Sitting of 7 July 1874

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Land Titles and Transfer [137]; Real Property Vendors and Purchasers* [137]; Real Property Limitation* [138]; Supreme Court of Judicature Act (1873) Amendment [179]; Court of Judicature (Ireland) [168]; Commissioners of Works and Public Buildings* [188]; Industrial and Reformatory Schools * [193]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4) * [194].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—New Mint Building Site [162].
Committee—Report—Customs (Isle of Man) * [178]; Slaughterhouses, &c. * [150]; County of Hertford and Liberty of Saint Alban (re-comm.) * [190].
Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Wenlock Elementary Education (re-comm.) * [151].
Third Reading—Hosiery Manufacture (Wages)* [124]: Hertford College, Oxford* [103], and passed.
Withdrawn—Labourers Cottages (Scotland) * [63]; Inclosure* [122].

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT—UNSEAWORTHY SHIPS.—QUESTION.
MR. PLIMSOLLasked the President of the Board of Trade, What number of Vessels have been detained for survey-by the Board of Trade under the Act of 1873 up to 30th June last; and, if he will give the number for each month separately?
SIR CHAELES ADDERLEY: Sir, the number of ships detained for overloading during the 11 months ended the 30th of June, 1874, was 22, every one of which was lightened to the surveyor's satisfaction. During the same 11 months 294 ships were detained for survey on account of defects in their hull
1222
and equipments. On survey 13 were released, and 281 were repaired or broken up. This showed, not so much a great number of unseaworthy ships out of 26,000 on the British Register, as the care taken by the Board of Trade to detain ships only on trustworthy reports. The numbers during the different months would be shortly presented to the House, with a Report on the subject.

CIVTL SERVICE COMMISSION—THE SUPERANNUATION ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. GORDONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Whether the instructions to the Commission now sitting on the Civil Service embrace the subject of an inquiry into the operation of the present Superannuation Act; and, if not, whether he will take into consideration the question whether alterations may not be advantageously made in the present terms of retirement under that Act, so as to facilitate retirement and cause such a flow of promotion as is expedient to secure the efficiency and contentment of the Service, and enable juniors, long in the Service, to rise to salaries commensurate with their experience and responsibilities?
  THE CHANCELLOR THE EXCHEQUEE, in reply, said, that the instructions given to the Commission on the Civil Service did not embrace an inquiry into the operations of the Superannuation Act specifically; but it was possible they might touch on that subject in the course of their Report. As to whether alterations might not be advantageously made in the present terms of retirement, so as to facilitate retirement and cause a better flow of promotion, that was a large and serious question which he was not now prepared to take into consideration.

CONFERENCE AT BRUSSELS—RULES OF MILITARY WARFARE.—QUESTION.
MR. SEEJEANT SIMONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government have determined to send a representative to the Congress to be held at Brussels; if so, under what conditions, with reference to the subjects to be considered, and what will be his powers? If he was not out of Order, he would beg to ask whether

1223
the right hon. Gentleman was in a position to give them any information on the subject beyond the statement made in "another place? "
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have offered to send a delegate to the Congress at Brussels if we receive satisfactory assurances on various points which have been communicated to the Russian Government. With regard to the conditions to which I refer, and to which also the hon. and learned Gentleman refers, and other details, I think it would not be convenient at this moment, and that it would lead to misapprehension, if I were to enter into any explanation. The Papers will be laid almost immediately on the Table of the House, and will give full information on this subject. I shall be disappointed if they are not laid on the Table during the present week.

SLAVE TRADE PAPERS—CLASS A.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. OAETWEIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he could state at what date the distribution may be expected of the Slave Trade Papers, Class A, which were laid formally upon the Table of the House as long ago as August last year, and the early distribution he promised on April 23rd?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that they would be laid on the Table next week. Their publication had been delayed to obtain verbal explanations of two or three Despatches from our Minister at Madrid relative to the slave trade at Cuba and Porto Rico.

ARMY EXAMINATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GODDARDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his Department have it in contemplation to abolish the present system of competitive examinations for the Army, and substituting in its stead some fixed standard of marks by which candidates may qualify themselves for direct Commissions?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: No steps, Sir, of any kind have been taken with respect to this subject by the War Department.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT, 1868—STROUD ELECTION PETITIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MONKasked Mr. Attorney General, If he can inform the House whether there is any reason to believe that the trial of one of the Stroud Election Petitions will have to be postponed until after the Assize Circuits are over, in order to enable Mr. Baron Bramwell to attend the Hertford Assizes; and, if so, whether he is of opinion that under the provisions of "The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868," a learned Judge upon the Rota is empowered to order an adjournment for a purpose in no way-connected with, or arising out of the trial of the Election Petition?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I am, Sir, unable from any knowledge or authoritative information which I myself possess, to inform the House whether there is reason to believe that the trial of one of the Stroud Election Petitions will have to be postponed until after the Assize Circuits are over, in order to enable Mr. Baron Bramwell to attend the Hertford Assizes. I have been informed by my hon. and learned Friend who has put the Question to me, that a statement to the effect of that involved in his first Question has appeared in the ordinary channels of information, but I have not myself seen it. As regards the second Question of my hon. and learned Friend, I am of opinion that, under the provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, a learned Judge upon the Rota is empowered to order an adjournment for a purpose in no way connected with, or arising out of the trial of the Election Petition. The terms of the Act do not appear to me to impose any restraint upon the exercise of his discretion. The words are—
  "The Judge presiding at the trial may adjourn the same from time to time, and from any one place to any other place within the county or borough, as to him may seem expedient."
  The Judge has other duties to discharge besides those of an Election Judge, and the Act does not, in my opinion, give any priority as regards the discharge of his duties as an Election Judge over those to be discharged by him as a Judge of Assize. He is, of course, bound to exercise his discretion, according to the circumstances in which he is placed, and to all the duties which he

  1225
  has to perform; but I cannot suppose that a Judge of Mr. Baron Bramwell's experience would be wanting in a sound exercise of such discretion.

FINES FUND (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Seretary for Ireland, If he will be good enough to explain the annual payment from the Fines Fund (Ireland) of £500 to the Consolidated Fund, no charge being made upon the latter fund in connection with the imposing, levying, or auditing of fines in Ireland?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, by the Act 6 & 7 Vict. c. 78, s. 3, the Fines Fund was charged with the payment of £500 a-year to the Consolidated Fund towards the salary of the Chief Remembrancer of the Court of Exchequer, who was then, and up to the year 1850, Auditor of the Accounts of Fines and Penalties under I & 2 Vict. c. 99, and 6 & 7 Vict. c. 56. In the year 1850, the Act 13 & 14 Vict. c. 51 was passed, abolishing the office of Chief Remembrancer, and transferring to the Chief or Under Secretary the power of auditing these accounts, but the charge of £500 a-year is still paid by the Fines Fund to the Consolidated Fund.

RETURN OF EMOLUMENTS OF TEACHERS (IRELAND.)—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN NOLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with regard to the Return of Emoluments of Teachers granted on the 17th April, When the Irish portion of that Return will be laid upon the Table, and also what is the cause of the delay in its production?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that the usual requisition for the Irish portion of the Return was not sent out from the Home Office when the part of it was ordered relating to England and Scotland, and that this had delayed its production.

ARMY—A TACTICAL STATION—CENTRAL ARSENAL.—QUESTION.
MAJOR BEAUMONTasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will be willing to defer the purchase of land for a tactical station in the North of England until the House has had an opportunity of discussing the question of a central arsenal?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, the subject had undergone a good
1226
deal of consideration, and instructions had been given for the purchase of land for the purpose He did not think it would be for the interest of the public that the purchase of land should be deferred until there had been an opportunity of discussing the question of a central arsenal.

LAND TITLES AND TRANSFER BILL [Lords]— [BILL 136.]
(Mr. Attorney General.)
LAND TITLES AND TRANSFER BILL [Lords]— [BILL 136.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its Preamble was concise, but expressive. It declared that it was expedient to make further provision for the simplification of the title to land, and for facilitating the transfer of land. Public attention had been for years directed to this subject. The importance and necessity of legislating with respect to it had been almost universally recognized—it had been inquired into by Royal Commissions and by Committees of both Houses of Parliament, and their Reports abounded in information of the most useful character; but their recommendations and suggestions had not as yet been adopted to an extent that had led to any substantial benefit to the public. Throughout the many years that this subject had been under consideration, the establishment of a land registry had been the prevailing idea that had influenced the various schemes that had been brought forward. Upwards of 200 years ago, in consequence of the then depreciation in the value of land, a Committee was appointed by the other House of Parliament for the purpose of investigating the general question of the tenure of land. That Committee made its Report in 1669, and stated that, in their opinion, the chief cause of the depreciation in the value of land was the uncertain state of the titles; and they recommended, as a measure of precaution, the adoption of a system of registration. And here he would request the House to bear in mind the distinction between the registration of titles and the registration of deeds and assurances. The latter system was that, for the adoption of which all the earlier proposals were made. An example of it was furnished

  1227
  by the Acts, passed in the first part of the last century, for establishing registers for the county of Middlesex and the West Hiding of Yorkshire. The objections to such a system were obvious; it tended to accumulate the entries affecting the properties in question to such a degree as to make the difficulties of search great, as well as to increase expense, the difficulties and the expense becoming augmented in proportion as the register was made more complete. They had to search, not for one entry, but for several entries, and they had to put their own construction on the combined effect of several entries. To some extent, no doubt, additional security might be obtained by a registration of deeds and assurances; but as that security was increased, the greater became the difficulties in the way of the transfer of land. The system of registration of title, on the other hand, was, or ought to be, of the most simple character. By means of proper classification and indexing, the entry of the title to any particular property ought to be capable of being at once found. Having once found the entry relating to the property, the ownership and the character of the ownership would be at once ascertained, and all further information might be obtained which might be required by the intending purchaser or mortgagee. The system of registration, which it was proposed to establish by the present Bill, was a register of title, as distinguished from a register of deeds and assurances. But before referring more particularly to the provisions of the Bill, he might be allowed briefly to advert to the various steps which had been taken during the last 20 years, in the way of inquiry, suggestion, and legislation, towards devising and perfecting a satisfactory system of registration. He took that period because the Report of the Commission appointed in 1854, to which he was about to refer, contained a large portion of the materials on which the Bill before the House was founded. The Commission of 18S4 was constituted in a manner to secure the confidence of Parliament and of the general public; it comprised among its Members the present Lord Chief Justice, the late Lord Westbury, Sir Joseph Napier, his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Spencer
  1228
  Walpole), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe), and several others who were chosen for their professional experience or practical common sense. The leading views put forward in the Report of the Commission, which appeared in 1857, were that the fee simple title should alone be registered, and that charges and leases should form the subject of a separate register; that the title to be shown and registered was not necessarily to be a Parliamentary or indefeasible title; that equitable interests should be secured and protected by a system of caveats, or notices placed on the register; that it should be competent to a landowner, if he desired it, to register with a statutory or indefeasible title; and that both central and district registries should be established. There were besides a variety of other recommendations, to which he did not think it necessary to draw the attention of the House. This Report was followed by the introduction of two Bills by the present Lord Chancellor, then Solicitor General, the one for the simplification of the title to landed estates, the other to establish a register of landed estates. Those Bills were substantially founded on the recommendations of the Commission of 1854, and great care was taken that the register should not become a register of deeds, as distinguished from a register of titles. In one material respect only did the Bills introduced by Sir Hugh Cairns differ from those recommendations, and that was, that appreciating the great benefits which had been conferred by the Landed Estates Courts in Ireland, he proposed to establish a new tribunal, to which should be confided the duty of dealing with titles to property. The Dissolution of Parliament in the early part of 1859 put a stop to the further progress of those measures, and the subject was, for a time, dropped; but in 1862 Lord Westbury brought in and carried the Act, which bears his name, and which is still in force. In that Act the noble Lord aimed at a great deal more, both as regarded the nature of the title to be registered and the multiplicity of the interests to be noted, than had been recommended by the Report of 1857, or attempted in the Bills of the present Lord Chancellor. Lord Westbury endeavoured to procure the registration of almost every species of title, and to show

  1229
  on the face of the register almost every encumbrance by which it could be affected. That Act, however, had proved a failure, for in the first six years after it came into operation, not more than between 500 and 600 applications were made to register under it, whilst during the last two years of that period there had been a marked falling off from those in the earlier years, and such falling off had continued since 1868. Now, in the Australian Colonies a system of registration, following as nearly as possible the recommendations contained in the Report of 1857, had been established. It had been introduced into South Australia in 1861, and at later periods into New South Wales, Tasmania, and Victoria; and he found that, within a period of barely nine years, nearly 20,000 titles had been registered, representing property to the amount of something like £13,000,000 or £14,000,000, whilst the total number of recorded dealings with property approached 90,000. Those facts showed, he thought, that a system of registration was not likely to interfere with dealings in land. With so marked a distinction between the results of the working of the systems adopted in Australia and England respectively, it was not to be wondered at that another Royal Commission should be appointed to consider the defects in the working of Lord Westbury's Act. That Commission was appointed in 1868 and reported in 1869. As the Bills introduced by Lord Hatherley in 1870, and by Lord Selborne in 1873, as well as that before the House, had been severally based upon the views taken by the Commissioners and set forth in their Report, the House would excuse him if he very briefly alluded to the opinions expressed by the Commissioners as to the causes of the failure of Lord Westbury's Act, which were stated by them to be—first, the delay, trouble, and expense of registering titles; secondly, the fear of litigation during the process; and, thirdly, the sense that a registration of all interests in the land would neither protect owners nor facilitate transfers, but prove a hindrance and a burden. Moreover, the Commissioners came to the conclusion that these causes of failure were entirely due to the structure of the Act itself. They were to be attributed to three defects in the Act—first, that it required all titles to be without blemishes,
  1230
  whereas purchasers and mortgagees were willing to overlook small blemishes; secondly, that it required all titles to be of 60 years' length, whereas purchasers and mortgagees were content with less; and, thirdly, that it required that the description of the land should bind strangers, whereas purchasers were content to make their own inquiries into such matters. Having thus indicated the causes of past failure, the Commissioners stated that, in their opinion, the problem was, not to find a perfect system of land transfer, recording with mathematical accuracy the nature and extent of the land and every interest in it, so that the record should absolutely dispense with the necessity of ordinary examination and inquiries, but, to find a system which, not impairing the pre-sent security of owners or purchasers, and not exonerating a purchaser from the easy and obvious task of looking at the outward and visible state of the property, and making inquiry of persons in outward and visible possession of it, should enable the legal ownership to be readily passed from hand to hand, and dispense with the necessity of inquiring after invisible equities and interests, whoso only evidence was contained in private documents. The Commissioners then proceeded to make a variety of suggestions with a view to future legislation. In the Bill now before the House an attempt had been made to give effect, in a clear and straightforward manner, to those recommendations. It was, substantially, to the same effect as the Bill introduced last year by Lord Selborne, but in the interval it had been examined in all its parts by Vice Chancellor Hall, than whom no person could be found more competent for such a task. This had been done for the purpose of assisting the late Lord Chancellor, by whom, no doubt, but for the change of Government, the present Bill would have been introduced. With that zeal for the public interest and that courtesy for which he had always been distinguished, Lord Selborne at once, when the change of Government occurred, handed over the Bill and all the information he possessed connected with it to the present Lord Chancellor. In so doing he reciprocated the courtesy and loyal support which he had himself received from the present Lord Chancellor, when the measure was before

  1231
  Parliament last year. A Bill so prepared, and the principles of which had received the sanction of so many well qualified to judge of its merits, came before the House with much to recommend it; but, in saying this, he (the Attorney General) must not be understood as deprecating criticism. On the contrary, he cordially invited it, and would give his best attention and consideration to any suggestions that might be made. They had first to consider what quality of title it was proposed to register under the Bill. The great defect of the Bill of Lord Westbury was the attempt to register only marketable titles. Under this Bill, it was proposed to make provision for the registration of titles of three kinds—first, titles that were marketable or indefeasible in the strict sense; secondly, titles that were marketable or indefeasible as for a period less than the time hitherto recognized; and, thirdly, possessory titles. Power would be given to a Judge to dispense with what might be looked upon as merely technical objections to title; as, for instance, the absence or loss of a covenant to produce deeds, or the possibility of a woman of advanced age having a child. A similar power would be given to the Registrar to reduce the period, for which it was necessary that an indefeasible title should have lasted, from 60 to 40 years; it was further intended that it should not be essential to fix the boundary with accuracy before the registration. They had next to consider with what interests it was proposed to deal. The Bill proposed to deal with the following interests in land:—First, fee simple titles; secondly, leasehold titles having a certain number of years to run, and, thirdly, charges upon estates, including mortgages. All trusts and unregistered interests were to be protected by caveats, or stops. For the present it was intended to make use of the existing registry, but, no doubt, it would eventually become necessary to establish a number of district registries throughout the country. There was one subject, dealt with in the Bill, to which he must particularly advert, as there had been considerable controversy about it out-of-doors, and as to which he had received a large number of communications. He referred to the system of compulsory registration. It was proposed by the present Bill to make registration
  1232
  compulsory, in the case of any sale taking place after three years from the commencement of the Act, with an exception as regarded properties of less value than £300. A considerable amount of objection had been taken to this system of compulsory registration, but a great deal of it was due to misapprehension as to what the proposed compulsory registration really was. In order to satisfy the provisions of the Act of Parliament, all that would be required would be to register the possessory title, and any additional expense occasioned by this process would be small, and not largo as some objectors believed. Compulsory registration did not imply, in this Bill, an indefeasible registration, involving a vast amount of expense before it could be ascertained whether a property was free from incumbrances. To deprive this Bill of its compulsory character would be, as he believed, to take from it its chief advantage. He might add that a further, and not immaterial, advantage, to be derived from registration under this Bill, would be that a conveyance or mortgage might be made in the short and inexpensive form, set out in the Schedule to the Bill. He would not refer, in further detail, to the provisions of the Bill, but would ask permission to refer to two other Bills which stood next among the Orders of the Day, and which, if passed, would, he thought, do much to aid the satisfactory working of the larger and more important Bill. One was intituled the Real Property Vendors and Purchasers Bill. The object of that Bill was to make that law which heretofore parties had frequently made law for themselves—to make rules which should be binding between vendors and purchasers, unless the parties had made different arrangements among themselves. In the absence of any express agreement to the contrary, it was proposed to substitute 40 for 60 years as the period during which a title had to be shown; to make recitals of facts in deeds 20 years old primâ facie evidence of such facts; to enable the legal personal representatives of a mortgagee to convey the legal estate, when all money due on the mortgage had been paid. It further contained a very useful provision that where any question arose between the vendor and purchaser, a decision might be obtained from a Judge in Chambers. The object of the third Bill,

  1233
  which was entitled. "The Real Property Limitation Bill," was to shorten the periods of limitation. By the existing Act, 20 years was the period given to any person who was dispossessed of his property, and not under any disability, within which he might take proceedings to obtain possession of land or rent; a like period was given to remainder men and mortgagors under circumstances which need not be particularly alluded to. Under this Bill, the period was brought down to 12 years in each of these cases. In like manner 30 years instead of 40 was to be the utmost allowance for disabilities. In asking the House to read these Bills a second time he expressed the belief that they would achieve a work of considerable usefulness with regard to the transfer of land.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDmoved, as an Amendment—
  "That this House, whilst fully recognizing the importance of facilitating and cheapening the Transfer of Land, is of opinion that those objects would not he accomplished by the measure now proposed."
  The hon. Member said, he hoped that his having practised for 10 years as a conveyancer might be considered as an excuse for his thinking that he could give the House some information on this important subject. If it was regarded as presumptuous to criticise the Lord Chancellor's measure, his apology was that he had equally high authority on his side—namely, the Lord Chancellor himself. The addition to the 27th clause, made, at the noble and learned Lord's suggestion, on the third reading in the House of Lords, of a direction that compulsory registration should not apply to estates sold at a price not exceeding £800, clearly signified, and could only signify, that the new method of making out titles would be more expensive than the old. The Lord Chancellor might still think the new method more secure; but he was evidently of opinion that security obtained in the way proposed would be a luxury too expensive for small transactions. If the Commissioners appointed in 1870 to inquire into this subject had been unanimous, the recommendations
  1234
  of the Commission might have deserved much weight. But of the twelve, one (Lord Westbury) seemed to have taken no part in the proceedings; three only signed the Report in the ordinary way; two would not sign it because they were unable to concur in its recommendations, and the remaining six affixed to their names ominous asterisks referring to papers of dissent, which in some instances qualified, and in others almost annihilated, the effect which would otherwise have been attributable to their signatures. Therefore, those who opposed the Bill had not much to fear from the Report of the Commissioners of 1870. He would refer, besides, to the Council of the Law Institution, comprising many of the most eminent London solicitors. They were convinced that the Bill would be useless, but not having the courage to act on their opinion and to recommend that it should not be passed, they merely prayed that alterations should be made in the clauses. Their plan of trying an experiment which they were convinced would fail, might be admissible if it would only do no good; but in his belief it would be mischievous. The Bill, whether with or without the 27th clause, would leave for an indefinite period two systems of land titles and transfer to go on side by side. It was evident that this would add to complication and expense. One deed would have two different operations if it comprised registered and unregistered land, and a buyer would have, first, to search the register to ascertain that the land he had contracted for was unregistered, and then to go through the same formalities as at present. Such a mode of simplifying titles and facilitating laud transfer would be little short of grotesque. To ascertain what was hoped for by the advocates of registration, it would be well to look at what they had said in the last debate in that House on the subject, which took place on the 16th of February 1872. Mr. Wren Hoskyns remarked that—
  "In every nation in Europe but this, land was now bought and sold with the utmost promptitude, cheapness, and simplicity," and that "the demand was, in fact, no longer that land should be 'as transferable as the Three per Cents,' but as it was now in every other country of Europe."—[3 Hansard, ccix., 566–569.]
  Mr. R. Torrens said, that—
  "The principle of his measure was taken from the Shipping Law. There was no diff-

  1235
  iculty in transferring the largest interest in shipping; any merchant's clerk or shipbroker could do it with little delay and at small expense."—[3 Hansard, ccix. 570.]
  Lastly, Mr. W. Fowler stated that—
  "If he went to the Bank of England for a transfer of stock, the stock was transferred and no questions were asked as to the trusts on which he might hold it. The only questions put were—Are you the owner of the stock, and do you want the transfer?' Why should the owners of land in this country not he able to get it transferred as the owner of personal estate could get that transferred? "—[Ibid, 574.]
  Obviously, the idea of those who proposed registration was that, perhaps, without, but certainly with a solicitor's aid, the purchaser might, by merely looking at the register, at once ascertain whether the vendor could give him a perfectly clear title to the land contracted for. Let any one still entertaining such romantic notions read the 36th section of the present Bill, where he would find interests and charges which need not be put on the register, and to which the land might be subject though the register looked perfectly clear, arranged under nine heads. Six of these were not very important, comprising tithe-rents, to which a purchaser know that the land was probably subject, and other charges and rights not ordinarily of a serious amount or character. But what of rights of common, rights of way, and tenancies not exceeding 21 years? If land were bought for building a house or row of houses, and the purchase was completed in reliance on a clear register, and then the buyer found his purchase made use-loss by a right of way running just whore he had meant to build, what kind of blessing would he bestow on the advantages of a register? Similar difficulties might arise from rights of common. As to "tenancies not exceeding 21 years," he believed, but was not sure, that the phrase was meant to include under-leases. If so, the plan would not relieve purchasers from the principal difficulty in buying plots of land in London and probably in other largo towns, where half-a-dozen leases, one under the other, were of frequent occurrence. At all events, a lease for 20 years at a peppercorn rent, where the lessee was the occupier, was not required to be registered, and as the lessee was not obliged to state his interest to a person who had contracted to buy, the latter might find the value
  1236
  of his purchase reduced by an unregistered lease by about one-half. The Bill was put before the House as one likely to simplify matters; but he believed that the 12th clause, separating titles to minerals and to surface, would have a contrary effect. The 13th clause, which prevented the register from being conclusive as to boundaries, was probably necessary; but such a provision had been declared by Sir Robert Torrens, a gentleman with wide Australian experience, and who formerly had a seat in that House, to be certain to make a register useless. It was clear, also, that under the provision in the Bill relating to boundaries, a sixth, a fifth, or even a fourth might be pared off a man's estate. He would next refer to the strange way in which, as it seemed to him, settlements were dealt with. In order to simplify titles, it was proposed that successive interests, such as those of tenant for life, or in tail, were not to appear on the register, but were to be reduced to equitable estates. One or more person or persons were to be registered as proprietor or proprietors in fee simple who might dispose of the settled property, leaving the equitable owners nothing but a money claim against him or them. These provisions appeared to be founded on a theory that settlements were the main cause of the complication of titles. He doubted whether this theory was correct. He was old enough to remember Irish titles before the Encumbered Estates Act, and even West Indian titles before the slavery compensation money was applied towards discharging the encumbrances on West Indian Estates. He had never known any titles comparable with these for complication and entanglement; and that entanglement was produced, not in any appreciable degree by settlements, but almost wholly by multifarious encumbrances, aided in Ireland by a bad register. He hoped that there were now no titles at all like his old friends from the West Indies and from Ireland; but his impression was that even now settlements were a less prolific source of complication than the multiplication of encumbrances, and with the latter the present Bill made hardly any attempt, certainly no effective attempt, to deal. On the other hand, the security of persons interested under settlements would be most seriously impaired by the pro-

  1237
  visions to which he had referred. As the law now stood, they were, except in rare cases, sure to enter into possession of their estates or interests when the periods fixed for that purpose arrived. As the law would stand under the provisions of this Bill, they might, on becoming entitled in possession, find that their lands had been sold and that they had nothing left but a money claim against an insolvent estate. He would, however, assume that Parliament considered that public utility required that the security of persons interested under settlements should be sacrificed to the simplification of titles, although, considering how commonly a power of sale was to be found in settlements, he thought the hope of simplification of titles to arise from the proposed change was exaggerated. But at least it would not be disputed that the interests of the persons entitled should not be needlessly endangered. For this purpose it was essential that the person to be registered as proprietor should be the one most likely to be trustworthy; and he could not understand why a tenant for life was in this respect to be preferred to trustees having a power of sale. He next desired to say a few words as to the proposed modes of effecting mortgages and charges, which were to be of three kinds. In the first place, came mortgagees, where the mortgagee appeared on the register as an absolute owner, and if the analogy of stock had been followed, no other mortgage of registered land would have been allowed. But the Bill proposed, besides, charges by deposit of land certificates—which were not to be registered—and registered charges. The mortgage by deposit of land certificate was analogous to the present equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds; but it appeared to him to be entirely inconsistent with the principle of the Bill; that principle being that the title to registered land was to appear on the register. The confusion likely to arise from this, it was attempted to obviate by directing that, on the registration of charges, the land certificate was to be produced. But where the Registrar consented to its non-production for reasons which proved to be false, most serious difficulties as to priority might arise. The Report of the Royal Commission of 1870 had, for the purpose of simplifying titles, proposed that no
  1238
  charges should be registered. But the Bill followed the recommendation of a most able Commissioner (the late Mr. Waley), that for the sake of convenience there should be a registration of charges. This was one evidence of the truth—too much lost sight of in considering questions of this kind—that the complication of titles arose not so much from the state of the law as from the complexity of transactions, and that the choice often lay between, on the one hand, allowing persons to deal as they pleased with their property, and so make titles complicated, and, on the other hand, restricting dealings for the purpose of making titles simple. This Bill wavered between the two principles, and the result would be most unsatisfactory. He had thought that it might be interesting to the House to know how many different registered titles with respect to different interests in the same piece of land might arise under this Bill, which was to make the title to land so simple, and which for that purpose made so extensive a change in the law. They would be as follows:—Freehold in surface of land, freehold in minerals, freehold in rent, leasehold in surface of land, leasehold in minerals, leasehold in rent, any number of subleases in every one of the three before-mentioned particulars, estate by curtesy in every one of the before-named freehold interests, estate by dower in the same, and any number of registered charges on any of the before-mentioned interests. Besides all these registered titles affecting the same piece of land, there might be the unregistered charge by deposit of land certificate on every one of the before-mentioned interests, whether freehold, leasehold, by curtesy, or by dower. The "leading journal" had clone him the honour to refer to his Notice of Motion, and had treated it as the expression of a cautious and doubtful opinion on the success of the measure. He hoped it was cautious, for he had fully considered before expressing it, but it was certainly not doubtful. He had no doubt that a measure which, in attempting to remove old complexities, introduced so many new ones, could not succeed. He saw on the benches opposite a powerful Government which might, he presumed, carry the Bill if they liked. But one thing was beyond the power of that or of any other Government—to make such

  1239
  a Bill, if passed, conducive to the public convenience. It was natural that the Lord Chancellor should feel an honourable ambition to connect his name with the solution of the problem, so long debated, of establishing in England a really useful land registry. But this Bill would not solve it; and it was much to be desired that he should, for this Session at least, satisfy himself with what would be no mean achievements—the completion of the Judicature Act, and the passing of the two Bills relating to vendors and purchasers and limitation of suits, which were among the Orders of the Day that evening—Bills small in size, but likely to be great in utility. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving his Amendment.
  MR. JACKSON, in seconding the Amendment said, he thought the Bill had been properly described by the Prime Minister as one of first-rate importance. It was difficult to over-estimate the social advantages that would arise from a measure which would simplify and cheapen the means of acquiring land, especially in the interest of the humbler and the lower middle classes. Though he felt bound to oppose the Bill, he admitted that it contained a very great deal which was most excellent and desirable. The evil under which they laboured arose from the fact that the law of England, in the gradual evolution in land of those estates and interests which the growing wants of landowners and of the commercial community had made it necessary to create, had uniformly adhered to the principle of treating those interests as attached to and coming out of the land itself, and had never been satisfied only to look for protection to the persons in whom the land might be vested. It was absolutely unsafe for any person to enter into a contract to sell land without professional assistance—a state of things not creditable to our civilization. There had been persons who had made a living by buying estates at public auctions and then making such requisitions on the parties who sold them as induced the vendors to give money in order to get off the contract rather than comply with the legal necessities of carrying it out. The appropriate cure for the existing evil was that there should be found, or created if necessary, a person or persons who should have such an ownership as would enable
  1240
  them to convey the land to a purchaser without the concurrence of all the persons who up to this time had been obliged to be made parties to the conveyance. That was the first great principle to establish under a system of land transfer, and it was to be found in the present Bill; but that principle must be practically carried out by suitable machinery, and there it was that he felt bound to quarrel with the measure. He thought its machinery altogether inadequate. Bad as the present system was, if they put upon it a compulsory system obnoxious to the criticism of the hon. and learned Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid), they would really create a greater evil than the one they had cured. He still hoped that the day would come when the transfer of land would be as easy as the transfer of ships or of stock, and he believed that to be perfectly attainable, though not without considerable effort and considerable pecuniary sacrifice. Given a registered owner, they must give the purchaser, the lessee, and the mortgagee proper facilities for ascertaining where the estate was, and what was its nature. For that a cadastral map was necessary, and of that they had the germ in the Ordnance Survey, which when finished would answer all the purposes of such a conveyancing system as the Bill contemplated. Out of the 58,000 square miles of which the surface of England and Wales consisted, upwards of 22,000 had been surveyed and planned on the 25-inch scale, and about 160 towns had been surveyed and mapped on the scale, some of 10ft. and some of 5ft. to the mile. When that survey was completed they might have a system of land registration as easy as the Custom House registry of ships. If the measure should be a success there would be such a mass of business as would stagnate the operations of the office; but if it should be a failure, great harm would be done by placing an enormous expense on an unwilling country. It was said that the Bill would provide for the enlargement of the Registrar's Office and for the establishment of auxiliary registries from time to time; but was that expressed in the Bill in a way to which practical effect could be given? It was proposed that the Lord Chancellor, with the consent of the Treasury, might appoint the necessary officers. But it

  1241
  was not by arrangement between the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury that such a thing ought to be done; the plan ought to be worked out by the Government of the day in the House of Commons. The Attorney General admitted the inevitable expense which must be entailed by forcing registration upon purchasers, lessors, and mortgagees, except as to the mere proprietary title. But in the latter case this enforced registration would only show that A. B. had a proprietary title, and the only result would be that A. B. would have to deduce the earlier title, and, in doing so, to go through a greater amount of officialism than would, at present, be necessary. One part of the Government scheme was that every title tendered for registration should be accompanied by a description of the land, and an accurate map or plan of the land. Now, the preparation of a map would be a serious tax on the owners, for it appeared from the Report of the Royal Commissioners that the maps to 27 titles, there referred to had cost £271, being an average of £10 for maps alone. The Attorney General took great credit for the fact that this Bill was based on the Report of the Commission of 1868, and he told the House that the compulsory clauses were, if not the essence of the Bill, at all events, its greatest ornament. Now, he had carefully looked into the Report of the Commissioners, and not one of them had suggested that there should be any compulsion; on the contrary, their recommendations were entirely confined to something which should be tentative and experimental. The Commissioners had not called one witness who had gone into the probable amount of business to be done or the staff which would be necessary. In fact, as he had stated, it never occurred to their minds that the measure should be other than experimental. The hon. and learned Member for Reading had approved the limitation of the compulsory power to proprietors below £300. If anybody required improvement it was not the rich man, but the poor man who wished to become a landowner, and wanted to make the land a merchantable commodity at a small cost. Sir Hugh Cairns in 1859 brought in a Bill corresponding in many of its provisions with the Bill now under consideration, and speaking of a registry of deeds, he said that—
  1242
  "The objections are so manifest that hardly any person in the present day would venture to propose it. Those objections are of this kind: To be worth anything a register of deeds must be made compulsory, and you must have it for the whole country …. Moreover the cost to the country of the establishment by which a registration of deeds could be managed would be something which, I should think, none of us would like to contemplate. I believe the calculation is, that for this country you must have the materials for registering a thousand deeds every day."—[3 Hansard clii. 298–9.]
  In the same speech Sir Hugh Cairns said—
  "I am persuaded that a system which introduces itself without compulsion, by degrees, and just and only just in proportion as it is suited to the objects it professes to attain, is the system best adapted for the tastes, the prejudices, and wants of this country."—[Ibid. 304.]
  Again, when Lord Selborne proposed the Bill of 1873, the present Lord Chancellor said—
  "He did not think that their Lordships would do well to impose as a matter of compulsion registration on landowners."—[3 Hansard, ccxvi. 344.]
  and he was therefore surprised at the entire change which the views of the noble and learned Lord on this subject appeared to have undergone. He was, he might add, expressing the opinions of a great number in the profession, when he said that compulsion would have the effect which had been predicted by Lord Cairns—that it would produce great soreness, great cost, and would not tend to facilitate, but rather encumber and impede, the transfer of land. If, then, the Bill would be a good Bill without compulsion, it would not, he thought, be too much to ask the Government to have confidence in their own measure. The Attorney General had referred to South Australia, and had stated that there, in the absence of compulsory registration, so great an amount of business had been done, that every piece of land had been turned over six times. If that were so, why, he would ask, not leave the system to take gradual hold on the people of this country, who were better judges of what would be useful to them than any amateur or lawyer in that or the other House of Parliament? If the Bill should go into Committee he trusted that these matters would receive full consideration. In that case he should not ask his hon. and learned Friend to press his Amendment. But if the Bill was to be compulsory, it would be his duty to oppose it in every constitutional way.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, whilst fully recognising the importance of facilitating and cheapening the Transfer of Land, is of opinion that those objects would not he accomplished by the measure now proposed,"—(Sir Francis Goldsmid,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. ALFRED MARTENsaid, he thought the grounds of opposition to the Bill, as they had been stated, in the course of the discussion, resolved themselves very much into questions of detail, which could be dealt with more conveniently in Committee than on the second reading. The hon. Baronet the Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid) had cited against it the authority of the Lord Chancellor; but he believed that noble and learned Lord was of opinion that it was likely to be a most useful measure, although, speaking individually, the noble and learned Lord would prefer the establishment of some Court such as the Landed Estates Court in Ireland. The country, however, was not prepared, he (Mr. Marten) imagined, for the establishment of such a Court at a very great expense, or to throw upon landlords the burden of making out titles of an indefeasible character. If we were now originating a scheme, everybody would, he supposed, be inclined to adopt the principles in force with regard to stock in the public funds, or the hundreds of millions invested in railways; but we had to deal with an existing system, and the practical difficulties which had to be met required that a register should be established which by its gradual operation would bring land so within its scope that it might be dealt with in the same way as stock or ships. He did not hesitate, he might add, to express his confidence that if the Bill were to pass, that result might, with regard to the great bulk of land, be attained in the course of a few years. The hon. Member for Reading went on to urge it as an objection to the Bill that under the value of £300 there was to be exemption from the compulsory clauses; but there was a fallacy in arguing that, because small transactions—as in the cases of small incomes under the Income Tax Act—were made the subject of
  1244
  exemption, that exemption should be extended to transactions of a larger character. Reference had been made to observations of the council of the Incorporated Law Society, but that council had expressed a decided opinion that an efficient system of land transfer would be an invaluable boon to the country, and had therefore assented to the principle of the present Bill. The probable difficulties of search had been greatly exaggerated, for the properties would be divided into convenient districts, and every parish would have its land separately designated. It had been contended that Section 36, which contained a list of charges and interests that were not to be incumbrances within the meaning of the Act, would lead to considerable difficulty; but the matters in question—namely, tithes, land tax, liability to repair highways and churches, rights of common and fishing, tenancies of less than 21 years, &c.—were such as were sure to be similarly treated in the ordinary particulars and conditions of sale. With regard to the provision that the registration of land should not be considered to include mines and minerals in the property unless they were expressly mentioned, he was inclined to think that in these days, when mines and minerals were almost always the subject of separate dealings, the course proposed was the more convenient one. It might be objected to the plan of registration proposed by this Bill that it was not founded upon maps upon a large scale. Not half of this country had yet been surveyed upon a large scale. According to the Census taken in 1801, the number of inhabited houses in this country was 1,571,923; but, according to the Census taken in 1871, the number of inhabited houses was 4,259,117; and his opinion was that any system of registration founded on maps would be totally inadequate to meet the changes which were constantly being made in this country, binder these circumstances, he thought they might dismiss the question of maps. This Bill provided, wisely, in his opinion, that on the sale of an estate the parties to the transaction might or might not adopt the map system. One of its objects was to secure the accomplishment of what public policy required—namely, the rendering of the sale or mortgage of land of an easy

  1245
  and simple description. Under this Bill dealings with land would be placed on the same footing as dealings with the public funds, with ships, or with stock or shares in railways. The principle of the Bill, instead of being in the slightest degree novel, had been in operation for many years in regard to large estates, and the other classes of property he had mentioned. Every settlement and mortgage of land, according to the common forms in use for the last quarter of a century, at least, contained a power of sale framed on the principle adopted in the Bill. By this form the seller was enabled to convey the land absolutely, free from all claims to which it might be subject under the settlement or mortgage. The land could not be followed in the hands of the purchaser; and the remedy of anyone aggrieved by the exercise of the power would be personal only against the person exercising the power. This power prevailed already at that moment over a vast number of estates, and, in practice, was not found to be abused. The object of the measure was to put into a convenient and easy form those powers which were now laboriously given, for the purpose of facilitating dealings with property, and, therefore, he earnestly hoped the House would assent to the second reading.
  MR. OSBORNE MOEGANexpressed regret at being obliged to offer even a semblance of opposition to a Bill which had been revised by Vice Chancellor Hall and adopted by two of the most eminent of living lawyers. He confessed he entertained rather sceptical opinions on the subject of land registration. For the last 200 years the idea of a perfect land registry had been a sort of philosopher's stone after which English conveyancers and real property lawyers had been searching in vain. He remembered six Bills which were introduced for the purpose of establishing a land register, but of these only one survived its birth for more than a few weeks—namely, Lord Westbury's Land Transfer Act of 1862, which was now admitted on all hands to have proved a complete failure. The opinions of the Royal Commissioners were as varied as the number of the Royal Commissioners, and he was not asking too much when he asked them to pause before adopting a measure that bristled with so many difficulties. The present measure pro-
  1246
  vided for three different kinds, or rather degrees of registration—namely, of absolute, of limited, and of possessory titles. With regard to the first two kinds of registration, this Bill was simply a re-enactment of the Act of 1862, with only two important differences. One was that a 40 years' should be sufficient, instead of a 60 years' title; the other was that under this Bill the Registrar was not required to ascertain boundaries. These two provisions undoubtedly rendered registration much more simple, but, at the same time, far less effectual, inasmuch as it would bind no one except the person who applied for registration. Lord "Westbury's Act had been a conspicuous failure. The present duties of the Land Registry Act Office in Lincoln's Inn Fields consisted not in putting titles on the register, but in taking them off. He had been in the habit of passing it daily for many years, and in that long course of time he never saw a single person enter it. The court-yard leading to it was a wilderness; it was covered with grass and weeds—weeds, he might say, grown as high as a man—and was as desolate in appearance as any property that had been in Chancery. The Commission appointed to inquire into the operation of the Act of 1862, reported four years ago, that since its establishment the office had had only 507 applications for registration, and had only completed the registration of 209 titles. Thus, in six years, it had registered rather less than half of the whole number of titles accepted in England and "Wales in one day. This office, with its cumbrous machinery and its highly paid officials, had been created and allowed to subsist for the benefit of one purchaser in 5,000. What had led to this conspicuous failure? It was a popular fallacy that titles to land in England were not safe. He believed, on the contrary, that land was about the safest kind of property a man could hold. During an experience of 20 years he had only come across three cases in which a purchaser, taking ordinary precautions and employing a respectable solicitor, had been disturbed in the holding of an estate under the present system. One was a case of forgery, and the other two cases of fraud. No doubt, the Act of 1862 would give a still greater security in the form of a Parliamentary title; but even security might be purchased

  1247
  too clearly. He had obtained some figures which showed that, without registration, purchases were completed at a cost of about 1 per cent upon the purchase-money, while, in one instance a purchaser who registered his title under the Act of 1862 was over two years in completing his purchase, expended a sum of about £1,000 in the course of the transaction, and, in the end, registered a title with a blot upon it. What was wanted was a cheap and expeditious system; but, instead of securing this, the present Bill bristled with clauses containing the germs of enormous expense, and was, in addition, full of complication. He strongly advised his hon. and learned Friend in charge of the measure to discard from it all the unworkable provisions it contained, and content himself with a simple Bill enacting the registration of possessory titles; for if compulsory registration was to become the law, these were the only class of titles which persons could, with any show of justice, be called upon to register. How did the Bill conform to the standards of uniformity and cheapness, which ought to be the tests of a measure of the kind? With regard to the first point, he could not conceive greater complexity than the Bill would bring about. Estates under £300 were to be exempted from the operation of the Bill. Now, supposing a man purchased an estate for £2,000 or £3,000, and then sold it in smaller lots of £300 each or less, would the subpurchasers have to be registered under the Bill? If they would have, those unfortunate people would have to search the register, and would not be relieved at all. Then with regard to cheapness, the Attorney General seemed to think the expense of registering a possessory title would be next to nothing; but the various formalities which would have to be gone through in complying with the provisions of the Bill in regard to those titles would probably involve considerable expense, and certainly a great deal of delay. Then they were obliged to have recourse to an elaborate system of caveats, because they were the only safeguards they had for persons outside of the register. Anybody who put in a claim to an estate had a right to be served with a notice of an application for its registration, and that system of caveats would open the door to an enormous
  1248
  amount of inconvenience, and also much expense, because many claimants would have to be bought off. It had been suggested that the difficulty might be got rid of by making the 27th clause voluntary only and not compulsory. Now, if they took the system proposed by that Bill, and had to elect between compulsion and permission, he said, by all means, let them make it permissive. But he wished to see a really good workable system established, and then it should be made compulsory. His objection to that Bill was that it was neither permissive nor compulsory, but a sort of hybrid, which was neither one thing nor the other. He did not blame the Government nor their Law Officers altogether for that, because they were approaching a question which was surrounded by difficulties, arising not merely from the nature of the subject, but from the associations which had grown round it like the moss round an old tree, which it was almost impossible to separate from the tree itself. No doubt it would be very easy in a short Bill to assimilate the transfer of land to the transfer of stocks or ships, but would the House of Commons pass such a measure? Before they could arrive at such a simple system they must get rid of many things with which land was associated—jointure portions, entails, and the like. Besides, we had now arrived at a period of the Session when it was hardly respectful to the House to press the Bill on. It could not possibly come on for discussion for another fortnight, at a time when nearly all the legal Members of the House would be absent, and when it was a farce to suppose it could be adequately considered. Under those circumstances, he would appeal to the Government to be content with the passing of the other legal measures which stood on the Paper, and to which there was little or no opposition, and to withdraw the Bill before the House for the present Session.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he had for a, long time been conversant with the transfer of land, and had looked into the Bill with the greatest care. The result, he regretted to have to add, was that he thought it would, as it stood, be practically unworkable; and more, that it would be hardly possible to put its provisions in a workable shape. Under the existing system the public had great security for the property which any one of

  1249
  them happened to possess, and before that system was destroyed the Government were, he contended, bound to show that the security which they were about to give was equal to that which it would replace. The Bill merely provided that after going to considerable expense and trouble a prima facie title was to be obtained—a title which it would be open to every one to attack. Now, its provisions were founded partly on the Act of Lord Westbury and partly on the Australian Acts; but the good portions of the latter Acts, which worked very successfully in Victoria because of the admirable system of registration, though not so well in the other Colonies, were, so far as he could see, omitted from it. The Bill did not fulfil the promise held out in the Preamble, that it would simplify title and facilitate transfer. In the method it proposed for the simplification of title, it really held out a great temptation to fraud. If the Australian system had been fairly adopted, then they would have had something like a workable scheme. This Bill, however, mixed up Lord Westbury's Act, which had been a failure, and certain provisions of the Australian Acts, and in truth reduced the whole thing to a muddle. There were some circumstances in which, it appeared to him, that it would be absolutely dangerous under the present Bill for a man to take out a certificate of registration. He contended that the proceedings would involve unnecessary publicity, and give persons opportunities of harassing the owners of property by discovering and taking advantage of defects of title. Hardships might arise from the circumstance that when once an application for registration was made, it would be out of the power of the applicant—no matter what reasons he might have—to withdraw it. In the Australian Colonies it often happened that the Registrar, or the examiner of titles, volunteered the suggestion to the applicant that it might be better for him to wait two or three years before registering. Even after the proprietor of an estate had gone through the troublesome ceremonies laid down by this Bill, he would still have under it only a primâ facie and not an unimpeachable title. In fact, the provisions of the Bill, in the matter of securing and simplifying title to an estate, amounted to nothing. It ought not to be hurried through the House at the end of the Session. It
  1250
  ought to be postponed till next Session, but in the case of bargain and sale it gave the purchaser either a clear and absolute title, or the man who registered himself on a less perfect title so that in the interval between now and next Session, the Members of the legal profession, who were a high-minded body, and at whose suggestion the legal reforms made during recent years had been proposed, should have a full opportunity of considering the subject, and of pointing out the difficulties and dangers which would arise if the Bill passed in its present shape.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)said, the first question was, was this Bill called for? It appeared to him that some such measure was not only called for but needed. English conveyancing and the system as regarded purchases and the expense accompanying either the borrowing of money on mortgage or the selling an estate, was much the same as the system which obtained in Ireland prior to the establishment of the Encumbered Estates Court and the Landed Estates Court. Lawyers, thinking it was necessary to guard against every conceivable contingency, often investigated titles in such a way as to lead to great expense, and it was extremely desirable that the cost of these transactions should be lessened. This could only be done by means of the system adopted in the Irish Landed Estates Court under which deeds were prepared bearing absolute finality and indefeasibility of title upon the face of them, or certificates were granted declaring the existence of a good title and imparting equal indefeasibility and finality. The principal objection urged against the Bill had rested upon the compulsory clause; but he failed to see any valid ground for objecting to a clause which would only affect vendors and purchasers, would tend to greater security of title, and would, therefore, increase the value of landed property. Why should not the purchaser have a document which would give him absolute finality? Estates in Ireland sold with a Parliamentary title brought one or two years' more purchase than they would if sold with an ordinary title, and that was because there was finality in the transaction. He believed that the compulsory clause would really raise the value if the estate came to be re-sold,

  1251
  aad thus be one of the greatest benefits that had ever been conferred on purchasers in England. It did not compel the large landowner to go and register, but in the case of bargain and sale it gave the purchaser either a clear and absolute title or the man who registered himself on a less perfect title, made an assertion before the world that he was the owner of the property which he had purchased, and by the mere lapse of time acquired a good title. He submitted to the House that when these solid advantages were given, they ought not to be thrown aside because it was possible that a more perfect system might be devised, which would not pass either the House of Commons or the other House of Parliament. He hoped the House would agree to the second reading.
  MR. LAWsaid, he thought the Bill would prove a substantial though not a very large reform of the law relating to real property, which at present imposed artificial and needless costs upon the owners of land. It had, indeed, been estimated that these costs were equivalent to a tax of 10 per cent on the value of their estates—a burthen which, of course, pressed most heavily on owners of small properties, and caused the land to be mainly held in large masses by rich men, whilst bankers and other dealers in money shrunk from making loans on landed property, owing to the state of the law, which impeded and delayed the realization of such securities. Now, without entering into the vexed question of small proprietorships of land, he should like to see all artificial restrictions removed and this and other cognate questions left to solve themselves. He objected in principle to needless obstructions, which answered no good purpose, and were a heavy tax on this species of property. If the transfer of land was very much cheapened, it might, perhaps, tend also towards the attainment of another object—namely, the better cultivation of the land in England. In 1871, Lord Derby, speaking at a public meeting, stated that the land of England did not produce one-half of what it might be made to produce if sufficient capital were invested in the soil, and an opinion to the same effect was subsequently expressed by Lord Leicester. That difficulty might, perhaps, be solved if tenant-farmers were enabled to buy
  1252
  land, or, at all events, if the transfer of land was perfectly free, and things were allowed to find their level in whatever way the convenience and interest of the people might suggest. The present Bill appeared to be exceedingly well drawn, as might have been expected from the hands through which it had to pass. He likewise regarded it as a distinct advance, to extend, as proposed, the operation of the system of registration beyond absolute and marketable titles to titles limited to a certain date, and also to simply possessory titles. At the same time, looking to the very limited area of the field which registration of any kind covered, he thought the measure fell far short of what the public interest required. He could not see why, in the public interest, which, after all, was paramount on this question, the operation of the Bill and the very gentle compulsion it applied to make persons come upon the register should be confined merely to sales. Some years ago a Committeee of that House, presided over by Mr. Pusey, brought out the remarkable fact, that the proportion of land under settlement in England and "Wales was 70 per cent of all that fit for cultivation. This proportion had probably not decreased since then, and therefore nearly three-fourths of the land in this country was at once exempt from the operation of the Bill. Now, every well-drawn settlement gave powers of sale under proper conditions to the trustees; and why, he asked, should these trustees be precluded from going on the register as owners for the purpose of dealing with the land? Ample securities might easily be obtained against any fraudulent, or indiscreet exercise of such powers; and there was, he submitted, no reason why land in settlement, as well as land out of settlement, should not be put on the register in the names of persons, who, according to the arrangements of the parties themselves, had the power of selling. With regard to the provisions to compel registration, it seemed to him that they were not sufficiently stringent. There were various ways—as, for instance, by the vendor appointing a trustee, and thus divesting himself of the legal estate—in which it would be very easy to evade completely the operation of the clause with regard to compulsion. The provisions on this point of the Bill of last year were of a much more stringent

  1253
  character. But further, whilst property under settlement—that was to say, nearly three-fourths of all the land of England—would be wholly exempt from the operation of the Act; and the futile compulsion provided for the remainder would apply only as it was being sold; it was still more disappointing to find that there were no provisions securing that even the small extent of land sold and then possibly placed upon the register should, if when so placed, remain there. By one of the later sections of the Bill a registered title would, on the owner's death—and that, at all events, was a pretty certain event—be legally devisable, transmissible and transferable just as if it had never been registered at all, so long as the new owner was not entered on the register. This, however, need never be done, and thus it was plain that the measure must largely fail to attain its object, even as to the inconsiderable number of titles within its operation. In order, too, that the Bill should work efficiently, it would, he thought, be necessary that some machinery should be provided similar to the Landed Estates Court, which had worked very satisfactorily in Ireland; and that had hitherto been the view of the present Lord Chancellor. He desired, now, to add that an efficient measure for registration of titles and transfer of land was greatly needed in Ireland, and it was to be hoped that Her Majesty's Government would, during the recess, consider this matter with the view of taking action upon it. The system at present in operation in that country had not been successful; for out of property to the value of £45,000,000 sterling, sold under the Landed Estates Court, and its predecessor the Encumbered Estates Court, only about £2,000,000 worth had been recorded under the Re-cord of Titles Act. It should also be borne in mind that the provisions of the Irish Church Act and Land Act for facilitating the purchase by tenants of their holdings imperatively required to be thus supplemented. There would probably be, by the end of next year, some 6,000 or 7,000 small fee-simple properties thus created; to these the present system would be simply ruinous. To return, however, to the Bill now before the House, although he thought that it might with advantage go much further than it did, he hoped it would
  1254
  now be read a second time, and that all parties would join in an effort to make it as good a measure as possible.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLremarked that they all seemed to be pretty well agreed with the Preamble of the Bill, and the only question they had to discuss was that which they were now discussing. If the people of England were to believe that this was the first time they had had an opportunity of having land conveyed to them at a very small expense they would be much mistaken. There was nothing new at all, for it had been possible to transfer land by the simplest words since and before the passing of the Statute of Frauds. Being at Oxford the other day he went to the Bodleian Library, and the very courteous librarian showed him a conveyance of the time of Henry I., conveying to the nuns of Littlemore to hold for ever on condition of their praying for the souls of himself, his father, mother, and blood relations. The conveyance was signed by five witnesses, and the whole was contained in three lines. Any measure that would facilitate the transfer of land, and would popularize the holding of land, would be a great benefit to the public. The present Bill aimed at giving a certified title and proprietorship. The register of proprietorship was a thing which they must look to. If we had. had that some time ago, our titles would have been in a very different condition from what they were in now. For facilitating the transfer of land and simplifying the title only two things were required—one was to register the proprietorship, and the other to endorse the register and the encumbrances. There was no necessity for anything further, so long as there was a strong compulsory clause which would give authority only to registered proprietorships. Did this Bill do that? He submitted that it did not. Reference had been made to eminent lawyers from whose hands the Bill had come, but when Vice Chancellor Hall was included among them it should be borne in mind that since he had considered the measure many strange alterations had been made in it; and the exemption of properties under £300 was an admission that its operation would be attended by great expense and delay. Much had been said about the care and accuracy with which it had

  1255
  been drawn, and upon that point he would remark that he had felt it necessary to give Notice of between 40 and 50 Amendments. He thought there would be little delay caused if the measure were to stand over for more careful consideration, and he was convinced it would make it a Bill more worthy of the noble and learned Lord from whom it came, and of hon. Members who sat on the Ministerial side of the House.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERwas of opinion that a registration of title such as was contemplated by the Bill could not be carried out in this country; and that if it were possible, it would be, to a great extent, useless. Before a title could be registered it should be shown to be indefeasible, and in how many cases could that be the case considering the number of complicated interests and incumbrances which existed in respect of most landed estates? The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Law) had suggested that there should be a Judge appointed for the management of all landed estates in England, because the Encumbered Estates Court in Ireland had worked well. But the circumstances of the two countries were so different that if anything of the kind were attempted a strong cry would next be raised of Home Rule for England. In his opinion, this measure would not improve the position of either the purchaser or the vendor of real estate, because there would still have to be an investigation into the title even if it were registered, inasmuch as it rarely happened that a freeholder ever had complete control over his land, which was usually more or less encumbered. The best thing would be to have a registration of deeds as was the case in all other countries in Europe. Deeds might be printed in the register-book, and printed copies of them, duly stamped, might be given to the owners of the property. If a man had a good title he would be satisfied with it without going to the expense of registering it, and if he had a middling or a mere holding title he would not register it in order to give every one an opportunity of finding out blots in it fie further objected to maps being required to be made of each property that was to be registered; and, in conclusion, he advised Her Majesty's Government not to go on with this Bill, but to re-consider
  1256
  the subject and bring in a good sound measure for the registration of deeds next Session.
  SIR JOHN KARSLAKEsaid, he thought that the idea of the registration of deeds had been exploded more than 40 years ago. Our chief conveyancing difficulties arose from the nature of our real property tenure, and if we were to begin again, without doubt, we should adopt some system for the registration of titles, and not encumber ourselves with these complicated deeds which the hon. and learned Baronet opposite (Sir George Bowyer) proposed to perpetuate by having them printed on the register-book. The hon. and learned Baronet had urged as an objection against the registration of titles that some one might be tempted to pick holes in them; but surely the best way to induce persons to take such a course would be to register the deeds on which they depended. The expense of registering such deeds would be very heavy. The great vice of the present system was that they had deeds which recited former deeds, which again recited former deeds, which again recited former deeds; and he did not know if all the sheepskin which came into the market would be able to supply the parchment which would, in time, be required for the enormous recitals of these deeds. For many years efforts had been made to get some briefer mode of conveying property, and the tendency had been to recommend the registration of titles, and not the registration of deeds. In 1857 the present Lord Chancellor brought forward a Bill by which he proposed the registration of titles. In 1862 a Bill was introduced by the late Lord Westbury, and passed into law, under which a system of registration was created which proved to be an utter and complete failure. That failure arose from two causes; first, nothing but marketable titles could be registered; and secondly, that the man who wished to register his title was obliged to inform all his neighbours what he was about to do—to proclaim it in the market-place by a process of horning which prevailed in Scotland, and to challenge any of them to say that any of the property did not belong to him, thus exposing himself to a shower of lawsuits. The consequence was that no man in his senses went to the Registrar. What was proposed by this Bill? Pre-

  1257
  cisely what had been proposed by the Commission of 1870 who sat to inquire into the causes of the failure of the Act of 1862 and pointed out what, in their opinion, would be the proper remedies. They recommended, among other things, that there should be a registration of possessory titles or proprietary rights. Many holding titles were not marketable titles, but the effect of registering proprietary titles at a small expense would by this Bill be that a man putting his title on the register and going back, say, five or ten years, might say from that moment he had registered his title, and in process of time he would find that, without the assistance of a single deed, without anything but the registration of a proprietary title, every day would improve it, and in a certain number of years he would have a perfect title, and might burn his title deeds, so far as security was concerned. On the face of this Bill there was a most valuable provision in the interest of vendors and purchasers of land, a provision which conveyancers, perhaps, might not like to see, but which he was delighted to see—the doctrine of actual and constructive notice was by this Bill swept away. In one point he regarded the Bill as more or less experimental, because, knowing as he did that for 40 years past, at least, the wisest of the lawyers had been trying to make a perfect system of registration, they certainly had not up to the present moment succeeded. He did not say that the present Bill would provide for every emergency which might arise; but it was a step in the right direction. Power might hereafter be taken, in the event of the London Registry proving insufficient, to extend it to the country. If it were felt necessary to do so, and such a step were taken, a great part of the objection which now existed to compulsory registration, such as it was, would at once be got rid of. Another question was, whether it should be made compulsory? It was said that this Bill was at fault because it was compulsory. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Alfred Marten) that the compulsion in this case was of the mildest description. What was the compulsion? It was this—that after a certain period, if a person did not choose to put his title on the register, the title which he conferred would be simply and solely an equitable title.
  1258
  That was the whole amount of compulsion proposed in the Bill, and although it might very properly be considered in Committee, he did not think his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) could fairly be twitted upon that score. He saw in this Bill advantages which had certainly been pointed out for more than 40 years; he saw that the Act of 1862 had been practically a dead letter; he saw that, since that Act had failed, the general outline suggested by the Commission of 1870 was carried out by the clauses of this Bill; and he could not help thinking that, if it became law, a great step would be taken towards that which had been desired for many years, and that it would increase to a considerable extent the value of land in this country. He trusted therefore it would pass during the present Session.
  SIR HENRY JAMESnoticed that throughout the whole course of the debate on the Bill no person save those who were Members of the legal profession ventured to express an opinion on the subject. He was certain that the House would have been pleased to hear the opinion of some hon. Gentleman who was not connected with the legal profession. Why was it that during the six hours the debate had lasted not one landed proprietor not connected with the legal profession had attempted to offer an opinion on the subject? It was not to be supposed that the landed proprietors who were Members of the House took no interest in the question of the transfer of land. Why, then, did they not display that interest by an expression of their views? He believed that the reason why they had not done so was that the details of the measure were so complicated that they could not master them fully, and that they could not, therefore, trust the mselves to take part in a preliminary discussion respecting it. The Bill, he believed, would sadly disappoint the hopes of many who anticipated that it would simplify the title and facilitate the transfer of land. While it ought to be read a second time, and while severe criticism at the present stage ought not to be applied to its details, it would disappoint those who expected much from it. He should offer no captious opposition to the Bill. It might be said that vested interests, in a professional point of view, would create a difficulty

  1259
  in the passing of the Bill. He would rather discourage than encourage such opposition. They had not to look to vested interests that did not favour simplifying the transfer of land, but rather to the interests of those who held land, with the view of simplifying the title and facilitating its transfer. Putting aside all captious objections, and dealing with general matters rather than with details, he asked what they had hoped this Bill would perform connected with the conveyance of landed property, and what was the effect of the Bill? He feared that this Bill would do nothing in the present to simplify the transfer of land, and it was doubtful whether it would do anything in the future. Some persons objected to the Bill because it had compulsory powers, and there were others who objected to it because it was not more compulsory. What would be the effect of the voluntary powers given under this Bill? He thought it would very likely meet with the same fate as Lord Westbury's Bill of 1867. That Bill gave not only an indefeasible title, but settled the boundaries of the owner's estate, yet, because it was only a voluntary registration, the Act of 1862 had been virtually a dead letter. The present Bill, by the 35th clause, placed an owner in a better position than he was at present, but only to a certain limited extent. Whether an owner registered under this Bill or not, he obtained, after 20 years, a possessory title, and after 60 years an indefeasible title. The only advantage of this Bill was that registration marked the point of time for which the Statute of Limitations ran, and made it start from a certain instead of a doubtful time. An owner would, however, be unwilling to make it patent to the world that he required a good marketable title. The compulsory portion of the Bill was good, yet it was threatened with the opposition of those who disliked compulsory registration. He earnestly hoped his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, if he had to go through the arduous task of passing the Bill through Committee, would not consent to giving up this part of the measure, and he also hoped that estates under £300 would be included in these compulsory provisions. In his opinion, no class of estates stood more in need of registration and a means of cheap transfer. Such a Bill
  1260
  as the present ought to have an influence upon the land rather than the holders; but the blot of this measure was that it gave a benefit to the individual, and was not an adequate record of the land. He was afraid the Bill had come before them too late to be made so useful as might be desired, and he could almost hope that it might not be passed this Session, with the design that when the question came to be treated hereafter, it should be dealt with comprehensively.
  COLONEL CORBETTresponded to the challenge which had been made to the landed proprietors to take part in the debate, and said he believed they always trusted to the honourable conduct of the solicitors of this country. He had not taken part in the debate because he did not profess to understand the subject as he was not a lawyer, and, for himself, the only pecuniary privilege he derived from sitting in the House was that by listening to a debate like this he could get a legal opinion without paying for it. He did not think landed proprietors had clamoured for this Bill, or cared much about it one way or another; but, for himself, he should be glad to see a recurrence to small deeds. He feared that in this country we should never see land transferred in a simple and cheap manner. Those who clamoured most for cheap land were probably those who had no land and did not care about it, and he doubted whether they would gain anything from the change. It was a mistake to say that there was no land for sale, because plenty of it was advertised for sale every day; and, indeed, he believed that the great difficulty in obtaining land consisted in finding the money to pay for it.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, he believed the question had a wider significance than the legal one, and that no measure would produce a greater effect in the direction of true conservatism and reform than a measure to simplify and cheapen the transfer of small properties, which would encourage thrift and independence among working men by encouraging them to become the proprietors of their own houses. This it would not be safe for many to do until it was cheap to buy, sell, and pawn houses, because the fluctuations of trade rendered it imprudent for them to invest their saving in a form which could not be easily real-

  1261
  ized. He regretted the Government had consented to the withdrawal of the compulsory clauses, because they really formed the best parts of the Bill. The desire to acquire land and to possess houses of their own was as strong among the poorer classes as among the rich, and there was a practice which very largely prevailed of persons giving up their houses which they rented at the end of a very few years in order that they might get into other houses newly fitted up. That was a most wasteful practice, which ought to be discouraged. Desiring a complete measure for the cheap transfer of land, he would advise the Government, possessing as it did the confidence of the landed interest, to wait until they could pass such a measure, which he was assured by leading solicitors need occasion them no concern, for confidence would still be reposed in them, however simple transfer was made, while the facility of transactions would inevitably increase the number of them.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had desired too long an amendment of the system of land in this country, to offer any opposition to a Bill which professed to amend that system, which was in a state about as disgraceful as it was possible to conceive. It had been stated that night that the transfer of land added about 10 per cent to the price of land. If the country gentlemen would pay the same percentage to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the form of succession duty, our Budget might be very much amended. Although the House was full of Gentlemen possessing property, there were few of them who know what title they had to it; and if they consulted any experienced conveyancer, he would tell them that most of them had no title at all. He said that for this reason—that at every auction of land there were conditions of sale of this character—the person selling made it a condition of sale that the purchaser should take a bad title—that was to say, a title less than a good one. He ventured to say that that was an absurd state for the land of a country like England to be placed in. He had always held the opinion that there would never be any real simplification in the system of the tranfer of land until they began by simplifying the tenure and title, and that the mere attempt to simplify registration was of no use. This Bill did not touch
  1262
  the root of the evil, which lay in the complication of the tenure of land, and in the multitude of estates carved out of the land. Whatever was the system of registration established, it would always be a complicated system, and as long as there was a complicated tenure, no system which might be adopted would give that simplicity of transfer in land which was desired. He agreed with the Attorney General for Ireland that the proper criticism upon this Bill was that it did not go half far enough. He also agreed very much with the present and the late Attorney General for Ireland that if we could have a little of that justice to England which was sometimes demanded for Ireland, and have the benefit of the Encumbered Estates Courts in this country, it would be a good thing for this country. Having regard to what the Bill professed to do, he was afraid it would cause great disappointment to those who desired simplification in the transfer of land. If that was so, it would add to the many failures we had had on the subject, among which the Act of Lord Westbury was the most signal. He agreed also with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir H. James), and his right hon. and learned Friend sitting near him (Mr. Law), that the fault of this Bill was not that it was too compulsory, but that it was not half compulsory enough. They were applying compulsory registration, because they thought registration a good thing, because they thought it was an advantage. If registration was an advantage to the general public, what was the meaning of a system of registration which, as his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Law) had pointed out, would omit at least throe-fourths of the land of England? If registration was a good thing, why was it not to apply to the large class of land which was held in settlement, and to that held in mortmain? But, above all, why in the name of all that was wonderful was it not to apply to estates under £300? The introduction of that exception was the most extraordinary thing in the history of the Bill, and was introduced at the last moment upon the third reading of the Bill in the House of Lords. If there was any class of property to which the benefit of registration ought to be extended, it was to the small

  1263
  estates. If the Government had proposed this Bill—as they ought to have done—with a proper district register, there would not have been an outcry against it. A man who bought a field of five or six acres, for which he gave £300, was under the same conditions with respect to the difficulties of title as a man who bought an estate of 4,000 or 5,000 acres, and no one could tell what it would cost him to complete his purchase. The Government should take time to consider the Bill, and produce one which would deal more effectually with the evil. He feared that the Bill, instead of settling the question, was only a pretext for not doing thoroughly that which had been so long waited for; and he believed that if the Government would take a little more time to consider the matter, they would find themselves largely supported by public opinion, in making it a much more effectual and extensive measure. Sooner or later they would have to deal with it in a far more extensive manner than the present Bill contemplated.
  MR. WHITWELLcould not concur in the wish that this measure should be postponed. It was the outcome of much thought and grave consideration; and although it might not be all that they desired, it was, at any rate, an attempt to deal with a very important question, and the community at large, having had the measure announced for many months, would be extremely disappointed if the House did not attempt to make it a useful one. Whatever alterations might be required in the Bill could be made in Committee. He joined in the regret expressed, that properties under £300 had been struck out of the Bill; but believing that the measure would be the beginning of a series of enactments which would afford the working man an opportunity of investing his savings with security at a fair rate of interest, he gave his support to the Motion that the Bill be read a second time.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKregarded the Bill as a proposition to simplify the Law of Real Property, and one which, if carried out in all its details, would confer material benefit on landed proprietors. The registration of deeds was universal in Ireland, but was confined in England to the counties of York and Middlesex; but registration of titles was at present untried in this country. With
  1264
  regard to the exclusion of small properties under £300 in value from the operation of the Act, he pointed out that in the present complicated state of our law such exclusion was a necessity.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in reply, remarked, that in moving that the Bill be read a second time, he had invited criticism, and that his invitation had been very largely responded to. Much, however, that had fallen from hon. Members was worthy of the careful cousideration of the Government, and should receive that consideration when the Bill got into Committee. He was desirous, however, of removing one misapprehension. Several hon. Members appeared to think that properties under £300 would be excluded from the operation of the Act. This was not so; they were only exempted from the compulsory provisions, and, so far as the advantages of registration were concerned, they would be quite available in the cases of those small properties.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID, being satisfied with the discussion which had taken place, said, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday 16th July.

  REAL PROPERTY (VENDUES AND PURCHASERS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, this Bill was read a second time.
  REAL TROPERTY (LIMITATION) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Attorney General, this Bill was read a second time, and, together with the preceding Bill, was committed for Thursday week
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATUREACT (1873) AMENDMENT BILL. [Lords.]
(Mr. Attorney-General.)
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATUREACT (1873) AMENDMENT BILL. [Lords.]

  [BILL 179.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. ATTORNEY GENERALin moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the Rules framed under the Judicature Act of last Session had now, after long preparation, been considered finally by the whole body of the Judges, but they could not be promulgated until this Bill, which was merely

  1265
  a Supplementary Bill to that of last year, was passed. The Bill would extend the jurisdiction of the appellate power of the Imperial Court of Appeal to Scotland and Ireland, as well as to England. Another main object of the Bill was to provide, in certain specified cases, for a second appeal. With a view to make the Court of Appeal as important as possible, it was proposed that it should be divided into two or more Divisions; that the first Division should be composed of a larger number of members, and that five at least should sit to hear appeals, so as to give greater weight and authority to their decisions. That Division was to consist of three ex officio Judges—namely, the Lord Chancellor, and two other ex officio Judges, who were to be alternately, every two years, the Lord Chief Justice of England and the Master of the Rolls in England, and the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in England and the Chief Baron of the Exchequer in England; and also of certain other Judges, to be selected from the additional and ordinary Judges of the Imperial Court of Appeal. He hoped the Bill would be read a second time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Attorney General.)
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he would not move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months on the understanding that an opportunity of discussing the measure would be given on going into Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday, at Two of the clock.

COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 168.]
(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 168.]

  [Lords.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND(Dr. BALL), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had precisely the same object as the English Bill on the same subject. It would be quite impossible to have the law different in England and Ireland. If was right that in England one tribunal should decide every portion of
  1266
  a case, whether involving legal or equitable questions, it was quite plain that the improvement should be extended to Ireland. There were, however, certain differences in the nature of the tribunals of the two countries. For instance, in Ireland there was a Court totally unknown in England, the Landed Estates Court; and the business of the Irish Court of Bankruptcy was administered, not, as in England, chiefly by the Registrars, but by the Judge of the Court, to the great satisfaction of the mercantile community. While in England, too, the Court of Admiralty had a very large business, in Ireland it had scarcely any business. These differences in circumstances necessitated differences in the provisions of the Irish Bill in some respects from those of the English. With regard to the Admiralty Court, the Government came to the conclusion that they would not be justified in keeping it up as a separate Court at an expense of upwards of £3,000 a-year, taking into account all the officials. In dealing with the three Law Courts, the Government had decided that it was not necessary to retain as many as 12 Common Law Judges if they were only to discharge the duties devolving upon them by reason of their office. It was proposed that, after diminishing the number of Common Law Judges by adding in their stead a Probate and Bankruptcy Judge, the number of Judges should ultimately be 16, and complaints were made, on the one hand, that they would be too few, and on the other, that they would be too many. The Judges, he thought, would be fully employed, and perhaps the judicial strength might be economized by having motions heard by two instead of four Judges. The power of dealing with the circuits would be left with the Lord Lieutenant, assisted by the Council of Judges. Some critics of the Bill seemed to overlook the fact that under the Bill every Judge would be a Judge both of law and equity, and that all future Judges might be sent on circuit. It was proposed to raise the salaries of the Judges from £4,000 Irish to £4,000 British money, which appeared to be a fair equivalent for £5,000 a-year paid to English Judges. In England there was no Intermediate Court of Appeal; but a Bill had been introduced to give the power of re-hearing; and it would be impos-

  1267
  sible to work the judicial system of Ireland without a second appeal. The cases were not of a magnitude to bear the expense of being brought at once to England, and to deny a re-hearing in Ireland would make a Court of First Instance absolute. Accordingly, the Bill would create an Intermediate Court, with special Judges—the Lord Chancellor, the present Lord Justice of Appeal, and a Lord Justice to be appointed, and, in addition, the three Chiefs of the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer would be ex officio members of the Appellate Tribunal. By the intervention of this Court many cases would be settled without incurring the expense of bringing them to England. Criminal appeals were proposed to be sent to this Court. It might be objected that the Lord Chancellor, being a political officer, should not have jurisdiction in criminal cases; but the English Lord Chancellor was to a still greater degree a political officer, and had taken part in the trial of political cases, as in the cases of O'Connell and Smith O'Brien, and he did not see any valid objection to the Irish Lord Chancellor taking part in the trial of ordinary criminal cases. If, however, the legal Members from Ireland preferred it, this appeal would be left with the Judges of the Common Law divisions; and generally he desired to say that he was not so wedded to particular provisions of the Bill as to refuse to consider any suggestions that might be made, but matters of detail could be best dealt with in Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Attorney General for Ireland.)
  MR. LAW, after observing that he was glad to find the language of the English Judicature Act had been scrupulously adhered to in this Bill, said, that if the Irish Law Officers of the late Government had had to deal with the subject, they would have begun by providing for the absorption of the Judges, and Courts of modern creation. They would have retained the 12 Common Law Judges as these would now be ultimately retained; but they would not have first removed two of them and left their places to be supplied after an uncertain interval by the outlying Judges.
  1268
  Ho thought some inconvenience might arise in this respect. For example, when the last Bankruptcy Judge was transferred to the Court of Exchequer, how was bankruptcy business to be done during his absence on circuit? It appeared to him, also, that under the proposed arrangements the Chancery division would be unequal to its work; whilst to make one of the Lords Justices of Appeal available for the hearing of causes in a Court of First Instance was undesirable, and was, in fact, open to the objections taken by the present Lord Chancellor to the old Court of Exchequer Chamber. It seemed to him that the Court of Bankruptcy and the Probate Court ought to be annexed to the Chancery division. The most important feature, however, of the Bill was the constitution of the Court of Appeal. This, it was admitted on all hands, should be as strong a Court as possible. But though, by the English Act, the Master of the Polls was an ex officio member of the Supreme Court of Appeal, it appeared that the Irish Master of the Polls was not to be a member of the Irish Appellate tribunal. Now, he saw no reason why the Master of the Polls should be left out in the composition of this Court, in which he might advantageously sit as an ex officio Judge; and it should be remembered that in point of precedence he ranked next after the Lord Chief Justice. So with respect to Crown cases reserved, he could discover no sufficient ground for departing from the precedent made by the English Act, and providing that these criminal cases should be disposed of, the Court of Appeal presided over by the Chancellor. Many other matters of detail seemed to him to require further consideration, but of course there was no opposition to the second reading of the Bill, which all were glad to see at last.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENregretted that the Bill, which had been put forward as a chief measure of the Session, had been brought forward at so late a period of the Session, when it was most inconvenient for Irish Members to remain in London. The main feature of the Bill was the reduction of the number of Irish Judges. This he considered as an uncalled-for step, considering the magnitude and importance of the business they had to transact, and heespecially regretted that the reduction was

  1269
  to be in the number of Common Law Judges, who were the Judges that brought justice home to the people. Considering jurisdiction of the Common Pleas in election cases, the removal of a Judge from that Court was particularly unfortunate. As to the proposed Court of Appeal, it should be small and made up of permanent Judges. He thought the Court of Appeal ought also to be the Court of Criminal Appeal. He hoped the Bill would come out of Committee a better measure than it now was.
  THE O'CONOR DONrose simply to refer to the Landed Estates Courts in Ireland, in which the Judge who presided had the most important duties to perform as regarded landed property. That position ought to be held by a man of the greatest eminence, and ought not to be selected from men of an inferior position at the Bar, and be paid a lower salary than the other Irish Judges.
  MR. MELDONsaid, it was the unanimous feeling of the Bar that one Judge was not sufficient for the work of the Landed Estates Court. He objected at the same time to the proposal to have only one Judge for the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland instead of two as at present.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGcomplained that a Bill of this importance should be discussed at that late hour of the morning. With respect to the Landed Estates Court, the Judge no doubt discharged his duties properly; but he found by a Return that no less than 1,732 cases were undisposed of in 1873, and 108 questions of abstract titles. That was a formidable arrear, and yet this Bill proposed to impose other duties upon him in addition.
  MR. D. PLUNKETsaid, he believed it was the unanimous opinion of the Judges, of the Bar, of attorneys and solicitors, and of the outside public in Ireland, that one Judge was not sufficient for the Landed Estates Court.
  MR. MACARTNEY, on behalf of the landed proprietors of Ireland, protested against the changes proposed by this Bill, and hoped the Government would re-consider the whole question.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday next.

NEW MINT BUILDINGS SITE BILL.
(Lord Henry Lennox, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
NEW MINT BUILDINGS SITE BILL.

  [BILL 162.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, he hoped the Government would not proceed with the second reading of the Bill, as it was one of a highly objectionable character.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERbelieved the hon. Gentleman was not quite correctly informed as to the object of the Bill. The question had been very carefully considered by the authorities of the Mint, and this Bill was approved by them. If it were read a second time he should move to have it referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that at that late hour they could not properly discuss the Bill, and he should therefore move that the debate be adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Anderson.)
  The House divided—Ayes 17; Noes 41: Majority 24.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'oclck.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Chain Cables and Anchors* (157); Rating* (158); Foyle College* (159).
Committee—Intoxicating Liquors (130–100): Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5)* (99).
Report—Leases and Sales of Settled Estates* (93); Bills of Sale Amendment* (152); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation* (153).
Third Reading—Apothecaries Act Amendment* (116); Conjugal Rights (Scotland) Act Amendment* (126); Alkali Act (1863) Amendment * (115), and passed.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS BILL.
(The Lord Steward.)
INTOXICATING LIQUORS BILL.

  (NO. 130.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Preliminary.
  Clause I (Construction and short title of Act) amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Commencement of Act) agreed to.
  Hours of Closing.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYproposed, after Clause 2, to insert a new clause. The principle of this Bill seemed, no doubt, to he a limitation on the discretion of the magistrates in respect of the hours of public-houses—though he believed no complaint had been made as to the manner in which they exercised their discretion under the existing Act. In the course, however, of the discussion on the Bill in the other House, it was found necessary to relax in some respect that principle; a difficulty arose about defining populous places, and at last the

  1187
  difficulty was solved by referring it to the discretion of the magistrate. After the experience the magistrates had acquired as to the wants of the populations in their respective localities, and the very satisfactory manner in which they had exercised their discretion in respect of the hours of opening in the morning, he hoped their Lordships would adopt the clause he now begged to propose, and not allow the Bill to become law with a hard-and-fast line drawn at the hour of 6 in the morning. In Birkenhead, Liverpool, Manchester, and other large towns the manufacturers and employers were in favour of the hour of 7 for opening; great advantage had been found from that late hour, and he hoped the power would be left with the magistrates to continue that regulation.
  Moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following clause:—
  "In any town or (populous place) beyond the metropolitan district the licensing justices may by order made in the manner prescribed by the principal Act direct that the time at which such premises within any town or (populous place) shall be opened on the mornings of all days, except Sunday, Christmas Day, and Good Friday, shall be other than the horn' herein-before prescribed; but no such order shall prescribe a time for opening earlier than five o'clock nor later than seven o' clock in the morning of such days."—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPopposed the clause—it either went too far or not far enough. The noble Earl was correct in saying that the principle of the Bill was to limit the discretion of the magistrates, and the Amendment of the noble Earl proposed to run counter to that principle, though only in respect to the hours of opening. If it was right to restore the discretion in respect of hours, it ought to be restored entirely and not in the partial manner proposed by the Amendment. The object of limiting the discretion in the way it was done by the Bill was to prevent the anomaly of different hours in different licensing districts—hours fixed not on any general principle, but in accordance with the individual opinions of the justices of the district. The case of exemptions to meet the wants of particular callings and occupations was provided for by Clause 5, and therefore the Amendment of the noble Earl was unnecessary in the case of persons following such occupations.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, he wished the Government would consent to legislate on the principle laid down by the noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp), and that they would assign some valid reason for the course they were pursuing in respect of the hours of opening and closing. The question was not one of public morals, but one of public convenience. When the Bill of 1872 was introduced it contained a provision that the hour for opening public-houses should be 6 o'clock; but in the course of the discussions it was found that to draw a hard-and-fast line like that would be productive of much inconvenience. It was stated that a great number of persons engaged at night occupations were in the habit of breakfasting at public-houses before they went home, and that others who came from their homes at a very early hour used public-houses in order to obtain refreshment before going to their work. Parliament consequently, resolved to give a discretion to the magistrates. In Liverpool, the hour fixed for opening was 7 o'clock. The question being one of the convenience of the working classes the magistrates took much pains to ascertain the feeling of the working class on the subject of the hours for opening and closing, and they ascertained that no fewer than four-fifths of that class—those who worked in the large establishments especially—were in favour of 7 o'clock as the hour for opening and 10 as the hour for closing. The magistrates adopted 7 as the hour for opening, but they shrank from adopting so early an hour as 10 as the time for closing, and they consequently fixed at 11 o'clock. Chester, Birmingham, Hull, Gateshead, and he believed other places, followed the example of Liverpool in making 7 the opening hour. The city of Manchester, which had paid much attention to the working of the Act, fixed on 6 as the hour for opening, and 11, the hour adopted at Liverpool as the hour for closing; but, a few evenings ago, he presented to their Lordships' House a Petition from the justices of Manchester, in which they stated that after full consideration, they were prepared to adopt 7 o'clock as the hour for opening, being satisfied that what had been done elsewhere had given satisfaction. He challenged the Government to show that the slightest hardship had been felt or complained of in the large towns in which 7 was the hour for

  1189
  opening. If they could not do so, why should they make any change in the Act for the purpose of establishing a principle which was no principle at all—certainly not a just one? The wishes and convenience of the people were to be consulted. There was no political principle and no moral principle involved in the proposal of the Government, and as the justices had hitherto exercised their discretion in a perfectly satisfactory manner, he would support the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Aberdare) clearly indicated that what he desired was not a discretion of opening earlier, but a discretion of opening later. What the noble Lord wished to do was to follow the wish of those who used public-houses. But it was obvious that those who used public-houses had the remedy in their own hands. If they did not wish to go into public-houses before 7 o'clock, they could abstain from doing so. The noble Lord said it was the almost unanimous wish of the working classes in Liverpool, Chester, and other large towns that public-houses should not be open till 7 o'clock. If that were so, why need they go in? But what he suspected was that what these members of the working classes wanted was that their neighbours should not be allowed to go into public-houses before that hour. The noble Lord challenged the Government to say what was the principle of their proposal. The noble Lord asked whether it was a political principle or a moral principle, or what it was? His reply was that it was the principle of freedom—the principle that you were not to prevent one man from doing what he liked so long as he was acting within the law merely because another man objected to what he was doing. The original proposal of the Government with regard to the hour of opening had been somewhat modified. What they wished to do was to fix such hours of opening as would generally suit the habits of the population. But the question of the hour of closing was essentially different from that of opening. A consideration of police was involved in the former—because when they fixed a late hour for closing, they made the task of the police more difficult; but would any one assert that the hour of opening being earlier made the task of the police more difficult?
  1190
  If they proceeded on the uncongenial principle of fixing by Act of Parliament what was good for the working classes—if they intended to fix for them, of what their breakfast should be composed, and at what hour they should be permitted to take it, they would be entering the regions of paternal Government. It was no more the province of Parliament to fix what the working classes should drink than it was its province to fix what they should eat. If it was not good for them to begin work with a dram of whiskey in their stomachs, that was for themselves and not for Parliament. By attempting to introduce an uncongenial limitation of this kind they would be infringing the principle of liberty on which our legislation hitherto had been based, and laying down new principles of legislation which, upon other subjects and under a political system where power resided with the greatest numbers, would some day be used most disadvantageously against them.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought the noble Marquess could not have read the clause proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby), whose Amendment was now before their Lordships. Had he read it, he never could have argued as he had done in the speech just addressed to their Lordships. The whole of the argument of the noble Marquess was against opening at a later hour than that provided in the Bill; but the clause proposed to be introduced said, the magistrates might make the time of opening an hour earlier—because they might fix it at 5 o'clock if they chose.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They might make it an hour later—7 o'clock, if they chose.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: An Lour later, or an hour earlier—that was at the discretion of the justices. But why should the noble Marquess assume an hour later, and found his argument against the clause on that assumption? He quite agreed with the principle laid down by the noble Marquess that there was a difference between the question of the hour of opening and that of the hour of closing, inasmuch as the latter involved considerations of police. But the question now before their Lordships was the hours of opening, which did not. The noble Marquess talked of the convenience of the labouring classes. Was it for the convenience of the labouring

  1191
  classes that a hard-and-fast hour of 6 o'clock should he fixed by Act of Parliament, and that no discretion should be left to the justices in order that there might be a relaxation for their benefit. In considering the Bill of 1872, they came to the conclusion that it was better to fix the hours at 5 and 7 than at 6 o'clock, leaving it to the discretion of the magistrates to fix them at either 5 or 7, as the wants of any particular locality might reqnire, or as the justices might think fit. He again submitted that the noble Marquess could not have read the clause, which he trusted their Lordships would accept.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl says that the noble Marquess could not have read the clause; but the noble Marquess had heard—and they had all heard—the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Aberdare), and he asked whether the whole of that speech was not in favour of having a later hour for opening than that fixed by the Bill?
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, he had distinctly admitted it was necessary, on behalf of persons engaged in some callings, that an earlier hour was required, and that a provision to that effect had been introduced into the Act of 1872; and what he said was that power should be given in the Bill to fix the opening hour between 5 and 7 o'clock to meet the wants of an agricultural population on the one hand, or those of the operatives employed in large towns on the other.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But all the instances cited by the noble Lord were those of towns in which a later hour was adopted. The noble Marquess followed the noble Lord, and argued against restrictions in the way of making the hours of opening later. As to the Amendment before the House, he would ask the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) to look at Clause 5. If it should be thought that the powers of relaxation given by that clause were not sufficient, the question of enlarging them could be considered on that clause.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, the Amendment proposed was entirely unnecessary. The Government had received expressions of opinion from all parts of the country and towns in England, numbering from 600 to 800 places, to the effect that the hour of opening at 6 o'clock
  1192
  was sufficient, and he was very sorry his noble Friend should propose to alter the hour proposed in the Bill. The clause did not at all apply to agricultural labour; and, as he just said, they had received representations from a large number of towns and populous places, showing that the hours fixed by the Act of 1872 were quite satisfactory.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided; Contents 69; Not-Contents 108: Majority 39.
  Resolved in the Negative.
  Clause 3 (Hours of closing premises licensed for sale of intoxicating liquors.)
  Amendments made, in page 1, line 20, by leaving out ("licensed for the sale of"), and inserting (" in which "); and after ("liquors") inserting ("are sold.")
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONobserved that he knew of no reason why the hours of closing in the Metropolis should be later than they were in the country; but on Sundays he thought there was no justification whatever for the difference. There might be reasons; and, if so, probably the noble Earl could inform him.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 25, to leave out ("eleven") and insert (" nine.")—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that in London and the large towns a great number of persons were in the habit of going into the country to spend their Sundays, returning home at various hours in the evening. It was, therefore, thought desirable that the later hour for closing fixed for the Metropolis should be extended to the Sunday also. 10 o'clock would certainly be too early an hour for London. There were also numerous excursion parties for whom reasonable facilities ought to be allowed for obtaining refreshments. He hoped their Lordships would support the provisions in the Bill in this respect, as it did not do to impose restrictions that were not supported by public opinion. He hoped, therefore, their Lordships would retain 11 o'clock as the hour for closing in the Metropolis on Sundays.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, he thought this would be a convenient time to raise the question whether 12 or 12.30 should be the hour for closing on week nights. He regretted the excellent example of the Act of 1872 as regarded the hours of closing had not been adhered to in the present Bill, but that they should be extended by it half-an-hour beyond the time then sanctioned. He had given Notice, on the second reading of the Bill, of his intention to move an Amendment in Committee on this part of the Bill, and he now desired to direct their Lordships' attention to the subject. When the Bill was in the House of Commons there was a very general opinion pronounced in favour of retaining the hours of closing mentioned in the Act of 1872; but it was represented that those hours interfered with the habits of large bodies of the population, and on their part it was asked that the hour in the Metropolis should be extended to 12.30. It was in view of the wants of a certain part of the population of the Metropolis that a power was given to the Commissioners of Police to give exemptions in the case of a few public-houses situated in the vicinity of the theatres, so as to enable persons who visited them to obtain refreshments after the close of the performances. Subsequent experience had shown that the half-hour thus allowed was of no use for the purpose for which it was intended; and he wanted to know the reasons why they should now change the hour of closing from 12 to 12.30. The Home Secretary, and the Under Secretary also—a Gentleman who had paid great attention to the working of the Act of 1872—had arrived at the conclusion that the exempted houses were visited, not by persons who had been passing the evening at the theatre, but by persons who had been turned out of other public-houses, and who availed themselves of the exempted houses for the purpose of obtaining more drink. In the Metropolitan District there were 8,000 drinking-houses—public-houses and beer-houses included, so that the effect of this change in the Act of 1872 would be to create daily 4,000 additional hours for night drinking. Some Friends of his, Members of Parliament, had visited a few public-houses for the purpose of observing what sort of people frequented them at that hour. They were described as being persons not of
  1194
  the class for whom the exemption was intended, but almost invariably persons not of temperate habits—the sort of persons, in fact, who eventually got into workhouses, gaols, and lunatic asylums. This was a reason for doing away with the exemptions, but it was quite the contrary to a reason for extending the ordinary hours of closing from 12 to 12.30. Strong reasons should appear for such an extension before it was adopted. Not only public-houses would have the benefit of it, but beer-houses also, which never before were permitted to be open after 12, were to be entitled to the additional half-hour. He could not understand what motive could have actuated the Government in proposing this extension of hours. They knew that the keepers of public-houses did not desire it, and they had never regarded closing at 12 o'clock as a grievance. Wherever he had been he had heard of the general comfort and advantage which had been secured under the Act of 1872 by closing at 12 o'clock; and, in fact, he believed it was only cabmen who had complained of it—that it was the cause of their losing many fares—persons who were about at a late hour of the night, and many of them incapable of walking home. The Lord Chief Justice, as their Lordships might be aware, had decided that persons served with liquor before 12 might be allowed a reasonable time afterwards to drink it. The effect of that decision was that houses were kept open after 12; but he challenged the Government to say whether it was not in only very rare instances that that was either done or desired, and he appealed to their Lordships whether it was not desired, not by respectable persons, but by persons of the class to which he had referred.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 27, to leave out ("half an hour after.")—(The Lord Aberdare.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, the noble Lord's indignation at the change proposed by the Bill, seemed so great that he thought it would have taken a better form of expression if he had taken the course of moving the rejection of the Bill altogether. The clauses regulating the hours of closing contained some of the chief provisions of the Bill, and amongst these there were few provisions

  1195
  more important than the hours of closing public-houses throughout the Metropolitan districts. On the second reading he adverted to this part of the Bill, and drew their Lordships' attention to the reasons which had induced the Government to alter the hours, and he would not now repeat the argument he then used. He thought their Lordships must all be aware, from personal observation, of the great inconvenience which had been occasioned by midnight closing, although from their habit of attending their clubs and having well provided and comfortable houses, they could not appreciate the inconvenience to the full extent. The Government were decidedly of opinion that the exemptions now allowed should cease. The proposition of the noble Lord would restrict the law as it at present existed, because the interpretation which had been put upon the clause with regard to closing in the Metropolis had certainly made 12.15 instead of 12, the hour at which public-houses were to be closed. That was practically the case; and if their Lordships were to adopt the proposal of the noble Lord, the effect would be to cut off the present quarter of an hour, and tie the inhabitants of the Metropolis down to a hard-and-fast line, thus making the law even more stringent then it was at present. He, therefore, hoped their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought his noble Friend (Lord Aberdare) had taken the proper course in moving the Amendment, instead of moving the rejection of the Bill. He contended that no reason whatever had been assigned for the extension of hours proposed. Moreover, it had been demanded by nobody, and was strongly deprecated by persons who were most competent to form an opinion on the subject. For his part, he owned that he saw no necessity for the extension. At the same time he wished it to be understood that he did not oppose the clause from any party feeling. He hoped the times were past when their Lordships would vote against any particular measure merely because it emanated from a Government to which they themselves were in opposition; and he should regret very much to see any single Peer on that side of the House vote either for or against the Amendment unless he believed that in
  1196
  doing so he was consulting not party interests; but the interests of the public. A powerful newspaper had paid the Peers an unusual compliment for their independent conduct in passing the second reading of the Bill, and he hoped that they would be uninfluenced throughout their deliberations on this Bill by the slightest party feeling.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, although the noble Earl (Earl Granville) supported the Amendment of the noble Lord beside him, he had not said one word in its favour or stated the grounds for the course he had taken. He had told their Lordships something which had appeared in the newspapers—which was new to him—about the proper manner in which they had taken this matter into consideration, and how they had been complimented upon it. The noble Earl had asked them to consider this small question—small as regarded the arguments which had been adduced by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Aberdare) in support of his Amendment, although not so small as regarded the principle of the Bill. He (the Lord Chancellor) did not propose to weigh very minutely the evidence to which the noble Lord had referred; but there was one thing which struck him most forcibly as regarded the present law, although he should not stop to inquire how it came about. He referred to the provision for the closing of public-houses in the Metropolis at 12 o'clock, while giving exemption to certain public-houses near theatres. Now, he could not imagine any trade enduring an exemption of that kind. He believed no attempt to carry out exemption of that kind in this country would give satisfaction. To say, that throughout the whole of the Metropolis, as a general rule, the closing hour should be 12 o'clock, but that certain favoured persons, because they happened to live in the neighbourhood of theatres, should have a privilege granted to them which was denied to all others—that of selling half-an-hour later than their neighbours—was a state of things which could not continue. Whatever might be the hour fixed for closing, it was utterly impossible, in the face of public opinion, and in the interest of the trade, to grant exemption privileges in particular neighbourhoods which were denied by others. As he understood the proposition of the

  1197
  noble Lord it was to continue the Act as before, with that exemption.
  LORD ABERDARE: Without the exemption. I am for restricting the hour to 12 o'clock, giving no kind of exemption.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is an entirely new proposal, and ought to have been clearly intimated in the Amendment. The noble Lord is not dealing with the words with which we are now occupied, but with that part of the Bill which provides these exemptions. The proposal of the noble Lord is, in effect, to alter the Act of 1872, by making the hour of closing, in the metropolis practically, half-an-hour earlier.
  LORD ABERDARE: No, that is not so. Allow me to explain. The Act of 1872 fixed 12 o'clock, but allowed certain exemptions, which have proved to be useless, unnecessary, and objectionable I therefore propose to sweep them away, and make the hour of closing 12 o'clock, as it has been for the last two years.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is exactly what I was stating. But with the absolute hour of closing there was an exemption which has been granted to certain houses. Does the noble Lord mean to say that during that extra half-hour so allowed for closing no liquor was sold?
  LORD ABERDARE: No.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I say that those houses had an advantage over all their neighbours, because they did not close at 12 o'clock, but at a later hour. But that is not all. By consequence of the wording of the Act of 1872 a decision was given by a Court of Law that a certain portion of time was to be allowed over and above the hour of closing, during which margin of time liquor already ordered might be consumed on the premises; and therefore, in point of fact, the wording of the Act of 1872 was such that the time of closing in the metropolis was not 12 o'clock, but, at least, 12.15, and perhaps later; while the privileged houses kept open a still longer period. The principle of this Bill is to put an end to these exemptions, and to this litigated question of what margin should be allowed for the consumption of liquor ordered before closing time. By putting all on one level, and fixing one uniform, un-
  1198
  varying hour, jealousy, litigation, and dispute will be prevented; and in order that the convenience of the public may not be interfered with as a consequence, the Bill, by giving an extension of half-an-hour, gives as nearly as possible the same increment of time as now is permitted.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, there was nothing so dangerous as to stand upon principle when they came to discuss the clauses of a Bill. As to the question of principle, he would refer their Lordships to the 26th section of the Act of 1872 with regard to exemptions; and as this Bill adopted that clause to some extent, and provided for other cases, the argument of the noble and learned Lord on point of principle failed. The exemptions in regard to houses near theatres had admittedly worked extremely ill, being frequented by persons of bad character, and not so much by those who used the theatres. Although that was admitted by the noble Lord who introduced this Bill, yet it was now proposed to do away with that as a special exemption, and allow all the houses to keep open to the exemption hour. He should support the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, it was quite certain the Act of 1872 had not received the approbation of the country; and if there was one point in it which more than another had created public dissatisfaction, it was the clause which restricted the hours of keeping the public-houses open. It had always struck him that the noble Lord (Lord Aberdare) had all along treated his Bill as a measure for the sale of intoxicating liquors, forgetful that people resorted to public-houses for various other purposes besides that of drinking. There were many persons who obtained in those houses the natural sustenance which they required. The principle of the present Bill was to give greater freedom to all classes, in place of the coercion introduced by the existing Act; but if their Lordships now agreed to curtail the time of keeping open by this half-hour, they would be imposing an undue restriction upon the freedom of a large number of persons frequenting theatres and places of amusement, and would deprive them of that sustenance which they required.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, nothing could be considered a small matter which affected the religion and morals of the people. The evidence was overwhelming that the half-hour in question was of far more importance than all the previous hours of the evening, inasmuch as all the police reports concurred in stating that there was more drunkenness during the last hour or two that the public-houses were kept open than during the rest of the day. He, therefore, held that if their Lordships were to grant this additional half-hour for drinking at the end of the night, they would be giving occasion for more harm than occurred in an hour at any other period of the day. The noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke) had argued in favour of the half-hour on behalf of those who frequented the theatres and other places of amusement. In the law as it stood the houses in the neighbourhood of these places of amusement were allowed to remain open for half-an-hour longer than was the rule, for the accommodation of those persons; but the question was, did these persons use them? It was his opinion they did not; but that those exempted houses were the resort of bad characters, and not of respectable persons really requiring refreshment. Moreover they put temptation in the way of the inhabitants of the Metropolis. He would mention one class—the coachmen and footmen who were taking charge of the carriages of their masters. These men, when remaining in idleness outside the theatres, were led by the evil influence of others to go into the public-houses. They did not require anything to eat or to drink, as they had plenty provided for them at home. He confessed he could not see what possible justification there could be for adding half-an-hour to the worst period of the night.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDconsidered the right rev. Prelate who had just addressed their Lordships had made too sweeping a charge against a meritorious class when he stated that the houses were frequented by livery servants who were kept out at late hours in charge of their masters' carriages. There was no evidence to support that statement. He (the Duke of Richmond) had the other evening quoted an extraordinary paper which showed that where the hours of closing were early there was more drunkenness than in those places in which they
  1200
  were permitted to keep open for a longer time.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That would be a reason against closing them at all.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDdid not think the noble Earl with all his acuteness could prove that. There were, however, excellent reasons in favour of 12.30. The noble Lord in the Act of 1872 fixed the hour of closing at 12 o'clock, but he made an exception in favour of the houses in the neighbourhood of the theatres and places of amusement. The consequence was that people were allowed to go into those houses and to remain there until 1 o'clock to consume the liquor which they had purchased before 12.30. He would now ask them to see what would be the effect of the Amendment. It would in the first place do away with those exemptions, but it would also practically close the houses at 11.45, as people would have to clear out at once, without having any time allowed them to consume the liquor they might have bought before that hour. Under those circumstances he hoped their Lordships would not agree to the proposal of the noble Lord.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHsaid, the noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke) had said that the principle of this Bill was based upon freedom as opposed to coercion: but he (the Bishop of Peterborough) did not see how the principle of liberty could be said to be involved in this Bill either in its relation to the publicans or to the public. In no sense could a Licensing Bill be a Bill in favour of liberty, as the very idea of a licence was restriction. As regarded the publican, the Licensing Acts conferred on him a valuable and, in some cases, a dangerous monopoly; and Parliament in conferring upon him that privilege had a right to put such conditions and restrictions upon the exercise of it as might appear to be necessary. That was the case as regarded the publican. If their Lordships would now consider it in respect to the public they would see that if they—the public—were to have uncontrolled liberty to resort to those houses when they pleased, that would be doing away with all restrictions whatever. He did not, then, see how, if they closed the houses at 12 o'clock it could be considered a reversion of all liberty, while to keep them open half-an-hour would be

  1201
  universal liberty. It might be a question of policy, but certainly not one of liberty or coercion; and therefore he would submit that the principle of restraint was necessary both for the public and for the publican. The argument that a quarter of an hour's margin would have to be allowed was as strong in the one case as in the other, and he ventured to say that the balance of evidence was in favour of closing at 12 o'clock.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwas of opinion that the right rev. Prelate and the 749 clergymen who had appeared on the scene to-day had committed the error into which ministers of religion in all ages had fallen—of calling in the secular authority to carry out those objects which, if right, they ought to attain by their own preaching and ministrations. Sobriety, was no doubt a very good thing, but it ought to be enforced not by Act of Parliament, but by moralists and preaching and admonition. They were asked to save footmen from the temptation of an open public-house; but suppose the footmen were to take up the argument, and ask what their masters and mistresses were doing inside the house outside of which the servants were waiting? "Was it so extravagant that whilst champagne was being consumed inside, beer should be drunk outside? The argument was that temperance should be encouraged and enforced upon footmen, but it did not matter whether the ladies and gentlemen adopted it or not. In the present distribution of political power and the keenness with which all the actions of the upper and middle classes were watched, he earnestly protested against its being laid down that the upper classes were safe from temptation, whilst it was their business and duty to protect and preserve those belo wthem from temptation. He was afraid that the insinuation might be retorted, and that at some not distant period the upper classes might be protected themselves. When information became more spread among the people, he had no doubt it would be their destiny to advance not in the way of restriction, but in the way of freedom. He did not desire to advance too fast, but he claimed for the Bill that it was an advance in the direction of freedom as great as the country was prepared now to take.
  LORD CARLINGFORDpresumed that the support given by the noble Marquess
  1202
  to this Bill was in the belief that it was but the first stage to unlimited freedom, and that subsequent measures would extend the time of closing, and perhaps in the end leave the question entirely to the decision of the licensed victuallers themselves. For himself, however, he concurred entirely in the reasons which had been urged by his noble Friend behind him.
  After a few words from the Earl BEAUCHAMP,
  LORD DENMANdesired to remind their Lordships that by another section in the Bill the licensed victualler could if he pleased, close at 11.30 in the Metropolitan district.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.
  On sub-section 2 which fixes the hours of closing beyond the Metropolitan district and in the Metropolitan Police district, or in a town and populous place as defined by this Act.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYtook exception to the definition in the Bill of districts which were called "towns" and "populous places." They had in this sub-section provision made for the regulation of hours in places which formed as it were an intermediate stage between the metropolis and the rural sections of counties. If he turned to the Interpretation Clause, he found that "town" meant "an urban sanitary district as described for the purposes of the Public Health Act 1872," it was directed—
  "Any collection of houses adjoining a town as so defined shall for the purpose of the provisions of this Act with respect to the closing of licensed premises he deemed to he part of such town after it has been declared so to be by an order of the county licensing committee having jurisdiction in the place where such houses are situated."
  Then came the proviso that—
  "No urban sanitary district, whether including such adjoining houses or not, shall he deemed a town, unless it contains one thousand inhabitants."
  Then they had the definition of a "populous place,"—
  "Any area which by reason of the number and density of its population not being less than one thousand, the county licensing committee may by order determine to be a populous place."
  It was thus left to every county licensing committee to determine what was and what was not "a populous place." What then became of the principle of the Bill

  1203
  that the discretion of the magistrates was to be abolished? The retention of these definitions would in his opinion operate unfairly by allowing houses to be open in one district, while in the district immediately adjoining they were compelled to be closed. Or, a petty sessional division might include an area containing 2,000 or 3,000 persons, including a village with a population of 1,000 persons. It was possible therefore that one portion of the area might be under one set of hours and the other under others.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 2, to leave out (" or in a populous place.")—(The Earl of Morley.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPdefended the definition of "town" as "an urban sanitary district as described for the purposes of the Public Health Act, 1872." The Local Government Board had now laid down a rule not to constitute an area into "a suburban sanitary district," with a less population than 2,000. Before that rule was applied, suburban sanitary districts of considerably less population were constituted, and the Bill provided that no place with less than 1,000 population should be deemed to be a "populous place." Every one knew the difficulty of defining what was town and what was country. In taking the Census of 1871 the same difficulty was felt in drawing a distinction between urban and rural parishes. It was found impossible indeed to apply any rule, and the Registrar General said, that "a great deal must be left to the judgment and discretion of the persons employed." The same difficulty arose in this Bill, and it must be surmounted in the same way. He was not wedded to the definition given in the Bill if any better could be produced, but on mature reflection he believed it would be found the very best that had presented itself. Then as regarded "populous places." There might be a certain amount of inconvenience perhaps in the multiplication of areas, but it rested with the licensing committee, provided the population was not less than 1,000, to determine what was a populous place. They had to consider all the cases within their jurisdiction, with respect to which it was incumbent on them to make orders, and they had the power of specifying the boundaries of towns or populous places, and to add adjacent houses
  1204
  to a town, so as to include them within the "populous place." Precise rules could not be laid down, but it was important that the decision in each case should be uniform. The principle of uniformity was, no doubt, of the greatest importance; but was it not better to leave the decision of that question to the justices throughout the country—well-qualified men—and not confine its meaning to the strict and hard principles laid down by law? By allowing thorn to decide in each case according to their discretion, there was no violation of the principle of uniformity in leaving the power to men who had all the advantages of local knowledge within their respective districts. He trusted their Lordships would see that the distinction drawn in the Bill was a real one. Our population was divided into three classes—a rural, an urban, and a metropolitan population—to each of whom and to supply their wants and wishes a clause was especially devoted in the Bill. To interpret what the law was as laid down by these clauses was left to competent men to decide according to circumstances, and no Amendment proposed would meet or remove the difficulties of the case. He, therefore, hoped the Amendment of the noble Earl—to omit the words "populous place "—would not be agreed to.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was glad his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Morley) brought this question under their Lordships' consideration, for he thought it one of the most important parts of the Bill. Indeed, he intended to have moved such an Amendment himself, but he expected the noble Earl opposite (Earl Beauchamp) would have been prepared to alter and correct the clause. He said in the debate on the second reading of this Bill that he should be very glad to make the clause more satisfactory. Then, why did he not do so? It could not, he believed, be done. The phrase "populous district" or "populous place" was an obscure and indefinite term:—and when it was said that no discretion should be given to magistrates in this difficult case, power was given to interpret a clause which nobody understood, and to licensing committees throughout the country to decide what a "populous place" or a "populous district" meant. "Populous" and "populous places"

  1205
  were relative terms, yet no definition was given as a guide; now it was certain that if they had no definition to go by, the magistrates throughout the country would come to conflicting decisions, and then what became of their so-called uniformity? They would find none whatever. There existed 58,000 public-houses and 2,000 beer-shops outside the metropolitan district, and of that 58,000, 43,000 would be affected by this clause—how they would be affected entirely depended on the view the magistrates might take of what was a "populous place," and this would in his opinion lead to great misconception and evil. The Bill provided that in places not populous districts the hours for opening should be 10 o'clock. For his own part, he was afraid that the alteration so made, instead of being an improvement, would be a step backward. It was creating a new element, a maximum of uncertainty, when nobody would know what course to pursue. He agreed with the noble Earl that there was a difficulty in drawing a line between town and country, and he would suggest to him to try and introduce some words which would have that effect. But if the noble Earl could not hold out a hope that he could devise a satisfactory definition of a populous place, he hoped his noble Friend would divide the House on his Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the noble Earl who had just sat down complained of there being no definition of the term "populous place," and that it was therefore unsatisfactory and difficult to be understood. But Her Majesty's Government were in no way responsible for the introduction of the words "of not less than 1,000 inhabitants," which constituted a populous place. They were inserted in the House of Commons by a right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) who was a Colleague of the noble Earl. Very possibly the insertion of these words had not tended to improve the Bill. The noble Earl said a definition had been inserted in the Bill of what a "populous place" was, which was no definition; but he would remind him that these very words had been already inserted in two Acts of Parliament, the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 33 sec. 22, and the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 101. They had therefore two Act of Parliament containing a positive definition of what was intended. Moreover, a Bill introduced into the other House this
  1206
  Session by Sir Robert Anstruther dealt with the subject in the very same way. Populous places were thus recognized as places ascertained to be such according to a particular rule. He hoped he had disposed therefore of his noble Friend's objection that the term "populous place" had not been defined, having shown that the definition of it already existed in two Acts of Parliament. The noble Lord had himself admitted, moreover, that the definition was such as would bring within a town certain places outside its regular limits. Such portions would be included within the adjacent borough, as it would be inconvenient for persons visiting the town for marketing or for other purposes, and putting up in such places, to be outside the jurisdiction of the town, owing to their not forming a part of the area subject to the sanitary authority. The arrangement proposed by the Bill was therefore a necessary one. He would not discuss the propriety of giving the magistrates the discretion of determining what were populous places; but he would say he thought it was a discretion that could be exercised by the licensing justices quite as well as by the Census Commissioners who had in their Report attempted to solve the definition of "populous place."
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he should not trouble their Lordships to divide upon the Amendment. At the same time he would remark that it seemed to be admitted that the definition in the Bill was a very unsatisfactory one. Perhaps, when they came to the Interpretation Clause it might be amended, or on the Report the Government might be able to announce that a better one had occurred to them.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that the words in the Bill were not inserted by the Government.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHrose to make a suggestion, which might, perhaps, obviate the difficulty—namely, to omit the words after" district" in the first line of the clause, and also of sub-section 3; the effect of which, he said, would be to introduce the uniform hour of 11 for closing in all places outside the metropolitan district. It would simplify the Bill very much, and get rid of the necessity of defining "time" and "populous place," and make the law alike for all. He could really see no objection to the proposal. So far as he had observed the

  1207
  working of the Act of 1872, though it might have had some beneficial effect, it had not stopped drinking among a certain class. Though they certainly did not see the streets and the village roads so full of drunkards as before, there was, practically, a great deal of drinking going on; but whereas drinking was before confined for the most part to men and grown-up boys, it was now extending among women, and even among children. That circumstance proved that the diminution of the hours had not operated as a check upon drinking so much as had been supposed; and when so great a simplification of the Bill was to be obtained in the way he had pointed out, he did not think that the fear of occasioning more drinking should be allowed to weigh against the advantage which it would confer.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he wished to say a few words on the subject under consideration. In discussing it, they must bear in mind the Interpretation Clause. No doubt this was an extremely difficult question, but it was a difficulty they must face and endeavour to deal with in some way. He would also venture to remind their Lordships that the point had received great attention in the other House of Parliament, and that different views were taken with regard to it—in fact it was not at all surprising that the definition should be open to criticism and observation. He ventured to suggest that in the Interpretation Clause the words "not being loss than one thousand" had been inserted in the wrong place. The Bill imposed upon the justices the duty of understanding the word "town" as it was defined by the Public Health Act; but they were to include in the town any place or places which in their discretion ought to be included in it, provided there were not less than 1,000 inhabitants in the whole area thus included. As regarded towns, that discretion was given, and a very important discretion it was. He thought there should be an interchange of words in lines 9 and 10 at page 12 of the Interpretation Clause, and that the definition of populous place should run thus—" Populous place means any area of not less than 1,000 inhabitants, which by reason of the number and density of its population the Licensing Committee may by order determine to be a populous
  1208
  place." With this change, it would be required that there must be 1,000 inhabitants in a populous place as well as in a town; and it would not be sufficient to find an area—there must be an authority exercising a discretion as to whether the population was dense or sparse. If discretion were exercised as to towns, there was no reason why it should not also be exercised as to populous places.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he did not mean to argue that the collocation of words in the Interpretation Clause might not be improved, and he thought the alteration suggested by the noble and learned Lord would be an improvement. But the case as regarded towns, and as regarded populous places was not the same. The limit placed upon a populous place was that there should be 1,000 inhabitants, but there was no limit laid down as regarded density and area. He objected to that as being too indefinite; and still further, that no guide whatever was given to the licensing justices as to what constituted density of population. He could not help thinking that some inconvenience would result from the discretion given to the licensing justices in deciding this question, but at the same time he should not recommend his noble Friend behind him to press his Amendment.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPpointed out that the moment they descended to figures and limitation of area they involved themselves in further difficulties. He would mention three districts which came under the designation of "populous places," and which it would be exceedingly difficult to define. The first was Petersfield, a Parliamentary borough, the population of which, in 1871, was 1,587, and the area in acres 237, giving slightly over six persons per acre; Stony Stratford, not a Parliamentary borough, but a market town, had a population of 1,973, and an area of 70 acres, giving a density of population of slightly over 28 persons per acre; and Lutterworth, with a population of 2,080, and an area of 1,890 acres, gave a density of population of only slightly over one person per acre. So that in these three places, which were practically of the same character, density of population would give as much difficulty as to define what was a "place," and

  1209
  it would be impossible to lay down any absolute direction in the matter.
  EARL GRANVILLEalso concurred in the difficulty of defining what was a populous place, and said that different licensing justices would take different views of the question, especially as to what was and what was not to be included in a given area.
  EARL FORTESCUEpointed out that the shifting and variable nature of populations, such as by emigration and strikes, might affect the question, and then the magistrates would be required to alter the hours in accordance with the altered state of things.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he saw all the difficulty of the question, and would promise that it should receive careful consideration.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn; Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Exemptions as to theatres repealed) agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Exemptions as to beerhouses. Exemptions as to harvesting, &c. Further exemptions as to beer houses).
  EARL NELSONsaid, this clause gave the same power to the magistrates in regard to exemptions as the 26th section of the principal Act gave to the licensing authorities; but it contained words which while they appeared to extend their power did really restrict it. The clause professed to give power to grant exemptions for the accommodation of persons engaged in fishing and harvesting operations. Now, the Act of 1863 already contained power sufficient for this purpose, and as the maxim was inclusio unius exclusio alterius, these words apparently took away the power in other cases. The words were unnecessary, and he proposed to strike them out. He submitted that these exemptions were not required under the new Bill, and proposed to omit the words giving power of exemption in case of harvesting and fishing operations.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 40, to leave out from ("house") to ("The") in page 3, line 3.—(The Earl Nelson.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPadmitted that, under the Act of 1872, exemption in these cases certainly existed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  1210
  Words struck out accordingly; clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Power to vary on Sunday afternoon hours of closing premises for sale of intoxicating liquors) agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Early-closing licenses) amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Remission of duty in case of six-day and early closing license) agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Sale of liquors on Sundays to lodgers by holders of six-day licenses).
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, this clause, taken in conjunction with Clause 11, seemed to be very difficult. He therefore proposed to omit Clause 9 altogether, and insert the words contained in it as the first paragraph of Clause 11.
  Clause disagreed to.
  Clause 10 (Penalty for infringing Act as to hours of closing).
  On Motion of the Earl BEATCHAMP, Amendment made in line 28, by leaving out ("in contravention of this Act").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Saving as to bonâ fide travellers and lodgers).
  EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, in page 4, line 35, after ("house") to insert—
  (" Provided, that no person holding a six-day licence shall sell any intoxicating liquor on Sunday to any person whatever not lodging in his house").
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
  THE MARQUESS OF BRTSTOLmoved to leave out the clause, and insert instead the following clause:—
  "Nothing in this Act or in the principal Act contained shall preclude—(1.) The sale at any time at a railway station of intoxicating liquors to persons arriving at or departing from such station by railroad; or (2) a person licensed to sell any intoxicating liquor to he consumed on the premises from selling such liquor at any time to persons lodging in his house, or to travellers. A person for the purposes of this Act and the principal Act shall not he deemed to he a traveller unless the premises where he demands to he supplied with such liquor are at least three miles distant from the premises where he lodged during the preceding night, such distance to he calculated by the nearest public thoroughfare. Where, in a my proceedings against a licensed person for an offence against the provisions of this Act or the principal Act relating to closing, the defendant fails to prove that the purchaser of the intoxicating liquor was a traveller, but the Court is satisfied that the defendant believed the purchaser to be so, and took reasonable pains to ascertain the fact, the

  1211
  Court shall dismiss the case against the defendant, and may, if they think that the purchaser falsely represented himself to be a traveller, direct proceedings to he taken against the purchaser under the twenty-fifth section of the principal Act."
  EARL BEAUCHAMPdefended the definition of the bonâ fide traveller given in the clause—namely, that no person should be deemed a bonâ fide traveller unless the place where he lodged the preceding night was at least three miles distant from the place where he demanded to be supplied with liquor.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHthought the noble Lords on the Opposition benches, who professed to be such friends of the people, might fairly find fault with this clause. If a man travelled from Manchester to Liverpool and back the same day, arriving in Manchester after the closing hours, he had no club to go to, he had no cellar of his own, and although unmistakably a traveller, he would not be able to get refreshment at the next public-house, as he would not be three miles from where he had slept the previous night.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the definition was, no doubt, objectionable. Under it it might happen that a town traveller, who had driven about for more than 20 miles in the course of the day, could not obtain any refreshment, not being at any time perhaps three miles from home.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 12 (Hours of closing night houses).
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYfeared that if the hours of opening and closing refreshment houses were, as they would be under this clause, made the same as those of public-houses, a large number of persons would be subject to inconvenience. Under its provisions, after or before a certain hour, no man not a bonâ fide traveller could get so much as a cup of coffee at a refreshment house. He did not see how that could be said to be a provision in the interest of the public, and it was far more restrictive than anything which was in the Act of 1872.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, it was found necessary to make this alteration in the law because experience had proved that it would be impossible to preserve public order unless some restrictions were put upon refreshment houses.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that if the restriction, although not desirable in itself, was nevertheless necessary for the preservation of law and order, he had not another word to say; but he hoped that they had now got rid of the idea that this was a measure based upon the principle of freedom.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYadmitted the clause was a restrictive one.
  Clause agreed to.
  Record of Convictions and Penalties.
  Clause 13 (Mitigation of penalties).
  LORD COTTESLOEadvised that the clause should be altogether omitted, as it would lead the magistrates to think that Parliament wished them to act with leniency. He did not think that the minimum fine of 20 s. provided for in the principal Act was too much to exact from those who contravened its provisions.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, he could see no reason for altering the existing law. All the evidence showed that the provisions in the principal Act worked well. In those localities where under the old law the magistrates acted with the greatest strictness the fines averaged £2 15 s., whereas in those in which they were indulgent the average fine was only 2s. for the very same class of offences. Therefore, he believed the principle of fixing a minimum penalty was a wise and salutary one.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDthought that the justice of the case in respect to a first offence, which might be of a trivial kind, might be met by enabling magistrate to inflict a reduced fine; but in the event of a second conviction, then the magistrates should not be permitted to make the penalty less than 20 s. He thought the alteration of the law in this respect a wise one.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Record of convictions on licenses).
  LORD COTTESLOEcontended that it was unwise to take from the magistrates the power of endorsing convictions on licences in the way set forth in the Act of 1872. By the present Bill the magistrate could not make that record upon the publican's licence unless he were directed to make it. It would be unfair to the magistrate to have this matter of discretion imposed upon him.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that the existing law on this subject imposed a hard-and-fast line, and the clause in the Bill would leave a proper discretion in the hands of the magistrates. The conviction of the respectable publican would be considered by him as a very serious matter without having it recorded on his licence. In the case of convictions where character was at stake, he considered it objectionable that a hard-and-fast line should prevail.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the record of convictions was introduced into the Act of 1872 for the purpose of preventing brewers being indifferent to the character of their servants who, as tenants, occupied public-houses, and with the view of compelling all owners to exercise due vigilance, so that they should select none but respectable persons to occupy licensed houses. The present clause did not do away with endorsing the conviction on the licence; but while it gave the magistrate discretion, it by no means allowed him to pass the matter sub silentio. He (the Earl of Kimberley) regretted the alteration which the Bill proposed to make in the clause of the Act because he considered the change unnecessary, and therefore mischievous, in the interest of the publican. The existing law said that the conviction should be endorsed on the licence unless the magistrate determined otherwise. Evidently the intention of the Legislature was that there should be endorsement unless where some peculiar circumstances intervened, and it would be hard to press the law to extremity; but the proposed alteration of the clause was a sort of intimation to the magistrates throughout the country not to be too hard on those who were brought before them for breach of the licensing laws. He regarded the clause as a product of the General Election, and he believed it was inserted in the interest of the publican.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, unless he was very much mistaken the elections produced something else besides this clause. The fact was the working of the Act of 1872, in respect to the endorsement of licences on conviction of the holders, was found to be defective. Magistrates had now and then been compelled to endorse licences in cases where they would not have done so if they could have avoided it; and on
  1214
  some occasions when it was not the intention of the magistrates that convictions should be endorsed, an endorsement was subsequently made through misconception on the part of the magistrates' clerk. There was every necessary safe-guard in the clause, and no harm could possibly ensue from its becoming law.
  LORD ABERDAREalluded to the fact that one of the objections now urged against this clause of the Act had been put forward when the Bill in 1872 was before the House of Commons.
  THE MARQTJESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the clause had been strenuously opposed in the House of Peers, but with the assistance of Lord Shaftesbury and the Bishops, the late Government contrived to retain it in the Act.
  Clause amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Record of conviction for adulteration) agreed to.
  (Regulations as to entry on Premises.)
  Clause 16 (Constable to enter on premises for enforcement of Act); and Clause 17 (Search warrant for detection of liquors sold or kept contrary to law) agreed to.
  Occasional Licenses.
  Clause 18 (Occasional license required at fairs and races) amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Occasional licences—extension of time for closing); and Clause 20 (Offences on premises with occasional license) agreed to.
  Miscellaneous.
  Clause 21 (Supply of deficiency in quota of borough justices on joint committee); Clause 22 (Provisional grant and confirmation of licenses to new premises); Clause 23 (One license of justices may extend to several excise licenses); Clause 24 (Confirmation of license to sell liquor not to be consumed on the premises not required); Clause 25 (Joint committee to make rules under sect. 43 of principal Act); Clause 26 (Notices of adjourned Brewster sessions and of intention to oppose); and Clause 27 (No appeal to quarter sessions in certain cases) agreed to.
  Clause 28 (Substitution of licensing justices for Commissioners of Inland Revenue as respects certain notices);

  1215
  and Clause 29 (Definition of term "owner ") agreed to, with Amendments.
  On Motion of the Lord ABERDARE, Clause 30 (Temporary continuance of licences forfeited without disqualification of premises) struck out.
  Clause 31 (Saving as to section 9 of the principal Act) agreed to.
  Clause 32 (Person not to be liable for supplying liquor to private friends without charge).
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, there was no clause in the Bill which should be more definite and free from ambiguity than this.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord.
  Clause agreed to.
  LORD WHARNCLIFFEmoved to insert after Clause 32, the following:—
  "An additional retail licence to sell beer for consumption off the premises may be granted at any special Sessions for licensing purposes to the holder of a strong beer dealer's licence, in the same manner, and subject to the same conditions in and subject to which it might be granted at any general licensing meeting."
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Definitions and Repeal.
  Clause 33 (Definitions).
  LORD CHELMSFORDasked whether instead of "the following expressions have the meanings hereinafter respectively assigned to them," the clause ought not to read," shall have the meanings hereinafter respectively assigned to them? "
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the modern practice in drafting Bills was never to use the future, but always the present tense.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHmoved the omission of the Proviso at line 5—
  "Provided that no urban sanitary district, whether including such adjoining houses or not, shall be deemed to be a town, unless it contains one thousand inhabitants."
  He did not object to the mode of defining populous places, but he thought the rule as to 1,000 inhabitants was objectionable, and his attention had been drawn to the fact as likely to prejudice the interests of a great number of small places. He knew that in many parts of the country, and especially in Wiltshire, there were a great number of small places which were to all intents and purposes towns, but they were not in
  1216
  the neighbourhood of larger towns, and they had not the benefit of the privileges that would accrue to them if they ranked as towns. Yet they had a number of shops, and at times they enjoyed a considerable traffic. They were frequented by farmers and others who came to them from a distance, and that was of all others the class that deserved to be considered in the amount of accommodation of this kind they were to enjoy. It was not a matter of great importance perhaps, but he could assure their Lordships that the exclusion of these places from the privileges of towns would be a cause of very great inconvenience and annoyance to a large and respectable class of persons. If the Proviso were left out, the clause would still be sufficiently guarded by the definition of "the urban sanitary district," and also by the discretion which was to be left to the magistrates.
  Amendment moved, in page 12, line 5, to leave out from ("Provided") to ("inhabitants"), in line 8.—(The Marquess of Bath.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he was sorry he could not assent to the Amendment of his noble Friend. Table 7 of the Census of 1871 would show the consequences of the passing of the Amendment. There was a very large number of urban sanitary districts with a very limited population, and the Local Government Board had laid down a rule that they would not in future constitute a local board at any place of less than 2,000 inhabitants. There was one at present which had a population of only 60, and he hoped their Lordships would agree to the Proviso as it stood. If a place could show that it had 1,000 inhabitants, it would have a claim to come under the Act.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDthought that these details were too minute for their Lordships to go into.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsuggested that there should be a periodical revision of places determined as "populous," so that omissions should be corrected, and places struck out where the population had fallen below the limit.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDthought that there was much in the suggestion that was worthy of consideration.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to strike out the first lines of sub-section 5, and insert—
  "At a meeting especially convened for that purpose in manner provided by any regulations in that behalf, or in default of such regulations by the clerk of the peace as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, and not later than the first day of September, one thousand eight hundred and seventy four."
  That would give time to the magistrate to take whatever steps were necessary for their determining certain places to be populous, while it would not prevent their taking them at an earlier period if it were possible.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 34 (Repeal).
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved, in page 13, line 4, after ("town") to insert ("for the purposes of the provisions with respect to closing ").
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule.
  On Question? that the Schedule stand part of the Bill,
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKmoved an Amendment to the Schedule defining the metropolitan district, so as to include within it the parish of West Ham, and presented a Petition in favour of that proposition from the inhabitants of that parish. The Petition which was signed by magistrates and all classes of the inhabitants, stated that at the last Census the population was 62,000, since which time it had greatly increased; that out of that number there were at least 29,000 operatives who were employed at such times that if this Bill passed they would be precluded from obtaining any refreshment. Under the Act of 1872 the magistrates fixed the hour of opening at West Ham at 5 o'clock in the morning, and the result of the passing of this Bill would be to cut off one hour in the morning and one hour and a-half at night—thus reducing the time by two hours and a-half per day. The Petition included a great many details with which he did not think it necessary to trouble their Lordships. There were, it appeared, 10
  1218
  railway stations at West Ham, besides the workshops of the Great Eastern Railway, employing some 2,000 workmen. There was a very considerable traffic passing through the parish before the hour of 6 in the morning and after 11 at night, and if the licensed houses were not included in the metropolitan area it would be a great hardship on those persons so engaged. He believed the Members of Parliament locally interested were in favour of West Ham being included in the Metropolitan District for the purposes of this Act. These were substantial reasons which were given by the Petitioners for the prayer of their Petition being granted, and therefore he hoped their Lordships would approve of the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment moved, in line 20, after ("Charing Cross") to insert ("together with the parish of West Ham in the county of Essex.")—(The Earl of Limerick.)
  THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTERopposed the Amendment. West Ham, or Stratford, as it was more familiarly known, was in reality no part of London in the sense in which Hackney, for instance, was a part of it. The Amendment would lead their Lordships to suppose that there were continuous lines of houses from London to Stratford; but if they travelled there by railway they would find there was a considerable vacant space between the two places, which were separated by the river Lee, forming the boundary between Middlesex and Essex. Not only was West Ham not locally a part of London, but it was not metropolitan in the habits of its people, and in the privileges and advantages which it enjoyed; and it had been with considerable dismay that he believed the better and larger number of the inhabitants found this attempt made to thrust upon them what they considered the metropolitan disadvantages as regarded the hours of opening and closing public-houses. He was the very last person to neglect or despise an appeal from the working men of Stratford. They were a body who ought to be considered. It was at a large and crowded meeting of the workmen of that place that resolutions were passed unanimously entreating that museums and public places might not be opened on Sundays. If their

  1219
  Lordships were to believe what were the feelings of the inhabitants of West Ham with regard to this proposition, they must respect a Petition signed by 6,000 persons, and presented against this very proposal; they must judge by the memorial of the Local Board, by that of the Guardians of the Poor, and by one from the magistrates, all entreating that they might not enjoy the so-called privilege which it was now proposed to offer them. He appealed to their Lordships not to consent to the Amendment, to the spirit of which the inhabitants themselves were so strongly opposed.
  LORD CAPLTNGFORDprotested against what he called the extraordinary Amendment of the noble Earl. The Schedule defined the Metropolis by certain terms, and then the Amendment proposed to pick out a single parish which happened to lie outside the boundary so defined, and which was entirely inconsistent with that definition, and to tack it on to the Metropolis. Why the parish of West Ham should be singled out for this specific purpose in order to have its drinking-houses increased he could not understand, and he hoped their Lordships would adhere to what took place in the other House, and refuse to accede to this exceptional legislation. Almost every authority within the parish had protested against the proposed change. The only thing which could have encouraged the noble Earl to make this proposition must have been the deputation which was arranged by the licensed victuallers within the last few days, and who waited upon the President of the Council to urge the claims of this parish upon the noble Duke's attention. He hoped their Lordships would not for a moment assent to the proposition.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, the case of West Ham was a very peculiar one. There was no doubt it was beyond the outskirts of London; but from time to time they might look forward to those outlying places becoming part and parcel of the Metropolis, and what he was prepared to do was to amend the Schedule by the addition of the words "for the time being," after the word "place"—so that, in the case of West Ham and parishes similarly situated, the words applicable to the Metropolitan District would come in force, and they might fairly claim the hours of extension as
  1220
  applied to London. The Schedule, as amended, would read:—
  "The city of London or the liberties thereof, or any parish or place for the time being subject to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works, or within the area contained within a circle the radius of which is four miles from Charing-cross."
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, there was no doubt that persons possessed of a certain amount of property approved of restrictions being placed upon public-houses, because for the most part they themselves belonged to clubs, where they could repair at any hour of the night or morning and get what they required, and if they went home they had cellars which were well-stocked with wine, spirits, or beer. It was therefore a matter of indifference to them what hours public-houses were permitted to keep open. He would like to ask them whether it was proposed to restrict the hour at which their clubs were to keep open in the same way as public-houses, they would so readily acquiesce in the proposition. With this observation he was content to leave the matter, hoping however there would be no desire to keep any district from the operation of the Bill that could be fairly included within its provisions. The meetings of the School Board and of the Board of Guardians which had petitioned against his proposal had been very thinly attended, and did not represent the general feeling of the inhabitants. The Bill as it stood would deprive them of an entire hour. They now opened at five o'clock in the morning, but after the passing of the Bill they would not be able to open until 6 o'clock.
  LORD LAWRENCEopposed the Amendment.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  On Motion of the Earl BEAUCHAMP, Amendment made, in line 17, by inserting ("for the time being") after ("place").
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to he printed, as amended. (No. 160.)

  FOYLE COLLEGE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the better management and regulation of Foyle College in the city and county of Londonderry, and for vesting in the Governing Body of such College the present school-house and premises belonging to such College, and for vesting the right of appointment of Head Master of such College in the Bishop of Derry and Raphoe and the Governor of the Honourable the Irish Society—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read Ia. (No. 159.)
  House adjourned at half past Nine o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock