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. WARTON appealed to the Speaker, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was regular in referring to past debates? MR. SPEAKER did 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 any throw obstacle in the way of the pass ing 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. 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. for Monday next. Order for Committee read. MR. WARTON complained 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. SIR HENRY HOLLAND said, 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 Commis-a-year, and the present Lord Chancellor sioners 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 The Attorney General MR. HIBBERT said, 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 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 there should be at least three visits a-year, or one in every five months. SIR HENRY HOLLAND said, 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 Rollspresided over that Committee. He confessed he could not but regret the decision arrived at, even after the concession just made by the Government. contrary, that in many cases the number should be increased. MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON strongly 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 onehalf. MR. MONTAGUE SCOTT agreed 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. "And it is expedient that such visits should, when the Lord Chancellor shall so direct, be permitted to be 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 importDR. FARQUHARSON supported the ant one, was, that they had been told Bill, on the ground that the patients in over and over again by the hon. Gentleprivate houses were, as a rule, well-to-man in charge of the Bill (Mr. Hibbert) 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. WHITLEY entertained a considerable objection to a reduction in the number of visits. He believed, on the 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 cellor shall so direct, be permitted to be made at | section proposed to take away a portion longer intervals than are required by the said of even the small inspection that was enactment."-(Mr. Warton.) now given to them by reducing it by onethird. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." MR. HIBBERT said, he agreed to the omission. Question put, and negatived. MR. WHITLEY proposed 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 improve ment. MR. WARTON said, he thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) had now begun to see that the clause did not bear out what he bimself had stated. MR. HIBBERT said, 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 LEIGHTON pointed 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 Amendment agreed to. MR. HIBBERT proposed, in line 5, page 2, to leave out the words "eight months," and insert "five months." Amendment agreed to. MR. WARTON said, he now proposed to move an addendum to the clause. While those visited once were to be visited twice, no one would imagine such posed to add the words— a provision was in the Bill. He pro "And the said section shall be construed as if the word twice' had been inserted therein in stead of the word' once."" would carry out the bargain arrived at. If they put in the word "twice," they 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. 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 He MR. WARTON said, he did not see why the words should not be inserted now, because on Report they could be altered. MR. HIBBERT said, 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. persons in licensed houses twice in a year | Hon. Gentlemen might laugh at that; instead of once. 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 £6,000 a-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. WARTON said, 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. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Preamble of the Bill." MR. MONTAGUE SCOTT said, 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 £6,000 a-year which was obtained from the Chancery patients. Few 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.] MR. RYLANDS said, 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 CHAIRMAN said, 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. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next. SUPPLY.-REPORT. Resolutions [4th August] reported. MR. RAMSAY said, 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 tion on the Paper for Monday. was not present, he would put a Ques Resolutions agreed to. ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY BILL. [BILL 264.] SECOND READING. MR. TREVELYAN moved 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. SEXTON said, 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 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 cases; 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. SEXTON said, 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 4d. 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 |