Sitting of 9 June 1880

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Union Assessment Committee (Single Parishes)* [212].
Second Reading —Married Women's Property Acts Consolidation [139]; Limitation of Costs (Ireland) [1491; Married Women's Property (Scotland) [154]; Medical Charities (Ireland) [167], debate adjourned; Municipal Franchise (Ireland) [169]; Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment* [165].
Second Reading —Referred to Select Committee—Births and Deaths Registration (Ireland) [166].
Referred to Committee of Selection —Local Government Provisional Orders (Amersham Union, &c.)*[126]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Ashford, &c.)*[122]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Bethesda, &c.)*[128]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Alnwick Union, &c.)*[!20]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Aberavon, &c.)*[125]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Abergavenny, &c.)*[127].
Committee—Registration of Voters (Ireland) [150]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Judicial Factors (Scotland)*[162].
Considered as amended —Glebe Loan Acts (Ireland) Amendment* [181].

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House, that he had received from the Judges selected, in pursuance of The Parliamentary Elections Act, 186S, for the trial of Election Petitions, Certificates and Reports

For the Borough of Harwich, and

For the Borough of Carrickfergus.

And the same were severally read, as follows:—

HARWICH ELECTION.
The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.
The Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1879.
The Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1880.
To the Right Honourable
The Speaker of the House of Commons.
We, the Right Honourable Sir Robert Lush, knight, and the Honourable Sir Henry Manisty, knight, Judges of the High Court of Justice, and two of the Judges for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England, do hereby, in pursuance of the said Acts, certify and report as follows:—

1. That upon the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 8th days of June 1880, We duly hold a Court at the Guildhall, in the Borough of Harwich, in the County of Essex, for the trial of and did try the Election Petition for the said Borough between George Tomline, Petitioner, and Sir Henry Tyler, Respondent, whereby the Petitioner prayed that it might be determined that the said Sir Henry Tyler was not duly Elected or Returned, and that his Election and Return were and are wholly null and void, and that the Petitioner was duly Elected, and ought to have been Returned.

2. That the Respondent, in pursuance of the Statute and Rule in that behalf, delivered to the Petitioner a list of persons whom he alleged to have been bribed by the Petitioner or his Agent.

3. That, during the trial of the said Petition and before the conclusion thereof, the Petitioner by his counsel withdrew so much of the prayer of his Petition as prayed that it might be determined he was duly elected and ought to have been returned.

1532

4. At the conclusion of the said trial we determined, as regards the Petition, that the said Sir Henry Tyler, being the Member whose Election and Return were complained of in the said Petition was duly elected and returned, and we do hereby certify in writing such our determination.

5. And whereas charges were made in the said Petition of corrupt practices having been committed at the said Election by and on behalf of the Respondent, We, in further pursuance of the said Acts, report as follows:—

(a.) That no corrupt practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of the Respondent.

(b.) That nine persons, who were at the time of such Election voters for the Borough of Harwich, and who were absent from the said Borough shortly before the polling day in the ordinary course of their trade as bargemen, were paid after the Election by an Agent of the Petitioner, with the knowledge and by the authority of the Petitioner, sums of money as for their travelling expenses to and from the said Borough of Harwich; and we further find that such sums of money were respectively in excess of such expenses, and were known by the Election Agent of the Petitioner, who fixed the amounts to be paid, to be in excess of such expenses, but that such excess was not known to the Petitioner. We therefore find and report that the Petitioner was, by his Agent, guilty of bribery at such Election. We forbear to report the names of these Agents, as they were required by us to be examined, and we have granted them certificates of indemnity.

Lastly. We find and report that there is no reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at such Election.
Dated this 8th day of June 1880.
ROBT. LUSH.
H. MANISTY.

CARRICKFERGUS ELECTION.
In the matter of an Election Petition for the Borough of Carrickfergus, between Marriott Robert Dalway, esq., Petitioner; and Thomas Greer, esq., Respondent.
We hereby certify to the Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons, That the above mentioned Petition was tried before us at Carrickfergus on the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th days of June 1880, and that at the conclusion of the said trial we did on the said 7th day of June determine, That the said Thomas Greer, whose Election was complained of by the said Petition, was duly elected to serve in the present Parliament for the Borough of Carrickfergus.
We further certify that the claim for a scrutiny contained in the said Petition was abandoned by the Petitioner.
And, in addition to the foregoing certificate, we hereby further report to the Right Honourable the Speaker, That no corrupt practice has been proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any candidate at such Election; and further, That on the evidence before us, it did not appear that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the said Election, and we have no reason to believe that corrupt practices did extensively prevail at said Election.
We beg also to state that a copy of the said Petition, and a copy of the Evidence given at the trial, taken down by the shorthand writer of the House of Commons, accompany this certificate.
Given under our hands at Carrickfergus this 8th day of June 1880.
RICHARD DOWSE, Baron of the Exchequer Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland,
MICHL. HARRISON, Judge of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, Common Pleas Division,
Two of the Judges on the rota for the trial of Election Petitions in Ireland.
To the Right Honourable
The Speaker of the House of Commons.
And the said Certificates and Reports were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.— [BILL 139.]
  (Mr. Hindi Palmer, Sir Gabriel Goldney, Mr. Jacob Bright, Mr. Watkin Williams.)
  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.— [BILL 139.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. HINDE PALMER,in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that in 1873 a Bill precisely the same as that to which he was now asking the House to assent was conducted by himself through the Committee of the House; but it was so near the end of the Session that he found it impossible to proceed further that year. There was one reason why the subject has been so long postponed in settlement. Domestic questions were not brought forward in the last Parliament with the freedom that this Parliament might be expected to show. There could be no doubt the present state of the law with regard to the property of married women required prompt amendment. The Common Law of the country declared that, immediately a woman married, all her personal estate vested in her husband, who might dispose of it as he pleased. That had been said very truly to be in the nature of confiscation of the wife's property simply by the act of marriage. It was only necessary to state such a law as that in order to mitigate it, and accordingly the Courts of Equity set about invading it as soon as they could; and it
    1534
    had accordingly been the doctrine of that branch of the judicature that the property of married women might by settlement be secured for their separate use. The injustice of the present Common Law was chiefly felt by poor married women whose earnings were wasted by drunken and dissolute husbands; but its injustice was not entirely confined to the poorer classes, for where no marriage settlement was made a wife's property was still confiscated by the husband. In 1869 a Bill was passed through this House to amend this state of things; but it went so late to the House of Lords that it was lost. In 1870 the Bill was re-introduced, and was referred to a Select Committee. It came out of the Committee in a very useful condition; but in the House of Lords most of the good provisions in it were omitted, and it was confined almost solely to the earnings of married women. The alterations made in the measure also rendered it very difficult for people in the humbler walks of life to avail themselves of its provisions. Russell Gurney's Act originally contained a clause which he had inserted in the present Bill. It was—
    "That a married woman shall be capable of acquiring, holding, alienating, and bequeathing her property, and of contracting, suing, and being sued, as if she were unmarried."
    This provision, he held, embraced the whole justice of the case, and in consequence of its omission from the Act of 1870 that Act required amendment. One of the inconsistencies of Russell Gurney's Act, as altered in this House of Lords, was that a husband was freed by it from all liability for his wife's ante nuptial debts, though he still acquired her property by the act of marriage, the consequence being that the creditors of the wife were left without a remedy. A second Bill was subsequently passed dealing with that part of the question of married women's property, and one of the objects he had in view was the consolidation of the two Acts and their amendment. He might point out that our Common Law on the subject to which he was drawing attention was quite unique. Even in the United States, where the law was originally the same as ours, a radical change had been introduced. But it had been found that, even under the Act of 1870, married women could not be protected in the enjoyment of their earnings, although the protection of the proceeds

    1535
    of a woman's industry was the special object of the measure. For instance, there was a case in Manchester where a man had stolen his wife's property, and the stipendiary magistrate dismissed the prosecution because the Act did not authorize proceedings by the wife against the husband, although the Act expressly gave her all remedies, both civil and criminal, against all persons whomsoever. One would have supposed that the law had been altered to admit of a prosecution; but such was the decision, and the law had remained in this condition ever since. In his measure a remedy was provided for the protection of women in these circumstances. But not only did the measure give protection in this way; it was intended to place women in the same position towards tradesmen with whom they had dealings as men were. The tradesman would have the right to inquire into the credit of the person who gave the order for the goods and her ability to pay for them. It was his belief, he might add, that if the change which he proposed was made married women would very soon begin to pay out of their separate estates the debts which they might contract. Lord Penzance, as many hon. Members were aware, had urged several objections against the adoption of the principle for which he was contending; but he did not think the experience of that noble and learned Lord, as President of the Court of Divorce, was of such a nature as to make him an impartial judge on the subject. The first objection taken by Lord Penzance was that if women were to become entitled to their separate estate they would be able to spend it as they pleased without the consent of their husbands, or, in other words, waste it. That was an objection which, however, in his opinion, applied with equal force to the case of the husband, for there were cases, involving great hardship, in which the husband having, under the operation of the Common Law, acquired the property of the wife, had spent every farthing of it, as well as his own, sometimes in keeping up another establishment and another family. Under the Bill husband and wife would come to an arrangement, and it would only be in extreme cases that resort would be had to the protective clauses. Then it had been said that the Bill would cause
    1536
    family dissensions; but marriage settlements had not done that, and he did not believe that the settlements made by the law would have a worse effect. Another objection urged against the Bill was that it would enable a wife to sue her husband; but even as the law now stood she could do so through the medium of the Court of Chancery, while as to the objection that she might enter into trade and even carry on a rival shop to that of her husband, he might remark that it had been for years the practice to secure to married women the earnings which they might acquire by carrying on a separate business. But it was not, he maintained, a proper state of the law which permitted that she might be put to so much expense as she might now be obliged to incur in establishing her right to those earnings; and married women, although they might sue in certain cases, could not be sued, and were, therefore, under a disadvantage in entering into contracts with wholesale tradesmen for the supply of goods. He would only add that, believing the Bill would tend to the advantage, not only of married women, but of tradesmen and society generally, he moved the second reading with confidence that it would meet with a favourable reception from the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Hinde Palmer.')
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not expect he should have to rise so early to state the views of the Government on this Bill. He did not on the part of the Government propose to offer any opposition to the second reading of the Bill, nor did he propose to offer any opposition to its principles. There were, however, some objections to its clauses which he wished to bring under the notice of those who had charge of the Bill, in the hope that they might be able to see their way to remove them. The great principle of the Bill—the right of married women to enjoy property which had come to them in their own right—was acknowledged by that House when it passed the Bill of 1869. True, that principle was rejected by the House of Lords; but unless the views of the House of Commons had greatly changed, they could not hesitate to acquiesce in this

    1537
    principle. The principle should be looked at favourably, not only with reference to what the House of Commons had formerly done, but on its merits. He could not help feeling that as the feudal times became more remote the disposition to allow greater liberty to women, at least in dealing with their own property, had gone on increasing; nor did he for a moment mean to contend that some concession should not be made to that growth of opinion. The Bill, at the same time, it must be borne in mind, would effect a great revolution in matters not merely within but outside the household of every married man, and some of it provisions went, perhaps, somewhat further than even his hon. and learned Friend intended. In the 1st clause the principle would be found that a married woman should hold, acquire, and deal with all real and personal estate which was her own property. That, of course, gave her the full control of the property coming to her as if she were a femme sole. There was, however, no limitation to her powers to contract. She was allowed to contract not merely in reference to her own property, but generally. She might, for example, become the tenant of a house; and although he did not wish to refer for a moment to the political aspect of the question—for that was a subject which, in his opinion, ought to be kept apart from the Bill—he thought she must in those circumstances be regarded as liable to pay rates, because it was evident that the husband might have no money for the purpose. It was clear that, in enabling a woman to enter into a contract independent of her husband, it was proposed to make a change which required very serious consideration; and he would suggest to his hon. and learned Friend that, in conferring upon her such a power in relation to business matters, it would be necessary to impose upon her the burden of being liable to be made bankrupt. The Bill, by the 3rd clause, also provided that any property which came to a woman already married should be absolutely at her disposal. But, supposing the case of a marriage made with a full knowledge of the existing law and where there was no settlement, the husband undertaking to do everything for her until the coming in of his wife's reversion. He might have performed his
    1538
    part of the bargain, but this Bill would enable her to escape performing hers. In one or two respects the other clauses were too wide in their sweep. As to the power to be given to husband or wife to sue the other, he did not think that was a pleasant prospect. Costs would follow the event, and have to be paid one to the other. He hesitated to consent to see them entering into litigation, one with the other, in regard to matters that occurred during their domestic life. But these criticisms did not touch the principle of the Bill. He felt that this Bill would make a great change in the domestic institutions of the country, but these changes would come gradually into effect. If the second reading took place, those who supported the Bill would not be binding themselves to every word or every clause in the measure; but, so far as he was speaking on behalf of the Government, they would say "Aye" to the Motion.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was glad to hear the views which he himself entertained with respect to the Bill so clearly expressed by the last speaker, who, it was evident, was of opinion that one result of its passing in its present shape must be the increase of domestic infelicity, and that it was in many respects a foolish measure. Yet the hon. and learned Gentleman did not hesitate to accept the principle of the Bill. He supposed some hon. Members present knew something about the real relationship between husband and wife, and he would certainly ask those who did not to pause and consider before they made any offer of marriage. If this Bill were passed they had better withdraw in time, and not subject themselves to enactments which would lead to domestic infelicity. The Bill tried to create a monstrosity never intended by God—a married woman separate from her husband. Before the existence of the feudal law—in fact, when marriage was established by God—it was ordained that wives should obey their husbands, although some of them, he was sorry to say, were not so obedient as they ought to be. Moreover, by the Criminal Law a wife was entitled to plead in her own defence that she had acted under the coercion of her husband; and he would like to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that if the Bill were to pass, it might very well happen that a wife

    1539
    having real estate to her separate use might take a house, in which her husband might become her tenant, and that she might actually give him notice to quit. That would be an ignominious position in which to put a husband whose wife was bound to reverence and obey him. Under such a Bill as this every gossip in a village might slander a man or woman without the husband being liable. The only way now to prevent some wives using their tongues too freely was to hold their husbands liable for the slander. The question involved in the discussion was the great legal question, "Who was the head of the house —the woman or the husband?" At Census time one woman in a hundred would, perhaps, say to the enumerator—"I am the head of the house;" and this Bill was a measure to carry out certain notions of women who rebelled againt the law of God that they should be subservient to man. The hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) had, he was glad to find, steered clear of the political question. In the present state of that House, he did not see that it would be of any avail to oppose the second reading; but he trusted that when the Bill got into Committee it would be very considerably modified, so as less injuriously to affect the existing relations between husband and wife than it did.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDassented cordially to the second reading, with the reservation that the Bill ought to be considerably amended in Committee. There should be protection given by law to every married woman such as was given by settlement; but this Bill went a great deal further, for it proposed not simply to secure to the wife the control of any property belonging to her before marriage, or that might become hers afterwards, but it placed her in the position of an unmarried woman, with some very limited exceptions. He doubted whether that would be for the benefit of the women of this country. It was proposed that a married woman should have the right to enter into any contract in the same way as if she were unmarried. If her right to contract were limited to contracts binding her separate property both at law and in equity, he should agree to that alteration of the law; but the Bill would not only enable her to contract to such an extent as to swallow up all her own property,
    1540
    but it would practically have the effect of giving her power to render the husband liable for all her debts to a greater extent than he was at present. It was true he would not be legally liable for her debts, but a moral pressure would be brought to bear upon him which would have much the same practical effect. If a husband found that his wife was made a bankrupt, and was liable to be sent to prison, he would, if a right-minded man, pay her debts, and eases might be easily conceived where great injury and injustice might thus be inflicted upon him. Now, surely that was an unfair position in which to place the husband. Then, again, the right proposed to be conferred upon wives of suing husbands, would probably tend to a great deal of domestic litigation and unhappiness. Men would take care before marriage to protect themselves against their wives, and so the marriage bond would be weakened—a result which would be unfortunate for both parties. There was, however, a good principle in the Bill, which he should not be sorry to see the House affirm by the second reading. He thought that women ought to have greater control over their own property than they now possessed, and hoped that the Bill would be amended in Committee so as to confer that power upon them unaccompanied by the objectionable features which he had pointed out.
    MR. HINDE PALMERasked permission to state at this stage that he would be happy to make in Committee any concessions reasonably within the principle of the Bill, his only object being to make it a good and intelligible Bill.
    MR. MUNTZsaid, he had been very glad to hear the remarks just made by the Mover of the Bill, as he should be sorry to see the measure passed without certain alterations, although he had no wish to oppose the second reading. He would, first of all, like to see a clause requiring that, in all instances where property should be left to a woman, she should have the power of ordering executors to pay the legacy to trustees, so that it should not be allowed to come into her hands. That would be a great security; because his experience of life, which had not been a short one, was that when a woman inherited property, in nine cases out of ten, by kissing or kicking, the husband was sure to get

    1541
    hold of it. If there was a clause providing that the property should pass directly to the hands of the trustees, there would be a great safeguard for its security. There was also a clause which had apparently been forgotten, but which appeared in the former Bill, and which would prevent that which had been, to some extent, avoided in the United States of America, but which occurred in several States of Europe —the system of defrauding creditors by a wife, in such an instance as that of joint trading by the husband and wife. The wife put her money into the husband's hands, they went jointly into wild speculations in all kinds of trades, and when they failed, under the Justinian Code the wife claimed priority, and was paid every shilling of the money she had invested before the creditors could obtain a farthing. In the system in America, however, the woman came in as a creditor only. A clause should be, therefore, introduced into the Bill to prevent such a fraud occurring. With these precautions, however, the Bill might be practicable. He was very much of opinion that the property would be safer in the hands of trustees than in the hands of the women themselves, as there was no doubt that in most of the speculations which failed spinsters, widows, and poor country clergymen were the victims. Women should not be allowed power to embark their property in such speculations, and so ruin themselves, which every sensible man knew there was the greatest risk of their doing. He wished, for the sake of the women themselves, for the safety of the Bill, and from his experience as a trustee, that the property of a woman should be placed in the hands of trustees, where it would be safe. Public opinion seemed now to be decided as to the need of the Bill; but he trusted, if it was not referred to a Select Committee, that the Committee of the House would take care to protect women against their own folly.
    MR. HASTINGSsaid, for many years he had taken. great interest in the question, and was, therefore, glad to see the second reading had been supported by the Attorney General. The idea generally entertained, that this Bill and other measures founded on the same principle were opposed to the ancient law of this country, was unfounded.
    1542
    On the contrary, he believed that this Bill, like the Act of 1870, was in some degree a return to the ancient law. In feudal times the law was singularly just to married women. The property of the wealthier classes then consisted almost entirely of land, and no woman was called on to give up her land when she married. She remained joint tenant with her husband. As personal property increased in value, the Court of Chancery took care, by marriage settlements and trusts, to secure their personal property to all women who could pay for the settlements and for the luxury of applying to the Court of Chancery. The object of the present Bill was to place women of the lower class in the same position as those who could afford to have settlements. Of the hardships to which poor women were subjected through the cruelty and rapacity of their husbands he, as a magistrate, had long seen striking proofs, and he was glad that some relief to that class was at length about to be afforded. All the evils apprehended from the present Bill really existed under the law as it now stood. In the City of London a married woman might carry on a separate business as a trader, and the Recorder of London said a woman might trade on her own separate account, and might be made a bankrupt, so that it was only sought by the Bill to put in force over the whole of England what had long been the ancient custom of the City of London. Husbands and wives could also sue each other in Courts of Equity, and, in fact, whatever ground the equalization of husbands and wives in regard to property might afford for domestic disputes existed under the present law. In his opinion, the law of God, which an hon. Member had cited as giving the husband the right to rule over his wife, did not justify his appropriation of her property. He should give the Bill his most hearty support.
    DR. COMMINSsaid, he did not believe the Bill would have the good effect that was anticipated by its promoters. It was rather difficult to construct a workable Act of Parliament that halted between two principles. The Bill forsook the principle that upon marriage the personality of the wife was merged in that of the husband, and, instead of that, it seemed to adopt the one

    1543
    embodied in the phrase sometimes put in the mouth of a wife as addressed to her husband—"What's yours is mine, and what's mine is my own." It, to a large extent, abandoned the principle which gave the property of the wife to the husband; but it did not adopt the one that marriage should in no way alter the rights of a woman with respect to her property, The promoters of the Bill, while desiring to protect the wife from the extravagance and rapacity of the husband, seemed to forget that the husband also had rights, and, consequently, there was no provision to protect the husband from the extravagance or dishonesty of his wife. Those acquainted with the dealings of Courts in this country, particularly County Courts, would be aware of the fact that one of the most ordinary sources of litigation was the power the law gave to the wife to pledge the credit of her husband in the purchase of what were called necessaries. There being nothing to define what necessaries were, in every case it was left to the Judge or the Jury to decide upon that question, and the consequence was that frequently husbands of the poorer classes were subjected to the most vexatious litigations in consequence of the power which the law gave wives. If there was one thing more than another that was required it was some provision to protect the husbands of the poorer classes from the contracts their wives might enter into behind their backs. At the same time, means should also be taken to prevent husbands and wives from playing into each other's hands with a view to defrauding their creditors. He submitted this was a halting measure, and therefore an unworkable piece of legislation, and one that would do more harm than good.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,as the Member responsible for the Bill of 1868, congratulated the House on the great change of opinion on this measure. He believed it would have been utterly impossible for such a Bill to have passed the second reading in the last Parliament, where the Home Secretary denounced it as a revolutionary measure. In this Parliament the principle was conceded, and there was not even opposition to the second reading. The details of the Bill under discussion were identical with that introduced in 1868,
    1544
    which was referred to a Select Committee and reported upon favourably as to the principle of the Bill. In the following year it was again introduced, and again referred to a Select Committee, one of the strongest that ever sat, and upon which were Chief Justice Coleridge, Baron Amphlett and Mr. Justice Lopes, Sir Russell Gurney and Mr. Lowe, and they agreed to the details of the measure with the single exception of Mr. Justice Lopes. The measure then went up to the House of Lords, where it was eventually taken up by Lord Cairns; and anyone who read his speech would see he was in favour of the principle of the measure, but was compelled for certain reasons to agree to considerable alterations, which reduced the condition of the Act which now appeared on the Statute Book of 1870. That Act had certainly given rise to an immense amount of litigation, but there was no more satisfactory Act on the Statute Book. It conceded the principle of the right of the wife to her separate property and to her earnings; and, as none of the evils which had been predicted had arisen, he thought the House would be justified in going further, and conceding the principle of this measure, which was that marriage was no longer to be regarded as an act of confiscation of the wife's property for the benefit of her husband, but that, in respect of that property, she should have the full right of property and of suing and being sued.
    MR. GREGORYalmost regretted that the second reading of the Bill might be considered a foregone conclusion; for a Bill, so wide in its scope and extensive in its operations, should not be passed hurriedly. It would place a married woman exactly in the position of a husband with respect to her property, and she would be able to deal with it and trade with it without his control, while the husband would still continue liable for his wife's debts and liabilities beyond the extent of her property. But, in addition to this, what he doubted was the policy of separating the interests of husband and wife. He regretted that the Bill had that tendency, and that it did not sufficiently respect the rights of the husband.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the husband was relieved except where the wife acted as his agent.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, the husband would have to pay for whatever could be brought under the denomination of "necessaries."
    MR. WILLISsaid, that the hon. Member opposite was mistaken in saying that the law made the husband liable for his wife's debts. He was only liable for debts which were contracted by his express or implied consent. If a person married a woman he could, at the moment of marriage, say—"You shall not pledge my credit for one single thing, even for necessaries." Such a prohibition would protect the husband against any attempt of the wife to pledge her credit except in the case of her being-obliged to leave her home through the misconduct of the husband. He believed that the effect of the Bill would be very different from what the hon. Member apprehended, and that it would unite rather than dissociate the interests of man and wife. He fully approved of the change proposed to be made, for, in his opinion, no species of property, in consequence of the various rules of law applicable to it, was so much wasted in litigation as that which was intended to be protected by this measure. He wished that the Bill made some provision with respect to gifts of property from the wife to the husband, and the alienation of real property by a married woman. These matters, it seemed to him, should be carefully guarded, and he trusted the law would be extended in that direction.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday next.

  LIMITATION OF COSTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  (Mr. Errington, Mr. Blennerhassett.)
  LIMITATION OF COSTS (IRELAND) BILL.

    [BILL 149.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Beading read.
    MR. ERRINGTON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he was happy to inform the House that Her Majesty's Government had no objection to the principles of it, although they might desire to amend some of the details at a later stage. Opposition was threatened to the measure from the other side of the House, but he did not think it was of a very serious character. The Bill accomplished two great objects,
    1546
    and it remedied a grievance under which Irish tenants had suffered for many years. It was true it was a Bill of a technical nature, and not one likely to excite very great interest in the House; but, at the same time, he thought hon. Members would approve of it, because it in no way interfered with the rights which the landlords at present possessed. It merely extended to the Irish tenants the benefits and the advantages of cheap and inexpensive litigation. As the law at present stood, the plaintiff, even in a small case, was obliged to proceed in a superior Court, and he had not the opportunity of going to an inferior Court in order to settle a minor grievance. This was considered to be a great hardship by the tenants; because, if a landlord succeeded in obtaining judgment in a superior Court which he might as well have done in an inferior Court, it amounted simply to a gratuitous fine upon the tenant. He did not desire to prevent the landlord from proceeding in a superior Court, although he considered there was no necessity for such a process in most cases. Ho, therefore, proposed to extend the jurisdiction of the inferior Courts; and he would avoid any difficulties which might arise by making a provision that if the landlord desired to go to a superior Court to obtain what he considered to be his right, he should do so at his own cost. That was to say, the defendant should not be called upon to pay higher costs than would be imposed upon him in an inferior Court, unless the landlord was able to show that he could not obtain redress without appeal to a superior Court. In order to show the effect of this arrangement, he would state what the fees in the two Courts were. In the superior Court the preliminary fee was £1 10s., as against 10s. in the County Court. A judgment by default cost £6 7s. in the superior Court, as against £2 10s. 10 d. in the County Court. A Sheriff's execution, £2 6s. 2d., as against £1 10s.; and where there was a title to redemption, £7, as against £4. The second part of the Bill dealt with the right of the tenant, at various stages of the proceedings against him for non-payment of rent, to stop the proceedings by payment of costs and arrears; and in certain circumstances, on payment made within six months from eviction, to be reinstated in his holding. The object of the

    1547
    Bill was to provide that a tenant sued for arrears of rent should not be mulcted in excessive costs. He hoped that the House would consent to redress the grievance he had described. He should be willing to consider any Amendments that might be proposed, and he trusted the House would not object to the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Errington.)
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he was most happy to be able to support the Bill. There was, however, one provision which he would in Committee propose to amend, and he trusted the hon. Gentlemen opposite would have no difficulty in accepting what he would propose. The 4th clause provided that the tenant should be enabled, at the end of six calendar months, to apply to the Court for the purpose of being restored on a farm from which he might have been ejected, It would be most objectionable that a vexatious proceeding of that kind should be allowed unless the rent due and the costs incurred were secured to the landlord, and the Amendment which he meant to propose would provide that the money should be lodged in the hands of the Clerk of the Peace of the county prior to the tenant being re-instated. Such an Amendment was a very fair one, and would, no doubt, meet with approval.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he approved of the principle of the Bill, which he understood to be that if a landlord chose to proceed against his tenant in a superior Court he might do so, but should not be entitled to recover more costs than he would have been awarded in a inferior Court, unless he could show that he could not have got adequate redress in such inferior Court. That was a sound principle, and he could not see any valid objection to it. The course adopted by some landlords practically precluded a tenant from making any defence. A poor man, for instance, in Connaught or Munster knew little of the employment of a solicitor away in Dublin. The principle, indeed, had been acted upon in other matters, and he thought it might be applied with equal propriety in the way proposed by the Bill. It was most important that the Courts, dealing with small cases of arrears
    1548
    of rent, should not be expensive in their procedure; and, as the tendency of the Bill seemed to him to be to render justice cheaper than it now was, he was able to support it. There were, indeed, some matters of detail which required amendment, but with the principle of the Bill he entirely agreed.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 154.]
  (Mr. Anderson, Mr. Duncan M'Laren, Sir David Wedderburn, Mr. James Stewart.)
  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 154.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. ANDERSON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that, after the statement they had already had on the second reading of the English Bill, he did not think there would be any difficulty in assenting to the second reading of this Bill also, for the object of it was to do exactly for the property of married women in Scotland what the Bill that had been read a second time that afternoon had attempted to do for England. In bringing forward the Bill this Session, he desired to state that it was not exactly the Bill that he had brought in last Session. The Bill of last Session was intended to bring up the Scotch law to the level of the English; but it would be clearly absurd to bring up the Scotch law to the level of a law which Parliament was about to alter, as it had declared by adopting the principle of the Bill read to-day. There was every probability that the Bill would be passed this Session. Clearly, the course formerly followed would not be suited to the altered circumstances. He had, therefore, thought it more straightforward to bring up at once the Bill in a more complete form, so as to afford the very same degree of protection that the property of married women in England would have when the new Bill became law. The people of Scotland wore much worse off in this matter than the people of England. In England the property of married women had had protection since 1870 under Russell Gurney's Act, and that was what they had not enjoyed in Scotland. There really was no pro-

    1549
    tection there for the property of married women, except where women were deserted by their husbands, and except in the case of earnings, so far as these were protected by an Act passed in 1877. In no other way was there any protection except by ante-nuptial contract. Well, the mass of married women had not got an ante-nuptial contract; and what he wanted done was to make the presumption of law the same for a woman without an ante-nuptial settlement as if she had one. The Bill proposed to do nothing more than was now done every day by such ante-nuptial contracts. He supposed that every Member of that House, when he had one of his daughters married, took care to have her property so protected. As a matter of fact, poor people did not have ante-nuptial contracts, and did not think it necessary; but in many cases they acquired property after marriage, and all such property was in the hands of the husbands. Hence his proposal to set the law right on this important matter. He regretted that, in dealing with the question, they had not the advantage of the presence of the Lord Advocate, and he hoped that before long he would be in the House. As to any matters of detail in the clauses, these could be considered hereafter with the Government, and he trusted the House would assent to the second reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Anderson.)
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEcordially agreed with the general principle laid down by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), and that it was most important to assimilate the law of Scotland with that of England. From that point of view, he agreed in the attempt being made to alter the law. In last year's Bill there was some discussion on the question of assimilation, and on this occasion they had had the advantage of listening to the views put forward with regard to the English measure. At the same time, it would be well if such communication were made with the Scotch Law Officer as would put it on all fours with the English Bill. He wished to draw attention to a matter which should be kept in view in any changes of this kind which would alter the relations between husband and wife in many important
    1550
    particulars. While he cordially assented to the Bill, it must be borne in mind that the wife was relieved by the existing law from certain obligations which were undoubtedly thrown upon her husband for the support of his family. Now, where there was a joint concern there must either be complete liability on one or the other side, or such joint compromise as might easily be adjudicated upon. They could not give to the wife the same position as her husband with regard to earnings without imposing on her certain obligations. He thought this was generally admitted, and that a clause was proposed in the Bill to this effect, that the wife should be liable to the general support of the family. But if his hon. Friend would turn to the English Bill which had lately come under discussion, he would see that the clause which he had introduced did not stand on all fours with the English Bill. Whereas in the English Bill the husband was liable for the support of the family, it was in his hon. Friend's proposal, under the Proviso, that the husband should be liable in the first instance. Now, it was quite impossible for them to adjudicate between the two in the case of a creditor coming upon one or other; but husband and wife should be liable on equal terms. He did not see why the husband should be liable first. If the wife was liable as much as the husband, he did not see why she should not be equally liable in this respect. If they were going to legislate, it ought to be done on such a basis as would make the laws assimilate, and there should be no difficult question raised with regard to domicile and other matters. When the Scotch law was referred to, the Bill ought to be on the same principle; and if there was a fair prospect of the English Bill being passed, his hon. Friend should allow it to be completed before pushing his own measure to another stage.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) was quite willing to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke) to allow the English Bill to go first through Committee, and then, as to whatever changes might take place in the English Bill, the Scotch Bill should be altered exactly in the same way as nearly as the technical phraseology of the two countries and their distinctive

    1551
    laws would permit. He hoped the Bill would be read a second time without a division, seeing that its object was the same as was contemplated by the English one. There would, then, be no difficulty in adopting the alterations made on the one Bill to the other in the same spirit.
    MR. ARTHUR PEELsaid, no one regretted more than he did the unavoidable absence of the hon. and learned Lord Advocate; but he hoped the House would allow him to supply his hon. and learned Friend's place, and say a few words on the Bill. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had introduced a measure on this subject last year, and it differed in some respects from the present one, for it went on the principle of assimilating the law of Scotland to that of England as nearly as possible. The present measure deviated in some of its clauses very materially from that measure. That deviation was especially remarkable in Clauses 1 and 2. As to Clause 1, that of last Session required the wife's money to be invested in some definite way in a separate definite investment, so that in case of dispute the particular property belonging to her could be identified. By that clause, a wife having a separate estate could have it identified without any trouble in case of dispute. The clause now introduced by the hon. Member for Glasgow, contained a very material deviation from the one formerly proposed. Then, again, in Clause 2, it might be very advisable to take away the jus mariti; but he understood that much more doubt attended the question of taking away the jus administrandi. It was very disputable whether the point should be dealt with in the manner proposed by the Bill. The measure of last year proceeded on the principle of assimilating the law of the two countries. The acceptance by the Attorney General of the second reading of the English Bill modified the objection which might be taken to the present measure on the ground of its discrepancy from the English law on the subject. It was desirable, as far as the circumstances of the two countries allowed and the state of the laws and customs would permit, that the laws should be assimilated as to the rights of married women. Under the circumstances, he would not object to the second reading; but he would point out that it was very de-
    1552
    sirable that the Bill should proceed pari passu with the English Bill, and that the law of both countries which dealt with the rights of married women should be put on the same footing.
    MR. WEBSTERregretted, with other hon. Members who had preceded him, the absence of the Lord Advocate, whose special experience in regard to the law in this matter would have made his opinion with respect to the measure of considerable importance. The House had waited to hear the opinion of the Government; and, although the Under Secretary had explained that opinion, he should have liked to have heard it from the Lord Advocate himself, at all events with regard to some points in the Bill which seemed to go beyond the principle stated by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). He did not intend to oppose the second reading; but there was one point which deserved notice—namely, the power in the Bill to do away with the right of administration of the husband. The Bill in several respects went very much beyond abolishing the jus mariti merely, and, without in the least wishing to detain the House by considering matters which were more strictly for consideration in Committee, he must mention one point upon which he should have been glad to have the Lord Advocate's opinion had he been present. The hon. Member for Glasgow, in moving the second reading, had stated that it was substantially the same as the Bill for England, which was brought in and read a second time just now, and that it was the same in substance as the measure which he formerly brought in, and which did not pass a second reading. Having heard the discussion on the English Bill, and having read that Bill, it appeared to him that the present measure had been very materially altered from the English Bill; and, besides, it was to be borne in mind, that the law of Scotland differed very much from the law of England, so that it did not follow that an attempt should be made to assimilate the laws of the two countries on every precise point. In the proposal for Scotland there was this great difference from the proposal for England, that while the jus mariti, which gave a right to the husband to the property of the wife, was most justly to be done away with, the separate right in administration, the curatorial power introduced by the law for the protection

    1553
    of the interests of the wife herself and of the children of the marriage also, was done away with. This right of administration proceeded on the assumption of the inexperience and greater want of knowledge on the part of the wife, and her disposition to trust more and rely more upon other people. It was, therefore, provided by law that there should be a distinct right of administration even where the husband's right of property was abandoned, so that no deed made by the wife in relation to her real property without the husband's consent was valid, and no deed or personal obligation could be valid even with his consent. The point was extremely interesting to Scotland; but this Bill had never been before the country at all. He had waited with some interest to learn from the hon. Member for Glasgow whether the measure was supported by public opinion in Scotland, whether any legal body had pronounced a legal opinion upon it, and whether proper opportunity of discussing it had been afforded to Scotland. With only one exception, and that was a Petition from some most respectable constituents of his own in Aberdeen, no Petition either for or against the Bill had been presented to the House. He therefore wished to impress upon hon. Gentlemen, that the fullest opportunity possible ought to be afforded to all who were interested in the matter to consider the Bill. There were several clauses which he viewed with grave objection; and, unquestionably, the Bill would have to undergo considerable alteration in Committee if it was to be made a satisfactory measure. The 3rd clause appeared to be exposed to all the objections stated to-day to the English measure; and as to the 4th clause, it was one entirely new, and did not necessarily arise out of the reasonable provision for doing away with the husband's jus mariti, or property, in the wife's estate. The hon. Member for Glasgow would find that so far from the 5th clause improving the position of the wife in regard to her property, it would actually put her in a worse position than she held now. Having stated his objections, which he thought were worthy of consideration, he desired to add that he was entirely favourable to the first part of the Bill; but he thought the people of Scotland should have full time to consider the measure.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday next.

  BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 166.]
  (Mr. Meldon, Mr. Maurice Brooks, Mr. Errington.)
  BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 166.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. MELDON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the measure was not by any means new to the former Parliament. The Bill was for the purpose of making an alteration in the system of legislation for the registration of births and deaths in Ireland. A similar measure was first brought be-fore Parliament in 1876, and similar Bills had been introduced in subsequent years. The object of the Bill, which contained altogether simply matters of detail, was to assimilate the law of the registration of births and deaths in Ireland to that of England. He believed there was no opposition to the measure, and, as the Bill dealt with mere details, he would not take up the time of the House by explaining them, but content himself with asking the House to give the measure a second reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Meldon.)
    DR. LYONSsaid, he wished to make one or two observations with regard to the Bill. The matter was a very important one; but he did not wish to go into the whole subject now, but would endeavour to confine his remarks to practical points as much as possible. It appeared to him that one objection to the Bill was that it continued the present system of making it everybody's business to record the occurrence of a death, the duty of reporting a death devolving upon so many persons who might or might not have a special interest in recording the particular death. It also left open the time for recording a death for far too long a period—namely, seven days. He thought that was far too long a period, whether a person died from natural or from other causes, for the cause of death to remain unascertained for so long

    1555
    a period. In cases where there might be some suspicion as to the actual cause of death, he held that there ought to be an investigation within a very brief period, and he should say that such cases ought to be investigated within 24 hours after the death had taken place. The whole of this subject was so large that it ought to receive full consideration. The matter had been very fully considered in Continental legislation for a very considerable period of time, and now a competent person was appointed registrar of deaths on the Continent. This system had been worked for a considerable time in France, and it was also worked in Germany; and when they were proposing new legislation for Ireland on the subject, he certainly desired to see some mode introduced in that country of verifying deaths, and he believed that the only way in which this could be done was by appointing responsible and scientifically educated persons to perform the duties. He believed the most practical way would be that a report should be made, as was the case on the Continent, of the death to a medical officer specially charged with the duty, who should immediately visit the dead body and ascertain whether there were any circumstances about the case involving a suspicion that the death resulted from ill-treatment or foul play of any kind. In going into this subject, one would be surprised to find what a large number of instances of cases of suspicious deaths were reported, compared with the number that were inquired into before the system came into operation. The rules on the Continent were that a body was not allowed to be disturbed from the position in which death actually took place until the arrival of the officer— generally the medical officer of the nearest district—who examined the body and inquired into all the circumstances of the case, and then issued a certificate. If the officer saw grounds for making further inquiries, he reported accordingly. This might seem a very expensive process, but he did not think it was an unnecessary one. This was a very important medical question, and he thought, in any contemplated change of legislation, it was very desirable that the whole of this important subject should be inquired into, and provisions introduced which were in any way likely
    1556
    to meet the actual necessities of the case, before they proceeded in a manner which would close the subject practically for many years to come. This was one of those subjects that it was very difficult to get opened in that House; and now that the matter was before them, he should very much prefer that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee to make full inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the case. He did not believe that the registration of deaths in this country was likely to be satisfactory until the duties were placed in the hands of a responsible and specially educated person, who should be appointed to discharge them. They knew very well that the registration of deaths was now considered of the greatest importance, and it was held to be a most important practice in connection with life insurances. Therefore, the whole subject was one which very well deserved special consideration, and therefore he should like to see it referred to a Select Committee. He thought he had said enough to show that the subject was one which ought not to be legislated upon in a hasty manner, but one that required to be carefully considered and inquired into, and he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would agree to refer it to a Select Committee.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he thought the suggestion which had just been made to refer the Bill to a Select Committee was a most proper one, and he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) would accede to it. The subject was not entirely a new one, because it had been before the House already; but, at the same time, the subject was of great importance. They had had before the House that day a large number of Bills, some of them of great importance, which many hon. Gentlemen had expected would take a long time to settle, and they had now come to one which was really a most important Bill. The question pointed out by the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons) was one which deserved the most serious consideration. It seemed to him that the time in which notice of death was allowed to be given was very long, especially in the cases where the death might ultimately be the subject of inquiry. It certainly appeared to him a very long period in which to acquaint the registrar

    1557
    of a death, and a very much longer and, as he thought, an unnecessary length of time was given to inform the registrar of a birth. The period of 42 days was allowed in the case of a birth; and that 42 days should be allowed to give notice to the registrar, who usually lived in the immediate neighbourhood, he could not understand. If that was the English law, he hoped that the Irish law would not be assimilated to it. There was another question which affected the law of coroners, but as the coroner's was only a Court in a matter of doubt as to what was the cause of death, he did not think there ought to be any alteration of the law in that respect without a very great consideration. He did not think there ought to be any legislation without the matter being referred to a Select Committee, because, if the law was to be altered so as to make it completely satisfactory, the whole subject ought to be thoroughly considered and sifted. He certainly did not think it a conclusive reason for assimilating the law of Ireland to that of England, to state that such was the English law: and, therefore, if the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons) moved an Amendment to refer the Bill to a Select Committee after it had been read a second time, he would support him. If the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) would not accept that proposal, he felt obliged to oppose the second reading of the Bill.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOB IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he agreed with the suggestion of his hon. Friend opposite, that the best course would be to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. Some very serious alterations in the law were proposed in the Bill. For instance, it was suggested that the fees payable to the registrar should be 2s. 6d. for a birth and 1s. for a death, instead of 1s. and 6d. respectively as at present. Such an increase in the fees might press very heavily on the poor. The Bill, however, was one which ought to be considered by a Select Committee, for it could not be satisfactorily discussed in a Committee of the Whole House. As had been admitted by the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), it embodied a great mass of details which ought to be carefully considered; and he was satisfied that the hon. and learned Member would agree, that if they wanted
    1558
    to amend the law they ought to consider the best means of doing so. He could not assent to the second reading unless it were understood that the details of the Bill should afterwards be most carefully considered.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he was perfectly willing to leave the general drawing up of a Bill of this kind to the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), and was willing, in a renewal way, to allow him to draft any Bill on the subject that he chose, with one exception— namely, the question of expenses. Now, there were certain fees charged by this Bill, and he was very strongly opposed to any increase of fees whatever. He assured the House that whenever he attended a Poor Law Union in Ireland, although his colleagues were usually kind enough to approve of his efforts with respect to Acts that were passed in that House, they always objected to Acts which increased the poor rates, such as the Sanitary and other Acts. He told them that he voted against all those Acts, and he intended to do so on the present occasion if the fees were likely to lead to any increase of the rates. His own opinion was that the cost of the machinery of registration ought to be defrayed out of the Imperial resources. He thought, before the Bill went into Committee, they ought to have a better explanation of these fees.
    MR. P. MARTINsaid, if the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, he trusted the Committee would not be considered bound to adopt the suggestions of the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons), which were of an extremely elaborate character. It was true that precautions and vigilance such as he advocated might be advisable in France and other countries; but the present system appeared to have worked up to now extremely well in England. If the suggestions of the hon. Member were adopted, a large number of medical gentlemen would be required to be appointed. He would point out that the effect of many of the clauses would demand most careful consideration on the part of the Committee when appointed. As he read the Bill, it appeared to cast on the local rates portions of the charges that had heretofore been, and still ought to be, paid by the Treasury. Existing claims also were affected; for Clerks of Unions, who acted as super-

    1559
    intendent registrars, were placed in a worse position under the Bill than they were in now—in fact, the amount of the fees of the Clerks of Unions were diminished by one-half. Then, if the Bill should be referred to a Committee, there was another slight matter that would be carefully considered, and that was in respect of the declaration. According to the Act those declarations were to be made to a justice of the peace in Ireland under circumstances which required them to be made to a registrar in England. Now, it was an advantage to poor persons to have them made before a registrar, because poor persons could easily have access to the registrar; whereas, in many places in Ireland, it would be a serious matter to force persons to make a declaration before a magistrate; therefore, he hoped in that particular there would be an alternative.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

  MEDICAL CHARITIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  (Mr. Meldon, Mr, Maurice Brooks, Mr. Errington.)
  MEDICAL CHARITIES (IRELAND) BILL.

    [BILL 167.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. MELDON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, this was also a Bill dealing with details to a great extent; but he could not say it was altogether a matter of detail, for there were certain principles in the Bill that could be well discussed in Committee, and he would, therefore, confine himself to one or two things. It had been found in the Medical Department of the Poor Law of Ireland that the appointment of persons called wardens in the working of relief was unsatisfactory, and he proposed that that system of wardens should be abolished. In Ireland there was a great deal of difficulty about the giving of medical relief tickets to those who were not entitled to them, as they were able to pay for medical assistance. He proposed to deal with that in two ways. First, to check the system of granting tickets to those who ought not to receive them, and to prevent tickets being given on the loan system. Those matters had been the subject of great consideration in Ireland; and if the House would afford him the second reading, he would be prepared to refer
    1560
    the Bill to a Select Committee for consideration.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Meldon.)
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYhoped the Government would not allow the Bill to be read a second time. He should most certainly vote against it, for the reason that it would be exceedingly injurious to many poor districts. He also protested against the Bill being brought forward in this way, having an important subject springing up on them as it were in surprise. It seemed to be a measure to relieve medical officers from the duties thrown upon them, and greatly to increase the cost to the ratepayers. If referred to a Select Committee it would do harm, as it would then be held that the principle of the Bill had been conceded, and that he could not agree to.
    MR. CORRYalso opposed the Bill.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, there were provisions in the Bill that would make it a very serious thing for Ireland, and he considered that in the present short Session of Parliament it would be impossible to appoint a Select Committee that could do justice to the facts brought before them, and that there would not be time afterwards for consideration by the House. For that reason, he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day throe months.
    MR. MELDONsaid, he would be the last person to take the House by surprise. The Bill had been before the House last Session, and not a single Member had put down a Notice against it, nor was any objection made to it. Under the circumstances, however, he would not press it, and would, therefore, move that the debate be adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Meldon.)
    MR. GIBSONremarked, that it was quite obvious that the Bill would affect Ireland from one end to the other, as it related to the issue of relief tickets. It was a very great abuse that men should get tickets who were well able to pay for medical advice, and it was a very objectionable thing that medical men should get what were called in Ireland "scarlet

    1561
    runners" in the case of such persons. The Bill dealt with this great grievance in a very trenchant way, and said that no one who was a Parliamentary voter should be entitled to obtain medical Poor Law relief. That was a very important principle; but the question was one which ought not to be rushed through the House.
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Monday next.

  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 169.]
  (Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Leamy, Mr. Daly, Mr. Gray, Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 169.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. E. POWER,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he would not detain the House more than two minutes. This Bill had been before the House on other occasions, and on the last, when a Conservative Government was in Office, had been defeated only by a majority of five. Its object was to assimilate the municipal franchise in England and Ireland. He did not see why the inhabitants of towns in Ireland should not have the same franchise as the inhabitants of towns in England. But that was not the case. For instance, while Leeds, with a population of 220,212, had 52,754 municipal electors, Dublin, with 267,712 inhabitants, had only 5,584. That, he considered, should tell very much in favour of the Bill. A comparison between Bradford and Belfast, Gateshead and Limerick, Swansea and Cork, would show similar results. The Bill was so simple, that anyone who could not understand it in two or three minutes had no business to come to the House of Commons. Remembering that the measure was only beaten by a majority of five when the Conservative Party were in power, he hoped that now the Liberals wore in the ascendant the second reading would be carried by a handsome majority. Nothing tended to keep up ill-feeling and bad spirit more than these miserable laws, and it was only natural that so jealous a people as the Irish should look with envy on any law with which England had been favoured, but which they had refused to extend to Ireland.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Richard Power.)
    MR. CORRYsaid, this seemed to be regarded as a very simple Bill, and the House was asked to pass it almost without any explanation. It had been before a former Parliament, and a Committee of the House had sat for three years taking evidence upon the municipal government and taxation of Ireland. That Committee drew up an able Report, but not a single one of their recommendations was embodied in the Bill. Municipal government in Ireland, no doubt, required some reform. The evidence taken before the Committee to which he referred disclosed some very extraordinary dealings with municipal property and other things in Ireland, besides that relating to the franchise; and if the Members of the present House of Commons would only look into these things, they would see that many other changes wore required. He was aware that in the town which he had the honour to represent (Belfast), the municipal franchise was more limited than the Parliamentary franchise. At the same time, they felt that unless they had a great many other alterations in the municipal government of the country, it would be very unfair to reduce the franchise and put it into the hands of those who were the smallest ratepayers in the boroughs. On former occasions this Bill had received a great deal of discussion at the hands of the Irish Members; but he found, from the way in which it was brought before the House this time, that his Friends from Ireland did not seem to think the present House of Commons required any information. They deemed it sufficient to say that the law was different in Ireland from what it was in England, and that they ought to be assimilated. But, on this matter, as well as on many others, the conditions of the two countries were not at all analogous. He was aware that in Dublin the Corporation managed their business in any extraordinary way. They had a large amount of corporate property, and in dealing with that property the Corporation had, from time to time, made leases of a character which was not creditable to them. A Commission had been inquiring into the condition of many boroughs in Ireland, and as that

    1563
    Commission had not yet reported, but would shortly do so, he thought it would he unwise to make any change until they obtained the Report on the Municipal Franchise of Ireland. Moreover, the number of boroughs in Ireland that had municipal corporations was not large, as a good many of the towns were under the Towns Improvement Act. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. James Corry.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. GRAYsaid, that the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Corry) had been pleased to make some very general and sweeping charges against the Corporation of Dublin; but it was scarcely good taste in the hon. Member to make charges of the kind he had against the Corporation of Dublin unless he was prepared to sustain them, and, for his part, he had been unable to hear from the hon. Member any special statement in support of those charges. As the hon. Member was not inclined to make any specific charge, he (Mr. Gray) found a difficulty in meeting a negative; but he certainly could not agree, and would be scarcely expected to agree, with him. The hon. Gentleman had asserted that the Corporation of Dublin had mismanaged their business, but he had scarcely seen that this argument cut both ways. Even supposing that all the corporations of Ireland mismanaged their business, that went to show that the corporations were not sufficiently representative or sufficiently amendable to public opinion. He would say that the Corporation of Dublin had fairly managed its business; but he would not say that they had always done so in the best way possible. If the House made corporations really representative, they would bring public opinion to bear upon them in such away as that reforms, as far as reform was necessary, would be practicable, and strengthen the hands of those bodies in carrying out the necessary public improvements. The population of Dublin was about 250,000, and the number of inhabited houses was about 25,000; but
    1564
    the number of burgesses who elected members of the Corporation, and a body which had great powers and great responsibilities, was barely 5,000. Therefore, really the Corporation in a certain sense could scarcely be said to be representative, and the members of the Corporation felt themselves hampered and weakened through so many of those who had to pay the rates and taxes having no voice in the elections. They had already established a household municipal franchise in England, and it had been found sufficiently satisfactory. It therefore, lay on the opponents of the Bill to say why the same thing should not be done in Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast had advanced certain vague indefinite charges without one word of evidence; but if those charges proved anything, they proved that the Bill was required. Merely to assert that the Corporation of Dublin had disposed of its leases not to the best advantage was nothing; the question was, whether they would establish the principle of equal laws and franchises between the two countries? It was ridiculous to argue such a great question on such grounds as had been raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, whose speech was one of the best arguments in favour of the Bill, because, for a Gentleman of his ability, experience, and knowledge of the subject—and he knew his knowledge of municipal laws and municipal work in Belfast was thorough, although he would not go into that now —not to be able to advance a single argument in favour of his proposal that the Bill should be strangled for this year, was proof enough that there was no argument to be advanced at all.
    COLONEL BARNEsaid, it appeared to him that the Irish Franchise Bill should go a great deal further than was intended by its promoters. There were very small and wretched boroughs in Ireland which had the power of returning Members to that House. ["Question!"] He thought that it was time that there was a comparison made and acted upon with reference to the number of seats allowed to Ireland with those allowed to the same population in England. ["Question !"] The question was that the number of Members sitting in that House should bear some proportion to the population of the country. ["Question !"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I must say that the hon. and gallant Member is not keeping to the immediate Question before the House, which relates to the municipal, not the Parliamentary, franchise.
    COLONEL BARNEwished merely to point out that Ireland was over represented in that House, and that it would be far better for the interests of the Empire if Ireland was less represented.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he would have preferred if the Government had taken part in the discussion upon this Bill. He had served upon a Committee with the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Corry) on this subject for three Sessions, and the question of the municipal franchise in Ireland had been carefully considered. The measure now before the House was one of obvious importance, and the principle of it, he thought, ought to have been considered and dealt with in a complete manner by the Government, having due regard to all the important matters discussed before the Select Committee, and which were quite ignored in this Bill, too. He regretted that the scope of the Bill was limited to the seven municipal towns of Ireland. It would have been more desirable if the Government had dealt with the subject broadly, and included it in a comprehensive plan of dealing with county government. He hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast had no intention of dividing upon this Bill, and that he would allow it to be read a second time. As for himself, he would reserve his right to consider its provisions at a future stage.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that the opinion of the Government was precisely the same as it had been for the last five or six years when sitting in Opposition. They would give their support to the Bill. It was perfectly true that the Municipal Corporations in Ireland were not very numerous; but, whether they were 7 or 27 in number, did not make the smallest difference as regarded the principle involved. The officers of municipalities in Ireland were elected under a Statute passed in 1840 requiring a high rating qualification on the part of the electors. At the time the Act was being passed it was intended that a similar system to that established in England by the Municipal Reform Act of 1835 should be provided for Ireland; but the efforts
    1566
    of the Duke of Wellington to the contrary unfortunately succeeded, and the result was the law as it now stood. Since then the Irish Parliamentary franchise had been dealt with, and they now had what might be called almost household suffrage in the boroughs, it being at the rate of £4 per year, whereas, before a man could vote for an alderman or a town councillor, he must be rated at £10 per year. It was absurd that, in order to qualify a man for the municipal franchise, he must be rated two and a-half times as high as the man who could vote for a Member of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) had objected to the Bill on the ground that it was incomplete, as it did not include all the towns of Ireland—that was by making provision for incorporating them. That, however, was quite a separate matter, which required consideration not only for Ireland but for England also. Meantime, the Government were now prepared to support the Bill before the House.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 150.]
  (Mr, Meldon, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Mitchell Henry, Mr. Findlater, Mr. Dawson.)
  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 150.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Definition of "principal Act and of" Registration Acts), and Clause 2 (Extent of Act), agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Short Title).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."—(Mr. Meldon.)
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not proposed to move any Amendment in this clause; but he wished to call the attention of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) to the fact that he omitted to state when this Bill, which dealt so immensely with details, was to come into operation.

    1567
    No one knew better than his hon. and learned Friend, that if they were to attend closely to the machinery of the registration it would he absolutely impossible for the Bill to come into operation at once without very considerably upsetting the work of registration. It would, therefore, be necessary to fix some time next year—for instance, the 10th of January, as the date when the Bill was to come into operation. It would be impossible to select a much earlier date, seeing that the objections would not be prepared and served before the month of August. He only mentioned the matter to his hon. and learned Friend, in order that the necessity of fixing a date for the Bill to come into operation was borne in mind.
    MR. MELDONsaid, the matter was one to which he had given a considerable amount of consideration, and the reason why no clause had been inserted stating the date at which the Bill should come into operation was that there was before the House a Registration Bill, and he was anxious to postpone the date until he could ascertain with positive ness what was the best date to select. He had simply deferred the date because he thought it was advisable not to fix it until he saw what the course of legislation was likely to be. Before the Bill was finally disposed of a clause would be inserted, to provide that the Bill should not come into operation until the 1st of January next.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Prevention of frivolous objections.
    Clause 4 (Notices of objection shall state grounds of objection.)
    MR. MELDONmoved, as an Amendment, in line 28, after the word "voters," to insert the words "not being on the list of claimants." It was necessary, he thought, that the clause should not apply to the list of claimants, but only to the supplementary list of voters.
    MR. GIBSONdid not object at all to the Amendment, which he regarded as being quite upon the lines of his hon. Friend's Bill. But there was an earlier Amendment, of which Notice had been given by his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Dublin (Mr. Ion Hamilton). He presumed that his hon. Friend was absent elsewhere on urgent
    1568
    affairs, as he was not in attendance to move the Amendments of which he had given Notice. It was due, however, to his hon. Friend, as an Amendment appeared on the Paper in his name, to state what its purport was. The object of the clause of the hon. and learned Mem-for Kildare, was to place the old register and the new supplementary list on exactly the same basis. In reality, they were to be regarded as being separated by a broad line of demarcation. A man who was on the old register was there in consequence of having already proved his right, and being upon the old list no one was entitled, without good or definite reason, to question his right because he was there. The onus of proof rested upon the person who questioned the right to be there. The' person whose name was placed upon the supplementary list had never before been called upon to prove his right, and had not shown that he satisfied all the conditions by which he was entitled to be a Parliamentary voter. He (Mr. Gibson) only wished thus to point out that a broad line separated the supplementary list from the list of claimants, and he thought it was reasonable that the distinction between the two should still be maintained. Having mentioned the matter in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Dublin, who had placed the Amendment on the Paper, he would— particularly having regard to the state of the House—not trouble the House by taking a division upon the point.
    MR. MELDONsaid, the clause dealt only with the prevention of objections, and the law, as provided by the clause, would exactly assimilate the law in Ireland to that which already existed in England. He might explain that the Amendment which he had himself proposed—namely, to insert after the word "voters," the words "not being a list of claimants," was intended to exclude altogether a list that was not officially prepared, but was merely a list of those who thought themselves entitled to the franchise.
    Amendment agreed to; words added.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Person objected to only required to give evidence in support of his right so far as ground of objection stated) agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Each ground of objection to be treated as a separate objection and costs awarded).
    MR GIBSONsaid, be bad always assented to the second reading of this Bill, and in doing so be bad stated what be now wished to repeat, that he had always fully recognized the principle that it was desirable and right to have a full register. That object could be accomplished in two ways—first, by giving all reasonable facilities to persons entitled to be placed upon the register; and, secondly, to give a fair and legitimate scope to all those who had a legal right to serve objections. In Section 6 of the Bill the closing words of the clause were, in his opinion, the commencement of what was practically making it penal for a Member to serve an objection at all. It was quite right to discourage the serving of frivolous objections; but the clause went much further, and after giving power to award costs to the amount of at least 2s. 6d.—which, however, he did not object to—it went on to say—
    "And this, though the name of the person objected to he expunged upon some other ground of objection stated in the same notice of objection."
    Now, he did not think that if the name of a person was successfully challenged the objector had any right to pay the costs. It was quite right to have challenged the name of the person whom it was sought to place upon the list; but it would almost make it penal if they saddled him with the costs of one objection which failed, although another objection might be successful. Under these circumstances, he thought the Amendment was reasonable which his hon. Friend the Member for the county of Dublin (Mr. Ion Hamilton) had placed on the Paper—namely, in page 2, line 23, after the word "sixpence," to leave out all the words that followed to the end of the clause. He would, therefore, move that Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 23, after "sixpence," to leave out to end of Clause.—(Mr. Gibson.)
    MR. MELDONsaid, there were two objections to the substance of this Amendment. In the first place, the clause merely assimilated the law in Ireland to that which already existed in
    1570
    England. That was one good reason; but be bad another. The object of these provisions was to impose a penalty on any person who chose to come forward for the purpose of objecting frivolously to voters whose names bad been placed upon the lists, either the old list or the supplementary list, officially. The clause provided that the objector should be bound to specify to the person against whom he objected what the grounds of his objections were. There were five grounds on which be might object; and upon either of these grounds, if be chose to specify the whole of them, the name of the person objected to might be expunged in the event of the objection being sustained. If the objector simply said, "I object to him on all of these five grounds," and said nothing further, the matter was left just as it was now, and the person whose name was challenged had no opportunity of knowing what the real grounds of the objection was. It was in order to prevent this that the clause said in effect—"You must specify the whole of the grounds, and if you fail on one ground you must pay the expenses of those who come prepared to meet that specific objection. "These, then, were the grounds upon which this provision had been included in the Bill; first of all, because it assimilated the law of Ireland to that of England; and, second, because it prevented frivolous objections and enabled the voter to meet the particular ground assigned for the objection. If the Amendments were adopted, and these words were omitted from the clause, the law would remain in its present unsatisfactory condition. He therefore hoped the Committee would not consent to omit the words.
    MR. MACARTNEYwas surprised at the great anxiety manifested by the hon. and learned Member to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England. The same desire was certainly not displayed in every respect. Twice in the course of the consideration of the present Bill the hon. and learned Member for Kildare had used as an argument in favour of his Bill that the law of England was so and so, and it was desirable to assimilate the law of Ireland to it. Were they in future to be asked to do that in every respect? He thought not. In this particular instance the hon. and learned Gentleman said—' Anybody can make wholesale objections including the whole of the five grounds

    1571
    of objection in every case, and if he succeeds in substantiating any one of these five grounds then he is not to be held liable for costs." Now, he (Mr. Macartney) could not see how the person objected to would suffer injury if any one point of objection was established against him. He presumed that the same costs of hearing would have been incurred in establishing one point as in establishing all of the five, and the expense of the attendance of witnesses would be just the same. Therefore he really could not understand why a person who succeeded in establishing one point of objection, although he failed in regard to other points, should have to pay the costs. The clause in its present shape would certainly have the effect stated by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson)'—namely, of fixing a penal sum to be paid by all persons who came forward with objections, and the only result would be that it would retain upon the register the names of a number of persons who were not entitled to be there.
    DR. COMMINSconfessed that he should like to know why a person who attempted to disfranchise another should not be subjected to a penalty if he failed. In all legal proceedings the man who set up a claim and failed to establish it was liable to pay the costs of the persons who were put to the expense of meeting the case he preferred, notwithstanding the fact that he might be successful in another part of his case. He could see no reason whatever for establishing a different rule where the claim was to deprive a man of the privilege of the franchise. Whatever argument there was in favour of the rule in the case of an ordinary action at law must apply with ten-fold force when they came to the claim made for the enjoyment of the franchise. He therefore hoped the Committee would support the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kildare, and reject the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)took it that the object of the clause was not to discourage legitimate objections, but what the hon. and learned Member for Kildare wanted was to enforce the serving of
    1572
    specific objections, and not of objections which, from their generality, were useless, as giving no information as to what the actual ground of objection really was. His hon. and learned Friend said in effect—"We must know beforehand what is the real ground you rely upon; and let the case stand or fall by that objection." He, therefore, required the objector to specify, in every instance, the precise ground upon which the vote was objected to. The claimant or voter would thus know before he left his home upon what particular ground his vote was assailed, and might be prepared to meet the objection. That course was already adopted in regard to England; and it was based, he believed, upon a recommendation contained in the Report of a Royal Commission appointed for the express purpose of inquiring into the best means of enabling persons to be placed upon the register with facility. His own opinion was that it was more important that facilities should be given to the voter to get upon the list than to the objector to get him off.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Costs to be awarded not to exceed £5) agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Proceedings on objection made to voters on List other than List of Claimants).
    MR. GIBSONsaid, the clause was one of very considerable importance. It certainly proposed to deal with objections in rather a summary manner. By the principle now established by the earlier clauses of the Bill, the objections were to be specified and fully substantiated under a penalty of paying the costs in the event of any of the objections failing. But Clause 8 went far beyond that. In the marginal note it summarized the clause in this way:—?"Proceeding on objection made to voters on List other than List of Claimants." That was the marginal note, and a very quiet and innocent marginal note it was. But when they read the clause itself they would find that it went much further, and it provided that the objector himself should not be allowed to do anything connected with his objection, unless the Court was satisfied that

    1573
    primâ facie proof had been given on some ground of objection. The words of the clause were—
    "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the principal Act contained, where any person whose name is on any List of Voters for a county, city, town, or borough (not being a List of Claimants) is duly objected to by some person other than the Clerk of the Peace, the Clerk of the Union, the Poor Rate Collectors, or the Town Clerk, County Court Judge, the Chairman or Revising Barrister, whether the person objected to does or does not appear before him, shall, before requiring it to to proved that the person so objected to is entitled to have his name inserted in the List of Voters for such county, city, town, or borough, or expunging such name, require primâ facie proof to be given to his satisfaction of some ground of objection against such person, and, for the purpose of determining whether such primâ facie proof is satisfactory, shall examine the Collectors of Poor Rates, Clerk of the Union, or any other person who may be present, touching the truth of the alleged ground of objection, and if such primâ facie proof is not so given to his satisfaction, he shall retain the name of the person objected to in the List of Voters."
    Surely it was not reasonable thus to compel an objector to give primâ facie proof. It was not in accordance with the usages of the ordinary Courts; and on examining the earlier Bills introduced by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare on this subject he could not find such a provision. He had not got the Bill of last year; but he knew that it was quite in accordance with the measure of 1878, which had the high sanction of the lamented Mr. Butt. That Bill was brought in without containing such a clause, and, indeed, the clause had certainly not appcared in any Registration Bill for Ireland which had been introduced during the last four years. It did appear in the present Bill; and he had, therefore, thought it right to call the attention of the Committee to it. He did not think that it was a reasonable clause. The provisions already contained in the Bill were sufficiently strong upon the subject of objection; and he would, therefore, move that the clause bo omitted from the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be omitted from the Bill."—(Mr. Gibson.)
    MR. MELDONsaid, the course proposed by his right hon. and learned Friend was one that he could not possibly assent to. As his right hon. and learned Friend said, this was a very im-
    1574
    portant clause. In his (Mr. Meldon's) opinion it was the backbone of the Bill. He would briefly remind the Committee of what the attempts to legislate upon the point had hitherto been. In 1873 a Bill to enact exactly what the present clause proposed to enact was considered both by the House and, he thought, by two Select Committees, and a measure was passed upon that basis, enacting this very provision-—namely, that the list of voters prepared by officials should be primâ facie evidence of the right of the person to be upon the register, thus throwing the onus of proof that the name was improperly upon the register upon the objector. It was the course adopted in England already, and was considered to be an exceedingly good one. The plan adopted was for the lists to be prepared by the clerks of Unions and the poor rate collectors, and they were the men who had the best knowledge as to the qualifications of the persons who were to be placed on the register. In 1875, the question was fully considered by a Select Committee which sat for a longtime, and he believed that he had the honour of bringing up the Report himself. Their recommendation was substantially embodied in the present clause. In fact, the clause was identically the same as that which was originally included in the Report, and the Report itself was simply thrown out by the casting vote of the Chairman. Seven voted in favour of it and seven against it, and the Colleague of bis right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin gave a casting vote against it. At that time a considerable amount of feeling prevailed in reference to the extension of the franchise. Hon. Members sitting on the other side of the House wanted to restrict the franchise, while those who sat on the Liberal side of the House wished to give it to every person who was fairly entitled to it. Under these circumstances he certainly could not consent to the omission of the present clause. No doubt it had not been included in some of the previous Bills; but that was simply because he knew he had no chance of obtaining its acceptance; and as he could not get a whole loaf he thought it was better to have half a loaf than nothing at all. But, as he said, this was only when he found there was no hope of

    1575
    getting a whole loaf from Parliament, and it was solely upon that ground that he had consented to the excision of the clause. The circumstances were very different now. They had got a liberally-constituted Parliament, and the principle that they should give the franchise to every person who ought to receive it had been so frequently affirmed by the House that he had no fear as to its acceptance. It was only fair and reasonable that the lists which were prepared by regular officials in a correct manner should have greater value than a list of persons who came forward of their own motion to claim a vote. All that the clause said was that the lists so prepared should be primâ facie evidence that the voter was entitled to be on the register. It did not deal with the right to make objections in the slightest degree, and there surely ought to be primâ facie evidence that there was ground for an objection before it was allowed to be entertained. That was the entire purport of the clause, and he hoped the Committee would not consent to expunge it from the Bill.
    DR. COMMINSsaid, he considered this clause as the most valuable provision in the Bill. In support of the argument of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare, he could cite a case which occurred in a town in the North of England, where 12,000 objections were issued by persons whose local habitation or name could not be found. He would not say from which side these 12,000 objections came, because he believed that the system could be resorted to by both sides; but the fact remained that 12,000 objections were issued on the assumption that a large number of those who were objected to would not be able to turn up in the Registration Court in order to support their right to be retained on the register. And that, in the majority of cases, proved to be a correct assumption. When the names were called, a large body of persons— either working men who could not afford to leave their work, or persons who, from the nature of their business, were unable to leave their shops, were prevented either from these or other causes from attending the Court in order to support their right to remain on the list. The names of these voters were accordingly struck out at the instance of this unknown person, and he thought it was
    1576
    high time to put a stop to the practice. It had been stopped in England, and the time had arrived when it ought to be stopped in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, in objecting to the clause, seemed to forget the argument which he had just used in regard to the objections of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare to the Amendment it was proposed to insert in the 4th clause. There the right hon. and learned Member said he objected to the words relating to the list of claimants on the ground that, being persons who had already passed the ordeal of selection, and who had been selected by the judicial authorities, they had a, primâ facie right to be upon the list, and that the primâ facie right should be in their favour until proof was given to the contrary. If this was an argument, in that case it ought to be an unanswerable argument now upon Clause 8. Some unknown and even unauthorized person turned up and made an objection to a name being put upon the list which name had in reality been placed upon the list by the person appointed by the law for the express purpose of placing it there. Yet the moment this unauthorized objection was made, the primâ facie right of the voter to the franchise was to fall to the ground; and unless the person objected to turned up in the Registration Court to support his claim, this unknown fictitious objector would succeed in every frivolous objection he made. The evil against which the clause was directed was one of the grossest abuses connected with the Registration Act in Ireland, and it had disfranchised thousands of people, simply because, owing to the inconvenience of attending the Court, or poverty or sickness, the person objected to was prevented appearing personally to establish his case. If he did attend, he knew that he would be obliged to incur unnecessary expense, and solely because the present law obliged him to answer any ground of objection which some unknown objector might prefer.
    DR. LYONSwished to say a few words before the discussion closed. He trusted that the hon. and learned Member for Kildare, who had charge of the Bill, would not consent to accept the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, but that he would stand by the Bill. The

    1577
    clause was introduced in the interests of the people generally, and especially of such of them as belonged to the working classes, who were usually so occupied that it was only by incurring a considerable amount of inconvenience and expense they were able to attend the Registration Court when it became necessary to disprove these frivolous objections. It also vitally affected another class, and a very large class—namely, professional men whose valuable time was fully occupied at the time when it became necessary to answer the objections. In many instances a professional man at the time the notices took effect found it impossible to give the time which would be requisite to enable him to prove his right to remain on the list. He himself was acquainted with numerous instances in the county of Dublin, as well as elsewhere in Ireland, where individuals for a succession of years had been kept off the register, although no objection whatever existed against their claim except one of the most frivolous kind that could possibly be urged. His own case was one in point. For many years in the county of Dublin he had never succeeded in having his name placed on the register. Year after year somebody raised a frivolous objection; and as it was impossible for him to go to a distance to defend his right every year in succession he had been struck off the register. He knew that this was the case with a large number of persons besides himself, whom accident or some other circumstance prevented from appearing in the Registration Court; and in this way a large number of persons were annually struck off the register. If there was one thing more than another that had tended to bring the county of Dublin into its present position in regard to the registration, it was this power of making frivolous objections. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Kildare would insist on retaining the clause as it stood, and that the Committee would see the necessity of supporting him.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOB IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the presumption as a matter of fact and of common sense was that the officials whose duty it was to put upon the register the names of those who, since the last revision, had become entitled to have the franchise, would only put down those who were really entitled. The poor rate
    1578
    collectors must know very well who ought to go on and who ought not; and, therefore, the presumption was entirely in favour of the names which the authorities inserted. It might be urged that when a claim was first made the person making it should be called upon to substantiate his claim. All, however, that the present clause did was to empower the Revising Barrister to see when an objection was made to a name supplied by the poor rate collectors whether there was anything in the objection or not. There should be adequate provision that the person whose name was upon the supplementary list should, if desired, have his title to be upon the list fairly sifted; and there could be very little doubt that, according to the clause in question, if it was improperly there it would be expunged. This clause would, in his opinion, put an end to a good deal of the present vicious system of enormous expenditure and wholesale objections on the chance of the persons objected to not coming forward to support their claims.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    MR. MELDONsaid, he was anxious to meet the convenience of some hon. Members who wished to propose Amendments in the remaining clauses of the Bill. He would, therefore, move that the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Motion agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    UNION ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE (SINGLE PARISHES) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to extend the Union Assessment Committee Acts to single parishes under separate Boards of Guardians, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 212.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after Five o'clock.