Sitting of 15 June 1864

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Poor Law Guardians' Election*.
First Reading—Naval and Victualling Stores (Lords)* [Bill 151]; Portsmouth Dockyard (Acquisition of Lands) *[Bill 152]; Poor Law Guardians Election* [Bill 153].
Second Reading—Costs Security [Bill 58]; Forfeiture of Lands and Goods [Bill 21]; County Voters Registration [Bill 112].
Committee— Servants Hiring (Scotland) [Bill 108]; Election Petitions * [Bill 17], Debate further adjourned; County Constabulary Superannuation * [Bill 136].
Reports—Servants Hiring (Scotland)* [Bill 108]; Count Constabulary Superannuation * [Bill 136]; Railway Passengers Assurance Company (Lords)*.

FORFEITURE OF LANDS AND GOODS BILL.— [BILL 21.]—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. CHARLES FORSTERsaid, that he regretted the subject of forfeiture on conviction of crime had not been dealt with at the time of the passing of the Criminal Acts Amendment Bill. The law of forfeiture was unjust in principle, inconvenient in practice, and was unworthy of modern civilization. It had its origin in remote times. It was the worst feature of the prosecutions of Sylla and Marius in Rome, and in the feudal times the rich adopted it as a means of robbing the poor. The law on the subject now in force in the country was substantially that which was defined by the Statute of Edward II. That statute conferred upon the Sovereign the goods of all persons convicted of felony. He did not apprehend there would be any difficulty if the Bill became law in the matter of compensation to certain corporations who had claims to the goods of convicted felons. There was one class of cases which he did not propose to include in the Bill—namely, attainders. He did not think it right to punish the innocent for the guilty; yet, as the law of treason was of very rare occurrence, he proposed to confine his measure to ordinary cases of felony. At present the law made an anomalous distinction between felonies and misdemeanours. The smallest larceny was a felony, and conviction was followed by forfeiture. On the other hand, forfeiture was not a consequence of misdemeanour, though misdemeanour comprehended offences of a more injurious nature than the large majority of cases of felony that came before the Courts. In the

1801
mineral districts a man was sometimes sentenced to a day's imprisonment for stealing a lump of coal, and was told that all his goods and chattels were forfeited to the Crown. On the other hand, the bankers who a few years ago were tried at the Central Criminal Court for one of the greatest frauds that could be committed against society, and who were sentenced to lengthened terms of imprisonment, did not as misdemeanants incur any forfeiture whatever. The principle for which he contended was, that the punishment inflicted by the Court ought to be adequate to the offence, without superadding a punishment that fell upon the innocent. It might be said that the Crown was always ready on a proper representation of the facts to remit the penalty of forfeiture. Why, however, should they retain on the statute-book a law which was a blot upon the jurisprudence of the country? The operation of the law was shown in the case of an artist named Kirwan, who was tried and convicted in 1852 for the murder of his wife in Ireland's Eye. The capital punishment was in his case commuted, but all the convict's furniture and effects were sold by auction and the proceeds paid into the Treasury, to the exclusion of those who had the strongest claims upon the property. The Returns showed that a partial remission by the Crown of its rights was usually conceded, but this remission proceeded on no well-defined principle. A convict in Middlesex with £400 a year incurred the forfeiture of his property. His daughter applied to the Treasury, but she could only get £200 a year. The amounts that found their way to the Treasury from this source were very inconsiderable. The Crown usually exercised its rights, and left the convict's friends to make representations, in consequence of which the property, or a portion of it, was sometimes given hack. If that were the operation of the law in the case of the guilty, the House would see how vast an amount of oppression was exercised in the case of the innocent. Under the existing law, they could only protect themselves by conveying their property to some third party before trial. Not long ago a gentleman of position in Staffordshire became the subject of a prosecution for stealing timber. He was acquitted, but he had to go through the process of conveying all his property to others. There were not wanting, however, cases in which the parties to whom property had been thus conveyed had asserted their ab-
1802
solute right to it after a, verdict of "Not Guilty," Another class, of eases were those of coroner's verdicts. A coroner's jury in Staffordshire returned a verdict of "Manslaughter" against an opulent and highly respectable ironmaster in consequence of an accident. The verdict was quashed, or that gentleman might have been subjected to the humiliating process of conveying all his property to somebody else. The ironmaster actually retired from business rather than have the law of forfeiture hanging over his head. Take another case, brought before the House recently by his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley). Mr. Bewicke had been convicted of felony. Every article of his furniture had been sold, and he had no resource but to accept the miserable sum offered to him. A Committee was sitting to inquire into his case, and, whatever the result of their deliberations might be, Wife case itself would be remembered as a lasting monument of suffering innocence and grievous oppression. The cause of humanity and justice was deeply indebted to the exertions of his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, who had been mainly instrumental in divesting our Criminal Code of much of its former Draconian character. Considering the many just and humane modifications which had been of late years made in our Criminal Law, he could not but entertain the most sanguine anticipations that the British Parliament Would not refuse to abolish the last law of a barbarous age, and to place our criminal jurisprudence upon a footing more consonant and in harmony with that humane and enlightened legislation which had of recent years characterized its proceedings. He moved that the Bill be read a second time.
MR. W. EWARTseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time." —(Mr. Charles Forster.)
MR. HUNTsaid, that the Bill had the merit of being a short one, the enacting part of it consisting of three lines and a word. It was a measure intended to abrogate a law which had existed for a great many centuries. Now, before he consented to abolish anything that had the sanction of antiquity he should certainly require the most excellent and substantial reasons. He was generally inclined to believe that a law which had existed for a great many hundred years, had good reasons to sustain it. The hon. Gentleman said that the law had

1803
its origin in the worst times of the Roman empire, and that it had found its way into this country upon the introduction of the feudal system. Now Blackstone was at issue with the hon. Gentleman as to the pedigree of this law. It did not owe its origin to the feudal system. [Mr. CHARLES FORSTER explained.] He would beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, but he would take leave to refer him to the second volume of Blackstone (Chitty's edition), who stated that the forfeiture of lands and the other property of a criminal was a doctrine of the old Saxon law, and that it did not belong to the feudal system. This, then, was a vestige of the old Saxon law. It appeared that it did not escape the attention of those who took part in the framing of Magna Charta, for it had a provision in favour of those who were unjustly convicted, and the law so modified by Magna Charta remained unchanged up to the present time. Now the law was not without its advantages as regarded the interests of society generally. The law of forfeiture placed the rich man on a par with the poor as regarded the administration of justice. The rich man had an enormous advantage over the poor in escaping justice. There was a tradition—he did not know whether it was true or not—that some time back a rich man tried for murder escaped by promising the judge the possession of his lands at his death. Whether the bargain was made or not it was certain that he escaped; it was agreed that the murder was committed, and the Judge's family eventually inherited the rich man's lands. Cases had recently occurred in which rich offenders had been enabled to clued justice by bribing witnesses essential to their conviction to keep out of the way. Ought there not, then, to be some ceuntervailing disadvantage? Was not the prospect of losing lands and goods to a large amount a strong inducement to wealthy persons to abstain from committing crime? He admitted there was an anomalous distinction between felonies and misdemeanours, many of which were graver offences than trivial felonies. The hon. Member for Walsall proposed to remove the anomaly by relieving the felon, but he should rather be disposed to go in the other direction and make the misdemeanant in certain cases forfeit his land and goods as well as the felon: Take the case of those who accumulated stolen property. The premises of such persons were sometimes found full of goods which they
1804
had acquired by dishonest practices, and it was only right that the law should lay hold of property acquired in that way. The hon. Gentleman said that law was evaded by the property being conveyed before trial to other parties; but he imagined that in cases of conviction the conveyance was invalid, and that the forfeiture related back to the commission of the offence. Then, again, they were told that the innocent wife and children suffered from the cruelty of the law. But they must remember that one inducement to a man to observe the law was the consideration that if he broke it, not only himself but his family would be involved in the evil consequence; and that consideration was also an inducement to the man's family to keep him within the law. The case of Mr. Bewicke, referred to by the hon. Gentleman, was still under consideration; but he, as a Member of the Select Committee, would only say to the hon. Member, that if he knew as much of the facts as the Committee he would not have used the strong expressions which had just fallen from him. He was far from saying that the law was perfect. There were many points upon which the law might be altered in the sense which the hon. Gentleman wished; but, on the other hand, he (Mr. Hunt) would like to see the made applicable to many classes of misdemeanour. If the hon. Member had proposed a Select Committee to consider what alteration of the law was necessary, he would have voted with him; but the Bill as it stood was a crude piece of legislation, incapable of being put into a satisfactory shape, and he therefore moved that it be read a second time that day three months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Hunt.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that if in voting for the second reading they were called upon at once to commit themselves to the full length to which the preamble of the Bill, literally interpreted, would carry them, he should be unable to bind himself to that extent. He understood, however, that his hon. Friend was only desirous of having the principle affirmed, that the present law of forfeiture of lands and goods was one which ought not to be

1805
maintained, and required mitigation; not that it was absolutely necessary in nil cases to abolish the forfeiture of land and goods, but that the present law was not suited to the times, and required at least a large alteration. In that sense he would prefer that the House should assent to the second reading of the Bill, on the understanding, however, that hon. Members did not pledge themselves to the manner in which the desired mitigation was to be carried into effect. If it was thought more desirable (as indeed he thought it was) that the matter should be taken up by the Government, who could collect from all their sources of information materials upon which to found a complete judgment, then he was prepared to promise that the subject should receive attention before the next meeting of Parliament. He would admit that if they had to choose between maintaining the present law of forfeiture and its total abolition, the latter would be, on the whole, preferable; but there was a course that was better than either. The very classification of crimes as felonies was singularly imperfect. As had been stated by his hon. Friend, there were many grave misdemeanours which were infinitely worse than slight felonies. Here, then, they came across an anomaly involving a practical injustice. On the other hand, the effect of the measure now before the House was such that, if it passed in its present form, a man convicted of a capital felony would escape the forfeiture of his property. The law at present showed so much tenderness for human life, that the heaviest punishment not capital could not be thought too great for some offences, for which death was not inflicted. Of this class of cases were murders and attempts to murder, where the capital sentence was commuted, and other crimes of violence, with some cases of forgery and fraud. In these cases, civil death seemed to be a most reasonable consequence of crime; but, if the present Bill were adopted simply as it stood, an offender, convicted of any of these crimes, might, notwithstanding, remain in the possession and enjoyment of the whole of his property. Such a money power might be capable of being inconveniently used against the law, even for the purposes of escape. If a mitigation in cases such as these were thought desirable at all, the law should still take from the individual the title to property, leaving the succession to the innocent members of the family. That was practically the case now, for where the family seemed unde-
1806
servedly to suffer, and memorialized the Crown, all the circumstances were usually taken into account, had the benefit of the family was not lost sight of. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) had alluded to another class of offenders, which made it most important that the Crown should retain some hold over the property of felons. He meant those who had accumulated, by robbery or fraud, a quantity of other people's property. The present law enabled the Crown, without litigation, to make such restitution to those who had been despoiled as was desirable arid possible. Without going further into details, he would merely mention one other subject involved in the Bill, which would require full consideration. One inconvenient relic of feudal times was what were called manorial rights. In many manors and royalties, amongst other rights of the Crown granted to individuals, were felons' goods. The Bill would abolish that right, and this might possibly be considered by some to involve a question of compensation. He expressed no opinion on that subject, he merely mentioned it as one which would require careful consideration. In assenting to the principle of the Bill, therefore, he did not pledge himself to details, and on that understanding he should support the Motion for the second reading.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, when he was Attorney General for Ireland it became part of his duty to look into the subject, and he came to the conclusion to which Sir Samuel Romilly had come—that it was not possible for the wit of man to suggest an argument to justify the forfeiture of goods and lands. The matter was laid before his colleagues, and they were called before the Cabinet of which his right hon. Friend near him (Sir John Pakington) was a. member to explain the proposal which they had agreed to recommend. The result was that a Bill was brought in which was afterwards withdrawn, and referred to the Committee which was then sitting on the subject of the Consolidation of the Criminal Law. That Committee was of opinion that they could not do more than consolidate the statute law of the two countries, and the subject, therefore, was not taken up by them. He was not quite sure that he had correctly followed the shadowy distinctions of the Attorney General, but ho was willing to proceed upon this broad principle—that if they took away a man's life they ought to be satisfied, and not to inflict a punishment undeservedly upon

1807
his posterity. He never had a more painful duty to discharge than when, as Law Officer of the Crown, he had to decide what should be done with the property of-a wretched man who had been executed. Upon his advice the property was given, as it ought to be both by the law of reason and humanity, to the family of the man who had committed no crime, and therefore 6nght not to be punished. He had had occasion to defend persons charged with high treason, and he knew what was done in such cases-was that the property was conveyed away before the trial. There was a memorable instance of a person in Ireland, who, being accused of treason, took poison, and then, leaning over the dock, whispered to Curran, "We have deceived the Senate," and died. If the direct question were to go to a division, he should support it.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he should support the Bill, on the ground that cruelty in the punishment of crime was a great mistake. In the reign of Henry VIII. the cook of the Bishop of Rochester poisoned two of his fellow-servants, and in order to show abhorrence for a crime which had been perpetrated in a Bishop's palace it was enacted that he should be boiled to death. The cook was literally boiled, but what became of him afterwards he could not say. But the second section of the Act said that the lands of the offenders against it should escheat to the lord of the fee. He should like to know whether the Act of Henry VIII. was repealed last year? What injustice would be done by depriving the lord of the fee of such rights as he possessed under that Act? Another offence, once common in Lancashire, was witchcraft. Witchcraft was a felony. A case was on record of ten or twelve witches being tried for murder by incantation, and several of them were executed, and their land was forfeited. The offence and the forfeiture were abolished, and the crime being no longer cognizable by law it had ceased. He trusted that Parliament would do away with the barbarous law of forfeiture. Was there a man more to be pitied than one who had fallen into crime? Were he poor or were he wealthy, his1 reputation was gone for ever. He could never show firs face in society again. And where was his property? It was taken from his family; and if the man came back: from his punishment, 'where was he to live and how was he to live; and what became of his family? The late Governor of the Wake-
1808
field House of Correction had given an opinion that cruelty in the punishment of crime had been a great mistake; and that; it was not the excessive vindictiveness of; the law that prevented the commission of crime, but moral instruction and teaching.; The House and the country were indebted-to the hon. Member for bringing in this Bill. The property gained by the Crown by forfeiture was infinitesimal; its loss was ruinous to innocent families; and the system was unbecoming the dignity of a great nation.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he had been struck by the curious language which had been used by almost every hon. Gentleman who had spoken on the subject. The hon. Gentleman who had brought in the Bill; and had supported his views with great candour and great power, spoke of the right principle upon which all punishment ought to be inflicted, and said that the present state of the law was unjust to the children. But he should like to know what punishment inflicted upon the father did not fall upon the children, and whether there was not high authority for visiting the children for the crimes of their parents? The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment said he had a great love foe anything that was ancient.
MR. HUNTexplained that what he did say was, when a law had existed for centuries he always presumed there was good reason for it, and therefore he required good reasons for its abolition.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that the law against witches had existed for centuries, and therefore recommended itself to the hon. Gentleman. The Attorney General had spoken of the enormity of the of the offence. But what had the enormity of the offence to do with the punishment? Punishment ought to be inflicted only for' two purposes —first for reformation and then for prevention. He thought it was Bentham who said that if a crime could be prevented by a fine of a penny, then any infliction of pain beyond what such a fine would cause was wrong. Now, it was supposed-that the forfeiture of lands and goods was a means of preventing crime. But was that mode of prevention equivalent in the one scale to the pain and misery inflicted upon the family in the other? It was not a matter of sentiment, but of inquiry; The greater part of the crimes of society were committed by poor people. He did not state that for the purpose of showing that there was inherent vice in the poor, but

1809
simply as at matter of fact. The punishment in question had no existence for the peer, nor would any one, believe that the rich were prevented from committing crimes by the fear of the loss of their property. In Scotland the penalty of forfeiture for the crime of treason was made void by an arrangement by which the succession should be in one person, but the actual enjoyment in another, and the father went on one side and the son on the other, so that, whatever turned up, the family always kept the estate. But it could not be said that England wag less famous for its treasons than Scotland, and therefore the loss of property was no prevention of crime. He could come to the same conclusion as his hon. Friend (Mr. Charles Forster), though upon different grounds; and he maintained that all that was done by the present state of the law was unmitigated mischief, because it produced pain without any corresponding advantage. He quite agreed with the Attorney General that it was a grave matter, and ought to be dealt with by the Government. He was sure from the character of his hon. Friend he would be glad to see the matter in the hands of the Government, but the Government must not trifle with it. They must understand that the opinion of society demanded that an exceedingly mischievous provision should be struck out of the law, and that the time had arrived for doing so. If, therefore, his hon. Friend would take his advice, he would place the matter in the hands of the Attorney General.
MR. MARSHsaid, he should support the Bill. It was an ancient principle of English law laid down by Blackstone, that no man should be fined beyond his means, but in this case a man was not only fined beyond his means, but was, deprived of tin: whole of his means.
MR. MALINSsaid, there seemed to be a general concurrence of opinion in the House in favour of the Bill, and he had no hesitation in giving it the support. He ventured to say that from the beginning of the world no one had been deterred from the commission of crime by the fear that he would lose his property and goods. Besides, the law as it stood was practically inoperative, as, because when an accusation was brought against a man, the first thing that was done was to make an assignment of his property to trustees for the benefit of his family. He knew himself of a case in which A man had in this way transferred property worth £30,000, and though he
1810
was afterwards acquitted the trustees refused to give up the property, and, as far as he knew, he was now destitute and entirely dependent on the bounty of his family for support. He approved the language of the Bill, which was simple and effectual for its purpose. If the measure was committed to the Attorney General, it would not pass this Session, and therefore he hoped the House would support the second reading of the Bill.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he hoped they would not have a division, for, substantially, they were all agreed upon the subject, and if the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State would intimate that the matter would be taken up by the Government, the hon. Gentleman would do well to leave it in their hands. It was net desirable to pledge the House, as the Bill proposed to do, that it was expedient to abolish the forfeiture of lands and goods. All that ought to be done was to restrain the forfeiture. If forced to ft division, ho should be obliged to vote against the second reading, though he should be sorry not to meet the views of the hon. Mover.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had not the slightest difficulty in giving the assurance required by the hon. Baronet, though he thought it unnecessary after what had been stated by the Attorney General. His hon. and learned Friend had agreed in the principle of the Bill, that the goods of persons convicted of felony should not in all cases be forfeited, though there were certain cases in which he thought further inquiry necessary, with a view to ascertain whether the principle of total abolition should not be modified. The Attorney General thought it necessary to get information with respect to the working of the law in foreign countries. In France ho believed power was given to the Court in certain cases to impound the property either for the purposes of paying the expenses of the prosecution, or of giving compensation to persons who had suffered by the crime. His hon. and learned Friend had undertaken to look fully into the matter.
MR. PACKEsaid, the House was generally in favour of the Bill, but when he found that the alteration of the law was contained in three lines, he could not understand how the measure could be amended in Committee to suit the views of the Government. The wise course would be to withdraw the Bill, and leave

1811
the matter in the hands of the Government.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he should shear with great regret that any course was adopted which-would have the effect of postponing the Bill. There were too many uncertainties attending every measure of law reform to allow him to view with satisfaction any step which might load to delay. The measure itself had his most cordial concurrence, and there was but one point with respect to which he entertained any doubt. During the time the late Government was in office, and while they were engaged in the consolidation of the statutes and the assimilation of the criminal law of England and Ireland, very attentive and mature consideration was given to the question, and the unanimous opinion of all concerned was that the law should undergo the alteration which it was the object of the present Bill to effect. The matter was submitted to the Cabinet, and but for the change of Government a measure similar to that before the House would have become law some five or six years previously. He thought the only doubtful question was, whether the abolition of the whole system of forfeiture should apply to oases of high treason? He hoped his hon. Friend would persist with the Motion.
MR. HUNTsaid, if the hon. Gentleman would consent to withdraw the Bill and leave the matter in the hands of the Government, he would not press his Amendment.
Question, "That the word ' now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday, next.

COSTS SECURITY BILL— [BILL 68.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he rose to move the second reading, of this Bill, the object of which was to remove a grievance arising out of, the existing state of the law. At present, if a person resident in England sued in an English court, or if a person resident in Ireland, sued in; an English court, he was obliged, before he could proceed with his action to give security for costs, because, as he was beyond the jurisdiction of the court n which he brought the action, that court bad no power of en-
  1812
  forcing against him the payment of any costs that might be awarded. That was practically felt to be in many cases a very great grievance, and had been frequently complained, of by the mercantile community. If a person in Liverpool, for instance, had a number of persons indebted to him in Ireland, and desired to take legal proceedings against them to recover the debts, he was obliged first to lodge a sum of money, perhaps £50 in each case, or to find two persons to become answerable for the costs. In fact, it was an anomaly that the inhabitants of one United Kingdom should be thus treated as foreigners in different parts of the same kingdom, and the existing state of the law bad often been made use of in order to defeat a just claim. To remedy this evil he proposed, by the Bill before the House, that when an Englishman sued in Ireland, or au Irishman sued in England, he should be empowered to give, if he so thought fit, is lieu of security for costs, an undertaking under the present Bill. That would be a personal security, but the undertaking would be enforceable, in any court of the United Kingdom. The same Bill was introduced last year. It received the sanction of the late Attorney General for Ireland, and passed, the second reading;. After it had passed the second reading it was proposed to refer it to a. Commission then sitting on the practice and process of the Irish courts, and that Commission recommended that a clause should be introduced in the Bill. That bad been done, but it did not affect the principle of the Bill. He had nothing further to say in respect to his Bill, except that he had made no provision for the case of the Scotch courts. The fact was that ho found such difficulty in understanding the proceedings of those courts, and still greater in comprehending the terms, used in them, he thought it better to relinquish the task altogether of including the Scotch courts in his measure. There would not, however, be any difficulty in introducing clauses affecting Scotland into the measure if it were allowed to go into Committee, and such was the feeling of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Butt.)
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he thought that the House would hardly be induced to recognize the principle of he Bill, which was to alter, that most salutary provision

  1813
  of the law which gave the courts either in England or Ireland the power of requiring security for costs from a stranger, or one belonging to a different country to that in which he sought to bring his action, so that the defendant, should he obtain a verdict, would hare the means of reimbursing himself the costs to which he was subjected by an unjust and fraudulent action. Nothing could be fairer or more just than the existing law in that respect. Nor was any grievance likely to be inflicted, because if the party bringing the action were a respectable man and had a good case he would find no difficulty in obtaining the necessary security from his solicitor or other friends. But the effect of the Bill would be to enable a man without character or property in one division of the United Kingdom, who brought an action against a man in another division, to say to the person he sued, "You will never get anything from me if I lose the action; therefore, what will you give me to stay proceedings?" The deposit of security for costs was reasonable and fair, and calculated to prevent injustice being done under the form of law, Re had seen a great many eases of bard-ship and injustice arising out of improper and unfounded actions at law; but he thought that such cases would be considerably angmented if the present Bill were allowed to pass into a law. What, then, was the substitute proposed by the present Bill? It was that the gentleman who had no cash, character, or case, might sign an undertaking to pay all such costs as he might be adjudged to pay. The exact value of that undertaking was the worth of the paper on which it was written; and, thinking that the Bill ought not to pass, he should move, as an Amendment, that it be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the Word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Whiteside.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. VANCEsaid, he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Dublin University in the propriety of rejecting the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he brought forward the Bill in the interest of the mercantile community. He (Mr. Vance) was a member of that community, but he had never heard that any complaint bad been made of the
  1814
  present practice; and at the Into meetings of the Chambers of Commerce no mention of it had been made. So far from limiting the principle in the existing provision of the law, which was now sought to be altered, he should be glad to see it extended, for there were many instances of frivolous and vexatious actions being brought, occasioning a large Amount of costs, and inflicting grievous injury on innocent parties.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that it appeared to him that the Bill would effect an improvement of the law, and the objections which had been urged to it did not alter his opinion on that point. The Bill did not interfere with the law relating to persons residing out of the United Kingdom, but with respect to persons in England and Ireland the effect of the Bill would be very much the same as if one legal jurisdiction extended over the two countries, and he could not help feeling that that was an improvement of the law.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he concurred in the opinion that the provision in the Bill was a great improvement on the existing law, but he thought that some power should be given to prevent the institution of frivolous and vexatious actions. That, however, Was a matter which might be taken into consideration when a Bill of the Lord Chancellor's, then before the House of Lords, came down to the Commons.
  MR. BUTTstated, that his hon. Friend; whose name was on the back of the Bill (Mr. Murray), had been in frequent communication with the Chambers of Commerce of Liverpool and Manchester, and they were in favour of the Bill; and he had himself repeatedly heard from mercantile men resident in England, that the state of the law occasioned great inconvenience. It might be said that it would be no great matter for an English merchant to provide the required security, but it was felt as an annoyance that in such cases the inhabitant of the one country should be treated as a foreigner in the other country, when both those countries formed part of the same United Kingdom, and it was his object to do away with all such distinctions between the two countries.
  MR. DUNLOPsaid, he agreed in the principle of the Bill, which, he thought, might with advantage be male to apply to all the three parts of the United Kingdom.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 64: Majority 35.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Wednesday next.

COUNTY VOTERS REGISTRATION BILL.

  [BILL 112.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he rose to move the second reading of the measure, the main object of which, as based upon the Report of a Select Committee appointed earl; during the Session, was to amend the registration of county voters by improving the official agency. At present the duty of keeping tip the registration was left mainly to voluntary agents, who were paid out of -private funds. What happened? The clerk of the peace, after the commencement of the registration season, issued a very meagre precept-to the overseers to instruct them in their duties. The respective overseers then printed such parts of the existing register as related to their own parishes. Later in the season the overseers made out a list of claims sent to them by individuals. They had also power to make and to receive objections to persons on the lists various grounds, and such objections were posted upon the church doors. Unless the partly objected to resided in the parish and went to church, he knew nothing of the objection, and his name might be struck off the register. The arrangement proposed by the Bill was to send to the overseers a precept setting forth all their duties, those duties being, in some respects, of a more positive and active character. Each overseer was then to ascertain as best he could, from the rate book taken in conjunction with other sources of information, what persons had become entitled to vote or had become disqualified. It was proposed that they should make out a list, called the supplemental list, of all the persons newly entitled to the franchise. They were further to state their objections to voters disentitled, in every case assigning the reason why. The Bill further recognized what the existing law scarcely did recognize, namely, the importance of making the register a correct statement of points not essential to the vote, such as the addresses of the voters and the description of the qualification. The overseers were, therefore, to note any errors in the entries of voters in regard to these points. The materials thus collected
  1816
  by the local information of live overseers were to be arranged and digested by the clerk of the peace, who would draw up the lists for publication. It was proposed to give to voters whose descriptions required correction the opportunity of making the proper correction by letter. If, after a year, they failed to furnish the necessary information, their names should be expunged from the register. The present right of individuals to make claims and objections was to be retained, but every person objected to was to receive notice of the objection and the ground of it. Any person objected to was to have an opportunity of vindicating his claim by making a statutory declaration before a magistrate, in answer to the objection. The revising barrister's powers of correcting the lists submitted to him were to be enlarged, and there was to be a more thorough and closer scrutiny of those lists than at present. The advantages of the proposed system over the present were briefly these. By means of the supplemental list it was hoped to facilitate the registration of new voters; individual claims would be facilitated by the power to make a statutory declaration in support of them; vague and vexatious objections would be checked by requiring the grounds of objection to be stated. Official would be, in a great measure, substituted for voluntary agency, and the register in all points duly corrected from: time to time by responsible persons, specially employed for the purpose. The Bill: would also impose a check on unfounded and fraudulent claims by subjecting new claims to a closer scrutiny The Bill provided for the correction of the register in matters of description, which at present were "no man's business." At present the only means of correcting errors of description was by sending in new claims. The overseer's would be relieved of a portion of their duties, which they were least fitted to perform. The clerk of the peace, with his legal knowledge, could greatly facilitate the future labours of the revising barrister. One other change was proposed by the Bill—a difference in the arrangement of the names. It was proposed that each parish list in the register should contain the names, not only of persons claiming to vote for property in the parish, but also the names of voters residing there who claimed to vote for property in other parishes in the same county. It was proposed that each voter should vote in the polling district in which he was resident;

  1817
  the object being to get rid of duplicate numbers. Each parish list would be complete in itself, for the purpose of canvassing and voting; and that would do away with the expense of the conveyance of voters, There were some other minor changes to give effect to those which he had mentioned, but they were details fitted rather for consideration in a Committee than for discussion on the question of the second reading. The Bill was the result of the labours of a Select Committee. It had been drawn with great care and, he ventured to say, accuracy. If the House would consent to a second reading and discuss the clauses on a future day, it would be found that the Bill was calculated to make some valuable alterations in the law, which was far from satisfactory.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dodson.)
  MR. HUNTsaid, he would not oppose the second reading of the Bill, because it contained several provisions which he approved, but he wished it to be understood that he did not pledge himself to the whole scheme of registration as proposed. He doubted the competency of the overseers to perform the duties which it was intended to impose on them. It was doubtful, for instance, whether they should be intrusted with the power of putting names on the lists without claims having been sent in. No doubt the clerks of the peace were competent, but he was not sure that it was expedient to intrust individuals with so great a power of affecting the political character of the registration. Another ground of objection to the Bill was the expense it would involve. The clerks of the peace throughout England had held a meeting on the subject, and it appeared that the Bill would involve the employment of more clerks, and the conduct of much correspondence. Considering that the existing system of registration was tolerably cheap, he thought the House would do well to consider whether they ought to make a change involving so much expense. It was impossible that the Bill should go through without being referred to a Select Committee upstairs, and he thought the hon. Member for Sussex would do well by contenting himself with carrying the second reading, and then circulating it through the country for consideration during the recess, so that it might come op advantageously for discussion in the next Session of Parliament.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, it was probable there would be considerable opposition to the Bill, because it would interfere with the emoluments of country attorneys, who of course would enlighten' Members as to the great injury which would be done to their party thereby. The Bill, if passed in its present shape, would throw four-filths of the work done by election agents into the hands of public officers, and the agents would only have to supplement the work instead of doing it all, as at presents. The existing system was costly, not very efficient, and, in his opinion, rather discreditable. The duty of correcting the lists ought not to be left to voluntary effort. The Bill would be productive of one great advantage, that it would check the practice of making wholesale objections to voters in the hope that many of them would not appear to defend their rights. On one occasion, out of 24,000 names on the lists of voters for, South Lancashire, not less than 15,000 were objected to by one party or the other, and some of them were objected to by both parties; and such a fact showed that something ought to be done to alter the existing law upon the subject. Instead of sending the Bill to a Select Committee, he would suggest that the Government should be requested to give a morning sitting for the discussion of the main points of the Bill, and then it might be brought into a shape ready for being passed next Session.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, it could not be denied that the present system of county registration was very unsatisfactory. Still the scheme proposed by the Bill was a wide scheme, and required consideration. If the hon. Member obtained a second reading for the Bill, he ought either to remit it to a Select Committee, or induce the Government to adopt it. Such a measure could not be accepted on the mere responsibility of an individual Member. If the hon. Gentleman would agree to either of these conditions, he would have no objection to the second reading.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was prepared to give his support to the second reading of the Bill. He thought the hon. Gentleman deserved the thanks of the House for the great pains he had taken in the matter, and he might remind the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the measure was based on the Report of ft Select Committee. The Government, of course, could give no pledge to support all the provisions of the

  1819
  Bill, but would carefully consider then before it went into Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Wednesday next.

SERVENTS HIRING (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  [BILL 108.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. DUNLOPsaid, that as he had no opportunity of explaining the Bill on the second reading, he wished to advert to it now in reference particularly to that part regarding farm servants, for though he proposed dropping at present, in consideration of the farming interest having been, as they thought, taken by surprise, he would propose it again next Session. By the present law of Scotland, when servants were not hired for a stated period, it was presumed that the hiring extended to a term of six months, or a year, according to the nature of the service; and the result was that, at the end of that time, servants generally left their employments, and the constant separations between masters and servants led to great inconvenience. He proposed to remedy the evil by providing that, whenever the duration of a hiring was not specified, it should be deemed to be for an indefinite period, but terminable, as in England, by a month's notice on either side. No objection, he believed, was offered to the Bill as far as it regarded domestic servants, but the farmers were under considerable apprehensions as to its effect in respect to agricultural labourers. The case of farm servants was entitled to great sympathy and consideration. Formerly the distance between the farmer and the farm servant was not great. The latter lived with his master, and from the great number of small farms, and the little capital required to cultivate them, a steady form servant, if he saved a little money, might look forward to raising himself to the position of a farmer. The prospect of this was a great stimulus to good conduct, and a protection against the temptations to which that class are chiefly exposed. But now that farming was becoming more and more a pursuit of a manufacturing kind, and required more capital, the small farms were being swept away, and the relative position of the farmer and of the farm servant was becoming
  1820
  less and less familiar, while the hope of passing the gulf from the position of a farm servant to that of a farmer was nearly entirely gone, and along with it the stimulus to good conduct and industry. More care was, therefore, necessary to keep them out of the way of evil. One mischief of the existing service was, that at the close of the six month's hiring the servants were sent adrift, and they resorted to the market towns, where they stood to be hired, and were engaged generally without inquiry as to their characters. As might be expected, these meetings were productive of much profligacy and excess. He believed that the alarm of the farmers was groundless, that the measure would tend to foster more satisfactory relations between them and their servants, that it would lead them to be more considerate and accommodating towards each other, and that consequently it would give permanence to the engagements between them. He trusted also that the moral condition of the employed would be greatly improved. He proposed, however, for the present to omit the words, "farm servants" from the Bill; but, if the Bill should pass, he hoped next year to propose an extension of its provisions to that class. Many intelligent and benevolent persons in Scotland, he might add, cordially supported him in the endeavour to pass the Bill.
  MR. BLACKsaid, he was reluctant to oppose a measure which he knew was proposed with a desire to promote morality and good order amongst the servants in Scotland. If the hon. Member had preserved with the second part of the Bill, relating to farm servants, a great deal of good might have been done. As the Bill stood, however, he thought that the advantage in the case of female domestic servants would be altogether in favour of the master and against the servant. The knowledge on the part of masters and servants that they were compelled to live together for six months very often led to their making up their differences and living amicably together. As far as he had been able to learn, the proposed change was not desired by one person in then in Scotland, and he hoped it would not be allowed to be carried out. Among other public bodies, the highland and Agricultural Society was unanimously against it, and the great majority of the farmers were likewise opposed to it. He should move that the House should go into Committee on the Bill that day three months.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Black,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he doubted whether the Bill, if passed into law, would improve the condition or morality of the farm servants in Scotland. Statute fairs, though giving rise occasionally to scenes of impropriety, were yet a great boon to the respectable portion of the farm labourers. He doubted whether the hon. Gentleman had gone the right way to work in the remedy which he had proposed. In Scotland the farm servant held his cottage not from the lord of the manor but from the farmer who employed him, and if his hiring was terminable on a month's notice he might be turned out of his home at a time when he might not be able to get either work or a lodging. As regarded the farmer, a dishonest labourer, if he could leave at a month's notice, might quit his service at the most critical time of the crops, or, taking advantage of the month's notice, demand exorbitant wages. He thought, however, that the provisions of the Bill might be applied with advantage to domestic servants, who stood in a different position from agricultural labourers. He had heard great complaints in Scotland of the six months' engagement of domestic servants, and thought that the custom in England was preferable. To remedy the inconvenience felt from the old term being kept in some places with the new term in others, he would on some future occasion propose to provide that the half-yearly terms—where no stipulation to the contrary existed— should be the 11th May and 15th November.
  MR. CAIRDsaid, that as regarded that part of the proposal which related to farm servants the information upon which the hon. Gentleman had proceeded was of a limited nature, and did not apply to farm labourers throughout Scotland generally. He did not know a more intelligent or respectable class of men than the farm servants in Scotland. He deprecated the introduction of anything calculated to sever the connection which then existed between them and their masters. He be-
  1822
  lieved that the present measure would have that tendency, inasmuch as it would, give the master power to dismiss his married farm servant upon one month's notice, the house of the latter being generally considered as part of his yearly wages. He (Mr. Caird) spoke as an experienced man upon the question, and he advised the hon. Gentleman, before he proceeded further with his measure, to seek for further information as to its objects and effects.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, the system which at present prevailed was a one-sided system, inasmuch as it was binding against the employer but not against the employed. He had once a keeper who, he discovered, was a great poacher, and, as he detected him in the act, he, of course, dismissed him upon the spot. But that man brought an action against him, and he (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) had actually to pay him six months' wages. Was not such a state of things monstrously unjust? With regard to farm servants, he could not agree in the opinion expressed by his hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Sir James Fergusson). He considered that the system of hiring for six months led to a state of things that was disgraceful to a civilized society. He regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman had withdrawn that part of the Bill which related to farm servants. He trusted they would receive the amount of protection proposed by the Bill—namely, that in the absence of any specific agreement the hiring of servants should be held to be on the same basis as in England—namely, one month's warning or one month's wages.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTthought that great inconvenience arose from the different character of the hiring in Scotland to what it was in the other parts of the United Kingdom. On the whole, he preferred the system that prevailed in Scotland.
  SIR MICHAEL SHAW STEWARTadmitted that the measure would be worthy of their best consideration if it tended to diminish the evils attending the holiday system; but he doubted much whether any legislation in that shape would have the effect supposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced it.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he viewed the Bill as a harmless measure, inasmuch as it would not interfere with the practice in Scotland except in cases where there was no specific agreement entered into.
  MR. FINLAYsaid, he hoped the Bill would pass, and he was only, sorry that the most important clause had been withdrawn.
  MR. DUNLOPsaid the class of whom he spoke was that of unmarried farm servants. He was glad the discussion had taken place, and he assured the hon. Member for Stirling that he would consider his suggestions. All he proposed was, that people should be left free to make a contract; but if they made no contract then the hiring should be for one month.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONproposed to add corresponding words to the preample.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 3, after the word "months," to insert the words "and whereas differences of usage are followed in certain counties or districts of Scotland in the observances of the half-yearly terms of Whitsunday and Martinmas respectively; and whereas this practive:"—(Sir James Fergusson.)
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 7: Majority 109.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Friday.

  POOR LAW GURDIANS' ELECTIONS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BARNES, Bill to empower the occupiers of small tenements in certain cases to vote in the Election of Guardians of the Poor, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BARNES, Mr. BAZLEY, and Mr. HADFIELD.
  Bill presented, and read 1° [Bill 153.]

  PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD (ACQUISTION OF LANDS) BILL.
  Bill to authorize the acquisition of Lands by the Admiralty, with a view to the extension of Portsmouth Dockyard, and for other purposes connected therewith; presented, and read 1° [Bill 152.]
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.