MR. MELLOR said, he hoped the Bill would be sent to a Select Committee, and only wished to add to what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch that he was anxious to have a discussion as to the propriety of extending the Bill to the property of intestates. On this subject he had introduced a Bill last Session, but it was blocked, and he had been unable to obtain a discussion, and with the same object he had placed a Notice on the Paper that the Committee be instructed that they have power to extend the Bill to the disposal of land not devised by will, or included in a settlement; and he hoped that if he did not move this Motion to-night another opportunity would be given of raising the question. of this, that anybody who had tried his | in such a shape that it would pass this hand at legislation of what the hon. Session, and be one of the greatest imMember for Salford called a "more provements in the law on the subject comprehensive character," had felt the that the country had obtained for many extreme difficulty of the undertaking. years. This he would venture to say, for he had himself tried his hand at it, and had drafted Bills for the purpose, and he had always found the extreme difficulty in his way of in any way abolishing or limiting the power of settling real estate, unless, at the same time, you abolish or limit to the same extent the power of settling personal estate; and, so far as he could judge, he did not think public opinion would sanction or support any measure by which persons would be prevented from making provision for their wives or families on marriage or by will. In that being so was the extreme difficulty; and any conveyancer or lawyer would be able to defeat the best-drawn scheme by charging the real estate, with a sum of money, and settling it, or by vesting the real SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS said, he estates in trustees for sale. But he did was glad to have the views of the Atnot consider that because he was an torney General on this matter. He was advocate of a more drastic way of not going to say that this was the only dealing with the subject he was pre-reform that could be made, far from it; cluded from giving his support to this Bill. COLONEL ALEXANDER said, as the Bill was applicable to Scotland, he hoped that Scotland would be represented on the Committee by Members from both sides of the House. Care was always taken to include Irish Members on every Committee, but Scotland was as often neglected; he, therefore, felt it his duty to say that he should oppose the nomination of any Committee that did not contain a proper proportion of Scotch Members. MR. H. H. FOWLER said, he must dissent from the views expressed by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold). The Bill was a very wise and a very safe step in the direction of Land Law Reform, and he was surprised that the House of Lords had passed so sweeping a measure as this was, with respect to the power it proposed to give to tenants for life of settled estates. Though the Bill did not go to the extreme in altering the Law of Settlement, it went, as the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch said, as far as public opinion was prepared to go. When the Bill had gone through the ordeal of a Select Committee, he hoped it might emerge Mr. Horace Davey but he was quite sure that it was a substantial reform, and that it was actually wanted. It would be unwise to object to the passing of a Bill of this kind, because it failed to remedy all the defects in the law on the subject, for it did remove a great many of those blots so often charged against it by owners of land. No doubt the Bill would meet a great many of the difficulties which had to be dealt with, for it would enable the limited owner to act much as the real owner would for the benefit of the estate. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill objected that it did not form a settlement of the question; but it was largely so, and he could not help thinking that when the Bill came into the Committee, of which he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be a Member, it would be found that the reform was a very great one, and ought to be accepted. He agreed with many of the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. H. Davey), as well as those from the Attorney General, and he was quite sure that the Bill would not only enable holders of land who were limited owners to do all that owners in fee ought to do, but it would have this practical effect, SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS explained that no Members had yet been appointed. The names would be put down to-night for dealing with both Bills. THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) said, with reference to the suggestion which had been made that the Bill should be extended to Scotland, that no later than yesterday a Bill ap in the House of Lords, not only containing conversion clauses similar to those occurring in this Bill, but also provisions for disentailing. that a larger amount of land would be thrown into the market than was the case at the present moment. His hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Colonel Alexander) expressed a desire that Scotch Members should be nominated on the Committee; but the misfortune was that, owing to the peculiar tenure of the land there, this Bill did not apply to Scotland at all, and the hon. and gal-plicable to Scotland had been introduced lant Member would see from the 1st clause that it did not extend to Scotland. It might be wise, perhaps, to extend a similar measure to Scotland; but this Bill did not propose it, and he hoped that that objection would not be pressed. He only hoped the Bill would be referred Motion made, and Question, "That to a Select Committee at once; that the the Bill be committed to the Select Committee would sit as soon as possible, Committee on the Conveyancing Bill," and that during the Session the measure(Sir R. Assheton Cross,)-put, and might pass. He could only say to the agreed to. observations of the hon. Member opposite as to the Bill of last Session that if he would again bring it forward he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would do his best, so far as he had any influence, to obtain for it a fair discussion. MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD said, he desired to explain that, in his first objection, he had quoted the words used by the present Lord Chancellor himself. MR. LABOUCHERE said, he trusted the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee, and that full opportunity would be given to consider the names of those nominated to serve thereon, because if he did not find among those names that of his Colleague in the representation of Northampton, who had much spare time, and who had a perfect legal right to sit on any Committee of the House, he should add his name to the nominations, and take the sense of the House upon it. SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS said, he did not wish to touch on the last question raised; the hon. Member could take any course he thought proper; but perhaps the proper course now would be to withdraw the Motion actually before the House, and move that the Bill be referred to the same Committee that should be appointed for the Conveyancing Bill. MR. LABOUCHERE rose to Order. Was the Committee to be settled by arrangement between the two Front Benches without the House knowing the names of the Committee? He wished to raise the question of the appointment of his Colleague. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. (Mr. VAGRANCY BILL.-[BILL 62.] Pell, Mr. John Talbot, Mr. Bryce, Mr. SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Pell.) MR. DODSON said, he had had some communication with his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) in regard to this Bill. The Government could not accept the Bill in the form in which it stood; but he had suggested to his hon. Friend certain Amendments, and if he would agree to their insertion, the Government would assent to the second reading, with the understanding that the Bill should afterwards be committed pro fo má, to receive the Amendments proposed by the Government. It was not necessary to detain the House then with any further observations. MR. PELL said, he was in hopes that the right hon. Gentleman would, though the hour was late, have mentioned the nature of the changes be proposed should be adopted. They were important; one especially, which touched a principle of the Bill-namely, the removal of the demoralizing distinction the law draws between the class termed tramps and ordinary paupers. In accepting the proposal, he could not do so without observing that he thought they were losing sight of a very mischievous N 2 state of things which now existed. We had in our country something like 40,000 or 50,000 persons who, under the invidious term of " tramps" or "vagrants," were treated in a very different way from other destitute persons. In our workhouses as little as possible was given them to maintain life for a few hours; the next morning all the work that could be got out of them was exacted, and then they were dismissed with the certainty that they could not get through the day without some offence against the law; and they passed on to the next workhouse, miserable examples of cruel, impolitic, un-Christian, barbarous treatment. The Government said, if the 4th clause were removed, the Bill could go forward. Now, a great deal had been said about centralization; and over and over again it had been asserted by heads of Departments, and especially by the heads of the Local Government Board, that nothing was more mischievous than the exercise of a centralizing authority. Here, however, in reference to this particular portion of the Bill, while the opinions of Boards of Guardians throughout the country had been taken, and they, after mature deliberation, and on their own experience as local authorities-small, perhaps, but important were almost unanimous in removing this degrading distinction, the central authority-the Local Government Board-stepped in and set local opinion at nought. There were one or two other matters in which the Government required modifications, though they were not so important as the point to which he had referred; and with the objections to the 6th clause he would not now trouble the House. He was prepared to accept the offer of the Governmentthankful for small mercies, and a step in the right direction; and if it was the pleasure of the House, he would ask that the Bill be now read a second time. MR. CROPPER said, he was glad to find that the Local Government Board had accepted the Bill. One important feature in the measure was, that Boards of Guardians would be enabled to detain travelling vagrants for a longer time-a useful provision, that would enable Guardians to exercise some deterring influence over vagrancy. Other portions of the Bill would be best discussed in Committee; and he should be glad to see it passed, in the belief that it Mr. Pell would have a good effect throughout the country. MR. BRYCE said, he regretted that the President of the Local Government Board could not accept the Bill in the form in which it was introduced; but the particular Amendments which the Government proposed to make were matters for discussion in Committee. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire that the Bill was better in its present form than in that to which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to cut it down. But, at the same time, as an instalment, it was valuable; and it was worth while to accept even this modification in the treatment of vagrants. He hoped his hon. Friend would bring in his Bill again next year, and persevere in his attempt until something considerable was done in the direction which the Bill indicated. MR. J. G. TALBOT said, it was the misfortune that there seemed to be no discussion upon anything save that which had relation to Ireland. There was an opportunity for a discussion of this Bill some 14 days ago, on a Wednesday afternoon; but, since then, the condition of things had become intensified, and there was still less prospect of a discussion. In the result, the House was now asked to give assent to the second reading of a Bill on a subject to which many Members, irrespective of political Parties, had given considerable attention, and with which Bill they were not thoroughly acquainted, while, at the same time, they were told the Bill was to be considerably amended, he might almost say emasculated, in Committee. Really, he did not know what the Bill was to which they were asked to give a second reading. Of course, he agreed in the maxim, "that half a loaf was better than no bread;" but he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not give some indication of the alterations he proposed, rather than leave to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire the task of mutilating his own offspring. He, with the faltering voice a parent would naturally adopt under such circumstances, told the House of important changes he was bound to accept in Committee. He (Mr. J. G. Talbot) would only now say that he regretted exceedingly that a Bill which seemed to be a moderate and, presumably, an useful alteration of the law, should be turned into a mild, he might | improvements, they made no consideralmost say an inefficient, attempt to able alteration in the substance of the deal with a great question. At that hour Bill. he would not detain the House beyond saying that he gave his unwilling assent to the second reading of this emasculated Bill, and he hoped that next year a more efficient attempt would be made to deal with the subject. Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday. COMMONABLE RIGHTS BILL. CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS. Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered." MR. WARTON said, he wished to call attention to the position in which the House stood with regard to this Bill. They had not the Bill as it was printed by the Lords, and they had a Paper of Lords' Amendments, which even in the paging did not correspond with the Bill. He, therefore, objected most strongly that they should be asked to go on with a measure in which they did not even know the effect of the Lords' Amendments they were asked to agree to. He had the greatest respect for the House of Lords-more, perhaps, than was entertained by hon. Members on the other side; but here was the absurd position-the House was asked to leave out something on page 4, and the Bill had no page 4 in it. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." -(Mr. Warton.) MR. WARTON said, he was under no mistake, and within the last few minutes he had been in the Vote Office. Perhaps the hon. Member had an opportunity of getting a copy of the Bill not open to all. No doubt the hon. Member had a sufficient copy before him; but he (Mr. Warton) had something else, and he repeated that in this something else there was no page 4. Question put. - Ayes 16; The House divided: Noes 38: Majority 22.- (Div. List, No. 115.) Original Question put, and agreed to. Page 3, line 6, leave out the word "Enclosure," the first Amendment, read a second time. MR. WARTON said, he rose to Order. Would the Amendments be read by the Clerk and considered en bloc, or would they be taken separately? MR. SPEAKER: Each Amendment will be considered by itself. Does the hon. and learned Member object to the Amendment? MR. WARTON said, he did so. Looking to the reference and then to the Bill, he did not find in line 6, on page 3, the word " enclosure" appearing at all, and he was quite unable to see how they could consider the omission of a word from a line where it had no existence. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had given an assurance, which, no doubt, could be relied on, that these Amendments were all right; but, right or wrong, he (Mr. Warton) took the course of objecting to proceeding to vote without having proper information as to what they were doing. It was absurd in the face of the country to do such things. How could the word be left out of the line when there was no such word in? He begged leave to object to the Amendment, and would take the sense of the House upon it. MR. BRYCE said, the hon. and learned Member must be under some mistake. He held a copy of the Bill in his hand, and there certainly was a page 4 in it. The Lords' Amendments were simple and short, the Paper contained a sufficient reference to the places where the Amendments came in, and he did not think that any hon. Member, with the Bill and the Paper before him, would have any difficulty in seeing the effect of the Amendments. They were The House proceeded to a Division. tremely simple, they offered not the Mr. WARTON was appointed one of least difficulty, and, while they were the Tellers for the Noes, but no Mem ex Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." ber appearing to be a second Teller, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present, Subsequent Amendments agreed to. QUESTIONS. 10001 EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS.) MR. M.COAN asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the event of the Porte declining to take part in the Conference on Egyptian affairs, the Conference will still be MR. WARTON said, he desired one held; and, in case it be not held, wheparting observation. He did not object ther the English and French Governto the addition of the Schedule, for how-ments will enforce compliance with the ever imperfect a Bill might be, it must terms of their recent joint requisition to have an end somewhere; but how the Egyptian Ministry, or, failing the Amendments could be made on a page 4 active co-operation of France, Her Mathat had no existence he did not under-jesty's Government will themselves take stand. Schedule agreed to. CORN RETURNS (NO. 2) BILL. On Motion of Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Bill to amend the Law respecting the obtaining of Corn Returns, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHAMBERLAIN and Mr. JOHN HOLMS. the necessary military measures to put down the revolutionary movement and restore the status quo in Egypt? The Question appeared in the Paper that day instead of yesterday, in consequence of a clerical error, and if more convenient to the hon. Baronet, he would postpone it till to-morrow. MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD said, that Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 193.] before his hon. Friend replied he wished to put a Question to him with reference to a despatch from Sir Edward Malet. The following words were used in the despatch: SETTLEMENT AND REMOVAL LAW AMEND MENT BILL. On Motion of Mr. DODSON, Bill to amend the Law of Settlement and Removal, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON and Mr. HIB "The first idea which has occurred to us all is that the ex-Khedive, Prince Halim, and the Porte itself are behind the scenes. It is impossible to prove that they are not." He wished to ask, Whether the Foreign Office were in possession of any information upon that subject? SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I must answer the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) in the negative. I may point out that the extract referred to is from a despatch of September last, and does not apply to the present circumstances. With regard to the Question that stands upon the Paper, I fear I must refer my hon. Friend (Mr. M'Coan) to the reply I gave on Monday to the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench for the public interest that I should at opposite (Mr. Bourke). It would not be the present time make any further statement, or discuss the matter referred to in the Question, relating as it does to a serious and delicate matter, one which it is not easy to discuss in answer to a Question. SIR WILFRID LAWSON: The hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State |