Sitting of 5 August 1882

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock.

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [August 4] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Government Annuities and Insurance [Annuities, &c.]*
Resolution [August 4] reported—Ordered—First Reading—Public Works Loans [269].
Ordered—First Reading—Prison Charities *[270].
Second Reading—Corrupt Practices (Suspension of Elections) [265]; Pensions Commutation [252]; Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) *[250]; Royal Irish Constabulary [264]
Select Committee—Union Officers' Superannuation (Ireland) [75], nominated.
Committee— Report—Entail (Scotland) [248]; Lunacy Regulation Amendment [230].
Committee— Report— Third Reading—Isle of Man (Officers)* [238], and passed.
Committee— Report— Considered as amended— Third Reading—Turnpike Roads (South Wales) [101], and passed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  TURNPIKE ROADS (SOUTH WALES) BILL.— [BILL 101.]
  (Mr. Dodson, Mr. Hibbert.)
  TURNPIKE ROADS (SOUTH WALES) BILL.— [BILL 101.]

    THIRD READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [1st May], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    And which Amendment was, to leave out the words "now read the third time," and add the word "re-committed," instead thereof.—(Sir Henry Hussey Vivian.)
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Word added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  ENTAIL (SCOTLAND) BILL
  [Lords.]—[BILL 248.]
  (The Lord Advocate.)

  ENTAIL (SCOTLAND) BILL

    COMMITTEE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [2nd August], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, this was a small outcome of the large promises made by the Liberal Party and Her Majesty's Government with reference to Land Law Reform in Great Britain. But no one could have sat many hours in this Parliament without having a very lively sense of the hindrances

    893
    which Her Majesty's Government had encountered in their efforts; and he would be the last to say that there had been any neglect on the part of the Government in this matter of Land Law Reform. He could not, however, but call attention, in presence of this very tiny measure, to what really was the promise of the Prime Minister in Scotland with reference to the Law of Entail and Settlement. The Prime Minister said—
    "Not only to liberate agriculture, gentlemen, but upon other, I will say upon what I think still higher grounds, I am for doing away with this Law of Settlement and Entail."
    Well, he (Mr. Arnold) was himself heartily for doing away with the Law of Entail and Settlement; and he should not be either impartial or just if, after having made some slight effort against the Settled Land Bill, he did not say a word in reference to a measure which was of precisely similar and equally limited scope. The great and obvious disadvantage of the results of the present Session, in which the mainspring of public opinion was turned away from great questions of reform, was, that inasmuch, as the Prime Minister and his Colleagues were unable to apply the mainspring of public opinion in this direction, the result was that a comparatively trumpery measure of this sort was brought forward, which did something, he admitted, to attenuate the practice of entail, but which, so far from abolishing entail, he believed, tended to confirm and extend its evils. Now, he would mention three figures which he thought it extremely important for the people of Scotland and the people of Great Britain to bear in mind. He asserted, without fear of contradiction, that in Scotland there were 12 persons who owned 4,500,000 of the acreage of the soil of that country; 53 Peers in Scotland, all of them possibly, and some of them actually, Members of the Upper House of Parliament, who owned two-fifths of the whole area of Scotland; and 330 persons in Scotland who held and owned two-thirds of the whole extent of that country. Most of that land, if not the entire of it, was held under the bondage of entail and settlement. He hoped the Scotch people would be moved continually to rebel against that bondage. He hoped they would in no measure or way be content
    894
    with this trifling measure of reform which the Government had offered to them. With all his heart he desired that they should press forward against the continuance of an evil which this Bill did something to palliate, but which he hoped would, at no distant time, be completely eradicated from the land system of the country.
    MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT, while agreeing with his hon. Friend that this was a small Bill, thought Scotch Members must be very grateful to the noble Earl in the other House (the Earl of Rosebery), and those who had charge of the Bill in this House, that they had brought it forward, because, so far as it went, it was a satisfactory measure. But he should like to point out that there were one or two things in the Bill, nevertheless, which he would desire to see amended. The Bill proceeded on the principle that great complications had occurred, great limitations existed to the right of an owner in possession in dealing with his land, and it endeavoured to loosen the restrictions by which these owners were bound. So far good. But it provided most elaborate means by which owners might escape from those trammels. Now, that was perfectly right in respect of the difficulties which had been created by past deeds; but, for his part, he thought it far better and simpler for the future to prevent all those elaborate knots and difficult entanglements rather than simply to facilitate escape from such knots as had been previously tied. All these applications to the Court enabled an owner to get greater freedom in dealing with his land by means of an application to the Court. He required to apply to the Court. Almost nothing could be done without it. That was very well as regarded the past, and quite right and proper, because vested rights and expectations had accrued, and it was impossible to do justice to all the parties without an application to the Court to arrange the different interests. But as regarded the future, that was not so; and he ventured to say it would have been far simpler to designate on the face of the Bill what might be done, so as to constitute a fair disentail, and thus enable the parties to deal with the matter for themselves without an application to the Court. As regarded the great measure which had passed through the other

    895
    House this Session, the powers given to a life tenant under that Act—Lord Cairns' Act—might, to a very great extent, be exercised without any application to the Court at all, and he very much preferred that system of dealing with land. There were one or two other points which he would deal with in Committee, his object being to make the operation of the Bill more thorough, and to prevent its being evaded.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Definitions).
    MR. ARTHUR ELLIOTmoved, in page 1, line 12, after "Act," insert—
    "The expression 'heir of entail in possession' shall include any person in lawful possession of any land or estate, either directly or through trustees for his behoof, by virtue of any deed of trust intended to regulate the succession of such person, or to limit, restrict, or abridge his possession of such land or estate in favour of any future heir, so that such person is in substance, though not in name, the heir in possession of an entailed estate."
    The object of the Amendment was simply to prevent the Act from being evaded by the creation of deeds of trust. He was informed that a very considerable number of estates in Scotland were settled by means of deeds of trust; and it was in order that an estate so settled, where the owner under such an instrument was, in fact and substance, nothing more nor less than heir in tail, should not escape the operation of the Act. He was afraid that an Amendment dealing with Scotch law could not be rendered easily intelligible; but in this instance he had taken his form of expression in defining "heir of entail in possession" from Section 19 of the Bill as introduced into "another place" by the Earl of Rosebery. In the marginal note the clause was described in this way—"Act to be made to apply to all entails and not to be evaded by trusts;" but for some reason or other that clause had disappeared from the Bill. His object now was the same which the Bill had when originally introduced, and he desired to reinstate the substance of that clause by altering and widening the definition of the expression "heir of entail in possession." The words—
    896
    "So that such person is in substance, though not in name, the heir in possession of an entailed estate,"
    might seem somewhat vague; but he had the authority of those who drew up the original Bill for making use of them. He had taken the definition verbatim from the Bill as introduced in the other House, and he trusted that the Lord Advocate would see his way to accept the Amendment. His only object was to make the Bill more effective and far-reaching, and to provide that it should not be evaded by the creation of deeds of trust.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he should have been exceedingly glad if the Government could have felt that it was within their power to accept this Amendment; and the best evidence of their desire in that direction was that in the Bill, as originally framed, they had introduced Clause 19, to which his hon. and learned Friend had referred. They had been very desirous, in framing the Bill, that not only those instruments which were technically entails should be struck at, but also instruments in any other form under which the evils might arise which they sought to make impossible in the case of strict entails. But it was pointed out in the course of the consideration of Clause 19 that it was somewhat vague—in fact, too vague to form a useful guide to the conveyancing profession. It was felt that it would put upon the Court in each particular case to say whether a particular instrument was or was not in substance, though not in form, an entail, and whether the rights of the heir were in substance, though not in form, the rights of an heir of entail. Now, he apprehended that in any Conveyancing Act it was essential there should be distinct definitions and clear directions given to those concerned in the preparation of the instruments with which the Act dealt. As the result of very careful consideration, and with every desire to keep the clause in the Bill, the Government felt they could not support it by such arguments as would be likely to commend themselves in either House of Parliament, or make the clause of real and practical value. On that ground it had been omitted, and—if he might venture

    897
    to say so—he thought the dangers which would have attended the original clause would present themselves in an aggravated form under the Amendment which his hon. and learned Friend proposed, and for this reason—by Clause 19, the Government had intended to strike at evasions. What his hon. and learned Friend proposed was to make all persons holding under instruments of the kind described heirs of entail for the purposes of this Act. Now, that would not prevent the making of such instruments, but it would clothe the persons holding under them with rights and qualities appertaining to those who held, under different instruments altogether—namely, strict entails. He had no desire to enter into technicalities; but he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would fully appreciate the remark when he said that each successive heir of entail was a full proprietor—a "fiar," as he was called in Scotland—a limited "fiar," no doubt, but still he was a "fiar"—partly by the Common Law and partly by the Statute Law, with many rights and qualities pertaining to that position. It would, therefore, be quite inappropriate to apply the rules of entail law to persons holding estates under trust deeds. Under the Scotch Trusts Acts, again, there were various powers which would enable sales to be effected, and other deeds to be done which did not apply to entails, but which would apply to the class of cases which this Amendment was intended to meet. While fully appreciating and sympathizing with the object of his hon. and learned Friend, the Government could not safely accept the Amendment.
    MR. ARTHUR ELLIOTsaid, he wished to impress upon his right hon. and learned Friend and the Committee that it was important to frame a clause so that the heir of entail in possession, in substance, though not in name, under a trust deed, should not escape from the operations of the Bill, but be freed from the trammels of those trusts. He dare say it was quite true, as his right hon. and learned. Friend had said, that the clause, as originally drawn, was open to the objections which had been urged against it, and that it might be made to apply to cases to which it was not intended to apply. His object in desiring to reinstate the clause as it appeared in the Bill originally introduced in the other
    898
    House, was to bring a person who was in substance, by virtue of a trust deed, the future heir under the operation of the Bill. He wished to secure that the powers exercised under a trust deed should be the same as the powers under ordinary deeds of entail. Of course, after the statement of the Lord Advocate, he would withdraw the Amendment; but he hoped that his right hon. and learned Friend would be able to deal with the question on the Report. He wished to impress upon the Committee that the matter was not merely one of mere technicality, but one of substantial importance, and it was most desirable that persons who held under deeds of trust should not escape from the provisions of the Bill.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)would point out to his hon. and learned Friend that no person who was a mere beneficiary under a trust deed could well be in substance an heir of entail, because the attributes of the two positions were so entirely different. Power was given in the Bill to every heir of entail to sell the estate and convert the land into money. He was rather afraid, after careful consideration, that any provision dealing further with trusts than was proposed in the Bill would require to be reserved for a separate measure applicable to trusts. There were other forms of deeds than those of trust which, if found to be used for the purpose of defeating the main objects of the Bill, might be dealt with on a subsequent occasion; but his hon. and learned Friend might take it from him that, had they found these difficulties could have been overcome in the Bill, they would have endeavoured to provide for them in it.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Heirs under new entails may disentail with the same consents as heirs under old entails).
    MR. ARTHUR ELLIOTwished to know whether the effect of this clause, taken in connection with Clause 10; if the Bill passed, would be to make the value of the expectancy under disentail payable to the heir apparent only, as would appear to be the case by the Rutherford Act, or to make the value of the expectancy payable to the subse-

    899
    quent heirs? Clause 3 applied to a case where the heir of entail in possession of an estate held under an entail desired to disentail the estate and acquire it in fee-simple. By the Entail Amendment Act of 1848, the consents of the three next heirs were requisite, and he desired to know if the effect of this clause, taken in connection with Clause 10, which enabled the expectancy of the nearest heir to be valued and dispensed with, was to require that the expectancy of the three next heirs should be ascertained and compensated? Was Clause 10 to be read in connection with the Rutherford Act, and, if so, would not the effect be that the heir in possession would be able to disentail the estate on paying the heir apparent only the value of his expectancy?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he might explain that all the provisions and powers of the Rutherford Act would remain in force unless in so far as expressly altered by this Bill. It was not the purpose of this Bill in any degree to augment or diminish the number of persons who had an interest, which the law recognized, to compensation. In some cases there was only one person who had a right recognized by law, in some two, and in others three. But whatever person had a right to compensation at present would require to be compensated under this Bill. Its object was not to affect any beneficial right now existing, but simply to dispense with the necessity of the consents of persons holding such rights and to provide compensation for them. The Act of 1875 allowed the consents of second and third heirs, where there were such, to be dispensed with on payment of their value. The only step taken by Section 10 of the present Bill was to extend the same provisions to the case of the next heir.
    MR. ARTHUR ELLIOTsaid, the Act of 1848 provided that the consents of the three next heirs should be obtained before the estate could be disentailed, whereas the 10th section of the present Bill specified the heir apparent only. What he wished to know was whether the Bill enabled the heir in possession to disentail on paying the expectancy of the next heir, or whether it would be necessary that he should also pay the value of the expectancy of the subsequent heirs?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)thought his hon. and learned Friend was under a misapprehension. The clause simply enabled the heir of an entailed estate held under an entail dated on or after the 1st of August, 1848, to disentail the estate. In such a case, where the heir was born after that date, the consent of the heir apparent only was required, and, of course, he would receive the full value of his expectancy as compensation. But if the heir was born before that date, then the entail could not be barred except with the consent of all of those who were entitled to be compensated under the Act of 1848.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Heirs under new entails may sell, lease, feu, and charge on the same conditions as heirs under old entails) agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Applications for authority to charge for improvements and grant leases may be made in the Sheriff Court) agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Provisions for applications for authority to borrow, charge, lease, and feu).
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B BALFOUR)moved, in page 2, line 40, after Sub-section (3), to insert the following sub-section:—
    "When at least one-fourth part of a capital sum borrowed for improvements on an entailed estate upon the security of a terminable rent charge, in manner provided by the Entail Acts, shall have been defrayed by the heir in possession, it shall be lawful for such heir, without the consent of the nearest heir being required, and whether the cost of such improvements shall have been charged prior or subsequent to the passing of 'The Entail Amendment Act, 1875,' to avail himself of the provisions of the said Act, for the substitution of a bond or disposition in security over the estate for the remainder of such capital sum."
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)moved to insert, in page 2, after Clause 6, the present Clause 20 (Improvements not charged to be deducted from valuation of estate disentailed).
    Question, "That Clause 20 be there inserted," put, and agreed to,
    Clause 7 (Lease may be renewed three years before expiration).
    MR. ARTHUR ELLIOTremarked, that the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) had given Notice of an Amendment in this clause; but, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not present, he (Mr. Elliot) should like to call attention to the clause. In the side note to the clause the words were "three years," but in the body of the clause itself they were "two years." He merely wished to call attention to the discrepancy.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that, as the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire was not present to move his Amendment, there was really no question before the Committee except the adoption of the clause as it stood.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that in the Bill as it was introduced into the other House, the words were "three years," and it appeared to the Government that three years was a reasonable period during which the heir of entail should have power to make a new arrangement. Objections were urged by certain Members of the other House to the clause altogether, and a sort of compromise was arrived at, by which two years were substituted. He did not think it was desirable to re-open the question.
    MR. ARTHUR ELLIOTsaid, that, upon the whole, he preferred two years to three. It was only the inaccuracy of the marginal note he desired to call attention to.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)intimated that that would be remedied when the Bill was printed as an Act.
    Dr. FARQUHARSONasked what was the precise meaning of the term "fair rent" in the clause?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the explanation of the words "fair rent" was this—they simply meant such reasonable rent as could be got between two fair men bargaining in the market. One of the great evils which required to be provided for, in the old days, was against proprietors letting at inadequate rents and taking some consideration other than the rent. The clause was intended to provide that if the heir of entail desired to anticipate the period of letting, and made an arrangement with his tenant, he should do
    902
    so at a fair rent. Then there was another matter that required to be dealt with. It was often provided in entails that leases should not be granted for what was called a diminished rent. He was sorry to say that, owing to the depressed condition of agriculture in Scotland, at present an heir of entail, who desired to make the very best bargain he could, was not always able to get a tenant at the old rent, and the clause would enable him to let at a fair, although it might be a diminished, rent; while, on the other hand, it would prevent letting at an unfair rent, and taking in return some other consideration from the tenant, personal to the heir of entail who granted the lease, and from which the subsequent heirs would derive no benefit, such as a "grassûm" or capital payment down at the commencement of the lease.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwished to go back to the question of renewing the lease two years before its expiration. He did not think it could fairly be said that the provisions of the Bill met the views of the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), because he believed the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend was that, at least, two years' notice should be given to the tenant; and, therefore, under it the lease must be renewed two years before the expiry of the existing lease. In the case of this Bill, however, the heir of entail in possession was only entitled to renew the lease within two years—that was to say, two years or less than two years, which, as regarded the merits of the case, was not quite the same thing.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Applications may be made by guardians on behalf of minors and persons under disability) agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Curator to be appointed to persons unable to consent) agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Consent of nearest heir may be valued and dispensed with).
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)moved, at the end of the clause, to add—
    "If the heir apparent or other nearest heir whose consent is required as aforesaid shall have assigned his expectancy or interest, and the assignee shall have intimated the assignation to the heir in possession for the time being, at any time prior to the execution of the instru-

    903
    ment of disentail, such assignee shall be entitled to appear at any time prior to such execution, and to demand that the value in money of such expectancy or interest shall he ascertained, and shall be entitled to a preference upon such value according to the date of the intimation of his assignation, and such preference shall be given effect to in his favour when the value of such expectancy or interest is paid or secured."
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 11 (Consent of heir who has disappeared).
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)moved, in page 4, line 33, to leave out "Act," and insert "Acts."
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)moved, in page 4, line 39, after "dispense," insert "with."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 12 (Procedure when heir in possession has disappeared) agreed to.
    Clause 13 (Provision for disposal of fund deposited or invested after fourteen years) agreed to.
    Clause 14 (Settlements by marriage contract not to be disappointed).
    MR. ARTHUR ELLIOTmoved the omission of the clause. He said he objected to the clause altogether. It appeared to him to be entirely inconsistent with the Memorandum which was printed at the beginning of the Bill. The last three lines of that Memorandum were—
    "The combined effect of these provisions will be to place it in the power of every proprietor of an entailed estate to disentail upon making full provision for the interests of other heirs in existence."
    But when he came to read Clause 14, he found that the intended operation of the Bill was entirely limited to cases of what would be called in England marriage settlement. He should like to point out that, looking at the English case practically, such entail as existed in England was entirely by virtue of marriage settlement. It would appear that the object of this clause was to prevent the heir of entail in possession from dealing with his estate. And why? In order to give an interest to an unborn child—a
    904
    child that might never be born; in fact, to a person not in existence at all, and a person who could have no interest in the estate until he was born. Until that child was born he would not be able to make his application, nor would he be able to obtain the requisite consent. There was no provision to dispense with the consent of the trustees under a marriage settlement, under certain circumstances. Therefore it came to this, that a contract of marriage by virtue of this clause would be an absolute bar to the carrying out of the intentions expressed in the last three lines of the Memorandum he had read. He hoped to see the time when limitations in regard to unborn children would be made absolutely bad. But, before that time came, he did not think it was too much to ask the Lord Advocate, on the part of the Government, to give full effect to these lines in the Memorandum affixed to the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be omitted."—(Mr. Arthur Elliot.)
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)said, he was afraid the Government could not consent to the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend, that the clause should be omitted from the Bill. It certainly raised a very important question, because if the clause were struck out the result would be to nullify those highly onerous contracts—ante-nuptial marriage contracts—in certain cases. It would altogether render void most important covenants in marriage contracts. It was quite common for the heir in possession, or the heir apparent under an entail, when entering into a marriage contract, to stipulate that the issue of the marriage should succeed to the estate in their order, and that stipulation formed one of the covenants of that highly onerous marriage contract. Marriage was entered into on the faith of it, and whilst the law stood as at present, it was a stipulation that could not be defeated. The proposal of his hon. and learned Friend to omit the clause would have the effect of defeating that stipulation on the strength of which marriage was entered into. The clause, no doubt, had the effect of preventing lands which were the subject of this obligation from being set free from the fetters of entail for a time, but only for a time,

    905
    Where an heir in possession or heir apparent had, under this marriage contract, undertaken an obligation that the estate should descend to the issue of the marriage, then it was quite true that the land, subject to that obligation, could not be disentailed until one of three things occurred—first, until there should be a child born of the marriage who, through the medium of his curator, could give consent to the entail being barred; secondly, until the marriage was dissolved without the existence of any issue interested in the obligation of the marriage contract securing the settlement of the estate; and, thirdly, unless the trustees of the contract consented to terms upon which they would discharge the obligation. It was very likely, he should think, that in most cases the obligations would be discharged under one or other of those methods; but if for a time the obligation should not have been discharged, the person who had solemnly undertaken an onerous contract would be bound by it. The broad ground on which the Government thought it impossible to accept the Amendment was because it would make the Bill have the effect of gratuitously defeating, and defeating without any substitute, the onerous obligation in the ante-nuptial marriage contract. What he had said was, of course, only applicable to marriage contracts which had been entered into prior to the date of this Act. There was a very marked distinction between marriage contracts entered into prior and subsequent to the date of the Act. A marriage contract after the date of the Act, if it were covenanted that the estate should descend to the issue of the marriage, would be subject to the risk of defeat by powers which would exist of barring the entail, and any person accepting a marriage contract with that obligation would take it subject to that inherent weakness. On the other hand, in the case of a marriage contract prior to the Act, a person accepting the contract would be in a different position; and, therefore, he would suggest that, while the Government could not allow the clause to be withdrawn, it should be qualified by inserting, after the word "contract," the words "entered into prior to the passing of this Act."
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that all the observations of the hon. and
    906
    learned Member in connection with this Bill had been of an identical character. He had always commenced his remarks by saying that as the measure was introduced into the other House, it had another form. He (Mr. Arnold) believed that when the Bill was introduced into the other House, this clause did not exist in it, but that it had been imported into it in that House. It was identical, he believed, with a clause in the Rutherford Act. In the concluding words of the Solicitor General for Scotland, the hon. and learned Member proposed what he (Mr. Arnold) should consider and accept as a radical change in the clause. The hon. and learned Member proposed that the clause should not have application to future settlements made after the passing of the Act. If the clause had stood in its entirety, and in the form to which he (Mr. Arnold) and his hon. Friend objected, he did not hesitate to say that the Bill would have been less than worthless. The pretence in the Memorandum would have been impossible, because it was impossible for the clause to place it in the power of a proprietor of entailed property to disentail. That would have been a false pretence; and he was sorry to say, furthermore, that when the Amendment of the Solicitor General for Scotland was accepted, it would still be a pretence without justification, inasmuch as the clause would not entirely carry out the promise of the Memorandum attached to the Bill. Still it was a very important concession, and would be a valuable improvement in the Bill. Provided it were proposed, he should certainly request his hon. Friend not to persevere with his Motion for the rejection of the clause.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he also thought that the clause as it stood would nullify the whole of the Bill, and make it worthless, and he was glad the Amendment was to be made, and that the clause was not to apply to future marriage settlements. He wished to know whether it would be governed by Clause 10, and that under it a proprietor would be able to disentail an estate as he would be able to disentail any other land, or was the law to be such that, whereas all other rights and expectancies might be set aside, the marriage contract would have the effect of an absolute entail? However desirous the heir might be to get rid of an entail, he

    907
    might not be able to do so for 50 or 100 years, because there might be an heir with no children who might live for 50, 80, or 100 years. He would move, therefore, as an Amendment, that Clause 14 should be made subject to Clause 10.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that it is now too late, at this stage of the Bill, to make the alteration the hon. Baronet refers to.
    MR. ARTHUR ELLIOTsaid, he would withdraw his Motion; but he must say he should like the Government to go a little further. It was pointed out that it would be a breach of faith to the children if this provision was not carried out; but the clause would be mainly operative where there were no children at all. People might go on for 80 or 90 years without children, although in the view of the law they might have them whilst they were married and alive. He thought the Government should insert words in the clause which would enable childless people to deal with the estate as they saw fit.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)said, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would be satisfied that there was sufficient safeguard provided in the later portion of the clause to protect the interests referred to. He did not think it was reasonable to suppose where the prospect of issue had ceased, that the trustees would refuse consent. As he would not be in Order now in proposing to introduce into the clause the words he had suggested, he would bring them forward on Report.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he understood that no Amendment could be introduced at this stage; but he should like clearly to understand whether, as the clause would remain, it would not be possible for the heir in possession, under Clause 10, to sell the estate and put the money in the bank? If it was to be understood that this clause tied up, not only the value of the estate, but the actual estate itself, he should like to see some Amendment introduced on Report.
    MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT: I will withdraw my Amendment.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)said, the clause as it stood would not have the effect of preventing an estate being con-
    908
    verted, but it would certainly prevent the interests of the issue being valued so as to set free the land and money from the fetters of entail. The case was distinct from that of entail, and the relation of the parties was quite different. In the case of entail the succeeding heirs were simply related to each other from the fact that they were in the relationship which this entail described as including succession to the land. But in the case to which Clause 14 referred, there had been a specific contract entered into between the parties with reference to the land, and it was a very different thing to make a statutory provision in the case of persons who were simply connected by relationship and interested in the entail of the land from making a specific contract, that the land should go to certain issue of the marriage. The effect of the Bill, as it stood, would be that the land might be sold; but the interest of the issue under the contract could not be valued and the value assigned, the surplus of the price being set free from the fetters of entail.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that if he was given to understand that the land could be sold, he would be satisfied; but he hoped the Solicitor General for Scotland would consider the wording of the clause, and that, if it did not carry out the intentions expressed by him, he would amend it to that effect on Report.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 15 (Application for order of sale);
    Clause 16 (Procedure);
    Clause 17 (Order of sale);
    Clause 18 (Court may prescribe manner of sale).
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he had an Amendment to move to extend the time during which the heir might object to a sale by private treaty, and insist upon sale by public auction, from 14 days to one month.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 10, to omit the words "fourteen days," in order to insert the words "one month."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I see there is an Amendment on the Paper to leave out Clause 20. That clause has been struck out here, but it will be brought on as a separate clause afterwards.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The intention is merely to transpose the clause.
    Clause 19 (Price to be consigned. Where price paid in consols, dividends to be paid to applicant and his successors. Where estate encumbered. Where applicant desires investment, trustees may be appointed. Powers of trustees. Purchase of lands. Investment after applicant's death).
    Clause 20;
    Clause 21 (Provisions to wives and children, &c, to be secured upon the fund);
    Clause 22 (Disposition to be granted at sight of Court);
    Clause 23;
    Clause 24 (Piece of land sold to remain entailed estate);
    Clause 25 (Investment of entailed money), agreed to.
    Clause 26 (Deeds granted under authority of Court to be final).
    Clause 27 (Application of Act).
    MR. ARTHUR ELLIOTsaid, he had another Amendment to move, and what he had said about the first was very much applicable to what he had to say about this. A great many estates were practically entailed under Private Acts of Parliament, and where that was the case it would be found that they would escape from the provisions of this Bill.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 11, line 7, after "entails," insert "and all existing Acts are hereby repealed, so far as inconsistent with the spirit and intention of this Act."—(Mr. Arthur Elliot.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. RAMSAYasked whether the Amendment, if it was adopted, would have the effect of repealing the Act of the Scottish Parliament of 1685? He was not himself competent to say whether such an Act would be repealed by a general expression of this nature, but he felt it desirable that that Act should be repealed. If the Lord Advocate said the Amendment would have that effect, he (Mr. Ramsay) should be very much
    910
    gratified, as he thought it to the interest of the State that the land should be free from all fetters or incumbrance on the free action of the person who was in possession for the time being. This was an important point, which should be fairly considered by the Committee.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the Government could hardly accept this Amendment—it would not be safe to do so. The Amendment proposed not only that existing Acts which were inconsistent with this measure should be repealed, but also those which were inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the measure. That was not the usual form of repeal, and it might give rise to an infinite number of questions as to what was the meaning or the "spirit and intention" of this measure. The Amendment was unnecessary, because in so far as there was an inconsistency between the statutory provisions of this measure and other Acts, the latter would be repealed. If his hon. and learned Friend meant nothing beyond that, he was afraid it would be too indefinite to make it safe to adopt the Amendment. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay), he would answer him by saying that if this Amendment were accepted, it would not totally repeal the Act of 1685; indeed, he did not think it would have a larger effect on that Act than would the provisions of this Bill without the Amendment. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that the Act was unsuitable in its provisions, as they were originally enacted, to modern conditions, and he should not be at all sorry to see it make its final bow and disappear from the Statute Book. But as it had been modified by subsequent enactments, and as it would be modified by this Bill, it was very innocent. There was not much of it remaining, and they might soon see the residue pass away.
    MR. ARTHUR ELLIOTsaid, they should put into the Schedule the various Acts of Parliament that were to be repealed. He wished to know if those Private Acts which were not in the Schedule were to be dealt with or not by this Bill? He failed to see why those persons who were affected by those Acts should be allowed to escape from the trammels provided by this measure.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, it was difficult to answer

    911
    the hon. and learned Member with respect to Acts which were not here before them. They knew all the Public Acts, and had dealt with them; but as to all the Private Acts, they could not say what they were. If the hon. and learned Member would produce those Acts, or give a reference to them, they would be glad to consider them. He (the Lord Advocate) would be ready to confer with his hon. and learned Friend before Report, to see if some words could not be adopted to deal with the case of Private Acts. His hon. and learned Friend, as one skilled in the law, would see that it would not be safe to repeal these Private Acts in general terms by this measure.
    MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT: On that understanding I will withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Clause 20 will now become Clause 7.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I move that that be so.
    Agreed to.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he wished to move the new clause to follow Clause 7 as to leases granted at diminished rents. New clause, page 3, after Clause 7, insert the following Clause:—
    (Leases may he granted at diminished rent.)
    "Notwithstanding any prohibition contained in any deed of entail against granting leases unless such leases are without diminution of rental, it shall be lawful for any heir of entail in possession of an entailed estate to grant leases for such period as it may be otherwise competent for him to do at a fair rent.
    "Provided, That it shall not be lawful for such heir to take any grassum or other consideration for granting such lease other than the rent; and if the rent shall he less than a fair rent, or if any such grassum or consideration shall be taken, such lease shall be null and void."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    New Clause, page 6, after Clause 14, insert the following Clause:—
    (Powers of creditors of heir entitled to disentail.)
    "Where any heir of entail in possession is entitled to disentail the estate, with the consent of any other heir or heirs, or upon such consent being dispensed with by the Court, any creditor of such heir in possession, in respect of debt in-
    912
    curred after the passing of this Act, who has obtained decree against him for payment and charged upon the decree, shall, in the event of the debt so incurred not being paid for six months after the expiration of the charge, be entitled to apply to the Court, and the Court shall, if the said debt is not paid within three months after the date of the application, order intimation to he made to the heirs whose consents would he required or must he dispensed with by the Court in an application for disentail by the heir in possession, and in the event of any of the said heirs, or his curator, ad litem, appointed in terms of this Act, refusing to give his consent, the Court shall ascertain the value in money of the expectancy or interest in the entailed estate of such heir, and shall ordain the heir in possession to grant a bond and disposition in security over the estate for the amount so ascertained in favour of such heir, and if he refuses or fails to do so, the Court shall grant authority to the clerk of Court to execute such a bond and disposition in security, and such bond and disposition in security so executed shall be as valid as if it were executed by the heir in possession himself; and the Court shall thereafter ordain the heir in possession to execute an instrument of disentail of the estate; and if he refuses or fails to do so the Court shall grant authority to the clerk of Court to execute such instrument, and after provision is made for the interests of any other creditors whose debts are secured on the estate, the creditor aforesaid shall he entitled to affect the estate for payment of such debt, and shall have the same rights and interests therein as if an instrument of disentail had been executed and recorded by the heir in possession himself.
    "If the estates of such heir of entail in possession of an entailed estate shall he sequestrated for debt incurred after the passing of this Act, the trustee on his sequestrated estates shall be entitled to apply to the Court for authority to disentail the estate, and the Court shall forthwith proceed in the same manner as is directed in this section with regard to the application of a creditor."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    Clause brought up, and read a first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, this clause was entirely in harmony with the principle of the Bill, which made very little progress indeed. He hoped the time would come when the creditors of the proprietor of an estate would be able to get possession of the estate, and that before long they would have an Encumbered Estates Court throughout all Great Britain. That was the real remedy for the state of things, and this clause afforded a very small palliative.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he did not know that it would have been necessary for him to

    913
    have said anything upon this clause, had it not been that upon the question here raised, which the Government regarded as a very important question, a different view was taken in "another place." They had a very strong view, to the effect that a clause such as this should he introduced, giving to creditors of a person—at all events, in debts contracted after the passing of the Act—a right to reach his estate. The Government thought that where an heir of entail had that which would be under this Bill an asset available for the payment of his debts, he should make that asset so available, and that, if he did not do so, the law should step in to the relief of the creditors and compel him. As the clause was originally introduced, it applied to debts contracted prior as well as subsequent to the passing of the Act. But it had been pointed out that persons who entered into contracts with heirs of entail prior to the passing of this Act could not have relied to any extent upon the fund of credit which was raised by this Act; and he was very much afraid that the creditors of many heirs of entail in possession who had, prior to this time, contracted debts, had been paid in other forms, in the shape of large interest and the like, a very ample equivalent for the bad security which they had. It might be said with considerable force that if they made the clause apply to creditors in existing debts, they were inequitably increasing the security of persons who entered into usurious contracts, and it would be a fair settlement to pass the clause as the Government proposed it. He might say that there was another difficulty in the clause as it originally stood. It was pointed out that there were not very definite provisions made as to the manner in which the creditor could have his rights of access, and in which the rights of other heirs or persons interested in the estate should be provided for. They had endeavoured in this clause to meet these difficulties, and they had, in terms a good deal more detailed and ample than the terms of the original clause, given what would be a good working machinery. He must press this clause on the Committee, and he hoped they would accept it.
    MR. RAMSAYconcurred in all that had been stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the necessity of
    914
    passing this clause. He felt that the Bill in its present form was but a composition of what they might look for in the early future. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the views held "elsewhere" about this measure. He (Mr. Ramsay) thought that, in the interests of the community, land should be entirely free to be disposed of by the person in possession, like any other form of property. Instead of securing land against interference by creditors, as it had hitherto been, it was the interest of the State that it should be as free from trammels as any other property. He hoped that the learned Lord Advocate would, at an early date, be able to secure the perfect freedom of all Scotland from the trammels of any settlement or entail whatever.
    Motion agreed to.
    Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    Schedule agreed to
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  CORRUPT PRACTICES (SUSPENSION OF ELECTIONS) BILL.— [BILL 265.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  MR. WARTONpointed out that the object of this Bill was to suspend elections in certain boroughs until seven days after the meeting of Parliament in the Session of 1883. This would have the effect of preventing the constituencies in question from electing Members in the event of what appeared to be an impending General Election taking place, which would be a very serious thing. He did not know whether it was right or wrong to punish constituencies in this way; but he would point out that under the dying Disfranchisement Bill introduced by the Government four of the corrupt constituencies were only to be disfranchised during the Parliament of 1880; whereas this Bill, which they were told was the same as that of last year, would, in the case of a General Election taking place

  915
  before next Session, carry the suspension into another and a new Parliament. This, he contended, would be an injury and a cruel injustice to the four boroughs in question. Why, he asked, should the Bill not be delayed to the October Sitting? He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day three months.
  MR. H. J. TOLLEMACHEseconded the Amendment, and regretted that the Bill had not been brought on earlier, so that hon. Members would have had an opportunity of ascertaining what its provisions were. It was only brought on late that morning, and was now pressed to a second reading. As a very mild protest against the very hasty course the Government had taken on this subject, he would support his hon. and learned. Friend the Member for Bridport if he would go to a division.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he could not think his hon. Friends opposite were serious in opposing the second reading of the Bill, because it could scarcely be contended that, in the event of a General Election, those boroughs included in the Schedule of the Bill should have an opportunity of again returning Members. He hoped the Attorney General would seriously consider, before he again proceeded with legislation on the subject, the propriety of inflicting an equal punishment on all the boroughs, and whether that punishment should not consist of the withdrawal of one of their Representatives in each case.
  MR. MONKsaid, he could not join the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) in opposing this Bill. Although it was an early day to take the second reading, he should, not advise the hon. and learned Member to take a division on that point. He did not think the boroughs concerned could complain of the suspension of their electoral rights, in view of the serious charges which were brought against them. He would like to ask the Attorney General whether, in the event of a Dissolution—as they had very good reason to expect—in October or Novem-
  916
  ber next, the right to return Members to Parliament would be taken away from these boroughs? If the Attorney General could not answer that question, he would move in Committee to insert a Proviso to secure that the Bill should not affect the Constitutional rights of those boroughs which had not been adjudicated upon or considered by Parliament, in the event of a General Election taking place between now and February next. The amount of punishment which should be meted out to these boroughs was a different matter from the just condemnation which had been expressed with regard to them; but it was a great hardship to some of the boroughs that the measure of punishment which should be awarded to them should not have been considered by a Select Committee before Parliament dealt with the subject.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR HENRY JAMES)said, he did not propose to discuss the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Disfranchisement Bill, which the Government had been reluctantly compelled to withdraw. He was sure it was the wish of the Government to meet the general feeling of Members on both sides of the House as to the punishment which should be meted out to those boroughs, and he was certain that any suggestion which came from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would be considered. The Government only desired to do strict right in regard to those boroughs. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) asked whether, if a Dissolution should take place between now and the meeting of Parliament in 1883, there would be power in those defaulting constituencies to return Members? His answer must be in the negative; and if there were no other reason, he thought the hon. Member would agree with him that if they did not take steps—and he assured the hon. Member they could not—to disfranchise those individual electors who had been reported as guilty of corrupt practices, the result would be that out of constituencies with an aggregate number of 32,000 electors, in the event of an election, 9,000 who had been reported as corrupt would be entitled to vote. Therefore, this House would receive the return of 14 Members from constituencies of whom considerably more than one-fourth would be corrupt electors. Under

  917
  any circumstances, he thought the House would not wish to see that; it would be a scandal that these corrupt voters should have an equal right with the pure voters to exercise the franchise. The hon. Member for Gloucester asked the Government to give a pledge that they would not introduce any amendment into the Bill in Committee. He was unable to make any such promise; but there was at present nothing in his mind which rendered it likely that Amendments would be proposed. He proposed to go into Committee on the Bill, subject to the usual course in regard to Bills in Committee. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had charged the Government with having introduced the Bill in its present form for Party purposes, because they intended to dissolve Parliament before the ensuing year, and that the Government was under the impression that the return of Members from those constituencies would benefit the Opposition. He had no anticipation of a Dissolution of Parliament being likely. He knew nothing at all as to what might be probable in the future; but, at all events, this Bill had not been introduced with a view to any such contingency. But assuming that 14 Members were returned from those boroughs, and that their political complexion remained unaltered, he knew this, that out of the 14 Members that would be returned, if there were no Suspensory Bill, 11 would be Liberals and only three Conservatives. If any inference could be drawn from that fact, it was that the introduction of the Bill could not have been the result of any Party action on the part of the Government, because if the chances of the next Election were the same as the last, they would be gainers by withdrawing the suspension. He could not believe that the hon. and learned Member was serious in the Amendment he had moved. The Bill itself had only been introduced on account of the difficulties and embarrassments which had arisen in regard to dealing with the question by the Disfranchisement Bill. The necessity for the present Bill arose from the condition of the legislative action of the House. He admitted that, both theoretically and practically, the Disfranchisement Bill ought to have been proceeded with, and that not only should it have been passed,
  918
  but that it should have been accompanied by the General Corrupt Practices Bill. But the House was perfectly well aware of what had occurred, and the Prime Minister had most reluctantly been compelled to withdraw the Corrupt Practices Bill owing to the more pressing necessity for passing a punitive measure for the prevention of crime in Ireland, and a measure to remove the grievances under which the Irish people were now suffering. The House had consequently been debarred of all opportunity of legislating upon the question of corrupt practices, because the Prime Minister found he had no alternative but to yield to the appeal made to him not to deal with the question of disfranchising either constituencies or individuals in an empty House at the end of the Session. But, if the present Bill were not passed, every future election for these constituencies which had been proved to be corrupt would take place on the present un-purged register. He did not apprehend that his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester desired that. [Mr. MONK: No, I do not.] Then it became absolutely necessary to pass this Suspensory Bill. If it were not passed the corrupt electors would have the same power of voting as those who were pure. The practical effect of passing a Suspensory Bill would be, that if a General Election were to be brought about this year—although why it should be deemed likely he was at a loss to understand—the only punishment inflicted upon the corrupt electors of the seven suspended boroughs would be that they would have been deprived for two years—since the Report of the Election Commission in 1881—of the power of returning Representatives. Hitherto, under similar circumstances, the conviction of a constituency of so serious an offence had always been visited by a much heavier punishment. It would be a perfect scandal to pass over the offence as if nothing out of the ordinary course had occurred, and it was absolutely essential to visit the corrupt voters with the displeasure of Parliament. The hon. Member for West Cheshire (Mr. Tollemache) said that the people of the city of Chester had been hardly dealt with; but there were some persons who were of opinion, on the contrary, that Chester had been rather lightly dealt

  919
  with. It had certainly been said, he believed by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), that Chester had special friends in the Cabinet.
  MR. WARTONappealed to the Speaker, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was regular in referring to past debates?
  MR. SPEAKERdid not notice the interruption.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR HENRY JAMES)said, he had no desire to refer to past debates; but he simply wanted to point out how unfounded the allegations of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport were. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would not throw any obstacle in the way of the passing of the Bill; because it was admitted by everybody that something should be done during the present Session to convince the offending persons that the widespread corruption of which they had been found guilty should not be allowed to pass altogether without punishment.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that he thought that the Attorney General had hardly given a sufficient answer to a suggestion made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk)—namely, that, instead of disfranchising these boroughs, and depriving them of their rights, the electors who had been reported by the Commissioners as corrupt, and who had been scheduled, should be individually dealt with and prevented from voting. If this were done, the objection raised by the Attorney General, with great force, that if this Bill did not become law, these voters who had been scheduled by the Commissioners would be entitled to vote, and might materially influence an election, would be removed. He would venture to urge on the Attorney General to consider whether a clause might not be introduced to prevent those who had been scheduled by the Commissioners from voting. He was aware that, in some cases, this might work hardship, as some of those persons might be able to clear themselves from the charge; but he would prefer that rough justice should be done in this way rather than that the whole boroughs, and the large number of pure voters in those boroughs, should be disfranchised, as they were, by this Bill.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)pointed out that there had been a good many Amend-
  920
  ments put down to the Disfranchisement Bill to refer the measure to a Select Committee, in order to enable some of those who were scheduled as having been guilty of corrupt practices to give evidence to show why their names should not be retained on that Schedule. If the suggestion of the hon. Baronet were accepted, however, and they summarily disfranchised these persons, it would have the effect of excluding any such proceedings before a Select Committee in the future.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  LUNACY REGULATION AMENDMENT BILL [Lords.]— [BILL 230.]
  (Mr. Hibbert.)
  LUNACY REGULATION AMENDMENT BILL [Lords.]— [BILL 230.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Hibbert.)
    MR. WARTONcomplained that the measure was designed to enable the official Visitors of lunatic asylums to shirk their duty by reducing their visits from four to two each year, or to save the Exchequer the expense of appointing more Visitors. No more inhuman Bill was ever brought before the House.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, the Lord Chancellor at present had 1,200 lunatics under his charge. Of that number, 800 were in lunatic asylums or licensed houses, and the remaining 400 were in private houses, mostly with friends. It was with respect to the latter that the Bill proposed to make a change. At present, they required to be visited four times a-year, and the present Lord Chancellor and the two previous Lord Chancellors had been desirous of increasing the number of visits to the lunatics confined in asylums. As regarded the others, the Bill proposed to enable the Visitors to visit all the lunatics under the charge of the Lord Chancellor at least twice a-year, and it would not prevent more visits being made in case of necessity. In order, however, to meet the objection entertained by some hon. Members to reducing the visits to lunatics in private houses, he was prepared to concede that

    921
    there should be at least three visits a-year, or one in every five months.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Bill, though he should certainly have done so but for the concession just made by the hon. Member (Mr. Hibbert). That concession he would, for one, accept; but he could not help expressing his strong opinion that this reduction of visits was a step in the wrong direction. He could not admit that four visits were too many, nor, indeed, did he understand that that was insisted upon; but it was argued that if these visits were continued, the other patients outside the private houses could not be properly inspected. Well, that only showed that the number of Inspectors should be increased, not that the visits should be lessened. It was admitted that the Commissioners did not shirk their work; it was not contended that the visits were too many and unnecessary; it followed, then, that, though the increase of expense might be regretted, the number of the official staff should be increased rather than that these unfortunate lunatics should not be fully looked after. He was aware that the Lord Chancellor and ex-Lord Chancellor had agreed to the reduction of visits; but they naturally looked to the Office, and they found that the officials were overworked, and they, therefore, cut down the work without, perhaps, sufficiently considering whether the case did not call for an increase of the Office. The hon. Member (Mr. Hibbert) had also referred to the Report of a Committee; but he observed that a great Chancery authority—the Master of the Rolls—presided over that Committee. He confessed he could not but regret the decision arrived at, even after the concession just made by the Government.
    DR. FARQUHARSONsupported the Bill, on the ground that the patients in private houses were, as a rule, well-to-do patients, harmless imbeciles, who were well cared for. It was in public asylums where cases of neglect or ill-treatment were more likely to be found, and it was to these institutions, therefore, that most visits ought to be paid. He repudiated the idea that this proposal was made because the Medical Inspectors wished to shirk their work.
    MR. WHITLEYentertained a considerable objection to a reduction in the number of visits. He believed, on the
    922
    contrary, that in many cases the number should be increased.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONstrongly condemned the Bill as lessening the protection at present extended to alleged lunatics. They ought to be visited more frequently. Instead of that, the number of visits was to be reduced one-half.
    MR. MONTAGUE SCOTTagreed with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last. He considered the number of Visitors ought to be doubled. That would raise the charge to£4,500 per annum; but then it should be remembered that the lunacy fees amounted to £6,000 per annum, so that the State would still have a profit of£1,500 per annum. Government ought to be ashamed to make money out of lunatics, taking a revenue from insanity.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 3: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 316.)
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
    Clause 4 (All Chancery lunatics to be visited twice a year).
    MR. WARTONproposed to omit the words—
    "And it is expedient that such visits should, when the Lord Chancellor shall so direct, be permitted to he made at longer intervals than are required by the said enactment."
    His reasons for proposing this Amendment were two. In the first place, he did not think it was necessary to use the word "expedient," for in the Preamble it was set forth—"Whereas it is expedient to amend the Lunacy Regulation Acts." His second reason, and his more important one, was, that they had been told over and over again by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Hibbert) that the Bill provided that those who received one visit were now to receive two; yet, as he (Mr. Warton) read the clause, he found no provision whatever for the second visit in the case of those visited once. It might be the intention of the Bill, but it was certainly not clearly stated; in fact, the words of the clause were very misleading.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out the words—"And it is expedient that such visits should, when the Lord Chan-

    923
    cellor shall so direct, be permitted to be made at longer intervals than are required by the said enactment."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he agreed to the omission.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. WHITLEYproposed to leave out the word "twice," in line 4, page 2, in order to insert the word "thrice." He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warton) that the clause was very peculiarly drawn. It was very difficult to interpret the clause, and he very distinctly recollected that his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert), when he introduced the Bill, said that the object of this clause was that the Chancery patients should be visited thrice a-year. His hon. Friend just now, in answer to his (Mr. Whitley's) observations, said he did not intend to convey that they should all be visited three times; but if his hon. Friend would agree to the introduction of the word "thrice," instead of "twice," the clause must apply to all classes of Chancery patients. He should be very glad that Chancery patients should be visited oftener, and he considered what was proposed was a great improvement on the present system. He also understood his hon. Friend to say that, instead of eight months, he would substitute five months, and if that were so it would be a great improvement.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) had now begun to see that the clause did not bear out what he himself had stated.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, the Bill did not propose to limit the number of visits necessary to licensed houses or asylums; that was a matter of regulation under the authority of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor proposed to make these visits twice a-year necessary, instead of once, and it was quite necessary to provide for it in the Bill.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONpointed out there were a certain number of persons who were under no protection whatever. These persons were in private houses, and it often happened that they were left absolutely without any medical attendance whatever. This Bill and this
    924
    section proposed to take away a portion of even the small inspection that was now given to them by reducing it by one-third.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. HIBBERTproposed, in line 5, page 2, to leave out the words "eight months," and insert "five months."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he now proposed to move an addendum to the clause. While those visited once were to be visited twice, no one would imagine such a provision was in the Bill. He proposed to add the words—
    "And the said section shall be construed as if the word 'twice' had been inserted therein instead of the word 'once.'"
    If they put in the word "twice," they would carry out the bargain arrived at. In the interests of humanity he should divide upon the Amendment, whether he had three supporters or 30.
    Amendment proposed,
    To add, at the end of the Clause—"And the said section shall be construed as if the word 'twice' had been inserted therein instead of the word 'once.' "—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he should certainly not yield to the hon. and learned Member as regarded any ideas of humanity. He was a Member of the Committee on which the hon. and learned Member served, and he paid a great deal of attention to the subject. He would point out to the hon. and learned Member that the words he proposed to add would not carry out the object he had in view. This Bill had been introduced by the Lord Chancellor, with the very object of securing the means of increasing the number of visits to those persons who were now only visited once a-year. There was no other purpose to be served by the Bill; but, at the same time, he did not know there would be any particular objection to inserting in the Bill a provision requiring that that should be carried out. He would undertake, before Report, that it should be considered whether the words could be introduced here, and whether it should be made obligatory to visit the

    925
    persons in licensed houses twice in a year instead of once.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he did not see why the words should not be inserted now, because on Report they could be altered.
    Mr. HIBBERTsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his Amendment on the present occasion. The Government would see by Report how far they could meet the hon. and learned Gentleman's views.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was satisfied with the assurance of the Solicitor General that words would be put in making it obligatory that the visits should be twice instead of once.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he did not promise that such words should be put in, but that the matter should be considered by Report. He was not in a position to pledge the Government. All he promised was, that the matter should be considered with the view of meeting the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he thought by that course something more effectual would be gained than by pressing it now.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Preamble read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Preamble of the Bill."
    MR. MONTAGUE SCOTTsaid, that, before the Chairman put the Preamble, he would like to make a few observations. The Solicitor General had said that it was intended to increase the number of visits. The greatest improvement in the Lunacy Laws would be the increase of the number of Commissioners. He begged to impress that, not only upon his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert), but upon the Committee generally. He hoped it would go forth to the country that this was a matter of economy—that the reason why more Commissioners were not appointed was that certain persons would not part with the £6,000a-year which was obtained from the Chancery patients. Pew in the House and in the country knew that the Chancery lunatics did not cost the country one halfpenny, but that they actually contributed by their insanity to the revenues of the country. [Laughter.]
    926
    Hon. Gentlemen might laugh at that; but he did not think it was a laughing matter. There were some sources of revenue which a country ought to blush at, and this was one of them. This Bill would not have been asked for if the £6,000a-year received from the Chancery lunatics were laid out to the benefit of those who paid it. He hoped the country would perfectly understand that there were only three Commissioners to inspect the Chancery lunatics. There were 62,000 lunatics throughout the country, independent of the Chancery lunatics, and there were only six Visitors for this large number. He asked the Committee if it was not a physical impossibility for six men to visit 62,000 persons every year?
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, if this Bill was a piece of economy, it was about the only piece of economy exercised by Her Majesty's Government during the present Session. He considered that the evidence before them showed that the number of gentlemen engaged as Commissioners was sufficient for the purpose.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the present discussion would be a very proper one upon the second reading of the Bill; but it was hardly in Order upon the Preamble of this Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [4th August] reported.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, that he would have liked, if the Home Secretary had been in his place, to ask him when the Report of the Departmental Committee, which was appointed two years ago to consider and report as to the custody and treatment of criminal lunatics, would be laid before the House; but as the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not present, he would put a Question on the Paper for Monday.
  Resolutions agreed to.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY BILL.
  [Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY BILL.

    [BILL 264.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. TREVELYANmoved the second reading of the Bill. [Mr. HEALY: Oh!] The hon. Member seemed startled; but it was quite in accordance with the interests of hon. Members opposite that he made the Motion. He extremely regretted that they should be called upon on a Saturday afternoon to consider a matter which necessarily required discussion. In the preliminary Committee he had made the speech he should have made upon the second reading, and he had no more observations to make He should, therefore, reserve further remarks until he heard the criticisms of hon. Members, and the points upon which explanation was required.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had added nothing to the comparatively full explanation of the operations—he could not say provisions—of the Motion of which this Bill was the result. So far as the officers were concerned whose position they anticipated would be improved under the Bill, they had no information. The measure, in fact, was not so much an enacting as an enabling measure; and so far as regarded the pay, the enactments were extremely simple, for they made the Lord Lieutenant supreme controller of the subject, inasmuch as he was left to do exactly what he thought proper. He complained of the exceedingly fragmentary character of the measure. When the Notice of the Bill first appeared on the Paper they were led to expect that there would be embodied in it such proposals as would be necessary to deal with the Irish Constabulary as a whole. What, however, did they find? The Bill only dealt with a body of 300 or 400 men out of a total of 13,000 or 14,000 men, and it was to such fragmentary measures as this that the Government desired the House to assent. In making those observations he could not refrain from the remark that the claim of persons whose position it was supposed would be improved under it were men whose conduct during the past year the Irish Members had been compelled, in the severest terms, to criticize. There was County Inspector Smith, of Clare, whose Circular invited his men to commit homicide or murder; Sub-In-
    928
    spector Ball, of Ballinrobe; Sub-Inspector Rogers, of Limerick, and many others who had been guilty of the greatest misconduct as regarded the use of the police against the popular rights of the people of Ireland. On every one of those cases hon. Members on that side of the House had put Questions, as they had done in numerous other eases; but in every instance had failed to obtain satisfaction, or that atonement for outraging public rights they were entitled to expect. Hon. Members were not so unreasonable as to suppose that, in consequence of this conduct, the whole class of County Inspectors and Sub-Inspector were to be discredited. At the same time, it was needful, even at this stage, that they should protest against the introduction of a measure in regard to the Constabulary Force in Ireland, professing, and professing only, to embrace that class amongst which were found those men whose conduct had provoked the gravest censure. He found that the increment would increase the public burden by£10,000,or something like that sum.
    MR. TREVELYAN: Hear, hear!
    MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman evidently agreed with the calculation.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I should state that the hon. Gentleman has calculated within £12 of the total increase.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, it was very singular, indeed, that the Government, in asking the House to deal with this matter, should have abstained from laying before them such proposals as they thought necessary and proper to make with regard to the general body. If they had no proposals to make, he did not wonder at their absence from the Government scheme; but they were told that the Government had, and they from Ireland were very curious and anxious to know what they were. He had a letter from Ireland, which stated that the proposal was to add 4 d. a-day to the allowance. The Government should know that if they were only to learn what the exact proposals were at the last moment, hon. Members would be unable to give that calm consideration and criticism which such a matter required. If this information was at once given to them, when the Estimates came on they should be the better enabled to consider mutually the proposals and their bearings one

    929
    upon the other. Besides, the state of affairs in the Constabulary itself rendered it extremely desirable that the Government should not delay giving information to the House. Two or three evenings ago, in reply to Questions, they were told that the reports as to the Irish Constabulary were exaggerated; but matters had since transpired which demanded their immediate attention. He had received numerous telegrams upon the subject, but the names of the senders were obviously withheld; but, still, they gave very important information as bearing upon the feeling amongst the Force. He was aware that in Limerick the men had met, had passed resolutions, and had appointed a committee to take care of their interests. They had forwarded a Petition to the Government upon the subject, and had issued a Circular to the Force in Ireland, stating their requirements, which were—More rapid promotion from the ranks, increase of pay, equalization of pensions, compulsory retirement at the end of 30 years' service, optional retirement at 25 years' service, and an allowance for lodgings at a higher rate than now. He thought that, considering this expression of opinion, every consideration should be given to this matter. It was a somewhat extraordinary proceeding to endeavour to force upon the House proposals dealing with the officer part of the Force only, whilst they ignored entirely for the present a vast body of men and their grievances; and more particularly must this be considered so when the Government selected as the proper time for dealing with the subject in such a piecemeal way the very moment when the men were pressing forward their grievances. There was, moreover, a striking incongruity in the provisions of this Bill. It dealt with the pay and also with the pensions of the officers. It specified the rate of pension to be given; but as to pay it proposed that the Lord Lieutenant, with the assent of the Treasury, should have absolute power to fix all the salaries of those officers. That involved a departure from the invariable rule heretofore followed in that matter, under which limits had been imposed on the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant, and precise figures and amounts had been laid down, beyond which the pay of those officers should not be allowed to go. Even in a Coer-
    930
    cion Bill it was injurious and offensive to give despotic power to the Lord Lieutenant; but surely there could be no excuse for investing His Excellency with arbitrary authority in a measure of the present description. Unless provisions were inserted in this Bill limiting the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant in fixing the pay of the officers, the military character of the Irish Constabulary would be intensified, and the Force would lose all semblance of a Civil organization.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought that a Bill of that kind, which was intended to raise the pay of a public service in which strikes and combinations were threatened, required great watching. The hon. Member for Sligo was not satisfied with the measure, because it was not large enough, and wished to make it larger by taking into consideration the demands for increased pay put forward by a body, part of which appeared to be in a state of semi-mutiny. [Mr. SEXTON dissented.] He (Sir George Campbell), for one, would not grudge any sum which might be granted in order to increase the efficiency of the Irish Constabulary as a police body, and especially for detective purposes; but he was sorry to say the Constabulary were in no degree effective at this time for that purpose, and it seemed to him they were very dear for the money they cost the nation. He looked upon this proposal to increase the pay of the Inspectors with some jealousy, because the way in which they were officered was altogether inconsistent with efficiency. He knew no Department which more entirely depended upon special knowledge and experience, and special and peculiar fitness, than the Police Department; and if there was a Department in the Public Service which should be officered by men who had acquired experience, and gained credit and shown fitness in the lower ranks, it was this Department of the police. He understood that the opposite was the course followed. He understood that there was scarcely any promotion from the ranks. He understood that the superior ranks were filled by the appointment of young Irish gentlemen—[Mr. HEALY: English.]—or young gentlemen in Ireland. He need not remind the House that whatever Government might be in power, even if the Chief Secretary were an

    931
    angel from Heaven, it was scarcely possible to avoid continual jobbing when the appointments were open to young gentlemen without any particular qualification. He believed that the present Chief Secretary was as near an angel from Heaven as they could get; but it must be remembered that the great mass of these officers were appointed under previous Administrations and under former Chief Secretaries—some of whom did not at all approach the character of an angel from Heaven. He believed that by far the greater number of the officers of these police were appointed under a system of jobbery and, to a certain extent, of despotism. They were not appointed under any system of selection from the ranks of men specially fitted for those duties. Before there was any increase granted to these officers there should be a complete re-organization of the Force, such as would insure that the officers would be promoted from men who had shown special aptitude for police duties, and especially for detective duties. It was only under these circumstances that he should think money well spent in increasing the pay of the officers.
    MR. LEWISwas exceedingly surprised at the opposition of the hon. Member for Sligo, for if he knew anything of his views and inclinations they were in favour of insisting on an increase rather than a reduction of salaries of this kind. All who were acquainted with the way in which the officers of the Irish Constabulary performed their duties would, he was convinced, confirm him when he said that they were a class of men of whom Ireland and the Government might be justly proud. He trusted that the Government would consider a subject which had been frequently brought before that House—namely, the position of the officers who retired previous to 1874; and unless that was done he should move the insertion of a clause placing persons to whom pensions were granted before the Act of 1874 in the same position as to right of pension and the rate as those who retired immediately afterwards. The difference of a day in this matter had made in more than one instance the difference of 100 per cent in the rate of pension.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the hon. Member (Sir George Campbell) was mistaken in supposing that the Inspectors
    932
    and Sub-Inspectors were appointed by the Executive for the time being in the manner he had suggested; but the vacancies were filled up by public Civil Service examinations, and he would have been perfectly correct in objecting to the manner in which the appointments took place even under this system. These officers ought to be recruited from the ranks, so that it might be certain that the experience and skill there shown would enable them to perform their duties satisfactorily. But, under the present system, these men were required to pass examinations in French, German, and. other languages; and if they could throw one or two dead languages in so much the more fitted were they imagined to be to detect crime. What connection there possibly could be between Latin, Greek, French, or German and the duties of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors was more than he could find out, and equally in doubt was he as to the total being made up of figures and their affinity with the detection of offences which these officers did not succeed in finding out. In Ireland at that moment they were in this position. They had open and fierce dissatisfaction on the part of the members of the Force; but, as far as the officers were concerned, the dissatisfaction rested upon the statement of the Chief Secretary. In the one case there was open, well-known, and active dissatisfaction; but in the other only tacit and negative dissatisfaction. The Government appeared willing to brave the mutinous dissatisfaction of 12,000 or 13,000 men, and, in fact, to add to that dissatisfaction, and allow it to grow until it became dangerous to the peace and tranquillity of the whole Force; whilst they did their utmost to appease the dissatisfaction of the officers, which only found its expression in Dublin Castle. It was not for him to dictate to the Chief Secretary as to the manner in which he should conduct his duties; but, nevertheless, it appeared to him that there never was a more absurd, more irrational, or a proposal more certain to defeat its own ends than that the dissatisfaction of 13,000 men should be allowed to ripen into mutiny before their grievances should be adjusted, rather than that a few officers should be required to wait. As to the officers, up to a month ago—or, he might say, within the last five weeks—had the Government any definite

    933
    intention of introducing such a measure as this? Such a Bill was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech, or in any speech made up to a fortnight ago. It was only within the last fortnight that the Government had given effect to what they had heard from one side. The House would recollect that it was only within that time that the late Attorney General for Ireland, the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson), put a Question to the Government as to what they intended to do for these officers. Thus was the mind of the Chief Secretary and the action of the Irish Executive stimulated to a consideration of this question. And until then the Executive of Dublin Castle never thought of dealing with this matter at all. What would the men say when they saw the success which had attended the active, energetic, and persistent efforts of the friends of the officers in that House? These officers, generally, were inclined to Conservative opinions; and what would the men say when they saw the demand for a consideration of the grievances of the officers conceded, whilst their own complaints were forgotten? Could there be anything more prejudicial to order in the Force, or a stronger or more serious reason for adding force to the dissatisfaction of the men? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had given some inkling as to what the proposal of the Government would be; but beyond this they had no information whatever of what the intentions of the Government were. He was not going to attempt to judge of that which he had not officially heard of; but what he was justified in saying was that the subject should be dealt with in its entirety, or not at all. To attempt to deal with it piecemeal was to deal with it in a most objectionable and dangerous manner, and in a way which would give the men cause for increased dissatisfaction. In speaking against the police in Ireland it should be understood that their comments were not, nor never had been, directed against the men themselves, but only against the action and conduct of the officers. Often had he joined in those complaints; but in every instance the main complaints were against the officers, and not against the men. The Chief Secretary had frequently shown a disposition to meet the wishes of hon. Members on that side, which they desired to acknowledge in all sincerity;
    934
    but he had departed from his rule entirely in this matter in taking up the case of the officers and neglecting that of the men. So strongly did he feel upon this subject that if the conduct of the Government was challenged he should vote against them.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he had hoped that when this Bill was introduced some reasons would have been given for its being pressed forward, and he was somewhat surprised that when a measure originating with the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) was brought forward he should have thought it necessary to be conspicuous by his absence. The Government had placed on the Estimates a Vote of £180,000 to meet the extra pay of the men. Immediately that this was done the right hon. and learned Gentleman cast about him to see what he could get for the officers, and he asked what was to become of them, and were they to get nothing of the plunder? The Chief Secretary evidently thought that it would not do to put a further sum on the Estimates, and so he endeavoured to blind the eyes of the people of Ireland by giving the Lord Lieutenant the whole of the discretion as to the increase. They ought to have the total placed on the Estimates. They ought to show how much the taxpayer would have to dip into his pocket for. The £180,000 for the men was to be only for three years; but this increase of the officers was to be for all time. Because the officers got none of the swag this Bill was to be introduced to give them an increase in their salary for all time. His hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had complained that these men were appointed by competitive examination, and also that they should be required to speak foreign languages; but he was not aware that this was for the purpose of keeping these officers as a kind of paddock in which the sons of the upper classes could trot about. The Government deprived the lower class of an academic education; they refused to provide for the Catholic class University education, in order that this might act as a bar to the advantage of the aristocrats of the country. In other words, the people who bore the burden and heat of the day were never promoted; but the offices were kept for young English gentlemen who were ground in London, or striped, or what they called it, and

    935
    who were sent over full-fledged bantlings capable for duty because they could get so many marks. These were all the thief-catching abilities that these young gentlemen were expected to possess; but, of course, they must have plenty of suspicion, and that they had to use with great liberality, in order further to keep out Catholics. That applied alike to men and officers, for the Government professed to have special horror of secret societies; and, in order still further to wound the feelings of the Catholics, every man upon entering the Force was made to swear an oath, which was a distinct insult to the Catholic religion, that he would belong to no secret society, with the exception of Freemasonry. It was well known that the Catholic Church held Freemasonry in the greatest abhorrence. That was another instance of the extraordinary way in which the Government managed this body, and that being so they had good reason for objecting. These young gentlemen, whose marks for Latin and French so well fitted them for the offices of Inspector and Sub-Inspector, were put through a little drill in Phoenix Park and were then sent down to some country district, where they spent their time, he was creditably informed, indulging in nips of whiskey over the counter. He did not blame them very much for that. What were they to do? Here were these young gentlemen tossed off from society to mix with people who were, in their estimation, far below them, and what could they do? He was told that there was usually set up in those districts three grades of society—the first was that of the estate agents; the next that of the bank clerks; and the third of the Sub-Inspectors. Those were the three main elements forming the ton. They claimed to represent the proper feelings of the district, and it was certain that they could set the Government in motion in whatever direction they thought fit. They were the triumvirate of the society who manipulated whatever there was of local government in Ireland, and so controlled popular feeling, so-called, that they could compel the Executive to act in any direction they chose. Even if a Board of Guardians ventured to have an opinion upon political matters, the Chief Secretary sent his orders for a dissolution. He would invite the Chief Secretary to go
    936
    into the districts and see for himself. In the first place, the dress of the young gentlemen was something ridiculous. There were the spiked helmets invented by Bismarck, or Moltke, or some of those people. They wore these spiked caps, perhaps, as symbolical of their military character; whilst in Court they took very great care that everyone else removed his hat. These Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors strutted about giving their orders right and left in their helmets, and played "such pranks before high Heaven as would make the angels weep "—if angels could be supposed to take any interest whatever in such a body as the Royal Irish Constabulary. In their districts these young gentlemen constantly interfered with the amusement of the small boys, and should the village band appear at once they issued orders to charge, and gave their men carte blanche to break the heads of the people who could not get out of their way. Their orders to fire on the people were issued as suited their intelligence. Questions were continually being put in that House of the way those men conducted themselves; but the gentlemen of Latin and French were in the right—it was always the people who gave the provocation. He could not help thinking that at this late period of the Session the House might have been occupying itself upon much more important matters than upon a Bill of this kind. There were many much more important measures awaiting their attention, whilst others had been abandoned altogether—Bills which had been mentioned in the Queen's Speech; but this measure had been sprung on the House at the fag-end of the Session, when many Irish Members were away; and here they were called upon at 5 o'clock on Saturday afternoon to enter into a full discussion of the subject. Why, he asked, had not the Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) Bill been put down to-day? On the two occasions on which it had appeared on the Notice Paper the Government moved the adjournment of the House, and the Irish Members knew how useless it was to fight against the battalions of the Government. That Bill would not have taken a minute to pass; but while the Chief Secretary had refused a stage to that useful and excellent measure, he did not scruple to bring them down to waste their time upon this

    937
    Bill dealing with the Constabulary in Ireland. Then he would point out that there was another measure before the House dealing with the pay of that important body which the Government appeared to be inclined to leave out in the cold. The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) brought in with a great flourish of trumpets early in the Session a measure dealing with the superannuation allowances of a very important Irish body much larger than this. That Bill was dropped, no facilities having been given for taking it. He (Mr. Healy) would give the House some idea of the character of the gentlemen whose pay it was proposed to increase. The district of Millstreet was for a very long time in a very disturbed state under the régime of the late Chief Secretary, and there was a Sub-Inspector there named Starkey. For nine months before the Government got the Coercion Act a ruffian named Connell went about ranging from one end of the country to the other, and disturbing the peace. He shot a man named Leary in a cool, brutal, and most cold-blooded manner. The police, in his (Mr. Healy's) opinion, knew very well who fired the shot; at all events, they knew now. Did not Sub-Inspector Starkey arrest this ruffian? No; he did nothing of the kind; but as soon as this ruffian and assassin turned Queen's evidence, Mr. Starkey brought him out dressed as a policeman to the Millstreet district. Having ascertained the names of all the best football players in the district, he took them down and indiscriminately handed them over to the police and swore against them, and Sub-Inspector Starkey—this young gentleman of five or six and twenty, very well up in his geometry and trigonometry—swept the district of Millstreet of all these young men, and they had been kept in Cork Gaol for the last nine months. Sub-Inspector Star-key imprisoned 65 men, and after keeping them in gaol for nine months in solitary confinement, in a cell 6 feet by 4, for 22 hours out of the 24, denying them the pleasure and solace of their own association, they were dismissed on their own recognizances and refused a trial. That was the discretion of Sub-Inspectors of the Irish police. It was the zeal of men like Sub-Inspector Starkey that this Bill proposed to reward. When measures of this kind
    938
    were brought in they should have regard to the class of persons whose pay it was proposed to increase. The main body of the Irish police were entirely neglected by the Bill. He was not a particular admirer of the acts and conduct of the Irish police; but he did complain that a measure of this kind was brought forward dealing with the aristocratic section of the body. While the unfortunate men—Dan, Jack, Bill, and Harry—were denied any solid or permanent increase at all, the Alphonses, the Georges, and the Alberts, who had been brought over from England, were getting a solid increase of pay at the cost of the ratepayers. He would say nothing of the increase of the pay of either party—he should vote against both; but when measures were brought in for dealing with the aristocratic portion of the Force, it was too bad that the unfortunate rank-and-file should be left out in the cold. Seeing this Bill had been brought in at a time like the present, and upon a Saturday, he thought further time should be allowed for its discussion. They should not be asked to deal with this question piecemeal; and until they knew what it was that the Government were going to do for the police at large this measure should not be passed. On that account he begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Healy.)
    MR. CALLANsaid, that during his 15 years' experience of the House he had never heard of a Bill being introduced under more misleading pretences than this one. When the Chief Secretary gave Notice to introduce a Bill for the Royal Irish Constabulary, he (Mr. Callan) anticipated that it was a Bill which dealt with the Royal Irish Constabulary. So satisfied was he of that, that he did not read the Bill until today. He differed, and had differed on all occasions, with that Party with which he had acted for the last two years with reference to the Royal Irish Constabulary. He had known them in almost every part of Ireland, and he knew them to be the sons of respectable labourers and of the smaller class of farmers. They were well educated for their rank in life, and they were a well-

    939
    conducted class of men whom, physically and morally, he believed to be a credit to his country. He had never had occasion to bring the conduct of any member of the rank-and-file of the Constabulary before that House; but he could not say the same with regard to the officers. On looking at the Orders of the Day to introduce this Bill, he found that it did not exactly define the Bill as printed. It was a Bill to regulate the pay of certain officials, and for other purposes; but it was a Bill confined exclusively to the County and Sub-Inspectors. Yesterday, when he asked a Question of the Chief Secretary, and when, naturally irritated by the answer he received, which was not in consonance with the usual courtesy and his character of abstaining from imputing motives—
    MR. TREVELYAN: I imputed no motives whatever. I said—not referring to the hon. Gentleman—that the complaints had been made much more from the outside—
    MR. CALLAN: I do not complain of the Chief Secretary, for I knew the source from which the insinuation—
    MR. TREVELYAN: I made no insinuation of any sort or kind.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he considered it as such, and he at once fixed upon the party who he believed suggested it; and he would advise the Chief Secretary, just for peace and order in the House, as well as peace and order in Ireland, that the less he had to do with the right hon. Gentleman the better, for "evil communications corrupted good manners." ["Name, name!"] The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Chief Secretary should not condescend to answer his Question, or answer it in a sneering tone. ["Name!"] It was the Home Secretary, of course. He desired to say that he never, either directly or indirectly, advised the Royal Irish Constabulary to strike. He had received a number of telegrams and letters since the Irish papers had circulated throughout the country districts from members of the Force, and they showed how keenly the Royal Irish Constabulary felt with respect to the injustice done them, and the favouritism—he could speak of it in no other manner—that was practised in that branch of the Service—the County and Sub-Inspectors. He desired the Irish Press to notice, this, as it would save him writing many letters—
    940
    that members of the Force should be very careful not merely in telegraphing, but in writing letters. He found that letters were delivered 12 hours out of the ordinary course. Whether they had been manipulated under the warrant of the Home Secretary he could not say; but he would advise the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary in writing to Members of that House to be most careful. He would read a telegram he had received from a sub-constable, but he would not give his name. It was as follows:—
    "We heartily thank you for your kind advocacy of our claims, determined to stand up for them to a man; but for God's sake don't give our names."
    That had come through the telegraph office, and the poor sub-constable's name was already in the hands of the Inspector General, or would be in a very short time. It was, he thought, a very humiliating thing for Irish Members that when any question affecting Ireland came forward their letters were tampered with. Having spoken of the conduct of Sub-Inspector O'Callaghan, the hon. Member proceeded to say that there was no promotion from the ranks. There was no body so admirable as the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and they were well officered, exclusively by members from the ranks. The Royal Irish Constabulary were officered, he might say, almost exclusively by young men who were not fit for anything else, and who had, in addition, to wear a uniform. By this Bill they were asked to increase the pay of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors. What was the reason of that? Constables and sub-constables found it much more difficult now to live on their pay than they did five or ten years ago. It was not too late for the Chief Secretary to introduce a Bill dealing with the head-constables and constables in the same spirit that this Bill dealt with County and Sub-Inspectors. Such a measure would tend materially to do away with the strong feeling of dissatisfaction which existed in Ireland. Even if made now, at the eleventh hour, he believed it would be accepted. If the police asked his advice, he would advise them not to strike; but he would advise them to adopt strong measures, although by doing so he might place himself under the bann and even subject to the insolence of other officials.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, it was necessary that he should say two or three words on this very important matter after the speeches that had been made from the Opposition Benches, because those speeches in some respects were made, he thought, under a misunderstanding, and they gave colour to a measure which was not a political, but a strictly administrative one. The general burden of the speeches from the Opposition Benches was to the effect that there were two great classes among the Irish Constabulary. One class, whose position it was proposed to improve by this Bill, was the officers; whereas, on the other hand, the larger class of men were entirely excluded from the benefits of the Bill. Now, some of the statements made were very important statements, which, so far as the Bill was concerned, were perfectly true; but he was bound to say that if the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) had been present on Wednesday he would have seen that the Bill was only part of a great scheme for the purpose of rewarding the Royal Irish Constabulary officers and men for the extra exertions, and losses, and hardships which they had endured during the last three years, and for the purpose likewise of improving their position permanently. The measure was far too sweeping to call a thing unconstitutional which held good in the Army, the Navy, and the Civil Departments of the State. The Queen in Council could alter the pay of all classes in the Army and Navy at her pleasure. It was estimated that the yearly increase of pay to the officers would be—County Inspectors, £420; Sub-Inspectors, £3,125; other officers, £3,443; total, £9,988. With regard to the men, they would get in aid of marching money £3,500 more than now, under the head of extra pay when absent from their stations £3,800 more, which would be distributed like marching money, exactly as the men had extra hours of duty. In allowances to constables in charge of stations £4,600 more, for repair of certain articles £3,000, or stationery £1,000,and for other items £1,100 a-year. That was to say, while the annual advantages to officers would amount to, he might call it, £10,000 a-year, the annual advantage to the men would amount to £17,000 a-year.
    MR. CALLAN: How many officers and how many men?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the officers were about 300, and the men 12,000 or 13,000.
    MR. SEXTON: That is an average of 25s. a-year to the constables.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the recommendations of the Departmental Committee with respect to the men had been more than carried out. That Committee recommended that the allowances should be made retrospective during the last three years, which would involve an amount of£51,000.The Government thought it right to do more, and sanctioned a grant of £180,000 to be paid down at once. Now, if they gave the officers £10,000 a-year more and the men £17,000, besides a sum of £180,000 down, he could not see that this was a scheme wholly for the benefit of the aristocratic part of the Force, if hon. Gentlemen preferred so to characterize it. A great many remarks had been made in the course of the debate upon the mutinous condition of the Force. Now, it was an extremely delicate matter to talk of in public when even such an assertion was in the air; but he was about to repeat what he said yesterday, that the accounts they had from the officers of the Constabulary gave a very different picture of what was passing. He could not even imagine how anyone could praise the Royal Irish Constabulary in one sentence, and in another talk with some sort of satisfaction of what was called "striking" in order to obtain advantages from the public. The hon. Member for Louth said that the Royal Irish Constabulary were determined on a strike.
    MR. CALLAN: I did not say they they were determined on a strike. I said the Royal Irish Constabulary, feeling themselves aggrieved, were determined to exact terms which, if given voluntarily, would not create ill-feeling.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, if the conduct of the Constabulary was mutinous, the Government would be face to face with a situation, the gravity of which it would be impossible to overrate; because it was quite impossible that any Government that was in the least deserving of the name of a Government could give to any body of public servants, and still more a body of public servants

    943
    in the position of the Royal Irish Constabulary, anything whatever under pressure. They did not for one moment believe that the Royal Irish Constabulary in any number were determined to resign in order to exact terms from the Government. If they were determined to resign, their resignations would be accepted. Terms would not be granted under these circumstances.
    "I do not believe," wrote the Inspector General, "that there is really any improper feeling existing in their minds "
    —and he was referring to a certain number of them.
    "They are, however, no doubt, in a state of doubt and disappointment as to the non-receipt of their share of the proposed grant of £180,000, which they have long expected."
    Now, he (Mr. Trevelyan) was sorry that the grant of £180,000 had been so long deferred; but they all knew what difficulty there was in the present state of Parliament, overburdened as it was with Business, in passing the Estimates, and how liable those Estimates were to be postponed to the very last moment. But he sincerely trusted that in the very first days of the next week Parliament would be enabled to vote that £180,000, if Parliament so chose, in order to give a very substantial recompense to the Royal Irish Constabulary for their labours and services during the last three years. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had said that there was no promotion from the ranks. In answer to his latest inquiries, he was informed that one in four were promoted from the ranks. His own efforts for many years had been to establish open competition in the Public Service; and he and those engaged with him in the work were charged with the design of excluding the aristocracy. With regard to first appointments in the Irish Constabulary, he would examine into the question con amore, and see what could be done to regularize the system. As to the resignations, there were a good many among the recruits; but there was no serious increase of resignations or discontent among the men who stayed long enough in the Force to know what its advantages were. In 1879 the resignations in the counties—that was to say, among the established men of the Force—were 63; those of the depôt, 50; together,
    944
    113. In 1880, those in the counties were 89; in the depôt, 65; in all, 154. In the year 1881, the time when there was a very great increase in the number of police, the resignations rose largely. In the counties they were 193, and at the depot, 159; in all, 352. But what they were speaking of was the present state of the Force; and if they went six months back, that would be a period for which they could judge very nearly as well as for a long period. In the last six months the number of resignations in the permanent Force had been 50. If the average of 1881 had been maintained, it would have been 100. In the auxiliaries, men who had not the advantages of the Force, who were temporarily employed, almost entirely, on special, arduous, and disagreeable duties, 46 resigned; from the Reserve Force of the depôt, 10; and from the recruits, 89. He could not say that the resignation of 50 men from the permanent Force, or an average of 100 in the course of the year, gave cause for any great fear, and that a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, settled in the enjoyment of his pay, and with the prospect of his pension, was a man who had any great cause for discontent.
    MR. SEXTON: What is the total for the six months?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, it was 195; but 46 were auxiliary and 89 recruits. He did not know that he had anything to explain beyond this—that the Pension Clauses placed the pensions of the future officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary on the same footing as the great bulk of the Civil Servants of the Crown, and they would have the privilege of taking these new terms or of adhering to the old. The latter were better up to 36 years' service; but between 36 and 40 years the new terms would be more advantageous. In order to quicken promotion and increase efficiency, officers who had served for 40 years, County Inspectors who had reached the age of 65, and Sub-Inspectors who had reached the age of 60 would be retired compulsorily, but not so as to injure their prospects with regard to pension. The 6th clause might create a certain amount of suspicion among those who knew that the Deputy Inspector Generalship was not filled up; but it did not follow that that post would not be filled up very

    945
    soon indeed, and that it would not be filled in a way which would, he thought, satisfy the feeling which had existed for a good while, and very largely spread, but which he would not more closely refer to.
    MR. REDMONDsaid, he was very glad for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, because it explained some things of importance which he confessed he did not understand before. They had now explained to them that the Bill was part of a large scheme which it was proposed should deal with the men as well as the officers of the Force, and he regretted that the whole scheme could not be considered at once. When the Constabulary Votes had been under consideration he had voted against the Estimates; but he had never done so that his vote might imply a general objection to the Constabulary. His objection to the Constabulary was that it was a Military Force and unsuited for the work to which it should apply itself in Ireland, and also a special objection that the condition of the officers in charge of these men had been such that very grave injustice had resulted. He was unwilling to support any increased allowance or pay to the officers of the Constabulary Force; and he was all the more opposed to it after what the right hon. Gentleman had told them, that this was a scheme for rewarding the officers and men of the Constabulary for the special work in which they had been engaged for the last three or four years. The extra work had been work of a most objectionable kind, and he would not by his vote give his sanction to the voting of money to such as Sub-Inspector Smith, who brought about the death of two of the children of an unfortunate evicted family. At the same time, when the giving of the money proposed to be given to the men of the Constabulary was under their consideration, he would be much more inclined to deal leniently with them, and perhaps he might see his way not to oppose the Vote.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 53: Majority 45.—(Div. List, No. 317.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  UNION OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 75.]
  (Mr. Herbert Gladstone, Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  UNION OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 75.]

    NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Select Committee do consist of Sixteen Members.—(Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)
    MR. BIGGARasked that the appointment of the Committee might be postponed.
    MR. WARTONnoticed that most of the Members of the Committee were Irish Members; and he thought this was another attempt on the part of the Government to tamper with the question of Home Rule.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEappealed to hon. Members to allow the Committee to be appointed.
    MR. CALLANwas in favour of the appointment of the Committee; but he objected to the names of two Englishmen on it. He understood the Committee was to consist exclusively of Irish Members.
    Motion agreed to.
    Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND, Mr. HEALY, Mr. JUSTIN M'CARTHY, nominated Members of the Committee.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Meldon be one other Member of the Committee."
    Mr. BIGGARobjected to the hon. Member's name. He thought the Committee should consist of Members who were impartial. The hon. Member was very much interested in the people to be benefited by this Bill. He would offer the most decided opposition to the hon. Member's name, and, if necessary, divide the House.
    MR. HEALYappealed to the hon. Member for Cavan not to press his objection.
    MR. SEXTONremarked, that he supposed all the Members of the Committee had made up their minds on the Bill.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 1: Majority 41.—(Div. List, No. 318.)
    Mr. GIBSON, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Captain AYLMER, Mr. BIGGAR, Sir PATRICK O'BRIEN, Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE,

    947
    Colonel TOTTENHAM, nominated other Members of the Committee.
    Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Eugene Collins be one other Member of the Committee,"—(Mr. Herbert Gladstone,)—put, and negatived.
    Mr. MULHOLLAND, Mr. CALLAN, Mr. GREER, Mr. FINDLATER, and Mr. DALY, nominated other Members of the Committee:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

    GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES AND INSURANCE [ANNUITIES, &C.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to charge the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom with all immediate Annuities granted, and with any Savings Bank Annuities or Insurances which may be varied or corrected, or the cancellation of which may have been revoked, under the provisions of any Act of the present Session relating to the purchase of small Government Annuities and to assuring payments of money on death, and also to authorise the payment by the National Debt Commissioners of all Expenses incurred by any Savings Banks in the execution of such Act.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
    Resolutions [August 4] reported, and agreed to;—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. COURTNET and Mr. TREVELYAN.
    Bill presented, arid read the first time. [Bill 269.]

    PRISON CHARITIES BILL.
    On Motion of Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, Bill to make provision respecting certain Prison Charities, ordered to be brought in by Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT and Mr. HIBBERT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 270.]
    House adjourned at half after Six o'clock till Monday next.