motive was present to their minds-such a contention would be absurd; but when the House of Commons sought to put such charges on the public purse there ought to be some amount of decorum observed in such proceedings, and they had the right to ask that they should be taken only when they could be fully considered and discussed. He did not wish to go into the policy of this proposal; but he was afraid the danger of this sort of legislation would, of course, be the encouragement of vexatious contests. If they removed from the candidates the absolutely obligatory expenses of the Returning Officer, a man might enter into a contest with practically no fear of a monetary penalty to himself, and yet he might put his opponent to £1,200 or £1,500 costs. It must be obvious that such a measure as that would not only not diminish the cost of elections, but, on the He before they passed a scale on such an utter want of evidence as had been displayed in regard to this. Then, as to the part which dealt with the transfer of these charges to the rates. On the 11th of June, the day after the Prime Minister had announced that no more contentious Business would be taken, at 3 o'clock in the morning, in a thin House, Mr. Labouchere moved the reerumittal of the Bill with respect to this clause, and carried by, he believed, a majority of 93 to 67, a clauso throwing the expenses of the Returning Officer on the rates in counties only. Why counties only had been selected solely for that privilege he could not conceive, but so it was. Let their Lordships observe the peculiarities of this piece of legislation În the first place, at the time the Motion was brought forward in the House of Commons the securities given by the half past 12 Rule were evaded by re-contrary, largely increase them. emmitment, a stage later than that to must say also a word for the poor ratewhich the half-past 12 Rule applied. payer. Why was this charge to be put Therefore, there was no security for the upon him? Why not the taxpayer? atten lance of Members. But not only Why should not the expense be paid out was that the case, but it was brought on of the taxes, for surely, if anything, it at a time when the House was paralyzed was an Imperial, not a local, concern? by the announcement of a Dissolution, The noble Earl had told them that that for, with no disrespect to the House of was no new principle, since the cost of Commons, he might say that he had electing School Boards, Sanitary Boards, always found that it was not at such and Municipal Bodies was placed upon times in possession of all its Constitu- the rates. But those were all local tional faculties. Half the Members or Bodies levying local rates. But why more were away in the country looking should this charge go upon the rates; aft their seats, all Governmental dis- why was it to fall upon real property cipline was relaxed, and probably more alone? He could conceive of no reason than one Member of the Government why that should be so. But the prowas stumping in one part or another of posal was objectionable on another the country. There was no sufficient ground. Mr. Labouchere could not, by rupervision of any kind. He did not the Rules of the House of Commons, tink, at any time, a measure of this have made this fall on the taxation of kond should be passed on the responsi-the country, because of the Rule which bility of a private Member, for it ought provided that a Minister of the Crown to be on the sole responsibility of the alone could move for fresh taxation; and Government; but it seemed to him that that alone made it objectionable. He to pass, at 3 o'clock in the morning, at (the Marquess of Salisbury did not vena stage of the Bill when further re- ture to forecast whether that propcsal, consideration was almost imp »ssible, and in its substance, would ever be accepted to pass it in spite of the promise of the by Parliament, because, if it was, he Government that no contentions Business | said with all confidence that the money should be taken, a measure which would ought to be provided on the responsi save the Members of the House of Com- bility of a Minister of the Crown, and mons who might take a part in the coming voted in the face of the country. He Election an expenditure of some £200 er ¦ did not suppose their Lordships in that £300 savoured somewhat of self-interest, case would interfere; but, if they did, and was not a proceeding which their it would submit the matter to the judg Lordships ought to approve. He did ment of the country, and, at any rate, persons. That piece of legislation was | tain that was not the best way to secure exceedingly unhappy. He believed the good candidates. With regard to the precedent would be an exceedingly bad one, and he felt that they ought to insist on a full consideration of such measures; and though he was perfectly willing to accept an arrangement by which they would return to the original Bill as it passed through the Committee in the House of Commons, if the Government would not accept that arrangement he must ask their Lordships to pronounce whether the Bill should be read a second time or not. Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")-(The Marquess of Salisbury.) THE EARL OF SELBORNE said, he wished to point out to noble Lords op. posite that it was an error of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) that the Bill was not limited to counties. In the second Schedule it would be found that in the case of boroughs the borough rate was to bear the expense. He was, however, convinced by the arguments of the noble Marquess that the matters of detail of the expenses of Returning Officers might require more consideration than they seemed to have received, while the very important ques tion of the payment of the expenses out of the rates ought not to have been introduced in the manner which had been stated into a Bill for a different purpose, and on the eve of a Dissolution. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY said, he was of opinion that there was a great deal to be said in favour of the principle of payment of expenses from the rates. There were, however, objections, which he was not able entirely to remove, seeing that the noble Marquess did not rest his objection to the Bill chiefly on policy, but rather on the manner in which the Bill had been brought before their Lordships. He (the Earl of Kimberley) wished the noble Marquess had said a little more with regard to the policy of the Bill. He the Earl of Kimberley, defended that policy, having always considered it a hardship that comparatively poor men should have to pay a heavy fine for the privilege of entering Parliament and serving the public. He was quite cer observations of the noble Marquess as to a Bill of this character being forced through Parliament on the eve of a Dissolution, if precedents were needed they had been furnished by noble Lords opposite themselves. Notwithstanding the strong protests of himself and other noble Lords on that side of the House, in 1880, a Bill with regard to election law, the conveyance of voters to the poll in boroughs, was actually brought into the House and forced through in the last few days before a Dissolution, and after that Dissolution had been announced. If, therefore, they relied on precedents, noble Lords opposite had themselves set one in favour of the manner in which this Bill was presented. He urged their Lordships not to reject the Bill on the ground that the matter was one which specially concerned the other House of l'arliament, and did not specially affect this House; and as to the Commons not having given sufficient discussion to it, that was clearly a matter of which the Commons were the best judges. He was, however, informed, on the contrary, that a great deal of consideration was given to it. However, Her Majesty's Government would not press the Bill in its present shape. They were willing to omit that part of the Bill which threw the cost of elections on the ratepayers; and he trusted, on that understanding, the noble Marquess would withdraw his opposition. He hoped that the noble Marquess would make some concession, and would not press his opposition to that part of the Schedule which related to the Returning Officers' charges. [The Marquess of SALISBURY dissented. The noble Marquess shook his head; but he did not see why noble Lords should be so exceedingly anxious to protect the pockets of the Sheriff. Still, he thought the House should not reject a Bil which effected a very necessary reform, merely because noble Lords opposito would not accept the proposals of the measure on those two points. Although he should be extremely glad if the noble Marquess would not press his opposition to the Returning Officers' charges, still, if he insisted, he would rather the Bill should pass without the provisions in that behalf than be lost altogether. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said, he could only speak for themselves-he could not answer for the other House. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, he did not expect that; but what he wanted to understand was, that if the Bill came back with these clauses reinserted their Lordships would reject them. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, ¦ rior's hands into which they were held he thought the noble Earl had met them to fall by the vassal's death. Secondly, in a very handsome spirit; but he there was composition, the entry money wished to know whether the other or fine payable by a stranger or purHouse would accept this arrangement, chaser. Sometimes this was a matter because he did not want the question to of special agreement, otherwise it be fought out again within two hours amounted to one year's rent. From the of the Prorogation. earliest times down to 1874 a conveyance or sale by a vassal did not entitlo his superior to require the disponee or purchaser to obtain an entry from the superior, and to pay the year's rent which was exigible therefor upon the death of the vassal and the feu becoming vacant, if the purchaser could show that the heir-that was, the heir of the last entered vassal-was willing so to enter. Accordingly, where the heir was willing so to enter, the superior's right to exact a casualty was limited to a duplicand of the feu duty. The right to exact a composition was always regarded as a severe penalty; and it had this drawback-that it tended to prevent improvements, for the more the owner added to the valuo of his property the greater the penalty became. Prior to 1874 the completion of a title by entry with the superior, in cases alike of succession and of sale, necessitated the execution of a great number of deeds and instruments of different kinds. The main object of the THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said, that after the engagement entered into the Government would certainly resist the clauses. Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn. Motion agreed to: Bill read 2 accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow. CONVEYANCING" (SCOTLAND) ACTS (The Earl of Dalhousie,) No. 163.) SECOND READING. Order of the Day for the Second Read-Act of that year was to remove the ncing read. THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND The Earl of DALHOUSIE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was a highly technical one, which he believed had the general approval of the Legal Bodies of Edinburgh, with the exception of the Society of Writers to the Signet, from whom he had received a telegram, only half an hour ago, intimating their disapproval. The Bill was proposed with the view of amending the Act of 1874. The 1st clause-and to the rest, he thought, no exception would be taken-was intended to limit the right of the superior in the form in which it was limited prior to 1874. According to the law of Scotland, among the casualties or incidental rights attaching to the ownership of land, or, as it was called, an estate of superiority, was first relief, which was a year's feu duty in addition to the ordinary feu duty, payable to a superior by the heir of a vassal on his succession to lands held in feu. The cessity for those deeds, and, apparently, to leave the pecuniary relations of superior and vassal as to casualties to stand as they would have done if the deeds had actually been executed. It provided that a proprietor with a duly completed title should be held, as at the date of registration, to be duly entered with his superior." It also provided that such implied entry should not entitle any superior to demand any casualty sooner than he could, either by the law prior to that Act or by the conditions of the feu right, have required the vassal to enter, or to pay such casualty irrespective of his entering. Those words negatived the view which was taken in some quarters, that the superior was intended to reap any pecuniary advantage from the change in the law mado by the Act of 1871. The practical effect of the "implied entry "introduced in 1874 had been largely to increase the rights of superiors. It had been judicially held that a singular successor was not now entitled any longer to put of Commons; indeed, so quietly, that very few persons in Scotland knew anything about it; and it was only in the House of Lords that effectual resistance could now be offered to it. The Bill was opposed by the Royal burghs of Edinburgh and Dundee, who were, to a very large extent, superiors of land, and they had borrowed money upon the security of the revenues which they derived from such land, and they now objected to a measure which would materially affect those revenues. He denied that the legal authorities in Scotland approved of the Bill as drafted; and, although the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh had doubtless approved of the principle of the Bill, yet they had sent up such a number of Amendments to it, that it would take a Committee several days to consider them. Beyond that, the Writers to the Signet had, by a very large majority, condemned the Bill. He main vassal, and so to delay the necessity for his own entering, and paying the year's rent during the lifetime of that heir. It did not appear that the right to tender an heir for entry was ever looked upon as a grievance, and, besides, there was nothing in the Statute of 1874 to show that this was in any way the theory of its powers. Clause 1 of the present Bill was intended to limit the right of the superior in the way in which it was limited prior to 1874. If an heir could be put forward, the singular successor was to be entitled to put him forward as he previously might have done; and the unforeseen effect of that statute, which had largely increased the superior's casualties, would now be removed, and he and the vassal be placed as regarded the payment of casualties on the footing on which they stood prior to that Act. It might be said that the singular successor had his own remedy under the Act of 1874, and might redeem or com-tained that the Act of 1874 was an mute his casualties as provided for under that Act. But that was not an answer to the argument that the result of the action of the statute in other respects had been to enhance the value of superiorities. If a proprietor by building had increased the value of his land by £2,000 or £3,000 per annum, the original feu duty being £40 or £50, he had now to pay the whole £2,000 or £3,000 as composition, where he would formerly have been able to put the heir of the last vassal forward, and to have satisfied the superior's legal claims by a payment of the £40 or £50. He thought that no exception was likely to be taken to the other clauses of the Bill, which he could assure their Lordships was a just and proper one, and one which he would ask them to read a second time. Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2" -The Earl of Da housie.) THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, in objecting to the Motion, said, that although the Bill had been describe as involving a technical legal subject, he was afraid that it would be found to have a most serious practical effect. The real effect of the measure was very important, as it would deprive the lords of the manor of their just rights and dues over a large portion of their estates, and to hand over to the purchasers that which they had not purchased. The measure had passed very quietly through the House equitable settlement, and that it was unjust that it should be disturbed now. He therefore asked their Lordships not to pass such a measure as this in the last few days of the Session. LORD WATSON said, that he certainly was not prepared to approve of the measure in its present form. He ventured to think that that Bill was not calculated to attain the ends which the Government had in view; but if certain portions of it were recast, and worded in a more precise manner, he should not offer any very great objection to its passing. The matter was one requiring very great consideration; and if that consideration could now have been given to it, he should not have been inclined to throw out the Bill. He would admit, with regard to the Act of 1874, that it contained some defects which required amendment; but in regard to a measure of that kind, coming before their Lordships at that time of the Session, it appeared to him to be utterly impracticablo either to acquire the information that was necessary for the purpose of such legislation, or to put the Bill into such a shape as would render it proper for their Lordships' House to pass it. THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL said, that a measure had been introduced in the other House by a private Member for dealing with that subject, which was felt to be one on which some legislation was needed. That THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL, in moving that the Bill be now read the third time, said, that the Colonial Office had received the assent of all the Colonies to the measure, except New South Wales. The answer of that Colony had not yet been received; but the Agent General had intimated that he would be satisfied if the Bill passed in its present form, with the understanding that New South Wales should not be included, and that, if ultimately it should be so desired, legislation dealing with the point should be introduced as stated by him the other day. measure was objected to by the present Law Officers for Scotland and also by the Law Officers of the late Government, and it was thought to be perfectly unworkable. Nevertheless, the second reading was carried in the other House; and the Lord Advocate himself, there- | fore, introduced a measure on the subject, which was approved by the Scotch Law Officers of the late Government, and which passed through the House of Commons. He thought that it could not, under the circumstances, be justly alleged that the Bill had been brought in in breach of any understanding come to in 1874. Its object was to make tho law what it was believed that Parliament had intended it should be. He said nothing now as to the difficulty of discussing its details at that period of the Session; but it seemed to him that that was a measure which had been quite fairly and properly introduced and passed through The Lord President of the Council, Earl Spencer.) the House of Commons, there being a consensus of opinion that it went in the direction of correcting an error which had crept into the legislation of 1874. It could not, therefore, be alleged, as had been the case, that it was an unjust Bill. THE DUKE OF ARGYLL briely replied. THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE said, he understood from the noble and learned Lord opposite Lord Watson that if Cause I was recast, and worded in a more precise manner, he should not take very great objection to the measure. He would admit that considerable opposition had been suddenly shown to the Bill by the Sxiety of Writers to the get and other important Bodies in Einburgh, Dundee, and other places, at the last moment; but he felt so far supported by the noble and learned Lord opposite, that he was greatly tempted to ask the House to read the Bill a send time, undertaking to obviate the ejection he had taken. Mored, "That the Bill be now read 3a." -The Lord Chancellor.) Motion agreed to; Bill read 3 accordingly, and passed. MEDICAL ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 155. COMMITTEE. House in Committee according to order). Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to, with an Amendment. Clause 7 Members of General Council). THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, in moving an Amendment to provide that the University of Aberdeen and the University of St. Andrew's should each be represented on the Medical Council by one member, instead of collectively sending one member, as was proposed, said, he must confess ho was very much astonished to find the Lord President of the Council treating the University of Aberdeen in tho way he had done, by linking it with St. Andrew's in sending a represen tative to the Medical Council. This was the only caso where the Universities were bracketed; while he found that the Bill proposed to give one membreach to the University of Durham On Question? Re'r d in the mega-ani Victoria University. It seemed to INTERNATIONAL AND COLONIAL him somewhat odd that the Victoria University of Manchester, which received its Charter in 1878, should have separate representation, and be taken out of its union with Durham University. By bracketing St. Andrew's and Aberdeen Universities, the last named founded in Order of the Day for the Thir1 Read-1491, a slight was thrown upon this The Lord Chancellər., THIRD READING |