, that he thought the House should remember that the question before them was not upon any clause of the Bill, but whether the House should go into Committee. He apprehended the discussion had gone upon the first clause of the Bill, upon which he should be prepared to give an opinion at the proper time. He would beg the House to observe the clauses at the end of the Bill. The effect of them would be to give greater power over the parents of offending children. The law at present was not strong enough. There
  1164
  was another useful clause in the Bill to give county justices the power of entering into contracts with the proprietors of these institutions for the purpose of accommodating a certain number of children. If the Amendment were carried, it would extinguish the Bill altogether. And, as to many of the clauses no objection whatever could be entertained, he trusted the hon. Member for Surrey would withdraw his Amendment, and limit himself to an opposition in Committee to such of the clauses as he objected to.
  MR. BARROWsaid, the Bill was introduced with the express object of establishing reformatory schools by means of a compulsory contribution from the county rates; and he had the greatest possible objection to attaching that character to these institutions. But Strongly as he felt upon the financial part of the question, he felt still more strongly upon this—that it would interfere in an injurious manner with existing institutions, which he believed would prove most beneficial by being left in the hands of those whose hearts and souls were so much enlisted in the matter as to induce them to put their hands into their own pockets, and not into the pockets of other people. He was sorry, however, that the exertions of those parties had been greatly retarded in. many districts by the expectation of some compulsory measure of this sort. He should be glad to hear from the Government, therefore, that the compulsory portion of the Bill was to be abandoned.
  MR. PEASEsaid, that he Considered it a privilege to assist in the reformation of domestic institutions. He considered, however, that none but voluntary efforts would succeed in reforming the criminal portion of the population; and therefore, as an humble aliquot part of the representation of Great Britain, and no rider of hobbies, or associate of hon. Gentlemen who were, he should vote for the Amendment, because he believed the Bill was not calculated to promote the social good of the community.
  MR. GILPINsaid, where voluntaryism was pure voluntaryism, there was no principle so efficacious in promoting its object, whether social or religious. But the question of pure voluntaryism in this matter had been settled long since by the fact, that the reformatories already established generally received support from the Government. He held that it was necessary to draw a distinction between the reformation

  1165
  of juvenile offenders and the education of those who were not offenders, or who, from the circumstances in which they were placed, were almost certain to become offenders against the laws. As to the expenses likely to be incurred, it appeared to him that in the end there would be a balance in favour of the ratepayers. That this was a good Bill he did not believe; but that it could be amended he did believe, and therefore he should vote for going into Committee.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 168; Noes 37: Majority 131.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1 (Justices of a County or Council of Borough Sessions may grant money in aid of Reformatory Schools).
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he thought that the Bill would interfere with the internal arrangements of the reformatory schools. He was also of opinion that the ratepayers would not submit to a compulsory rate of 7s. or 8s. for each inmate of a reformatory.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYwas so much opposed to throwing on the magistrates the odium of imposing this rate on the ratepayers of the counties, that he should oppose the clause altogether. He had no objection to reformatories, and to their receiving aid from the State; but this Bill imposed a tax on a particular class of property.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENobserved, that, some time ago the Prime Minister made something as like a promise as ever he did in his life—that he would bring in a Bill for the establishment of financial boards. When that measure was passed, he would not object, perhaps, to this Bill; but at present he would support the Motion for the rejection of the clause, as it would tend to increase the burden of the ratepayers which was already too heavy, and thus bring reformatories into bad odour.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he hoped the Committee would not reject the clause on the ground mentioned by the hon. Gentleman behind him; for if the object were really one of public importance, and that it was so was generally admitted, they ought not to negative the measure simply because county financial boards were not established, and the ratepayers were not represented
  1166
  under the system by which the county rate was at present administered. He also begged to remind the Committee that it was at the instance of the friends of the reformatory schools that the Government increased the allowance to them from 5s. to 7s. per head.
  MR. BECKETT DENISONentreated the Committee not to reject the Bill, which he considered to be absolutely indispensable in the present circumstances of the country.
  MR. BENNETsaid, he admired the exertions of individuals, and approved of reformatory schools supported by voluntary contributions. He could not consent to allow his constituents to have the county rates (at present very burthensome) charged with additional rate for the purpose.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 149; Noes 51; Majority 98.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYwished to know if the justices were to have power to grant money without limit?
  SIR GEORGE GREY:No limit was fixed by the Bill; of course the amount must vary according to the size of the institution, and would be wholly in the discretion of the magistrates.
  Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 4 and 5.
  Clause 6.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYproposed to substitute 2s. 6d. for 5s. as the amount which a parent should be compelled to contribute towards the maintenance of his child in a reformatory.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that this was not a new enactment. It was taken from other Acts which were now in existence.
  MR. BARROWdenied the right of society to compel a father, who had no complicity in the crime of his child, to pay for the support of his child in one of these reformatories.
  SIR EDWARD KERRISONobserved that the magistrates had a discretionary power in the matter.
  Clause agreed to; as were also the remaining clauses.
  The House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Tuesday next, and to be printed.

  BURY ELECTION—REPORT.
  House informed, that the Committee had determined—
  That Robert Needham Philips, esquire, is duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Bury.
  And the said Determination was ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.

MAYO ELECTION COMMITTEE.

  REPORT.
  MR. SCHOLEFIELD reported from the Select Committee appointed to try and determine the matter of the Petition of George Gore Ouseley Higgins, complaining of an undue Election and Return for the County of Mayo; That two Letters addressed to Colonel Higgins, and duly verified, had been produced before the Committee, alleging that one of the witnesses, John M'Laughlin, examined before the said Committee, had been maltreated; and another witness, John Gannon, had been so seriously injured by a mob, led on by one John Sheridan, that his life is in danger, such maltreatment and injury having been inflicted upon them in consequence of evidence given before the said Committee: The Committee have therefore instructed him to report the circumstances to the House, in order that the House may take such steps as may seem to the House to be proper and necessary.
  MR. WALPOLE: Before proceeding to the orders of the day, I wish for a moment to call the attention of the House to the Report which has just been presented by the Chairman of the Election Committee of the county of Mayo. I understand from that Report that evidence has been produced before the Committee to the effect that two letters have been addressed to Colonel Higgins, stating that one of the witnesses, named John M'Laughlin, who was examined before the Committee, had been severely beaten, and that another witness, named John Gannon, had been so seriously maltreated by a mob, led on by one John Sheridan, that his life was in danger. The Report states that this maltreatment was represented to have been inflicted in consequence of the evidence which the witnesses in question gave before the Committee. As the Report is drawn that appears to be the allegation; but no particular proof of the maltreatment
  1168
  has been produced at present before the Committee. I think, however, that the House having had its attention called to the facts, should not leave the matter where it is without some inquiry on the subject, and probably under the circumstances, the best course that I can adopt is to obtain information from the Attorney General for Ireland as to whether any intelligence has reached him with reference to these proceedings, and if it have, whether he has taken, or is prepared to take, any steps in consequence of such intelligence.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALD: In answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman, I should state, for the information of the House, that, having in the course of the day heard of the production of the letters referred to before the Committee upstairs, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland communicated at once by telegraph to the Under-Secretary at Dublin, and that he received a message in reply, stating that an outrage such as that described in the letters had been committed, and that two persons had been beaten severely; but the cause of the beating did not appear. It seems that the local authorities had acted immediately on the occurrence of the violence, the stipendiary magistrate on the spot having arrested nine persons charged with being participators in the outrage, and that those nine persons are now in custody. As I was expected to be in Dublin to-morrow the papers have been left there awaiting my consideration, and I hope to be in Dublin to-morrow morning. It appears that the assizes for the county of Mayo commence this day week, and I apprehend that there will be no difficulty in placing those persons on their trial at the approaching assizes, and, if guilty, of bringing them speedily to justice, and I need not state that the penalty which the law inflicts for such an offence is very severe indeed. In the meantime I think that the interposition of the House would be productive of great inconvenience, by interfering with the regular course of the administration of justice. Besides, we have at present no evidence with which we can deal—it is a mere allegation contained in the letters—and the offence, so far as this House is concerned, would be, not the outrage on the individuals, but the fact that that outrage was committed in consequence of the evidence which they

  1169
  gave before a Committee. That would be a somewhat difficult subject to inquire into at the Bar of the House, and possibly we should be able to arrive at no satisfactory conclusion. In the meantime the law is strong enough to reach eases of this description, and to punish those who commit such outrages, and I will take care, if these persons be guilty, that the law shall be put speedily in force.
  Ordered that the Report do lie upon the Table.

LUNATICS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  SECOND RADING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he did not rise to prolong the discussion on this Bill, as enough had already been said to cause no pleasant feelings in the minds of those who were conscious of a dereliction of duty sis regarded the insane poor of Scotland. It was for the House, by a bold and vigorous measure, to apply a remedy to those evils which all acknowledged to exist, and which no one desired to see any longer perpetuated. He hoped, therefore, that there would be no objection made to the second reading, because he thought that no candid and impartial man could have read the Report of the Commissioners, and the evidence on which it was founded, without coming to the conclusion that legislation was absolutely necessary, and that there was no time for delay. He greatly regretted that any portion of the people of Scotland, in their dread of centralization or of increased taxation, should have shown an inclination to treat lightly the evils which had been exposed by the Commissioners; but, while he admitted, on the one hand, the evils that prevailed, and the existence of a small party in Scotland who were disposed to pass them lightly by, he contended that the great majority of the educated and influential classes had evinced every disposition to deal justly and humanely with the poorest and most to be pitied portion of our fellow-creatures. He feared that there existed in this country a serious misapprehension as to the true state of the case, and that it was supposed that the people of Scotland had altogether neglected the proper treatment of the insane poor. He assured the House that this was not the fact, and in proof of his statement he would refer to the Report of the Commissioners themselves, in which they stated that they had reason to believe that there was no country in proportion to
  1170
  its population which had done so much voluntarily for this class of sufferers as Scotland; and, although it might be said that she contrasted unfavourably with other civilized States in having no national institutions for the reception of the insane poor, yet that in respect to voluntary efforts she was entitled to honourable distinction. He wished to speak with all possible respect of the Commissioners who had drawn up the Report, because he thought that they had performed their duty faithfully, impartially, and thoroughly; but he could not shut his eyes to the fact that in their very natural and proper anxiety to bring to light the abuses which prevailed they had not been sufficiently liberal in their commendation of the admirable chartered asylums of Scotland. What was really wanted in Scotland was an increase of the large public asylums. He held it to be utterly impossible to remedy the present state of things without erecting all over the country a very great number of large public asylums; and to do that was, he understood, the main object of the Bill. Whatever might be the case in other parts of Scotland, in that part of the country with which he was connected the evils to which the attention of the House was called were utterly unknown. In Forfar-shire there existed two large and admirably conducted asylums. He should be glad, however, to see a clause introduced into the Bill prohibiting the confinement of pauper lunatics in any private asylum whatever, where a sufficient number of public establishments were open. He also was pleased to find that the Bill did not propose to interfere with the management of existing asylums otherwise than by supervision of their accounts; for they were already most admirably managed. He would further express a hope that the Lord Advocate would abandon the proposed temporary Lunacy Board, and place the inspection of lunatics at once, instead of at five years hence, under the Secretary for the Home Department, and this change would be attended with the advantage that there would then be a responsible Minister in that House to answer any inquiries which it might be necessary to make respecting the state of lunatics in Scotland. Believing the state of things in Scotland in connection with the treatment of lunatics required remedy, and agreeing in the general principles of the present Bill, he was anxious to see it pass into law in the present Session, but he did not believe

  1171
  that that would be the case, unless the learned Lord deferred to public opinion in the matter he had just mentioned, for hoards, besides being cumbrous and ineffective in general, were especially unpopular in Scotland.
  MR. CUMMING BRUCEsaid, he should he glad to see a remedy applied to the evils brought under the notice of the House by the Report of the Commissioners, but perhaps he would be found to differ in opinion with many Scotch Members, as to the most likely means of permanently and usefully remedying them. He regretted that he had been unable to attend the former discussion on the subject of the Bill in that House, or the meeting of Scotch Members which had been convened by the Lord Advocate for its primary consideration; but he would beg English and Irish Members not to consider themselves dispensed from the necessity of attending to Scotch measures, because they were told that the Scotch Members had assembled together in a private meeting, and given their sanction to them. He, for one, saw no ground for creating a new Board in reference to this subject. He entirely concurred in the remarks of the hon. Member, but he also believed that the Commission had allowed itself to be carried away by exaggerated statements; nevertheless, whatever case their Report might make against private houses, it was, as regards the public asylums, highly favourable to Scotland. In some parts of Scotland, the asylums built and supported by voluntary contributions were amply sufficient, and it behoved Scotch Members to see that the country was not saddled with unnecessary expenses. There was no doubt that, in some instances, the Commissioners had exaggerated the existing evil, having taken the number of insane poor, not from the Poor Law Board, but from the reports of constables, and having collected together all sorts of stories from different parts of the country. By the present Bill a new Board was to be appointed, and the Board of Supervision was entirely passed by. Why was that done? He believed that the Board of Supervision had not neglected its duty, for, from the first, it had uniformly, and year after year, called the attention of the Government to the deficiencies in its power. It was, then, the duty of the Government to have given it increased power. In 1852 the attention of the Lord Advocate, who held office under Lord
  1172
  Derby's Administration, was called to the condition of the lunatic poor in Scotland, and he addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Scotch Poor Law Board, requesting to be informed of his views as to the existing evils, and the remedies which he thought it desirable to adopt. He (Mr. Bruce) regretted that, on a former occasion, the hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. E. Ellice) had thought it necessary to make some very severe and unjust charges against the distinguished Chairman of the Board of Supervision in Scotland (Sir J. M'Neill), to whom, in his opinion, the country was under great obligation for the manner in which he had discharged his difficult and important duties. He (Mr. Bruce) did not think it possible that so voluminous a Bill as that now before the House, containing no fewer than one hundred clauses, could receive adequate consideration during the present Session; but powers might, without difficulty, be conferred upon the Board of Supervision, which would enable them to provide for the satisfactory administration of the law. He believed that, if two inspectors were appointed, who, if it were thought desirable, might report directly to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, much would be done towards remedying the evils which were now complained of. In reply to the application of Lord Derby's Lord Advocate, the late Secretary to the Board of Supervision said, that it was almost impossible to put an intelligible construction upon many portions of the existing statutes relating to lunatics, and that the codification or embodiment of the law in one Act of Parliament would be a great advantage. The Secretary further stated that the condition of pauper lunatics had, undoubtedly, been much ameliorated during the last ten years, since the Poor Law Act had been in operation; that, during the inquiry which took place in 1844, many cases of a most painful nature were brought to light, such as the chaining of lunatics to trees, or their confinement in a sort of cage; but that measures had since been taken by the Board of Supervision to prevent such proceedings, and to provide for the due administration of the law. Half-yearly returns, containing the names of persons chargeable as pauper lunatics, accompanied by medical certificates, were now required by the Board of Supervision from every parish, and when lunatics were placed in asylums, the jurisdiction, as well

  1173
  as the responsibility, passed to the sheriffs. He (Mr. Bruce) quite agreed in the observations contained is that communication, and he thought that all that was required for the immediate improvement of the law relating to lunatics in Scotland was, to see that additional and efficient inspectors and more ample accommodation were provided. He considered that it would be impossible to pass this Bill in a satisfactory form during the present Session, and if it was hurried through the House, it would be found necessary at a future time to propose another measure for its amendment.
  MR. DRUMMONDsaid, as reference had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Elginshire (Mr. C. Bruce) to a meeting of Scotch Members held on Friday last, to consider the provisions of this Bill, he would take the liberty of telling his hon. Friend and the House that meetings of Scotch Members were not always beneficial even to the intersts of Scotland; for he remembered Lord Rutherford telling him that it was by a meeting of Scotch Members that his Bill, which was a very excellent one, was entirely destroyed, and that after that, he found it utterly hopeless to attempt to carry it through the House. The hon. Gentleman would leave everything to the care of these Poor Inspectors. Why, these inspectors were the main cause of all the mischief that had occurred, and it was the frauds they had committed on the poor that had rendered legislation on this subject necessary. But then, it was said, the Board of Supervision was popular in Scotland. Popular with whom? Why, popular with the "lairds"—popular with the ratepayers, and men like the doctor who had been referred to, and who was afraid to tell the truth, for fear he should incur the censure of the ratepayers. They were totally incompetent to perform the functions assigned to them, and it was suspected that those were the same gentlemen who opposed Lord Rutherford, and who had prevented anything being done for the last ten years. Now, some hon. Members objected to the proposed Lunacy Board for Scotland. He was not standing up for any board at all. He contended they would never have the care and treatment of lunatics in Scotland properly regulated except through the instrumentality of experienced Lunacy Commissioners, such as we had in this part of the kingdom. But he would say, let there be any sort of
  1174
  machinery rather than that things should go on as they did now. The impression created throughout the country by the Report of the Scotch Lunacy Commission, as lately brought under the notice of that House, might be a short-lived one. He suspected there were not many persons who had read that Report. Be that as it might, he would say—"Strike when the iron is hot." Let them not be deluded into deferring this measure to another year. There was no man in that House, or in Scotland, who dared to vindicate the things which were stated in that document. So long as there was not some person whose special duty it was to inquire into those things—so long as these lunatics were left in the hands of the Sheriffs alone—there would never be a remedy applied, and therefore it was absolutely necessary to have some machinery organized with the view to a remedy. It was not, however, for machinery that he contended, but that something should be done for the immediate and permanent protection of these poor and ill-treated people. Letters had recently been sent to him from Scotland on this subject, written on the part of the poor, which gave it a very melaucholy aspect. He said the treatment of the poor in Scotland was scandalous. [An ironical "Hear, hear!"] Yes, he repeated, it was scandalous, and he warned the House against being led away by the cant that they were breaking down the spirit of the poor, by saying that they should support themselves. Support themselves ! It was a perfect mockery. It is bad enough in England, but it is ten times worse there; and he should like to see another Commission sent down to Scotland to see how the poor fared there, just as a Commission had been sent to see how the unfortunate lunatics were treated.
  MR. HOPE JOHNSTONEwas understood to say, that he perfectly agreed with the hon. Member for West Surrey, that it was not desirable that this measure should be postponed till next Session, as he doubted whether the House would be able then to entertain it. He had risen, however, for the purpose of stating that, in the part of Scotland (Dumfries-shire) which he represented, the only real objection felt to the provisions of the Bill of the Lord Advocate had reference to the constitution of the Board of Commissioners in Lunacy. The leading men in that part of the country who had given their attention to this subject would be

  1175
  perfectly satisfied with the most stringent inspection, and they wished to see the most complete publicity. They desired to see the proposed inspectors appointed; but, at the same time, to hold direct communication with the Secretary of State; and if a change of that kind were made in the Bill, he believed it would meet with general approval. The county with which he was connected was fortunate enough to possess an asylum conducted on the most admirable principles, which afforded very excellent accommodation, so far as it went, for pauper lunatics; and he was authorized to state that the trustees of that institution, at the suggestion of a benevolent lady, who took much interest in ameliorating the condition of this unfortunate class of persons, had passed a resolution by which accommodation for upwards of 200 additional pauper lunatics would be provided. He should like to see the Bill amended so far as to allow such asylums to receive pauper lunatics at a rate of charge not exceeding a given limit to be fixed by the Bill; and he thought, also, that it was only a matter of justice to exempt them from parochial and county rates.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he must complain that a vast deal of odium had been thrown on the Board of Supervision for acts of omission and inefficiency over which the able man at the head of that board bad no control, and for which he was not responsible. That, however, appeared now to be the usual fate of the most distinguished public servants both at home and abroad. He would remind the House that the Board of Supervision had annually reported to Parliament and pointed out defects which called for a remedy. But that board had no power to act. It rested entirely with the Secretary of State, or the sheriffs of counties, to carry out the recommendations which were made by the board from time to time. That a state of things existed as regarded pauper lunatics which demanded a remedy there could be little doubt; but the duty of applying that remedy, he repeated, devolved on the sheriffs of counties throughout Scotland and the Secretary of State, and not on the Board of Supervision. He had no hesitation in saying that there was throughout the whole of Scotland an earnest desire that the unhappy people afflicted with lunacy should have the greatest amount of care bestowed on them, and for that purpose they wore ready to
  1176
  consent to any measure, which was not inconsistent with the principle of self-government in local matters. The city he represented had one of the best asylums in the country, and the authorities connected with it invited inspection; but what they did not want was the interference which would disgust those who were voluntarily giving their money and their time to the care and relief of the unhappy inmates of the asylum. Again, the asylum at Perth was managed with all the care of a private Family, and had been productive of the happiest results. He held in his hand a newspaper called Excelsior, which was got up by the so-called mad people there, and in which were several papers translated from German and French into English; and he assured the House that he saw fewer indications of madness in that little sheet than were occasionally to be seen in newspapers with which the community was daily familiar. He took exception to the board contemplated by the Bill; but if the counties were compelled to build asylums in which pauper lunatics could be located, and if the inspection of them could be made by persons sent directly from the Lunacy Commissioners in London, or from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he should give it his hearty concurrence.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, he wished to know whether the Lord Advocate was ready to proceed for penalties against any of the parties who had been guilty of the enormities reported by the Commissioners. The case to which he desired more particularly to call attention, was that of the establishment at Hill-lane House, near Greenock. On the day on which the Commissioners visited it there were seventy-one inmates. Most of them were pauper lunatics, paying £22 a year each; but some were of the better class, paying from £40 to £50. The gross receipts where from £1,500 to £2,000 a year. It appeared that the Commissioners had reported against a prosecution in this case because there was no power to mitigate the penalties; but he did not think a penalty of £200 at all too great for the crimes and atrocities which had been committed at that house. The true way to effect a revolution in the treatment of pauper lunatics was to touch the pockets of those who lived by them; and if a few of these persons were prosecuted it would show that the House and the Government were in earnest on the subject.
  MR. F. DUNDASwas understood to

  1177
  deny the truth of the case mentioned in the Report, respecting the removal of a female pauper lunatic from Kirkwall to Edinburgh.
  MR. E. ELLICE(St. Andrews) said, ho regretted that hon. Members had not noticed the facts upon which he had made his statement. He would not say that the Report was accurate in all its details; but he believed it might be taken as a fair average of the state of things which existed in Scotland. There might be some exaggerations and misstatements; but, on the other hand, there were many cases that never came before the Commissioners, and consequently never appeared in their Report at all. He would not enter into the particular statements; but he would say this much, that while there had been the greatest improvement on the part of the Government, the inefficiency of the system of inspection was abundantly proved. He complained very much that whilst the letter which had been read, stating that great atrocities existed before the Poor Law, but that since the passing of the Poor Law they had ceased, was being written—at the very time when that letter was being penned—two of the worst cases, that of the man who was chained to his bed for thirty years with a two-foot chain, and that of the two women who were confined in cages under very revolting circumstances, were still in existence unaltered. The House of Commons never dreamt of what the state of things really was. Some hon. Members thought the Bill was hard upon individuals. He was ready to admit the eminent services of the gentleman who presided over the Board of Supervision, but the fact was, that the inspection of the poor was more than one individual could undertake. When there was a board consisting of one paid and of several unpaid officers, the whole duty always fell upon the paid officer. The superintendence of the pauper lunatics of Scotland demanded continuous care; it was a continuous charge, and he did not understand that any member of the board attended it continuously. The laches of the board was no doubt to be attributed to its constitution; but the duty of any official who found himself overworked was to state the circumstance to the Government, and consequently he could not acquit the head of the board for not having written to the Government, and said he would no longer be responsible for duties which he had not the means to perform. He dissented from
  1178
  the suggestion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) to have inspectors come to Scotland from the Lunacy Board in London, It would be centralization with a vengeance, and most distasteful to the people of Scotland. At the same time he was aware of the objections to a new board in Edinburgh, and he had come to the conclusion that all the evils might be remedied without having recourse to it. The three great objects of legislalation were—first, the establishment of proper asylums in which pauper lunatics could be kept; secondly, proper inspection, not only of those asylums, but of every place in which lunatics were confined; thirdly, power in the Board of Supervision, under certain circumstances, of exempting pauper lunatics from confinement in asylums—a power which he thought should be reserved—and some guarantee by way of inquiries from time to time that such exemptions did not lead to abuse. He intended to leave the whole responsibility with regard to the details of the Bill upon the Government. Discussion of the details would be perfectly useless, and would hazard, in point of time, the passing of the measure. He thought it was of the utmost possible, importance that there should be legislation upon the subject, and that an Act should be passed in the present Session. He thought that no inconvenience would result from passing the Bill now, and if from experience they found that amendments were necessary, a measure for that purpose could be introduced next year. In the meantime a new system would be inaugurated, and a basis laid upon which action could be taken immediately. The point upon which he felt the greatest anxiety was that relating to the appointment of inspectors. He was bound to say that the Bill had been greatly improved in that respect, but it still provided for the permanency of the central board in a way which he could not approve. He disliked centralization, about which the people were so justly jealous, and could not see what they wanted with a board in Edinburgh to interfere, beyond simple inspection, with the different local authorities, who were charged by the Bill with the duty of carrying out its provisions. All that was required and desirable was to lay down what the law should be, to say what the counties should do, and then to take care that the Act was properly enforced. There should be two general inspectors— he did not like the name of Commissioners

  1179
  —with no power beyond an absolute right of inspection at all times and under any circumstances, but with the imperative obligation of visiting every place in which lunatics were confined. If they found that the law was not carried into effect in these asylums, they should be empowered to call upon the local authorities to discharge the duty incumbent upon them, and, in the event of the latter refusing to do so within a reasonable time, they should be bound then to make a representation to the Secretary of State, under whose authority and sanction, but subject to any explanation which the local authorities might have to give, legal proceedings might be taken, if necessary, against the offending parties, A provision of that kind would, he thought, prevent undue interference with the local authorities, and protect the central board against that jealousy which it might otherwise excite throughout the country. Again, there must necessarily, in the first instance, be a good deal of negotiation and correspondence with the different counties in Scotland relative to the erection of asylums, and he thought it would be desirable to have, in addition to two paid general inspectors, three unpaid members of the central board for the purpose of carrying out the preliminary arrangements. These three members, he thought, should be gentlemen in whom the people of Scotland generally had confidence, and should continue to act for the first five years the Act was in operation, after which period their functions were to lapse. In this respect, also, the Bill had been greatly improved, and he was not unwilling to take it as it now stood. Another matter to which he wished to direct the attention of the House was the combination of counties. He thought that, instead of having the counties divided into districts, as proposed by the Bill, the principle of the Poor Law Act ought to be adopted. Let every county be told that it would be required to provide a certain amount of accommodation for its pauper lunatics, either by building an asylum for itself, or, if it thought fit, entering into a voluntary combination with other counties for the purpose of erecting an institution for their joint use. That would be much better than taking counties and placing them arbitrarily in districts, for the county authorities would be much better judges than any other persons which plan would best suit their particular case, and could easily ascertain whether they could come to any
  1180
  arrangement. He thought, also, that there should be some power of detaching parts of counties and annexing them, for the purposes of the Act, to other counties. Some of the islands belonging to the counties of Inverness and Ross, owing to their communication with the south by sea, would find it more convenient to send their lunatics to Greenock or Glasgow than to their own district asylums. He likewise hoped that some provision would be inserted in the Bill with respect to medical men, whose position as connected with pauper lunatics, and, indeed, pauperism generally, called loudly for the interference of the Legislature. At the time that the Corn Laws were repealed, when it was supposed that that measure would be injurious to the proprietors of land in Scotland, Sir Robert Peel made a grant from the Consolidated Fund of £10,000 a year towards the payment of medical officers. Under these circumstances, he thought that the Government, seeing the arduous duties they had to perform, and that the working of the measure depended on them above all others, ought to fix a minimum allowance, below which the parishes should not be allowed to go. But there was one very important question which he must again repeat, and to the consideration of which he urged the Government. What was to be done—and done instantly—to alleviate the condition of the pauper lunaties? His hon. Friend had most justly called the attention of the Lord Advocate to the necessity of proceeding against those keepers of asylums who had, in contravention of the law, ill-treated and neglected the wretched creatures entrusted to their charge. He trusted that the hon. and learned Lord would consider the propriety of making some examples which would be a terror to the rest. He wanted to know, also, what was to be done now with that vast mass of lunatics who came under the superintendence of the sheriffs and the poor law authorities—those who were confined in workhouses and allowed to mix with the other pauper inmates, those who were permitted to run wild in their parishes, and those idiot women who—he was sorry to say—were rapidly increasing the population by the birth of idiot children. He wanted to know what was to be done with these poor creatures till the new asylums could be built. If the Board of Supervision were instructed to insist upon decent allowances being given for the maintenance of these pauper lunatics, he

  1181
  had no doubt that the state of things described in the Report of the Commissioners would soon pass away, because, after all, the question was merely one of pounds, shillings, and pence. In the case of outdoor lunatics nothing more was required than the enforcement of the existing law, and he believed that, had it not been for the negligence of the sheriffs and the Board of Supervision, nine-tenths of all the evils denounced by the Commissioners might have been prevented. As far as the Bill itself went, not only did he give it his support, but he felt grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for introducing it, as, subject to the Amendments of which notice had been given, he thought it would be useful; and, although the present Bill was not and could not be perfect, yet there would be ample opportunity next Session to pass a more complete measure. Before sitting down, he wished to make a statement for the satisfaction of the Sheriff of Orkney, who had felt himself aggrieved by a certain statement which had been made upon the Commissioners' Report. The case he had referred to was that of a female pauper lunatic removed from Orkney to Edinburgh, and who, upon her arrival at the latter place, was found to have all her ribs on one side broken, her backbone hurt, and altogether so severely injured as to endanger her life. The woman made a declaration that the injured had been inflicted by the gaoler of Kirkwell Prison. There was no doubt that the woman had been grievously ill-treated somewhere, but it appeared from inquiries instituted by the Sheriff of Orkney that she was mistaken in attributing them to the gaoler at Kirkwall, who was represented to be a humane man, and not at ail likely to behave so brutally. The poor woman had, therefore, been mistaken as to the place where she was ill-treated, but the fact remained that she had been ill-used somewhere, and therefore the deduction from that case remained unaltered—namely, that there did exist at present gross neglect in the supervision of pauper lunatics in Scotland.
  MR. BLACKBURNobserved, that he thought that the beginning and the end of the speech made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down showed how necessary it was that they should obtain a statement from the Board of Supervision, founded upon an examination into the accuracy of the Reports of the Commissioners. In point of fact, it might turn
  1182
  out all a mistake that any individual whatever did the injury to the poor woman. An inquiry, he believed, had been made, and the Board of Supervision had shown them- selvee most anxious to investigate every case which had been brought before them by the Commissioners. No sooner had the Report been made, than the Board set about making inquiries into the truth of the statements it contained, and as far as they had been able to ascertain, those statements were even more erroneous than they had expected to find them. Out of four cases which had been brought before the Commission, it turned out that two of the parties were not lunatics at all, and immediate steps were taken to relieve the two others. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would have no objection to lay before the House the correspondence which had been had with the Board of Supervision upon the subject. He had consented to produce the correspondence with the sheriffs, and this would show, in some degree, how many mistakes had been made. It was rather dangerous to legislate upon insufficient information, but at the same time he believed, with every Scotchman, that it was necessary that something should be done, and that at all events asylums should be built. Above all, he thought that there should be a proper inspection of existing asylums, especially of private asylums, and that the whole system should be very sharply looked after. The blame had hitherto been put upon the stinginess of Scotchmen; but what was the fact? A very large number of lunatic wards had been built in the poorhouses, because there was no power to build asylums. There were now three times as many lunatic patients confined in wards as there were in 1847. If public asylums were built, well and good; but if not, they should encourage the construction of those lunatic wards. With respect to the Bill itself, he agreed with every Scotch Member that there was no use for a permanent board. An unpaid Commission and a temporary board might work; but if they endeavoured to coerce the people by centralisation, they would do little other than raise a feeling of opposition against them in the counties, in regard to things which might be much better settled among themselves. His hon. Friend the Member for Elgin (Mr. C. Bruce) had been misunderstood, as he did not object to asylums being built,

  1183
  but merely to the board as proposed in the Bill, and it seemed to be unanimous on the part of the Scotch Members that there should be merely powers of inspection. If the right hon. Gentleman (the Lord Advocate) would carry out the Amendments of which he had given notice, he (Mr. Blackburn) should not object to the second reading.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he wished to explain the reasons why the correspondence with the Board of Supervision had not been laid before the House. A few days since he received from that Board a Report which it was his intention at once to have laid upon the table of the House, but upon looking over the statement he found some passages which according to the rules of the House, he conceived would prevent its being laid upon the table. He submitted the matter to the highest authority (Mr. Speaker), who at once confirmed his doubts, and therefore he (Sir G. Grey) returned the document with an intimation that upon an amended statement being sent he would be glad to lay it before the House. The reason for sending back the statement was that it contained distinct references to the debate which took place in the House upon the presentation of the Commissioners Report. He would admit that that statement might show the Commissioners of Lunacy to have been in some instances in error, which was not unnatural, considering the extensive and complicated naure of their duties; but at the same time he did not at all intend to admit that the general statements in their Report had been so impugned as to render legislation unnecessary or to diminish the necessity for immediate action. Upon this ground he was gratified to find there was to be no opposition to the second reading of this Bill, the explanation of the details of which he should leave to the Lord Advocate, simply remarking that in his opinion a central board would be necessary in the first instance, at least, to set the machinery in motion. He could not agree that the present evil could be removed without some compulsory power to require the erection of asylums. That power had been found to be necessary in England, and was equally necessary in Scotland. He agreed that counties should be permitted to combine to build asylums, and, indeed, great care ought to be taken that they should not be multiplied too much. The great object of the Bill, however, was to provide sufficient accommodation
  1184
  for the unfortunate class to whom it referred. Before sitting down he felt it due to Sir J. M'Neill, the President of the Board of Supervision, to express his concurrence in the observations of the hon. Member for Elginshire (Mr, C. Bruce) respecting that gentleman, with whom be (Sir G. Grey) had had frequent communications, especially during the period of the distress in the Highlands, and from that intercourse he had been led to form the highest opinion of Sir J. M'Neill's humanity, and of the zealous manner in which he discharged his important duties.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he thought that, with an efficient system of inspection, the Local Boards might do all the duties that were necessary, without the intervention of any intermediate central board whatever. He trusted that the learned Lord would attend to the suggestions which had been made with that view; but as it was impossible to deny the necessity of the measure now before the House, he would vote for the second reading, but the same time he hoped that as much encouragement would be given for local management as was consistent with the working of the machinery of the Bill.
  MR. DUNLOPsaid, he wished to express the great gratification which he felt at seeing something like a remedy proposed for those painful and harrowing evils which were so discreditable to Scotland in connection with the treatment of pauper lunatics. He had the highest confidence in the Commissioners, and no supposed inaccuracy in this Report should for a moment be made to stand in the way of legislation. Even if all persons had done their duty, it was impossible but that cruelty and ill-treatment must have taken place when they considered the way in which pauper lunatics were treated. There were about 4,500 pauper lunatics in Scotland. Of these only 1,500 could be provided for in public asylums; the remaining 3,000 had either been placed in poor-houses, which were not at all adapted to the purpose, or they were left in the hands of strangers, without any security against harsh treatment, or they were sent to licensed houses, in which profit was the great object. There was no care, superintendence, or inspection—nothing in short to prevent such evils as had actually arisen. Personally he would have preferred a system of efficient inspection without the establishment of any central board, but there might be good reasons why, for

  1185
  the present at least, that board should be appointed, and he would not give it any opposition. He rejoiced that another Session was not likely to pass over without something being done to remove what was at once a national calamity and a national crime from Scotland.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that it would not be necessary for him to say more than two or three words in reply, as they were substantially unanimous upon this question. Even on points where a difference of opinion was expressed it would be found to be more in words than in substance. The hon. Member for Elginshire (Mr. Bruce) was under a mistake in his estimate of the particular clause to which he referred. The evils to be remedied were substantially two—the want of sufficient accommodation and the want of sufficient inspection, and by providing a remedy for these two wants, they would substantially lay the basis for a proper administration of the lunacy law. It having been admitted that these things were necessary, the question was how these objects were to be attained. Various suggestions had been made for that purpose. It was, in the first place, suggested that the duties to be discharged under the Bill should be intrusted to the English Board, with two Scotch Members, but if he had proposed such a thing it would naturally have occasioned much difficulty in Scotland, and, in point of fact, on consultation with the English Board, he had found that it would be impossible to work the system on that principle. Then, they were told that they should have connected the business with the Board of Supervision hut when that was proposed in 1849, Sir John M'Neill himself stated that he would not undertake it; and had such a course been taken it would have made little difference, for they must have had additional paid Commissioners, with a paid secretary. This, therefore, was a mere question of words, and not of substance. If the Board of Supervision could have undertaken the duty he should have been most glad to charge them with it, but in the face of Sir John M'Neil's declaration, he could not do so. The third proposition was that the Home Secretary, with the aid of inspectors, should do the duties of the Board. If the machinery of the system were once set agoing, that perhaps might be sufficient; but at the beginning of a new state of things like this the Secretary of State would be utterly powerless. It appeared
  1186
  to him that for the first five years at least it would be hotter to carry on the system with one or two paid members and paid inspectors than to put it under the management of the Home Secretary, who would be compelled to take advice from the Lord Advocate or other unacknowledged authority in carrying out the provisions of the Act. One or two questions had been asked relative to the Report of the Commission. All he had to say was that a copy of the Report had been sent to every sheriff in Scotland; and when answers were returned from those sheriffs then they would be able to judge of both sides. With regard to the Orkney case, he had sent for the papers relating to it, and had made every inquiry to get at the truth of the matter. It turned out that the unfortunate woman had gone into the hospital in Edinburgh with her ribs broken, that he had been unable to discover the slightest trace of any violence being exercised towards her by those who had charge of her from the time of her leaving Orkney to the time of her arrival at Edinburgh. She was removed in a state of complete mania, and no doubt in that state she met with the severe injuries which had been described, but whether by any undue roughness on the part of her attendants he had not been able to inform himself. He did not think it desirable to go back two years and institute a suit for penalties when there was so much more important work to be done. The Bill could not be called hasty legislation, for it was very much needed, and he hoped the House would consent to give it a second reading.
  MR. E. ELLICE (St. Andrews).—What is to be done with the pauper lunatics in the meantime?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Of course, until there were places to send them to they could not be sent anywhere. The hon. Gentleman had suggested that their allowances should be increased, but that could only be done by the Board of Supervision. He had sat frequently on this Board, and he knew that three or four hours a week were occupied in considering applications for increased allowances. No part of the duty of the Board was discharged more ably than this. There was an idea that the allowances generally were a great deal too low, but he should be very sorry to commit himself to that opinion. The habits and condition of the lower orders in Scotland were matters which must be taken into consideration,

  1187
  and it was vain to think of importing from the south ideas and opinions which were entirely foreign to Scotland. Great credit was due in this matter to the Head of the Board of Supervision, who had applied, with great advantage, his intimate knowledge of his fellow countrymen to this subject.
  MR. BLACKsaid, he had sat on the Board of Supervision as an ex officio member, and at no board with which he had ever been connected was the business better conducted. In regard to the question of allowances it was quite true, as the Lord Advocate had stated, that the habits of the people must be considered. What was given to the paupers in some of the counties in England would be looked upon as perfect luxury by many of the labouring classes of Scotland. If there was English diet in the Scotch workhouses he was afraid there would be no small competition to get a place on the pauper roll. Since the Board of Supervision had been appointed the poor assessment had been increased 50 per cent.
  MR. COWANsaid, he must deny the statement of the hon. Member for West Surrey, that the former measure on this subject had been defeated by a meeting of the Scotch Members. He hoped that the attempt of the learned Lord to remedy a state of things which was disgraceful to Scotland would be successful; and although he had been requested to present a petition, signed by the Lord Provost, and magistrates of Edinburgh, seeking for delay, he did not like to incur that responsibility, and would therefore support the second reading.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Thursday next, at Twelve o'clock.

FRAUDULENT TRUSTEES, &c., BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  MR. E. C. EGERTONsaid, he rose to move, in line 5, after "property," to insert "or being entrusted with any property of any description for the purpose of performing, or causing to be performed, any work or labour upon or in respect of the same." His object in proposing this Amendment was to render persons liable to punishment, under the Bill, who fraudulently appropriated materials, which had
  1188
  been furnished to them for the purpose of being worked up into marketable goods. In the town of Macclesfield, which he had the honour to represent, a large quantity of raw silk was entrusted to persons called throwsters, and it frequently happened that it was disposed of in the manner he had mentioned. At present the only remedy in such a case was a civil action, and he thought it desirable to remove this anomaly.
  MR. AYRTONremarked, that he thought there were provisions in various Acts of Parliament under which such cases might be dealt with summarily.
  MR. E. C. EGERTONsaid, there was no Act applicable to the silk trade, though there was one, he believed, applicable to the hosiery trade. As regarded the former, many cases had been brought before the magistrates, who had expressed their regret that they had no jurisdiction.
  MR. CHEETHAMobserved, that he also could bear out the statement that the law did not at present meet the case which had been mentioned.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he hoped the Attorney General would adopt the Amendment, for the sake of the town of Sheffield.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALhad not the least objection to include the cases which had been mentioned, attempts having been made to prosecute parties for the offences referred to on several occasions and those attempts having failed. His fear was, that the words proposed, would do a good deal more than was contemplated, and on that point he thought there was great force in the remark of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton). The words "being entrusted with any property of any description," though no doubt meant to apply to materials partially manufactured, would include common larcenies. If he gave a tailor cloth to make a coat, and if the tailor appropriated this cloth to his own use, the result of adopting the Amendment as it stood might be to exempt the tailor from the ordinary punishment of larceny. It would, perhaps, be better that the words "raw materials," for the word "property" in the Amendment. Not wishing, however, to retire from the promise which he had virtually given, he would suggest that the best course would be to postpone the Amendment till the bringing up of the Report, prior to which a happier and more efficacious form of words might be devised.
  MR. PAGETsaid, it appeared to him that the Amendment proposed by the Attorney General would not meet the requirements of the ease, inasmuch as wrought silk, which was one of the articles thus fraudulently appropriated, could not properly be called a "raw material."
  MR. HASSARDsaid, that he was equally anxious that muslin given out to be sprigged, as was commonly done in Ireland, should not be excluded from this Enactment.
  MR. BAINESremarked, that he thought that the words in this clause, coupled with those in the interpretation clause defining "property" to mean every description of personal property, would be amply sufficient to secure all the objects which hon. Members were anxious to obtain. If upon consideration it were found that this was not the case, words might be introduced upon the Report which would put the matter beyond doubt.
  MR. E. C. EGERTONsaid, that his own belief was that the words of the clause were quite sufficient, but in moving the Amendment he had yielded to a strong desire entertained by the manufacturers that this matter should be made the subject of a special clause. At present he would withdraw his Amendment, but if upon reflection and communication with those interested in manufactures ho found that the clause, as it stood, was not sufficient, he would avail himself of the offer made by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, and would remind him of his promise to insert, on bringing up the Report, such, words as would meet their wishes.
  MR. HADFIELDremarked, that he was not at all satisfied that the clause would, as it stood, include these cases.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn, clause agreed to, as was also Clause 5.
  Clause 6. (Penalty for the keeping of fraudulent accounts).
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished to ask for an explanation of the words "otherwise than in payment of a just debt or demand."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it had unfortunately been found in the case of certain companies that directors took sums of money out of the bank, without authority, in the guise of loans. The Bill therefore provided that if a, director received money from the bank or company, and did not enter it in the books, he would be liable to punishment for fraud. It was
  1190
  thought necessary, however, to exempt from the operation of the provision persons who should have taken the money in payment of a debt; and it was for the purpose of effecting that object that the words to which the hon. Gentleman referred had been introduced.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he thought that if a director paid himself what was due to him from the company without entering the payment in the books, such a proceeding ought to be treated as a fraud. Otherwise the debt would still remain on the face of the books, and he might claim it again from the company.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the irregularity supposed by the hon. Gentleman, although, no doubt, very reprehensible, did not come within the same category as those fraudulent appropriations of the property of other persons against which this Bill was directed.
  MR. AYRTONobserved, that the fraud in the hypothetical case put by the hon. Member would not be in omitting to enter the repayment, but in taking the money a second time.
  Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 7 and 8.
  Clause 9. (Punishment for a misdemeanour under this Act).
  MR. HADFIELDremarked, that seven years' penal servitude was a very heavy punishment to inflict upon a trustee. Prudent men, as the law now stood, objected strongly to act as trustees; and care ought to be taken in legislating on such a subject not to deter honourable men from accepting such an office. If a stringent Act like this was adopted to punish fraudulent trustees, a countervailing measure ought, on the other hand, to be passed to protect honest trustees from the risks and losses to which they were constantly exposed. He understood, indeed, that a Bill had been introduced into the other House for the latter object; but he did not think it was being pressed forward with sufficient vigor.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he was willing to admit the importance of the subject stated by the hon. Member; but the question of an alteration in the law which pressed heavily upon trustees in a civil sense had engaged the attention of a noble and learned Lord in another place, and the Bill on the subject to which reference had been made would probably, come down to that House in time to receive due consideration. With regard

  1191
  to the clause immediately under discussion he was desirous of making two or three Amendments in it. Since the clause was framed, Parliament had made a material alteration in the terms of penal servitude. The shortest of those terms, at the time when this Bill was originally drawn, was seven years. It had now been reduced to three years. He had deemed it expedient to introduce this species of punishment into a measure of this kind, and yet he had felt that seven years would probably be too severe a term for such a class of delinquents. In the French and American codes, the punishment was limited to two or three years' imprisonment. The Committee would agree with him that it was desirable to retain the punishment of penal servitude, and he proposed to alter the clause as follows:—
  "To be kept in penal servitude for the term of three years, or to suffer such other punishment by fine or imprisonment for not more than two years, with or without hard labour, as the court shall award."
  The maximum term of penal servitude would thus be three years, but there would be some minor offences which would be punishable by fine, some other offences which would be punishable by simple imprisonment not exceeding two years, and in the worst cases there might be the addition of hard labour.
  MR. G. HADFIELDobserved, that he still thought the clause too severe, and hoped the case of honest trustees would have the consideration of the Government.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10. (Nothing in the Bill shall exempt any person from answering any questions in any court, but that no evidence given by such person shall be admissible against him in any prosecution under the Act).
  MR. BUTTsaid, he had a strong objection to this clause as an infringement of the principle of law that no man was bound to criminate himself. An innocent trustee might be subject to an accusation under this Act, and it was most improper to expose a person to a species of legal inquisition or torture to extort a confession and self-crimination. Nor did the proviso altogether remove his objection, because, although a person's answer was not to be admissible in evidence against him, it might supply the links of evidence that might convict him in a court of law. At a future stage of the Bill he should take the sense of the House on this clause.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he also would support the objection to the clause. It was
  1192
  an ancient principle of English law that a party should not be compelled to criminate himself. Even in the exceptional cases in which such disclosures were required it was carefully provided that the party should not be subject to prosecution. This would be the first statute which wholly departed from this old established principle of law.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the clause in question was absolutely essential, and its omission would render the Bill nugatory; for, otherwise, if a Bill were brought in Equity, any fraudulent trustee might protect himself from discovery on the plea of liability to criminal prosecution; he would have nothing to do but to say, "I might be brought within the provisions of the Fraudulent Trustees' Act, and I will close my mouth and will not say one word." In the Banker's Act, under which Paul and Strahan were convicted, it was attempted to raise such an exemption, but, happily, without success. The effect of the clause was simply to preserve the civil remedy. The principle of common law was simply that a confession of a party should not be used in a criminal proceeding.
  MR. BUTTsaid, the principle of law was quite the reverse. There was no objection to the use of a confession, but the objection was to the extortion of it; and every day's experience attested that this was the principle of our law, for any witness could protect himself from answering a question on the score of self-crimination. Now this clause broke in upon that principle, and would enable parties to subject a trustee to inquisition, by which to extort admissions which might ground a criminal prosecution. Could the Attorney General cite any statute which was a precedent for such a provision?
  MR. BAINESmaintained that the clause was calculated in no degree to introduce a new principle into our legislation. It was quite true that, in accordance with the rules of the common law, a man who happened to be called as a witness in a court of justice, in a case of burglary, for instance, was not bound to give an answer which might afterwards be used as evidence to convict him of participation in the offence. Now, the clause under discussion, on the other hand, provided that no person should be entitled to refuse to answer any question in a civil proceeding in a court of equity, and his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) had

  1193
  very properly introduced that provision into the Bill, because, if he had not done so, parties would constantly decline to give the necessary information to the Court of Chancery, upon the plea that to do so would necessarily involve a liability to conviction upon a criminal prosecution. But, while his hon. and learned Friend had taken that course, he had furnished an ample safeguard against any dangerous consequences which might be supposed to result from its adoption, inasmuch as the clause set forth that no answer given by a person in a suit in equity should be admissible against him in any proceeding under the Act.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that he concurred in the interpretation which had been put upon the clause by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and that in order to facilitate the ends of justice it was highly expedient the clause should be retained in the Bill. In illustration of his meaning he might state that he had been the day before engaged in a case in which, after the death of his two co-trustees, the surviving trustee had appropriated trust money to the amount of £1,500 to his own use. When the case came before a court of equity he had been asked if he had done so, and he had in answer admitted the appropriation, thus saving the court all further trouble in proving the offence. If, then, the clause under discussion were omitted from the Bill, the administration of justice, instead of being facilitated, would be impeded under its operation. Moreover, the present clause, while it preserved the civil remedy, provided that the disclosures obtained in the civil suit should not be used in a criminal procedure.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he must renew his protest against the principle involved in the clause, on the ground that what to-day was only an experiment might to-morrow become a dangerous precedent.
  MR. COLLIERsaid, the rule of law was that a man was protected from answering a question, the answer to which would be evidence against him in a criminal prosecution; this clause, however, provided that the admission should not be evidence in a criminal prosecution.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 11.
  MR. CAIRNSsaid, he wished to direct the attention of the Committee to the case of a trustee who wilfully or through neglect had misappropriated the money committed
  1194
  to his charge, and had been called upon by the parties interested in the matter to make good the deficiency which his violation of trust had occasioned. Now, in that case the trustee might, through his own exertions or those of his friends, be enabled to replace the money; but then there was a rule of law which set forth that in the case in which to compromise any transaction might be an indictable offence, such compromise was itself invalid, and the party was not entitled to the benefit of it. Let him suppose, for instance, that a trustee willfully misappropriated a sum of £1,000 in violation of the provisions of the Bill under their notice. It might be that he was willing to restore the money, or to compromise by a promise of future payment upon security. Now, the object of the Bill was to protect persons beneficially interested in trust property, and any provision which tended to invalidate such a compromise would be injurious rather than advantageous to them, and he therefore proposed to add to the clause the words—
  "And nothing in this Act contained shall affect or prejudice any agreement entered into or security given by any trustee, having for its object the restoration or repayment of any trust property misappropriated."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that if he were convinced of the necessity of such a proviso he should prefer one more specifically expressed and accurately worded. Inasmuch, however, as he did not see the necessity for such a proviso, and as the words, if introduced, would be perfectly innocuous, he should not object to their insertion in the clause.
  Words inserted; clause agreed to.
  Clause 12.
  MR. CAIRNSsaid, he proposed to amend this clause, so that it should stand as follows:—
  "No proceeding or prosecution for any offence included in the first section of this Act shall be commenced or carried on otherwise than in the manner hereinafter mentioned (that is to say)—1. If in any civil proceeding against a trustee, or if in any proceeding under the bankruptcy of any person being a trustee, it shall appear to the Court or Judge before whom such proceeding shall be pending that there is reasonable and probable cause for a criminal prosecution against such trustee under this Act, it shall be lawful for such Court or Judge to make an order sanctioning such prosecution. 2. Such order sanctioning a prosecution may be made at any stage of the proceeding pending before such Court or Judge, and may be obtained upon motion or petition in a summary way. 3. If the Court or Judge, on an application being made to sanction such prosecution, shall be of opinion that the trustee should

  1195
  be held to bail until either such sanction shall be refused or until a warrant for the arrest of such trustee shall be issued in due course of law, it shall be lawful for the Court or Judge to direct a writ or writs of ne exeat regno to issue against the trustee, marked for such sum as the Court or Judge shall think fit, not exceeding the estimated value of the property alleged to have been misappropriated; and such writ or writs of ne exeat regno shall thereupon be issued and executed, and shall be returnable in the usual manner, provided that the Court or Judge shall have power to require from the person applying for any such writ security to answer any damages in case it shall be found that such writ was improperly obtained."
  It was quite possible, as the Bill stood, that a plausible charge might be brought against a trustee; and although he might be in no danger of being convicted, yet the odium of having been indicted for a criminal offence would remain, and the imputation, of dishonesty might deeply injure him. A man, for instance, might consent to become a trustee on a marriage, and afterwards, in the natural course of events, children might grow up; estrangements might take place, and it might become the interest of some member of the family to annoy the trustee. Nothing would be more easy in such a case than to get up a case against him, and on an exparte statement to procure his indictment, and thus the stigma would remain against the man all his life, that he had been indicted at the Old Bailey. The Attorney General himself felt that there should be some protection against such a contingency, and the only question was what it should be. His hon. and learned Friend proposed that before an indictment was brought against a trustee, the consent of the Attorney General, or some Judge in equity, must be obtained. Now, with regard to the first check, the duties of the Attorney General were already so onerous that he would not have time to investigate the cases which might be brought before him, and which would rest upon an ex parte statement alone. Again, an equity Judge, if asked to determine upon an ex parte statement, would consider it a most obnoxious duty, and would refuse in any case to grant his consent. The expedient which he proposed was a simple one. It was to give the Judge the power of hearing both sides in the most simple, inexpensive, and summary manner, and of then determining where civil responsibility ended and where criminal liability began. In order, also, to avoid the chance of a person absconding, he would give the Judge the power upon affidavit, which afforded a
  1196
  reasonable ground of suspicion of intent to do so, of granting a writ of ne exeat regno.
  MR. BOWYERsaid, the Amendment appeared to him to be an important improvement in the Bill, because it afforded some security to trustees against the species of danger and vexatious proceedings pointed out by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast. As the Bill at present stood, he believed it would be impossible in nine cases out of ten to find any persons to act as trustees, and it would then become necessary to assimilate the law to that of other countries, and enable property to be dealt with without the intervention of trustees. The law now imposed upon persons who filled this thankless office more responsibility and required from them a greater degree of skill, exactness, and care than from any other class of persons. As a general rule, everything which a trustee did not according to the rules of a court of equity constituted a breach of trust, and anything he omitted to do which equity said ho ought to do was also a breach of trust. As to what these rules were, the most skilful practitioners and the most learned judges differed, and therefore there was quite enough at present to deter people from acting as trustees; but if there were added to these burdens the dangers of a criminal prosecution, he repeated that it would be most difficult to find persons to perform these functions. The Bill at present exposed a trustee upon an ex parte statement, perhaps craftily and wickedly devised, to the preliminaries of a criminal prosecution, and a slur would be cast upon his character, even if he subsequently proved his innocence. Against this danger the clause of his hon. and learned Friend would, to some extent, and with certain amendments, guard, and thus tend to mitigate the disinclination which persons would naturally feel to take upon themselves this delicate office. If in the course of any civil proceedings against a trustee it appeared to the Court that that person had so misbehaved himself that the case was inadequately dealt with by these civil proceedings, the Court in such a case ought to have the option of directing a prosecution against the trustee. This was the true remedy to be provided. No step beyond this should be taken, lest prudent men should be deterred altogether from accepting responsibilities which even now were felt to be too heavy.
  MR. COLLIERsaid, that the effect of the Amendment would be that no criminal

  1197
  prosecution could be instituted against a fraudulent trustee without a previous suit in Chancery, and it appeared to him that a provision of that sort would almost destroy the efficacy of the Bill, which had been brought forward in a great measure for the benefit of the poorer classes. In his opinion a fraudulent trustee was as great a criminal as the man who picked a pocket. But, he would ask, what necessity was there to make the Court of Chancery the vestibule to the Old Bailey? He thought that the clause proposed by the Attorney General was quite sufficient for the protection of trustees, as he considered it to be more in accordance with the principles of jurisprudence in such cases, if trustees were to be protected, that no criminal proceeding should be instituted against them without the sanction of a high law officer of the Crown or of one of the Judges, than that there should be of necessity a suit in Chancery in the first instance.
  MR. CAIRNSsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had no doubt a great horror of Chancery proceedings, had entirely misunderstood the effect of the Amendment. All that the Amendment required was that, if there had not been a suit in Chancery, a suit should be instituted. ["Hear, hear," from Mr. COLLIER.] But instituting a suit was the simplest thing in the world; it was merely placing upon a file a piece of paper called a claim, consisting of only a few lines of writing, and, having done that, the suitor could go the same hour to the Judge, tell him his complaint, and state that, in his opinion, there ought to be a criminal proceeding as well as a civil remedy. That done, the great advantage of the Amendment became apparent, because the Judge would then have the power of at once calling the other party before him, which no Judge could do unless a suit were instituted. No expense and no delay would result from the adoption of the Amendment, and the only difference between his proposition and that of the Attorney General was, that the one proposed that the Judge should act upon an ex parte statement, while the other provided that both sides should be heard.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he thought that some objection might he taken both to the clause as it stood and to the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast. The objection to the clause, and a very sound and reasonable objection it was, was that a trustee might
  1198
  have a prosecution entered and a true Bill found against him without ever having had an opportunity of being heard before a Judge. It appeared to him that a very slight Amendment in the clause of the Attorney General would remedy the difficulty. The clause as it stood provided that no prosecution should be instituted except with the consent of a Judge of one of the superior courts or of the Attorney General; but upon that consent being obtained, a Bill might be presented to a grand jury ex parte, and a trustee might thereupon find himself unawares made the defendant in a criminal prosecution. A new class of offences hitherto unknown to the law were created by the Bill, and trustees, whether belonging to the upper or middle classes, might fairly demand the satisfaction of having their cases sifted before they were exposed to a criminal prosecution. He would suggest, therefore, in order to remedy the inconvenience referred to, that before a prosecution should be sanctioned, the trustee should be summoned before a Judge, or before the Attorney General, as the case might be, and heard in his defence. He would, moreover, go so far as to say that it ought to be in the power of every Judge of a civil court, either a court of equity, a court of common law, or a court of bankruptcy, and that not merely in suits instituted against trustees, but in the course of any proceedings whatever in which it should appear to the Judge that a trustee had been guilty of a fraud or crime which would bring him within the operation of this Act, to order a prosecution. But then he would add that the prosecution ought not to be authorized unless the trustee in question was made a party to the suit, and had ample opportunity afforded to him of knowing all the accusations against him. He must confess it seemed to him that the clause and the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend might be very well blended together.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was willing to allow that the clause was not perfect; still it was to be preferred to the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend. As to whether the Judge or the Attorney General should call the other side before him, that he thought might well be left to his discretion. They could scarcely imagine that, unless a primâ facie case were shown, the prosecution would be ordered to issue. He (the Attorney General) objected to the trustee being allowed

  1199
  an opportunity to meet the charge before the Judge in chambers, for the only effect of a summons under such circumstances, if the party implicated were guilty, would he to warn him to take flight with more alacrity than he at first intended. His hon. and learned Friend said that the Judge should have the power of directing a prosecution. That was the law as it now stood. Every Judge before whom it should appear that a crime had been committed might direct a prosecution. But the clause in question did more—it enabled the Judge to be appealed to, and empowered him to order the prosecution to issue at once. He would now deal with the objections to the clause as it stood; and, in the first place he would say that he should have been glad not to have had this clause in the Bill, but it had been introduced to meet the apprehensions of some hon. Gentlemen of the inconvenience that might occur if some check was not established. But he confessed that he did not at all participate in such apprehensions. Hon. Members mistook altogether the things that did frighten, and justly frighten trustees. The honest and well-meaning man was intimidated by those pitfalls which were presented by the present state of the law. Trustees were frightened because there were too many technical rules. But it could not be seriously said that the Gentlemen of England would be deterred from accepting offices of this kind because there were enactments which punished dishonesty and crime. It had been objected, however, to the clause that it gave too much power to the Attorney General; but were not his hon. Friends opposite aware that powers of an analogous character were exercised by him at the present moment, and that scarcely a day passed without his being called upon to sanction the initiation of criminal proceedings? and, speaking for himself, he would say that he had no fear of not being able to make the investigations which the hon. and learned Gentleman thought would entail so heavy an additional burden upon him. If, however, he could accomplish that, which perhaps it was too late to attempt this Session, but which he hoped would yet form part of a great legal measure—namely, the establishment of a public prosecufor—a great part of the machinery of this Bill would be unnecessary. There were many points connected with an investigation of this kind which could not be adequately dealt with by the police magistrates, intelligent as they were, and therefore he had thought
  1200
  it desirable to give a power to some judicial officer to institute a preliminary investigation, in order to ascertain whether there was a corpus delicti under the Act. This would be a sufficient cheek, a sufficient safeguard, and a sufficient preliminary inquiry to prevent the process under the Act becoming liable to abuse, and yet to render it so quick and ready that only a few hours should elapse between the application and receiving a sanction to proceed. He admitted that the application would be ex parte, but it must be made to a Judge in chambers or to the Attorney General, who were always accessible. He would now come to the suggestions of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast (Mr. Cairns). Let him take the first and second parts of the clause; they provided that there must be some civil proceeding pending; and that it must be made to appear to the Judge before whom the proceedings were going on that there was sufficient cause for a prosecution. Now, such cause could only appear to the Judge after the evidence had been taken, after the defendant had been heard, and when it became the duty of the court to pronounce judgment. Judges would put a strict construction upon this clause; they would approach the discharge of the duty imposed upon them with great unwillingness; they would act with extreme caution, and he might even say reluctance. A Judge, putting a strict construction upon the clause, would say, "I cannot declare that it appears to me there is reasonable and probable cause for a criminal prosecution until the case has been regularly heard, and until the defendant has had a full opportunity of explaining his conduct." The result would be to make the whole Bill a mere farce, for a man against whom a judicial decision had passed would take care not to remain in the country until criminal proceedings could be taken against him. "This would render the whole proceedings nugatory, and would also be most objectionable on every principle of criminal law; for if a Judge should, after such a preliminary discussion, think fit to direct a criminal prosecution of the trustee, would any one tell him that the trustee could then have a fair trial before any jury of this country? With regard to the third part of the clause proposed by his hon. and learned Friend, the full extent of the frauds committed by a trustee might not be at once discovered. It might be supposed that he had fraudulently appropriated

  1201
  to his own use £50, £100, or £150; while, in fact, he might have misappropriated as many thousands. The effect of the writ of ne exeat regno would simply be that the defaulting trustee Would be required to give bail for the small amount of his discovered frauds mentioned in the writ, and would then be enabled to fly from the country and avoid the consequences of his crime. He (the Attorney General) therefore maintained that the mode of proceeding proposed by the Bill was infinitely more efficacious than that which his hon. and learned Friend wished to substitute, and he hoped it would be sanctioned by the Committee.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he only wished to guard himself against a misapprehension of the suggestion he had made to the Attorney General. He entirely concurred with him in thinking that there would be danger of the parties escaping from an indictment for misdemeanour under the Act unless they were apprehended immediately. His desire was that a Judge or the Attorney General should be enabled, if there appeared reasonable grounds to believe that a trustee was about to abscond, at once to issue a warrant for his apprehension, but to allow him to show cause against the accusation. Considering, however, the extensive scope of this Bill—that it applied to every one, from the highest nobleman to the humblest individual in the land who might be a trustee, he was anxious to provide that a person so charged and apprehended under warrant should have an opportunity of going before the Attorney General or a Judge to make such preliminary defence or application as might be proper under the circumstances, before being at once committed to prison.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would consider whether some words to carry out the views of his hon. and learned Friend could not be introduced into the Bill before bringing up the Report.
  MR. ROLTsaid, he was surprised to hear from his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General that this clause had been introduced into the Bill to meet the apprehensions entertained by other persons, and that it did not gain his approval. He should have thought that would obviously have been part of the scheme of his hon. and learned Friend, when he was introducing a new code of criminal law in respect to breaches of trust, to protect the innocent trustee as well as to punish the guilty one. He (Mr. Rolt) contended that
  1202
  the relation in which a trustee stood to his cestuique trust was wholly different from that which obtained between man and man in any of the ordinary transactions of life. All mercantile transactions between men, generally speaking, were simple, short in duration, and easy of solution compared with, the relation subsisting between a trustee and his cestuique trust, spreading, as the latter often did, over a whole life, and generating in some cases feelings of respect and in others of animosity. Then, again, in mercantile life men entered into transactions for the sake of their own profit; but it was different in the other case, and there would be great difficulty in finding persons to take upon them the relation of trustees if, while the Legislature provided a punishment for the guilty trustee, it did not protect the innocent trustee from malicious prosecutions.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALexplained that what he said was that he had not introduced this clause because he deemed it necessary to allay the apprehensions that persons would feel on becoming trustees, but because it was necessary to have persons better competent to judge of the nature of the fraud than in ordinary cases.
  MR. ROLT: The explanation of the hon. and learned Attorney General seemed to approve the view he (Mr. Rolt) took, that it was necessary to shield the innocent trustee from malicious prosecutions, while provision was made for the punishment of the guilty one. At all events, he submitted that the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cairns) was undoubtedly to be preferred to the clause as it stood originally, inasmuch as in cases where a hostile feeling arose between a trustee and the cestuique trust, it was more likely to meet the justice of the case. The essential difference between the two was, that the clause of the Attorney General proceeded on an ex parte statement, and it would therefore impose so great a responsibility upon the Judge or the Attorney General that it could not be acted upon, and, in consequence of that, the object of the clause would be virtually abandoned. The Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast, on the contrary, hit upon a happy medium, as by it the inquiry might be instituted in any civil proceeding, and at any stage of it, a circumstance which seemed to have escaped the notice both of the Attorney General and of the hon. and learned Member for

  1203
  Plymouth (Mr.Collier). It might be ex parte, but the Judge would in that case hold the trustee to bail, and thus give him an opportunity of being heard before the prosecution was instituted; while at the same time it would prevent a guilty trustee from escaping from the jurisdiction of the court.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, after the statement of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, he could not understand the object of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast in persisting with his Amendment, and the less so as there was so much identity between it and the proposition of the Attorney General. The clause as it stood provided for both cases, that of ex parte proceedings, and of the hearing of the party, leaving the question as to which should be adopted at the discretion of the Judge. What, then, was the meaning of the Amendment? It would not leave the Judge any discretion in the matter. But was his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast prepared to say that there was no case in which the Judge ought not to proceed ex parte? Surely it must be admitted that for the furtherance of justice there were cases in which it would be absolutely necessary to proceed ex parte. He granted that if the person to be proceeded against were a man of status he might be summoned; but for one such case there were a thousand cases of dishonest trustees who wished to escape. He could not conceive that any object would be accomplished by the Amendment which was not duly accomplished by the clause of the Attorney General.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he understood the object of the clause to be to give some protection to a trustee against malicious prosecutions, but he believed that unless the defendant were heard it would prejudice him rather than protect him. If these cases were so complicated that greater ability was necessary than the ability of a stipendiary magistrate to decide whether the status of trustee existed or not, he thought it quite possible that some deed might be suppressed, or a state of things represented which admitted of a complete and immediate answer. Upon charges of forgery and murder, it could hardly be said that any ex parte proceedings were taken, and the power of going before a grand jury and preferring a Bill of indictment behind a man's back was viewed with considerable disfavour, because
  1204
  of its liability to abuse. It was I quite possible under this Bill that one case might be taken before the Attorney General and another before the grand jury. There was not a tittle in the clause to insure the defendant having any knowledge of what was alleged against him. He thought the requiring a suit to be first instituted unnecessary, as in many of the worst cases, the only object would be punishment. If the Government gave an assurance that they would introduce words to secure the party being heard, he should prefer the clause to the one proposed in substitution of it. If the defendant were not heard, he would go before the grand jury with the weight of the Government official unfairly pressing against him; but if he were heard, he would stand in the same position as a defendant before a magistrate, and might exercise his own discretion whether he would say anything or not in his defence.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would give his right hon. Friend the assurance that words should be added to the clause, giving the Judge or the Attorney General, and more particularly the Judge, power to summon the party, and in fact indicating generally that the party ought to be summoned, though he could not carry it to the extent of making it imperative. He would gladly do so if the Judge had power to commit, but he was afraid there was great difficulty in that. If the Judge had the power to commit, he would be in the situation of a committing magistrate, and the party would be summoned before him, which he thought infinitely better. That was his object, and he had so framed the clause; but on consulting the Judges, he found there was an objection to exercise the power. When the Report was brought up, he would introduce an Amendment to the effect he had stated.
  MR. CAIRNSsaid, that after the assurance of the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) he need give the Committee no further trouble, the object of his Amendment having been directed solely to giving a due amount of protection to the trustee, and affording him an opportunity of being heard in his defence. He would, therefore, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw his Amendment. At the same time he would suggest, whether it would not make the machinery more complete if they added a power of issuing a writ of ne exeat regno in those

  1205
  cases in which some step was required to be taken at once?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. AYRTONobjected to this power being placed in the hands of the Attorney General. He thought that these cases had much better be left to the ordinary tribunals of justice. He hoped that the Attorney General would strike out this provision.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 13 to 16 were also agreed to.
  Clause 17.
  MR. E. C. EGERTON MR. E. C. EGERTON moved, after the words "personal property," to insert the words "goods, materials."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to; as were also the remaining clauses of the Bill.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next.

COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BLACKsaid, that he felt several objections to this Bill, which would operate prejudicially to the interests of suitors. It had been condemned by the Society of Writers to the Signet and by the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts. Its main object was to empower the Lord President to transfer causes from the first to the second division of the Court of Session. The plea was, that the first division was overwhelmed with business. He maintained, however, that by sitting three weeks or a month beyond its usual time the first division could easily get rid of its arrears. The suitors in the Court of Session had enjoyed the privilege of choosing the Judge by whom their causes should be tried for a long series of years, and it had been found exceedingly beneficial. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  MR. BUCHANANseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he felt strongly the necessity of some measure of
  1206
  this kind. It was intended to remedy a state of things which had been found to act prejudicially in Scotland, and the Society of Solicitors were in favour of it. It was said that it would deprive the suitors of their right. It would deprive the pursuer of a right which he never possessed before 1838. In that year an absolute right of choice between the Judges was given to pursuers—a most injurious step; for, however able the Judges, one would always be more popular than the other. The consequence was, that one court fell into arrear, while the other, the less popular Judge, became languid from want of employment. The option presented by the three common law courts of England was not at all a parallel ease. The Court of Session now presented this spectacle:—That in 1856 there was 236 causes ready for trial in the first division, and 37 in the other. The remedies he proposed were, to take away from the court certain summary business; and with regard to the other, to give the Lord President a power of distribution, similar to that exercised in the English Court of Chancery by the Lord Chancellor. The right of choice in the suitor was unfounded in principle; there was no reason why the pursuer should have a choice of courts rather than the defender, and he considered that all Judges should be equal to their duties, in which case the public interests would be burthened by a rapid despatch of business by means of a just distribution of labour. He, therefore, hoped the Bill would be read a second time, and in Committee he should be prepared to listen to Amendments.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that while admitting that some change was necessary in the Court of Session, he doubted whether the remedy proposed was the correct one. The allocation of causes in Chancery was made by the Lord Chancellor, as Superior Judge, to whom an appeal lay from the decisions of the Vice Chancellors. In Scotland there was no appeal from the decisions of the Court of Session, except to the House of Lords. He would suggest that the two divisions should be fused into one court for the purpose of hearing appeals from each division. This was similar to what was done with, the law courts here. He doubted the propriety of giving to the Lord President, the popular Judge, the right of distributing causes to the other court. A suitor who wished his cause to be tried by the Lord President, finding

  1207
  it sent before another court, might prefer to withdraw it. To obviate the objection arising from the pursuer having the power of choosing his court, he would give the defendant power to remove the cause on reasons being shown for it.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, the Bill was very unpopular in Scotland. It was a measure promoted by the Judges, but he believed that if they had done the extra work that was expected of them, when many years ago they received extra pay, the accumulation of business now complained of would not have taken place. He hoped the Bill would be withdrawn. It was not a case of urgency, as was shown by the absence of petitions in favour of the Bill.
  MR. DUNLOPsaid, the Bill was brought forward for the sake of the public and the suitors, with the view of getting rid of the existing arrears of three or four years. The extended sittings referred to by the hon. Member might have kept down the accumulation now complained of, but would not have prevented it altogether. The Bill was in some respects open to objection, but he, nevertheless, hoped it would be read a second time.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Thursday next at Twelve o'clock.

EDINBURGH, CANONGATE, AND MONT ROSE ANNUITY TAX ABOLITION BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE THE LORD ADVOCATE moved for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish the annuity tax levied within the city of Edinburgh, parish of Canongate, and burgh of Montrose, and to make provision for the payment of the stipends of the ministers thereof.
  MR. ELLICE(Coventry) thought that a Bill of this kind ought not to be introduced without explanation on the 10th of July, and when there was so much other business before the House. This was an old job, newly revived—an attempt in one guise or another to extract from the public funds the means of relieving the inhabitants of Edinburgh from a tax which they had paid from time immemorial for the stipends of certain clergymen within that city. A similar tax was levied in several parishes in London (which had been rebuilt after the great fire), in Coventry, and other
  1208
  parts of England; and if any exemption was given to the ratepayers of Scotland, the ratepayers of England would be entitled to the same consideration. No doubt the reason for bringing forward this measure was, because a Bill had been lately passed to relieve certain towns in Ireland from the payment of ministers' money. But it should be remembered that in Ireland the Established Church had a fund peculiarly applicable to the replacement of that impost. In Scotland, on the other hand, there was no such resource from which to provide a substitute for this tax, and they must therefore either come upon the public purse or upon some fund set apart by Parliament for another purpose. In the present state of public business the Bill ought at least to be postponed till another Session, when a general measure, dealing with all the analogous cases, might be introduced.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEhoped the right hon. Gentleman would not throw any obstacle in the way of the introduction of the Bill. No doubt it was an old grievance, but it was one which caused considerable heartburning to the inhabitants of Edinburgh, and which the noble Lord the Member for London, in 1851, the Earl of Derby, in 1852, and the Earl of Aberdeen, in 1853, had failed to settle. After the Bill for the abolition of ministers money in Ireland had passed, the city of Edinburgh had applied to the Government to see if they would not consent to a Bill for the abolition of this tax, and it was now attempted to frame a measure not liable to the objections entertained to the former measures on the subject. It was proposed that the town of Edinburgh should pay to the Government £170,000 by yearly instalments of £13,000, and that it should take, not the whole, but a portion of the funds of the deans of the Chapel Royal, after endowing the chair of the Professor of Biblical Criticism out of them, and also a part of the sum paid by the North British Railway Company for Trinity College Church. Both of these proposals were part of the former Bills on the subject, but instead of talking the whole of the funds of the deans of the Chapel Royal, it was now proposed to take only a part.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, that the money paid by the North British Railway Company to the Town Council of Edinburgh was to be appropriated to the rebuilding of Trinity College Church; but that church had never been rebuilt, and

  1209
  now it was proposed to apply the money to relieve the inhabitants of Edinburgh of the annuity tax.
  MR. BLACKagreed with the hon. Member that the money was intended for relieving the College Church, but the opinion of counsel was that all that the town council were required to do was to build a parish church or chapel. He was not of that opinion; but at the same time he did not think the money could be better applied than to relieving the inhabitants of the annuity tax, for no measure could be more advantageous to the Established Church.
  Leave given.
  Bill to abolish the Annuity Tax levied within the city of Edinburgh, parish of Canongate, and burgh of Montrose, and to make provision for the future payment of the stipends of the Ministers thereof, ordered to be brought in by the LORD ADVOCATE and Sir GEORGE GREY.
  Bill presented, and read 1°, and referred to the Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed [Bill 116].
  Leave given to the Examiner to sit and proceed forthwith.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Several Lords. Public BILLS.—1a Prisoners Removal; Turnpike Trusts Abolition (Ireland).
2a Crowded Dwellings Prevention; Transfer of Real Estate.

SALE OF OBSCENE BOOKS, &c., PREVENTION BILL.

  AMENDMENT REPORTED.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that, in bringing up the Report, he hoped their Lordships would allow him to make a few observations on this subject. Since he last addressed them he had received information of a most appalling nature, with regard to the sale of these publications; but many of the communications were such that, for decency sake, he would not dwell upon them. But he held in his hand a volume which would give their Lordships a notion of what was going forward. It was a translation of one of the novels of Dumas the younger, on which the opera of La Traviata was founded, and it was called The Lady of the Camellias. It gave a description of the white camellia and the red camellia, in a manner which trenched upon modesty, and which he could not state. He did not wish to create a category of offences in which this hook might be included, although it certainly was of a polluting character. It was only from the force of public opinion and of an improved taste that the circulation of such works could be put a stop to; but he was glad to inform their Lordships that there was a Society for the Encouragement of Pure Literature, of which his noble Friend the Duke of Argyll was president. He was shocked to think that there should be so much circulation for works like the one in his hand—The Lady of the Camellias. In this work the lady described her red camellias and her white camellias; but he would not shock their Lordships by going further. He had heard on good authority that the book was sold at all the railway stations. In it were thirty-two pages of book advertisements, embracing about 100 publications, most of which were of a very abominable description indeed. He referred to a particular portion of the novel in question as a specimen of the mode in which it overstepped the bounds of modesty and propriety. His Lordship then referred to another work of

  1153
  a character still worse than the former. He would not mention the name of this book, as that, no doubt, would be highly gratifying to the publisher, and would promote its sale. But whenever the work had been brought before a jury, which had been done on several occasions, there had been no hesitation felt by the juries in declaring that its obscenity was such as ought to be punished. He believed there were as many as a hundred of these filthy publications for sale in Holywell Street, many of which were of a most disgusting character. In the advertisement of one of these works it was stated to be "illustrated with numerous coloured engravings" and added, "This work has had many imitators, but no rivals. It may be said that for beauty of description it stands without a rival." Formerly this work was sold at the price of one guinea, but it was now published at 3s. 6d. In Holywell Street there were many shops of the same description as that which published the books of which he had been speaking. He thought that the issue of such publications should be made a misdemeanour. What was the remedy for all this, and how was the evidence to be procured? He suggested that there should be a power given, on complaint being made, to institute a search in places supposed to be depots for these publications, and if found they should be carried away and destroyed. A more stringent measure might have been introduced, but he would not ask their Lordships to do more than pass this Bill with its single operative clause, which was to allow, on complaint being made by a party who believed that works of this nature were kept for the purpose of sale, a warrant to be granted for a constable to go with such assistance as might be necessary and accompanied by the party making the complaint, and if these indecent publications were found that they might be carried away and burnt or otherwise destroyed. He thought it should be left to the Judge to say what was and what was not an obscene publication.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEentirely agreed with his noble and learned Friend in the Amendment proposed, but he thought, in the absence of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), that further discussion of the Bill should be postponed until Monday, when that noble and learned Lord would be in his place.
  Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  COALWHIPPERS BILL
  Order for naming the Select Committee, under Standing Order No. 175 having been read,
  LORD KINNAIRD LORD KINNAIRD moved that the order be discharged, stating at the same time that it was his intention to-morrow to move that the petition of the Coalwhippers be referred to a Select Committee.
  LORD RAVENSWORTHsaid, that since the noble Lord purposed not to proceed with his original Motion he should not object, after the decision at which the House had arrived a few evenings before, to have the petition in question referred to a Select Committee. He should, on the contrary, do everything in his power to facilitate the inquiry before that Committee, and should be prepared to show that the evils of which the noble Lord complained could be obviated by means much less objectionable than those which he had provided in his Bill.
  The order was then discharged.

TRANSFER OF REAL ESTATE BILL.

  PRESENTED. READ 1a.
  LORD BROUGHAMreminded their Lordships that last Friday he had adverted to the experience of a steward of a manor during thirty years, as showing the infinite advantage that would be derived from a cheap, easy, and expeditious mode of conveyance, accompanied, as it must be to be effectual, with a proper system of registration, and it appeared to him (Lord Brougham) that it would by no means be impossible to extend that advantage from copyhold, and to make it general for all real estate. He was sure it would be a great relief to the people that land would thereby be no longer unmarketable, and that it would be greatly increased in value. The Committee that sat to inquire into the burdens on land had reported that one of the greatest of these burdens was the great expense and difficulty, and oftentimes uncertainty, of title attending the transfer of land. He admitted that it was a difficult subject, yet, in redemption of the pledge which he had given, he had prepared a Bill to amend the law touching the conveyance of estate, and for effecting a convenient system of registration, Perhaps his noble Friend on the woolsack would think that he ought to rest satisfied with the Report of the Commission and the prospect held out by his noble and learned Friend of a Bill on the subject;

  1155
  but he would adopt the course he had chosen to follow on the subject of the patent law, and would lay his Bill at once on the table with the hope that an Act on this subject might at length pass into law. The noble and learned Lord then presented a Bill touching the Transfer of Real Estate, and for the Registration of Titles thereof.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the public and their Lordships were greatly indebted to his noble and learned Friend for introducing this Bill, upon which, as his noble Friend had not explained it in detail, he would not enter upon any observations. Even if the Bill did not become law it would, at all events, be considered before next Session in conjunction with the Bill suggested by the Commisioners, with a view to carrying these suggestions into effect.
  Bill read 1a.
  House adjourned at a Quarter to Six o'clock till to Morrow, Half past Ten o'clock.