THE CHAIRMAN: I see there is an | gratified, as he thought it to the interest Amendment on the Paper to leave out of the State that the land should be free Clause 20. That clause has been struck from all fetters or incumbrance on the out here, but it will be brought on as a free action of the person who was in posseparate clause afterwards. session for the time being. This was an important point, which should be fairly considered by the Committee. 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. 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 The Amendment proposed not only that existing Acts which were inconsistent with this measure should be repealed, but also those which were inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the measure.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. 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far as there was an inconsistency between the statutory provisions of this measure and other Acts, the latter would be repealed.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 The Clause 26 (Deeds granted under au- for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay), he thority of Court to be final). Clause 27 (Application of Act). MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT said, 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. RAMSAY asked 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 would answer him by saying that if this Amendment were accepted, it would not he did not think it would have a larger totally repeal the Act of 1685; indeed, 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 ELLIOT said, 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 curred after the passing of this Act, who has obtained decree against him for payment and the debt so incurred not being paid for six charged upon the decree, shall, in the event of 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 intimation to be made to the heirs whose conmonths after the date of the application, order sents would be required or must be 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 disposi tion in security over the estate for the amount so 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 ascertained in favour of such heir, and if he reActs in general terms by this measure. fuses or fails to do so, the Court shall grant MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT : On that un-authority to the clerk of Court to execute such derstanding I will withdraw my Amendment. (Leases may be 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 be 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.) 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 be 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 be 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 forth with 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 ARNOLD said, this clause was entirely in harmony with the principle of the Bill, which made very little progress indeed. He hoped the Clause read a second time, and added time would come when the creditors of to the Bill. the proprietor of an estate would be able to get possession of the estate, and New Clause, page 6, after Clause 14, that before long they would have an 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 The Lord Advocate 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 Motion agreed to. Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill. House resumed. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next. have said anything upon this clause, | passing this clause. He felt that the had it not been that upon the question Bill in its present form was but a comhere raised, which the Government re- position of what they might look for in garded as a very important question, a the early future. The right hon. and different view was taken in "another learned Gentleman had referred to the place." They had a very strong view, views held "elsewhere" about this meato the effect that a clause such as this sure. He (Mr. Ramsay) thought that, should be introduced, giving to creditors in the interests of the community, land of a person-at all events, in debts con- should be entirely free to be disposed tracted after the passing of the Act-a of by the person in possession, like right to reach his estate. The Govern- any other form of property. Instead ment thought that where an heir of of securing land against interference by entail had that which would be under creditors, as it had hitherto been, it was this Bill an asset available for the pay- the interest of the State that it should ment of his debts, he should make that be as free from trammels as any other asset so available, and that, if he did not property. He hoped that the learned do so, the law should step in to the relief Lord Advocate would, at an early date, of the creditors and compel him. As be able to secure the perfect freedom of the clause was originally introduced, it all Scotland from the trammels of any applied to debts contracted prior as well settlement or entail whatever. 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. RAMSAY concurred in all that had been stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the necessity of CORRUPT PRACTICES (SUSPENSION OF 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. WARTON pointed 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 before next Session, carry the suspension | ber next, the right to return Members 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. TOLLEMACHE seconded 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. RYLANDS said, 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. MONK said, 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 Mr. Warton 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 Parlia ment, 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 onefourth would be corrupt electors. Under any circumstances, he thought the House but that it should have been accomwould not wish to see that; it would be panied by the General Corrupt Practices a scandal that these corrupt voters Bill. But the House was perfectly well should have an equal right with the aware of what had occurred, and the pure voters to exercise the franchise. Prime Minister had most reluctantly The hon. Member for Gloucester asked been compelled to withdraw the Corrupt the Government to give a pledge that Practices Bill owing to the more pressthey would not introduce any amend- ing necessity for passing a punitive meament into the Bill in Committee. He sure for the prevention of crime in Irewas unable to make any such promise; land, and a measure to remove the but there was at present nothing in his grievances under which the Irish people mind which rendered it likely that were now suffering. The House had Amendments would be proposed. He consequently been debarred of all opproposed to go into Committee on the portunity of legislating upon the quesBill, subject to the usual course in re- tion of corrupt practices, because the gard to Bills in Committee. The hon. Prime Minister found he had no alterand learned Member for Bridport (Mr. native but to yield to the appeal made Warton) had charged the Government to him not to deal with the question of with having introduced the Bill in its disfranchising either constituencies or present form for Party purposes, because individuals in an empty House at they intended to dissolve Parliament be- the end of the Session. But, if the fore the ensuing year, and that the Go- present Bill were not passed, every vernment was under the impression that future election for these constituencies the return of Members from those con- which had been proved to be corrupt stituencies would benefit the Opposition. would take place on the present unHe had no anticipation of a Dissolution purged register. He did not apprehend of Parliament being likely. He knew that his hon. Friend the Member for nothing at all as to what might be pro- Gloucester desired that. [Mr. MONK: bable in the future; but, at all events, No, I do not.] Then it became absothis Bill had not been introduced with a lutely necessary to pass this Suspensory view to any such contingency. But Bill. If it were not passed the corrupt assuming that 14 Members were re-electors would have the same power of turned 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, 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 |