the Members for Dublin-that he would carefully examine the working of a practical scheme for extending the Bill to Ireland; and that unless he should find himself encountered by serious difficulties, he should at a future stage propose to adapt the provisions of the measure so as to permit the issue of similar certificates in Ireland to those which were intended for England. He should be very ready to give any further explanations that might be required in Committee. MR. HUNT thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his able and lucid statement, which was certainly much needed, if, as he believed, very few Members had read the clauses of the Bill. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that great advantage would be derived from the operation of the measure. The risk of forgery would, he thought, be very slight; but a considerable amount of fraud might arise in the case of joint holders, and the House could not be too careful in its precautions for the prevention of improper dealing with trust funds. Upon this point, indeed, his apprehensions were so great, that he should be glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. It was true that the 4th clause provided that no trustee should apply for or hold certificates of title, unless the power was expressly given in the trust deed; but that would be only what might be termed a "hobgoblin clause,' because the same clause provided that the Bank of England should not be bound to inquire whether a person applying for a certificate was or was not a trustee, nor be liable to any consequences, nor was the certificate, if granted, invalid. Breaches of trust were committed every day by investments in railway shares and other securities of that kind, and he was afraid that under the Bill, as it stood, the objects of trusts would not be sufficiently protected. In the case of a trust consisting of three or four persons only, one of them could hold the certificates to bearer, and consequently the whole power of dealing with the stock would be placed in that individual. Again, where all the joint holders but one had died, the survivor, on proving the death of the others, would be entitled under the Bill to have the certificates in his own name. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to the experience of the Bank of France; but we had no means of knowing whether in France trust monies were invested in public stocks to the same extent as in this country. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER explained, that he had referred to the experience of the Bank of France with respect to forgery, not with respect to fraud. MR. HUNT wished to put another case. If a man took out stock certificates, he might dispose of them on his death bed. He did not suppose that legacy duty would apply to such a case; and he thought that was a point to be guarded against. When the Bill was being considered in Committee, great care must be taken to guard against frauds as regarded trust funds. MR. MALINS expressed his unqualified approbation of the Bill, which, in his opinion, would not give rise to those dangers which his hon. Friend, who had just addressed the House, seemed to apprehend. He would suggest whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer might not effect another improvement in regard to stock. He thought that a great deal of trouble and annoyance with respect to dividends might be saved, if the same rule were adopted at the Bank of England with regard to dividend warrants that was in practice with the railway companies - namely, that they should be sent by post to the persons entitled to them. At present a man could only receive his dividends by applying personally at the Bank for them, or by giving a power of attorney; whereas if a man held railway stock, his bankers could receive the dividends for him. He thought the right hon. Gentleman, in concert with his hon. Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. K. D. Hodgson), the Governor of the Bank of England, might adopt a system by which the person entitled to dividends at the Bank might, on putting his name down in a book at that establishment, have his warrants sent to him. MR. KIRKMAN D. HODGSON said, that the Bank of England had been in communication with the Bank of France, and they had been assured that the amount of frauds in France, to which the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) had referred, was so small as to be scarcely ap preciable. He thought it clear that there would be no greater chance of frauds by trustees after this Bill passed than there was at the present moment. With regard to the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), there were many indirect modes of getting what he wanted. He could assure his hon. and learned Friend, that if no Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 100.] TELEGRAPHS BILL-[BILL 78.] THIRD READING. Order for Third Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."-(Mr. Milner Gibson.) he opened an account at the Bank of House resumed. invested in its funds. Motion agreed to. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to. a Clause 4 (Restriction as to Trustees taking Certificates of Title). MR. HUNT said, that the Bill provided that trustees who were guilty of breach of trust should be "punishable according ly." He wished to know what was intended to be the effect of these words. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE any LORD ALFRED CHURCHILL moved an Amendment, that the Bill be read a He did so third time that day six months. upon the ground that the House had confined themselves to the discussion of the details only, and had not discussed the principle of the measure. He believed this Bill was founded upon the United Kingdom Telegraph Companies Act, and because it was so similar to that Act he had not attempted to raise discussion upon the principle of this Bill; but he was sorry to find that during its passage through the House it had been so mutilated that it would restrict the operations of the Company-which was intended to establish cheap, or people's telegraphs, as they might be called, throughout the country-with which he was connected, and it would virtually affirm the monopoly obtained by the other telegraph companies. He believed the Amendments made in this Bill had been promoted by the agents of the other companies, who had stated that the provisions of the United Kingdom Telegraph Companies Act enabled the directors to pass through drawing-rooms, and over property of the most private kind, in the hope of defeating the operations of the company. Their Act did not enable them to go over private property, but to pass along public roads, and for doing that the company had to pay their share of the highway and poor rates. The wires so much complained of by the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir John Shelley) were the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. J. C. erected by the company presided over by Ewart), and the United Kingdom Tele The QUER said, that trustees were liable to make good whatever breaches of trust they might be guilty of. In certain cases also a breach of trust was punishable by in-graph Company had not interfered with the hon. Baronet's property at Preston. would virtually repeal the provisions of provisions of the Bill before the House the United Kingdom Telegraph Companies Act, which was passed only last year, after dictment as a criminal offence, and it was to that class of cases the words alluded to by the hon. Member applied. Clause agreed to. Remaining Clauses, with Amendments, being fully examined by a Committee of agreed to. each House of Parliament and opposed by the other companies. This measure was in a very crude and imperfect state, and before leaving that House it ought to be amended. He would instance the 10th clause, which enacted that no telegraph line should pass within ten yards of a dwelling-house, which might be construed to mean a small country lodge or a factory. He thought the law in reference to telegraph lines should be assimilated in the same way as the law in regard to railways, and that the whole of the Acts of telegraph companies should be consolidated by consideration in reference to a Committee of the Whole House. Instead of passing the Bill, the Government should bring in another, placing telegraphs under the control of the Board of Trade. SIR FREDERIC SMITH seconded the Amendment. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months." Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." MR. F. S. POWELL said, that the advice tendered by the noble Lord, that the House should obey the dictates of a Committee upstairs, was entirely in keeping with what were said to be the tactics of the telegraph companies upstairs. As for the companies being earwigged, as the phrase was, by Members of Parliament, he certainly thought that the earwigging, if there had been any, was quite the other way. If the Bill were imperfect, it was competent to the noble Lord to move any Amendments he thought necessary; but that was no reason why the Bill should not now be read a third time; and he felt sure that the House would not regret the labour it had spent upon it. The SIR FREDERIC SMITH said, he was connected with no company, cheap or dear, but he was in favour of cheap com. panies rather than dear, because he thought they were favourable to commerce. cheap companies, he thought, would bring down the prices of dear ones. He should vote for the noble Lord's Motion if he went into the lobby. MR. MILNER GIBSON believed, that while various useful Amendments had been introduced relating to procedure, the principle of the Bill remained unchanged. That principle was to afford protection against private property being interfered with without the consent of the owner, and MR. LYGON said, he had the honour of serving on the Select Committee to which the Act was referred, which this Bill proposed to amend, and he thought it due to the House that some explanation should be given of the necessity for amendment. SIR GEORGE GREY said, there was no Member of the Government present who could explain it. LORD ROBERT CECIL said, that the second reading of a Bill should not be moved in the absence of the Member of the Government who had charge of it, as the Government would be open to the obvious interpretation that they took the chance of getting a Bill through without opposition. SIR GEORGE GREY said, that notice of opposition was required; and if notice had been given, he should not have moved the second reading but he had no objection to adjourn the debate. : MR. LYGON said, that the title of the Bill indicated that it was a matter of some complexity. Second Reading deferred till To-morrow. BOROUGH RESIDENCE UNIFORM [BILL 60.] COMMITTEE PUT OFF. MR. VANCE said, that in the absence of the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Collins), he desired that the Committee should be postponed. ["No, no!"] There was an understanding with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. E. P. Bouverie) that it should not be | borough if the Motion for rejecting his Bill brought on. "No, no!"] Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill." MR. M CANN moved that the Order be discharged. MR. DENMAN seconded the Motion. He felt that the House had not been treated with courtesy in being kept there the whole evening upon some understand ing between two Members, that if the Bill came on after a certain hour, it was to be discussed; and if before a certain hour, it was to be postponed. He knew there was a strong feeling on the part of seve ral hon. Members that the Bill had been allowed to pass through its previous stages as it were, per incuriam, and that it did no credit to the House. Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Order for the Committee on the said Bill be discharged," instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." were in his absence persevered with. MR. KNATCHBULL HUGESSEN denied that those on his side the House were acting in a way which could fairly be regarded as discourteous. It was a more discourteous proceeding to put a Bill down for discussion, and to leave the question of whether it should come on or not to depend upon the circumstance whether its supporters happened or not to have come back from dinner. He asked the hon. Member for Knaresborough yesterday whether he meant to bring in his Bill to-night, and he distinctly replied "Yes." The Bill had been read a second time; and it was highly disrespectful to the House to say, that if an hon. Member happened to come down to the House after dinner in time, the Bill should go on; but if not, that it should not. SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY moved the adjournment of the debate. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." MR. WHITESIDE thought there had been some slight mistake in the matter. the Member for Kilmarnock, who was to He understood the right hon. Gentleman oppose the Bill, had been consulted, and that there was an understanding it should not come on before ten. It could not be expected that the Naval Medical Supplemental Fund Society Winding-up Act (1861) Amendment Bill, would have been so speedily disposed of. SIR GEORGE GREY was of opinion that some explanation was due to the House from the hon. Member for Knaresborough (who had now entered the House) on the subject. If he had intimated to his Friends on the other side of the House that the Bill would not come on that evening, then it was rather a want of courtesy not to have given a similar intimation to other hon. Members who were opposed to the measure. MR. VANCE believed that the present was the first occasion that advantage had been taken of the absence of an hon. Member who had charge of it to endeavour to discharge a Bill which had been only once under discussion. There was a distinct arrangement between himself and the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, who was to lead the Opposition to it, that it should not come on before ten o'clock; and he certainly did not think hon. Members opposite were acting with courtesy in adopting the course which they were pursuing in the absence of the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Collins), who he knew would be in his place had he thought it probable the Government business would have terminated so soon. He trusted hon. Members would not persist in pressing a Motion which, if MR. COLLINS (who spoke amid much carried, would bring discredit on the pro-interruption) said, he did not exactly know ceedings of the House. ["Oh, oh!"] at what stage the proceedings had arrived. MR. HUNT thought, that considering He might, however, state that it was his the course which had been taken with re-intention that the Bill should come on that spect to the Bill which stood upon the paper immediately before that under discussion (the Naval Medical Supplemental Fund Society Winding-up Bill, which had been deferred), it would be dealing out but scant courtesy to the hon. Member for Knares SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY said, he had been distinctly informed that the Bill would not come on till after ten o'clock. evening. He, at the same time, knowing that it was a Government night, and not expecting that the Government business would be finished so early, had not deemed it necessary, having been occupied elsewhere, to come into the House before ten or eleven o'clock. It was, indeed, somewhat | ed. He would suggest that that Motion extraordinary that the programme laid should be withdrawn and that the hon. down by the Government should have been Member for Drogheda (Mr. M'Cann) should exhausted by half past nine. He recol- also withdraw his Motion for discharging lected no previous instance in which so the order, and then they could discuss the formidable a programme had been so speed- Motion for going into Committee. The ily disposed of. [Cries of "Question!"] hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. ColHe would be heard, and hon. Members lins) seemed to be annoyed at the course might, therefore, call out "Question!" as that had been taken, but it was he who long as they pleased. Such a mode of was to blame. It was unprecedented that transacting Government business as that to an hon. Member should complain that a which he was adverting was most incon- Bill of which he had charge had come on venient, inasmuch as it gave Ministers a at an unusually early hour. After the control over the whole evening on Govern- understanding that had been come to rement nights. He knew, of course, that the specting the first Order on the paper, it was theory was that hon. Members ought to be expected that the Government business always in their places, but in practice they would be disposed of at an early hour, and sometimes went to their dinners. The therefore many hon. Gentlemen who were Government might, at any time they anxious to oppose the Bill had remained in pleased, by postponing one or two of their the House at some inconvenience; but when Orders, bring on the Bills of private Mem- the Order was called, the hon. Member for bers at a time when those who had charge Knaresborough was not present. It was of them, or those who were friendly to natural, under such circumstances, that some them, were not present. He was very annoyance and indignation should have reluctant to "speak against time," but he been expressed. It would have been only had been driven to do so by the course which in accordance with that courtesy that was had been adopted by hon. Gentlemen op- almost universally practised in that House posite. The Ministerial benches were well if the hon. Member had given notice to lined, while those on his side were almost Members generally that he did not inempty. The hon. Member accordingly tend to bring on the Bill if it was called on addressed the House at great length; but at an early hour. He thought that the hon. amid so much interruption and confusion Gentleman, in speaking so long "against that little consecutive argument could be time," had been wanting in that courtesy heard.. which was usually practised in that House. As he once heard said in this House, the rules of this House were made by gentlemen for gentlemen; and if those rules were to be disregarded, the sooner they were changed the better. MR. MARSH said, he was not a party man, but he had no hesitation in describing this Bill as a job. It was a Bill to encourage bribery and corruption. Who were the freemen but the persons who could be bribed and corrupted? SIR JOHN PAKINGTON thought that SIR HERVEY BRUCE denied that the the proposal just made as to the course of Bill was a job, and thought it was not a proceeding was a perfectly fair one, and proper imputation to make against those he hoped it would be acceded to; but he who had voted for it upon a former occa- was bound to add that he thought the sion. He would call the attention of the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's House to the difference between freemen in speech was by no means fair. An attack large towns and those in small towns. Was had been made upon his hon. Friend (Mr. it fair that the freeman who lived out of Collins), to which he was by no means town should be disfranchised because his open. That had happened to him which residence was more than seven miles from might at any moment happen to any Memthe centre of a large town, while if the ber of this House having charge of a Bill town had been less extensive, the centre-the progress of public business was would have been within that distance of his house? For himself, he thought that the classes of freemen whom the Bill would revive was the class most free from corrupt influences. MR. E. P. BOUVERIE reminded the House that the Question before it was simply whether the debate should be adjourn quicker than he anticipated, and he was not present when the Bill was called on. But neither was the right hon. Gentleman who had given notice of an Amendment present to make it; and if his hon. Friend had neglected his duty, the right hon. Gentleman had neglected it rather more, for he came into the House last. Altogether, |