Commons Sitting of 9 March 1868

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Right Hon. George Ward Hunt, for Northampton County (Northern Division).
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Admiralty Monies and Accounts nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Railways and Joint Stock Companies*; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries; Indian Railway Companies*; Land Writs Registration (Scotland); Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland); Ecclesiastical Buildings and Glebes (Scotland).
First Reading—Railways and Joint Stock Companies* [53]; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries [54]; Indian Railway Companies* [55]; Land Writs Registration (Scotland) [56]; Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) [57]; Ecclesiastical Buildings and Glebes (Scotland) [58].
Second Reading—Fines and Fees (Ireland)* [35], negatived; Representation of the People (Scotland)* [29]; Metropolis Subways [41].
Committee—Sea Fisheries [42]—R.P.
Third Reading—Railways (Extension of Time)* [39], and passed.

ARMY—RETIREMENTS FROM THE ROYAL ARTILLERY, &C.—QUESTION.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whe-

1215
ther the Government have arrived at any decision on the recommendations of the Select Committee of last Session relative to retirements from the Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, and Royal Marines?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in reply, said, he was not then prepared to give a conclusive answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question. He had, however, given very careful consideration to the recommendations of the Committee, and he hoped shortly to be able to state to the House the decision of the Government upon them.

FENIANISM—THE ATTACK ON CLERKENWELL PRISON.—QUESTION.
MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, as has been publicly stated, either the Government or the Chief Commissioner of Police had information, previously to the commission of the crime, of a design to blow up or otherwise attack Clerkenwell Prison; and, if so, whether there is any objection to state what precautionary or preventive measures were taken in consequence?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYreplied, that he thought it very natural that the hon. Gentleman should wish for such information as it was in his (Mr. Gathorne Hardy's) power to give in reference to the lamentable occurrence at Clerkenwell. In answer to the first part of the Question he might state that on the 12th of December last a report was received at the Home Office at about twelve o'clock in the day or a little after, to the following effect. He would not give the name of the person who sent the report, because he did not think that would be advisable:—
"December 11, 1867.
"I have to report that I have just received information from a reliable source to the effect that the rescue of Richard Burke from prison in London is contemplated. The plan is to blow up the exercise walls by means of gunpowder; the hour between three and four p.m.; and the signal for 'all right,' a white ball thrown up outside when he is at exercise."
That information thus received, and coming as was thought from a source on which some reliance could be placed, Mr. Liddell, the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, immediately sent to the Chief Commissioner of Police. Sir Richard Mayne was not at the office at the time it arrived, but Captain Labalmondiere was there, and the report was at once put into his hands that he might see it. At the same time a
1216
letter was written by Mr. Liddell to Mr. Pownall, the Chairman of the Visiting Justices, and despatched by a messenger, and was delivered to that gentleman that afternoon. He (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) did not know whether he need go through the circumstances which had appeared generally in the newspapers, as to the promptitude with which Mr. Pownall acted; the careful precautionary measures he took in order, if the walls of the prison were injured, to prevent an attempt at escape by the prisoner Burke; the extra warders employed to afford additional protection, and the alterations made in the usual time and place of the exercising of the prisoners; so that, as far as Mr. Pownall was concerned—though he had not time to assemble the magistrates—action was taken with that care and promptitude which were calculated to prevent the success of any attempt at rescue. Captain Labalmondiere was at the Home Office between twelve and one o'clock, because the order which he wrote to the Superintendent of Police was dated 12.45, which showed that Captain Labalmondiere had then received the information in question. He would read to the House the instructions which Captain Labalmondiere gave on receipt of that report. They were handed to Superintendent Gernon, and before he left the Office the Chief Commissioner came in, when that document was handed to him and he gave instructions to Superintendent Gernon to the like effect, only they were more specific, stating the force of police which was to be used—
"Superintendent Gernon—Acquaint the Governor of the House of Detention that information has been received of an intended rescue of the prisoner Burke, to be effected by blowing up the walls of the exercising ground during the hours he is at exercise. Have the external walls carefully examined to ascertain that there has been no attempt to mine, and arrange for strict observation to be kept on them.—12.45 p.m."
In his Report on the occurrence Sir Richard Mayne stated—
"The police arrangements made by Superintendent Gernon, in pursuance of my directions, were to post a double patrol of two police-constables, and three police-constables were employed in plain clothes, all of whom were strictly instructed, together with section sergeants, to keep close observation on all persons loitering round the prison walls, and to give immediate information to the inspector on duty at King's Cross Station should anything suspicious arise. There were also five police-constables in uniform and three in plain clothes on duty round the prison walls."

1217
At the same time Inspector Thompson was sent by Sir Richard Mayne to communicate with the Governor of the prison and tell him what they had heard, and that communication was made in the course of the afternoon of the 12th of December. Precautions were taken as to the protection of the walls outside; but those hon. Members who had not read the statements made by the witnesses might not be aware that at, a late period of the inquiry, it came out that on that very afternoon a cask of a similar description to the one that exploded on December 13th was seen by a woman in the neighbourhood of the prison walls, and that, as far as could be judged, an attempt was made to light it. If it had been lighted at that time, no doubt there would have been destruction of life, not only outside of but within the prison, for it was then the hour of prison exercise; and, further, about the time that the cask was seen there, a white indiarubber ball was thrown over the wall, which was picked up by one of the warders, who, having no idea of what it was for, kept it for his children. At the same time it was noticed that the prisoner Burke fell out of the ranks and went to a different part of the yard, apparently to take something out of his shoe. But the cask was taken away and did not cause any suspicion among the people living in the neighbourhood. He should mention that at the part of the wall which was broken down there was formerly a small wicket which had been bricked up, and when Captain Labalmondiere went back to the Police Office he inquired whether that wicket was there, because it was thought that gunpowder might be used to force it open; but it did not appear to have struck him or any one of the police employed that it would be used to blow down the wall, as was actually the case; for, although the information that had been received was communicated to the officers on the spot, the cask was placed close to the wall without anybody supposing that there was any cause to apprehend mischief from it. It appeared that that mode of carrying out the design of which they received information did not strike those who were set to watch the outside of the prison, because the policeman Moriarty walked along by the side of the wall when the cask was there, and nearly all his clothes were blown off in consequence of the explosion. What their attention was apparently directed to was the undermining of the wall they thought it would probably be blown up
1218
from underneath, and had no conception that it would be blown down in the way it really was done.

THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Report of the Boundary Commission, with or without the plans, will be issued to Members of the House of Commons; and, whether there would be any objection to issue it in parts, consisting of Counties and their respective Boroughs?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, he understood upon inquiry that the Report of the Boundary Commissioners would be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow, and that a separate part would be devoted to each county, each part to be issued at one shilling. The delay had arisen in consequence of the large number of copies which had to be printed.

PUBLICATION OF THE ART CATALOGUE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, If it be true that the Publication of the Art Catalogue is still continued by the Department of Science and Art in Notes and Queries instead of in The Times; if there was not an understanding between the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education and the House of Commons that this publication should be discontinued; and, if it be still the intention of the Department of Science and Art to persist in the formation of that Catalogue, what will be the ultimate cost of that undertaking, including in the estimate the payment of the whole staff employed in it; whether the persons so employed be supernumeraries or a portion of the usual staff at South Kensington?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU, in reply, said, that the publication of the Art Catalogue was being continued in Notes and Queries instead of in The Times. The hon. Members for Swansea and Galway had last year objected to "advertising the Catalogue in The Times," as a reference to Hansard would show; while they evidently contemplated the continuance of the formation of the Catalogue. The formation of the Catalogue had been decided upon by Lord Granville, in 1864, and at various times in 1865 and 1866. In 1865–6, a

  1219
  vote of £500 was taken for that object; in 1866–7, a rote of £1,500; and in August, 1867, a vote of £2,500 was taken in the Estimates of 1867–8, for the Universal Art Catalogue, and other catalogues and inventories. Materials had now been collected for the formation of the whole Universal Art Catalogue. Several estimates of various modes of compiling it were laid before Parliament last year on the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea. He believed that the total cost, including the payment of the whole staff employed on it, and leaving a margin for contingencies, would be £8,000, of which a large part had already been paid.
  MR. CHILDERS: Did I understand the noble Lord to say that Earl Granville first proposed the publication of such a Catalogue?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: He sanctioned it, first, in the year 1864.

  UNITED STATES—CASE OF THE "LIZZIE LINA."—QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any claim has been made upon Her Majesty's Government by the Government of the United States in respect of the alleged piratical, seizure in the Chesapeake River by British sailors during the Civil War in America, of a vessel now registered as a British vessel at the port of Kingston, in Jamaica, under the name of the Lizzie Lina, and formerly the Happy go Lucky, commanded by Lieutenant or Captain Edenborough; whether it is true that, in consequence of such a claim, the persons now in possession of the said vessel have been required by the Colonial Government of Jamaica to enter into sureties for her surrender in the event of her being declared American property; and, whether he will lay upon the table the Correspondence relating thereto?
  LORD STANLEY, in reply, said, he had caused search to be made in the Foreign Office, through the Correspondence from 1861 to the present time, and could find no trace of any such transaction as the Question alluded to. At his request a similar investigation was made at the Colonial Office, and with a similar result.

NAVY—IRON BALLAST IN DOCKYARDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty,
  1220
  Whether any part of the pig-iron ballast laid down or stored in the Dockyards, and sales of which were estimated to produce £100,000 during the present financial year as a Naval "extra receipt," has been sold; and, if so, how much, and at what price per ton; and how many tons are still stored or laid down in the Dockyards?
  MR. CORRYreplied, that the Admiralty had been unremitting in their endeavours to realize the expectations held out last year as to the amount to be obtained from the sale of pig-iron ballast; but no offers which could be entertained had been made, except for small quantities for experimental purposes; and the sum paid into the Exchequer, in consequence of the sales, amounted to only £63. Possibly this result might be partly attributed to the depressed state of the iron trade. Perhaps the hon. Member would allow him to defer replying to the last Question till a more convenient season.

  SEWAGE OBSTRUCTIONS IN THE RIVER.—QUESTION.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that complaints have been made to the Home Office, by the Thames Conservators, of the Navigation of the River, having become obstructed by the accumulation of sewage at Barking and Crossness; and, if so, what course he proposes to take in the matter?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that complaints had been made to him, and that in consequence he had seen the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) had suggested the appointment of an arbitrator, to decide as to whether the Board of Works or the Thames Conservancy were bound to clear away the obstructions. The Thames Conservancy said that they had no funds to remove the sewage; and, on the other hand, the Metropolitan Board alleged that, having received powers from Parliament to use the outfalls at Barking and Crossness, they were not responsible for the accumulation. Further, they denied that the obstruction was caused by the sewage. It appeared that the Metropolitan Board had been advised by their counsel that arbitration would not be the proper course. He (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) considered that the only mode of proceeding would be by indictment.

  CHARGES ON THE CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNT.—QUESTION.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons, on the account of the charges on the Consolidated Account, has not been ordered to be printed; and, when the accounts of the Auditor General, ordered to be printed, will be delivered to Members?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, in reply, that the account to which the hon. Member alluded was ordered to be printed last week, and had been delivered to Members that morning. He hoped that the remainder of the accounts would be printed on Thursday. He did not propose to take the Excess Vote in Supply that night, but on Friday next.

  METROPOLIS—THE ORNAMENTAL WATER IN REGENT'S PARK.

    QUESTION.
    MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he expects that the works now in progress in the basin of the Ornamental Water in the Regent's Park will be entirely completed before the summer; and, if he does not, then, whether he is confident that they will be so far completed as to prevent the offensive mud from causing danger to the health of the neighbourhood?
    LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, he had every reason to believe that the works in progress would be completed before the commencement of summer. He had taken every precaution to prevent danger to the inhabitants or offensiveness to the neighbourhood.

    ARMY—THE FORTIFICATIONS AT CHATHAM.—QUESTION.
    COLONEL SYKESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, What truth there is in a recent statement in the public prints that one of the projected Fortifications at Chatham had sunk into the mud, or that the foundations had given way, and that some of the new Fortifications elsewhere had shown signs of instability; and, whether, considering the opinion expressed by the distinguished civil engineer Mr. Thomas Hawksley, on the 26th of August, 1866, that—
    "Many endeavours had been made and much money, reckoned by millions, had been expended,
    1222
    I will not say wastefully or unworthily, but certainly uselessly, in endeavours to secure our coasts against the attacks of a foreign enemy."
    And whether, considering the statement under the head "Naval and Military Intelligence," in The Times of November 3, 1866, that—
    "We have certainly as a rule been unfortunate in our military engineering, and especially in carrying out the plans for the defence of our coast line; that some forts have been built on swampy land, so unstable and treacherous that keep and magazine have cracked through, and their earthen ramparts have slid from their base."
    To ask, therefore, whether, considering the above public statements, before a further application for money is made to the House, the Secretary of State for War will lay upon the table a Report in detail of the present condition of the Fortifications enumerated in the Parliamentary Return, No. 157, of March, 1867; and in default of such Report, whether he will advise Her Majesty to appoint a Commission of Military and Civil Engineers and Members of the House, to examine and report on the present condition of the Fortifications, and whether any of them can be dispensed with?
    SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in answer to the first part of the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, he had to state that two forts at Chatham on marshy ground had subsided, but nothing had occurred to prevent their completion. In reply to the other portion of the Question, whether some of the new fortifications elsewhere had shown signs of instability, he also had to state that he had made close inquiries, and he found that in the case of one fort only the retaining wall had shown some signs of weakness, but the damage was not so dangerous as to prevent its being repaired. The remainder of the hon. and gallant Member's Question seemed to be in the nature of an argument and not of an inquiry, and he (Sir John Pakington) thought it inconvenient that an hon. Gentleman in asking a Question should introduce long recitals containing very severe attacks on public Departments, and proceeding from parties who expressed opinions without being subject to any responsibility. He was quite aware that opinions expressed by Mr. Hawksley were entitled to respect; but he could not accept that gentleman's authority as conclusive when compared with that of military men of the highest standing, on whose advice the Government of Lord Palmerston deter-

    1223
    mined to carry out these fortifications. And in like manner he might say with respect to the extract from The Times, that it went very far beyond the facts. It was true that the magazine of a fort erected to protect the approach to the Medway had, from the nature of the soil, in some degree settled, but nothing had occurred which might not be repaired. He had no objection to lay on the table a Report on the present condition of the fortifications, as the extracts quoted by the hon. and gallant Member were calculated to create anxiety in the public mind.

    ARMY—STAFF APPOINTMENTS—MULES IN ABYSSINIA.—QUESTION.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, When the Returns relative to Staff Appointments, ordered on the 6th of June last, and which on the 21st of November he stated would very shortly be furnished, will be laid upon the table; also, when the Returns, ordered on the 3rd of December, of the names of the Officers employed in the purchase of Mules for the Abyssinian Expedition, and of the average cost per Mule, will be laid upon the table?
    SIR JOHN PAKINGTONreplied, that he had that evening laid on the table the Returns moved for with respect to these subjects.

  ETWALL AND REPTON CORPORATION.

    QUESTION.
    MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Why the Board of Management, constituted by the Act of last Session, for the future management of the Etwall and Repton Corporation, has not yet been nominated?
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUreplied, that the nomination had been already made by the Charity Commissioners.

  RICHMOND GREEN AND HYDE PARK.

    QUESTION.
    LORD ERNEST BRUCEsaid, he rose to ask the First Commissioner of Works, For what reason the Avenue of Elm Trees on Richmond Green, which contributed so much to the beauty of the locality and the comfort of the inhabitants, who are mostly tenants of the Crown, has been suddenly
    1224
    removed; and, whether it is intended that all the Lodges in Hyde Park shall be re-built in the same peculiar style as those just completed at Stanhope Gate?
    LORD JOHN MANNERSreplied, that at the commencement of the year thirteen or fourteen elm trees formed the avenue in question. Unfortunately, in February a storm arose which broke down two of the number, and two more trees were destroyed by their fall; but on examination it turned out that these trees were quite unsound and dangerous, and upon further examination it appeared that those remaining were also in a dangerous condition. It was therefore recommended by the authorities on the spot that the whole of the avenue should be removed, and that the trees should be replaced by healthy lime trees. As to the second Question he was not aware of any necessity existing for re-building all the lodges in Hyde Park upon the model of those at Stanhope Gate. Certainly he had no such intention.

    THE CHINESE EMBASSY.—QUESTION.
    MR. OSBORNEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If the appointment by the Chinese Government of Mr. John M'Leavy Brown (described in the Foreign Office List as Assistant Chinese Secretary of the English Embassy in China) to the post of assistant colleague of Mr. Burlengame, the new Chinese Ambassador, ha3 been made with the concurrence of the English Envoy and Chief Superintendent in China, and if such appointment has received the sanction of Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and if Her Majesty's Government intend to enter into negotiations with Mr. Burlengame, as Chief Representative of the Chinese Embassy so appointed, respecting the Treaty of Tientsin?
    LORD STANLEYsaid, in reply, that the appointment in question was made with the concurrence of the British Minister in China. It was made by Sir Rutherford Alcock in the first instance, upon his own responsibility; but upon the matter being reported to the Foreign Office, he (Lord Stanley) had no hesitation, under all the circumstances of the case, in approving of the step that had been taken. With regard to latter part of the Question, he could only say he was not aware at present what instructions Mr. Burlengame had; but if he arrived in this country, as it was supposed he would, duly accredited as the Repre-

    1225
    sentative of the Government of China, he (Lord Stanley) would be prepared to enter into negotiations or discussion with him upon all matters affecting our relations with the Chinese Empire.

  NAVY—NAVAL COURTS MARTIAL.

    QUESTION.
    MR. STONEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, a Commission having been appointed to inquire into the working of Military Courts Martial, it is intended to extend a similar inquiry to Naval Courts Martial?
    MR. CORRY, in reply, said, he had no present intention to recommend the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the working of Naval Courts Martial. In the year 1864 the Naval Discipline Act was introduced, which made many improvements in Naval Law; and after two years, trial another Act was introduced which effeeted further improvements. Subsequently to that period the Commanders-in-Chief and Captains on the different stations were called on to report on various matters, including the Naval Discipline Act of 1866, and, though there was a difference of opinion on other questions, they all concurred in approving of that measure. By the Act of 1864, the formation of Courts Martial was facilitated by allowing junior Officers to sit as Members of the Courts, but the result was found to be an increase in the severity of the sentences. Full powers had been vested in the Admiralty—especially the Act of 1866, and were freely exercised—to modify sentences of Naval Courts Martial; and on the whole the present law, he thought, worked satisfactorily, and he was therefore not prepared to recommend the appointment of a Commission.

  ARMY—BREECH-LOADING RIFLES.

    QUESTION.
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If he will lay upon the table of the House the Report of the Sub-Committee on Breech-loading Rifles, together with particulars of the trials lately concluded, and the award of prizes?
    SIR JOHN PAKINGTONreplied, that it was his intention to lay the Report on the table as soon as it was ready, and the Report would embrace the particulars to which his hon. and gallant Friend had referred.

  POSTAL—MAILS TO MALTA.

    QUESTION.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he rose to ask, Whether the Government will consider the delay which will be caused by the new mode of transmitting the Mails to Malta? By the new contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company, the Mails would be conveyed viâ the Straits of Messina, and would not touch at Malta. Upon application to the Colonial Office, he was informed that every Tuesday a Mail would be sent out to Messina, and that boats from Messina would carry the Mails to Malta. The distance was 170 miles, and the consequence was that the Mails would take in the transmission a week or ten days instead of five days.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, in reply, that the Government had already taken into consideration the delay that would be occasioned in the transmission of Mails to Malta in consequence of the new arrangement with the Peninsular and Oriental Company, and the Postmaster General had made arrangements by which, in addition to the weekly mails leaving Southampton every Saturday, which reached Malta, viâ, Gibraltar, in nine days, a Mail would be despatched every Tuesday, viâ Messina, which would reach Malta in seven days. He did not know that it would be possible to make arrangements which would be more convenient.

  THE CATTLE PLAGUE IN NORFOLK.

    QUESTION.
    Colonel NORTHIn reply to Colonel NORTH,
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUstated, that intelligence of the supposed outbreak of cattle plague in Norfolk was sent to the Privy Council Office by two magistrates of the district, and within an hour after the receipt of the information Professor Simonds was on his way to the spot. It appeared that ten animals had died of the disease, and three had recovered. Professor Simonds, in his Report, however, stated that it was not cattle plague, and that it was not contagious. It was apoplexy of the spleen, which was very fatal, but proceeded from causes unknown.

    FINES AND FEES (IRELAND) BILL.
    (Mr. Hunt, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

    [BILL 35.] SECOND READING,
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, it would be in the recollection of the House that when the First Minister, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed the Budget of this year, he mentioned the fund which was the subject of the present Bill as a fund which would come in as part of the Ways and Means of the year. After making that statement, it was objected by some persons interested in the question in Ireland that it would not be equitable that the fund should be so transferred; and it was arranged in consequence that a case should be prepared jointly by the Solicitor to the Treasury and the Crown Solicitor in Dublin, to be submitted to the Law Officers of England and Ireland. The case was one which required the examination of a great number of Acts of Parliament; and it was only in August last, after Parliament had separated, that the Opinion of the Law Officers was received. They were unanimous in opinion that, according to the equity of the case, the funds should be transferred to the Consolidated Fund, and they recommended, as it was a matter of some doubt, that the transfer should be effected under an Act of Parliament. The House would hardly expect him to go into all the clauses affecting the question, but would no doubt be satisfied with that Opinion. The fund which it was proposed to deal with arose from an accumulation of fines, penalties, and fees, which were for a series of years applicable in diminution of the contributions of the counties for the constabulary; but in 1851 the public took upon itself the whole burden of the constabulary, with the exception of some extra force employed, and the consequence was that, from 1851 to 1858, when another Act passed dealing with the question, these funds were not applicable in relief of the contributions from the counties. There was no question that they remained part of the revenue of the Crown, and that under the Civil List Act they ought to have been paid into the Exchequer. From 1851 to 1858 they were received and invested, and allowed to accumulate. Apart from the question of the authority of the Act of Parliament which affected the question, he thought the House would be of opinion that it was entirely
    1228
    wrong in principle that any Department of the State should have a fund accumulating over which it had control, and that such fund ought to be paid over to the Consolidated Fund, and if the Department required funds, they should come to the House to vote them. In 1858 an Act was passed making regulations as to the salaries of clerks of petty sessions in Ireland, and a clause was inserted under which the Irish Government had been advised that they had the power of employing the dividends of this fund in aid of the fund for the payment of those clerks. The wording of the clause was somewhat vague; and, in order to meet the objections which might be raised on the ground that the transfer of this fund to the Consolidated Fund deprived them of the dividends to which they were legally entitled, he had prepared the following clause, which might be inserted in Committee:—
    "If any deficiency arises by reason of the conversion of the said bank annuities in the sums required to meet any payments which have at the time of the passing of this Act been legally made chargeable, either in the whole or in part, upon the dividends of the said annuities, the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury shall, after all other monies or funds applicable to such payments have been exhausted, make good such deficiency out of monies to be provided for that purpose by Parliament."
    If a Committee of the House agreed to insert the clause, any objection which might be raised by persons interested in the salaries of petty sessions' clerks would be done away with.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    GENERAL DUNNEsaid, he regretted to have to oppose a Bill brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman on the first night of his official appearance as Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he regretted this the more because he feared the Bill indicated a change in the disposition of the Government towards Ireland. When Lord Derby took office he promised that he would look upon all Irish interests with favour, and he was surprised to find it proposed that a sum devoted to local purposes and raised from local sources should be applied suddenly, without any notice, to the Consolidated Fund, and a Bill brought in to legalize what would otherwise be illegal. The right hon. Gentleman had some time since acceded to a Motion of his, and agreed to

    1229
    lay on the table of the House a Return of the Acts regulating the application of those funds; but he only in the Return presented, out of several gave two relating to the subject, and one which had nothing to do with it, while, in his speech, he had totally omitted to mention that, by these specific Acts of Parliament, a portion of this fund had been for years applicable to infirmaries and hospitals, and that it was by an Act passed by Lord Derby's Government in 1858 the fund was made applicable to the payment of petty sessional clerks. This is an attempt to undo the kindly legislation of Lord Derby. The right hon. Gentleman said he had obtained the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown—that he had a right to appropriate this fund, but should lay on the table the case submitted to the Law Officers, for it is difficult to imagine what could have been laid before them, except a number of Acts of Parliament diverting this fund to other purposes than those to which it is now proposed to apply it. He, in a clause which seems added to the original draft of the Bill, proposes a kind of compromise—that the Treasury shall pay the charges to which the fund is liable, but this compromise proposed shows that this Act is nugatory, for if the interest—about £2,000 a year—is to be paid to the petty sessional clerks, what object has he in seizing on it? If he has the legal power at present to seize on it, why does he propose a Bill to legalize his doing so? If it was thought that Irish people ought to pay a part of the expense of the constabulary, it would have been much better for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose to levy a tax for the purpose. He believed that the accumulated fund amounted to £67,400, and that the interest would not do more than supplement the fees required for payment of the petty sessional clerks, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman can receive no more than the amount which he will have to pay. Then what is the use of transferring the fund to the Consolidated Fund, unless he ceased to pay the petty sessions' clerks out of it, then additional local taxation must be imposed? He saw objections to petty sessional clerks being paid out of the Consolidated Fund, which would throw much additional labour on the Treasury and any central authority. Why not leave a local fund for local purposes to be managed as at present in Ireland? Were the petty sessional clerks paid as proposed by the Treasury, in a few Sessions it would be asked why Irish petty sessions' clerks were
    1230
    to be paid from the Consolidated Fund? No Irish Member could defend it as the fact of the fund from which they derived the claim having been transferred to it would soon be forgotten. He felt sure that English country gentlemen would not sanction the principle of making up a deficient revenue from county rates, and therefore he moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(General Dunne.)
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he could assure the House that the objection which had been raised against this Bill was a sound one. The right hon. Gentleman, in moving the second reading of the Bill, assuming that a portion of the sums received for fines and penalties in Ireland had always been appropriated to the payment of the constabulary, contended that, as those payments were now made out of the Consolidated Fund, he was justified in introducing this Bill to transfer this £67,000 to that fund. The assumption of the right hon. Gentleman was, however, entirely without foundation. It was clear from various Acts of Parliament that from 1827 to 1850 these fines and penalties were applicable to the support of local charitable institutions, and it was not until the latter year that they were declared applicable to the payment of the salaries of clerks of petty sessions. If words were introduced into the Bill providing that the interest of these £67,000 should for the future be applicable to the payment of the salaries of the petty sessions' clerks in Ireland, he would withdraw his opposition, otherwise he trusted that the House would acknowledge that there were exceedingly good grounds for resisting the measure.
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he wished to point out to both English and Irish Members that if this sum of £67,000 were to be absorbed, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would amount to this—that hereafter the charges for the petty sessions' clerks in Ireland would have to be borne by the National Exchequer.
    MR. REARDENsaid, that the House by sanctioning the proposal of the Government would be pauperizing 452 gentlemen and their families. He trusted the House would mark its sense of this very petty Bill by rejecting it by a very large majority; if not, he should move a clause in

    1231
    Committee to meet the case of the petty sessions' clerks.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the £67,000 was a fund, the whole of which was in existence before the Act of 1858 was passed, and the complications which had ensued had rendered legislation necessary. In 1836 the expenses of the constabulary were charged upon the Consolidated Fund, one-half of the amount to be repaid by the counties. It was subsequently provided that the Lord Lieutenant, if he thought fit, might direct the money received from fees and penalties to be applied partly towards the support of hospitals and other local charities, and partly towards a loan fund Board, and partly to the reduction of the county burdens. If, under that and subsequent Acts, the Lord Lieutenant had neglected to direct the payment of the money to these particular institutions, the money would at once have belonged to the Consolidated Fund. For a long number of years sums of money which ought under these Acts to have been paid into the Consolidated Fund had, instead of being so treated, been allowed to accumulate, and in 1853 they were invested. The Bill only proposed to do that which ought to have been done in former years—to pay over these sums of money to the Consolidated Fund, of which they rightly formed a portion.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, if there was no question as to the legal operation of the Acts which had been referred to, what, he would ask, was the object of this Bill? He regretted to see such a Bill as this proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who professed such a desire to promote the material interests of Ireland. The passing of this Bill would throw all the counties of Ireland into confusion.
    MR. HENLEYsaid, the preamble of this Bill laid down a principle to which he could not assent, because it laid down a principle that might be prejudicially applied in the future. They should beware how they approved a principle which might lay the foundation for depriving the Irish people of the right of applying any monies in excess for local purposes in the future. The principle laid down in the Preamble was very objectionable if it were to be applied in its width, and he would remind hon. Gentlemen that the same principle, if sanctioned, might be applied to all the counties of England.
    MR. LAWSONthought that this Bill ought not to be allowed to pass in its
    1232
    present shape. The destination of this fund was expressly provided for by the Act of 1858, which was introduced by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. This Bill completely ignored the existence of that Act without repealing it. All the right hon. Gentleman did was to provide for the pensions of the present holders of these offices; but to be consistent he should carry legislation further. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not press the Bill to a division, but would re-consider it.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that with respect to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), if the Preamble were faulty it might be amended in Committee. He held that the money with which they were called to deal had been forfeited to the Crown under the Civil List Act. With regard to the Act of 1858, he believed all that was given was the fund arising out of the accumulation of future fines. This Bill did nothing which affected them; but it sought to apply the accumulated fines, which constituted a surplus balance in the hands of the Receiver-General, between 1852 and 1858. When the case was submitted to the Law Officers for England and Ireland, the fullest opportunity was given to make out a case against the transfer of this fund to the Consolidated Fund, and it was their unanimous opinion that it ought to be so transferred. He believed it was very questionable whether legislation was really wanted, and whether the money might not have been transferred under the Civil Service Act, and it was only for the purpose of preventing doubt that the Bill was introduced.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, that while he entirely agreed with the object of the Bill, the state of the question had not been fully explained, and he would do so without discussing dry interpretations of Acts. The fact is that the clerks of petty sessions in Ireland were paid in a peculiar manner. They received their salaries not out of the Votes of Parliament, but out of the proceeds of the stamps they sold; and if they did not sell enough for their salaries, the difference was made up out of this fund. On this fund their gratuities and superannuations were also charged by the Lord Lieutenant. What was the common-sense course of dealing with this question? It was to abolish the absurd system of paying salaries out of stamps, and to pay these

    1233
    gentlemen directly out of the Votes of that House. He suggested that the Bill should be withdrawn, and that another Bill should be introduced charging the salaries, superannuations, and gratuities on the Votes of Parliament, in the usual way. There would then be no objection to paying the fund into the Exchequer.
    MR. DISRAELIsaid, that the suggestion, of the hon. Gentleman was very good, if viewed in a certain light; but they knew, practically speaking, that when they had before them something with which the House ought to deal, it was much better to deal with it at once. All the labours of the Public Monies Committee, and all the attempts the House had been making for several years to get the public accounts into an intelligible position, would, in a certain degree, be defeated if there was opposition to Bills of this description. There was not the slightest doubt that this large sum was due to the Consolidated Fund, and ought to be paid to it. With regard to any legal claims on the fund, they were perfectly ready to meet them in Committee, and if the Bill so dealt with passed it would effect a great improvement, and be in complete accordance with all the steps the House had taken in deference to the recommendations of the Public Monies Committee. He therefore trusted the House would agree to the second reading.
    MR. CARDWELLsaid, he should vote against the second reading of the Bill, notwithstanding the appeal of the First Lord of the Treasury to the Report of the Public Monies Committee and he did so in deference to the authority of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) who acted as Chairman of that Committee. He believed that this was the single exception to the uniform course which the House had pursued with regard to payments of this kind; and he thought that it was the duty of the Government, when a case of this kind arose, to bring forward a measure to deal with the Act of 1858, by repealing any exceptional provision, and deal with these funds upon the footing on which other funds were dealt with.
    MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he had hoped that the House would have received more information on the matter as to the state of the law. They ought to know to what fund this money legally belonged. He could now understand the nature of the right hon. Gentleman's appeal as to the important business that had to come on. He thought that this was not a happy inaugu-
    1234
    ration of the Irish policy of the Government, to begin with an Act which he must call one of Irish spoliation.
    Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Bill put off for six months.

    PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 29.]
    (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir James Fergusson.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    MR. HADFIELD MR. HADFIELD moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. His hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had given notice of a Motion that was to be proposed on going into the discussion in Committee, but he did not consider that satisfactory. He objected to the Bill because it contained a principle to which he strongly objected, and which principle he thought ought not to be agreed to—sub silentio. He alluded to the proposition to increase the number of Members of the House. This was a thing which had never been attempted since the Union with Ireland, and he did not know for how long before. The House should consider whether they were prepared on every emergency to increase the number of Members—a number which, in his judgment was already sufficiently large. He thought that the United Kingdom ought to be treated as one entire community in regard to policy and legislation, and not dealt with in this exceptional manner. He was anxious to do justice to Scotland in the representation; but he would do it, not by increasing the total number of Members in the House, but by getting rid of the small boroughs in England which represented no interest, agricultural or commercial, and were in reality bought and sold. He felt bound to take the sense of the House upon the question, whether the number of Members in the House should be increased.
    MR. REARDENseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Hadfield.)
    SIR WILLIAM SCOTTsaid, that the proposition to give additional Members to Scotland was not unaccompanied with the suspicion of interested motives; for no pains had been taken to conceal that the purpose was to separate the large and thriving towns from the counties in which they were situated. In some boroughs the constituencies which were small already were to become "beautifully less," for they would be diminished by one-half, and this proportion was to be added to constituencies which were already large enough. He was quite prepared to extend the franchise to working men in towns, so that they might have their fair share in the choice of Members. He tendered his thanks to the First Lord of the Treasury for his cordial recognition of the just claims of Scotland; but regarded the provisions of the Bill as inadequate, though he should be disposed, by way of compromise, to accept the Government proposal if three additional Members were added.
    MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he did not understand the course taken by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield). He talked about justice to Scotland. He spoke in terms of affection of Scotland, and yet he proposed to vote against that Bill, which certainly did most inadequate justice to Scotland, but which was at any rate one step in the right direction. He differed from hon. Gentlemen opposite who, on a recent occasion, when that Bill was produced, expressed their intention to vote against it because it only gave seven Members. He perfectly agreed that seven Members were most inadequate, because by every calculation they could arrive at, by comparing the revenue and the population of Scotland with the rest of the kingdom, they must come to the conclusion that Scotland ought to have at least twenty-five more Members. [An hon. MEMBER: Fifteen.] At the time of the Union, the question as to the number of Members which Scotland ought to possess was very fully taken into consideration, and every attempt was made to render the proportion of Members commensurate with that of the population. In the Reform Bill of 1832 the principle was laid down that representation should vary with revenue and population. At the time
    1236
    of the Union Scotland paid only one-fortieth of the revenue of the United Kingdom. Now she paid one-fifth. Certainly Scotland was entitled to twenty-five additional Members, and he regretted that in introducing the Bill the Government had not given more effect to her claims. If we wanted a complete union between the two countries, why should not the Government and Parliament take care to give Scotland an adequate representation? There were twenty-two boroughs in England, with an aggregate population of 113,000, and they returned twenty-two Members, whereas Lanark, which, without Glasgow, had upwards of 200,000, had but one Member at present, and which, with Glasgow, had nearly 800,000, and would have even under this Bill only five Members. It had been said that the Scotch Members looked after the interests of Scotland, and that Scotland obtained every advantage which could arise from the sympathy of its representatives; but was that the case? Ireland contributed £6,000,000 annually to the Imperial revenue, and Scotland contributed £8,400,000. What proportion did each of the two countries receive back? Taking the Estimates of last year he found that Ireland received back no less than £1,740,000, while Scotland got back only £262,000, which sum included the miserable amount of £1,800 allowed for Holy-rood. He did not think those figures bore out the impression so commonly entertained that the Scotch Members took peculiarly good care of their own interests. When a measure was being framed which might have to last for many generations, he thought it a matter of regret that these things should not have been considered. However, bearing in mind the old maxim that "one must not look a gift horse in the mouth," he thought it would be very unwise of the Scotch Members to throw out the Bill. He did not think there was the remotest chance of obtaining the consent of the English Members to a proper increase of the numbers of the Scotch Members. Any such proposal would meet with violent opposition. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen cheered, and there was no doubt that they expressed the feeling of Members for small English boroughs on both sides of the House. The Government should have fixed the number, so as to form the basis of a real union between the two countries, and he would appeal to them whether there was not some chance of their altering it now. But he implored the

    1237
    Scotch Members on the Liberal side not to throw out the Bill if they could not get a better, because English Members would not meet their views, and they might be left without even the modicum of seven additional Members now offered.
    MR. SMOLLETTsaid, it was not his intention to allow the second reading of this Bill to go to a vote without a full discussion of this question of Scotch Reform, for he meant to criticize the subject of Reform in general, and this Bill in particular; and he might as well tell the House that his criticism should not be a laudatory one. But he would support this Bill, though he disliked it, because he felt it was an absolute necessity. He was an advocate for large and comprehensive measures of Reform and social progress; but he had not been sufficiently "educated" in the science of Reform to be enamoured with household suffrage, and, not being so enamoured with household suffrage, he had no hesitation in saying that he disliked the Bill. But, as he before observed, he looked upon this measure as a necessity; for, in point of fact, it was neither more nor less than the necessary supplement to the much larger measure which was passed for England last year. The main object of the Bill was to assimilate, as far as circumstances would permit, the right of voting in Scotland to that which was hereafter to prevail in England. South of the Tweed they were to have household suffrage in towns and boroughs modified or controlled by the personal payment of rates. In Scotland, therefore, it was proposed that they should have household suffrage also; but as near as possible, in his judgment, household suffrage pure and simple. Looking at it as they might this was a great jump downward. He should not call it a "leap in the dark," as more than enough use had been made of that unfortunate expression. But he said it was a change which the educated portion of the country did not require, and which no political exigencies of last year demanded. It was a change which would be sullenly and sulkily acquiesced in in Scotland by the £10 constituency, which had been brought into existence by the Act of 1832. And it would be sullenly and sulkily acquiesced in by them, simply because they could not help themselves. And why could they not help themselves? Because they were deserted by the Leaders of the factions that gathered on both sides of the House. He had no doubt that in that House the Scotch Bill for Reform
    1238
    would be pressed forward with a good deal of that sham zeal and mock alacrity with which the Bill of last year was passed. He used those words advisedly, because whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite might say upon the hustings whilst "starring" it through the provinces—telling their admirers that the Bill was an excellent one, that they had had a good share in the framing of it, and that its only fault was it did not go far enough—he put no faith in these professions, believing that not one in ten of these hon. Gentlemen cordially approved in this jump downwards when the measure was first introduced; and that not one in ten of them really thought that this series of Reform Bills would give them a Parliament more fitted to legislate for the United Kingdom than the present one. He was of opinion that not one in ten of them thought that the assemblage of Gentlemen in this House in 1869 would be more disposed to legislate and co-operate cordially, or to act harmoniously together for the public good than the present House of Commons. Nine years' experience of Parliamentary life satisfied him of this fact—that there was no phase of human existence in which there was so much insincerity as in politics; and insincerity and party trickery appeared to culminate when they were discussing in this House Parliamentary Reform.
    But as regarded this particular Bill of Reform, the first point he wished to look at and discuss was this, how would household suffrage—to which this country was about to be subjected—answer in Scotland? Would it act well or ill? He confessed he thought it would act very badly. To illustrate his argument he would take the two largest cities in Scotland, and see how it would act in them. In the first place, he would take Glasgow, the commercial capital of Scotland, as an example. It was the second city in importance in the British Empire. Now Glasgow, by the Act of 1832, had a £10 constituency of 14,000; but that constituency, having increased with the growth of the town, was now 20,000. A constituency of 20,000 voters was a very large one, not easily managed, and sometimes disposed to run riot. But the city of Glasgow, even with that large constituency, had for the most part contrived to be well and creditably represented in the House of Commons. How would it fare under this Bill? There would be an addition of 30,000 or 40,000 electors of a lower class than Glasgow had at present.

    1239
    Now, a constituency of 60,000—for the city was not to be divided into wards—was a monster constituency; and in his judgment this monstrous constituency would prove a gigantic nuisance. He spoke the opinion, he believed, of every man of education, intelligence, and position he had ever conversed with in Glasgow, whether Whig, Radical, or Conservative, when he said that this would be a great change for the worse. The senior Member for the city of Glasgow, whom they all knew, and whom he knew very well, for he was one of his own constituents, might possibly be returned again for that city under this Bill, because he did his best to have the measure passed through Parliament. That hon. Gentleman was one of the celebrated "Tea party" who supported the Reform Bill, and what was more to his credit he openly avowed those opinions in the House which he expressed in the Tea-room. But, without endeavouring to prophesy who would be returned, he (Mr. Smollett) would venture to say that, after the first General Election under this Reform Bill—after the people had had time to know their strength, and to combine—there was not the smallest chance that the city of Glasgow, with all its great commercial, monetary, and manufacturing interests, would be so well represented by three Gentlemen returned by a household suffrage constituency as it had been by the two Members chosen by the £10 constituency of the Act of 1832. And he would say that with the full and perfect recollection that the lower class of the £10 voters at Glasgow, had, on one occasion at least, when aided by the publicans, who were a numerous body, thrown out from the representation of that city, Mr. John Dennistoun, one of their best and ablest citizens, and elected in his place a total stranger, whose subsequent career did that city no service. But all constituencies were liable to err, and the constituency of Glasgow on the occasion referred to chose their new candidate, Mr. John Macgregor, under the belief that he was the future Chancellor of the Exchequer in England.
    He (Mr. Smollett) would now say a word about Edinburgh, the ancient capital of Scotland, and the romantic town of Sir Walter Scott. The city of Edinburgh, after the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832, had a constituency of 7,000 electors, which number was increased to 9,000 by a Bill passed in 1856, at the instance of the present Dean of Faculty, the junior Member for the city.
    1240
    He increased its constituency largely by that Act, but he did not improve it, as he very soon found to his cost. Now, the city of Edinburgh—and he said it to its credit—during the twenty-five years from the passing of the Reform Act of 1832 had returned to this House a greater number of men eminent in literature, in politics, and in station, than any other city in the British Empire. It had returned Francis Jeffrey, afterwards Lord Jeffrey, and the name of Francis Jeffrey will long be held in grateful memory by the legal and literary circles of Scotland. Edinburgh returned Mr. James Abercrombie, who sat as Speaker of the House of Commons, and was subsequently created a Peer by the title of Lord Dunfermline; plain John Campbell, afterwards Lord Campbell, was sent to the House of Commons by Edinburgh, raised to the highest legal office in England, and who died a few years ago full of years and of honours, Lord Chancellor of England; Thomas Babington Macaulay, afterwards Lord Macaulay, was more than once returned for this city; and in more modern times Edinburgh was represented by men eminent for talent and good social position. The constituency of Edinburgh by this Bill would be increased by at least 9,000 electors of a lower and less educated class than at present existed. Well, what good would that do for Edinburgh? He believed he spoke the universal voice of all men of education and intelligence in Edinburgh when he said it was their impression that upon the passage of this Bill the days when men of eminence and of station were elected as representatives of the capital of Scotland would have passed away and would never return. This city, the representation of which had hitherto been regarded as an object of ambition by the great men to whom he had referred, would in future be represented by prosperous tradesmen, by local orators in the Town Council, or possibly by men who had made their fortunes as speculators or contractors in lines of railway. These were the types of men whom, it was expected, the citizens of Edinburgh would afterwards honour by their selection. And, knowing these facts, he was not wrong in the conclusion to which he had come, which was this—that the Bill entitled a Bill to amend the Representation of Scotland, was really a Bill to degrade the representation, in so far as the great cities and towns in Scotland were concerned.
    And now about the county franchise.

    1241
    The county franchise in Scotland was to be subjected to considerable changes; but those were changes which were inevitable, and to which no one probably would object. There was to be a reduction of the occupation franchise in Scotland, as in England, from a £50 occupation to a £12 rating. This, of course, would give a very great addition to the urban element in counties. It would give no addition whatever to the rural element in Scotch counties. The reason was this. There were very few occupants of land in the Lowland counties of Scotland, which embraced all the wealth of the country under £50, and the number was becoming smaller year by year. The effect, therefore, of this reduction would be largely to increase the urban element in counties. But he did not object to that at all; because when they saw that the occupant of the meanest hovel in some of the boroughs was to receive the franchise no one would object to the occupant of a £12 house being entitled to a vote when residing in a county. Then there was to be a reduction of the property qualification in Scotland, from £10 to £5. That, of course, they must submit to. That provision would have the effect also of enormously increasing the urban element in Scotch counties; and in most of the Lowland counties in Scotland that element preponderated immensely at this time. Now, when a Bill of this nature was brought in and pressed upon them, one to enlarge the urban element in counties, justice required that in some places, at least where it could be done properly, an opportunity should be taken to eliminate some of the large towns in Scotland from the counties. That had been done largely in England, under the Bill of last year, and it had been carried out to a great extent. The way to do that in regard to Scotland was, of course, to strike out some of the small and inconsiderable towns from the existing groups, which ought never to have been retained there, and to place in lieu of them some of the larger towns that had grown into importance. If that had been done wisely, fairly, and circumspectly, this Bill would pass without a demur. But this part of the Bill had been handled by its framers in a very clumsy and inadequate manner. Instead of doing that to which he had referred, they had mixed up a lot of small and decayed towns in boroughs, and some of the larger towns they had grouped together, as in the Coatbridge group in La-
    1242
    narkshire, in an extraordinary and reprehensible manner. He thought that this portion of the Bill must be altogether remodelled; and, if not remodelled by the Ministers, he thought that when they got into Committee the House ought to take that portion of the measure into their own hands. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), a day or two ago, stated that he did not know who had the command of a majority in this House. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had a majority, or whether the Leader on his own side could lead the majority. He (Mr. Smollett) was not going to discuss that question; but in his humble judgment the advanced Liberal party in that House was, as far as regarded Reform matters, master of the situation. They had shown themselves to be in this position in the discussion of last year over and over again. If this party, then, should take the redistribution of seats into their own hands, they would, with very little trouble, make short work of the great Conservative minority in Scotland. They could easily, by a very slight manipulation, make the whole representative body in Scotland of one uniform hue, the uniform being blue and buff above, and democratic red below. He had no doubt that such would be the consequences of this Bill, for they knew the concessions which the Ministers would be willing to make, in order to have the credit of passing a measure of this sort through the present House of Commons—a House, by-the-by, which was brought together by Lord Palmerston for far different purposes. He believed that the end of all this would be that in two or three months, when the Bill emerged from the Committee, it would be in such a condition that the Conservative interest in Scotland would not be in a position to return more than one or two Members for counties to that House, and that was not a consummation for which he could thank the Ministerial front Bench.
    Having now criticized all the salient features of the Scotch Reform Bill he should only say in conclusion that he should support this Bill as an inevitable necessity. The observations he had made, if the House had listened to them, would serve to show that he was not one of those Gentlemen—simple-minded souls!—who look upon the settlement of Reform as a great Conservative triumph; but, at the same time, he begged emphatically to disclaim any sym-

    1243
    pathy with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne, or noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, who constantly represented in the discussions of last year, that the Bill for household suffrage in towns and boroughs is a Bill calculated to be dangerous to the monarchy, and likely to be subversive of the Constitution. He entertained no such fears, though he admitted it would transfer largely political power from the more wealthy and well educated of the middle classes to a much more poorer and less educated class below them. In the next and following Parliaments they would have a great many Members who were largely connected with the landed interest, they would have a large number of elderly gentlemen as at present, who had made their money in trade, manufactures, and commerce. To those, no doubt, would be added a few men belonging to the working classes—and in his opinion the fewer they were the better it would be for themselves—for he believed that if any number were returned to this House, unless they adopted one of the principles of the Charter, the payment of Members, they would soon find themselves as much out of their element in the House of Commons, as they would feel out of place if asked to dance a polka at the Court of the Queen of the Saxons. They would, no doubt, have some representatives returned by members of trades unions, and possibly paid by their funds—men of the Broadhead stamp of mind—so popular in Sheffield, and men whom it would be disagreeable to argue with, and perhaps dangerous to thwart. If household suffrage were extended to Ireland, and forty new Members added to that country, as one of her sapient Members had proposed, then in his opinion they would have a very curious lot of representatives from Ireland—men who would be likely to be tinged with Fenian sympathies. He should not be surprised to find one or two "black diamonds" sent from Scotland to represent the interests of those who earned their wages by working underground. The whole assembly would form a compound which, in his opinion, it would be exceedingly difficult to manage. The labours of the Leader of the House, already sufficiently arduous, already requiring an amount of tact, judgment, and discretion which few of them possessed would hereafter be enormously enhanced. When this Bill became the law of the land, the corrupt influence of money would
    1244
    begin to be felt in that House, The expenses of contested elections would be largely increased, and the consequence would be that men of small fortunes—men like himself, whose pockets were not lined with bank-notes—would have to give way and retire from the House. Those were some of the evils—not that his exclusion would be one—but what he had enumerated would be some of the small evils which would arise from the passing of the Bill. They were small mischiefs, and would not, he thought, overthrow the British Constitution. No doubt the sentiments which he had expressed were distasteful to a large number of Gentlemen on both sides of the House; but he believed they were largely shared by hon. Members, and particularly those who sat on the front Opposition Benches. If proof of that be needed, he had only to refer to the scene that took place in that House last July, when the English Reform Bill was read a third time. What was that scene remarkable for? It was remarkable from the fact that not one of those who had sat in the Cabinet of Lord Palmerston and Earl Russell—nor any of Her Majesty's present Advisers, with the single exception of their mouthpiece, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks—thought fit to take part in that debate. They shirked the discussion and skulked away without expressing one word of satisfaction at the final passing of the English Reform Bill—a Bill the most momentous in its consequences of any measure that had passed the House for the last century. But, though they said nothing, their expressive silence, their rueful and lugubrious looks—for he sat opposite to them—sufficiently showed, and eloquently told, what little satisfaction they felt in the final success of the measure, to amend and modify and render which acceptable to the people of England, they had been pretending to cudgel their brains, and that not ineffectually, for the three or four preceding months. If, however, they entertained any satisfaction at the passing of the Bill, they had a curious way of showing it. Whatever joy and satisfaction they felt at the passing of that measure he should feel when this Scotch Bill was declared to be the law of the land—not one atom more or one fraction less. That was his contribution to the Scotch Reform Bill.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, he took the liberty on the first reading of the Bill to point out some of its defects in regard to the

    1245
    distribution of seats and taking small towns out of counties, and he would therefore not speak upon that point now. But there were other points in the Bill which were equally objectionable, and he would confine his remarks to them. One of the most important parts of the present Bill which required amendment related to the rating for the poor and the payment of rates. When the proposal was made to abolish the payment of rates in England, he voted for it because he was satisfied that the principle of the proposal was correct. It was then argued that the payment of rates was always required in England; but in Scotland the payment of rates was not now required, and the payment of rates never was required either in boroughs or in counties. He therefore could not see why it should now he required for the first time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire told them when he introduced his plan of Reform that one of its principles was that it disfranchised no one; but if they would examine the details of this measure, he (Mr. M'Laren) thought it would appear that practically it operated to a considerable extent as a disfranchisement Bill. There were three clauses altogether in the Bill which applied to the payment of rates. If he read these clauses wrong he hoped the learned Lord Advocate would set him right; but his reading of these clauses was, that payment of rates was to apply, not merely to the new voters to be enfranchised, but also to the existing voters of £10 and upwards in boroughs, and to the existing county voters of £50 and upwards. If that were so it was clearly and palpably a disfranchising measure, and it introduced a principle which never had been adopted in Scotland. If the contrary were the case, and if it was intended that the payment of rates was only to apply to the householder under £10, he would ask the house to look at the consequences of that distinction. The rich man was not required to pay the rates in order to get on the roll, but the poor man was required to do so. Such a provision was, therefore, most objectionable, and there was no necessity for it. Payment of rates had hitherto never been insisted on in Scotland. Some time ago he moved for a Return, in order to show the stale of matters in Edinburgh. That Return had been printed, and was last week laid upon the table. If the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Smollett) had read it, he (Mr. M'Laren) thought
    1246
    his horror would have greatly increased, for he would have found that the constituency of Edinburgh, instead of being increased by 9,000 as he alleged, would be increased by nearly 18,000. Of this number 16,000 were rated under £10, and while 15,000 of these paid the rate, in 4,000 other cases, under £4 of real rent, the local authorities did not think it worth while to lay on the rate, because the expense of enforcing it would amount to more than they would recover. The payment of rates was a smaller matter among the poorer classes of Scotland than among those of England. The average rate for Scotland did not amount to more than 1s. 6d. in the pound, of which the landlord paid one-half, and for a house rented at £3 the occupier would only be called upon to pay 2s. 3d. For these reasons he thought the payment of rates should not be insisted upon, and he thought the whole Bill in that respect should be re-modelled. Then there was another class of objections which related to the joint tenants and occupiers, and to joint owners, life-renters and parties not being infeft. In many instances sham voters had been put on the roll who had no real interest in the county, in violation, perhaps not of the letter, but certainly of the spirit of the law. In England, with its large counties, if a few hundred voters were put on the roll in this way it did not signify much. But let them look at the size of some of the Scotch counties. There were three counties, the populations of which, exclusive of the Royal burghs within them, was as follows:—Peebles, 9,363; Bute (exclusive of Rothsay), 9,209; and Selkirk, 6,854. There was a party in Edinburgh, chiefly Edinburgh lawyers, who formed a sort of flying squadron, and went round the country getting themselves registered for various counties, with which they were in no way connected, on nominal qualifications, by which means they were enabled to carry an election, although they had no real interest in the county. Now, whatever might be done in the large counties of England, he thought that in the small counties in Scotland residence should be made imperative, and that no man, whether owner or occupier, should be allowed to vote unless he were resident in the county. There was a remarkable instance which occurred lately in the county of Renfrew. In that county a party of thirty-two gentlemen bought a block of buildings, for which they professed to have paid a large sum of money, but they

    1247
    borrowed it all except £26 for each of the thirty-two claimants. By paying that sum they got a conveyance to the property, giving security over it for the balance, and when the case came before the Court, on an objection that each claimant had not a clear annual interest of £10 in the property as required by the Scotch Reform Act, the Revising Barrister was obliged to admit them on the roll. Some of the gentlemen were resident in Edinburgh. One of them resided at Carlisle, and others were scattered all over the country; but very few of them belonged to the county itself. He was delighted to see that in the present Bill the Lord-Advocate had introduced a clause which would prevent those persons in future from obtaining votes. He referred to the 13th clause, which required the interest of borrowed money to be deducted from the rental before the £5 net rental was shown. Now, if the interest of the bonds were deducted in the case of the thirty-two Renfrewshire voters there would not be 20 s. of income to each from the property. He had named the population of three little counties. At the time of the Reform Bill of 1832, three burghs, which had been Royal burghs for 600 years, were taken out of their position as burghs and made part and parcel of the counties for political purposes. But the people of these burghs had no real power—he meant the occupiers of houses—inasmuch as the franchise was a £50 occupancy. He was talking some time ago to a gentleman in the neighbourhood of Peebles, who told him that, although the burgh of Peebles was included in the county of Peebles for the purpose of swelling up its nominal numbers, yet there was only one county voter in the burgh who voted in his character of occupier, and he was the keeper of the inn. Thus the only representative of the inhabitants was the innkeeper. Before going farther, he would entreat his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield)—who had made a Motion for the rejection of this Bill—not to persevere with that Motion. If he were to succeed, it would be a great calamity for Scotland, because they would have no Extended Franchise Bill this Session. If the distribution clauses were bad, as he held them to be, let them be thrown out; if any clause was bad, let them reject it; but by all means let the Bill pass to enlarge the franchise both for burghs and counties in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman might be satisfied not to press his Motion, as
    1248
    there was a Notice on the Paper which would lead to the discussion of this subject at the proper time in Committee. He (Mr. M'Laren) confessed that he would sooner be without the seven Members which the Bill gave to Scotland than take them in the manner they were now arranged, connected as they were with taking all the small towns out of the counties and adding them to burghs, without giving these burghs additional Members. He would not object to leave the number to the wisdom of the House, for there was no man in the House who did not believe that in the course of a very few years there would be a new Bill for the re-distribution of seats. The logic of the Notices now on the Paper seemed to him to be this—that if Scotland did not get Members by taking them from England, Scotland ought not to got Members at all, and to this conclusion he could never assent. It was stated on a former occasion that this Bill simply followed up the principles of the Act of 1832. This was a very great mistake. The present Bill added eleven new burghs, but only gave one new burgh Member, without including Glasgow, for all these burghs. The Act of 1832 created thirteen burghs, but it distributed them in such a way, first by creating new constituencies with now Members, and then by giving additional Members to the existing large burghs, that after the thirteen burghs were added to the number which formerly existed, the grouped burghs were only sixty-six in place of sixty-five, which they were fixed at by the Act of Union; and besides, the population of the grouped burghs was diminished by 300,000 by the Act of 1832. But the population of the grouped burghs would be largely increased under this Act. As he had said, there were thirteen burghs created by the Act of 1832—Edinburgh which formerly had one Member, got two; Glasgow got two, Aberdeen one, Dundee one, and Perth one, making six in all. The towns which were not formally burghs, which were created burghs by the Act and got Members, were Paisley, which got one, and Greenock one. This disposed of the eight new Members; but there was also a new group created which got a Member—namely, Leith, Musselburgh, and Portobello. That made practically nine, although there were only eight Members to dispose of, and to provide for this, the old groups were crushed together, so as to make one group fewer. There were thus thirteen

    1249
    old groups after the passing of the Act of 1832, instead of fourteen, which had existed up to that date since the Act of Union. These principles were all to be changed by this Bill. Glasgow was formerly grouped, as was Aberdeen, Dundee, and Perth, each of them having one-fourth of a Member, and their population at that time was about 300,000. They were taken out of their several groups in 1832. A great deal had been said about justice to Scotland as respects the number of Members, and various statements had been made as to the number Scotland ought to have. He was anxious to say a few words on that subject. He would not have said a word on the subject of Ireland if it had not been for the Notice which stood upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Rearden). His Amendment seemed designed to stop the way. He laid down three conditions, which he said should be fulfilled before Scotland was to get any Members. First, there should be equal electoral districts; secondly, there should be 740 Members altogether, and, thirdly, Ireland should have forty additional representatives. After these three things were done there would be no objection, he thought, to discussing the requirements of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman arrived at his conclusions by misstating the populations in every instance. He understated the present population of England by 2,000,000, which made a difference in his calculations of fifty Members. He understated the population of Scotland by 200,000, which would represent five Members; and he overstated the population of Ireland by 300,000, making a difference of seven Members. When such inaccurate statements were made it was hardly necessary seriously to discuss the propositions based on them. There are various Returns respecting the number of Members Scotland should have, and they are all somewhat different, being for different years. Some were framed on the population, and others on the amount of Revenue, and one of these was incorrect, because the duties on spirits paid in Scotland and no consumed there were not deducted. The Return of 1867 was accurate in that respect, and according to it Scotland should have seventy-eight Members, instead of fifty-three; and, if they took the other Return of Population, they should have sixteen. He was quite willing to reduce the claim of twenty-five additional Members for Scotland to fifteen in present cir-
    1250
    cumstances. Scotland was most certainly entitled to fifteen additional Members, and no man who wished Scotland to reap any effectual advantage from a Reform Bill could say that less than that number ought to be given to her. The only objection he had ever heard stated to the accuracy of the Revenue Returns, was as to the quantity of sugar which pays duty in Scotland, and which is sent from that country to Ireland, thus giving Scotland an apparent advantage. This is quite true; but I will take as a set-off against that correction the duty which Scotland pays upon other articles, of which England gets the benefit in the Revenue Returns. Take tea, for instance. I have a letter here from a wholesale dealer in Glasgow, who tells me that last year he paid duty in London on 533,000 lbs. weight of tea consumed in Scotland; and in Glasgow on 744,000 lbs., and that this year the quantity on which he will pay the duty in London, he says, will be very much larger. Thus, you have one man paying in London duty on more than 500,000 lbs. of tea consumed in Scotland, which duty goes into the English Revenue. Duties on dried fruit, on wines, and various other articles, including loaf sugar—of which there is none made in Scotland—are paid in England for large quantities sent for consumption in Scotland. Again, many large mercantile houses in Scotland pay their income tax, through the special commissioners in London, which goes to the credit of the English Revenue Returns, I think, on these grounds, we have a fair claim to fifteen additional Members. He had heard it stated by way of objection that Lancashire had a better claim to additional Members than Scotland; but no one who looked into the facts could seriously argue that such was the case. The population of the county part of Lancashire was 992,145, and that county had therefore one Member for every 124,000 of the population. But the four largest counties in Scot land had a population of 555,004, or only one Member to 138,750. The county of Lanark has now, including its burghs, a population estimated at nearly 800,000; but it has, or rather will have, supposing this Bill to pass, not more than six Members. Lancashire, including its boroughs, has now thirty-three Members, and its population is about three and a half times that of Lanarkshire; but if it was treated as Lanarkshire is proposed to be treated, it would have only twenty-one Members, or if Lanarkshire were as well treated as

    1251
    Lancashire now is, it should have at least nine Members, in place of six. It is therefore, as you will see, obviously unfair to select Lancashire for comparison with Scotland as a whole. The comparison should be between the largest county in each Kingdom, But will those who speak of Lancashire let me take some of the towns in it, and compare them with towns in Scotland. Liverpool, with a population of nearly 450,000, has three Members; Manchester, with a population of 357,000, has three Members, and these will compare with Glasgow. But Blackburn, with a population of 63,000, has two Members; Bolton, with a population of 70,000, has two Members; Preston, with a population of 82,000, has two Members; Wigan, with a population of 37,000, has two Members; and Lancaster, with a population of 16,000, had two Members, which it lost from being corrupt. The county and boroughs of Lancashire got eight new Members by the Reform Act of 1867. By the Reform Act of 1832 Lancashire got new Members as follows:—Ashton, with a population of 14,035, one Member; Bolton, with a population of 19,140, one Member; Rochdale, with a population of 19,041, one Member; Warrington, with a population of 18,184, one Member; and Blackburn, with a population of 27,009, two Members. And Yorkshire got the following new Members:—Halifax, with a population of 21,555, two Members; Huddersfield, with a population of 19,035, one Member; Wakefield, with a population of 15,972, one Member; Whitby, with a population of 10,339, one Member; and Kendal, with a population of 11,577, one Member. The principle then, was to give one Member to boroughs under 20,000 inhabitants, and two Members to boroughs with over 20,000 inhabitants. If the same principle were applied to Scotland, or even if we had Members in the present proportion of the towns I have enumerated, there would be a large increase in the number of the representatives of that country. Members have been given liberally to many towns in the North of England, but the liberality stops the moment you reach the Tweed or the Solway. Let me now turn to Scotland for a few minutes. During the last Session, Darlington, with a population of 16,901, and Middlesborough, with 23,356, were created boroughs. Dundee, with a population of about 100,000, had but one Member; Aberdeen, with over 80,000, had only one Member. The Leith group of three
    1252
    boroughs, with a population of nearly 50,000, was represented by only one Member. He thought that nothing could be more unjust than such an arrangement, or than the manner in which Scotland had been compared with parts of England, as some Gentlemen had done. He thought they ought to take some of the larger grouped boroughs out of their groups, as was done in 1832, and constitute them separate boroughs; such, for instance, as Kilmarnock, which had a population of about 25,000; Arbroath, with a population of 19,000; and Dumfries, with a population of 15,000. Paisley, which, including two suburbs, had a population exceeding 50,000, was clearly entitled to two Members. Greenock, with the contiguous districts of Port Glasgow, and Gourock, containing together a population of about 57,000, was entitled to two Members. He would not go further into the details of how this re-distribution of seats could be best accomplished, but would content himself for the present with saying that in his opinion it ought to be done. He thought for all these reasons that the Bill ought to be largely re-modelled, and he hoped the learned Lord Advocate, who had charge of it, would consider these matters before the Bill went into Committee, and be prepared to state what concessions the Government was disposed to make. He would say a few words about the city which he had the honour to represent. He thought Edinburgh was entitled to three Members. Leeds and Birmingham had three Members, and he believed Dublin was about to get an additional Member. The Income Tax valuation under Schedule A on which Edinburgh paid was larger, than that of Leeds, Birmingham, or Dublin. Edinburgh was £1,549,000; Leeds, £804,000; Birmingham, £1,394,000; and Dublin, £1,272,000. As to direct taxes, Edinburgh paid £90,500; Leeds, £53,100; Birmingham, £81,500; and Dublin, £54,000. The total of the Customs was £22,000,000, and the Customs of Scotland amounted to £3,058,000, while those of Ireland were only £2,086,000. The Customs of Scotland amounted to one-seventh of those of the United Kingdom, while the population of Scotland was only about one-tenth of the population of the United Kingdom. The Customs of all England, excepting London and Liverpool and Bristol, amounted to £3,433,000, being little more than those of Scotland. As to special cases, the Customs paid at Leith were £480,000; at Newcastle,

    1253
    £240,000; at Sunderland, £71,000; at Stockton, £79,000; at Hartlepool, £22,000; at North Shields, £30,000; at South Shields, £11,000; at Grimsby, £15,000; so that the Customs collected at Leith for the rich districts around, of which it was the port, exceeded the Customs of all the ports on the Eastern Coast which he had named. Again, the Customs at Dundee were £75,000; and at Aberdeen, £76,000. There could be no better test of the wealth and civilization of a neighbourhood than the amount of Customs collected at the port which supplied that neighbourhood with such taxed articles. At Greenock, including Port Glasgow, the Customs were nearly £1,000,000 a year, but he would not go into details respecting the Western ports. In conclusion, the hon. Gentleman expressed a hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield would not persevere with his Motion.
    MR. M'LAGAN: I do not agree with the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, with respect to the effect to be produced by the reduction of the county occupation franchise, on the contrary, I think that the county occupancy franchise should be reduced in Scotland as low as the burgh franchise. I cannot give my consent to the re-distribution scheme as proposed by the Government. The Government having decided that the numbers of the House may be increased it makes, I think, comparatively little difference whether the additional numbers be seven or ten; but I wish to say that the Government have given no sufficient reasons for having adopted the figure 7 as their basis of operation, except that that was the number proposed by the late Government in their measure of Reform. It was not, to say the least of it, very creditable to the Government to wear the cast-off raiments of its predecessor. The late Government had good reason for fixing the number of additional members at seven, for they proposed to disfranchise the same number of small boroughs in England, and to give the vacant seats to Scotland; and they feared to imperil their measure by a larger disfranchisement. It would have been very easy for the learned Lord to have devised a new scheme of re-distribution, as the whole system of burgh representation in Scotland requires reformation. It is, I think, absurd to have towns taken from three different counties and bound together as one burgh; for often a member for one of these groups in Scotland finds himself
    1254
    obliged to represent antagonistic interests. The learned Lord Advocate would have added considerably to his reputation if he had grappled with the subject with a single eye to the public interests, and quite, regardless of party and of the claims of the present sitting Members. But while I make these strictures on the Bill, I am not one of those who will refuse, in a churlish spirit, the offers made by the Government. I am not satisfied with the number of additional representatives offered to Scotland, nor am I satisfied with the manner in which they are offered, but my great object is to get as many Members for Scotland as possible; and, although I am adverse to any increase of the Members of this House, and would rather see them diminished than increased, and the additional Members obtained by the disfranchisement of the small boroughs in England, still that would be no consideration to the having an absolute increase of the representatives of Scotland. The question was, however, how this end was to be obtained? Two ways had been spoken of. Either by adopting the plan of the hon. Member for Montrose, which was to disfranchise some of the smaller burghs in England, or by adding to the numbers of the House. During the debate which took place upon the English Reform Bill last year, the House came to the conclusion that the re-distribution scheme, as proposed by the Government, should be taken as a settlement of the question, and I think the House will stultify themselves by attempting to disturb that settlements I cannot support any Resolution, in the present Parliament at least, which would have the effect of disturbing the arrangement so deliberately arrived at last year. With respect to the number of Members to be given, if we cannot obtain more than seven I shall accept that number as an instalment of justice, but, in Committee, I shall vote for any reasonable Amendment which may be made by the Gentlemen opposite for giving additional Members to Scotland, and for improving the scheme of re-distribution. I shall have much pleasure in voting for the second reading of the Bill.
    COLONEL SYKESpresumed the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) would withdraw his Motion. He did not think he would get a single Scotch Member to vote with him. The lowering of the franchise was quite sufficient to make the Bill acceptable to the Members for Scotland. He

    1255
    had presented two petitions the other day from Aberdeen, praying for an addition of fifteen Members to the Scotch Representation, to which Scotland was entitled on the double ground of population and contribution to the public revenue. The petitioners prayed that non-residents in counties should not be able to vote, and landowners should have no power to make faggot votes: that the re-distribution of seats was most unjust to Scotland; and the petitioners also prayed that all the clauses relating to the increase of Members, if limited to seven, and all the clauses relating to distribution, should be struck out of the Bill. The inhabitants of Aberdeen preferred trusting to the justice of a new Parliament to accepting the small additional representation now offered to Scotland; and, seeing that ten English boroughs, each with a population of less than 5,000, and with an aggregate population of half that of Aberdeen, enjoyed representation, and sent ten Members to Parliament, the people of Aberdeen held themselves entitled to a second Member.
    MR. GRAHAMsaid, he trusted that the hon. Member for Sheffield would withdraw his Amendment, as the Members for Scotland would feel it to be very injurious to their interests if it were pressed to a division. He had no opposition to offer to the second reading of the Bill, though he could not allow that opportunity to pass without expressing his strong opinion that the Bill was very inadequate as to the increased amount of representation it gave, and very unsatisfactory with respect to its re-distribution scheme. They were quite satisfied with that part of the Bill which dealt with the lowering of the franchise. They were thankful to the Government for having acknowledged the justice of their claims to extended representation to some extent. They were prepared for a fair scheme of re-distribution; but they were not satisfied, that, being on the same footing with England as regarded the franchise, they should not have their fair share in the representation of the country, and that a scheme of re-distribution not sufficient for the wants of the country, but, as it seems to them, framed for party purposes, and dictated by party bias, should be offered to them. A change was proposed with respect to giving an additional Member to Glasgow, and to make it a three-cornered constituency, subject to the provision introduced last year by Lord Cairns. With regard to the offer to Glas-
    1256
    gow of one Member only, they felt it to be wholly inadequate. They felt that two additional Members should be given to Glasgow, and that, without any interference with the municipal arrangements of the city, they should be given to Glasgow as to one constituency—or that if the constituency was to be divided, it should be divided into two separate electoral districts. With regard to the manner in which the re-distribution was proposed to be carried out, he was not about to enter into the question of three-cornered constituencies; but he thought it was utterly unjust to carry out that principle in isolated cases only. If the principle was a right one at all, it ought to be general in its application. Putting that question aside, he might say that the dissatisfaction which existed in Glasgow at the proposal, referred not so much to the principle itself as to the whole aim and spirit of the Bill, which seemed to be to place the lion's share of power in the hands of that party which—whether rightly or wrongly he could not undertake to say—was at that moment in a minority in Scotland. He hoped the Government would see the justice of giving to Scotland the increased number of representatives she was entitled to, and if the principle of the representation of minorities was insisted on in the case of Glasgow, the House would see that that representation should be given in addition to the amount of representation which was due to the large majority of the constituency. Glasgow, he contended, was entitled to three additional Members as representatives of the majority only. They had seen how much might be done to modify a proposal of this sort by what occurred last year. They had seen that sufficiently to justify them in agreeing to the second reading of the Bill. He trusted, under those circumstances, his hon. Friend would not persevere with his Amendment.
    MR. MONCREIFFsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of entering into a discussion as to the propriety of reading the Bill a second time. As regarded the addition to the Members of that House, his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had a Motion on the Paper which would deal with it. They had not the slightest wish to interfere with the second reading; on the contrary, they were anxious to have the Bill read a second time. The matter did not require further discussion; but he wished to ask his right hon. Friend

    1257
    opposite whether, the Government adhered to its original proposition of granting only seven additional Members to Scotland, or whether it would be prepared on a future occasion to enlarge that number?
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, it was not with the object of speaking upon the principles of the Bill that he rose to address the House. He had already had an opportunity of defending the principles of the Bill, and it was due to his hon. and learned Friend's inquiry that he now rose to offer a few observations upon it. And while the House would understand he was not in a position to speak with authority, or that he was sufficiently acquainted with the intentions of the Government, he might say be believed the views of his right hon. Friend the First Minister of the Crown were explicit on the point, in stating that the number of Members he proposed to add to this House, in order to give additional representation to Scotland, was not fixed upon by any arbitrary rule, or upon any abstract number; but according to the constituencies to which, in the opinion of the Government, and the judgment of Parliament, it was desirable to give separate representation. It was therefore for hon. Members to point out towns which were entitled to separate representation, and to satisfy the House and the Government of their claims. He apprehended that the Government had never taken up the position of saying that an increase of seven Members was the utmost which they would consider. He thought it was evident that if a better scheme of re-distribution than that proposed by the Government could be set before the House by any Member, no matter on what side of the House he sat, it would receive a fair and candid consideration. It had never been said that the details of the re-distribution scheme were not open to revision. He thought the right hon. Member who had last spoken (Mr. Moncreiff) and his Colleague (Mr. M'Laren) had taken a very fair view of the case, by saying it was in the next stage of the Bill most of the subjects for discussion could most fitly be considered. He apprehended that particular constituencies to which it was proposed to give additional representation, and the proposed new constituencies were peculiarly points which ought to be discussed in Committee; and that therefore it would be altogether premature to call upon the Government now to declare whether the number seven was to be increased to eight, or to nine, or to any ab-
    1258
    stract number whatever, unless it was shown what constituencies were deserving of increased or new representation. He did not think hon. Gentlemen opposite, who like himself represented Scotch constituencies, would undervalue the claims of the country, as he, for one, certainly did not. As he did on the first reading of the Bill, he would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to look upon the case in all its bearings. The senior Member for Edinburgh had referred to the argument that Lancashire, compared with Scotland, had a claim to as large a representation as the latter. His own view with respect to population and taxation was that they should be fully and equally considered and taken into account. But he was not thereby shut out from knowing the claims of every portion of the United Kingdom, whether counties or provinces. If it was urged on behalf of Scotland that it was entitled to a share in the representation of the country as a part of the United Kingdom, so much the more did the argument gain weight, which compared Scotland with Lancashire, or any other large county of England. He had heard it stated tonight that Lancashire possessed a population about equal to, if not in excess of, the whole population of Scotland; but Lancashire did not possess even thirty Members. It got but twenty-six by the Act of last Session. It was therefore well they should support their claims as representatives of Scotland, and support them by every argument; but they should temper their demands with moderation, and not run the risk of setting against them those who were equally entitled to consideration. He had been glad to find that no Scotch Member objected to the basis of the franchise which was proposed by the Bill. His hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Smollett), it was true, had thrown out some dismal predictions as to the results that might be apprehended from the proposed increase of the constituencies. But if the results which were to be expected from an augmentation of the constituencies in England had not deterred the House from largely extending the franchise last year, and settling it upon a wider basis, there was every reason to look forward with confidence to what would follow in Scotland from the proposed change. He would venture to predict that, whatever the colours under which the Scotch new Members might be elected, they would be men not less intellectual, and not less worthy of the country from which they came, than

    1259
    those honoured names to which his hon. Friend had referred. They all knew that in Scotland education was not confined to the upper or middle classes; but it was their pride and boast that, ever since the Reformation, men of all ranks had sat side by side in the same schools and colleges, and if anything was more certain than another at present, it was that education in Scotland would not fall far short of the requirements of the day. Therefore, the men that would be called upon to vote in the new constituencies would not be ignorant of the first principles of legislation; but, on the contrary, would be men who took an interest in public questions, and had made up their minds upon them. He held, then, that those who were responsible for this measure, and to whose lot it had fallen to make this great change in the Constitution of the country, had no greater cause to fear the results in Scotland than in the southern portion of the kingdom. He felt sure that on this occasion the Amendment would not be pressed. It had not been proposed by any of the representatives of Scotland, and the only speech in its favour was made in a spirit which showed that the hon. Gentleman whose support was given to it was influenced more by the manner in which his own particular constituency was affected by the re-distribution scheme than by any objections to the other portions of the measure. It would be a cause of disappointment and regret from one end of Scotland to the other if a measure of so large and generous a character should be met in any but a frank and cordial spirit.
    MR. CRUM-EWINGjoined in the appeal of the hon. Member for Edinburgh that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hadfield) would not press his Amendment. He agreed with all that had been said in approval of the extension of the franchise; for he had none of that fear by which the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire seemed to be possessed, but as for the re-distribution scheme, he thought it as bad as bad could be. However, that was a question rather for Committee than for the present stage of the Bill. He wished also to express a hope that the rating clauses would not be insisted on. They were not suited for Scotland.
    MR. REARDENsaid, if the representation of Scotland was to be increased, the claim of Ireland to an increase was much greater. On this subject he would read an extract from a speech of Mr. O'Connell on the insufficiency of the representation of Ireland. ["Order, order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I do not see the connection between the observations of the hon. Gentleman and the subject now before the House.
    MR. REARDEN: The Bill proposes to increase the number of Members for Scotland, and I wish to prove that Ireland is entitled to an increase.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must inform the hon. Member that he is not in order.
    MR. REARDENsaid, he would then speak to the main principle of the Bill. He did not think that an increase of Members should be given to Scotland at the expense of Great Britain. He should certainly oppose the Bill in all its stages, and support the Amendment.
    MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, that the Under Secretary for the Home Department (Sir James Fergusson) had, in ordinary language, let the cat out of the bag. He had acknowledged in the absence of his Chief that the Government were on this, as on other occasions, made of squeezable materials, and that the Scotch Members had only to raise their voices loud enough to get ten, fifteen, or even twenty additional Members, according to their means of pressing upon the Government. This precisely confirmed what he had all along expected. The First Lord of the Treasury last year was very mysterious on this subject, and at last he took refuge in the dispensations of Providence, and appeared to expect that seats would be sent down to them from the superior regions. His objection to the Bill was that it implied more than it expressed. He contended that the Bill ought to contain a clause directly stating the intention of the Government to increase the number of Members in the House of Commons. As it was, it could not be expected that they would resist the same kind of pressure that would be brought to bear upon them from other quarters. They had already been reminded that Ireland would put in its claim for increased representation; and the Irish had a peculiar manner of pressing their claims. The Scotch Members were comparatively orderly and well conducted—they were not revolutionary. They met quietly in the Tea-room and arranged their little matters among themselves; but the Irish Members approached the Minister in a much more termagant and hostile manner; and, on the eve of a division, they intimated that their votes would depend on what the Minister would do for Ireland. The idea of increasing the Members in the House was

    1261
    singularly inopportune at the present time, when a Committee was sitting to consider how the House could be enlarged, as it would not accommodate the existing number of Members. The fairer course would be to let the country know the exact nature of the proposition. It was one which was not avowed in the Bill; but it appeared to be a part of those admirable tactics, and of that extreme strategy of which they had heard so much, but was totally opposed to that honest and independent spirit in which a country like this ought to be governed.
    MR. LAINGsaid, he did not wish to detain the House, but as a discussion of an extraordinary character had occurred, he thought it was right that the House should know something of the real state of feeling in Scotland regarding the Bill. He had had some opportunity of forming an opinion, and the result seemed to come to this: there were certain parties in Scotland entirely opposed to the Bill. In the first place there were the regular old party Whigs, who opposed the measure, because they thought it would embarrass the Government to throw out the measure, which was the principal of the present Session; and that if Scotland were left with this grievance unredressed, they would get the Scotch vote with them in the ensuing General Election. There were also the extreme Radicals, with whom Radical interest was national feeling, and who wished to keep the question open. They had certain Motions for reopening the great question of re-distribution of seats on an early occasion, not with reference to Scotland only, but to the United Kingdom. But, so far as he could learn among the really moderate independent Liberals of Scotland, there was a great disposition to accept the present Bill, provided the claims of Scotland to additional representation were recognized. They were not asking for twenty-five or thirty Members, to which they were entitled according to the statistical Returns; but they felt that compromises had always to be made in those cases, and thought about ten Members would be a fair number. He thought an addition of ten being conceded, the re-distribution being provided in a satisfactory manner, and security being given in the Bill against the creation of fictitious votes in counties, that, according to communications that had reached him, the great majority of the moderate independent Liberals in Scotland would readily support the Bill on
    1262
    those conditions. He sincerely hoped that, in the time that must elapse before the Bill got into Committee, Her Majesty's Government would see their way to meet the very reasonable demands to which he had adverted. He thought it would be a misfortune both for Scotland and generally for the country, that an opportunity should be lost of settling the question in the present Session on a satisfactory footing. He was unwilling, as a Scotchman, to fall to the ground between two stools, and not get even an instalment for Scotland of additional representation. He did not wish that a Scotch grievance, like the Irish grievance, should be left open merely for party purposes, and he entirely deprecated such a result as that shadowed forth by the hon. Member for Dumbarton. The most desirable course was that the Government should consider well what were the fair claims of Scotland in that matter, and between now and going into Committee, should be prepared to come forward with some plan to meet those claims, so that the great majority of the moderate independent Liberals could support the measure with a feeling of gratitude towards Her Majesty's Ministers for having met them in a liberal spirit.
    MR. ELLICEsaid, he did not intend to embarrass the discussion by addressing the House; but after the speech which his hon. Friend the Member for Wick had just made, he should not be doing justice to himself, or to a large acquaintance among all classes of society in Scotland, if he did not state that his experience was diametrically opposed to that of the hon. Member for Wick. He did not mean to say that Scotland was indifferent to the passing of that measure. On the contrary, he thought Scotland hailed any measure that promised a good and legitimate settlement of the question. On the other hand, he could state that Scotland would not be bribed by any such consideration as that referred to by the hon. Member for Wick to accept the provisions the Bill contained. There were in it evils—evils that they could not take at any price. He, for one, wanted to see the question of Reform settled. He thought it was very mischievous that the question should be left open for discussion year after year. He was not one of those who wished to keep the question open for discussion in the new Parliament—he wanted to see it settled now. But if it came to be a question, whether they were to accept the re-distribution of seats as

    1263
    proposed in the Bill, and the franchise settled upon a rating of the country which would land them in no end of confusion, he, for one, would pair off the additional Members with those clauses and take his chance for proper arrangements in these respects with the new Parliament. That he believed, so far as his experience went, to be the prevalent feeling in Scotland. On the other hand, he must say that what he heard from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government last year, and from his speeches made when the Bill was introduced, he was not without hopes that the right hon. Gentleman would approach the discussion of these matters in Committee in a spirit of fairness and conciliation. He had no right to suppose that he would do otherwise. He had heard no sound from him that indicated his determination to push the Bill through as it stood; and he therefore on the present occasion merely protested against the statement that Scotland was prepared to take the Bill as it was. He hoped that, when the proper time came for discussion on the measure, the right hon. Gentleman would meet their demand in a spirit of fairness and conciliation, and would consider those clauses with regard to distribution in a way that would remove all suspicion of their being proposed with a view to promote any particular party interest. As regarded the other questions of how additional Members were to be found, whether by adding to that House or taking from small seats in England, he might have his individual opinion hat small seats would be far better abolished; but, as a Scotch Member, he thought that was a question for the House itself to settle. He should take willingly and thankfully what the House would give in the shape of additional Members, provided he did not pay a price which he thought unjust.
    MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he had no intention of taking part in the debate; but having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Wick he could only say that he had heard his hon. Friend with the greatest surprise. Where those communications to which he referred came from he was at a loss to imagine; and he entirely concurred with his hon. Friend who had just sat down that they did not express the feelings of a very large proportion of the people of Scotland.
    Mr. CRAUFURDsaid, he must also protest against the statement made by his hon. Friend the Member for Wick. He
    1264
    received the other day a copy of the Dundee Advertiser, and in it he observed two things—one an extract from a letter of his hon. Friend, and the other a strong article supporting the view of his hon. Friend. That was the only instance they had had of the expression of an opinion in Scotland in his support. His hon. Friend having committed himself by his advice to his constituents endeavoured to keep that up by an article in a paper which, for the first time in its history, travelled out of the true Radical line of insisting on justice to Scotland. He thought the House would not be inclined to give much weight to that, but would listen to the opinions of those who would be on a division unanimous in claiming their rights in the way that they ought to have them; and if they could not get them in that way, would absolutely refuse to have them.
    MR. HADFIELDsaid, he should not on that occasion press his Amendment, but would reserve to himself the right at some future stage to object to adding to the number of Members of the House.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: The measure does not at its present stage require that I should say much in reference to it; but one or two points have been mooted in the course of the discussion, upon which I wish to make a few observations, in order to prevent any misapprehension being entertained with regard to this Bill. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) said, that the Bill contained clauses affecting the payment of rates which were not introduced in the Bill of 1832. The change in this respect, however, has not been proposed without good reason. My hon. Friend will recollect that in 1832 poor rates were levied in but few parishes in Scotland; and, in fact, there was then no general or uniform system of rating for the relief of the poor. At present, however, in about 700 out of 800 parishes of Scotland poor rates are levied as in England, with this exception that the half of them are paid by the tenants and the other half by the proprietors. It has been said that the Bill of 1832 provided that the occupiers should pay the taxes due in respect of the premises; but that this condition was removed by a subsequent statute. The right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Moncreiff) made a mistake in this respect. The Act to which he referred on a former occasion is the 19 & 20 Vict., c. 58, and it is entitled "An Act to Amend the Law for the Registrations of Persons entitled to Vote in the

    1265
    Election of Members to serve in Parliament for Burghs in Scotland." By the 33rd section of that Act it is enacted—
    "That all Provisions of the first recited Act as to any Payments thereby required to be made in Burghs by any Persons claiming to be registered or to vote, or objecting to the Claims of Persons claiming to be registered or to vote for any Burgh are hereby repealed."
    It was a clause to remove the burden of the payments of fees from those who wished to be registered, or desired to offer objections to others being registered. A clause for the purpose of altering the qualification would have been out of place, inasmuch as the Act had reference solely to registration.
    MR. MONCREIFF: The clause with reference to the payment of assessed taxes was in 1832, and that I said was practically in abeyance, because it was never observed.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: I was going to refer to that. I was not resting it upon my own construction of the clause of 19 & 20 Vict.; but I have referred to the gentlemen who are in charge of the registration of voters in Edinburgh and Glasgow; and they say that the condition is still observed, and they require that the parties pay their taxes, so that the rule is this—all those above £10 pay the assessed taxes. And now comes the question, when we are establishing a new franchise, whether those below £10 should pay their rates? Is there anything unreasonable that those who are to exercise the franchise as occupiers under £10 should pay those poor rates which are due, such rate only amounting to half of the whole rate as paid in England. The question does not in any way affect the occupiers above £10, because the principle of the Bill is, I think, under section 40—that what is done by the Bill is in addition to, and not in substitution for, any previous franchises, these last being left on the old footing. Those Members especially who express some alarm about the increase of the representation ought to have no objection to the payment of rates being made a condition of the right of voting. So much, then, with respect to the payment of rates. Then comes the question of distribution, which is purely a question for the Committee; and that being so, I shall not now go into it at any great length. But I may say that the principle of the Bill is an extension of the franchise and increase in the number of Members representing Scotland, It is most difficult to deal with
    1266
    such a question as this, because Scotchmen naturally feel desirous that the claims of Scotland should be recognized to a greater extent than they are by this Bill. But when I am dealing with this question I must take into consideration the fact that those prejudices which as a Scotchman I must share in will clash with the prejudices of both English and Irish Members. These hon. Gentlemen must excuse me for using the term, because I, as a Scotchman, have prejudices in favour of our country, and I have no doubt that Englishmen and Irishmen feel the same. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) by a comparison of the revenue and population of Scotland with the revenue and population of other parts of the kingdom, arrives at the conclusion that Scotland is entitled to an addition of twenty-five Members. But how are they to be obtained? By taking thirteen from England and twelve from Ireland? Propositions for taking away Members from England have certainly been placed on the Paper; but I have not seen any proposition for taking away Members from Ireland, although the principle applies equally to both countries. The House will therefore, I think, see the difficulty which anyone dealing with this question has to encounter. If it should be said that there are some small boroughs in England that might be sacrificed, is it to be forgotten that there are small boroughs in Ireland also, although disfranchisement of these has not been proposed? What is the reason of this? It is that my compatriots feel that there is much difficulty in dealing with this question. But then we are asked, why we have selected seven as the number of additional Members to be given by the Bill. In 1852 we had no proposition at all made for the increase of Scotch Members. In 1854 and in 1859 no Scotch Bill was introduced, and in 1860 it was proposed to make an addition of two Members. In 1866 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) said that he had, after very mature consideration, and after well weighing the circumstances of the case, adopted this number; so that I do not see how the present Ministry have fairly exposed themselves to the severe observations which have been made during the course of this debate. Indeed, our proposition was originally made in 1867, or just one year after the proposition of the right hon. Member for South Lancashire. Now, with reference to the principle of distribution. There are

    1267
    many principles which may be adopted; and hon. Members, advocating their own local interests, see that which is immediately before them, and forget to look beyond these—they forget that there are other interests to be consulted. Accordingly, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) who always stands up for the rights of that ancient city, now asserts its claim to an additional Member. But by the Census of 1861 the population of Aberdeen was 75,000, and it is not proposed to give an additional Member to Aberdeen county, which has a population of 140,000 or 150,000. [Colonel SYKES: I did not say so.] But it is said that we are taking so many towns out of the counties. I am exceedingly anxious that this matter should be attended to and investigated. I knew well that we could not make any proposition in this House, where the Scotch Members on this side of the House bear the proportion of one to five or six, unless the proposition would bear the test of argument. Well, now, I ask the House to keep this fact in view. What was done in 1832—the classic times of Reform—when we, at all events in Scotland, were taught the rudiments of this question? There was an addition then made of eleven boroughs, all of which possessed populations as low as 6,000, some of them possessing very little more than 2,000 inhabitants. That was the precedent before us in framing this Bill. Was there, therefore, anything improper in selecting those towns which had increased since 1832, and which are likely to increase in subsequent years? We are now adjusting a scheme which, it is to be hoped, will last a considerable time? One of these towns in Lanarkshire possesses 22,000 inhabitants, and yet it has been called a village. It has been said, too, that our proposals have been made with a view to party ends. If the proposals were made solely for party purposes, such a course would undoubtedly be wrong; but do not, because they apparently tend to affect in some way the interests to which you are attached, at once reject the scheme. We are, to a moderate extent, following the precedent of 1832, and I humbly venture to think that the more our proposal is considered, the more readily will its equitable character be acknowledged; although it may tend in some way, as all changes undoubtedly must, to affect one or other of the great parties in the State. I do not
    1268
    know that I need advert to anything further, except to express my regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton-shire (Mr. Smollett)—who, if he has not inherited the acres of his literary ancestor, lays claim to no inconsiderable share of his wit, and who, like Diogenes, has been unsuccessful in his search for some one in whom he can repose confidence—should have taken so gloomy and unhappy a view of this Bill. He alluded to the ten-pounders of Glasgow as having done ill in rejecting Mr. Dennistoun, and selecting some one whom he regarded with less favour. It seems, therefore, that the older voters occasionally make mistakes; and in support of this view he might also have alluded to the rejection of Mr. Macaulay by his former constituency of Edinburgh. I venture, however, to say that I have great confidence in the loyalty and good feeling of the working classes, and I do not think that any danger need be apprehended from the power which will accrue to them under the present Bill. I do not believe that trades unions will exercise that power and influence which some Members appear to dread; and I believe that the atrocities which have occurred in isolated instances, are repudiated by the majority, not only of the working classes, but of those who are members of trades unions; bodies which in themselves are perfectly legitimate as long as they are disconnected from those atrocities which, unfortunately, have in some instances been committed. I will not, at this stage of the Bill, detain the House with any further remarks.
    MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he was unwilling that the debate should close without his having entered his protest against the assumption of the hon. Member for Wick to represent the opinion of the Radicals. They did not acknowledge the hon. Member as one of them; and he (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) dared say that if the hon. Member would express his own opinions they would be entirely different from theirs. He (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) believed that Her Majesty's Government were on the wrong tack. He recognized no difference between England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the treatment of this question, and thought that one Bill should have been introduced for the three Kingdoms. Ministers had made that great mistake, which they never would recover, of rejecting his Motion of last year for the disfranchising of small boroughs. He believed that the first act of the Re-

    1269
    formed Parliament would be to revoke that vote, and to do justice not only to Scotland and England, but to Ireland also. These rotten boroughs, which represented nobody and held no opinions, were a foul disgrace to the country. He had some doubt as to whether they should increase the representation of Scotland, but rather thought that the whole representation of the United Kingdom should be massed into one body, taking from the rotten boroughs whatever new seats were required without reference to locality, and giving them to the larger boroughs which were unrepresented. We ought to be, we were, a United Kingdom, but the effect of this Bill would be to create dissension. At all events he did not think they should strengthen Scotch representation at the expense of England alone, but should abolish rotten boroughs even in Ireland with their eighty-eight voters. He repeated, that what Ministers ought to have done was to have brought in the Reform Bill for the United Kingdom, abolishing the small boroughs in all parts of it without distinction, and giving representatives to places which were entitled to them by their population, their wealth, and their intelligence.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question, put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday, 23rd March.

    SEA FISHERIES BILL.
    (Mr. Stephen Cave, Mr. Edward Egerton, Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

    [BILL 42.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the Bill was for the purpose of carrying into effect a Convention between England and France in reference to the fisheries in the seas adjoining the two countries; and it appeared to him that the international Commission upon whose recommendation the Convention was founded had done good service. In its main provisions the Convention would be beneficial to the fishermen both of England and France, and in all respects it was a great improvement upon the existing state of things. At the present time by the law of England no fish might be imported into the United Kingdom in a foreign fishing vessel, but only in a merchant vessel, as ordinary mer-
    1270
    chandize, and in a vessel which had cleared out from some foreign port. Although by our tariff fish was free from duty, yet the prohibition to the foreign fisherman to enter a British port in his own boat for the purpose of landing and selling his fish was almost as effective a prevention of free trade as if there were a prohibitory duty. But there was an exception to this rule. Four kinds of fish—namely, anchovies, eels, turbots, and lobsters—might be imported in a foreign fishing vessel. If foreign fishing vessels were to be admitted by law to bring these more expensive kinds of fish into the ports of the United Kingdom, he could not see why they should not be allowed also freely to import the lower descriptions of fish, which constituted a description of food very much in demand amongst the population of the country. In fact, this was a question of the supply of food. Under the Convention which had been recently concluded, it was proposed by Article 31 that the fishing boats of each country should be enabled to sell their fish in certain designated ports of the other country; but unfortunately there was another article, to the effect that that arrangement was to be suspended until the two contracting parties should have come to a further understanding on the subject. They were, therefore, exactly where they were before. He was at a loss to know why any further understanding was necessary. It was obvious, so far as the commerce of this country was concerned, that it was desirable and in conformity with our commercial policy that we should permit the fishing boats of foreign countries to enter our ports for the purpose of landing and selling their fish. The right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill (Mr. Stephen Cave) had, as he understood, said something the other night about a Customs duty on fish imported into France, and about waiting before they granted the permission to French fishing boats to enter our ports until the French Government had completely repealed their Customs duty upon foreign fish. But the consumers of this country had nothing to do with the French Customs duties. What they wanted was the largest possible supply and the freest competition, in full confidence that that was the truest principle for the interests of this country. He was prepared to admit that if the French Government were disposed to repeal or reduce their Customs duty upon fish imported into France, that would be a very advantageous

    1271
    thing for the French consumers, and that it would be beneficial to English fishermen; but it was a mistake to suppose that even the present duty, high as it was, was prohibitory altogether of a trade being carried on between our fishermen and French consumers. A year or two since the French Government, by way of experiment, opened their ports freely to our fishermen, and large numbers took advantage of the privilege. The fish we imported were shell fish, and principally oysters, but there was a duty upon them, and in spite of the duty the English fishermen carried on a very profitable trade, till the French Government, finding that we did not reciprocate, closed their ports again, and now there was a mutual expulsion of fishing-boats. It was wholly unworthy of the two nations to be treating each other's fishermen as if they were infected with a plague. It frequently happened that from the state of the weather a French boat with a full cargo of fresh fish could much more easily reach an English than a French port, and it would be monstrous in the present day to see a large quantity of valuable food actually destroyed because, according to the law of England, it could not be sold here. The main provisions of the treaty had been arranged upon most beneficial terms to both countries, and he was at a loss to understand why the operation of the valuable Article to which he alluded should be deferred. He also thought that our Customs authorities had not been very generous in the number of ports into which it was proposed that foreign fishermen should be allowed to bring their fish, seeing that the French Government had proposed to open nearly all their ports. He was aware that the difficulties were great with reference to the protection of the Customs revenue; but France had also a most elaborate system of Customs duties to defend. It was far from his wish to offer any opposition to the Bill; his object was rather to press upon the Government the expediency of immediately carrying into effect the provisions of the treaty.
    MR. STEPHEN CAVEthanked the right hon. Gentleman for his general support of the measure. The postponement of the admission of French fishing boats into this country for the present was very fully considered by the Commissioners. He did not deny that, strictly speaking, as a question of Free Trade it was of no consequence to us what duties France imposed in her own country, and that we ought not
    1272
    on that account, if we wanted their fish, to hesitate to admit them duty free, and to give them every facility. It was a matter of no consequence to English consumers whether the duty on fish in French ports was heavy or light, whether there was any duty or none; and if the Commissioners had only had the interest of that class to consider when they entered into these negotiations, they would, no doubt, have been quite ready to have admitted immediately French fishing boats to sell their fish at all times and places. But they had also to consider the interests of the fishermen themselves, who, when they went to a French port to sell their fish, which they would consider they were allowed to do in return for Frenchmen being admitted to our ports, would have found themselves saddled with a very considerable duty, from which the French were exempt. It was quite true that when the French admitted English boats with oysters to enter their ports—simply because they were very much in want of oysters—our fishermen competed with the French fishermen, but at that time, as he believed, the oysters brought in by English boats were not subject to any higher duty than those brought in by French boats. Whether that was so or not, the duty was levied in a different way, and it was so much less in proportion to price than the duty upon common fish, that our fishermen did not feel the unfair competition they might otherwise have done. What was pressed upon the Commission was that our fishermen, on going into French ports with common fish, which French fishermen took in free, would find the duty press so heavily that they would have to sell at an unremunerative price or even to wait for a market until the French fish was sold. The English fishermen were not such enlightened politicians as the right hon. Gentleman, and they might not be able to understand that they ought to submit to this unfortunate disadvantage, in order to carry out the principles of Free Trade, and it was feared that when the French fishermen came here, a feeling of hostility might arise against them, and that the police regulations prescribed in the Act might have to be put into operation to prevent a breach of the peace. The French Commissioners also intimated that if they could come to an arrangement under which the carrying these provisions into effect was made to depend upon an agreement between the two countries, with respect to duties, it would have a very beneficial effect upon

    1273
    their fishermen in inducing them to acquiesce in the reduction or abolition of these duties. They found that the French Commissioners were extremely anxious to do away with the duty altogether, but they were afraid of the feelings of their maritime population. It was perfectly well known that when, by stress of weather, French fishermen were driven into ports, they were allowed to sell a portion of their fish for food and for their immediate maintenance. [Mr. MILNER GIBSON: What becomes of the rest?] As a matter of fact, they sold it. [Mr. MILNER GIBSON: Then the law is not enforced.] Of course not: it was difficult to draw the line. No one could be more ready than himself to admit the absurdity of preventing fishermen from going into that port into which the wind took them. He was as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman opposite to see this additional Article entirely inoperative, and he hoped, in a short time, that they would see their way, either by the concession which the French might make to them, or by waiving the question of duty on the part of this country, to a flourishing trade on both sides of the Channel. He quite agreed that as compared with the French list, our list of open ports was comparatively small; but our Customs authorities had told them that looking to the safety of the revenue, only such ports could be opened as had sufficient Customs authorities to protect the revenue; otherwise the French fishermen would come with a certain amount offish, but a good deal more of tobacco and brandy. True, the French too had an elaborate system of Customs duties, but they had also an elaborate system of surveillance, and they could therefore with safety open more ports than we could. He did not, however, see why the Customs authorities should not, after a little while, give them an additional list of ports. The list might be considered provisional, for the 31st Article of the Convention contained these words, "Without prejudice to the opening by either country of any additional ports." What he had said, would, he thought, answer the petition presented by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Waldegrave-Leslie). The reason why Hastings was left out, was that Hastings had been deprived of a Custom House, and of course it would not be deemed desirable to admit French fish into ports that were not looked after by Customs authorities. There was no reason whatever for excluding Hastings or any other port, beyond the obvious mo-
    1274
    tive of desiring to protect the revenue. Ultimately, he had no doubt, it would be added to the list.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, the Commission of which he had been a member endeavoured to induce the French Commissioners to waive altogether the very heavy duty on English fish. The French Commissioners, however, were not prepared for such a step, although they expressed themselves favourable to a reduction of the duty from 10f. the 100 kilogrammes to 5f.
    MR. STEPHEN CAVEintimated that the reduction had actually been made.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, the reduced duty might appear very moderate; but, as affecting a low class of fish, it really became very heavy. Unless a boat could sell its entire cargo, it would be useless to enter a French port; and it was only with a first-class cargo that it would pay, under present circumstances, to run into a French port. Under pretence of stress of weather, however, French fishing boats even now find their way into our harbours, and there sell their fish, and he did not see why our fishermen should not have the power, in return, of going into French ports. For these reasons he felt inclined to advise his right hon. Friend opposite to allow the Convention to come into immediate operation. In course of time it was to be hoped that the influence of Free-trade doctrines would induce the French to abolish the duty which they now levied; but upon this point he did not feel sanguine as to immediate changes, for Free-trade doctrines seemed hardly to possess the same weight at present in France as they did a few years ago. He hardly anticipated any great results from the procedure laid down by the Convention with regard to the punishment of offences. All regulations as to the size of nets and modes of fishing were done away with, and the new Convention had reference solely to police regulations. In the case of a conflict taking place between French and English boats off the English coast, what was proposed was that an English man-of-war should have the power of bringing the French boat into an English port, where the depositions would be taken and sent on to the Consul of the port to which the French fishing vessel belonged. There the owner of the French boat might be summoned before the magistrates of his own country, and if the offence were proved, might be dealt with in manner provided. But such a circuitous proceeding was certain in the end to come to nothing. Under

    1275
    the old Convention he did not believe that any punishments had ever been inflicted for offences committed at sea, and he supposed the result would be similar in the present case. Until the two countries could trust each other's tribunals to administer justice impartially between the litigants, nothing effectual would ever be done. This point the Commissioners had not authority from the Board of Trade openly to discuss; but some private conversation took place with the French Commissioners, and it was found that they were quite indisposed at present to entertain the matter. The reason they assigned for their unwillingness was, that they could not for a moment believe that the French magistrates would do justice to English fishermen in their ports, and therefore they could not suppose that an English magistrate would do justice to French fishermen. As long as people had so little confidence in each other's administration of justice, he feared there was little chance that international police regulations would work smoothly.
    MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEcalled attention to the wording of the Convention, and said, there were only thirty-five places in England where, in accordance with its terms, fish could be landed, as against 180 in France. Folkestone was not a fishing but a steamboat station, and between there and Newhaven, which was partly a fishing and partly a steamboat port, there was not a single place in the entire distance of sixty-five miles where the provisions of the Act would be of the slightest benefit in the way of bringing in French vessels. Last year, in a fit of economy, the Custom House at Hastings was done away with, and thereby the benefits of this Convention would be lost to Hastings, although it had a larger fishing trade than Dover, New-haven, and Shoreham put together, every one of which places was named in the Convention. In south-west winds it was impossible for French fishing boats to get back to France, and he wanted to know what difficulties there would be in the way of allowing the fish to be landed. The people of Hastings approved of the principle of the Bill, but, not without reason, hoped that their port would be included in it. It was thought rather hard that merely because the Custom House had been abolished, Hastings should be left out of the Bill. There was a large Coast Guard station, comprising some thirty or forty men, employed within five miles of Hastings, and he could bear testimony to the vigilance
    1276
    exercised by these men over all boats that approached the shore. According to the right hon. Gentleman's view, smuggling might be carried on with impunity at Hastings, if foreign fishing boats were allowed to land their cargoes. But he could only say, from what he knew of the Coast Guard there, grant them the powers which were formerly delegated to Custom House officers, and then let anybody smuggle if he could.
    CAPTAIN MACKINNONsaid, the locality which he represented lay very near Dungeness, where, as some hon. Members possibly had noticed, there was a very uncomfortable meeting of the tidal waves. For a distance of nearly sixty miles on this part of the coast, no port was named in the Convention; whereas Rye lay in the most advantageous position, and if chosen for that purpose would form an admirable landing point.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Confirmation of Convention.)
    MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEasked, whether the Vice-President of the Board of Trade would include Hastings within the provisions of the Bill?
    MR. STEPHEN CAVErepeated the assurance he had already given, that there would be no hesitation about including the port of Hastings, as soon as measures could be taken to insure that tobacco and brandy would not be landed from the boats instead of fish.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 7 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 27 (Application.)
    MR. BLAKEsaid, that, without wishing to obstruct the passing of the Bill, he thought the portion of it referring to the oyster fisheries ought not to be proceeded with to-night. Some of the Irish Members were of opinion that the Irish oyster fisheries would be injuriously affected by the Bill if it passed in its present shape. A Return had been ordered which would afford additional information on the point, and a case had been submitted to counsel on which no opinion had as yet been given. He therefore suggested that the part of the Bill relating to the oyster fisheries should be postponed for a few days.
    MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he was afraid that he could not accede to the wish

    1277
    of the hon. Gentleman, as it was necessary that the measure should be proceeded with without delay. He could assure the hon. Member that Ireland was expressly excepted from that part of the Convention and the present Bill which dealt with oyster fisheries. He proposed that the Committee on the Bill should be taken on Thursday next, and in the meantime he should be glad to receive any suggestion respecting the manner in which Ireland might be more completely excepted from the operation of the measure than it was as the Bill now stood.
    MR. BLAKEexpressed a hope that the Committee would be postponed two or three days beyond the period named by the right hon. Gentleman, in order that communications might be made to those persons in Ireland who were greatly interested in this matter. He was afraid that if the Bill passed in its present form the French would go and fish out of season at the oyster banks off the Irish coasts, and he thought those oyster banks should be protected the same as if they were in the English Channel.
    MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that if the hon. Member would compare the two Conventions he would find that the Commissioners had diminished the protection to the English Channel. They would have done away with it altogether, if the French had consented. They were sent to Paris to abrogate existing restrictions, not to impose new ones.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that the Irish Channel and the fisheries to which the hon. Member had referred, would remain precisely in the same condition as before the Convention and the Bill. For himself, he wished the close time to be done away with altogether, but the French Commissioners would not agree to this proposal. There was, however, no probability of the French going to fish upon the Irish coast.
    MR. BLAKEsaid, that the French fishermen went to Jersey, and were getting very near the Irish coast. He wished to protect the banks in question from the Irish fishermen themselves.
    Clause postponed.
    Remaining Clauses agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  METROPOLIS SUBWAYS BILL.
  (Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Tite, Colonel Hogg.)

  [BILL 41.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Ayrton.)
  MR. PAULLexplained that the Bill was a reprint of the measure that was before the Committee last Session. The provisions being in accordance with the Amendments made by the Committee, he was not, as a Member of the Committee, in a position to move its rejection, but he knew it was not acceptable to those whose interests it affected—namely, the gas and water companies. Therefore, if the Bill was now allowed to be read the second time without objection, that should be done without prejudice to the claim of the companies to have it sent before a Select Committee, if that course were deemed necessary, for the protection of their interests. The metropolitan water and gas companies opposed the measure on the ground that they were already in posssession of powers which enabled them to lay their pipes in the public ways without cost. They also felt a sense of security in having the pipes underground, because, if an escape of gas took place, it would be lost in the ground, and an explosion could not occur. They therefore said they should not be asked to occupy subways in which explosions might occur, and to pay rent for accommodation they did not wish for. The Committee felt there was a great force in that argument, but Parliament gave power to the Board of Works to construct a subway three-quarters of a mile in the new street in Southwark. It was proposed to give protection to the companies, and to allow a fair experiment to be made; and a condition was introduced into the Bill that the companies should not be called upon for rent, or to pay for the transfer of their pipes from the ground which they occupied. If new pipes were to be laid down, it was to be a subject for arbitration, what proportions the companies and Board of Works should pay. The Committee sought to introduce such provisions as would ensure adequate ventilation and supervision. The subway in the new street in Southwark was the model subway, but he understood it had been flooded more than once during the late winter. The gratings in the street had to be taken up before the deposit left

  1279
  was cleared out, evidently showing that it was not so easy a matter as represented to keep these subways clear from water and mud. He had passed over the gratings, and found that the spaces between them were entirely filled up with mud, through which he could poke holes with his stick, and from the spaces being so filled up it was clear that ventilation could not be secured. He had visited the subway in Paris, ten or twelve feet from the base to the crown, and ten or twelve feet wide. Its area was seven times as great as that of the model subway in the new street in Southwark. It was lighted by moderator lamps, and the only pipes in the subway were water pipes and some telegraph pipes; but in spite of all the precautions, and though the masonry was of the best description, there was an accumulation of gas, which exploded when a workman was painting a water pipe, and the man was seriously injured. The House ought, therefore, to pause before throwing on the companies the responsibility which would attach to them if they were forced to make use of subways over which they could have no control.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, as he understood his hon. Friend did not intend to oppose the second reading of the Bill, he saw no advantage in re-opening the question, which was discussed before the Select Committee. The whole Committee differed from his hon. Friend, and decided that in the interests of the public these subways were very desirable. His hon. Friend had made the discovery that in the French subways an explosion of gas took place in consequence of want of ventilation. In the London subways, however, precautions would be taken to prevent any explosion.
  MR. R. W. DUFF, as a Member of the Subways Committee, expressed his opinion that the improvement proposed was an extremely desirable one. Experiments had been made which showed that an explosion was almost impossible; and no argument upon this matter could be drawn from the French subways, which were ventilated upon an entirely different principle to our own.
  COLONEL HOGG, though a member of the Board of Works, had never heard of any report as to the flooding of the new subway, and therefore he supposed that the affair must have been an unimportant one. He agreed that there was no analogy to be drawn from the French subways as bearing upon our own. Our subways
  1280
  were thoroughly well ventilated, and were thus secure against explosion.
  MR. REMINGTON MILLSthought that the companies should be guaranteed against loss if they were forced against their will to lay their pipes in these subways.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday, 22nd April.

RAILWAYS AND JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR WILLIAM HUTT, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the better regulation and supervision by the Board of Trade of the accounts of Railway and other Joint Stock Companies, explained that it was the same measure as was introduced and read a second time last Session.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that he should of course offer no opposition, but he thought it well to inform his right hon. Friend that clauses had been introduced into the Railway Regulation Bill of the Board of Trade, which he would perhaps think, when he saw them, went as far as was practicable in the direction contemplated by his measure.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill for the better regulation and the supervision by the Board of Trade of the Accounts of Railway and other Joint Stock Companies, ordered to be brought in by Sir WILLIAM HUTT and Mr. ELLICE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 53.]

OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERIES BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the purpose of confirming certain Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Act, 1866," relating to the Rivers Blackwater (Essex) and Hamble, said, as these were the first Orders made under that Act, it might, perhaps, be proper that he should shortly explain the principles which had guided them in granting these Orders and declining to grant others. The Act was passed, as the House knew, in consequence of the increasing scarcity of oysters, with a view to the encouragement of private enter-prize in the formation of oyster beds. The administration of the rights of the Crown

  1281
  in the foreshore having been transferred from the Office of Woods to the Board of Trade, they were enabled to grant leases of sea bed to companies or individuals for this purpose, for not more than sixty years. When an application was made they required, in the first place, accurate and precise information as to the area of the proposed fishery, the existing condition of the ground, the capital proposed to be expended upon it, and other particulars of a similar character. Should a primâ facie case be established, a draft Order was transmitted to the Board of Trade by the promoters, which was to be made as public as possible in the locality, by advertisement and in other ways, for the space of a month, during which time objections were received. At the conclusion of the month a local inquiry was held, by means of an Inspector, and on his report the Order was either granted or refused. He would enumerate the classes of concessions which seemed to the Board to fall within the scope and intention of the Act. They were—first, appropriations of moderate areas of unproductive sea bed or foreshore for the establishment of new fisheries. By "unproductive" was not, of course, meant unfavourable for the breeding or fattening of oysters, but ground which required stocking, and perhaps some artificial improvement. With respect to these there could be no doubt. No one was injured by the appropriation, and whoever made oysters grow where none grew before was entitled to the fruit of his labours. Secondly, the appropriation of small areas of productive ground in the vicinity of public beds. In this case there was more difficulty, because the rights of the public must be respected, although it would probably be conducive to the increased supply of oysters that the whole public bed should have the advantage of greater care and better management. They, however, considered that they were only justified in giving exclusive rights over such small portions of ground, that the public rights might not be curtailed in any appreciable degree. The third case they should entertain would be an application from an owner of an existing fishery for more complete powers under the Act to protect himself from depredation. It was clear, therefore, that it would not be fair to appropriate large areas of public productive ground, upon which bodies of fishermen gained their livelihood, though it might be an advantage to give those fishermen a quasi property in the grounds they had been in
  1282
  the habit of working, in order that they might clean the beds, and protect themselves from wasteful methods of fishing. Nor would it be right to give any person or company more ground than they could profitably cultivate, as this would be checking that competition they desired to promote. Nor could they delegate their authority to others, and allow companies to appropriate ground for the purpose of subletting or granting licences to others to work it. One or other of the objections he had stated proved fatal to many applications. The two cases in which Orders had been granted appeared to be free from such defects. Others were still under consideration, and which he hoped might be granted. The charge for obtaining these Orders, as far as the Board of Trade was concerned, was very moderate, consisting of a little more than the travelling expenses of the Inspector, hire of a room for the inquiry, and such like. A deposit of £50 was required to meet these charges, and in the two cases in which Orders had been granted a considerable portion of this would be returned. Where there was much opposition, and solicitors and counsel employed, other expenses, and probably heavy ones, were incurred; but with this they had nothing to do, and over it they had no control. With these few words of explanation he asked leave to introduce the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to confirm certain Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Act, 1866," relating to the Rivers Blackwater (Essex) and Hamble, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STEPHEN CAVE and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 54].

LAND WRITS REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE THE LORD ADVOCATE moved for leave to introduce a Bill to improve the system of Registration of Writs relating to Heritable Property in Scotland. He said: I shall, in moving for leave to introduce this Bill, detain the House for a very short time. There is an admirable system of registration of deeds in Scotland, which is supported by fees, and not out of the public funds. The local registers draw the full fees, and are not responsible for any surplus. In the general registry the fees are devoted to payment of the salaries of officers, and a considerable surplus each year accrues to Government. Now, it is

  1283
  proposed that these local registers shall be abolished, compensation being given to holders of offices, and that there shall be one system of registration, which would tend to facilitate the searching for incumbrances, by making it necessary to search only in one register instead of two; and it will conduce to economy, because when the registration is concentrated in Edinburgh, the fees of the local registers will be saved, and, by concentration of management, the Government will be able to reduce the fees to be paid by proprietors who wish their deeds registered. This reduction of fees will be on a graduated scale, having reference to the value of property to which the deeds relate. The Bill was founded to some extent upon the recommendation of the Commission appointed in 1861 by the right hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) then a Secretary of State. The Commission reported favourably of the proposed amalgamation of the registers, and a Bill was brought in in 1866 to give effect to the recommendation. That Bill was sent to a Select Committee, who approved of it, with certain modifications; but the Bill was not passed then, as it was near the end of the Session. In the last Session the Bill was reintroduced; but owing to the House being otherwise so much occupied, it was not carried. Therefore, I now move for leave to re-introduce the measure, and shall only mention that it contains a provision by which the printed abridgement of the registers for 1781 to the present time will be transmitted, not only to the different districts where the local registers were formerly kept, but also to each county; and law agents will be able to make searches for themselves, if they trust to these, instead of going to the General Registry in Edinburgh.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to improve the system of Registration of Writs relating to Heritable Property in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY, and Mr. WALPOLE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 56.]

TITLES TO LAND CONSOLIDATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE THE LORD ADVOCATE moved for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate the Statutes relating to the constitution and completion of Titles to Heritable Property
  1284
  in Scotland; and to make certain changes in the Law of Scotland relating to Heritable Rights. The hon. Gentleman said, several statutes were passed, beginning in 1845, when Lord Colonsay was Lord Advocate, for the purpose of simplifying the forms of titles to heritable property. Those statutes were founded upon the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners made in 1838. The statutes of 1845 were followed by statutes brought into the House by Lord Rutherford, when Lord Advocate; and there was a subsequent statute introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Moncreiff). There were thus several progressive steps taken in the course of simplifying the law. The statutes are eleven in number, and it cost law agents much trouble to consult them, as they were the results of progressive legislation. One of the principal objects of the present Bill is to consolidate in one statute all the provisions contained in these statutes. There are also some changes proposed to be made in reference to the law of heritable rights in Scotland. In the first place, it is proposed that testamentary deeds shall no longer require the use of technical terms; it being at present necessary, in the disposal of real property, to use the word "dispone," although millions of personal property may be conveyed without the use of the word. We want to enable the Courts to interpret the meaning of the testators, without the necessity of technical terms being used. It is also proposed to make monies lent on heritable security no longer heritable or real, but personal property, as in the case of money lent on mortgage in England. There is also a provision to abolish right of what is called "heirship moveables." The last provision to which I would refer is that in which perhaps the hon. Member for Westminister (Mr. Stuart Mill) will feel some interest—I mean that which will enable females to subscribe as witnesses to the subscription of deeds, which is now a somewhat doubtful question according to the law of Scotland.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to consolidate the Statutes relating to the constitution and completion of Titles to Heritable Property in Scotland; and to make certain changes in the Law of Scotland relating to Heritable Rights, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY, and Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 57.]

ECCLESIASTICAL BUILDINGS AND GLEBES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I now rise, Sir, to ask leave to introduce a Bill to amend the procedure in regard to Ecclesiastical Buildings and Glebes in Scotland. I have been requested to bring in a measure on this subject by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It has reference to ecclesiastical buildings and glebes in Scotland and I may explain shortly that at present the clergymen of a district called a Presbytery, are the authorities who determine judicially, at least in the first instance, with respect to ecclesiastical buildings and glebes. They hold the somewhat inconsistent position of being to a great extent at the same time litigants and judges. Their decision is subject to the review of the Court of Session, and they are brought to the Court of Session as parties or litigants after having acted as judges, and they are often subjected to considerable loss. Now, this has been found a very inconvenient system, by the proprietors affected by the decision of the Presbytery, and also by the Presbyters themselves. I believe it is a very general feeling on the part of the Church that this is a very inconvenient system, and I have been asked to bring in a Bill on the subject. By the Bill which I now ask leave to introduce I propose that in case a dispute arises between a Presbytery and the proprietors, instead of having the Presbytery as judges, the case should go to the Sheriff of the county, who shall give judgment in the case. This will result in preventing any irritation between the clergymen and the proprietors, and at the same time afford a cheap and expeditious mode of settling any dispute.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the procedure in regard to Ecclesiastical Buildings and Glebes in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY, and Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 58.]

  INDIAN RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
  On Motion of Sir STAFFORD NORIHCOTE, Bill to enable certain guaranteed Indian Railway Companies to raise Money on Debenture Stock, ordered to be brought in by Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 55.]
  House adjourned at half after Eleven o'clock.