-one quoting the opinion of one of our | China, because without it no English Consuls in China to show that the use merchant could carry on his business of opium was not so hurtful as he had at there for a single day. Her Majesty's first supposed, and that further observa- Government agreed with the hon. Bation convinced him that it afforded a ronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir solace and a stimulus to persons who did Charles Dilke) that the time had come the hardest and rudest work without for a revision of our Treaties with China, injuring their health: and others to the and, indeed, negotiations having that effect that the cultivation of the poppy object in view had been going on bein various parts of China was gradually tween the two Governments for some extending, while the action of the autho- years. A Convention, in fact, had been rities, local and Imperial, in reference to agreed upon with the Chinese authorities it was very uncertain: in some cases its for that purpose, but it having been cultivation was treated as an illicit, and submitted to the Chambers of Commerce in others as a recognized trade, the in this country, and having been disnative revenue officers exacting bribes approved by them, the late Government from those who carried it on-proceeded had been compelled to inform the Chinese -therefore, notwithstanding all attempts Government that it could not be ratified to discourage the growth of the drug, by us. That showed how careful the the Chinese were so much addicted to its late Government was of commercial inuse that there was now no prospect of its terests. In conducting our negotiations not being grown even to a greater ex- for a revised Treaty with China, we were tent than it had heretofore been. No- bound to remember the peculiar position thing could be farther from the truth of the Government of that country, and than the allegation that an attempt had should endeavour to adopt a line of conbeen made to force opium upon China ciliation, and to bring the interests of our through Burmah. Some observations merchants as much as possible into harhad been made with regard to the delay mony with those of the Chinese people; in making inquiries as to the murder of and looking at the present political posiMr. Margary. The reason why a mission tion of China, we must avoid all acts with regard to the murder of Mr. Mar- that would derogate from the authority gary did not take place immediately was of the supreme power, and thus prevent the impossibility of obtaining from the what at one time was imminent-the Chinese Government those guarantees complete social disorganization of that which Sir Thomas Wade thought were country. It was, however, at the same absolutely necessary. But those guaran- time, necessary to be very firm in our tees were finally obtained. If a route dealings with the Chinese authorities, from Burmah to Western China could because a large body of the people were really be opened up by means of negotia- anxious to have nothing to say to us, tion, then the object of Mr. Margary's and he was sorry to say that our experimission would be secured, and far greater ence of the Chinese was that they would results would be gained for this country take every opportunity they could to than could have been conceived. It had avoid carrying out the terms of their been said that the English Government Treaties with us. There was nothing to was liable to make exorbitant claims on be gained by denying that fact, and behalf of private individuals. He knew therefore it was necessary to show that of no such cases since he had been at Her Majesty's Government was prethe Foreign Office; but, at the same pared to insist upon the observance of time, if the lives and property of British Treaties which had been entered into. subjects in China were to be protected, They had done all that was possible in they must hold the Chinese Government the way of negotiation; but, as the hon. responsible for any injury or maltreat- Member for Merthyr Tydvil had rement which they received. The hon. marked, it was necessary to consider the Member opposite had raised objections opinions of other Powers in reference to to the exterritoriality of English settle- a question of this kind. Having conments in China; but although it was not sulted the Governments of France, Gera system that we should like to see es- many, and the United States, Her Matablished in this country, it was abso-jesty's Government was waiting to learn lutely necessary in conducting our com- what was likely to be done by those mercial intercourse with nations like Powers in reference to the revision of

Mr. Bourke

not to be sent back to their native dis- | pensioners. He had previously gone

tricts with a sense of wrong rankling in their breasts.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the justice of the claims of the Royal Irish Constabulary Pensioners who retired before the month of August 1874, and to report thereon."—(Mr. Meldon.)

MR. MACARTNEY supported the Motion, and said that the case of the Constabulary, as laid before the House by his hon. Friend, was quite in accord with the feeling of the people of Ireland. SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH denied that the members of the Constabulary who had retired before the passing of the Act of 1874 had been unfairly treated, for the pensions granted to them had been calculated in strict accordance with the provisions of the

law.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

carefully into the question with the Chief Secretary; but if they would leave the matter in the hands of the Government they were quite prepared to look again carefully into the matter, and take the opinion of the English Law Officers of the Crown in respect to it. They did not think it desirable to appoint a Committee, which must cause excitement injurious to the Service.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS thought they ought not, after the concession just mentioned, to fly in the face of the Government. The House was prepared, if necessary, to fight out the matter on behalf of the Motion.

MR. PARNELL wished to explain that, in giving his vote for the Motion, he was not voting for pensions for a semi-military Force. He hoped the time would come when good and true Irishmen, as these men were, would not be employed by the Government in hunting down their countrymen.

MR. MELDON said, he felt that, under the circumstances, he would not be acting in the interests of the Irish Constabulary if he proceeded with the Motion, which he begged to withdraw

matter in the hands of the Government.

Question put.

The House divided:-Ayes 3; Noes 75: Majority 72.

COMPANIES ACTS (1862 AND 1867)

AMENDMENT BILL.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH resumed, by saying that although differing in opinion upon this subject from hon.["No, no!"]-and thus leave the Members who had addressed the House, he regretted the interruption which had taken place. All he wished to add to that which he had already said was, that the men received the exact amount of pension which they were expecting to receive, and which was the amount calculated upon the provisions of the then existing law, and no complaint of unfair treatment had ever been made on their behalf until the rate of pensions was largely increased under the Act of 1874. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kildare seemed to think that the Government would refuse a Select Committee, because it was certain to report against them. He had no such dread; but looking at all the circumstances of the case he could not grant the inquiry asked for, as it would only have the effect of raising hopes which would never be realized.

MR. O'REILLY suggested that, as the matter was a difficult and complex one, it might be referred to an independent party.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, there was no disposition to act unhandsomely by the Constabulary Mr. R. Smyth

On Motion of Mr. CHADWICK, Bill to amend the Companies Acts 1862 and 1867, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHADWICK, Sir HENRY JACKSON, Mr. SAMPSON LLOYD, Mr. RYLANDS, Mr. HoPWOOD, and Mr. BENJAMIN WHITWORTH. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 211.] House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Wednesday, 28th June, 1876.

MINUTES.] SELECT COMMITTEE Parliamentary Agents, appointed and nominated. PUBLIC BILLS Ordered First Reading Sea and River Banks (Lincolnshire) * [213], and referred to the Examiners; County of Peebles Justiciary District (Scotland) * [212],

Second Reading-Real Estate Intestacy [31], | fessional conduct on the part of certain
put off; Convicted Children * [192].
Considered as amended Crab and Lobster to light, such as dividing their fees with
Parliamentary Agents had recently come
Fisheries (Norfolk) * [109].

*

Third Reading-Poor Law Amendment [190];
Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment
[177], and passed.
Withdrawn-Waste Lands (Ireland) Reclama-
tion* [12].

PARLIAMENTARY AGENTS.

the solicitors. This necessarily tended to increase the expense of Parliamentary proceedings, and was in every respect a great abuse, and it would be well if some steps could be taken to put an end to the practice. The hon. Member concluded by moving the appoint

Lords Message [23rd June] (by Order) ment of the Select Committee. considered.

MR. RAIKES, in moving—

"That a Select Committee of five Members be appointed to join with the Committee of five Lords (as mentioned in the Message from the Lords of the 23rd day of this instant June) to consider the expediency of making further regulations concerning the admission and practice of Parliamentary Agents, and to report their opinion thereon,'

MR. DODDS thought that sufficient reasons for the appointment of this Committee had been given, and therefore he had no objection to offer to the Motion. After the Joint Committee had considered the matter the new regulations, if any were agreed upon, would be brought before the House and then there would be an opportunity of discussing them.

Motion agreed to.

Select Committee appointed; to consist of Mr. DODSON, Mr. BASIL WOODD, Mr. O'REILLY, Mr. BATHURST, and Mr. RAIKES:-Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Three to be the Quorum.

REAL ESTATE INTESTACY BILL. (Mr. Potter, Mr. Leatham, Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Mr. Hopwood, Mr. William Edwin Price.)

[BILL 31.] SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read.

said that, as it at present stood, any man might, on the recommendation of a Member of Parliament or a justice of the peace, become a Parliamentary Agent. Such a system afforded no guarantee and no means of judging of a man's fitness to undertake the conduct of Parliamentary Business. Owing to some recent circumstances, the matter had been brought to the notice of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees of the other House of Parliament, who had thought it desirable that some joint action should be taken by the two Houses, in order to protect the public interest in this matter-the public being at present liable to suffer not only MR. POTTER, in rising to move that from the inexperience and incapacity, the Bill be now read a second time, said: but also from extortion on the part of The Bill which I ask the House to read persons calling themselves Parliament- a second time to-day has for its object ary Agents. Personally, he (Mr. Raikes) the assimilation of the law affecting real could testify to the great assistance property with that on personal property which he had received from Parlia-in cases of intestacy. It aims to remove mentary Agents ever since he had held the office of Chairman of the Committees of Ways and Means. They were gentlemen of the highest probity and capability, and no doubt hon. Members had observed the able manner in which they conducted their business. He would not suggest the course which this Committee, if appointed, should pursue, but simply state that no harm could be done by joining the Lords' Committee. He would add that if the House of Lords should make further regulations, great inconvenience might arise if the House of Commons did not make the same. He might point out that instances of unpro

from the Statute Book a law which, in my opinion, gives an unwise and unjust preference to an eldest son over the rest of the family in cases of death without a will, for which law there is no State necessity, as in feudal times, and which is not adapted to the circumstances of the day. The subject has been frequently before the House, and a Bill was brought forward as early as 1836 by the late Mr. William Ewart, then Member for Liverpool. It was again brought forward in 1837 by the same hon. Gentleman, but in both cases it met with no success. Mr. Locke King brought forward the question in 1850, and in several suc

gilliflower each Easter, he bound himself and his heirs to defend against all men, Jews and Christians, the grantee and his heirs for ever. In 1662, at the Restoration of Charles II., the military obligations of landowners were abolished, and a grant was made to the King of a tax on the beer of the people to the extent of 1s. a barrel in place of them. The landowners relieved themselves of the burden of military service, on which their tenure had been based, but accepted no new burden themselves. It was at that time that, as it appears to me, the laws of intestacy should have been abolished. There was no longer the necessity of concentrating power in a few hands for military objects, as armies were no longer provided by the landowners. Since that time the effect of the maintenance of these laws has simply been the political and social aggrandizement of certain families. Unfortunately, instead of abolishing the laws of intestacy, when the necessity for their existence had passed away, these laws had been made more stringent and exclusive during the last 200 years. I think it will not be denied that by assimilating the law on real and personal property in land, a great simplification would be gained as regards title deeds to property, though the lawyers might complain that their interests were interfered with. Whatever may be the views taken by lawyers, the real difficulty in effecting the change I desire is political and social. But I think it is time that the spirit of feudalism should give way to more modern ideas. The many would be gainers, though the few would be losers by the change. It was said by an American statesman, speaking of the change in the intestacy laws in the State of Virginia, which State was the last, after American Independence, to adopt the modern idea, that-"If there would be fewer coaches and six driving into Richmond, there would be more carriages and pairs." I do not anticipate that the abrogation of these laws will affect any great immediate change, but I believe the result will be salutary on the whole, and that, at any rate, an anomaly will be removed from the Sta

cessive Parliaments the question was identified with his name, until in July, 1869, he obtained a majority of 25, and carried the second reading by 169 Ayes to 144 Noes. In 1870 it was understood that the question was left in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone); but, as no measure was introduced, Mr. Locke King again prepared a Bill in 1873, which did not reach a second reading. I am not going to enter upon the legal technicalities of the question, as I believe they will be dealt with by hon. Gentlemen who will follow me. Nor do I intend to dwell on the numerous instances of injustice and hardship to widows and younger sons and others, which occur in the working of the present law, and which, I think, cannot be denied. I believe the law as it stands at present is an anomaly, and not suited to the necessities of the present day. I believe it ought to have been abolished 200 years ago, when the feudal obligations on which it was based were done away with. The feudal system, which was quite contrary to the spirit of the old English laws in Saxon times, was fully established in England in the 13th century. The necessity of Monarchs in those days required the concentration of power and of land (which was the main source of power) in the hands of very few individuals; and consequently the law directed the inheritance of land to the eldest son, to the exclusion of the younger branches of the family, though not to so complete an exclusion as the present intestacy laws provide for. I venture to impugn the intestacy laws as the key-stone of the custom of primogeniture. I am aware that there is no law of primogeniture, but in cases of intestacy the law sanctions the custom, and, in fact, gives the custom the force of law. In the 13th century military service was frequently the sole condition on which land was held. I hold in my hand a title deed or grant of the 13th century, which belongs to a friend of mine who still occupies the land granted to his ancestor 600 years ago. Homage and service are the sole conditions except the payment every year of the clove of gilliflower at Easter. There was, how-tute Book. I claim the support of the ever, a singular condition entered into on the part of the grantor, which was that in return for the homage, military service, and the payment of the clove of

Mr. Potter

present Government, and especially that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who told us in Manchester last autumn that "the true