Sitting of 7 August 1875

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Foreign Jurisdiction* [284].
Committee—Report—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Land Titles and Transfer* [105]; Sheriffs Substitute (Scotland)* [273].
Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Remission of Penalties (changed from "Restriction on Penal Actions and Remission of Penalties" [267]; Registration of Trade Marks (re-comm.) [276], and passed.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Local Authorities Loans* [197], and passed.
Third Reading—Department of Science and Art* [283], and passed.
The House met at Twelve of the clock.

THE TICHBORNE CASE—ARTHUR ORTON.—QUESTION.
MR. WHALLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to his statement denying that a placard offering rewards of £1,000 and £300 for the apprehension of Arthur Orton, and that a police officer from Australia, to whom the said Arthur Orton was known, failed to recognize the defendant in the Tichborne case, Whether

683
he will afford any and what opportunity for proving that the information given to him and so communicated to the House was not correct?
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON (for Mr. ASSHETON CROSS), in reply, said, he must remind the hon. Member that these circumstances happened before the accession of the present Home Secretary to office. His right hon. Friend had taken every means in his power to ascertain whether there had been any such occurrences as those stated in the Question. He applied to the principal officer of police who had charge of the police business of the trial, and also to the counsel for the prisoner, and from both of them he had got a distinct denial of any knowledge of such a transaction. The hon. Member had been answered already once on the subject, and the Treasury could afford no further information.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, the latter part of the Question had not been answered—namely, whether the Homo Secretary would afford an opportunity of establishing that the information communicated to the House was not correct.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, before the House went into Committee on the Bill, he wished to make an appeal to the Government, and especially to the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for its policy. He regretted that the Premier was not in his place to hear what he had to say, because the subject to which he wished to direct attention was of transcendent importance; but, at the same time, he admitted that considering the labours he had lately undergone the right hon. Gentleman might well be excused if he was not in the House at 12 o'clock on Saturday. The country could not fail to be gratified by the extraordinary spectacle that had been presented in Ireland, and especially in Dublin, during the last two days. He would not undertake to say how many thousands had taken part in the procession of yesterday; but the House might form some idea of the depth of popular feeling that had been evoked,
  684
  from the circumstance that a whole fleet of steamers had been taken up to convoy Irishmen, not fewer than 10,000 in number, back to their native soil to do honour to the memory of O'Connell, in addition to the many, many thousands assembled from all parts of Ireland itself. The whole of the proceedings passed off with an order, a regularity, and a good humour almost unparalleled, and in confirmation of which he would read to the House the description given in the leading English journal of the procession. The London Times said—
  "The conduct of the people, however, was in this instance beyond all praise, and this is one of the most remarkable and gratifying features of their carnival. Throughout the whole length of the procession and the crowds who witnessed it there was not a drunken or disorderly person to he seen. There were very few constables anywhere in view. The vast concourse were singularly quiet and tractable, and the utmost good-humour prevailed. There was no jostling or rude laughing, such as have led to violent encounters on other occasions, but all seemed ready to bear and forbear in a considerate and friendly spirit. So gentle and well-tempered were they that in the thickest parts of the throng, where it was difficult to thread one's way by slow and sinuous steps, women were carrying infants in their arms without the slightest fear. The promoters of the festival had ample proof that their confidence in the people was well founded and their organization perfect. In its material as well as its moral aspect the demonstration was eminently gratifying."
  Again, the Assizes recently concluded in Ireland with the result that, in many instances, there was hardly any occupation for the Judges at all, and that as regarded crime the country was reported to be not only in a good and satisfactory position, but as contrasted with this country and other parts of Her Majesty's dominions in a marvellously gratifying position. Well, these things being so, there was one black cloud which overshadowed the proceedings of yesterday. At a certain interval in the procession there was heard the music of the Dead March in Saul, and as described in one of the English morning papers—
  "At Carlisle Bridge, the great black flag was promptly taken out and held in a prominent position before the platform, whilst all around at brief intervals men stood waving black bannerets bearing the inscription, 'Still in chains.' A curious effect was given to this demonstration by festoons of chains liberally hung over the tops of each banneret, and cunningly clanked at fitting opportunities."
  This was the proclamation of popular

  685
  sympathy with the 40 political prisoners still in. miserable confinement. Last Sunday London had witnessed a great and orderly gathering in Hyde Part, called together to petition for this amnesty. For his own part, he had declined to attend that demonstration on Sunday, not because he thought it wrong to take part in works of mercy on that day, but because he knew that in this country these meetings on Sunday were objectionable to great numbers of our fellow-countrymen. Still the object of that meeting had his heartfelt sympathy, and he wished now to put it to the Government, to the House of Commons, and to the country whether the time had not arrived when all such meetings should be rendered unnecessary by the exercise of the clemency of the Crown. He knew well that nearly all the political prisoners now in suffering were military prisoners, and he at once admitted that such prisoners must naturally expect to be judged by a harsher standard than civilians. If soldiers violated the pledges under which they enlisted and took part in insurrection, they were, if that insurrection was successful, at once raised by historians into the highest ranks of chivalry; but if the movement was abortive, then they must expect a severer judgment, and be prepared to pay a heavier penalty. Lot the House, however, consider for one moment what the Fenian rising was. It was really the outcome of the disbandment of the great American armies in the War of Secession, and for his part he had always wondered that the dissolution of so large a military host, composed as it was of all sorts and conditions of men, should have brought in its trail so small an amount of disturbance to Europe. The Irish insurrection was formidable; but what would it have been, if the great mass of the farmers and people of Ireland had taken part in it? No one could predict the desolation and misery that it might have entailed. But it was put down without extraordinary difficulty, and undoubtedly there was now no active trace of it. But lot the House realize to itself what was being done by the prolonged imprisonment of these 40 men? Throughout Ireland, and in many circles in this country also, those who utterly condemned and abhorred the Fenian insurrection were beginning to feel very intensely the sufferings that were inflicted on them, and
  686
  during the coming winter there would certainly both hero and in Ireland be great gatherings of people brought together with the object of stimulating and claiming the clemency of the Crown. He thought it most unwise in the present tranquil condition of affairs to give unnecessary occasion for these huge demonstrations. The Irish had intense domestic sympathies, and deeply felt for those who had for seven long years languished in jail, and whose families mourned for them in their affectionate hearts as they would mourn for the dead. Was any good object to be accomplished by a further exhibition of implacability on the part of this country? The might of England had put down with ease the rising of Fenianism; it had inflicted great, even appalling, punishment, on those who had participated in it. Was vengeance never to cease, and a time of mercy never to arrive? He would make but one further observation, and he prayed that the Government might be guided by a true spirit of wisdom and statesmanship in the advice he would give to the Crown. There was—and he thought it a sad and solemn thing—a widespread belief in Ireland that the Administration itself was not averse to mercy, but that its hand was stayed and its arm shortened by the military authorities. Such a feature he looked upon as disastrous, and he was most desirous to prevent any further spread of it. There was no jewel in the Crown of Her Majesty so resplendent as the attribute of mercy and forgiveness, and to that tender spot in the heart of the Sovereign he appealed to say—"Justice is satisfied—go in peace—sin no more."
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY, in supporting the appeal of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), said, it had frequently been asserted that the feeling of sympathy which existed for these prisoners was confined to those who were favourable to Fenianism, but the proceedings at the O'Connell celebration yesterday showed that another idea predominated even over the feeling of respect for the memory of Mr. O'Connell, and that was the desire for an amnesty. It could not now be doubted that amnesty was the wish of the (entire Irish nation; and when that was the case, surely the British House of Commons would not refuse to pay

  687
  some attention to that demand. With regard to the prisoners being military prisoners, he would point out to the House that there were many countries where less stable Governments had had to deal with such men. Sometimes they had been executed; but, since 1848, there had been many occasions where countries had been far more disturbed than this country or Ireland had been, and yet the prisoners had been released from imprisonment. Surely it was not too much to ask this country, which was remarkable for its stability, to follow the example of the countries which had no stability, when the men in question had already suffered a considerable punishment. It might be said that any concession made to these men was a concession to Fenianism, and should, therefore, be refused. Well, he could not say at that moment Fenianism existed as a secret society in Ireland. The aspect of the organization had changed recently. It had ceased to be a secret society, and had now assumed the form of a democracy, and now took part in the constitutional struggles of this country, such as elections, in that shape. He would ask the Government to take that view of it, and to come forward and meet this constitutional spirit and grant what the people of Ireland most desired, and give a pardon to the few unhappy men who still remained in prison. All the Irish people had gained this Session was a Coercion Act—of mitigated character, it was true, but of increased length. But even if they had an improved Landlord Bill, a system of University Education, remedying the defects of the present system, and the Poor Laws rectified, he believed that the Irish people, even if conscious of practical legislation of this character, would not remain satisfied so long as these men were allowed to be in chains. He was of opinion that the exercise of clemency towards the Fenian prisoners would lead to a renewal of kindly feelings, and would effectually remove the difficulties which now existed against such a renewal.
  MR. WHALLEYexpressed his regret that these men should be punished, while the chief actors in their conspiracy, though well known to the Government to be the Romish priesthood, were not only unpunished and unexposed, but, while carrying out their "veiled rebellion," were allowed to tax the public
  688
  in near £2,000,000 a-year for police, about £1,000,000 for their educational purposes, and to bring discredit on the administration of the laws by the Peace Preservation Act.
  MR. EDWARD JENKINSsaid, there was a growing feeling that something should be done to allay the aggravated excitement occasioned in Ireland by the continued confinement of persons who had been imprisoned mostly for political offences. He hoped the House would take the matter into kindly consideration, and carefully consider whether mercy might not be extended to most, if not all, of those who were now confined. He ought to say he could not altogether sympathize with his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) in the terms in which he had brought the question before the House. The House ought not to be influenced by menaces of agitation. Last Sunday he took the trouble to go to the meeting at Trafalgar Square, and to examine the ranks as they passed through Piccadilly, for the purpose of ascertaining what the classes were who took part in the demonstration. He was impressed with the orderly and resolved aspect of the people, who were, however, not of the better classes. He knew that in his own borough not only Roman Catholics of position, but also many who were Protestants were anxious to see this question in some way or other satisfactorily settled. But though crowds and demonstrations might be very effective as far as concerned their influence on the popular mind, he did not think they ought to be allowed to interfere with the policy of the Government. Apart from that, he thought there was a strong case indeed. The point was simply this, was the Government, by continuing to confine these persons in prison, really doing anything to effect the object they had in view—namely, to deter people from committing similar offences in the future? He thought that when that question came up, it ought to be fairly met and fairly answered by the Government; because, whatever might be the opinion of the military authorities as to the probable consequence of allowing these men, most of whom were military offenders, to be set free, they all knew that it was not the military authorities who dictated public policy. If it were,

  689
  that policy would be narrow and disingenuous. The question to consider was, whether these men had suffered sufficiently and efficiently, and whether it was not time that the Government should show that in its wrath it could remember mercy. He thought that the time had come when it would be wise to extend leniency to the prisoners. He thought the effect of it would be that in Ireland itself it would be felt, if granted now before greater agitation went on, to be a generous concession not wrung by demonstration from the Government. He thought it would be politic that the Government should endeavour to forecast the future—the time when these demonstrations might assume such importance that it would be considered that the Government had only given way because the concession was forced from them by popular demonstrations. While on his legs, he might be allowed to say that it had been his intention at this time to have called attention to the duel which took place last night between the Leaders of the two front benches, for the purpose of saying that he—and he believed many others besides himself on that side of the House below the Gangway—did not entirely concur in the conclusions of either right hon. Gentlemen. They were not prepared to concur in all the criticisms of the noble Marquess upon the different measures of the Government on the one hand, and, on the other hand, they could not altogether accept, as accurate, some of the strange explanations of the First Minister. They desired it to be understood in the country that as long as the front Opposition bench continued to be, as it was, an unfaithful representative of the opinions of the whole rank and file of the Liberal Party, a divided leadership and an undecided one, it could scarcely expect to receive the support of the country, or be able effectively to oppose, or even to assist the Government in carrying wholesome measures through the House. But, as usual, when important matters were under discussion, the front Opposition bench happened to be empty. It would not, therefore, be proper that, in their absence, he should continue these remarks. He would simply say that he wished it to be understood that there were many hon. Members below the Gangway on that side of the House who did not concur in all the animadversions
  690
  of the noble Lord on the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he did not take the same view of the matter; but, leaving that question, he was anxious that the House should arrive at some practical conclusion. He was one of those who for some years opposed any release of the military political prisoners; but two years ago he thought the time had come when they might with grace and advantage, and with a view to conciliation to Ireland, release the prisoners, and he had signed a memorial to that effect. He believed there was scarcely ever a time in the history of the country when the Irish people were, as a whole, more prosperous, more generally loyal, or more obedient to the laws, and when there was a fairer prospect of a future for Ireland than the present. He would not counsel the Government to yield to clamour; but in order to prevent an agitation that might become embarrassing, seeing the growing feeling of sympathy for these men, he thought they would do well at once to wipe out what was really the last personal grievance which the Irish people had on this question. There was no doubt that the sympathy of the Irish people was centring around these men, who had already suffered so many years' imprisonment. Before that sympathy became too deeply seated, he would urge the Government, in their wisdom and consideration, to extend the hand of mercy to these men, and release them from their confinement.
  MR. HOPWOOD, in joining, as an English Member, in the appeal on behalf of the political prisoners, said, he had, as a rule, abstained from taking part in these Home Rule debates; but, at the early part of last year, he became convinced that the time had arrived when these prisoners ought to be released. The year which had passed since then had only tended to intensify his desire for their release, and to demonstrate the propriety on the part of the Government of doing this act of grace and mercy, for he admitted it would be an act of mercy to release these men. We had admitted by legislation that less extreme measures in Ireland were now required, and yet we were allowing these prisoners to languish in their gaol. We had had order vindicated in Ireland. The bulk of the people were loyal to the Queen.

  691
  It was admitted that they were contented with the English Crown, and with the Queen; and if that were so, he saw no reason for refusing this prayer for an act of mercy. He considered the Government would do well to yield to the prayer at once. The sooner it was done, the more effective would it be in its results upon the affections of the Irish people.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday.

REMISSION OF PENALTIES BILL.
(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Secretary Gross.)
REMISSION OF PENALTIES BILL.
  [BILL 267.] CONSIDERATION.

    THIRD READING.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, this was a very important Bill, and, as affecting the rights and rational liberties of the people, ought not to be allowed to pass unnoticed. When its provisions were explained, it would be found that it did no justice to any person subjected to it; but, on the contrary, it absolutely encouraged and asked people to break the law, and to ignore statutes which remained upon our Statute Book. The previous stages of the Bill had been passed so hurriedly that very little attention had been called to them, and certainly attention had not been called to the course of the Government in altering the provisions of the measure. The Bill was avowedly introduced to meet a scandal which existed, and was regarded by the majority of the people, as one which applied to places which they resorted to on a Sunday—places which were perfectly harmless in their character, but for the opening of which, under the existing laws, penalties must be imposed. The Government themselves were so desirous to decide the law that they took the unusual course of directing an action to be brought, in order to discover whether it was illegal or not to keep these places open, and it was determined that it was against the law that they should be open. Now, it was either right or wrong that this statute should remain in force. The case was
    692
    taken under the statute of George III., which enabled, as was represented to the Government, private informers to obtain an advantage and put money in their pockets by enforcing a law which everyone condemned. This Bill was therefore introduced, and as it was originally framed it contained a provision that no such actions were in future to be brought without the permission and fiat of the Attorney General; and then, with a strange amount of inconsequence, there was another provision that the Crown should have power to remit every penalty which should be recovered by any common informer, not under this, but any other Act. Now, what was good in the Bill was the power of stopping these actions being brought, and what was bad was the provision which allowed the penalties to be remitted. The Government, however, had struck out the clause which prevented actions being brought, and had retained the clause giving power to remit the penalties. What then was the result? Under this sanction, the proprietors of the Brighton Aquarium were told to continue to open their building on Sundays, which, in other words, meant that they were told to break the law, because it had been decided that it was illegal that the place should be open. If the statute was a wrong statute, let it be repealed; and, if it was a right one, they ought not to encourage parties to break it, neither ought they to remit the penalties; but the excuse was there was not time for further legislation. That might be an excuse for not legislating rightly; but it was no excuse for legislating wrongly. They were now doing that which had never been done before. They were encouraging those who had been convicted of having broken the law to continue to break the law. If that was not the intention of the Bill, why was it presented to the House? If the Aquarium was not to be opened, why did they want the Bill? and if it was to be opened, they told the proprietors to break the law. In fact, they told the proprietors of the Aquarium to pay no respect to an Act of Parliament, because, if they were convicted under the Act, the Home Secretary would remit the penalties. But it seemed to him if such a course as this were to be followed, the action ought to be taken before the proceedings at law were commenced. Why

    693
    did they tell the common informers to bring actions, and then, when the case was decided, say—"We will remit the penalty?" If the penalty ought not to be enforced, surely the action ought not to be brought, and, therefore, he contended that they ought to begin by stopping the action. He also wished to point out that the Bill made no provision as to costs, and the informer would, therefore, still be entitled to his costs, because he would have enforced a proper remedy, while they had not the courage to stop him before he commenced his action. It was notorious that the Government first believed it was proper to stop the action. Why had they not had the courage of their opinions? Why had they not proceeded in the course of recent legislation—as, for instance, the Sunday Trading Bill of 1871? The present was a similar action for the non-observance of the Sabbath, and why did they not give the same power of veto? Though the Bill had been brought in for the relief of the Brighton Aquarium, the proprietors would not dare to open it after the Bill was passed. They could not submit themselves to penalties day by day in order to trust to the discretion of the Home Secretary to remit the penalties. One other objection he had was, that the Bill must be temporary and fragmentary, and he considered they ought to strike at the evil at once, which they were not doing by simply allowing these charges to be brought and then remitting the penalties. If the law were to be altered, surely it should be left to Parliament and not to the Home Secretary to say how far penalties should be enforced. He did not know if he was too late; but, if not, he should like to move that the Bill should not extend beyond a year, or, at any rate, he hoped an assurance would be given that it should be worked upon simply as a temporary measure, and be limited to a repeal of the Act of George III., giving penalties to the informer.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry James) had not taken an earlier opportunity of raising the question, because he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) quite admitted the subject was one which ought very justly to be fully discussed, and which might lead to considerable debate in that House; but what was the position
    694
    in which the Government were placed in regard to it? The attention of the Government was first directed to the subject by the action Terry v. the Brighton Aquarium Company. That action resuscitated an Act which had been for many years in complete abeyance. Up to that time common sense, if he might so call it, had regulated the conducting of places of the kind; but suddenly, in the middle of the Session, an Act was resuscitated under which not only the Brighton Aquarium would be classed as a disorderly place, but it was strongly insisted that the Act extended far beyond even that, and that places where no money was given at the door would come under its operation. He had in his possession at that moment, a writ issued and proposed to be tried against such places as the Botanical Gardens, a place where members friends were admitted on Sundays by tickets, and where no entertainment was provided. To quote an extreme case the piers at the different watering-places might be included, although in some cases the persons going on these piers did not pay money. [Sir HENRY JAMES: No.] The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to differ on the point, but there could be no question that it was a matter of great doubt, and, further than that, it was a question whether railway companies, supposing they advertized to run to places of amusement, were liable to penalties. All those points were placed before Her Majesty's Government, and it was evident that if the law were put in force in those extreme cases, a state of things would be introduced which the House would not be disposed to sanction. The Brighton Aquarium in consequence of music and refreshment being provided came within the Act, and a desire existed to test the question, whether without these attractions the Act applied. The result was that the case was tried as a friendly suit before Baron Pollock, in the middle of June, and there it was decided that, notwithstanding all additional entertainment was withdrawn, the place was still within the Act. It therefore became a question whether under those circumstances they would amend the Act or repeal it. He know there were many hon. Members in the House who were prepared to repeal the Act; but neither the Home Secretary nor himself, on the part of the Government,

    695
    were prepared to take any such step. At the same time, the question of amendment was one likely to lead to protracted discussion which they were equally unwilling to ask the House to go through at that stage of the Session. There remained, therefore, only two courses open to them—namely, first, to require the fiat of the Attorney General to authorize the informer to bring those civil actions; and, secondly, to bring in a Bill giving increased power to the Crown to remit the penalties which, and a regulation as to costs, would, he hoped, operate to discourage informers and prevent those actions. Those were the reasons which induced his right hon. Friend to bring in the Bill—a temporary measure it might be—and he hoped and believed it would have the effect of preventing those vexatious prosecutions, and that the powers vested in the Judge under the new Judicature Act would equally prevent the vexatious infliction of costs.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, he thought in every point of view the proposed settlement of the question was unsatisfactory, except in as far as the Bill might be regarded as a temporary measure, to operate during the Recess, and to be dealt with in a future Session in a comprehensive and satisfactory manner. The legislation of this country had for many years recognized the Sabbath Day as a day of rest, as well as of religious observance. He was prepared to recognize the rights of conscience, and therefore he recognized, on the one hand, the right of the people to visit places of innocent and instructive amusement on Sundays; but, on the other hand, he recognized the right of religious persons to express their religious feelings. It, however, seemed to him that there was at that moment, and had been for some time, a movement by a certain set of persons in this country who thought Sunday should be a day of amusement here as it was on the Continent, but he thought that did not by any means represent the feelings of the people of the country. There was another class who, not caring for the feelings of either of the classes alluded to, came in and put the law in motion for their own objects, as in the case of the Brighton Aquarium; and the Government, apprehensive that if the Act of 1781 were abolished, the effect might
    696
    be to lead to the introduction of entertainments not so interesting as the Brighton Aquarium, had done the best that could be done at the present late time of the Session in bringing in the measure now under consideration; but it must be clearly understood that it was only a temporary compromise. After the course taken by the Home Secretary on the Labour Laws the whole country could trust him with the temporary exercise of these powers, in the hope that in the early part of next year more satisfactory action would be taken.
    MR. LOWEsaid, although he had regarded the measure as a temporary one, and that was the only excuse that could be offered for it, still he did not look upon it as altogether satisfactory, because it was not limited to matters which arose from opening those places on the Sabbath. The Bill was general in its terms, and would change the law in regard to all qui tarn actions, because a temporary difficulty had arisen with regard to this particular case of the Brighton Aquarium. He, however, must say he objected to being asked to pass legislation which was very much wider in its scope, amounting, as it did, to an entire alteration of the law. That was a most important subject, and one which should not be dealt with hastily or without the greatest care. Surely, it could not be right that by a temporary Bill, brought in alio intuitu, the power should be taken away of bringing those actions under any circumstances whatever. That seemed to be an immense innovation in the law, without the attention of the House having been drawn to it. It indicated a levity of legislation, and almost took away one's breath to think of the vast extent and great number of circumstances to which it was applicable. The Bill took away, as far as he could see, the remedy, whether good or bad, for enforcing the statute, and the Under Secretary of State when he spoke could not have been aware that it was a temporary measure. But, if this were the case, even then he might consent to strike out the words in the 2nd clause "or under any Act of Parliament," because that was a matter of enormous consequence. If the Act had been frequently put in force for the purpose of extorting money, he could understand the course that had been taken. But the House should be reminded that this

    697
    Statute had not been heard of for years. That being the case, they ought to make the Attorney General a kind of grand jury, and thus prevent unnecessary annoyance being given to the public. Instead of doing this, they allowed these actions to be brought, with the chance of whether or not the Home Secretary would deprive those who took action of the fruit of their trouble. Surely, in a temporary and suspensory Bill, power should not be given to alter the law as proposed. A most important provision, too, had been introduced in the Act—namely, that while the Act would allow penalties to be inflicted, it would also give to the Crown increased power to remit them. That was a most unreasonable course. The law as it stood related to all cases of bribery, but at one blow this temporary measure would alter the whole course of the existing state of the law relating to such actions. It was most strange legislation. At any rate, as he had before observed, he thought they ought to strike out the second clause, after the word "Act," in the second line. As to the course taken, it seemed to him to be the very worst that could be. The Act had only been recently resuscitated, and the best course would have been to repeal it altogether. Nobody cared for it, and nobody wanted it; but the Government could not screw their courage up to that point, and they invited low people to bring actions on all sorts of subjects connected with the question, and it then proposed to give the Crown power to remit the penalties. He could not imagine any course more undignified than that taken by the Government, and although he knew that it was of no use to protest, yet as one who for a short time had held the office of Home Secretary, he felt it his duty to point out that they were violating every rule and principle on which Government ought to act in a matter of this kind.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that in order to meet the difficulty suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), he would move the re-committal of the Bill, with the object of inserting a clause providing that the Act should expire on the 1st of June next.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out all the words from the word "be" to
    698
    the end of the Question, in order to add the word "re-committed,"—(Sir Charles W. Dilke,)—instead thereof.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he hoped the House would not agree to the suggestion, and that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) seemed to have mistaken the effect and extent of the Bill. It would not have the effect of doing away with the qui tarn actions, and it would not establish so great an alteration of the law as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. An Act was passed in 1859 which gave Her Majesty power to remit certain penalties imposed upon the conviction of an offender, although they might be partly payable to private persons, and there were a great many Acts under which penalties could be enforced, and which might be covered by this Act. The present Bill would only very slightly increase that power. [Mr. LOWE said, that Act only applied to cases in which the Crown was plaintiff.] This was not the case, and the difficulty which arose in cases like that of the Brighton Aquarium, or the Botanical Gardens, was, that they could not be regarded technically as prosecutions which would come within the Act of 1859, but had to be treated as civil actions for the recovery of penalties, for which at present there was no power of remittal. Hence the necessity for the Bill, which he considered to be, although a very slight, still a very desirable and proper alteration of the law.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONappealed to the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke) not to press his Amendment, because, so far as he could see, the Bill under discussion would only be a temporary one. The suggestion he had made should be brought under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. He would also remind the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) that it would be possible to carry out the views he had expressed in "another place."
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he thought it too serious a matter to pass over. The accidental absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department ought not to prevent the wishes of the majority from being carried out. The House might well take the responsibility of making the measure

    699
    a temporary one, and, as that could easily be done, he hoped the Amendment would be agreed to.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he would assent to the Amendment.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
    Word added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee.
    SIR HENRY JAMESproposed the re-insertion of Clause 1, which had been struck out when the Bill was in Committee previously.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he would suggest to the hon. and learned Member that he should bring on his proposal after the clauses had been gone through.
    Clause 2 (Power of crown to remit penalties).
    MR. LOWEmoved, in page 2, line 2, after the word "Act" to leave out "or under any Act of Parliament passed before or after the passing of this Act." The object was to limit the present measure to the Sunday Observance Act, 24 Geo. III.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONopposed the Amendment.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsupported the Amendment, and said he thought the Bill ought to be confined to the particular cases it was intended to meet.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOThoped the Bill would be limited as proposed. He appealed to the Government whether at this period of the Session it would not be better to withdraw the measure. The present was not the way in which legislation of the kind should be passed. The House had not been fairly dealt with in that particular instance, and he asked his hon. and learned Friend to consider whether at that late period of the Session it would not be well to withdraw the Bill and bring it on next Session.
    MR. CHARLEYsaid, that if the Bill was to be a temporary one, it could not matter much what its precise terms were. He thought if Government gave way on the point, and consented that the measure should be only a temporary one, hon. Gentlemen opposite would be satisfied
    700
    with the promise. The statement made by the right hen. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) was certainly erroneous, because he (Mr. Charley) knew the persons who prompted the Brighton action, and he could assure the Committee that they did not do it from any motives of cupidity, or to get the penalty. They did not touch it, and did not get a farthing; therefore, it could not be said that they acted from the motives that had been imputed to them. They were actuated by a desire to vindicate the great principle of Sunday rest. As for the hon. and learned Member for South-wark (Mr. Locke), he recommended him to go to the Continent, where there was little observance of the Sunday. In this country the working classes were of a different way of thinking from the working classes on the Continent, and they were of opinion that the day should not be given either to amusement or to work ["Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must call the hon. and learned Member's attention to the fact that he was out of Order, the Question being, as to whether the Act should apply to other Acts besides the Sunday Observance Act.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the whole question was, was it desirable to give Her Majesty power to remit penalties for acts done when these penalties were recoverable by action, and that only. The law had already given to the Crown power to remit penalties when the persons against whom the penalties were obtained were committed. There was no real difference between the two cases, he submitted, and there was no reason why Her Majesty should not have the power of remitting the penalties in the one case as she had in the other. And why should not this Bill be one of general application? This particular case of the Brighton Aquarium was tried under an old obsolete Act which many persons, no doubt, would like to see go on to the end of time. It had given rise to the necessity for the alteration in the law; but because that particular case had happened, and had given rise to the necessity of the revision of the law, it did not seem to him that that alteration should be restricted, and made applicable to one Act of Parliament merely, when others existed to which it might well be

    701
    applied. He did not think the Bill would give rise to a conflict between the authorities.
    MR. LOCKEconsidered that it would be advisable to repeal the particular Act in question. He did not know, until the Aquarium case came on, that there was such an Act, and no one else seemed to know it. According, however, to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Charley), it was the most delightful Act of Parliament that was ever passed, so that they had all been for so many years past living in a state of happiness without being aware of it. He believed that the great majority of hon. Members did not like to offend a certain class of people, but would be very happy if the Act were repealed. Hon. Members said to the managers of these aquariums and such institutions—" Don't take money on Sundays;" and the persons in authority were willing not to do that; and as to the views taken by the legal faculty of the case tried, the Judges in both the Courts said it was highly improper, or words to that effect, that proceedings should be taken under that Act. No one had spoken in favour of it; and, on the whole, instead of taking the course the Government were now adopting, he considered it would be much better to repeal the Act. ["Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and learned Member was not in Order, inasmuch as he was dealing with the first part of a clause not before the Committee.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, it seemed to be the feeling of the House that the measure should only be a temporary one. Whilst the Opposition made no objection to the Government bringing forward a Bill to meet the necessities of the time, surely the Act should only be a temporary one. The powers should apply to the Act which had been referred to, and to that alone. If necessary, let Parliament alter the several laws, but let it be done permanently and after mature consideration, and not in such a Bill as that before the House.
    MR. HENLEYsaid, he should be glad to see the Bill restricted in its operation to one Act of Parliament. Should the Bill pass in its present form he believed it would prove a great curse to any Government that had to carry it out. He would not envy the Home Secretary
    702
    his position, as he could pretty well imagine what kind of life he would have between the saints upon the one side and the sinners on the other. The country had not had time to consider the Bill in a more extended sense, and on these questions, between sinners and saints, it was not easy for anybody to come to a conclusion.
    MR. MUNTZurged upon the Government to accept the Amendment. He could not see what object could be gained by the words extending the operation of the Bill to penalties levied under any other Act than this obsolete one of the reign of George III. They ought not to repeal by a vote of this kind provisions of several Acts of which they knew nothing whatever. Dealing summarily as it did with cases such as that before the House, its provisions ought to be carefully considered. The whole Sunday question must soon be carefully considered in an enlightened manner; it could not be shunted much longer.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that as he had stated the other day, no one could look upon this measure as a satisfactory way of dealing with the question. The whole question of Sunday was a great and important matter, and it was one in which the public took great interest. There were large masses of the people strongly in favour of the observance of Sunday. At the same time, many of the persons who held this view very strongly had not the slightest wish to interfere with the innocent recreation of the masses of the people, always provided that it did not entail compulsory service or work on the part of other persons. The opinions of the highest authorities had been taken to see how the penalties could be legally commuted. The Act had been enforced in one instance, and eases under its provisions were still pending in other instances, connected with places which no person could possibly think were disorderly houses. He could assure the House that he had not the slightest wish that the places should be shut up during the Sunday, and it was because he wished to prevent frivolous and vexatious prosecutions from taking place during the Recess that he ventured to bring forward the present Bill. He did not wish, however, to take more responsibility on his shoulders than he had need to take, and, as his object was to

    703
    prevent frivolous and vexatious prosecutions from taking place, he had no objection to accept the suggestion now made. He should not like to put in the Bill that this should be as Act for one year only. This would tie them down too much, and he would, therefore, oppose any limitation as to time. He would also strongly oppose the re-introduction into the Bill of a clause already struck out. In conclusion, he expressed a strong hope that the Bill would be allowed to pass.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause amended, and agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Short title).
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped that before long they might have a system established based on the principle of public prosecution.
    Clause agreed to.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that, after the explanation they had just heard and the debate which had taken place, he would not move the Amendment he had intimated.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered; Amendments made:—Bill read the third time, and passed.

REGISTEATION OF TRADE MARKS (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 276.]— [Lords.]
(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
REGISTEATION OF TRADE MARKS (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 276.]— [Lords.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
  MR. ALFRED MARTEN (for Mr. HERMON), in moving as an Amendment, "That this House will, upon this day two months, resolve itself into the said Committee," said, he wished to call attention to the difficulty of getting a proper definition of the term "trade mark." There had been proposed various definitions, but none which would be effectual and comprehensive for the purposes of a statutory registration of trade marks. The definition in the Act of 1862 in reference to the fraudulent imitation of trade marks was a most extensive one; but in the Bill it was proposed that there should be a far less extensive definition. A good deal of difficulty must arise from having one definition in reference to fraudulent imitation
  704
  and another in reference to registration. He really thought it would be better for purposes of registration not to undertake the difficult task of definition, but to simply use the term "trade marks "and leave the definition to the ordinary Courts of Law. He recognized the exertions which had been made by the President and Vice President of the Board of Trade with a view to settling the question; but he wished to point out some difficulties which ought to be before the mind of the House in dealing with it, and urged that the greatest care should be taken not to prejudice valuable rights or to inconvenience the complicated and extensive operations of trade.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the opposition arose upon points of detail which would be considered in Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clauses 8, 9, and 10 verbally amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Definitions).
  On the Motion of Mr. ALFRED MARTEN, Amendment made in page 5, line 24, after the word "mark," by inserting "motto, or printed or woven heading."
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKmoved, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 28, after "distinctive," insert "device, mark, heading." It had been deemed undesirable by the Select Committee to take the unworkable definition of the previous Act. The Bill with the present Amendment would, he thought, put an end to the practice of pirating trade marks, by giving a property in them to the owner on registration.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKmoved, at the end of the clause, the addition of the words—
  "But the provisions of this Act conferring a special jurisdiction on the Court as above defined shall, not excepting so far as such jurisdiction extends, affect the jurisdiction of any Court in Scotland and Ireland in causes, actions, suits, or proceedings relating to trade marks; and, if the register requires to be rectified in consequence of any proceedings in any such Court in

  705
  Scotland or Ireland, due notice of such requirements shall be given to the registrar, and he shall rectify the register accordingly."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the paragraph was framed by the Solicitor General for Ireland and himself in conjunction with the Vice President of the Board of Trade, it being thought desirable that causes should be tried in the country in which the mark was registered.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following new clause was inserted after Clause 11:—
  (Saving of proceedings in Scotland and Ireland).
  "Nothing in this Act shall affect the jurisdiction and forms of procedure of the Courts in Scotland and Ireland respectively in any action or proceeding respecting a trade mark hitherto competent to those Courts."
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

LAND TITLES AND TRANSFER BILL. BILL 105.]— [Lords.]
(Mr. Attorney General.)
LAND TITLES AND TRANSFER BILL. BILL 105.]— [Lords.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 28th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 41 (Transmission on death of freehold land).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that when the Bill was last in Committee his Amendment was under consideration. He had proposed an Amendment in page 14, line 6, after the word "registrar," to insert the words—
  "Regard being had to the rights of the several persons interested in such laud, and in particular to the selection of such person as may for the time being appear to the registrar to be entitled according to law to be so appointed."
  Progress was then reported. He had since given the subject his most careful attention, and he still thought his Amendment was the best that could be adopted, and that it would be better to leave the Registrar to select the proper person to be registered than to lay down any definite rule which should be applicable to all cases.
  MR. JACKSONregretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to insist on his Amendment. He believed
  706
  it would, to some extent, defeat the object of the Bill, which was to provide a cheap transfer for small properties. Under this clause any small property would instantly, on the death of its owner, become the subject of judicial investigation, and the dread of that expense would, in practice, keep such properties off the register.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 42 to 79, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 80 (Effect of deposit of land certificate).
  MR. JACKSONmoved the omission of the clause, on the ground that it would interfere with one of the fundamental objects of the Bill. The clause provided that, subject to any registered estates, charges, or rights, the deposit of the land certificate, in the case of freehold land, and of the office copy of the registered lease in the case of leasehold land, should, for the purpose of creating a lien on the land to which such certificate or lease related, be deemed equivalent to a deposit of the title deeds of the land. One of the objects of the Bill was to prevent the increase of encumbrances, and this clause was inconsistent with that object. There had been a large number of cases in which priority of encumbrances formed the subject of trial, and the question was one which gave rise to a great amount of litigation.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that difficulty and confusion would arise from the clause, nor could he admit that it was inconsistent with the rest of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman had given such a general support to the Bill that he was sorry to have to stand by the clause in opposition to the view entertained by him. It would give an additional facility in many cases to the raising of money for temporary purposes, and he was unable to see any objection to it.
  MR. ALFRED MARTENhoped that his hon. and learned Friend would not 'press his proposal to a division, having regard to the fact that the Court of Chancery had held that, notwithstanding an Act of Parliament, a deposit of deeds was sufficient to give priority of claim to land.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 35: Majority 14.
  Clauses 81 to 104, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 105 (Office of land registry; and appointment and payment of officers)-
  MR. ALFRED MARTENmoved, as an Amendment, in page 31, line 15, after "standing," insert "the registrar shall hold his office during good behaviour." He argued that as some of the duties of the registrar would be of a judicial character, he ought to hold his office on the same terms as the Judges, and not as an ordinary civil servant.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, which would be contrary to the general scope and purport of the Act, the intention of which was to place the registrar in the same position as Parliamentary counsel. Secretaries to the Treasury, and other officers of the kind, who no doubt, in form, held office at pleasure, but practically during good behaviour.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause verbally amended, and agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
  On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following new Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill:—
  (Registry of land below high water mark.)
  "If it appears to the registrar that any land application for registration whereof is made to him comprises land below high water mark at ordinary spring tides, he shall not register the laud unless and until he is satisfied that at least one month's notice in writing of the application has been given to the Board of Trade; and in case of land in the county palatine of Lancaster, also to the proper officer of the Duchy of Lancaster; and in case of land in the counties of Cornwall or Devon, also to the proper officer of the Duke of Cornwall; and in all other cases also to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Laud Revenues."
  MR. ALFRED MARTENmoved, after Clause 59, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Power to remove land from register.)
  "Every registered proprietor of freehold or leasehold land may, in the proscribed manner, remove such land or any part thereof from the register.
  "The removal shall be completed by the registrar entering on the register a minute thereof.
  "All estates, charges, rights, interests, equities, and powers, subsisting in, on, or over any land
  708
  at the time of its removal from the register shall continue to subsist in, on, or over the same notwithstanding such removal; but such land, estates, charges, rights, interests, equities, and powers shall, from and after such removal, be held, enjoyed, exercised, transferred, transmitted, dealt with, and disposed of in the same manner and with the same incidents and effect in all respects as other unregistered land and similar estates, charges, rights, interests, equities, and powers in, on, or over such land.
  "All the provisions in this Act contained as to notices, cautions, inhibitions, or other restrictions upon or against any transfer of or other dealing with registered land shall, so far as the same are applicable, extend to any removal of land from the register; and no removal of any land from the register shall take place without the previous consent, to be testified in the proscribed manner, of every person entitled to any registered charge thereon."
  The power of removal would encourage registration, which was voluntary. With this power, a landowner could safely register, knowing that he could secure the advantage if registration worked well, and improved the marketable value of registered land, and that he could, by the exercise of the power, at any time obviate a contrary result. Without the power, many would not try the experiment. Conveyancing Counsel and Solicitors would in many cases decline to advise their clients to adopt a registration, which was to be final in its character, and the benefits of which remained to be ascertained by experience. The clause had been, he said, approved by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory).
  MR. JACKSONexpressed an opinion that without a provision of the kind the Act would be a dead letter. The Act was entirely experimental, and prudent solicitors would not put their clients' property in a position from which, if the Act did not work well, it could not be withdrawn.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLcould not conceive anything more calculated to create confusion.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he must remind hon. Members that the House of Lords, after full consideration, had come to the conclusion that it was not desirable to give the power. No sufficient reason had been adduced in support of the clause.
  Clause negatived.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday.

CONSPIRACY, AND PROTECTION OF PROPERTY BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Lords' Amendments considered.
  Amendments, as far as Clause 6, page 8, agreed to.
  Clause 8, page 3, line 23, leave out from ("doing") to the end of the Clause, and insert—
  (" wrongfully and without legal authority,—

  "1. Uses violence to or intimidates such other person or his wife or children, or injures his property; or,

  "2. Persistently follows such other person about from place to place; or,

  "3. Hides any tools, clothes, or other property owned or used by such other person, or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof; or,

  "4. Watches or besets the house or other place where such other person resides or works or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place; or,

  "5. Follows such other person with two or more other persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road, shall on conviction thereof by a court of summary jurisdiction, or on indictment as hereinafter mentioned, be liable either to pay a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour:

  "Attending at or near the house or place where a person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place, in order merely to obtain or communicate information, and not with a view to intimidate or to deter by serious annoyance such person from doing or abstaining from doing that which he has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, shall not be deemed a watching or besetting within the meaning of this section);"—
  The next Amendment read a second time.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, that Clause 5 left the House with the words "of service or of hiring," and it had been returned by the Lords with "or" changed into "and." For that change there was no trace of any Amendment having been moved in the other House, and that being so, he believed that, according to the practice of the House, they were entitled to adhere to the clause in the form in which it left that House.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSexplained that the words had been altered by the officers in the other House from no political motive, but under the idea that the alteration was necessary for the intention and sense of the clause. The Amendment had not been communicated,
  710
  however, and he should wish to have the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair upon the facts before the House.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that no Amendment having been communicated to this House by the House of Lords, this House could not take notice of what had not been communicated to it.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEobserved that it was clear that the gravest inconvenience might arise from an alteration being made in a Bill under such circumstances, and at the very close of the Session.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSpointed out that on former occasions, when a similar thing had occurred, the mistake had been once rectified by the officers of the other House, and the same course would, no doubt, be again followed in this instance.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he believed that the alteration in the printed Bill had been accidental, and this House could only deal with the Bill as it came from the House of Lords.
  MR. LOWEwho had given Notice of his intention to move the omission of the clause, and the substitution of a new clause in lieu thereof, said, that a clause which had been much discussed in the House had come back in a new shape, but anxious as he had been that it should not apply invidiously to any portion of Her Majesty's subjects, he thought it extremely doubtful whether the clause, as it originally stood, was not better than the one sent down from the Lords. He was surprised at this, because it had been announced, with some flourish of trumpets, that it was fortunate we had a House of Lords, which took a calm view of these things. He thought it was a matter of great rashness at that late period of the Session to have introduced two new offences into the Bill, and there could be no doubt but the change which had boon made, if it remained unaltered, would give rise to an enormous amount of litigation, and to long and envenomed contests between masters and men. For instance, it was now stipulated that a person influencing another must, before becoming liable, do so "wrongfully." The extraordinary result of that was, that a man might use violence or intimidate a person, but he would not be guilty of an offence unless he could be proved to have

  711
  acted wrongfully. For his own part, he should have supposed that the fact of a man using violence with this intent was proof of a wrongful act. It was difficult what would be an offence under these words. He did not intend to move an Amendment on the point, but wished to note it as an instance of how they might "darken counsel by words without understanding." Again, whereas by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which no one held to be too lenient, no intimidation or threats were criminal unless they would justify a justice of the peace in binding over the person to keep the peace, now, as the clause was drawn, any kind of intimidation was made a substantive offence. That showed what new and difficult questions had been opened up without the slightest necessity. He should presently move to omit the words "or intimidates," in order to take the opinion of the House on the matter. Another provision was, to the effect that attending at or near a house or place of business merely to obtain or communicate information, and not with a view to intimidate, should not be deemed to be watching or besetting within the meaning of the Act. That created a new offence by implication, for it followed that a person "attending" to intimidate was guilty of an offence; but if that was meant, "attending" should have been included in the catalogue of offences, and not left to be inferred from the statement that the converse should not be an offence. Nothing could be more dangerous or unfair than the use of ambiguous expressions of this kind, especially in a measure which ought to be easy of interpretation, being, as it was, a law between the rich and the poor. The springing of an offence of this kind suddenly upon the country seemed to be one of the most imprudent pieces of legislation he had ever seen, and he was astonished that such a mistake should have been made.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that it would be convenient to consider the Amendments in the order in which they stood.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he would at all events read to the House a clause which, if he had the power to pass it, he would insert in the Bill—" Every person who, with a view to compel another person"—
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it would be inconvenient to discuss such a new clause. What they were dealing with at present was the word "intimidates."
  MR. LOWEsaid, the natural effect of the view he took would be to endeavour to amend the clause as it stood, so far as they could, and in the end to substitute another clause for it, if it did not prove satisfactory. He now moved the omission of the words "or intimidates."
  Amendment proposed to the said Amendment, in line 2, to leave out the words "or intimidates."—(Mr. Lowe.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the clause in its present form was really less strong that it had been before. In its original form the words were "who threatens or intimidates;" but there was a question raised as to whether a threat was sufficient to bind a man over for, and therefore the word "threatens" was omitted. Intimidation, however, was another matter altogether, and the clause in its present form, instead of its being stronger than it was, was weaker. [Mr. LOWE: No, no!] In his view it was weaker. It now provided that not only must there be some action on the part of the offender, but it must have a certain effect on the person whom it sought to intimidate.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, whatever might have been the intention of the noble Lord who made the Amendment in the House of Lords, the effect would be to leave intimidation wholly without qualification or definition. As the Bill stood before, the intimidation was to be such intimidation as would justify a justice of the peace in binding over a person; but as it now stood, the word "intimidates" was left entirely without qualification, so that the justice would have to decide as to what it might be. No doubt, the intention was to follow the Charge of the right hon. and learned Recorder, but that right hon. and learned Gentleman really defined what he meant by intimidation, using the words, "such an exhibition of force as is calculated to produce fear in the minds of ordinary men."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSpointed out that they were now on quite a different part of the clause—namely, the word "intimidates" alone.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he simply wished to show how the word "intimidates" ran through the whole clause, and governed the end as well as the middle. The word used alone was liable to the grossest abuse. The words were—" Uses violence to or intimidates such other person, or his wife or children, or injures property, or." A new enactment to protect against violence or injury to property was not required. There ought to be some definition of the word in the sense laid down by the right hon. and learned Recorder, and then they would know what was meant. Unless some definition or limitation was introduced, the effect would be that they would have a recurrence of all the trouble they had already had. The law ought not to be left in so vague a state as it was left in by the Bill in its present form.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, that in the old Act the word used was "coerce." It was now proposed to substitute the word "compel." Of the two, he preferred the first as the more accurate definition of what it was intended to prevent or punish. The word "compel" was too vague and indefinite a phrase to use in the case of a criminal proceeding.
  SIR HENRY JAMEScalled upon the Government to give some answer to the arguments which had been used. They ought to make it clearly understood what had been done, not by the Home Secretary or the Government, but by those who had considered this matter in the House of Lords. If the clause stood as it was, workmen would be placed in an infinitely worse position than they were in at present, and the House of Commons would be giving up the fruits of their labours, not to dispassionate and calm consideration on the part of the House of Lords, but to what he must characterize as hasty legislation. Under the Act of 1871 a person, in order to be convicted under this part of the clause, had to threaten or intimidate another person in such a manner as would justify a justice of the peace in binding him over, and that must be done with a view to coerce. If they had a severe law, they inflicted that severe law only upon a guilty person; but under a vague law the penalty might be inflicted upon an innocent person. The right hon. Gentleman now stepped in with words which lessened the penalty, and thought it necessary
  714
  to get rid of the word "coerce." To find a person guilty of threatening required some act to be proved. It was a definite crime. But by striking out the word "threatens" and leaving only the word "intimidates" the result was that no overt act, nor anything done, would be required to ensure a conviction—a mere look, a mere walking up and down, merely "making a face" at a workman's child would be all sufficient, if the child was intimidated thereby, for the clause said, "who intimidates such other person, or his wife, or children." He appealed to Her Majesty's Government not to change their policy, but to adhere to it—to adhere to what the House had accepted.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he was very much astonished to find so many words uttered on so narrow and simple a question. The word "intimidates "did not mean something passive, but implied some action on the part of the person intimidating, with a view to prevent a man from doing that which he had a right to do, and which he could otherwise do. If a child or a wife or the man himself were unreasonably frightened, the Judge who tried the case would ask—" What was it that frightened you?" There must be an action on the part of the intimidator to cause fear; it was not merely the use of words which constituted the offence.
  Question put, "That the words 'or intimidates' stand part of the said Amendment."
  The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 40: Majority 12.
  MR. EDWARD JENKINSmoved to add after the word "intimidates" the following words, "by threats of personal violence or injury." He considered in a matter of this kind that some clear definition should be given to the meaning of the word "intimidates," and he thought the best way to accomplish this was by adopting the Amendment he proposed.
  Amendment proposed, after the word "intimidates," to insert the words "by threats of personal violence or injury."—(Mr. Edward Jenkins.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the act committed would always be sufficient to indicate whether there had been

  715
  intimidation within the meaning of the section, and he could not assent to the Amendment. It was possible to make a man do something against his will without using violence.
  MR. HOPWOODhoped the Amendment would be adopted, and said he thought some clear definition ought to be given to the word "intimidates." The interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman would extend the range of the Bill to the whole community.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, hon. Members seemed to forget that the clause was qualified by the words "wrongly and without legal authority."
  Question put, "That those words be inserted in the said Amendment."
  The House divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 53: Majority 11.
  On the Motion of Mr. Lowe, Amendment made by leaving out the words—
  "and not with a view to intimidate or to deter by serious annoyance such person from doing or abstaining from doing that which he has a legal right to do or abstain from doing."
  MR. MUNDELLAthen moved the insertion of the words "or peaceably to persuade," the object being that persons who might attempt to persuade a man to leave his employ should not come under the penalty for watching and besetting which was provided for under the section.
  Amendment proposed, in line 21 of the said Amendment, after the word "information," to insert the words "or peaceably to persuade."—(Mr. Mundella.)
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, it was clear peacefully persuading was not illegal, and there could therefore be no object in inserting the words in the Bill.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, the Lord Chancellor had stated that his new clause had been drawn strictly in accordance with the Charge of the right hon. and learned Recorder for the City of London. In that Charge peaceable persuasion was not held to be an offence, but heretofore it had been held by many Judges to be an offence, and, as such, had been punished within the limits of the old statute by the magistrates. If the words were not inserted, they would be able to do as they had hitherto done, contrary to the intention of the Legislature,
  716
  and the old complaint and disaffection would be left where they were. He hoped the House would not leave an old grievance unredressed.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, if the question was so self-evident as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War said it was, there could be no objection to the insertion of the words.
  Question put, "That those words be inserted in the said Amendment."
  The House divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 53: Majority 12.
  MR. LOWEsaid, that as the Opposition intended to divide against the clause as it stood, he wished to read the Amendment which, if they were fortunate enough to overthrow the clause of the Government, they intended to propose in its place. It was to leave out Clause 9, and insert the following clause:—
  "Every person who with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing anything which he has a legal right to do, or to do anything from which he has a legal right to abstain—1, persistently follows such other person about from place to place; 2, hides any tools, clothes, or other property owned or used by such other person, or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof; or 3, follows such other person with one or more persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road; or 4, besets or watches the house or other place where such other person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, with a view to compulsion as aforesaid, and not merely to obtain or "communicate information, shall be liable on conviction thereof by a court of summary jurisdiction, or on indictment, to a fine not exceeding-twenty pounds, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the great boon which the working classes had got was not contained in the clause, but was to be found in the Bill itself. This clause was simply intended to put into fresh language the words of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. He should never shrink from the provisions laid down in that Act, nor from the words he had expressed upon the subject. The law he wanted to have in force was that laid down in the Charge of the right hon. and learned Recorder of London; and that law, so far as he could determine it, should be enforced. The right hon. Gentleman had tried his hand once before, and had endeavoured to strike out the words "serious annoyance" altogether. The right hon. Gentleman now tried his hand again, and

  717
  having just voted for retaining the words "peaceable persuasion," he had now the boldness and hardihood to ask the House to vote for a clause specially leaving out the words "peaceable persuasion," which two minutes ago he voted to insert. He could not have a stronger justification than that given by the right hon. Gentleman himself for resisting the proposed clause.
  MR. MUNDELLAwould remind the Home Secretary that if the words "peaceable persuasion "were not to be found in the proposed clause, the word "intimidates" was also not in it. He believed that if the Home Secretary had been left to his own counsel, he would have consented to the insertion of such reasonable words as "peaceable persuasion." The right hon. Gentleman, he must admit, had conducted the Bill in a most equitable and conciliatory manner, and he regretted that he had at the last moment refused to insert the words "peaceable persuasion." As he had said, the clause was free from the word "intimidates," and on that ground he supported it. He did trust the House would have the courage to deal equitably in this matter, and to show liberal feeling towards the working man. The Government had dealt with these things in a manner, which, if they had been in Opposition, they would have regarded as revolutionary if introduced by the Liberal party.
  MR. MELLORthought he might claim to know something of the working classes as well as the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), and he could assure the House that the working men were exceedingly desirous to be protected from the tyranny of those-whose combination would coerce them into compliance. The words proposed to be inserted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lowe) were perfectly useless, because the magistrates on every bench in the Kingdom would require no such Amendments in order to guide their decisions. He should, therefore, oppose the clause.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."
  The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 41: Majority 14.
  Subsequent Amendments agreed to, with an Amendment.

SHERIFFS SUBSTITUTE (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 273.]
(Mr. Raikes, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Cross.)
SHERIFFS SUBSTITUTE (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 273.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. MAITLANDconsidered he should not be doing his duty if he did not ask for attention to this Bill. It was a Bill of great importance, because it sanctioned a very bad principle indeed. He should, perhaps, have had greater respect for the policy of the Government if they had shown more thoroughness in what they had attempted; but the Bill, which began by asking if three new Judges were needed, had ended in a request for merely two new Judges. That certainly showed that even in the opinion of the Government themselves their original proposition was not one which ought to be supported, and he looked upon their present proposal as being equally uncalled-for. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had a very great acquaintance with the county of Lancashire; and what was the position of Liverpool in that county as to local Judges? Counting everybody who could be counted, there were not more than four local Judges in Liverpool. He (Mr. Maitland) believed that the number ought more properly to be said to be throe, while in Glasgow at the present time they had five inferior Judges, in addition to three others that were in the county. Therefore, they had something like eight local Judges connected with Glasgow and its surroundings; while in Liverpool, which was not inferior in importance and population, and which, in fact, did more business, there were only three, or at the most four, local Judges. He should like some explanation of this anomaly, because if the people of Glasgow were to have these two additional Judges, he did not see how they could refuse Liverpool a similar number. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: We only ask for one more.] They asked for two, because they asked for a stipendiary magistrate, who was to be all intents and purposes a Sheriff substitute. Altogether, he did not think this was a charge which ought to be

  719
  made on the Consolidated Fund. The Scotch Members had been charged with obstructing the policy of the Government in regard to the Sheriffs (Scotland) Bill. In their previous Bill the Government proposed to very largely increase the Sheriffs of Scotland—he believed by at least 20—which would have caused a charge of £40,000 per annum, and this he did not think would have been a very gratifying result, and he was glad they had succeeded in getting the previous Bill withdrawn.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that the entire judicial system of Scotland required revision, especially as regarded the manner in which some of the Judges and officers of the Courts received their salaries. It was open to grave objection to have salaries of the Courts and Sheriffs of Scotland drawn in two separate accounts—one the Civil Service Estimates, and the other the Finance Accounts, rendering it impossible to ascertain the numbers of different officers or the rates of salary. There was also another objection to the practice of remunerating parties by fees. He believed the Lord Advocate was paid in five different ways. He did not begrudge the right hon. and learned Gentleman his salary, and if he had his way he would make it more. But it should be conditional on his whole time being devoted to the business of Scotland, and that he should be prohibited from appearing in any appeal or other cases. In conclusion, he strongly objected to a Bill of that nature being proceeded with at the fag-end of the Session, when many of the Scotch Members, having left town, could not be present to take part in the discussion.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he should be ready, when the proper time arrived, to discuss the question of the entire judicial system of Scotland; but that Bill had really little to do with the matter. It dealt with a pressing want which was felt at this moment. When he was in Glasgow last year, he took great pains to ascertain whether the want was a bonâ fide one or not, and he came to the conclusion that there was a real and actual want of an additional Judge for that city He, therefore, hoped that the House would allow the Bill to proceed, as it only asked for one Judge, and not two, as stated by the hon. Member.
  Question put and agreed to
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Preamble.
  On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Amendment made in line 4, by leaving out "two," and inserting "one."
  Consequential Amendments made.
  Preamble, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 1 (Commissioners of Treasury may grant salary to an additional sheriff substitute for Lanarkshire).
  THE LORD ADVOCATEmoved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 22, to leave out "funds from which the salaries of sheriffs are payable," and insert "Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURobjected to the proposed change. He did not want the additional charge to be put on the Consolidated Fund. It was a source of great inconvenience to have public officers paid in two, or more ways; at present, some salaries were inserted in the Civil Estimates and annually voted by Parliament, whilst some salaries were inserted in the Finance Accounts, as part of the sum voted, in the lump, as a charge on the Consolidated Fund. The result was that no hon. Member could ascertain the numbers and salaries of the Sheriffs, and other officers of the Sheriff Courts, owing to the whole being inserted in lump sums without information as to numbers or rates of salary. He believed that the last Act passed, about five years ago, rendered this mode of paying salaries to Sheriffs quite unnecessary.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the officers of the Treasury had stated that the Consolidated Fund was the proper phrase to use in the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday.

HOUSE OCCUPIERS DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.— [BILL 164.]
(Sir H. Drummond Wolff, Sir Charles Legard, Sir Charles Russell, Mr. Callender, Mr. By der.)
HOUSE OCCUPIERS DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.— [BILL 164.]

  THIRD READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [31st July], "That the Bin be now read the third time."
  Question again proposed.
  MR. HAYTERsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would not proceed with the Bill that night. The House had been engaged on Government Business up to that late hour, and also until 3 o'clock on the previous morning on the same business. He hoped hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill would consent to the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. RAIKESrose to Order. He believed the hon. Member for Bath had already spoken in the course of the previous debate.
  MR. EDWARD JENKINSmoved the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Edward Jenkins.)
  DR. C. CAMERONregretted that the hon. Member should have thought it necessary to interfere. He understood it was believed by some hon. Members on that (the Liberal) side of the House that the Bill was intended to serve the interests of the Conservative Party at the expense of those who sat on the Liberal side. He failed to see how it could do so, but he failed especially to see on what logical grounds any radical like his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee could oppose a Bill for such a legitimate extension of the franchise.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 54: Majority 34.
  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKErose to move the Adjournment of the House. The Bills remaining on the Paper were six in number, and were all Private Members' Bills, and he certainly understood that when the House met on Saturday afternoons it was for the Business remaining to be disposed of at the end of the Session, and in order to facilitate the Government Bills. It would do no harm if the debate on the present Bill were postponed. The 3rd Bill—Offences Against the Person—was one which would give rise to a great amount of controversy, and could not be decided without some hours of time being consumed upon it. Then there would be a debate upon the Infanticide Bill, which was a Bill which had not passed the House of Lords, and therefore could not be carried at once. The next Bill—
  722
  Increase of the Episcopate—was op-posed by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side. The Lords' Amendments to the Offences Against the Person Bill could be considered in ample time for the Bill to pass into law, and therefore it would not stop the measure to adjourn the House on the present occasion. There were two other Bills which might be said not to have been debated at all. This Bill could not be proceeded with at the extreme end of a sitting. It gave rise to matters which would require to be discussed at considerable length, and a number of matters were mentioned, to which he should presently have to allude, but he would not enter into minute details on the present occasion. There were a number of questions which were neither exactly representative questions nor franchise questions, but lay between the two. In 1869 there was a great deal of excitement on the registration question, and immediately after the first General Election many householders felt very keenly the difficulties in the way of their exercise of the franchise. A Committee was moved for in the House by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone). The Committee was appointed, and was presided over by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), and he (Sir Charles Dilke) spoke with certain knowledge of its proceedings, because he attended every meeting, and took the evidence on one branch of inquiry. The result was that a Report was drawn up and agreed to by both the Liberal and Conservative Members of the Committee. The Report not only dealt with questions of registration proper, but also questions of franchise. The Report was never acted upon in the House of Commons. A Registration Bill founded on it was introduced three times—once by himself, once by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, and on the third occasion by some other hon. Member. On one occasion he succeeded in carrying this Registration Bill through the Committee; but it was defeated by the party opposite by their tactics on the third reading. As an instance of the inequalities it was proposed to remedy, he might mention that when a lodger removed from one floor to another he lost his franchise. This was a great handship, and one that ought to be remedied by legislation. It would

  723
  be monstrous to attempt to proceed with the present Bill now.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, it was not right that objection should now be made to proceeding with the Bill, when there had been no objection to its being placed upon the Paper for that day. It was not owing to any fault of his that the Bill had not come in at an earlier period of the Session. He would, however, consent to adjourn the debate, if the hon. Baronet opposite would withdraw his Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, that Private Members' Business had been postponed to make way for Government Business as was usual on Saturdays, and it was only fair that they should have the fag-end of what was usually a Government sitting for the discussion of their measures. His Bill—the Offences against the Person Bill—had been waiting for six weeks for the consideration of the Lords' Amendments, and he hoped they would be considered now.
  THE CHANCELLOEROF THE EXCHE-QUERsaid, the suggestion of his hon. Friend opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was a reasonable one. What the hon. Baronet said was very fair; Saturday was not ordinarily accessible to Government Business, and it was not desirable to take Business that would lead to much contest; on the other hand, the Private Members had been very good to the Government, and he thought that the present difficulty could be compromised by withdrawing the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and, the other Bills being adjourned until Monday, that they should at least take the adjourned debate on the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Offences Against the Person Bill.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he hoped, if the other Bills were adjourned, that his Bill, the Increase of the Episcopate Bill, should be put in such a position on the Paper for Monday as to ensure its being brought on at an early part of the evening. A Bill of the importance of the Increase to the Episcopate Bill demanded the serious consideration of the House. It was one which had gone through all its stages in the
  724
  House of Lords without any Amendment, and that, as he contended, gave it a claim on the serious attention of this House.
  MR. MONKsaid, he was never more astounded in his life than at the statement just made by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. The Bill of which he had charge met with only a negative support from the Government in the Upper House.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, an adjournment of the discussion of the Bill of the hon. Member for Christchurch until Monday would be fruitless, for the Bill would be just as distasteful then as now, and nothing could be more unfortunate than that a measure of the kind should be passed by a private Member.
  MR. ONSLOWsupported the Bill, and urged that it should be proceeded with that evening.
  MR. HAYTERsaid, he had pursued a legitimate course in opposing the Bill. He protested against controversial measures brought in by private Members being discussed on days appointed for Government Business at the end of the Session.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 31: Majority 8.
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHmoved the adjournment of the debate till Monday.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Monday.

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Order for consideration of Lords' Amendments read.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Seven o'clock till Monday.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second reading—Sanitary Law (Dublin) Amendment* (259).
Committee—Report—Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act Amendment* (252); Expiring Laws Continuance* (260); East India Home Government (Appointments)* (261); Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, Amendment* (262); Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869, Amendment* (236).
Third Reading—Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers)* (250); Militia Laws Consolidation and Amendment* (264); Government Officers (Security)* (251); Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans)* (244), and passed.
Their Lordships met;—and having gone through the Business on the Paper, without debate—
House adjourned at One o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.