The amendment was negatived on a division by 180 to 124, and the Bills passed through a Committee of the whole House, and were afterwards read a third time and passed.

Another measure of legal reform, which was introduced and carried through Parliament by the Government, was a Bill for the Amendment of the Law of Lunacy, to the abuses and defects of which public attention had been lately called in a remarkable manner by the proceedings, under a Commission issued to inquire into the sanity of Mr. W. F. Wyndham, of Felbrigg Hall. The extraordinary length of this investigation, and the enormous expense incurred in it, had created much public scandal, and with a view to the prevention of such abuses hereafter, the Lord Chancellor brought in a Bill, the object of which was to abridge and limit the scope of the inquiries into sanity, and thereby to relieve the estates of the parties affected of a great and sometimes ruinous expense. After considerable debate in both Houses, and some alterations from its original scheme, this Bill received the assent of the Legislature.

A Bill for the better preven tion of Night Poaching by giving increased powers to the County Police, which commenced in the House of Lords, and came down to the House of Commons a very short time before the prorogation, was one of the most warmly contested measures that came before Parliament this year. The originator of the Bill in the Upper House was Lord Berners, who having previously called the attention of the Government to the great increase of murderous at

tacks on gamekeepers at night, and having been informed that no legislation on the subject was intended, himself brought in a Bill to give effect to his views. Upon the second reading being moved,

Earl Granville objected to the stringency and arbitrary character of the measure. It not only authorized the conviction and liability to a fine of any person on whose premises either game, instruments for taking game, or lurchers might be found, but even of any person whom, upon the oath of a credible witness, "there was good ground to suspect" of being in unlawful possession of any of the above. He concluded by recommending that the subject should be referred to a Select Committee.

The Earl of Derby, while not agreeing with many minor pro visions of the Bill, hoped the House would well consider the question, and send down a measure to the other House likely to meet with its concurrence. Lord Lyveden objected to any attempt to place the rural police on the footing of assistant-gamekeepers, which would make them a most unpopular class. The Legislature had consulted the prejudices of the farmers in not employing the police in the collection of agricultural statistics, and they would do well not to put them out of favour with the lower classes. He joined in Lord Granville's suggestion to refer the matter to a Select Committee.

Earl Grey supported the second reading of the Bill, with a view to its being referred to a Select Committee.

The Earl of Malmesbury sup. ported the Bill, which he did not

consider proposed any great alteration of the existing law. Besides, the 20,000 men employed in the preservation of game formed valuable assistants to the police in the protection of property, and the 370,000l. a-year raised by taxation connected with the Game Laws was surely a fair compensation for any expense incidental to prosecution.

The discussion ended in the withdrawal of the Bill. Another Bill with the same object was, however, shortly afterwards introduced by the same noble lord, which differed in some respects from the former one, but retained the same powers to be vested in the county police. This Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and was afterwards sent down to the House of Commons, where it was taken in charge by Sir Baldwin Leighton. It was here again strongly opposed by the Government, as well as by the large majority of the members on the Liberal side. The members of the Conservative party, however, mustered strongly in support of the Bill, and succeeded, in spite of Ministerial opposition, in carrying the main part of its provisions. The second reading was moved on the 16th July, when Sir George Grey warmly objected to the principles of the measure. It gave, he said, very arbitrary power to policemen, who were empowered to search and apprehend persons on the merest suspicion, and therefore greatly increased the stringency of the existing Game Laws. Twentyeight chief constables had signed a memorial last year against the employment of the police in the preservation of game, and their opinions certainly bore upon the VOL. CIV.

question. He examined the details of the Bill at great length, pointing out the haste and carelessness with which it appeared to have been drawn up, and concluded by recommending the withdrawal of the Bill, and the investigation of the subject by a Select Committee next Session.

Sir H. Stracey mentioned that the immunity now accorded to poachers was often the cause of more serious crimes passing undetected. A poacher's cart was always allowed to pass unsearched by the police, who assumed it contained nothing but game, but in one instance a cart had been found to contain hares and pheasants, together with a quantity of silver spoons and other property obtained by burglary.

Mr. W. E. Forster moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. It might not be the object of the promoters of the Bill, but it was certainly regarded out of doors as a proposal to turn the county police into gamekeepers, a service which would prove very detrimental to their execution of their other duties. He was strongly of opinion that it was not expedient to make the Game Laws more stringent than at present.

Mr. Henley opposed the Bill, which, he thought, was uncalled for, and would increase rather than decrease the evils it proposed to remedy. He denied the prevalence of such serious conflicts as had been made the ground for legislation.

Sir John Pakington supported the Bill, and adduced numerous instances of murderous gangs of poachers so well organized that a policeman, on viewing the head of one, could always tell who [L]

were his associates. He thought it would be a scandal to the House if the Session passed without some attempt made to alleviate the evil.

On a division the second reading was carried by 149 to 94.

The last days of the Session having arrived, the Bill was debated almost day by day, experiencing warm opposition at every stage, but vigorously supported by its advocates on the Conservative side of the House. A motion made by Mr. Baxter, and seconded by Lord Henley, to put off the committal of the Bill for three months, was negatived, after much discussion, by 139 to 49, and a numerous string of amendments was proposed and discussed, sometimes with much warmth. On the third reading being moved the Attorney-General, on a minute examination of the Bill, pointed out objections to its structure and language, and especially the loose and inaccurate wording of the second section, which, he said, was the essence of the measure, and he recommended that it should be withdrawn. The Chancellor of the Exchequer argued to the same effect. Mr. Butt moved the recommittal of the Bill, which was negatived by 90 to 61. After some other motions, aimed at the defeat of the Bill by delay, but which were rejected by considerable majorities, this muchcontested measure passed through its final ordeal, and became law.

Another measure, which occasioned great controversy just before the end of the Session, was the Thames Embankment Bill, brought in on the part of the Government by Mr. W. Cowper, the Chief Commissioner of Public

Works and Buildings. The plan of this embankment, which included a continuous line of roadway along the north bank of the Thames, from Westminster to Blackfriars-bridge, was much objected to on behalf of individuals, owners of property adjoining the river, among whom the Duke of Buccleuch was the most prominent, whose interests, it was alleged, would be seriously infringed by the construction of the proposed roadway. The opposition of these parties was supported by many who, on grounds of public convenience, regarded the proposed line of the road as objectionable, and wished it to be diverted into another course. Mr. Cowper, on introducing the Bill, gave a succinct history of the various schemes for embanking the Thames from the time of Sir C. Wren, and detailed the plan proposed in the Bill, which had been sanctioned by a Commission after the subject had been thoroughly investigated. Its chief features were a roadway by the side of the river to Blackfriarsbridge, and a new street crossing Thames-street and Cannon-street to the Mansion-house. The funds arising from the coal-tax were appropriated to this object by an Act of the preceding year, and the work would be intrusted to. the Metropolitan Board of Works. It was not proposed to do any thing with the southern side of the river till the pending inquiry had been completed.

After considerable debate leave was given to bring in the Bill. It was further discussed at some length on the second reading, and afterwards referred to a Select Committee. The Committee, after taking much evidence, and

eliciting an abundant diversity of opinions, agreed by a majority to recommend a departure from the original plan of the roadway as proposed by the Bill, following the bank of the river from Westminster-bridge to Blackfriars. This conclusion created much dissatisfaction, the opinion of the public leaning decidedly in favour of the original scheme, and some rather severe criticisms were passed upon the Committee, and reflections were made upon certain influential persons, whose interests, it was supposed, had weighed with the Committee. Upon the Bill again coming before the House a rather warm discussion arose, in which the members of the Committee vindicated themselves with much energy against aspersions which had been made upon them. It was moved, however, to set aside the conclusion they had adopted as to the roadway, Mr. Doulton, one of the members for Lambeth, proposing as an amendment, "that the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee; and that it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill to make provision therein for the construction of a continuous line of roadway from Blackfriars to Westminsterbridge." He gave a history of this question of a roadway, and showed that the Committee of 1860 and the Royal Commission were in favour of a continuous roadway from Blackfriars to Westminster-bridge, to which the plan of the Committee of 1862 was directly opposed, and he thought it was apparent that private interests were not altogether excluded from the consideration of the Committee. He balanced the testimony in support of each

of the two plans in question, insisting that the weight of the evidence, as well as public convenience, was in favour of the continuous roadway.

Mr. K. Seymer and Lord H. Vane, as members of the Committee, averred that the decision in which they had concurred was arrived at solely upon public grounds. Mr. Tite thought that the scheme of carrying the road direct to Westminster-bridge was objectionable per se. Mr. Locke considered the objections to the road to be quite futile.

Sir J. Shelley, after denouncing in bitter terms the attacks made upon a noble duke in relation to this question, said the Committee had arrived at their decision distinctly upon public grounds; and, as a member of the Committee, he had never come to a conclusion which, upon mature consideration, he more firmly believed to be right, than the one adopted in favour of the alternative line of Mr. Pennethorne. He read portions of the evidence of the Duke of Buccleuch, and concurred with his Grace that no necessity or public convenience called for a roadway up to Westminster-bridge. He hoped the House would not listen to the proposition made by Mr. Doulton.

Mr. Horsman observed that charges had been brought against the Duke of Buccleuch of appearing before the Committee in opposition to the public interests, and of over-riding the Committee, and the House was bound to inquire whether these charges were true. If it turned out, as the fact was, that they were not only untrue, but the very reverse of the truth, the House should sup

port its Committee and vindicate them from the aspersions with which they had been attacked. In reviewing the history of the project of an embankment, he took exception to the nomination of the Royal Commission of 1861, and to the mode of inquiry, contending that the Commissioners had entered upon it with a foregone conclusion. He then examined the course taken by the Government upon the subject of the embankment, adverting to the antagonism of different departments, before the appointment of the Select Committee upon the Bill, and he justified the conduct of the Crown lessees in the inquiry, observing that it was not true that they had put themselves voluntarily forward. In conclusion, he appealed to the House in what respect the Duke of Buccleuch had committed any offence against the public interests. He had used no political influence; he had appeared before the Committee, like any humble petitioner, asking only for justice. Yet a cry had been got up against ducal influence, as if this had been a question of public right against aristocratic power, in order to inflame popular prejudice and irritate the public mind against a nobleman who, he believed, was an honour and an ornament to his country.

Mr. Cowper declined to follow Mr. Horsman in his personalities, or to discuss the character of the Duke of Buccleuch, which was not the question before the House. He entertained the utmost respect for the duke, who had given evidence before the Committee in a manner which did him the highest credit; but he had not taken the course in this transaction which

he (Mr. Cowper) should have taken. He then, in reply to Mr. Horsman, entered into points of detail, and, with respect to the continuous road, he had, he said, high authority for saying that there was no practical difficulty in it whatever.

Lord John Manners opposed Mr. Cowper's views.

Lord Palmerston said he hoped Mr. Doulton would not press his amendment, which was not applicable to the Bill in its present stage. The question before the House was very simple-whether the roadway should be continued to the bridge or not-but every possible complication had been introduced. It seemed to him, however, plain that the whole public should have the benefit of a work constructed from the public funds. He had heard no argument whatever of any weight against the original scheme, and considered the amended one to be absurd. The Bill, as it stood, would give a Parliamentary title of exemption from a roadway in front of the houses of every one interested. This, surely, was not intended, and he should move a clause in Committee, limiting that exemption till Parliament should otherwise determine; a result which could not, he believed, be deferred for more than a Session.

Mr. Doulton's amendment was withdrawn; but after a great deal more discussion on the various clauses of the Bill, another amendment having the same object as that of Mr. Doulton, to substitute a continuous roadway to Westminster-bridge, for the scheme recommended by the Committee, was moved by Mr. Locke, at the proper stage of the Bill.