Sitting of 6 April 1881

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Sunderland, v. Sir Henry Marshman Havelock-Allan, baronet, V.C. C.B., Chiltern Hundreds.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Lunacy Law Assimilation (Ireland) [75]; Copyhold Enfranchisement [117]; Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland) [41]; Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) [33], debate adjourned; Church Patronage [30], debate adjourned.
Considered as amended—Inclosure Provisional Orders (Wibsey Slack and Low Moor Commons)* [114].
Third Reading—Inclosure Provisional Orders (Scotton and Ferry Common)* [115]; Metropolitan Commons Supplemental* [99], and passed.
Withdrawn—Middlesex Land Registry [87].

QUESTION.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he wished to put a Question to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; but in his absence perhaps the Solicitor General for Ireland, the only Member of the Government connected with Ireland present, would be able to give him an answer. He wished to know, Whether the article which appears in the "Standard" of this morning purporting to give a description of the coming Land Bill may be taken as on the whole accurately describing the character of the Bill; and, whether he can explain how the "Standard" has been enabled to give this summary; and, whether the explanation be that a draft of the Bill has been submitted to and approved by the Leader of the Conservative Party?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): If the hon. Member will ask me that Question after my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) has made his statement to-morrow I may be able to answer it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LANDED PROPRIETORS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 63.]
  (Mr. P. J. Smyth, Mr. Patrick Martin, Mr. Fay, Mr. Litton.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. P. J. SMYTH: Mr. Speaker, I think I shall best consult the interests of the House, and the interests of the cause which I have so much at heart, if I refrain from availing myself of this opportunity for raising a discussion on the great question which will be presented to us to-morrow in all its fulness and details by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government. I propose, therefore, to postpone the second reading of this Bill. I may, perhaps, be allowed to say a word in explanation of the Bill, which was introduced in the Session of 1875. It consists of two parts, of which the one claims to give practical effect to the beneficent clauses of the Land Act of 1870, which
  802
  are associated with the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), and the other the utilization of the waste lands of Ireland, of which there are upwards of 4,000,000 acres, 2,000,000 of which are believed to be susceptible of reclamation. I believe the Bill in both these details is sound in principle, and would be beneficial in its operation; and I postpone it in the confident expectation that the genius of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government will surmount the tremendous difficulties that encompass the Land Question, and will show to-morrow that society may be saved in Ireland, and the tenantry secured without the infliction of any loss on my fellow-countrymen.
  MR. SPEAKER: To what day does the hon. Gentleman propose to postpone the second reading?
  MR. P. J. SMYTH: To the 29th of June.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was sorry his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. P. J. Smyth) postponed the second reading of the Bill, which he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) thought would be very beneficial, especially to the smaller classes of tenants. Moreover, he thought the reason for postponing it was not a good one—namely, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would deal with the question in a satisfactory manner. It was by no means proved that the question would be dealt with by him in a satisfactory manner.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 29th June.

  LUNACY LAW ASSIMILATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 75.]
  (Mr. Litton, Mr. Findlater, Sir Thomas M'Clure.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. LITTON,in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to improve the system under which lunatics, and especially neglected and pauper lunatics, were cared for in Ireland, by adopting certain portions of the English and Scotch system; and he would show that it was a question of great social importance throughout Ireland, for he proposed to improve the treatment of a class of persons, which,

  803
  of all others, was entitled to the attention, the care, and the sympathy of the House and the country at large—he meant the class of unhappy persons who had once enjoyed the blessings of health and mental activity, and of that other class which was, perhaps, still more deserving of their pity—those who were idiots or imbecile, and who were not reached by the existing law. He would show that, under the present law in Ireland, a large proportion of this helpless and unfortunate class was either most inadequately or totally uncared for, suffering from a great amount of neglect, and, in some cases, of cruelty; and the object which he had in view in that Bill was to apply for their relief certain portions of the English law. The importance of the subject would at once appear from a few of the matters which he ventured to lay before the House in connection with the subject. In the year 1857 a Royal Commission inquired into this subject of neglected lunatics and "lunatics at large" in Ireland. By lunatics at large was meant those lunatics who were not in either private or district asylums. At that time the lunatics at large were no less than 3,352; of these 1,583 were returned as neglected lunatics, the residue being in some way provided for by residing with their friends or families. Nothing had been done to meet that serious and growing evil for a period of over 20 years, down to the time at which the Commission of 1879 made its Report—namely, in the month of February of that year, and, he might add, nothing had been since done. That Commission was entitled the Poor Law Union and Lunacy Inquiry Commission, and it was presided over by a gentleman of the highest authority in Ireland. According to that Report, it was stated that on the 31st of December, 1877, whilst the number of lunatics provided for in the district lunatic asylums, in the Criminal Lunatic Asylum at Dundrum, and in private asylums, was about 11,000, the number at large, either inadequately cared for or neglected, was 6,709. Out of this number of 6,709, it was stated that 1,243 were epileptic imbeciles, 4,479 idiots, and 987 lunatics. Of that total the asylums and workhouses afforded accommodation to 3,365, leaving over 3,000 as at large and neglected. These figures showed that there had
  804
  been a great and very serious increase in this unfortunate class of persons since 1857, amounting to over 100 per cent increase in a period of 20 years, as would be seen from a comparison of the following figures—In 1857 the number at large was 3,352, of whom 1,583 were neglected; in 1877 it was 6,709, of whom 3,000 were neglected. So that, in addition to 11,600, for which accommodation was provided in the district lunatic asylums, there were no less than about 6,000 uncared for lunatics—that was, uncared for in the proper sense of the word; while there were 3,000 of these 6,000, speaking generally, in a state of neglect, as against 1,583 in 1857. Such was the present state of things in Ireland, and that remarkable increase was very striking, and showed that the lunacy administration in Ireland had not been such as it should have been. It would be instructive if he explained to the House how the law stood at present with respect to the treatment and custody of lunatics in Ireland. There were several Acts of Parliament under which the custody and care of lunatics were rather neglected than provided for. The first was the Act 1 & 2 Geo. IV., which established district lunatic asylums. By the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 47, dangerous lunatics might be committed to gaols, and under the 8 & 9 Vict. they might be transferred to the Central Criminal Asylum at Dundrum. In 1867, by 30 & 31 Vict., c. 118, the first provision for sending this class of lunatics to gaol was repealed; and in 1875, by 38 & 39 Vict., c. 67, it was provided that chronic lunatics, not being dangerous, might be consigned to the poorhouses. Where there was no attempt at classification these poorhouses only accommodate 3,365 persons, so that there were still, as he had already pointed out, over 3,000 of these helpless and unfortunate persons neglected and at large. The result of that Act was that overcrowding in lunatic asylums was to some extent relieved. He would next point out the evils of the present system. The asylums were now so overcrowded with chronic and incurable cases that the percentage of cures was very low, for it was obvious that if the asylums were filled with chronic incurable cases it was difficult to properly provide remedial treatment with respect

  805
  to the cases not chronic but curable, and hence cure became hopeless, if not impossible. The asylums were blocked by cases which should be sent to incurable asylums. A further evil was the want of supervision of neglected lunatics throughout the country, there being no supervision or control exercised to show they were cared for, and the consequence was that they were generally utterly neglected, and in some cases subjected to cruel treatment. This state of things, which had existed so long in Ireland, would not be, and was not tolerated in England. He proposed, therefore, to extend to Ireland the provisions of Sections 66 to 68, Sections 70 to 72, and Sections 78 to 81 of the English Act, 16 & 17 Vict., c. 97—
  "To consolidate and amend the laws for the provision and regulation of lunatic asylums for counties and boroughs, and for the maintenance and care of pauper lunatics,"
  subject to certain changes, which were explained in Clause 2 of the Bill. He doubted that powers to enlarge the existing asylums would meet the case, and the process would involve a large expenditure in costly buildings and would take years to complete. The Bill would provide that the system of boarding-out, which had worked so well in England and Scotland, should be adopted in Ireland, which was impossible under the present law; and powers would be given to the Governors of lunatic asylums, in order to relieve the present overcrowding, of placing lunatics in the care of their relatives, or other private persons, upon conditions as to their proper care and treatment. Due provision was also made for the inspection of lunatics so boarded out. Another provision, which was much wanted, was the power among Poor Law Guardians in Ireland to afford relief to the head of a family one of whose members was a lunatic or idiot, which at present could not be done unless the head of the family was the person afflicted. In England the Poor Law Guardians could afford out-door relief where any member of the family was an imbecile or subject to mental disease. In order to show the evils of overcrowding under present circumstances, the Report of the Commissioners to which he had referred afforded ample evidence. At page 62 it was stated that the asylums "were constantly overcrowded with chronic and
  806
  incurable cases." In page 66 he found the following passage:—
  "The annual Reports of the inspector contain abundant and striking evidence of the recent overcrowding of the asylums with incurable cases."
  Again—
  "There is the same complaint—the monotonous repetition of overcrowding with incurable and unsuitable cases."
  These evils, although complained of by the Committee of 1843 and the Royal Commission of 1857, were still unredressed. One of the causes of overcrowding resulted from the fact of a difference in the law in Ireland and England. It was rather striking. It resulted from the fact that all committals of dangerous lunatics which took place throughout the country on the warrant of two magistrates were bound to be cases in which the magistrates were satisfied upon evidence that the person was dangerous, and had, in addition, shown an intent to commit an indictable crime. He would read the words of the clause. The 10th section of the Act, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 118, enacted that—
  "The lunatic must be shown to have been apprehended under circumstances denoting a derangement of mind and a purpose of committing some crime for which he or she might be indicted."
  The result was that the magistrates would not commit either man, woman, or child, unless they were satisfied on this point; and although in many cases the disease might be curable, they could not be committed, so that they kept out until their disease became confirmed and their cure became impossible. The law in England, on the contrary, did not require that it should be shown to the magistrates that the person had the intention of committing a crime. The consequence of the present system was that a person suffering from mental disease in its earlier stages, and being in a harmless condition, was compelled to remain outside the asylum until the disease had been confirmed, at which time only it was in the power of the justices to commit him to a lunatic asylum, in which he ought to have been placed months before, and where, had he been so placed, he might have been cured and restored to his family, instead of being sent to the asylum in such a condition that the chances of his ever being

  807
  sent out again were very greatly diminished. The Report of the Commissioners asserted that—
  "The Superintendent of the Limerick Asylum attributed the small percentage of cures to the long duration of the disease before admission."
  In the Report for 1880 of Dr. Oscar Woods, the medical officer of the Killarney District Lunatic Asylum, it was stated that of the patients admitted into the Irish asylums in 1879, 1,277 were committed as dangerous lunatics. Dr. Hancock, in one of his Reports, stated that only three patients were committed as dangerous lunatics in England and Wales, as compared with 1,204 committed to asylums in Ireland, and that the reason for this was the great delay in making the applications rendered necessary by the state of the law in Ireland. There was further evidence of this state of things in the Report of the Irish criminal statistics, which set forth that of the entire number of lunatics in England and Wales in 1877 only three out of 889 were committed as dangerous; while, in Ireland, the number so committed was 1,204 out of 1,343, and that while 77 per cent of those committed to the asylums and treated within three months after the symptoms of disease had first shown themselves were returned from the asylums to their friends as recovered, only 20 per cent of those who were committed to asylums after a lapse of 12 months left the asylums as recovered patients. There were only two conclusions to be drawn from these facts; the first being that the system of waiting till the patients had got into the condition of incurability was most injurious to the patients themselves, and had the effect of blocking up the asylums with persons who, under a different system, might be speedily cured, while it consequently narrowed the circle of relief. The second conclusion to be drawn was as to the great importance of the boarding-out system. This system had been adopted both in Scotland and England, and had in both countries been found to work well. The measure he had brought before the House proposed to extend the powers at present in existence as to allowing lunatics to be taken out of asylums by their friends or relatives, with the approbation of the authorities, on satisfactory surety being given that they were able to look after the patients, and by enabling
  808
  the Governors of asylums to board out patients with persons who might be selected by them on such terms and conditions as they might think desirable. The effect of this would be that, assuming this provision to be acted on to the same extent in Ireland as it was in England, taking the whole number of lunatics in asylums in Ireland at 11,616, which was the number returned for 1877, and taking the proportional average according to a similar number in England and Wales, it would be found that 9,236 would be in the asylums, 1,730 would be boarded out, and 650 would be in private asylums. So that there would be, under the boarding-out system, an amount of relief given to the accommodation provided for in asylums in Ireland to the extent of 1,730 patients, and there would be vacancies for the reception of a similar number. That, he thought, was an important argument in favour of the adoption of the boarding-out system; but the boarding-out system would not be adequate to meet all the cases of neglected lunatics, who were mostly of the imbecile class. He had stated that they were neglected in the sense that they were under no supervision or medical control. That was not the case in England. It was the duty of the medical officers in England, in their respective districts, to visit at stated intervals every lunatic or imbecile within their district; and therefore supervision was one of the matters for which, whether the asylum accommodation was increased or the boarding system adopted, the necessity remained as strongly as ever. On this part of the subject the Commissioners, at the conclusion of their Report, recommended that—
  "The inspection of lunatics at large should be made one of the duties of the dispensing medical officer, who should be remunerated for his trouble, and whose certificate that anyone of this class is neglected or improperly treated should be made ground for action by the lunacy authorities."
  Although, generally speaking, there was a strong interest taken by the poor of Ireland in these afflicted persons, there were, nevertheless, cases in which they suffered great neglect and sometimes cruelty; and, therefore, it was a most necessary enlargement of the law that supervision should be exercised over them. At one time, though happily not

  809
  in recent years, a mode of treating neglected lunatics was to dig a round hole in the cabin floor, sufficiently deep to just allow his head to appear above the level of the ground, and to cover the entire over with a large wicker basket. There was only one other point to which he would call attention, and that was with reference to the power proposed to be given to the Poor Law Guardians. In England the Order issued in the year 1844, regulating the administration of out-door relief, contained those words—
  "When such person shall require relief on account of any sickness, accident, or bodily or mental infirmity affecting such person or any member of his family;"
  whereas in Ireland the Act of Parliament limited the relief to
  "Persons permanently disabled from labour through mental defect."
  Therefore, when one member of a family became afflicted with lunacy or imbecility—and it might be the principal bread earner—another member of the family was rendered non-earning in consequence of having to take charge of him or her; therefore, out-door relief under such circumstances was of the greatest importance and necessity. It would be advisable, therefore, to have some provision in the Bill giving power to the Poor Law Guardians to grant out-door relief in such cases of that description as they might think required it. He accordingly asked that the House should apply to Ireland those four provisions. First, the supervision of neglected lunatics; second, the boarding-out in suitable places, under the direction of the Governors of district asylums, of such patients as they might select for that purpose, in order to open the asylums to a greater number of cases requiring relief; thirdly, an alteration in the law of committal, so as to allow of patients being committed before they became incurable; and, fourthly, power to the Poor Law Guardians to give out-door relief under the circumstances he had stated. Those were the objects of the Bill which he had the honour of moving the second reading of. He should state that he claimed no credit whatever for the Bill, because it was not his. With the exception of one clause, it was identically as it was introduced in "another place" last year, on the Motion of his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor
  810
  of Ireland. Lord O'Hagan had taken a very great and anxious interest in the matter of lunatics in Ireland, and some years ago he applied himself with great attention to the study of their case. He came to the conclusion that the provisions of the English system ought to be applied to Ireland; and he accordingly embodied them in a Bill which he introduced into the House of Lords, and which, as he (Mr. Litton) had said, was identical with the present Bill, with the exception of one clause with reference to the summary jurisdiction of County Courts in dealing with the property of lunatics. He would not have presumed to have brought the Bill before the House now, knowing the interest Lord O'Hagan took in the matter, had he not his full assent to do so, and an expression of his anxiety that the Bill should be accepted by the House. The Bill had also received the approval of the Social Science Congress Committee. Moreover, it had received the good wishes of several of the officers of the district lunatic asylums in Ireland; and Lord O'Hagan had promised to take charge of the measure should it be sent to the House of Lords. His Lordship had said, in speaking on this subject in August, 1879—
  "The want of identical legislation, when the needs and conditions of England and Ireland require and justify it, is of incalculable mischief."—[3 Hansard, ccxlviii. 1824.]
  Fully indorsing that view, and putting the measure before the House on the ground of humanity to a class of persons whose condition required the greatest consideration, he trusted the House would assent to its being read a second time.
  SIR THOMAS M'CLURE,in seconding the Motion, observed that there was an urgent necessity for a change in the Lunacy Law in Ireland such as that proposed by the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton). The consequence of the existing state of the law was that the asylums which should be open at all times for the reception of patients attacked with mental disease were overcrowded, and the mingling of curable and incurable lunatics greatly lessened the chance of recovery of the former. That was very different from the Scotch system. He had carefully examined that system, and found that, whenever the relieving officer became

  811
  cognizant of any person being attacked with lunacy within his district, he had to give immediate notice to the Commissioners, who at once caused the case to be inquired into, and took charge of the lunatic, and the utmost was done that could be effected to secure his recovery. The lunatics in that country were divided into different classes, and there were the curable, and what might be called the chronic cases, the latter being kept apart from cases in which recovery was thought likely or possible. Their object was to place certain cases in separate institutions, where they could be maintained at a less cost than in the asylums, and kept under restraint; and when these institutions were not to be had they selected the workhouses. That was a system which ought to be adopted in Ireland, as well as the boarding-out system, which had been successful, and to which his hon. Friend had referred. It had been found that the Scotch system was far more efficient than that of Ireland, and that the patients had a better chance of being cured, and so kept off the rates; while, on the whole, the system adopted in Scotland was also more economical than that which prevailed in Ireland. For the sake of humanity and economy he thought the Bill ought to be carried.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Litton.)
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, that as a Governor of the Asylum at Londonderry, he thought the House and all Governors of lunatic asylums, and friends of the lunatic class in Ireland, had reason to be grateful to the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) for the anxiety he had shown in behalf of that class; but, at the same time, he could not concur in the necessity for the Bill the hon. Gentleman had brought in, not on account of the quarter of the House from which it proceeded, because if he (Sir Hervey Bruce) believed the Bill would really benefit the lunatics of Ireland, he should support it, no matter from what quarter it came, but because he objected to some of its leading provisions. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman in regarding the mingling of curable and incurable patients as bad; but the Bill contained no provision for the separation of these cases, except those of
  812
  boarding-out, and the power to grant out-door relief. As to the alleged difficulty of admission to lunatic asylums in Ireland, he could not agree with the remarks which had been made on that point, for he had not, as Governor for many years' standing of one of those asylums, found any such difficulty. On the contrary, speaking from personal experience and not from theory, he had found it very easy and simple. He objected decidedly to the power given by sub-section 5 of Clause 2 to Governors, on the representation of two visitors who were not required to be medical men, to order the discharge of patients as a provision fraught with great danger. He also thought it would be a dangerous thing, as proposed by Clause 4, to board-out patients in private houses. Such a power must be accompanied by regular medical supervision, and the cost of this would throw an enormous extra expense upon the rates. Besides, it was not said whether they were curable or incurable. It was a dangerous extension of what was a bad principle. The food provided in the asylums was better than the patients would generally receive outside; and he held it was better for the patients themselves, and better on every ground, that the lunatics should be kept in asylums where they wore properly attended to, and where they were sure of good and sufficient food and maintenance. As it was, the Governors had the power of sending to workhouses those lunatics who were not dangerous; and, in his district, many lunatics were so sent. But, on the whole, this system had not proved satisfactory, and he had known cases where the lunatics had been obliged to be sent back to the asylums. He was sorry to have to object to the main provisions of the Bill; but the hon. Member had simply left the curable and incurable lunatics as they were, and had made no provision for supervision. He believed the Bill, so far from bettering the condition of lunatics in Ireland, would injuriously affect them.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTthought the last speaker (Sir Hervey Bruce) had entirely misconstrued the raison d'être of the Bill. The boarding-out provisions were only part of the principle of the Bill, the justification of which was mainly that there were at that moment about

  813
  6,000 lunatics at large in Ireland, of whom 3,000 were of the class termed neglected, and, consequently, under no supervision. There was no provision made for their support, or for their being looked after. He argued that the admission of lunatics to asylums in Ireland ought to be altered, and made comformable to the system prevalent in England. It should not be dependent on their being dangerous, and he knew a case in which a female patient was rendered a lunatic for life entirely in consequence of her having to be taken before the magistrates and committed as a dangerous lunatic when she was not in reality dangerous; but that was the only means by which she could be sent to an asylum. Many such cases happened thoughout the country. Of course, there were private asylums; but the friends of the patients could not afford the expense. He quite concurred in the view that lunatics should, if possible, be separated; and the Commission appointed by the late Government had recommended that asylums should be set aside for dangerous patients, others for curable patients, and others for those who were hopeless and incurable, and that, to save the expense of boarding out, workhouses should be utilized. He also thought every possible step should be taken to assimilate the Poor Law in Ireland to that in England, as regarded out-door relief; for wherever the former differed from the latter it differed in point of rigour and in elasticity. He thought they were entitled to ask for the powers contained in the measure, and hoped the House would accept the Bill.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he thought that there were many cases in which lunatics could be far better treated by private persons than in lunatic asylums; and he therefore supported the Bill, and particularly that clause which provided that lunatics, under certain conditions, might be placed under the care of their friends. In Ireland, persons mentally afflicted were regarded with great commiseration. One who would be called a "fool" in this country would be termed an "innocent" in Ireland; and lunatics, under such circumstances, were likely to gain more sympathy, and to have their individual wants and peculiarities attended to. As an instance of the sort, he would refer to the case of the lunatic colony, which had existed for 200 years
  814
  at Ghel, in Belgium, where the lunatics were kept in a number of farmhouses, under a system of supervision which had answered admirably, the number of cures being far greater than in most of the asylums in that country. Why not use some of the smaller poorhouses, which were at present useless, for the purpose of chronic cases? He had for a very long time observed the defects of a part of the system in Ireland, and that something of the same description as existed in Belgium and Scotland was wanted in that country. He was therefore exceedingly glad the Bill had been brought forward, for the changes proposed tended, in his opinion, in the right direction. With regard to cost, he believed the average cost of the lunatics in the Richmond Asylum at Dublin was £24 per head. ["Oh, oh!"] He spoke of some years ago, and the cost might be a little more now. He was sure there was a vast number of people in Ireland capable of efficiently looking after lunatics, in whom they were interested, for less than the cost at the Richmond Asylum, which might now be £30 per head. He approved of the suggestion that the lunatics so boarded out should be periodically visited by medical officers or inspectors of asylums. He certainly would not leave it to the discretion of the Governors altogether as to what kind of lunatics they would send out either to board or discharged as cured, because they might, with the best intentions, discharge patients whom it would be better to retain. With the general principle of the Bill, however, he perfectly agreed.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, everyone knew the warm interest the hon. Member for Waterford County (Mr. Blake) took in the subject, and they were all obliged to him for the benefit of his experience. He (Mr. Gibson) was also sure the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), who introduced the Bill, would not misconstrue any criticism he might offer on the proposal. Everyone must sympathize with the object in view, and appreciate the clear and sympathetic way in which it had been presented to the House; but it was to be regretted that the hon. Member had found himself unable—and perhaps, as a private Member, it was not in his power—to present to the consideration of the House any of those, important and valuable proposals con-

  815
  tained in the Report of that Royal Commission to which he had referred. That Commission went into the question exhaustively, and examined a vast amount of evidence in every part of Ireland; and their proposals, whether they commanded unanimous approval or not, at all events contained many suggestions of a valuable nature, and as to which there ought to be no difference of opinion whatever. But in the Bill—and he (Mr. Gibson) very much regretted the fact—there was not a single clause carrying out, or attempting to give effect to, the recommendations of that Commission. The most important of these recommendations was that one laid down as a vital necessity in all legislation dealing with lunatics, and regarded by the Commissioners as a cardinal matter—the principle of classification. But the Bill, which was entitled to be spoken of with much respect, as being so well meant, did not propose one single step towards classification. On the contrary, it would render the absence of classification more glaring than it was at present. His hon. Friend (Mr. Litton) said the Bill was not his own, but a kind of bantling adopted from "another place." Everyone must respect the philanthropy of Lord O'Hagan in introducing the Bill; but, after all, the noble and learned Lord had only introduced it into the House of Lords as a protest that something should be done, and pending an authoritative dealing with the proposals of the Royal Commission, and not exactly as proposals he was prepared to recommend for the adoption of Parliament. The hon. Member for Tyrone also said that the Bill came commended with the approval of several superintendents of lunatic asylums in Ireland. The opinion of those superintendents, many of whom he (Mr. Gibson) knew, was entitled to a good deal of weight; but on this subject so largely affecting their own duties, it should, of course, be regarded as not exactly decisive. He would not say anything about the Social Science Congress, which had been rather hesitatingly mentioned by the hon. Member for Tyrone. That was a body which was coming to Ireland next October; and, in view of that fact, he (Mr. Gibson) should be sorry to say anything that would arouse even a momentary feeling of hostility. There were two proposals in the Bill about which
  816
  he wished to say a word or two. The first was as to the boarding-out of patients. That was a matter requiring immense caution. It was obviously susceptible of the greatest abuses. He was not against boarding-out per se; but it was a question that required to be considered with the greatest care, for it might lead to the greatest abuse as against the lunatics. That was a point of view from which they must all view the question. The figure of £24, which the hon. Member (Mr. Blake) had mentioned as the nominal expense of maintaining a lunatic at the asylums, was, he believed, under the mark; £26 or £27 was nearer the correct figure. Now, a lunatic could be maintained as a pauper at a workhouse for less than half that sum; and there would be great temptation for the Governors, who were allowed great discretion in the matter, to make a contract to board out, by which they might be substantial gainers, though it might be rather against the interest of the lunatic. That was a circumstance to be strongly borne in mind. Again, it was hardly enough to say that the poor boarded-out pauper lunatics would be sufficiently protected by an occasional visit from the dispensary doctor, unless they provided that the houses where they were to be boarded out must be licensed, and have a recognized status. He was not at all opposed to the proposal to give legitimate aid and assistance to those who, by temporary infirmity, were unable to work. Indeed, he thought the Poor Law might well be more generous in that respect than it was. But these provisions were not really the principle of the Bill. The more important clauses were those contained in the earlier part of the Bill; and if the Bill was to be read a second time, and afterwards considered in Committee, it would be necessary to have an understanding of what was the proposal contained in those earlier clauses. For his part, he thought they were of a very sweeping character. They would work a very great change in the existing lunatic arrangements in Ireland, and they ought to be examined with the greatest caution. The drafting of the Bill was open to the objection that, in adopting several sections from an English Act, it did not show at a glance what the meaning of those sections was; and, moreover, no changes were made to adapt them to the Irish

  817
  system. It was necessary that the House, referring to those sections, should know exactly what they had to consider, and whether they were suitable for immediate adoption in Ireland. Immense powers would be given by the Bill to a series of classes—magistrates, relieving officers, and clergy—to make orders for admission into lunatic asylums. That was an immense power to give, and the House ought to reflect seriously on the consequences it might entail on the rates, the Treasury, and the discipline of the establishment that might be affected. He did not propose to make any criticism on those clauses; but he thought it right, if the House adopted that legislation, that it should know clearly that it was giving a power which was practically without restraint to a great many classes in Ireland to send people to district asylums. It also gave them the power to send to hospitals and licensed houses. The English Act of Parliament, the sections of which wore adopted in the Bill, alluded, over and over again, to the existence of places called, not district asylums or asylums, but hospitals and licensed houses, and the hon. Member proposed to keep these terms in the present Bill. But where was the machinery to erect these hospitals or licensed houses? He (Mr. Gibson) could not find it; but if it was there, at whose expense were they to be erected? Were they to be erected at the expense of the ratepayers, or the long-suffering Treasury? These were matters of great importance, and showed the inconvenience of presenting a Bill to the House which did not contain on the face of the clauses their full intent and meaning. There was another point to which he should like to direct attention. He agreed that the present state of the law was not satisfactory; but, on the other hand, he did not think that the Bill dealt with the subject in a satisfactory manner. The way in which it proposed to deal with the Medical Profession was such that, if it had been known, they would have heard something from that quarter. The unfortunate dispensary doctor in Ireland was not at present very well paid; but the Bill would require him to visit the pauper lunatics in the district for the handsome remuneration of 2s. 6d., and for that sum, in addition to the visit, he was to send a list reporting the name, and, he (Mr. Gibson) supposed, some par-
  818
  ticulars in reference to the case. The mere statement of this unfair mode of treating the Medical Profession was enough to command the attention of the House. There was another matter which required attention. At present the Treasury gave a subvention of 4s. per head per week on each lunatic kept in these asylums. It was very proper that such a payment should be made; but if the Bill became law, and the check of requiring two doctors to give a certificate was removed, and if the magistrates, the relieving officers, and the clergy were to have the power of sending people to district lunatic asylums in Ireland, that was a circumstance that would have to be taken into account in the reduction of any surplus there might be next year. He personally approved of subventions in Ireland, and he should be glad if the 4s. was made 5s.; but it was a circumstance to be borne in mind. He did not know what course the Government intended to take in reference to the Bill; but he was disposed to think that the question was one which ought to be dealt with by the Government on the lines of the more important proposals of the Royal Commission. If the Bill was to be read a second time, with a view to its being referred to a Committee, he would not oppose that course; but he hoped the Committee would be appointed at a time when the question could be thoroughly sifted, so that Amendments might be proposed which would remove some of the objections he had referred to. One very small matter he would be glad to have considered in reference to criminal lunatics. At present, if a lunatic was arrested for a murder in Ireland, and was committed for trial, he was bound to be committed under a warrant of the Lord Lieutenant to a district lunatic asylum in the place where the crime was committed, until he was discharged in due course of law to be brought up for trial. That form of bringing him up had to be gone through, although he would be immediately acquitted, on the ground that he was not answerable for his actions, and would be ordered to be detained during the Lord Lieutenant's pleasure. He thought it would be desirable in any new legislation to provide that that painful form should be abolished in cases where there could be no question about the man's lunacy, proper safeguards being always insisted upon.
  MR. SHAWthought the subject was too wide to be dealt with by a private Member, and he hoped the Government might take it up. He agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) that if the boarding-out system were adopted it should be surrounded with complete and perfect safeguards. He had seen unfortunate people of this class, who had been at large, made subjects of great persecution and annoyance every time they went out of the house. The part of the Bill relating to that subject he regarded as very imperfect indeed. There were other points referred to by the Royal Commission, the most important among which was classification. In the Cork poorhouses there were between 3,000 and 4,000, and there were hundreds of lunatics who could not be admitted into the workhouse lunatic asylum, and he believed they were not cared for at all in any proper manner. There was no classification, and it was hardly possible to have even separation; and it was seldom that the medical officer had a special faculty for treating this particular malady—in fact, the medical officers of the workhouses, as a general rule, were overworked, and in large and small poorhouses, the latter especially, lunatics were allowed to mix generally with the paupers. He believed the state of the lunatics in these workhouse asylums was deplorable, and required immediate attention; but he hoped the Government would not hesitate to deal with it, because they had ample materials before them already in the Evidence and Report of the Commission. If they would bring in a Bill dealing with the whole subject, or, at any rate, with the material parts of the Report, they would get support from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and the measure would be a real benefit to Ireland. The subject of granting out-door relief was one which must commend itself to the mind of every right-minded person. The cases might be few; but the real object they should have in view was classification. They had in Ireland a large number of poorhouses which were perfectly useless. Why not use some of those poorhouses as schools, such as had been referred to by the hon. Member for Waterford County (Mr. Blake)? They were generally in healthy country places, where all the surrounding country would
  820
  tend to the cure of the patients, instead. of cooping them up in immense establishments where cure was almost impossible. He hoped the Government would take up the measure, and if they did so; he was sure the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) would withdraw his Bill and allow them to deal with the matter.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he perfectly agreed with the last speaker (Mr. Shaw) that a Bill dealing with such a subject was for the Government to take up. As to the Bill now before the House, he strongly objected to sub-section 5 of Clause 2, by which any two Governors of a district asylum, if they agreed, would have the power to discharge a lunatic from the asylum on the understanding that his friends would take care of him. By that provision any two of the Governors might discharge a patient, although all the other Governors were against such a course. The usual course, when it was proposed to discharge a lunatic, was to have the case brought before the Board of Governors, who investigated the facts and consulted the medical officers. But although the Board might in this way decide not to discharge a particular lunatic, it would be possible for any two Governors, out of perhaps 16 or 17, to contravene the decision of the Board and allow the discharge. He also objected to Clause 4, on the ground that it was not desirable to multiply private lunatic asylums in Ireland; but, under the clause, it would be competent for the Governors to hand back a lunatic to the care of his relatives, paying the latter for his maintenance, so that it might happen that a lunatic who would not now be sent from home would be sent to an asylum for a short time, in order that application might afterwards be made by his relatives for his return and the allowance for his keep. Then, again, Clause 5, he observed, provided for the maintenance in the workhouse of those mentally unfit for work, by which was meant, he supposed, harmless idiots; but there were already quite a sufficient number of those in the workhouses, and, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) suggested, they should be supported in some of the superabundant Irish workhouses. In the last Parliament, he obtained a Royal Commission to investigate the subject of workhouses, with a view to the division of the lunatic

  821
  classes into dangerous, curable, and incurable. If the Government would take up the subject with the evidence then collected before them, and legislate on the lines suggested by that evidence, they might effect a material improvement in the administration of the Irish Lunacy Laws, and to such a proposal he hoped his hon. Colleague (Mr. Litton) would agree.
  MR. FINDLATER,said, he was afraid that the desire expressed by the Opposition, that the Government should take the question up, really arose from a wish to delay legislation altogether. The boarding-out system, which had been so much objected to, had proved highly successful in Scotland. Out of a total of 11,535 pauper lunatics in that country, 2,097 were harmless, and were boarded out. The provisions of the present Bill were intended only for harmless lunatics. As to the objection made to boarding-out, he pointed to the success of the system in Scotland. Dr. Mitchell, who had devoted much attention to the subject, and was an acknowledged authority upon it, did not approve of large asylums, and pronounced in favour of institutions of a moderate size. Of course, he admitted the necessity of classification, and the separation of the dangerous from the harmless class of lunatics; but why, then, did not the Government take it up, and why should the Bill be thrown out because it did not provide all that was required? Why on earth they in Ireland should be in a worse position than the people of England he could not conceive. He thought that hon. Members would admit that a real and substantial Irish grievance had been brought before them on the present occasion, and he trusted they would assist in every possible way his hon. Friend (Mr. Litton) in carrying the Bill through the House. He deserved credit for the efforts he had made, and Ireland would be grateful to him. If the Government did not see their way to dealing with the whole question at once, they might accept the present measure, which would deal, as he thought effectively, with some branches of the question which were crying evils in the country, and demanded immediate attention. He therefore hoped the Bill would be read the second time and allowed to go to a Committee.
  MR. FITZPATRICKsaid, that, in his experience, during the last 10 years
  822
  there had been three dangerous lunatics at large in the district in which he lived. They had to be looked for; and, when found, were in a most destitute and frightful condition, but were brought back by the police. He was of opinion that unless a very careful classification was made dangerous lunatics must often break loose. In the wild country districts of Ireland it was impossible for the police to watch every case; and surely it would be better to place these lunatics in asylums where they would be carefully guarded and properly attended to. He approved of the principles of the Bill; but he considered that the subject involved was one which ought to be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government. It was altogether too large a subject to be dealt with in such a harum-scarum and cursory manner. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater) had imputed to those on the Conservative side of the House motives which he had no right to impute. They were just as anxious as he was to have the question settled, but they wanted it settled on a good and permanent basis. Immense interests were involved. A great outlay of money was involved, and the necessary machinery under a Bill of that kind must be very great. He would, therefore, respectfully ask the Government to bring in a Bill themselves—to bring it in as soon as possible—and to take into consideration what had been gathered together by all the Commissions there had been on the subject.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, it was not his intention to oppose the Bill going into Committee; but it must be distinctly understood that he offered no approval whatever of the principle involved in the measure. He felt, however, bound to express the opinion that it would require very large amendment in Committee to make it workable; and he must reserve on the part of the Government the power, which, of course, the Government would possess, to oppose it, in case they thought it necessary to bring in a Bill themselves on the subject. He was informed by those in charge of the Department that there were several matters not merely of administration, but of great importance, going to the root of the system, which ought and must be dealt with, and

  823
  which it was impossible in the present state of the law to deal with. He regretted that the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) had not drafted the Bill himself, because he was convinced that, from the hon. Gentleman's accuracy and professional ability, he would have been able to have framed a better Bill than by adopting parts of other Acts. It was an inconvenient mode to take out parts of Acts relating to another country, and worked on a different principle and by an entirely different class of people, and set about making a patch-work Bill. The English Act which was proposed to be incorporated by the referential section was an Act grounded on the English Poor Law which was wholly different from the Poor Law in Ireland; and he thought the result of the present Bill would be to increase the charge to the amount of £50,000 per year, of which the local rates would have to bear £28,000, and the Treasury the difference between that and £50,000. At present, from whatever cause he was unable to say, he was assured that the lunatics in Ireland in these lunatic asylums had increased during the last six years at the rate of 2,000 in number. That was an alarming state of things; but he could not accept the explanation of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater), that because he found a large number of figures in one county and a small number in another, that necessarily all the large number of figures were those of lunatics who ought to be admitted into asylums. He was afraid that those lunatics, whose friends found it inconvenient to keep them, were becoming to be considered dangerous; but what would go to the root of the system was really the classification of the lunatics under the head of dangerous or incurable or curable. It appeared to him that, in any amendment of the Lunacy Laws, they ought to keep that fundamental condition in view as the groundwork of amendment. The present Bill failed in that respect, because it dealt more with matters of detail than with fundamental principles. With regard to the supervision which the Bill suggested, he felt bound to point out that the medical men were excessively hard worked and notoriously under-paid, and he did not think that the Bill was upon this point so satisfactory as it might be. With
  824
  reference to the boarding-out system, he thought the matter was one which ought to be very carefully considered by the House. He did not propose to offer any opinion on the part of the Government; but, generally speaking, he was afraid the system would be open to very grave abuse. He really believed that many of those persons who now had the means of keeping their relatives affected mentally, but nevertheless harmless, would put them on the country and still maintain them at home. The ratepayer was a very heavily burdened person in Ireland. Whether it was that money was scarce or rates were heavy he did not know; but the fact remained that they were heavily burdened, and while everyone would desire that those who were mentally unable to take care of themselves should be taken care of by society, it would be rather a dangerous measure to put the power of boarding-out in the hands of the Governors of lunatic asylums. In England the power was worked by the Guardians. The Guardians were persons who were locally acquainted with all the requirements of lunatics; but the Governors of district asylums were totally different. A district asylum was a building erected and maintained to supply the wants not merely of a county, but of a combination of counties, and Governors were appointed by the Lord Lieutenant; and, therefore, although those Governors in some instances came possibly from the localities, they would not have as intimate an acquaintance with the wants of the individual lunatics as the Guardians would locally have. He would repeat, in conclusion, that he would not oppose the Bill going into Committee. It would require very large amendment; but he hoped it would be in the power of the Government to introduce a Bill themselves of larger scope, and supplying not only the fundamental wants, but the administrative improvements, which it was found were necessary to the fair working of the system.
  MR. LITTONthanked hon. Members on the opposite side of the House for the manner in which they had received the Bill, and said he would name a distant day for the Committee stage.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday 1st June.

MIDDLESEX LAND REGISTRY BILL.
(Mr. Hopwood, Mr. Gregory, Sir Thomas Chambers, Sir Sydney Waterlow, Mr. Lewis.)

[BILL 87.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. HOPWOOD,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he did not conceive, considering the well-worn nature of the topic, that it was necessary for him to offer any lengthened remarks to the House in commending the Bill to its attention. The House probably was well aware that for more than a century and a-half a Land Registry had existed in Middlesex, and that the experiment was made at very nearly the same date in Yorkshire, first in one Riding and then in another. In recent times there had been inquiries into the Middlesex Registry; but, so far as he knew, they had led to no legislative Acts for the improvement of its procedure. That had gone on down to the present time; the old state of things, which was a rather cumbrous mode of registering the assurances or deeds in regard to laud, had continued without change. What might have been a useful mode of registration in the time of Queen Anne, when the Registry was established, must obviously be inadequate when they considered the enormous growth of population in the Metropolitan area, accompanied as that was by the distribution and the division of landed property of every kind in the shape of house property, garden property, and small plots of land of every description. What had happened had been this, and it had been long pointed out in regard to the Middlesex Registry. The system was that the purchasers of property—or anyone who took a mortgage on property—accepted the transfer of it, and for his own security should, and was by the statute of Anne, bound to register the fact and the deed in some form in the Registry. He did that, generally speaking, by a very full memorial, setting forth the names of the parties to the deed with some description of the property. That was all that was done; but if they considered the enormous sub-division of property that had taken place in Middlesex, especially through the operations of spirited building societies from time to time, they found that these purchases and these assignments were multiplied in extraordinary num-
826
bers, and the sole index to them was the name of the purchaser. Anyone who had had to refer to the Middlesex Land Registry for a client, or for himself, knew that such a mode of registration became perfectly useless. There were such names as Smith and Jones multiplied enormously in London; and although there might be added the first name of George or John to Smith, yet as Smith was the guide in the Index, it was impossible to identify the property to ascertain whether it was or was not that which you were searching for. In the same way, with such enormous estates as those of the Duke of Westminster, the moment one knew that he must seek for information under the nominal appellation of the Duke for some key to an assignment of estate he gave it up as hopeless. It was the same with such names as Cubitt and others, who had covered the Metropolis with buildings, and sub-divided property to the enormous extent they saw. That being the state of things, the law in Middlesex saying that you should register an assignment made to you, and that if you did not someone else might get the advantage of you, acted very cruelly on the whole of those who had to resort to the Registry to ascertain what it was safe for them to buy, and how far, their own deeds being registered, were made evidence so strong that anyone would be prevented from dealing with such property with forged leases or transfers. There had been in the Metropolis a number of forgeries by skilled agents, enjoying sometimes professional knowledge, which they had turned to account by forged deeds in respect to the same property in such a way as to multiply mortgages and assignments upon them, each time acquiring a certain amount of purchase money or other consideration. That had been done by men whose names had been familiar to the House in past times. There was one case especially within the last few years in which an adventurer named Dimsdale succeeded in mortgaging some property at Penge, in Surrey, 22 times over, and on each occasion he obtained some valuable consideration for the mortgage or assignment. That occurred outside the area of the Middlesex Land Registry. It was in a part of Surrey adjacent to Middlesex, but which was not under the Middlesex Registry.

827
He succeeded; and that he should have chosen, and that all the other forgers he (Mr. Hopwood) had alluded to should have chosen, a district outside the Middlesex Registry was, he thought, silent testimony of a very strong character that the Middlesex Registry was of considerable benefit to those who were accustomed to lay out what money they had in investments in land. There had been, no doubt, others who acted in the same way, who had not been discovered; and he thought it would be found that they had invariably chosen a limit of the Metropolis which was not within the bounds of the Middlesex Registry, and that their reason for that was that the Land Registry did constitute additional safeguard to the holders of property. That furnished one with two arguments—first, that the registration in Middlesex was so far valuable, and would be, as he conceived, much more valuable, if the Registry was of a practical character, so that it could be made use of as the Bill proposed; and, secondly, that the Bill should rightly be extended to the district which it named. The Bill proposed to extend the district for registration of assurances and deeds of assignments, so as to include not only Middlesex proper, to which the original Registry was limited, but the whole Metropolitan district included under the Metropolis Management Act. It also proposed to improve and amend the existing Register, by a provision that the index should not only be an index to names, but also to the districts in which the property was situated. The situation of the property should also be indicated by reference to the Ordnance Map, so that anyone wishing to ascertain whether a property had been already the subject of assignment or assurance to anybody else would be able at once to find it out. For a fixed fee, the applicant might receive a certificate of the state of the Register in regard to incumbrances on the property about which he was inquiring. Thus the Registrar would certify as to the last registered incumbrances on the property, and the applicant might proceed with confidence to make the investment, or might decline it. That was the state of the question as regarded the Registry. With regard to any alteration in the law, he thought the only point he need enter upon was this—and it was a matter upon which
828
some argument might be presented—whether the fact of the entry of the deed or assurance and its ownership, being once entered, should be conclusive; or whether he, having the right in all other respects to enter the fact of the assignment to himself, having heard that there was an equitable mortgage in someone else's hands, he should be permitted—as the Bill proposed—to go to the Registry, and, getting his on the Registry first, take priority. He believed he was right in saying that a complete system of registration prevailed in Ireland and Scotland, and the Registry was held to be conclusive, and afforded all information to an intending purchaser as to the devolution of property. Then he came to the ways and means of the question. The state of the case was this. An Act having been passed instituting this Office as long ago as the reign of Queen Anne, a number of Registrars had been from time to time appointed. At one time the number was five; but when they came down to 1867 they found there were three, but in that year one of the number died. In 1872 another died; and between those years an arrangement was made by which the vacancies were not filled up, except by the Queen's Remembrancer, as Trustee for the Crown; and the Treasury succeeded to, or was invested with, the right to receive all the fees accruing from time to time. At present Lord Truro was the sole Registrar; the Crown, or the Treasury, or the nation was, in fact, the other Registrar, and between the two there was a considerable sum to be divided annually. In 1877 it appeared that the amount received by each was £4,835. The amounts received by the Registry had been increasing from 1867, when the receipts were £13,000, down to 1877, when they wore £14,000. The last Return showed about £15,000, the net receipts being somewhere about £10,000, and divided between the Crown and Registrar. The Office was at present a sinecure. There was a Registrar who was entitled to receive his share of the money, and was not bound to give any service in return. The Bill arranged for the future; it provided that the Registrar should be pensioned off with a sum calculated on the net amount received by him annually during the 10 years preceding, and it empowered and regulated the appointment of a new Registrar and

829
officers under the guidance and the direction of the Lord Chancellor, by rules to be prescribed by him. He submitted that he had first shown that that Middlesex Registry, imperfect and complicated as it was, still afforded some protection to those who were bound to register there. That had been shown by the fact that the forgers, on a large scale, had found it more safe to extend the field of their operations to portions of the Metropolis outside the limits of the Act, and so avoiding that which was subject to the law. Having shown that there was that advantage in the Registry; finding that there were ample funds derived from it which were paid by those who had the benefit of it, and that, therefore, the institution, as he might call it, was self-supporting, he put it to the House whether it would not be useful to extend its limits to all portions of the Metropolis, and whether, if the principle of extension were once acceded to, it would not be wise to choose for the purpose the unit already instituted by previous legislation—the Metropolitan area? He next showed that the process was simple—that it was a mere question of a moderately good index. The answer might be made—quite independently of whether the Bill was sufficient or not—that that was part of a large subject. In reference to a Bill discussed the other day on another large subject connected with the Land Question—he meant the Agricultural Holdings Act Amendment Bill—the Government said that although they were pledged to deal with that subject, they would not be dogs in the manger to oppose an instalment of it, for they could see that the Bill could be made a useful Bill. So, in this case, he knew the Government had an immense variety of matters to attend to, and were not likely to be able to redeem their pledge to deal with the whole subject of land transfer; but why should they put anything like a veto upon the Bill, which, he submitted, was useful and practical, and, as long as it lasted, even if it were but a temporary measure, would be useful to the community, and would not in the least obstruct any larger idea of registering titles instead of assurances, or any other beneficial action the Government might think it right to take in regard to the transfer of land. That, he believed, was what might be in the mind of the Government; but he
830
thought he had shown that those who dwelt in Middlesex, or made assignments or instalments in Middlesex, ought to be allowed to have this Registry improved; that it was by their very hardly extracted money that the office was kept going; and that a very considerable surplus now went annually to the Treasury. If they did not approve of the extension outside Middlesex, at least let them have so much of the Bill as provided for an improved index, and the right to obtain a search certificate, and all other working and administrative improvements suggested by the Bill. He trusted the Government would accede to the proposal, and allow them to have the sanction of the House to the Bill, so far as that might be said to be obtained by passing the second reading.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Hopwood.)
MR. W. FOWLERsaid, that the Bill, though extremely modest, was a very important one. He wished to know what the effect of the Registrar's search, as proposed by the Bill, would be, because it seemed at present that if the Registrar made any mistake in his certificate, there would be nothing to protect the purchaser from the consequences of that mistake. The Bill appeared to him defective in not providing for registration of titles, his impression being that there could be no good and workable system of registration unless it included both titles and instruments. He should not oppose the second reading; but he had great objection to extending its provisions without more consideration to the City of London, where land was sold not at so many pounds per acre, but at so many thousands of pounds per acre. In fact, it had become of such fabulous value that any attempt to deal with its transfer ought to be seriously considered. He thought the Bill defective, inasmuch as it only provided for the registration of documents. He also anticipated that it would entirely destroy equitable mortgages. It was desirable that money should be borrowed on land with simplicity; but the Bill would create great inconvenience in that respect. He looked forward to a great system of registration, and doubted the utility of dealing with a single case by a separate Bill,

831
He could not help thinking that they were touching the fringe of a great subject, and that they would have to deal with it on a large scale. Other parts of the world had dealt with the subject of registration with great success. He did not know why we could not do the same. Registration in Middlesex had done some good; but if we were to have a real, complete, and proper system of registration the true principle would be to provide for the destruction of all documents which were not registered as affecting the title, so that no unregistered document should affect title; and he believed that if they once applied the system to the whole Kingdom it would be self-supporting, and would, at the same time, confer immense benefit upon the community. He should vote for the second reading of the Bill, although he objected to the idea of abolishing by a side wind all the power of equitable mortgage.
MR. GREGORYcordially agreed with the principle put forward by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), that no document which did not appear upon the Registry ought to have any value in regard to landed property; but no doubt, if that principle were carried out, it would have the effect of abolishing the power of equitable mortgage. That was a power which he would not be sorry to see done away with, for within his own experience he had known repeated instances of double transactions upon the same property. The doctrine of tacking was monstrous. Under it a third mortgagee, by acquiring the interest of the first mortgagee, could tack his third mortgage to the first mortgage, and squeeze out the second mortgagee. A proper registration would prevent that, because every deed would appear on the register; and that fact, he thought, would fully justify an attempt to have a register of deeds. We had registration in Yorkshire and in Scotland. As far as he knew, the frauds to which the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) alluded had not taken place in a register county. He knew few things that had given greater rise to fraud than the system of equitable mortgage. He asked whether it was right that a man should stand as the owner of a large property which he really did not own, and he ventured to think that equitable mortgages should not stand in the way of
832
an efficient system of registration. Such a system would prevent fraud in connection with land. He admitted that he would greatly prefer a general system of land registration to a purely local one of this character; but he would point out that such a general system for the whole of the land could only be carried out by the Government and not by a private Member, and he accepted the measure as an instalment in the right direction. The step proposed by the hon. and learned Member was, he believed, perfectly feasible, and he trusted it would receive the support of Her Majesty's Government.
MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Land Transfer Commission reported, in 1870, that the system of registering deeds caused great expense, that it afforded no additional security, and that it ought not to be continued. They, therefore, recommended that the registracy office should be closed, so far as concerned deeds executed after a certain date. The late Lord Chief Justice, therefore, refused to fill up one of the two registrar-ships which fell vacant. There wore now only two nominal Registrars—namely, Lord Truro and the Queen's Remembrancer; and Lord Truro's share of the fees was £4,000 a-year. His Lordship admitted that he never went to the office, because it was more trouble than profit, and simply interfered with the clerks, and said he thought it was better to stop away. The office involved a considerable tax of money and expense, without any corresponding benefit whatever to persons interested in land in Middlesex. It only resulted in the exaction of fees from the purchaser. Yet, by this Bill, it was proposed to recast and renovate this useless and injurious institution, which seemed to exist only for the purpose of taking fees. He could not agree with the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) in thinking that the system of equitable mortgage was to be condemned. Although, of course, there were frauds in connection with it, as there were, perhaps, in connection with other transactions, yet, comparing the number of frauds with the number of transactions, the former were small. The hon. Member for East Sussex had spoken of the immense advantage of a registry of deeds; and if all property was held by fee simple, and if there

833
were no transactions but purchase or mortgage, it would be easy to ascertain by looking at a Register what the exact title was; but if a varity of charges were allowed, portions, jointures, terms of years, and so on, which occurred in all settlements of family estates, people would not by registration of deeds be able to obtain that certainty which they looked for. They would have to trust to a lawyer to ascertain what the exact title was at the moment of their examining the property. The system of registration of deeds would not present at a glance the exact state of a title. He declined to admit, therefore, as a general rule, that the registration of deeds would secure that convenience which the hon. Member for East Sussex had claimed for it. With regard to the doctrine of tacking which had been alluded to, he (Mr. Courtney) did not defend it; but that doctrine might be abolished without requiring deeds to be registered, and a simple Bill of one clause might put an end to it. There could be no doubt that the registration of title had been advocated by many great law reformers in this country, and was the aim for which Commission after Commission had strenuously striven. The hon. Member for East Sussex appeared to give up that scheme as being impracticable, and he might be right; but the Government had not come to that conclusion. It was impossible for them to accept the principle that the registration of deeds was the policy which they were to pursue in dealing with the question of the transfer of land. In conclusion, he hoped that the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) would rest content with the reception which had been given to his Bill that day, and not press it any further.
MR. HOPWOODsaid, he would consent to withdraw the Bill in the hope that the discussion that day would be an additional incentive to dealing in future with the subject.
MR. OSBORNE MORGANremarked, that it had been the intention of the Government during the present Session to have dealt in a comprehensive way with the question of land titles and transfer in England. No one could be astonished that they had been unable to do that; but the fact that they had been obliged to put it off did not prove that
834
they were not going to deal with it. The matter would come on the earliest opportunity under the consideration of the Government, and then Parliament would have to decide between the system of registration of deeds and the registration of title.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill withdrawn.

COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
(Mr. Waugh, Mr. George Howard, Mr. Stafford Howard, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Ferguson.)

[BILL 117.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. WAUGH,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it had for its object the simplification of the enfranchisement of copyholders, with a view to the abolition of copyhold tenure as far as possible. The subject had been before the House of Commons ever since 1838, when a Select Committee made a Report upon it. On that Committee sat the late Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Goulburn, Sir James Graham, Mr. Cobbett, and other distinguished men. In 1841 an Act was passed appointing a Commission to carry out the enfranchisement of copyholds, a form of tenure which was ill adapted to the wants of the present day, and which was a blot on the legal system of the country. Little, however, was done under that Act, which was voluntary in its operation; and in 1851 another Committee was appointed to consider the question, which reported much in the same terms as the previous one had done. They declared that copyhold tenure was an impediment to improvement of land, and inconvenient to the lord of the manor as well as to the tenant, and they recommended that enfranchisement should be made compulsory. In 1852 an Act was passed by which enfranchisements were made partly permissive and partly compulsory; but the machinery of the measure proved too cumbrous, and failed to have the desired effect. In 1858 another Act was passed, giving greater facilities for enfranchisements; but its provisions also were insufficient. No great deal had been done towards enfranchisement under that Act, for although the area of copyhold tenure was diminishing, he doubted whether the number of customary tenants was

835
diminishing. The object of the present Bill was to bring that matter to a conclusion. In a short time, perhaps 10 years, the Ordnance Survey would be ready; and if copyholds were also extinguished, they would then have the course clear for a proper registration of all the lands in this country. The hon. Member, having explained in some detail the provisions of the Bill, remarked that after nearly 40 years it seemed that the period had arrived when an entire enfrancisement ought to be effected within a reasonable time, and one not longer than a lifetime. He concluded by moving the second reading of the measure.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Waugh.)
SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY,in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that people in the South and West of England were much wedded to the copyhold system which existed there, on account of its great simplicity and of the facilities it afforded for the transmission of their property. A compulsory Bill, like the present one, therefore, ought not to be applied to those who did not wish to have it forced upon them. Moreover, almost all the measures proposed in connection with copyhold enfranchisement had hitherto been introduced as part of a great scheme by the Ministry for the time being, and also founded on the Report of a Commission. He maintained, further, that the existing legislation with regard to the voluntary enfranchisement of copyholds, instead of being inoperative, had been very largely acted upon, and transactions of that kind involving several millions' worth of property had been carried out at a very small cost. He had no objection to the details of the Bill, if the principle were accepted; but he must protest against the principle of compulsion. Since 1838, the period of the great Land Commission, the question had been dealt with and reported upon on four different occasions, and the enfranchisement had been left optional to the copyholders and the lords of the manor under the Act of 1858. He therefore thought it had best be left with them, for they best knew their own interests. The Copyhold Commissioners had stated that since 1857 there had been no less than 14,147 volun-
836
tary enfranchisements, of which 650 had been done during the last year. The amount of money invested in those transactions was large enough to show that the process was going on with reasonable quickness and sufficient to negative the prophecies that if people were left alone they would do nothing, and there was no need to accelerate the natural process. He could instance two large parishes and districts which were known to himself, and upon each of which there might be 2,500 copyhold tenants. The mode of dealing with that was exactly the mode Lord Brougham spoke of in his speech on Land Law reforms. The man who had actual possession of the land simply went to the steward's office, or to the Court, and said—"I agree with Mr. Jones to sell my property for £5,000." The steward turned to the registry of the copyhold manor, and found that the name of the person who came to him was there as a tenant on the roll. Without any investigation of title, and without any further inquiry, beyond the purchaser being willing to pay the money, the vendor there and then surrendered the property to the purchaser, the money was paid over, and he simply made a declaration to regulate the ad valorem stamp, and the whole matter was completed. The people in the parishes he had referred to knew the custom, and were in the habit of dealing with their property under it; and he (Sir Gabriel Goldney) said, with confidence, that although that large quantity of property on an average passed from hand to hand, either by death or by sale, once every 11½ years, he did not know of any dispute having occurred in any portion of that property, nor had any person expressed dissatisfaction with reference to it for a period of 35 years. The Bill sought to provide that after next December no person should be able to transfer his property in the mode he had spoken of. That, he thought, was unnecessary, as enfranchisement was proceeding fast enough under the present Acts in force. He hoped this measure would not be pressed upon the House, but that it would be withdrawn, as it only touched part of a very large question. It was the more advisable to do so, inasmuch as a measure dealing with the whole question of land tenure was in prospect. The hon. Member concluded by moving the rejection of the Bill.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir Gabriel Goldney.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he objected to the Bill as an attempt to interfere unduly with the liberty of the subject, and to force compulsory enfranchisement upon people who had no particular desire to be forced, and who would find it difficult to make the requisite compensation to the manorial lords. In exceptional cases, such as some of the copyholds of Cumberland, such legislation might be justifiable; but it could not be justified as universally applicable. It could not be said that the present Acts were in any way dead letters; for the question was settling itself, and under the existing system the voluntary enfranchisements were as numerous as the compulsory. Manors were becoming smaller and smaller every year, and it was much better to allow the provisions of the Acts which were in force to exert that quiet influence which they were exerting on the country. In the case of land near towns, which was in a transition state between agricultural land and building land, great injustice might be done both to lord and tenant if enfranchisement took place before the land was properly developed, or had reached a value to which it was rapidly tending. The lord would not got proper compensation for probable increased fines, or the tenant for prospective improvement in the value of his land. If the existing Acts were not strong enough to insure enfranchisement, let them be amended by all means; but, although he disliked copyholds, he could not say that it would be to the interest of the country that a compulsory Act such as this should be passed.
MR. COURTNEYthought that the hon. Member for Chippenham's (Sir Gabriel Goldney's) objection to the Bill, on the ground that it only touched part of a large question, was really an argument in its favour. Before dealing with the Land Question as a whole, the Government thought it better to deal separately with some questions of land reform, and this was one of them, the object being to convert copyhold tenure into common socage tenure, thus making
838
the different tenures uniform. The argument of the hon. and learned Member for Mid Surrey (Mr. Grantham) was also in reality an argument for the Bill. One great obstacle in the way of land reform was that so much of it was held by copyhold tenure. As Fellow of a College, he had had some experience in one case of the obstacles which copyhold tenure presented to the development of land. His College possessed some property in the North of London, admirable as building land, but which, until the passing of the College and University Estates Act, it had been impossible to turn to a good account. As an illustration of how the copyhold system operated, he would mention that in the case of a certain manor, a person going over it could detect and separate by sight parts of the land which were enfranchised and those parts which were not enfranchised, merely by comparing the uses to which the land was put; so that enfranchisement was to be promoted on the ground of public benefit. The principle of the Bill of the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth (Mr. Waugh) was that the course of enfranchisement hitherto had been too slow, and he wished to accelerate it, and to convert, as soon as possible, the whole of the copyhold land into the condition of common socage tenure. With that aim, he (Mr. Courtney) entirely agreed, sympathizing with him in the object he proposed. It might be a matter of consideration with the Committee whether the term fixed upon was not too short, and there were other matters which would require consideration—for example, under the 3rd clause difficulties might arise in the preparation of marriage settlements and wills, as it was proposed to abolish trusts in respect of the copyholds. He confessed he did not understand how that would work in the case of copyhold trust. He would also point out an apparent blot in the 20th clause, which saved to the lord of the manor compensation for fine even after enfranchisement was effected. If that was the meaning of the Bill, then undoubtedly the mischief of copyhold was preserved even after enfranchisement was effected. Another difficulty might arise in regard to marriage settlements, and in respect to that the measure should be a little more elastic, so that as settlements were often drawn up in a hurry, conveyance might take place even after

839
the date of the marriage settlement. These, however, were only details, which might be amended in Committee; and he hoped his hon. Friend would fix a convenient day for that stage. He had great pleasure in accepting the Bill as an honest and fair proposal to accelerate enfranchisement, which it had been the aim of the Legislature to promote ever since the first Land Commission, and he should, therefore, support the second reading.
MR. GREGORYagreed with the object of the measure; but would call attention to the case of tenures other than, but similar to, copyholds, such as freeholds of manors held by heriots and quit rents, which also required to be dealt with.
SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, that he did not wish to press for a division, and would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday 1st June.

PETTY SESSIONS CLERKS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 41.]
(Mr. Litton, Mr. James Richardson.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. LITTON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to apply to the petty sessions clerks of Ireland the principle of payment by salary, instead of their remuneration being dependent on the amount of fees received by the Courts. That principle was adopted with regard to justices' clerks in England in 1877, and petty sessions clerks in Ireland corresponded with justices' clerks in England, being appointed under the Petty Sessions Act. The Lord Lieutenant had power to classify the petty sessions clerks in proportion to the importance of the districts in which they served. The salaries of petty sessions clerks were provided out of the fines and fees, and hon. Gentlemen would thus see they were open to the objection of fluctuation. At the end of every three years, the Registrar of petty sessions allocated to each class of clerks a certain proportion in advance
840
of the salary; or, if it should have so happened that the fees were not sufficient to cover the advance, a diminution was made. That was the objectionable part of the system, and could not be better illustrated than by the fact that Mr. Wingfield, the Registrar occupying an official position over the entire body, had written a circular to the petty sessions clerks of Ireland, in which he said it was evident that the amount of salary must depend on the amount of the fund arising from the productiveness or not of the petty sessions stamps; and in case of any diminution of fees, the salaries would have to be reduced in proportion. Mr. Wingfield added that the clerks would thus see that the amount of their salaries largely depended upon their own efforts to increase the fines and encourage an increase of the litigious business of their Courts. He (Mr. Litton) was happy to be able to say that the petty sessions clerks in Ireland acknowledged the evil, and felt how objectionable the system was, inasmuch as it placed them in a false position. They were open to the suspicion, no doubt unjustly, of issuing two summonses instead of one in cases which were capable of being regarded as a double offence, although arising out of one transaction, for the purpose of increasing the amount of the common fund. In further confirmation of the evil arising from the present system, he would read an extract from a letter he had received from one of those gentlemen, whose name he could not give, but who put the case very fairly and strongly. The writer said—
"I think it would be just, and an encouragement to hard working clerks who have been endeavouring for the last three years to increase the consumption of stamps, &c., in order that their salaries should be increased."
So the very reason why he asked the House to pass the Bill was the fact that it was assumed, under the present system, that the clerks worked hard to increase the fees and fines, and through them their stipends. He had said enough to show how objectionable the system worked in Ireland, and he had only to say that his Bill had received the approbation of all the petty sessions clerks in Ireland. Mr. Humphries, of Cork, President of the Society of Petty Sessional Clerks, and Mr. Atkinson, of Maryborough, the Secretary, were both

841
in favour of the Bill as representing the clerks of the country, and they had come over here to show their interest in the passing of the Bill. They had suggested one or two Amendments with regard to superannuation, which he (Mr. Litton) would be very glad to propose for acceptance when the Bill got into Committee. With that exception, the Bill had been universally approved by all parties, and he understood Her Majesty's Government was prepared to support the Bill in principle. There was only one objection to the Bill, and that was standing in the name of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Beresford); but it did not seem directed against the principle of the measure. He had handed over the duty of making the objection to the hon. Member for Portarlington (Mr. Fitzpatrick). The principle of the objection was this—that in order to have a sufficient fund out of which to pay the salaries, it was proposed to take advantage of portion of the dog duty. That was a duty amounting to £30,000, and it was objected that certain local authorities, to whom portion of the dog tax was allocated, might be deprived of the benefit of it towards the relief of local taxation. The Town Commissioners of Armagh made an objection to the duty being so appropriated through their Representative; but it should be remembered that the Lord Lieutenant already had the power, under the Dog Licence Act, to take a portion of the tax for the payment of the petty sessional clerks, and hand over the balance to the local authority. There was, therefore, no substantial objection to the Bill in principle, and he hoped the House would read it a second time.
MR. J. N. RICHARDSONseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Litton.)
MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not think it was desirable to interfere with the progress of a measure which was likely to improve the position of the petty sessions clerks in Ireland. He was aware the Town Commissioners of Armagh had some objection to the 2nd clause, on the ground that it interferred with fines which would otherwise go to them.
842
That, however, was a matter which could be dealt with in Committee.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that, on the part of the Government, he entirely agreed with the objects of the Bill. Nothing was more undesirable than to have the salary of any public official depending upon the contingencies of fees. At one time, public officers were generally paid by fees; but it was found the system so interfered with the public interest that, almost in every instance, they had been commuted for salaries; and there was no case in which it was more important that fixed salaries should be paid than in that of petty sessional clerks. As regarded the opposition made to the Bill, it would be time enough to deal with the Amendment to the 2nd clause when they got into Committee. On the question of superannuation, it was, he thought, only proper, in the interests of the public, that some scheme of the kind should be provided. Through the absence of such a fund at present the petty sessions clerks were obliged, in some cases, to continue in office when they were past work. For these and other reasons he would agree to the second reading of the Bill.
MR. BYRNEalso supported the second reading, considering that it afforded some measure of justice to the petty sessions clerks in Ireland. No portion of the remuneration of public officers should be derived from fees. He ventured to hope further that, in Committee, the Bill would be improved in one or two directions with regard to superannuation, so that those who had devoted their lives to this particular work should, when worn out, be rewarded for their services.
MR. CORRYwas very glad to find that the Bill had received such a unanimous approval. He hoped that it would soon become law.
MR. FITZPATRICKthought that these officers ought to have their salaries fixed. A bad effect was produced by fluctuating remuneration, such as had existed, where these officials were paid by fees.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday 4th May.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 33.]
(Mr. Litton, Mr. Errington, Mr. Broadhurst.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. LITTON, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, if the Government would agree to that course, he was satisfied the Bill should go to a Select Committee. The object of the measure was to extend to Ireland some very valuable provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, passed in 1879 by the late Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir R. Assheton Cross). It was, in his (Mr. Litton's) opinion, of the highest importance that the beneficial reforms introduced by the Act into the English system of Criminal Law should be extended to Ireland. The Bill, in fact, proposed to assimilate the law of the two countries; and there was no reason why these provisions, which were good for England, should not be good for Ireland. He had introduced no new matter in the Bill except a clause, which he believed would meet with general approval, with regard to the recovery of small debts, which would protect debtors from being liable to such heavy costs as they at present were. It was desirable to relieve the County Courts in Ireland of a certain amount of the business with regard to the recovery of small debts, by giving a small increase of jurisdiction to the Petty Sessions Courts. The jurisdiction, in case of debts, he proposed to extend from £2 to £5. The cost of proceeding at the County Courts was much more than at Petty Sessions. He had no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) would support the Bill, as he did the measure of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the late Government. The important features of that measure were that it would enable fines to be reduced at the discretion of the magistrates; it would enable them to direct that fines should be paid by instalments; it would allow security to be given for penalties or fines; it provided that there should be no costs against the accused in cases were the fines fell short of 5s.; it also provided that a magistrate might mitigate or cancel the forfeiture of recogni-
844
zances; and included most important provisions with regard to juvenile offenders, similar to those which had worked so well in England. Under the Act, magistrates also had greater power of discharging accused persons than formerly. There was not the slightest doubt that all these beneficent provisions were quite as much needed for Ireland as for England, and he therefore hoped the Government would allow the second reading, in order that the Bill might be considered by a Select Committee.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Litton.)
MR. BRODRICKsaid, he needed only to listen to the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) to know that the question was a very large and important one, and one which could not be adequately discussed in the time now left to the House; therefore, he should move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
MR. HOPWOODregretted the Motion for adjournment, because the Bill was founded on a distinct promise given by the late Government that the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879 should be extended to Ireland. The measure, moreover, was drawn on the lines of that Bill drawn by the late Government, and thus assimilated the law of Ireland to that of England. Under those circumstances, he thought it was only right they should receive from the Government an expression of the course they intended to take in reference to the matter.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), in response to the appeal of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), said, he found it absolutely necessary to support the Motion for adjournment. He demurred to the acceptance of the general principle that because an Act existed in England it should, therefore, be extended to Ireland. He thought it was desirable that the matter, which was a portion of a large subject, should be postponed for further consideration. The Bill imported nearly the whole of the English Act into Ireland, but there were portions of that

845
Act which were not applicable to Ireland, being utterly unworkable in that country; while other portions of it were already existing in Ireland, and, therefore, to enact those portions would be to do that which was absolutely unnecessary. His right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he believed, contemplated some alteration in the law relating to juvenile offenders, and it would, therefore, be wise to postpone any change in that branch of the law in Ireland until the publication of the plan.
MR. GIBSONhoped the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) would accede to the Motion for adjournment. Practically, the Irish people already enjoyed most of the benefits conferred in England by the Summary Jurisdiction Act. A provision in reference to small debts recoverable at Petty Sessions was introduced in the Act of 1877, and he would like the House, before making a further change, to consider how far that Act had induced the humbler classes in Ireland to have larger recourse to the Petty Sessional Courts.
MR. LITTONsaid, in the face of the feeling of the House, especially at the present hour, he had no objection to the adjournment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Debate adjourned till Wednesday 11th May.

CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.— [BILL 30.]
(Mr. E. Stanhope, Mr. Albert Grey, Mr. Stanley Leighton, Mr. Stuart- Wortley.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. E. STANHOPE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he proposed to adopt the course lately recommended by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—namely, to go into Committee on the Bill pro formâ, and to cut it into two parts. He might add that he had communicated with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), who was ready to renew the discussion on the measure upon the Motion for going into Committee. He proposed to withdraw the 17th clause altogether, and he also intended to bring up a new clause as a safeguard against any evasion of the
846
provision in the Bill for the abolition of the sale of next presentations. He hoped the House would consent to the second reading of the measure. The Bill, if road a second time, would be re-printed, and considerable time would elapse before the House would be asked to discuss its principles in Committee.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now road a second time."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)
MR. ILLINGWORTHopposed the Motion. There had been no adequate discussion on the Bill, and at that hour (20 minutes to 6) it could not possibly be discussed. Besides, he did not see why the Bill should not be withdrawn and another one introduced in the ordinary manner. The Church was a branch of the Public Service of the country as well as the Army and Navy; and when abolition of purchase was resolved on in the Army it was undertaken by the Government, and the Clerical Service of the State was equally deserving the care and protection of the Government as the Army and Navy. Therefore, he, for one, should regard the Government as failing in its duty in the most manifest manner if it were to leave this question in the hands of a private Member. The great objection to the Bill was that it merely touched the fringe of the question.
And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

QUESTIONS.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Before the House rises, I wish to ask a Question of the Government. It would be convenient if we could know whether, supposing the Land Law (Ireland) Bill is introduced to-morrow, we shall be likely to have the Bill in our hands on Friday morning? It is understood that the House is to rise for the Holidays on Friday, and that the Government proposes that we should take the second reading of the measure on the very first day after the Holidays. I do not know how far that arrangement may be modified; but, at all events, we

  847
  clearly ought to have the Bill in our hands as soon as possible. I hope, therefore, it may be found possible to circulate it on Friday, so that hon. Members may have it in their possession before leaving London.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that, as no Notice had been given of the Question, he could not give a positive answer. All he could say was that his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government was most anxious that the Bill should be in the hands of Members on Friday morning. There might, however, be some delay in the printing of the measure.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked, whether it would not be possible to have the Bill in the Bill Office, so that they could obtain it there? He did not understand why they should be always in the hands of the printers. They were the servants of the House, and the excuse that they were obstacles to hon. Members getting the Bills ought not to be put forward. He saw no reason why, as it was understood, there would be no discussion on Thursday, the Bill should not be distributed to Members directly after the Prime Minister's introductory speech.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he believed there were forms which rendered it impossible that Bills should be issued directly they were printed. Therefore, difficulties might arise, though he hardly anticipated any. The Government, however, would do the best they could in the matter.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: You might have it printed at The Standard Office.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, that what his right hon. Friend had asked for was only reasonable. No unnecessary time should be allowed to elapse before the circulation of that important Bill, which, he assumed, was now in the hands of the printer or some printer. He would remind the Government that the Coercion Act got printed and issued before hand.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Second Reading—Army Discipline and Regulation (Annual) (61).
ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION (ANNUAL) BILL.—(No. 61.)
(The Earl of Morley.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE EARL OF MORLEY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he regretted that the Bill having come up late from the Commons on the previous night was not in such a complete state as could have been desired. The Amendments on the Bill had not yet been printed, and accordingly the Bill had not been circulated among their Lordships.
LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he understood that the Bill was not on the Table of their Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that it had been laid on the Table, and was then lying upon it. According to the arrangement come to the previous night, he would propose to take the discussion to-morrow on the Motion to go into Committee, and before that time the Bill in its present shape would be in the hands of their Lordships.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Morley.)
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he would not oppose the second reading of the measure; but he must repeat what he had said in former Sessions—that this Bill always came up to their Lordships with a rope round its neck, and they were called upon to dispose of it at once. He was aware Public Business this Session had been interrupted in a manner injurious to the interests of the country, both public and private, and that this Bill had accordingly been postponed. But the present was a very unsatisfactory mode of proposing the second reading of such a Bill, and means ought to be taken in future to afford their Lordships an opportunity for a fuller discussion.
LORD DENMANsaid, that, instead of speaking before the Motion for the Bill going into Committee, he would say a few words on the second reading, having just obtained a copy of the Bill. He believed that if the right hon. and gallant Member the late Secretary of State for War would have declared that he considered corporal punishment necessary for the discipline of the Army, the late Leader of the Opposition would have said in 1879 that he would support him. He (Lord Denman) had quoted from Horace, but ought to have quoted the words before—
"Nec vincet ratio hoc tantundem ut peccet idemque,
Qui teneros caules alieni fregerit horti,
Et qui nocturnus divum sacra legerit.
Regula peccatis quæ pænas inroget æquas,
Ne scutica degnum horribili sectere flagello—adsit."
He was of opinion that the alternative punishment of flogging ought to be restored by the insertion of a provision to that effect in the Bill before their Lordships. That punishment had been well described by the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Abinger) the other night as exercised in the last Civil War in America as

799
a merciful substitute for death for crimes of lesser gravity than murder; and the proposed substitution of imprisonment for flogging was very unsatisfactory, inasmuch as where no prison existed, as was the case in the field, it took away the services of several men to attend upon the soldier arrested. This was, in fact, a punishment to the whole Army. If a man got drunk, he ought to be flogged, by which he would at once be made sober; and the unpopularity of the punishment was not a sufficient reason for its abolition. If flogging in the Army were given up, we might be expected to give it up in the case of garrotters also. Now, if a soldier was flogged for drunkenness, other soldiers would see that it was not worth their while to get drunk. There was an instance of a man who had become a good soldier, thanking the officers who had made him so by the punishment of flogging; for he had heard from Sir George Lawrence of a Native officer in India who, having risen from the ranks, laid his sword at Sir George's feet, and said he owed his commission to the good effects produced by a flogging inflicted on him when in the ranks. He (Lord Denman) knew an instance of two brothers, at a long interval of time, each thanking the same mother for having whipped them. He had seen a man in Windsor street flogged, who scarcely winced. He had also witnessed in Windsor Barracks part of the lashing of a private soldier of the Guards punished for theft by 300 lashes, and had seen the same man in the ranks with his coat turned. The power given to the Secretary of State for War in the Bill was of a most indefinite description; and in Committee he (Lord Denman) should move the re-insertion of the flogging clause.
LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he would not oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he must take exception to their Lordships being asked to pass it without having before them the Amendments made in the Bill by the House of Commons. Such a course was most inconvenient. As their Lordships' House contained so many officers who were specially qualified to deal with such a question, he was of opinion they ought to be afforded more time for discussing a Bill gravely affecting the maintenance of discipline in the Army and the
800
good conduct of our soldiers in the field.
Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
LORD DENMANsaid, he would press his Amendment for the restoration of the alternative of flogging; and if it was carried, he trusted there would be a conference between the two Houses on the subject, even if it made the Vacation shorter.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid, that on the Paper for Thursday were subjects for discussion relating to South Africa, Eastern Correspondence and other matters. Considering the variety of matters for debate, and the amount of Business to be done, he hoped the Government would consent to the House meeting at 4 instead of 5 o'clock.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that as none of the Leaders of the Opposition were present it would not be possible to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord, the understanding being that the Mutiny Bill would not be taken before the usual hour for Public Business.
House adjourned at a quarter past Eleven o'clock, till Tomorrow, Eleven o'clock.