Scotland or Ireland, due notice of such requirements shall be given to the registrar, and he shall rectify the register accordingly." THE LORD ADVOCATE said, the paragraph was framed by the Solicitor General for Ireland and himself in conjunction with the Vice President of the Board of Trade, it being thought desirable that causes should be tried in the country in which the mark was registered. Amendment agreed to; words inserted. On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following new clause was inserted after Clause 11: (Saving of proceedings in Scotland and Ireland). "Nothing in this Act shall affect the jurisdiction and forms of procedure of the Courts in Scotland and Ireland respectively in any action or proceeding respecting a trade mark hitherto competent to those Courts." Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments. lieved it would, to some extent, defeat Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 80 (Effect of deposit of land certificate). MR. JACKSON moved the omission of the clause, on the ground that it would interfere with one of the fundamental objects of the Bill. The clause provided that, subject to any registered estates, charges, or rights, the deposit of the land certificate, in the case of freehold land, and of the office copy of the registered lease in the case of leasehold land, should, for the purpose of creating a lien on the land to which such certificate or lease related, be deemed LAND TITLES AND TRANSFER BILL. equivalent to a deposit of the title deeds [BILL 105.]-[Lords.] (Mr. Attorney General.) COMMITTEE. [Progress 28th June.] Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Clause 41 (Transmission on death of freehold land). THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that when the Bill was last in Committee his Amendment was under consideration. He had proposed an Amendment in page 14, line 6, after the word "registrar," to insert the words "Regard being had to the rights of the several persons interested in such land, and in particular to the selection of such person as may for the time being appear to the registrar to be entitled according to law to be so appointed." Progress was then reported. He had since given the subject his most careful attention, and he still thought his Amendment was the best that could be adopted, and that it would be better to leave the Registrar to select the proper person to be registered than to lay down any definite rule which should be applicable to all cases. MR. JACKSON regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to insist on his Amendment. He be VOL. CCXXVI. [THIRD SERIES.] of the land. One of the objects of the Bill was to prevent the increase of encumbrances, and this clause was inconsistent with that object. There had been a large number of cases in which priority of encumbrances formed the subject of trial, and the question was one which gave rise to a great amount of litigation. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he could not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that difficulty and confusion would arise from the clause, nor could he admit that it was inconsistent with the rest of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman had given such a general support to the Bill that he was sorry to have to stand by the clause in opposition to the view entertained by him. It would give an additional facility in many cases to the raising of money for temporary purposes, and he was unable to see any objection to it. MR. ALFRED MÅRTEN hoped that his hon. and learned Friend would not press his proposal to a division, having regard to the fact that the Court of Chancery had held that, notwithstanding an Act of Parliament, a deposit of deeds was sufficient to give priority of claim to land. 2 A Question put, "That the Clause stand at the time of its removal from the register shall part of the Bill.” continue to subsist in, on, or over the same notwithstanding such removal; but such land, The Committee divided:-Ayes 49; estates, charges, rights, interests, equities, and Noes 35 Majority 14. Clauses 81 to 104, inclusive, agreed to. Clause 105 (Office of land registry, and appointment and payment of officers). MR. ALFRED MARTEN moved, as an Amendment, in page 31, line 15, after "standing," insert "the registrar shall hold his office during good behaviour." He argued that as some of the duties of the registrar would be of a judicial character, he ought to hold his office on the same terms as the Judges, and not as an ordinary civil servant. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he could not accept the Amendment, which would be contrary to the general scope and purport of the Act, the intention of which was to place the registrar in the same position as Parliamentary counsel, Secretaries to the Treasury, and other officers of the kind, who no doubt, in form, held office at pleasure, but practically during good behaviour. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause verbally amended, and agreed to. Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments. (Registry of land below high water mark.) "If it appears to the registrar that any land application for registration whereof is made to him comprises land below high water mark at ordinary spring tides, he shall not register the land unless and until he is satisfied that at least one month's notice in writing of the application has been given to the Board of Trade; and in case of land in the county palatine of Lancaster, also to the proper officer of the Duchy of Lancaster; and in case of land in the counties of Cornwall or Devon, also to the proper officer of the Duke of Cornwall; and in all other cases also to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues." MR. ALFRED MARTEN moved, after Clause 59, to insert the following Clause: : (Power to remove land from register.) "Every registered proprietor of freehold or leasehold land may, in the prescribed manner, remove such land or any part thereof from the register. "The removal shall be completed by the registrar entering on the register a minute thereof. "All estates, charges, rights, interests, equities, and powers, subsisting in, on, or over any land powers shall, from and after such removal, be held, enjoyed, exercised, transferred, transmitted, dealt with, and disposed of in the same manner and with the same incidents and effect in all respects as other unregistered land and similar estates, charges, rights, interests, equities, and powers in, on, or over such land. to notices, cautions, inhibitions, or other restric"All the provisions in this Act contained as tions upon or against any transfer of or other dealing with registered land shall, so far as the same are applicable, extend to any removal of land from the register; and no removal of any land from the register shall take place without scribed manner, of every person entitled to any the previous consent, to be testified in the preregistered charge thereon." The power of removal would encourage registration, which was voluntary. With this power, a landowner could safely the advantage if registration worked register, knowing that he could secure well, and improved the marketable value of registered land, and that he could, by the exercise of the power, at any time obviate a contrary result. Without the power, many would not try the experiment. Conveyancing Counsel and Solicitors would in many cases decline to advise their clients to adopt a registration, which was to be final in its character, and the benefits of which remained to be ascertained by experience. The clause had been, he said, approved by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory). MR. JACKSON expressed an opinion that without a provision of the kind the Act would be a dead letter. The Act was entirely experimental, and prudent solicitors would not put their clients' property in a position from which, if the Act did not work well, it could not be withdrawn. MR. STAVELEY HILL could not conceive anything more calculated to create confusion. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he must remind hon. Members that the House of Lords, after full consideration, had come to the conclusion that it was not desirable to give the power. No sufficient reason had been adduced in support of the clause. Clause negatived. Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday, CONSPIRACY, AND PROTECTION OF PROPERTY BILL. CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS. Lords' Amendments considered. Amendments, as far as Clause 6, page 3, agreed to. Clause 8, page 3, line 23, leave out from ("doing") to the end of the Clause, and insert ("wrongfully and without legal authority,1. Uses violence to or intimidates such other person or his wife or children, or injures his property; or, 2. Persistently follows such other person about from place to place; or, "3. Hides any tools, clothes, or other property owned or used by such other person, or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof; or, 4. Watches or besets the house or other place where such other person resides or works or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place; or, 5. Follows such other person with two or more other persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road, shall on conviction thereof by a court of summary jurisdiction, or on indictment as hereinafter mentioned, be liable either to pay a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour : "Attending at or near the house or place where a person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place, in order merely to obtain or communicate information, and not with a view to intimidate or to deter by serious annoyance such person from doing or abstaining from doing that which he has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, shall not be deemed a watching or besetting within the meaning of this section) :"— The next Amendment read a second time. MR. HOPWOOD said, that Clause 5 left the House with the words "of service or of hiring," and it had been returned by the Lords with "or" changed into "and." For that change there was no trace of any Amendment having been moved in the other House, and that being so, he believed that, according to the practice of the House, they were entitled to adhere to the clause in the form in which it left that House. MR. ASSHETON CROSS explained that the words had been altered by the officers in the other House from no political motive, but under the idea that the alteration was necessary for the intention and sense of the clause. The Amendment had not been communi cated, however, and he should wish to have the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair upon the facts before the House. MR. SPEAKER said, that no Amendment having been communicated to this House by the House of Lords, this House could not take notice of what had not been communicated to it. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE observed that it was clear that the gravest inconvenience might arise from an alteration being made in a Bill under such circumstances, and at the very close of the Session. LORD JOHN MANNERS pointed out that on former occasions, when a similar thing had occurred, the mistake had been once rectified by the officers of the other House, and the same course would, no doubt, be again followed in this instance. MR. SPEAKER said, he believed that the alteration in the printed Bill had been accidental, and this House could only deal with the Bill as it came from the House of Lords. MR. LOWE who had given Notice of his intention to move the omission of the clause in lieu thereof, said, that a clause clause, and the substitution of a new which had been much discussed in the House had come back in a new shape, but anxious as he had been that it should not apply invidiously to any portion of Her Majesty's subjects, he thought it extremely doubtful whether the clause, as it originally stood, was not better than the one sent down from the Lords. He was surprised at this, because it had been announced, with some flourish of trumpets, that it was fortunate we had a House of Lords, which took a calm view of these things. He thought it was a matter of great rashness at that late period of the Session to have introduced two new offences into the Bill, and there could be no doubt but the change which had been made, if it remained unaltered, would give rise to an enormous amount of litigation, and to long and envenomed contests between masters and men. For instance, it was now stipulated that a person influencing another must, before becoming liable, do so "wrongfully." The extraordinary result of that was, that a man might use violence or intimidate a person, but he would not be guilty of an offence unless he could be proved to have acted wrongfully. For his own part, he should have supposed that the fact of a man using violence with this intent was proof of a wrongful act. It was difficult what would be an offence under these words. He did not intend to move an Amendment on the point, but wished to note it as an instance of how they might darken counsel by words without understanding." Again, whereas by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which no one held to be too lenient, no intimidation or threats were criminal unless they would justify a justice of the peace in binding over the person to keep the peace, now, as the clause was drawn, any kind of intimidation was made a substantive offence. That showed MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, the what new and difficult questions had clause in its present form was really been opened up without the slightest less strong that it had been before. In necessity. He should presently move to its original form the words were "who omit the words 66 or intimidates," ," in threatens or intimidates ;" but there was order to take the opinion of the House a question raised as to whether a threat on the matter. Another provision was, was sufficient to bind a man over for, to the effect that attending at or near a and therefore the word "threatens house or place of business merely to was omitted. Intimidation, however, obtain or communicate information, and was another matter altogether, and the not with a view to intimidate, should clause in its present form, instead of not be deemed to be watching or be- its being stronger than it was, was setting within the meaning of the Act. weaker. [Mr. Lowe: No, no!] In his That created a new offence by implica- view it was weaker. It now provided tion, for it followed that a person "at-that not only must there be some action tending" to intimidate was guilty of an offence; but if that was meant, "attending" should have been included in the catalogue of offences, and not left to be inferred from the statement that the converse should not be an offence. Nothing could be more dangerous or unfair than the use of ambiguous expressions of this kind, especially in a measure which ought to be easy of interpretation, being, as it was, a law between the rich and the poor. The springing of an offence of this kind suddenly upon the country seemed to be one of the most imprudent pieces of legislation he had ever seen, and he was astonished that such a mistake should have been made. on the part of the offender, but it must have a certain effect on the person whom it sought to intimidate. MR. MUNDELLA said, whatever might have been the intention of the noble Lord who made the Amendment in the House of Lords, the effect would be to leave intimidation wholly without qualification or definition. As the Bill stood before, the intimidation was to be such intimidation as would justify a justice of the peace in binding over a person; but as it now stood, the word 66 intimidates" was left entirely without qualification, so that the justice would have to decide as to what it might be. No doubt, the intention was to follow the Charge of the right hon. and learned Recorder, but that right hon. and learned Gentleman really defined what he meant by intimidation, using the words, "such an exhibition of force as is calculated to produce fear in the minds of ordinary men." MR. ASSHETON CROSS pointed out that they were now on quite a different part of the clause-namely, the word "intimidates" alone. at a MR. MUNDELLA said, he simply | cessary to get rid of the word "coerce." wished to show how the word "intimi- To find a person guilty of threatening dates" ran through the whole clause, required some act to be proved. It was and governed the end as well as the a definite crime. But by striking out middle. The word used alone was liable the word "threatens " and leaving only to the grossest abuse. The words were the word "intimidates" the result was -"Uses violence to or intimidates such that no overt act, nor anything done, other person, or his wife or children, or would be required to ensure a conviction injures property, or." A new enactment -a mere look, a mere walking up and to protect against violence or injury to down, merely "making a face property was not required. There ought workman's child would be all sufficient, to be some definition of the word in the if the child was intimidated thereby, sense laid down by the right hon. and for the clause said, "who intimidates learned Recorder, and then they would such other person, or his wife, or chilknow what was meant. Unless some dren." He appealed to Her Majesty's definition or limitation was introduced, Government not to change their policy, the effect would be that they would have but to adhere to it-to adhere to what a recurrence of all the trouble they had the House had accepted. already had. The law ought not to be left in so vague a state as it was left in by the Bill in its present form. MR. HOPWOOD said, that in the old Act the word used was "coerce." It was now proposed to substitute the word "compel." Of the two, he preferred the first as the more accurate definition of what it was intended to prevent or punish. The word "compel' was too vague and indefinite a phrase to use in the case of a criminal proceeding. MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, he was very much astonished to find so many words uttered on so narrow and simple a question. The word "intimidates "did not mean something passive, but implied some action on the part of the person intimidating, with a view to prevent a man from doing that which he had a right to do, and which he could otherwise do. If a child or a wife or the man himself were unreasonably frightened, the Judge who tried the case would ask "What was it that frightened you?" There must be an action on the part of the intimidator to cause fear; it was not merely the use of words which constituted the offence. Question put, "That the words 'or stand part of the said intimidates The House divided:-Ayes 52; Noes 40: Majority 12. 66 SIR HENRY JAMES called upon the Government to give some answer to the arguments which had been used. They ought to make it clearly understood what had been done, not by the Home Secretary or the Government, but by those who had considered this matter in the House of Lords. If the clause stood as it was, workmen would be placed in an infinitely worse position than they were in at present, and the House of Commons would be giving up the fruits of their labours, not to dispassionate and calm consideration on the part of the House of Lords, but to what he must characterize as hasty legislation. Under the Act of 1871 a person, in order to be convicted under this part of the clause, had to threaten or intimidate another person in such a manner as would justify a justice of the peace in binding him over, and that must be done with a view to coerce. If they had a severe law, they inflicted that severe law only upon a guilty person; but under a vague law the penalty might be inflicted upon an-Mr. Edward Jenkins.) MR. EDWARD JENKINS moved to add after the word intimidates" the following words, "by threats of personal violence or injury." He considered in a matter of this kind that some clear definition should be given to the meaning of the word "intimidates," and he thought the best way to accomplish this was by adopting the Amendment he proposed. Amendment proposed, after the word threats of personal violence or injury.' "intimidates," to insert the words "by innocent person. The right hon. Gen- MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, the tleman now stepped in with words which act committed would always be suffilessened the penalty, and thought it ne- cient to indicate whether there had been |