an opportunity of expressing an opinion | Accounts Committee, to support what on it, he would move the adjournment had fallen from the right hon. and of the debate. He did not move it in a learned Gentleman the Secretary of hostile spirit, as he trusted the right hon. State for the Home Department. He and learned Gentleman would be able to (Sir Henry Holland) himself must plead show him that there was nothing sinister guilty to having urged very strongly in the Bill; but he took that course as a upon the Government the desirability protest against the measure having been of bringing in the Bill this Session. brought forward at that late period of The question had been for years before the Session. They ought to be told why them, and it was really very important, it had not been dealt with at an ear- although the sums dealt with were very lier period of the Session, and why it small. was now being carried hurriedly through another stage without description or explanation. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." -(Mr. J. G. Talbot.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he could assure the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Talbot) that the Government had no sinister motive in bringing forward that Bill. The Bill was one which had been long desired. It had been recommended by the Public Accounts Committee for several years, and it would supply a necessity which had long been felt. The truth was, that the Prison Commissioners came in as successors to trustees of prison charities, which properly belonged to the local authorities. There had been no regular or recognized way of dealing with a number of, generally speaking, very small bequests left in connection with the prisons, and considerable difficulty in dealing with the accounts had been experienced through the charities not. having been brought under a regular form of administration. This had been a real difficulty, and it had been pointed out over and over again by the Commissioners themselves. The matter was not on a satisfactory footing, and it was deemed desirable that a scheme should be prepared for dealing with these bequests. He hoped the hon. Member would consider this a satisfactory expla nation of the objects with which the Bill had been prepared. No doubt, it was inconvenient for the Bill to be brought in at that period of the Session; but it must be borne in mind that the measure was not of a controversial character, nor of any great magnitude. It was only a simple piece of legislative reform. SIR HENRY HOLLAND said, that he wished, as a Member of the Public Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Original Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he hoped that, under the circumstances, seeing that the House was satisfied, and had passed the Bill through Committee without Amendment, that hon. Members would now allow it to be read a third time. Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time,". (Secretary Sir William Harcourt,)—put, and agreed to. Bill read the third time, and passed. EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) MR. CALLAN said, that in the Schedule he saw the Sale of Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill continued. There was an Order relating to this subject on the Paper; but he (Mr. Callan) supposed that to-morrow that Order would be read and discharged, so that those interested in the subject would not be kept waiting in the House. MR. STUART WORTLEY said, that there was a Bill in the Schedule which referred to Locomotives on Roads, and he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to go on with it this Session? The Bill would have the effect of removing_restrictions from locomotives on roads. Locomotives had become dangerous in many parts of the country, and the public would be glad to hear that the subject was not lost sight of by the Government. MR. HIBBERT said, it was not intended to deal with the question during the present Session, though it was deemed desirable to do so on some future occasion. The Government would attempt to deal with it next year. House resumed. Bill reported, without Amendment. MR. HIBBERT said, that perhaps the House would be inclined to read the Bill a third time. MR. HIBBERT said, he thought the Amendment was unnecessary. MR. J. G. TALBOT said, he could not understand the hon. Gentleman's objection, if he agreed to the object being carried out; especially as every Statute must be interpreted by its words, and not by the meaning which its promoters conceived it to have. MR. HIBBERT said, that this was a matter entirely for the Lord Chancellor, upon whom the Statute would be bindMR. CALLAN said, he objected, asing by regulations to be signed hereon the third reading many questions might arise which it would be desirable to discuss. Bill to be read the third time To morrow. LUNACY REGULATION AMENDMENT (Mr. Hibbert.) CONSIDERATION. Bill, as amended, considered. after. MR. J. G. TALBOT thought it would be better to put these words in the Bill, so that all the world might know what was intended. Question put. The House divided:-Ayes 9; Noes 53: Majority 42.-(Div. List, No. 325.) Bill read the third time, and passed. COUNTY COURTS (ADVOCATES' COSTS) MR. HIBBERT said, the purpose of (Mr. Hastings, Sir Eardley Wilmot, Mr. Staveley the Bill was to provide that lunatics should be visited at least twice in every year, and that every lunatic resident in a private asylum should be visited four times each year in the next two years. The effect of that regulation would be that, for the first two years, each lunatic would be visited four times in each year, and in subsequent years twice. MR. WARTON said, he was not satisfied with the present position of the matter. The Bill was brought forward with the understanding that, if the number of visits was reduced from four, those lunatics who now received one visit, should receive two. He wished to make it certain that there should be two visits; and, for that purpose, he should move, at the end of Clause 4, to add "And the said section shall be construed as if the word 'twice' had been inserted therein instead of the word 'once.' Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 6, to add at the end the words "and the said section shall be construed as if the word 'twice' had been inserted therein instead of the word 'once.'"-(Mr. Warton.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." MR. J. G. TALBOT hoped the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hibbert) had no objection to this Amendment. Hill, Mr. Rowley Hill.) CONSIDERATION. Bill, as amended, considered. MR. WARTON said, when the Bill was before the House on a previous occasion, he objected to the title as objectionable, because it implied that the solicitors employed were advocates. MR. SPEAKER: If the House thinks fit to alter the title, it can do so at the last stage. MR. WARTON wished to move that the title be altered from County Courts Costs to Salaries Bill. Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," Mr. H. G. Allen,)—put, and agreed to. Bill read the third time, and passed. BILLS OF SALE ACT (1878) AMENDMENT CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS. MR. STUART - WORTLEY asked, whether the hon. and learned Gentlemen the Attorney General and the Solicitor General approved of the Lords first Amendment? MR. MONK, in reply, said, he regretted that the House of Lords had made the Amendment; but it was accepted by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Bramwell, and Lord Cairns. Amendment agreed to. Consequential Amendment, in page 2, line 16, leave out "enumerated," and insert "specifically described," agreed to. Lords Amendment, in line 29, after "taxes," insert— (5.) If execution shall have been levied against the goods of the grantor under any judgment at law." MR. MONK, in moving a Consequential Amendment to the foregoing Amendment of the Lords, said, its object was that, in case an execution had been put in on goods of the grantor, in consequence of non-payment of an instalment, that should not be done a few hours after the money had become due; but that the grantor should be empowered, within five days, to apply to the High Court, or to a Judge, to stop execution, on being satisfied that the debt had been paid. Consequential Amendment proposed, to add "Provided that the grantor may within five days from the seizure or taking possession of any chattels on account of any of the abovementioned causes, apply to the High Court, or to a judge thereof in chambers, and such court or judge, if satisfied that by payment of money or otherwise the said cause of seizure no longer exists, may restrain the grantee from removing or selling the said chattels, or may make such other order as may seem just."-(Mr. Monk.) Question proposed, "That those words be there added." MR. WARTON said, that was about the coolest Consequential Amendment he had ever heard of. It appeared that they had to pass the Bill exactly as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) desired it-in a most hurried way-a Biil which was most wretchedly drawn. It seemed as though the hon. Member wanted to pass something this Session; he did not care what. The measure had been absolutely emasculated-the object for which it had been introduced had been lost, and he could not look the Amendment as at all consequential. upon MR. H. H. FOWLER said, he would venture to point out to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), that not only was the Amendment absolutely necessary in the in terests of justice, but that it had received the careful attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James), at whose request it had been brought forward. MR. WARTON: Oh; that is a different matter. Question put, and agreed to. Amendment, as amended, agreed to. Amendment, in page 2, line 38, leave out from "sale" to the end of the Clause, and insert "Made or given by way of security for the payment of money by the grantee thereof shall form in the schedule to this Act annexed." be void unless made in accordance with the MR. WHITLEY said, that was a very serious alteration indeed, and it appeared to him to require some consideration. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James), he knew, attached great importance to the part struck out when the Bill was before the Commons, and he (Mr. Whitley) personally also attached great importance to it. They had taken great pains to guard against bills of sale being executed, except with the fullest knowledge that could be brought to bear upon the matter by the person giving the bill of sale. In order to do that, they said that the solicitor of the person borrowing should be present at the time of the transaction; but the Lords had struck out the provision, and the person who gave the bill of sale was consequently in the hands of the moneylender altogether. If the Bill passed as amended by the Lords, it would be competent for the man borrowing money to go to the money-lender's office, where the money-lender's clerk might attest the document, the man who was principally interested being possibly an illiterate person, knowing nothing at all as to the nature of that which he had signed. He (Mr. Whitley) felt so persuaded of the importance of this Amendment that he should move its rejection. solicitor. Money-lenders, it was found, could keep a certificated solicitor at a salary to attest bills of sale. person about to borrow money, and giving a bill of sale, should do it in the presence of a properly certificated solicitor. If the Amendment were agreed to, and Clause 9A, proposed by their Lordships, was put in, to allow a bill of sale to be given by anybody, it might be that a poor wretch, for the sake of a shilling, would be very glad to witness it-in fact, to witness anything. He (Mr. Warton) never in his life knew such a backward step as that to be taken. He was in favour of reasonable reforms, but not to such an alteration as this. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present, Question put, and negatived. Amendment proposed to the said Amendment, to leave out "grantee" and insert "grantor." Amendment agreed to. Amendment, as amended, agreed to. Amendment, in page 3, after Clause 9, insert the following Clause : "(9A.) The execution of every bill of sale by the grantor shall be attested by one or more credible witness or witnesses, not being a party or parties thereto. So much of Section 10 of the principal Act as requires that the execution of every bill of sale shall be attested by a solicitor of the Supreme Court, and that the attestation shall state that before the execution of the bill of sale the effect thereof has been explained to the grantor by the attesting witness, is hereby repealed." pro MR. WARTON said, he would pose to amend the Amendment of their Lordships by leaving out, in line 2, the words" one or more credible witness or witnesses," in order to insert the words a certificated solicitor." Amendment proposed to the Lords said Amendment, In line 2, after the word "by," leave out one or more credible witness or witnesses," and insert "a certificated solicitor." (Mr. Warton.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment." MR. H. H. FOWLER said, he hoped the House would agree to the proposed Amendment of the House of Lords. The Committee who sat to consider this question found it a perfect farce to insist upon the attestation of a certificated Mr. Warton Question put, and agreed to. Amendment, in page 4, line 19, leave out "eighth and twentieth sections," and insert "twentieth section." MR. WHITLEY said, he did not think the House considered the changes that had been made in the Bill. The clause, which it was proposed to strike out, was very carefully considered by the Select Committee, which sat for weeks, and ultimately it was agreed that a bill of sale made within 12 months was good. By striking out this clause all bills of sale would be absolutely void in bankruptcy. The consequences would be very serious indeed, and he had no hesitation in saying that in Lancashire, where hundreds of thousands of pounds were lent on machinery, if this Amendmentbrought before them at 3 o'clock in the would be to ruin a great many people. morning-were agreed to, the effect of it Those who were the guardians of the commercial interests of the country ought to pause before they passed a thing of this nature. At present thousands of pounds were lent in this way, and no man would be safe if the Amendment were accepted. He would move that the Amendment be rejected. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."(Mr. Whitley.) MR. H. H. FOWLER said, he wished of "Agreed!"] No; the question was to say a word on this matter. [Cries not one to be decided in an off-hand manner. This was said to be a matter of great importance to commercial men. Up to 1878, property in the order and disposition of a bankrupt was not affected; but in that year the Legisla ture thought fit to repeal the then existing law, and the evidence given before the Committee was to the effect that that repeal had given an enormous impetus to granting fraudulent bills of sale. The Order and Disposition Clause, being repealed, had increased fraudulent bills of sale. The House of Lords, it seemed, had gone back to what was the law up to 1878; and he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) thought that was a great improvement. | moted; but no officer of Marines was Speaking on behalf of the Chamber of mentioned in The Gazette. He trusted Commerce of Wolverhampton, he could that the Marine officers who had distinsay there was no change commercial guished themselves would receive some men were so anxious to see carried out mark of Her Majesty's approbation. as this. Question put, and agreed to. Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to an Amendment made by The Lords to "The Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Bill: "Mr. MONK, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER, and Mr. BARRAN:-Three to be the quorum :To withdraw immediately. Reason for disagreeing to The Lords Amendment reported, and agreed to:To be communicated to the Lords. MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir; the Board of Admiralty have made certain promotions in the Royal Marines, in well-deserved recognition of their gallant services in the action of the 11th of July. The right hon. and gallant Admiral is aware that such promotions are sent to The London Gazette by the War Office, and the necessity of thus communicating through another Department has caused a slight delay, and consequently they have not been published at the same time as the other promotions. I am obliged to my right hon. and gallant Friend for enabling me to state this circumstance, as there might otherwise have been some temporary feeling of disappointment. House adjourned at half EGYPT-THE SUEZ CANAL-PASSAGE after Three o'clock. OF ENGLISH SHIPS. COLONEL BARNE asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it was true, as stated in The Standard, that captains of British Men of War had orders from the Admiralty not to escort ships through the Suez Canal, whereas German men of war escorted ships of their own nationality through the Canal? MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have not had time to see The Standard of this morning; perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give Notice of that Question. ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL. MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he intended to proceed with the Ancient Monuments Bill, which was the First Order of the Day? He also asked, whether the hon. Gentleman would state, on the second reading, the grounds which had induced the Government to bring in such a measure? MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in reply, said, it was not intended to proceed with the Bill that day; but it would certainly be proceeded with on Thursday or Friday. He would then make a statement on the subject; but he believed the hon. Gentleman himself was the only Member of the House who opposed the Bill. MR. WARTON: No, no, |