Commons Sitting of 11 May 1869

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Witnesses (House of Commons), appointed; Game Laws (Scotland), debate adjourned.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [May 10] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Diplomatic Salaries, &c.
Ordered—Insolvent Debtors' Court*.
Ordered—First Reading—County Financial Boards [110]; Poor Relief (Ireland) Act (1862) Amendment* [117]; Diplomatic Salaries, &c. * [118].
Second Reading—O'Sullivan's Disability [108], put off; Customs and Inland Revenue Duties (95].
Referred to Select Committee—Local Government Supplemental * [90].
Committee—Report—Beerhouses, &c.* [22–116].
Report—Endowed Schools* [3–115].
Third Reading—Recorders' Deputies * [107], and passed.
Withdrawn—Admiralty Jurisdiction (County (Courts)" [2].
The House met at Two of the clock.

ARMY—HOUSEHOLD CAVALRY.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL FORESTERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, What arrangement is contemplated for the purchase of the four Cornetcies of each Regiment of the Household Cavalry on the twelve Cornetcies of those Corps being absorbed?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the Reserve Fund would, when it was in a slate to do so, be called on to provide the means: and he might take the opportunity of stating that, by a new arrangement of the Estimate, it was intended to bring that Fund more directly tinder the control of the House.

  REMOVAL OF MAYORS.—QUESTION.
  MR. EASTWICKsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has any intention of bringing in a Bill to enable the Courts of Judicature to deal with Mayors who may be guilty of conduct that shall bring the administration of the Law into disrepute, or for facilitating the removal of Mayors, who may misconduct themselves, from office?
  MR. BRUCE: Sir, as at present advised, it is not the intention of the Government to propose any such Bill. It

  573
  is obvious that the question is one which, requires some consideration, and that legislation upon it ought not to be attempted under the influence of passing events.

ARMY—BRANDING DESERTERS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD GARLIESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War. If he will lay upon the Table of the House, the Correspondence between the War Office and the Horse Guards, which resulted in the Circular (now before the House) of the Horse Guards of 24th April, in reference to marking Deserters with the letter D; and. if any Officer confirming the sentences of Courts Martial has approved or confirmed any illegal sentence in regard to marking, Deserters?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the Correspondence has not yet been brought to a close, and I am not prepared to say that I shall lay it before the House. The House is already aware that a Circular has been issued from the Horse Guards prohibiting the marking a second time. But I am not prepared to declare that any officer continuing the sentence of a court martial has been guilty of an illegal practice.

IRELAND—STATIONERY OFFICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If it-is true that the Government Stationery Office in Merrion Street, Dublin, is about to be abolished?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, in reply, that he could only state that no proposal for abolishing the Stationery Office in Dublin had been submitted for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

IRELAND—MEETING IN CORK.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL FORDEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If the report be true of a meeting having taken place in the City of Cork, at which banners and colours were displayed; and whether the opinion of the Irish Law Officers has been taken, or is intended to be taken, by the Government, as to how far this was a breach of the Party Processions Act?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: No report, Sir, of the occurrence in question has yet reached me. But upon seeing the Question of the hon. and gallant Member I immediately called for a Report, and I expect to receive it in a day or two.

FIRE INSURANCE POLICIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is intended by the Government Bill that those persons only who have renewed or effected Fire Insurance Policies since the announcement of the Budget for periods extending beyond Midsummer, at which time the Fire Duty is to cease, will be entitled to the rebate or drawback for the excess of Duty so paid?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, this Question depends on the 12th section of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act. That section provides for the case of persons who may effect any insurances against fire after the 12th of April, but is silent as to all persons making assurances before that date. They therefore would not be entitled to rebate.

QUEENSLAND—ALLEGED SLAVERY IN.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN SIMEONsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement that the demand for labour in Queensland has induced the Colonial Legislature to pass an Act which has led to the procuring from the South Sea Islands kidnapped slaves for the use of the Queensland planters; and whether, he is aware that a public meeting has been held at Sydney for the purpose of protesting against atrocities alleged to have been perpetrated under the aforesaid Colonial Legislation?
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he could assure the hon. Gentleman it was perfectly erroneous to state that the Act referred to was passed by the Legislature of Queensland for the purpose of procuring slaves from the South Sea Islands. Immigration from the Polynesian Islands had been going on for some time, but a statement having reached the

  575
  Colonial Office that abuses had grown up, the Duke of Buckingham, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, sent a despatch to the Governor of Queensland, directing him immediately to have an Act introduced for the purpose of controlling that immigration. The principal points of that Act were defined to he that none but well-found ships should be employed; the prohibition of recruiting, except under non-transferable license from the Government; the approval of contracts of labour by the Colonial Immigration Agent; the immigrants when arrived were to be supervised by the local magistracy; and no contract was to be made for more than five years and the immigrants were required, under stringent conditions, to be sent back to their own country after the expiration of five years. But while that despatch was on its way, the Legislature of Queensland had themselves taken the matter in hand, and passed an Act to the same effect, but even more stringent, and that Act was now in operation. It was one not in any way calculated to facilitate evil practices, but on the contrary to diminish them. Her Majesty's present Government, however, upon seeing an account of the meeting at Sydney referred to by his hon. Friend, issued the most stringent directions to the Governor to take care that the Home Government was not misled, and that full information respecting the immigration into Queensland was sent home to this country. Serious attention was called to the matter in order that Her Majesty's Government might be in a position to vindicate the character of the colony, or to take such steps as might he necessary to put a stop to the immigration if need be.

O'SULLIVAN'S DISABILITY BILL.
(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Chichester Fortescue.)
O'SULLIVAN'S DISABILITY BILL.

  [BILL 108.] SECOND READING.
  Orders for Second Heading, and for Counsel and Witnesses to attend, read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)said, he had to inform the House that, acting under its Orders, he had taken care that evidence should be forthcoming in support of the Preamble of this Bill, and that witnesses were now in waiting in the House; and he had also, acting on the
  576
  Order of the House, appointed counsel to be heard at the Bar. They were the Solicitor General for Ireland, Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, and Mr. Edward Barry. He had now to move that counsel be called in.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Counsel be now called in."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, it was his intention to move a direct negative to the Motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but, perhaps, it might simplify matters very much if the House would permit him to read a letter which he had received that day, and which he was authorized to read to the House. That letter was written by the gentleman against whom the Bill was proposed, and it was in these terms—
  "London, May 11, 1869.
  "My dear Mr. Maguire,
  "Taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of the moment, and the grave interests of Ireland involved in the great measure now before Parliament, I have resolved to place my resignation of the mayorality of the City of Cork in your hands and those of The O'Donoghue; and I do so by this letter.
  "In accepting that office, my entire wish and desire was to act for the public good, and to protect, to the best of my power, the humbler classes of the community from what I could not help regarding as an arbitrary administration and violation of the law.
  "But, having regard to my personal honour and consistency, I declare, in the most solemn and emphatic manner, that the language attributed to me did not in any way express or represent my real meaning; and, further, I solemnly declare that I would myself be the first person to rush to the protection of human life if I knew it to be endangered. I may also state that I look to the regeneration of my country through constitutional and remedial measures such as that now passing through the House of Commons, and my belief that the battle of my country is to be fought on the floor of that House.
  "My only object in thus retiring is to put an end to a serious difficulty which in no way affects myself or my social position; for even if the Bill of Pains and Penalties pass into law, it can be no injury to me in the estimation of those whom I respect, and whose opinions I value. I do this solely for what I consider the interests of my country.
  "Yours faithfully,
  DANIEL O'SULLIVAN."
  He only hoped that, after reading that letter, he might be allowed to carry out his intention of moving a negative to the Order, and of explaining, if necessary, the reason why he did so.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, that perhaps he might be allowed to state that

  577
  Mr. O'Sullivan had authorized him to say that he intended to write by that evening's post to the Town Clerk in Cork, placing his resignation in the hands of the Town Council; and he would also add that, from his own knowledge of Mr. O'Sullivan's character, anything he said he would do might be relied upon.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Having listened to the letter which has been read by my hon. Friend the Member for Cork—of the contents and purport of which I was previously unaware—a fact which I mention only in case that in any minute particular I should have failed to gather its sense aright,—having listened also to the statement of the hon. Member who last addressed us, I think that, without reference to any particular terms or expressions in that letter, my duty is to state that, as I understand the matter—and, of course, I invite correction from either of the hon. Members in case I am inaccurate—Mr. O'Sullivan, the Mayor of Cork, has absolutely, although not technically, resigned. That I understand to be the case. [Mr. MAGUIRE and The O'DONOGHUE: Hear, hear!] As far as regards certain matters of form connected with his resignation, these, as I clearly gather, are still in the future. But we have a distinct guarantee in the character of my two hon. Friends that the resignation will be carried into effect, and I am bound to say that had we received a clear and authentic intimation to that effect from Mr. O'Sullivan himself, even unsupported by those unquestionable guarantees, we could not have regarded it with the slightest distrust. The situation in which the matter at present stands is this—We have now Before us the unconditional resignation of the Mayor of Cork and as regards everything except the fulfilment of certain formalities. I think I should be speaking the truth if I were to say that Mr. O'Sullivan is Mayor of Cork no longer. Sir, if that be so—if I am correct in that assumption—I have to state that in the view of Her Majesty's Government it would not be desirable to prosecute the measure which we have introduced into the House—and which we are prepared to vindicate and, if necessary, to carry forward—against a gentleman who, by his own voluntary and unsolicited act, has divested himself of the office he held. I am perfectly aware that the letter which has been read by
  578
  the hon. Member contains no pledge on the part of Mr. O'Sullivan with reference to any future contingencies. The terms of that letter and the engagements contracted by it would, if I understand it aright, be actually fulfilled by the act of resignation, and anything that might subsequently happen in the City of Cork would be a matter lying entirely outside that engagement. As what we have had in view has been the vindication of the authority of the law and of order, and not the mere punishment of an individual or the desire to bring the power of Parliament into conflict with the fortunes and character of an individual, on the one hand, as I have said, the Government do not think it right under the circumstances to carry forward this Bill against Mr. O'Sullivan; but, on the other hand, it would be necessary for them to keep within their own discretion the power of asking the House to proceed with the Bill, were it needful, against the future Mayor of Cork. The question arising upon the vacancy made by the resignation of Mr. O'Sullivan must, I apprehend, be decided within a very short time; but as to when that time may be neither myself nor my right hon. and learned Friend near me (the Attorney General for Ireland) have been exactly informed. Tinder these circumstances, as undoubtedly the re-election of Mr. O'Sullivan would place us, in the opinion of the Government, in precisely the same position in which we now stand. I think that the most becoming course, injustice to Mr. O'Sullivan, injustice to the dignity of this House, and as regards the duty of the Government, is that I should move that all further proceedings upon this Bill should be postponed for such a time as, according to the best estimate I can form, will probably be sufficient to dispose of the matter of the reelection. My hon. Friend the Member for Cork will observe that I make no complaint whatever of the engagement entered into, on the ground that it docs not contemplate any future contingency. I do not think that is a matter on which I am bound to give any opinion, far less to express any blame, beyond this—that my hon. Friend will, I hope, distinctly understand the object the Government have in view. I do not know, Sir, whether I ought to move that the debate be adjourned, or that the proceedings be adjourned; but, perhaps, you will

  579
  kindly inform me what the form of the Motion should be; but my intention is to move that the proceedings should be adjourned for four weeks from this day, within which period, as far as I can obtain information, the matter of the reelection will be settled; and I do this with the full hope that this day four weeks we may find ourselves in a condition to drop the Bill and these proceedings altogether—proceedings most painful, I can assure the House, to Her Majesty's Government; most painful to my right hon. and learned Friend near me as the chief Law Officer of the Crown in Ireland; most painful I believe, to Gentlemen on both sides of this House; but proceedings from which we could not shrink without violating the highest of all our duties—namely, the duty to maintain the peace and order of the country, the authority of the law, and the purity and efficacy of the administration of justice. Sir, I beg to move that the Motion be now withdrawn.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: It will be in the recollection of the House that when this subject arose, before I ventured to point out that the proceedings which were contemplated by the Government against the Mayor of Cork, in the event of his contumacy, were, objected to on the ground of this being exceptional legislation, absolutely personal, and also ex-post facto, I then urged upon the House that the proper remedy lies in an alteration of the general law. I did not utter that opinion lightly, and I hope the House will forgive me for having ventured such a suggestion when I state to them that, in 1861, this question arose in this House, when the Municipal Corporations Act was under discussion. I divided the House on that subject. Previous to 1861 the law of England was not assimilated to the law of Ireland with respect to the position of mayors; but in that year the Government brought in a Bill, and, contrary to a recent decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, and contrary to the express declaration of Lord John Russell in introducing the original Corporations Act, they passed a clause in this House giving the mayor precedence as a magistrate, and a right to the chairmanship of the bench of magistrates, thereby constituting him, not only a magistrate by Act of Parliament, which the original Act constituted him, but also constituting him chairman
  580
  of the magistrates by Act of Parliament, having precedence and to become the organ of the municipal bench of magistrates, in every borough where there was not a stipendiary magistrate or a Recorder, and whenever that functionary might be absent. I directed the attentention of the House at that time to this very great innovation on the principle of the original Municipal Corporations Act. The Government were, however, pleased to think that I was actuated by local feelings which had arisen in the case of the borough of Birmingham. Although I had then recently joined with the Members for Birmingham in carrying the Corporations Act for that very town, the House put me in a minority, although I took two divisions on this point. The Bill went to the House of Lords, where the matter was taken up by my noble Friend (Lord Chelmsford), supported by Lord Wensleydale, and that clause to which I objected in this House was, after full consideration, carried by a majority of 1 vote. Now, it is in this very particular that the difficulty has arisen with respect to the Mayor of Cork. Had he stood in the same position as other justices of the peace, he might have been displaced by the Lord Chancellor; but, being a magistrate and chairman of the bench appointed under an Act of Parliament, this House is placed in the position of attempting an exceptional Act in the case of an individual, the Mayor of the City of Cork. I do not wish to detain the House by citing the various authorities which I submitted to the House in 1861. Suffice it that they had the approval of a majority of the Law Lords in the other House of Parliament, although the clause in the English Act passed by a majority of 1. I would urge on the attention of the Government that, after this grave case has arisen, if they introduce any future Bill on the subject, they should reconsider the decision to which the House came in 1861, because I am most fully convinced, after examining the division lists, that if it had not been at the end of July, that objectionable provision, which was contrary to the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, and contrary to the principle of the original Act, would never had stood on the statute book. It is based upon an evil precedent in the law of Ireland.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN: I do not quite understand the course proposed; to be taken by my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government. The Bill introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland is one not only to remove Mr. O'Sullivan from the office of Mayor of Cork, but to render him ineligible to fill the office of magistrate now or at any future time. I wish to know whether my right hon. Friend intends to rest satisfied with the assurance of the Mayor of Cork that he will not stand for a reelection to that office at the next election of mayor, or whether he will take an assurance which will prevent Mr. O'Sullivan from filling the office of magistrate at any future time as provided in the Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My statement was meant to convey to the House that our proceeding was intended to be one wholly against the Mayor of Cork, and against Mr. O'Sullivan as Mayor of Cork. I ought, perhaps, to have stated—though I think it was implied—that Mr. O'Sullivan, bonâ fide, ceasing to be Mayor of Cork, and on his failure to be re-elected or his declining to be re-elected to that office, in our judgment the contingency would arise when it Mould be wise to drop altogether everything in this penal proceeding. The Mayor of Cork having placed himself in the position of a private citizen, we should forbear to ask the House to pass a measure, brought in as a proceeding against him not in his private capacity, but as a representative of public authority, and an administrator of justice in the City of Cork.
  MR. LIDDELLwished for a moment to direct the attention of the House to a general question which had arisen out of the discussion. Circumstances not unfrequently added great weight to argument, and he wished to ask whether the time had not arrived when a careful and calm inquiry should be instituted into the circumstances under which the House abandoned the privilege of taking evidence upon oath? He wanted to know what the circumstances were, and whether—taught by the experience of the last few days—["Order, Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I beg to inform the hon. Member that this is a subject that cannot properly be debated now.
  MR. BOUVERIE: Perhaps the House will allow me to say that I think the Government have taken a most prudent and proper course. They brought forward a measure of an extreme nature, in its character almost unexampled in the annals of Parliament—for I believe the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) was right in saying that there has been no instance, even in the worst times of Parliamentary oppression, of a Bill of this kind being introduced for the use of mere words—they brought forward this measure, no doubt with extreme reluctance, but as being the only mode with which they could cope—considering the condition of things in Ireland—with a very great evil. They brought forward this measure on their responsibility; but I am afraid, if it had been prosecuted further, we should have embarked on a most difficult course, beset with troubles and shoals and quick-sands of every kind. It seems to me that the course now taken by the Mayor of Cork, though it has been somewhat late, is that which his sense of public duty has dictated to him, and through that action we probably shall escape from those difficulties. I think, therefore, that the course of adjourning the further proceedings on this Bill is a proper one, and trust that we shall hoar no more of it. I have no idea, as I apprehend he has none, that Mr. O'Sullivan will ever again be elected mayor. [Mr. MAGUIRE: Hear, hear!] We shall now escape placing a precedent upon our Journals, which in difficult and troublous times, might have a most evil influence.
  MR. CANDLISHasked the Law Officers of the Crown, whether the law was the same in Ireland as in England, under which the mayor of any borough, after ceasing to be mayor, remained a magistrate for twelve months after-wards?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN): In Ireland that is not so.
  MR. MURPHYsaid, until his hon. Colleague read the letter which he had placed before the House he was totally unaware of the course, which the Mayor of Cork had taken; but he must say that from his personal knowledge of him—and he appreciated the motives of public duty which had actuated him in placing his resignation in the hands of the hon. Gentleman—he must express

  583
  his opinion that he was actuated by sincere motives, and that what he had done he believed had been for the public good. He congratulated the House on the result which had been arrived at.
  MR. O'REILLY: I am sure the House joins with me in the feeling of satisfaction that it is unnecessary to prosecute this Bill any further, although I believe both sides would have supported it if the Government had found it necessary to carry it forward. The difficulty in which the matter has been placed has arisen from this—that there is no method known to the Constitution by which the mayors of any towns can be removed from office. It was felt by many that it would be more desirable to make a change in the general law than to legislate specialty against the Mayor of Cork. It was also felt that it would be tampering1 with the independence of our great towns to make the law more stringent; and that it was not desirable to give the Government more authority over the local magistrates of a borough than they now possessed, in consequence of the error of one of them. There are two ways of dealing with the administrators of the law known to our Constitution. One is, in the case of ordinary magistrates, to give the Lord Chancellor power to remove them, and the other is, in the case of our Judges, who are irremoveable by the Executive Government, to remove them from office, when necessary, by an Address to the Crown from the two Houses of Parliament. If it should be thought desirable, as I believe it is, not to interfere with the self-government and independence of our municipalities, I would suggest whether, in any general measure introduced upon this subject, it would not be better to provide that municipal officers, when found unworthy to be entrusted with the administration of justice, should be removeable upon an Address from Parliament, and not by the action of the Government. They are popularly-elected magistrates, and I think the task of removing them might be safely entrusted to their representatives in Parliament.
  MR. MAGUIRE: I wish to say a few words in reply to a question which has been put by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. I have to state that I am sure that this is a bonâ fide resignation, and that Mr. O'Sullivan has no intention whatever of
  584
  presenting himself again to solicit the office of mayor; and I do not believe there is any intention on the part of the municipal body in Cork to place him in that position.
  MR. DOWNING: I believe the House need have no apprehension whatever that Mr. O'Sullivan will ever again be elected Major of Cork after the course he has taken this day.
  MR. HADFIELD: We have now demonstrated that there is a power quite sufficient to put down anything opposed to Her Majesty the Queen, and which represents vast interests which now lie dormant, but could at any time be awakened to mighty efforts. But, powerful as we are, and representing, as we do, the force of the people of England, yet there is a power stronger than Parliament—and that power is not merely justice, but mercy, which is a far greater power than even justice in this country. This is a time of transition, thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, who has awakened a power in the public mind which cannot be driven back again. That power is one that will best be sustained during the transition period through which we are passing, and while a certain amount of excitement is natural, by our showing ourselves forbearing, patient and merciful, it will make this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland omnipotent.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN) moved that the Order for the attendance of Counsel and Witnesses be discharged.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Order for attendance of Counsel and Witnesses this day discharged.
  MR. GLADSTONE MR. GLADSTONE moved that the Bill be read a second time on that day four weeks.
  SIR PERCY BURRELL: Who is going to pay the expenses that have already been incurred in this case?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has the means of paying.
  SIR PERCY BURRELL: I think that is very hard on the country.
  Motion agreed to.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 8th June.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE DUTIES BILL— [BILL 95.]
(Mr. Dodson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Ayrton.)
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE DUTIES BILL— [BILL 95.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he thought it would be quite impossible for the House, in its; state at that moment, to discuss the measure. But he hoped that if the Motion; for the second reading were then adopted, the Government would put down the Bill for Committee on some day after the Whitsuntide Recess, when its details could be fully considered.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that it was material for public convenience that there should be as little delay as possible in the progress of the measure, and it was proposed to take the Committee on Thursday fortnight, when it would be taken as the first Order of the Day. It would, however, be convenient that the altered Resolutions which stood upon Paper should be proceeded with that evening.
  Bill read a second time.
  MR. HUNTasked what it was proposed to do with the amended Resolutions?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, those Resolutions would be reported on Thursday next.
  Bill committed for Thursday 27th May.

  PARLIAMENT—THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
  MR. DENTasked, on what night this week it was intended to adjourn for the Recess, and on what day it was intended that the House should re-assemble?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the day on which the House would adjourn depended partly upon the time which the Report on the Irish Church Bill would occupy. It was impossible to form an opinion on that subject with any certainty, but as matters stood at present he thought it probable that the discussion on the Report might be concluded on Thursday—possibly even at an early hour. In that case it was the intention of the Government to move that the House should then adjourn to that day fortnight.

  REAL PROPERTY.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. W. FOWLER: The Resolution with which I shall close my remarks is as follows:—
  "That, in the opinion of the House, the Law as to the Duty on the succession to Real Estate, and as to the exemption of Real Estate from Probate Duty, is anomalous and unequal, and demands the early and serious attention of the Government with a view to its amendment."
  I must, in the first place, Sir, say a few words as to the history of this subject, that I may make my meaning clear. It is, no doubt, well known to many hon. Members that in early times, when land was held by feudal tenure, it could not be disposed of by will. It passed from father to son without the aid of any court, save it might be the King's Court of Wards or the Court of a Manor. But in those days things "personal," or chattels, were of small account, and in very early times they could be bequeathed by will. Wills were known to the Romans, and to the Saxons, and to the Normans; and in days when none but the clergy could write it was very natural that they should have much to do with the making of wills and the administration of men's estates. But, of course, cases often occurred where men died intestate, and it was very early understood that in such a case a man's goods were divided by the Church, pro salute anima of the dead man. Thence it followed that if a man made a will, the jurisdiction of the Church was ousted, and so it became the custom that the fact of the existence of a will should be "proved," and hence the name "probate." How the spiritual courts obtained their jurisdiction—whether by mere custom, or by the authority of the Crown—is not very clear, and is not material to my present purpose. When once this jurisdiction was established, it was natural that these courts should charge fees for the work done by them, and these fees soon became burdensome. Thus in the reign of Edward III. we find in the recital of a statute that "grievous and outrageous fines" had been imposed by the "Ministers of Holy Church," in respect of the probate of wills. These were pared down by statute on several occasions, and finally, in the reign of William and Mary, a stamp was imposed on the probate. This was varied, as to amounts and as to the maximum on

  587
  which, duty was payable, in 1779 and subsequently, and in 1859 the present Prime Minister abolished the maximum, and made properties of all sizes pay duty. The House will thus see that land was exempt from this duty merely because it did not conic within the power of the courts spiritual. A will of land required no proof, it being merely a conveyance by statute, and it requires no "probate" now. I must refer to one other ancient distinction which affects my whole subject. I allude to that between "freehold" and "leasehold." "Freehold" meant land held by free service, but it got at last the meaning of an estate in land of inheritance or for life, these being considered of more importance and more dignified; but an estate for years, however long, was regarded as a chattel, and so was part of a man's personal estate, though forming part of the land, just as much as an estate for life, or in fee. Being part of the land, leasehold estate paid all rates as land, but, being personal estate, it paid probate and legacy duty. Let me now refer to the history of the legacy duty apart from the probate duty. Legacy duty took its rise with the Romans, who made a. man's estate pay 5 per cent duty. In our country there has, in feudal times, an "inquisitio post-mortem," and very heavy charges were payable to the King, or other Lord, by the heir. But legacy duty was first imposed by the law of England in 1780 by a stamp charged on receipts given for legacies. This Act was repealed by the famous Act of 1796, brought in by Mr. Pitt. He wished to tax real estate and personal estate alike; but, knowing there was a doubt as to getting Parliament to tax the former, be brought in two Bills, and passed the Bill as to personal estate, but was compelled to abandon the other, after it had been read a third time, by the casting vote of the Speaker. I will read to the House Lord Russell's account of this transaction—
  "Mr. Fox objected to the tax, but he objected also to the tax on personal property in the first instance in the very strongest manner. His principle of opposition to both was the same, and it was based on the principle that he desired to give no additional means for carrying on the war. Mr. Pitt was intent upon increasing the means of carrying on that war. Mr. Fox, opposed to that war, was equally intent upon depriving him of those means. But Mr. Fox, who had entirely failed in opposing the tax upon personal property, was successful when he joined in the opposition to
  588
  the tax on real property. And let me ask what was the cause of that success? It was that Mr. Pitt bad failed in the earlier period of his life in. carrying that reform of Parliament of which he had been the advocate. And I have no doubt that if the commercial and manufacturing interests had been duly represented in this House in 1795, that he would have carried the two taxes together."—[3 Hansard, cxxviii. 110.]
  So the law remained until the year 1853, when the present Prime Minister passed the Act imposing a duty on successions, both to real and personal estate. Under this Act settled property paid duty which it did not pay previously, and leaseholds no longer paid as ordinary personal estate, but as land. Under this Act a distinction is made between land and personalty. A person coming into land pays only on the value of his life interest, even though he takes the fee in the land; but the law as to personalty is unchanged, and a person taking it pays on the whole value. Now, Sir, in speaking of this Act, I wish to acknowledge the courage of the Prime Minister in proposing and carrying such a measure in the House which then existed. He did the best he could at the time. Sir James Graham said it was the greatest legislative feat which had ever' come under his notice. The House will see that under this Act the man who succeeds to a fee pays no more than the man who succeeds to a life estate, and this is my first objection to the Act. I would observe, in passing, that the results of the Act have been disappointing. Nor is this surprising, seeing that owners in fee only pay about one-half of the full duty. The present proceeds of the succession duty, as distinguished from legacy duty, are about £600,000 a year; whereas the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), in 1853, distinctly stated that he expected to receive £2,000,000 a year from this duty. The legacy duty, on the other hand—though leaseholds are excluded from it—is remarkably expansive. In 1853 it produced £1,200,000; and in 1868. £1,900,000. I have said that I object to the Act, in the first place, because the tenant for life pays the same as the tenant in fee. In bringing in the Bill the right hon. Gentleman argued that the owner of the life estate in a large property gets nearly all the advantage of the estate; he is in possession of the land; he is the great man on the estate; and, in fact, enjoys the practical benefit of the estate which

  589
  descends to his children, and so there is very little difference between him and an owner in fee simple. Now I altogether dispute this proposition, and I maintain that it is a very different thing to he tenant for life and tenant in fee. We must remember that we have to deal with moderate and small properties, as well as with large estates. Take the case of two men, to each of whom land worth £10,000 is left, but to the one for life and the other in fee. The man who has the fee can do as he likes with it. He can sell it, and invest the proceeds in securities which yield a better interest; or he can improve it, and get the full benefit of his improvement; but the man who has the life estate can merely keep it, and take the very moderate interest on its value. But the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that, if the law should be as I propose, the duty would fall more often on small estates than on large, because large estates are generally settled. This is true; but I would observe that no pity is shown to the legatees of small portions of personalty; they have to pay to the very last farthing. A man wrote to me the other day, stating that he lately received a little over £100 from his step-mother, and had to pay £13 to the Government as duty. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that if the full duty was charged on the fee, people would more often settle the land, in order to escape the duty. Now, I believe that settlements are made in general for family reasons, and not upon such small considerations as the duty; but, even if this were otherwise, that is not a matter for the House to consider. The Legislature ought to do what is right and just, and leave the results. Certainly, I am the last man to encourage settlements of land; I should greatly prefer to see much less land settled than is now settled. I believe that the settlement of so much land is very injurious to the State, because it prevents a great mass of capital which ought to be applied to the land, from being so used. At the same time, we ought not to make an unjust law in order to discourage settlements. The right hon. Gentleman added that the imposition of the duty where a man came into an embarrassed estate, might compel him to sell it. If so, I should say, so much the better, because such a man had better sell the estate to a man
  590
  of capital, who could do justice to the land. I am convinced that we have far too many embarrassed owners in this country, and I would gladly see their number diminished. And now, Sir, I come to my second objection to the working of this famous Act—namely, that I think, as a matter of common justice, the owner of the fee in land ought to pay the same duty as the owner of the absolute interest in personal estate. The right hon. Gentleman says that land, including leaseholds, is rateable: and, therefore, he imposes on it a less duty, while personalty is invisible and not rated; and therefore he charges it with a higher duty—that is—the full legacy duty. That was the substance of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman; but I regard it as unsound, however plausible it may be. Now I maintain, in the first place, that land is far more staple in value than personalty. That value increases as the nation increases in wealth and power. The area of the laud is limited; but population and wealth increase rapidly, and with them the demand for the produce of the soil. It has been often observed by Mr. Mill and others, that the owner of land sits still, and his property goes on improving; whereas, the man of business has to work hard, and incur much risk and pains to obtain the improvement of his property and the increase of his estate. Now, without laying too much stress on this, I would observe that it cannot be denied that the value of any given amount of personal property is exceedingly fluctuating and uncertain. Take the Funds—in the last six years they have varied about 8 per cent, merely from commercial causes. A Member of this House told me that he gained 2 per cent last week on the sale of a large amount of stock. Consider, again, how fluctuating is the value of the vast amount of money which is invested in stock-in-trade. There are large masses of property of this description, the value of which is more nominal than real, and is continually undergoing depreciation. If we look at the effect of war, we shall find that at first, at any rate, it increases the value of land, while it diminishes enormously the value of personalty. Suppose, for instance, we were to engage in war with the United States, what a mass of personal property would be destroyed. Were such a ca-

  591
  lamity to befal us, many, whose faces are very familiar in this House, would find their position very different. I allude to this, merely to show what a fundamental distinction there is between landed property and personal estate. Accordingly, all, or nearly all, political economists, are agreed that land ought to bear more taxation than personal property. It is entirely a question of degree. But even if it could be shown that land pays more than it ought to pay, this would be no answer to my argument, because I say that it is not right to compensate one unfairness by another. I agree with Mr. Cobden, when he said that he objected to what he called the "odious principle of compensation." But I ask—is it a fact that the land pays more than it ought to pay in the shape of local taxation? Now, all of us are well aware of the magnitude of these local taxes, which are supposed to amount to between £18,000,000 or £19,000,000. This taxation has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished, and I do not say one word in its favour. I wish something could be done to lessen this heavy burden. Let us consider for a moment of what these taxes consist. We have, in the first place, the highway rates, the county rates, and the town rates, and with regard to these, I think it clear as a matter of common sense, that they should fall pretty much as they do at present. For instance, those who live in a place ought to pay for the roads which they use. But then it is said that owners of personal estate have the benefit of roads and other things, and do not pay as they ought towards keeping up the accommodation of which they have the benefit. Now, as to this, I think in the first place, that we may leave the towns out of the question. I believe that, taking the poor rates and the other local rates together, the towns pay fully one-half of the whole rates. And if there be a hardship, the hardship is greater on the owners of houses in towns than on the owners of land, because the former very often live in part from income derived from personalty, or from their own industry, and so pay both sets of taxes. But, on the other hand, they are the men who are the most able to control the local expenditure in towns, as they generally have more influence and more time at their disposal than
  592
  the bulk of the inhabitants. At present they have the strongest motive for keeping a vigilant watch over the expenditure, and I think it would be dangerous to diminish the force of this motive by extending the tax to the mass of the people, who would have very little power of curtailing the expenditure, however galling the burden might be. Now, it is to be observed that these large towns ask no favour in this matter. They send Liberal Members who are quite disposed to do away with all these exemptions, and to act fairly as between realty and personalty. They are very generally men who own personal as well as real estate, and anything taken off one would fall on the other. Those who complain most are the owners of land, and I admit that they are heavily taxed. I wish the burden could be made lighter. I am the last man to say that the present state of things is satisfactory. We heard last night a great deal about pauperism. On that subject I shall only say that while I fully admit it to be a grievous thing that we should have to expend so vast a sum of money in this way, I do not think the burden on the land as such is heavier than it ought to be, when all the circumstances of the country and the nature of landed property are taken into account. It is laid down, by Mr. Baxter, that in the case of land, one-fourth of this rate falls on the tenants, and in the cases of houses one-half—so that the owner of the land does not bear the whole burden. Different opinions prevail on this point, hut, however this may be, I ask, how are we to prevent the vast waste which must take place if part of the burden of the poor rate should be borne by the Imperial Exchequer? Now on this point we have a precedent; in 1849 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire proposed that half of the poor rates should be thrown on the Consolidated Fund: but in 1852, when he brought in his Budget as a responsible Minister, he gave up that idea altogether. I would further remark on this point that our present mode of payment is a bad one. The landlord does not pay with his own hand, and so does not look after the expenditure as he otherwise would do. It would be far better that half should be paid by the landlord and half by the occupier, so that the former might feel the

  593
  necessity of having an eye on the expenditure of the money. I have only one word more to say on this subject. I think the landlords have the matter to a great extent in their own hands. If more capital were applied to the soil, and the land were better cultivated, we should hear much less about poor rates, than we do at present. The other day I went over an estate of 3,000 acres belonging to a wealthy gentleman. There was only one cottage on it, and I believe I could have bought it for £20 an acre, whereas with proper cultivation it would soon be worth £60 or £70. I want to see less of this state of things. The truth is that the land needs more capital to be expended on it, and thus more employment would be given to the. people. I agree with what Mr. Cobden said in 1849—
  "I believe we have no adequate conception of what the amount of production might be from a limited surface of land provided only the amount of capital were sufficient. I see no reason what ever why I should not live to see the clay when a man who lays out £1,000 on eighty acres of land will be a more independent, more prosperous, and more useful man than many farmers who now occupy 500 or 600 acres, with not one-quarter or one-tenth of the capital necessary to carry on the cultivation."—[3 Hansard, ciii. 845.]
  And now I wish to observe that however heavy the burdens on land now arc, they are not, relatively, so heavy as they were formerly. During the present Session the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board has told us that, in 1815, the land rated to the poor was assessed at £37,000,000, while the other property so rated was assessed at £16,000,000; but, in 1868, the land was assessed at £46,000,000, and the other property at £84,000,000. I will only mention one other set of figures. In 1842–3, the farmers of Great Britain were assessed for Schedule B of the Income Tax on a rental of £22,800,000; but, in 1866, they were assessed on a rental of £32,500,000; so that the rents had risen 50 per cent in that interval. It is, at any rate, satisfactory to feel that, there is an increasing fund on which the burden is to fall. I should like just to mention that in America land pays on its value and not on its income, so that here it has a great advantage as compared with other property, inasmuch as the income from laud is only a small per centage on its saleable value. And now, Sir, whatever
  594
  may be thought of what I have so far said, there can be no doubt that the law is grossly inconsistent in this matter of rating, as I shall proceed to show. Let me take, in the first place, the case of the farmer. We hear much of the landed interest and its unity, and yet the farmer pays legacy duty on the full value of his lease, and all his stock-in-trade and effects, while his landlord pays only on the value of his life interest in the estate. This seems harsh and unequal. But my second case is far stronger. The railway companies of this country pay £900,000 in local rates of all kinds, and about £500,000 for carriage duty, and yet railway stock, being regarded by the laws as personalty, pays probate and legacy duty in full. I will read to the House a statement I have received from the Secretary of the North Eastern Railway Company—
  "Railway companies are liable to all Kinds of rates—namely, poor, highway, district, borough, watching and lighting, improvement, paving and watering, new streets, sewers, and, in fact, all which are imposed by any local board or authority.
  "You will be aware. I presume, that by the local Government Act (21 &. 22 Vic., c. 98) railways and other Kinds of property are assessed at one-Fourth of the 'nett annual value,' for 'general district rates.'
  "The North Eastern Company paid for rates within a trifle of £80,000 in 1868. this is 2½ per cent on our gross receipts, nearly 4 per cent on nett receipts, and 9½ per cent on amount paid to the ordinary shareholders!"
  I cannot conceive anything more unfair than this state of things. Nor is this all. In rating a banking house, you do not take into account the profits of the bank; but in rating a railway company, you, do take into account the profits made or supposed to be made by the company, and I believe it will be found that these companies are assessed for a far larger amount than that which they really divide. Now this is a very large matter. The amount of the ordinary stock of railways is about £250,000,000, to say nothing of an equal amount of debentures and preference stocks. I say, therefore, that it is high time this state of things was considered and amended. Before I pass from this part of my subject I wish for a moment to refer to the state of the law as to burdens on land in other countries. Speaking in 1849 Lord Halifax said that—
  "There is hardly a country in Europe in which a larger proportion of the national taxation is not paid by real property and land than in England."

  595
  I am glad to be able to confirm this statement as to France in the words of M. de Lavergue, one of the first of French economists. Writing a few days since he says—
  "In France all local taxes come under the name of centimes additionels, because in addition to the four direct contributions to the State—namely, (1)la contribution foncière; (2) les contributions personelle et mobilière; (3) the tax on windows and doors; (4) the tax on licenses, moveable property pays duties on successions and transfers, but much lighter than those which fall on immoveable property. You may affirm that immoveable property bears in France three-quarters of the general taxation directly contributed to the State, and almost the whole of the departmental and communal taxation.
  Now this shows clearly that, as compared with other countries, the landowners of this country have no cause to complain. I am not arguing that the French system is good, but the comparison is certainly interesting. Before I conclude I must say a few words as to the probate duty. What I have said as to the legacy duty applies to this, with this distinction, that the exemption of real estate in this case is total, as the Prime Minister made no change as to probate duty when, in 1853, he subjected the land to succession duty on the value of the life interest. This exemption, as I have explained, rests on no principle, but results merely from the accident that landed estate never got within the jaws of the spiritual courts. Let us take an illustration of its effect. The leaseholders on the vast property of the Marquess of "Westminster, hard by where we are, pay heavy rates, as many hon. Gentlemen know; and these leaseholds are subject to probate duty because they are considered in law to be personal estate; but the reversioner—the Marquess—pays very little in the way of rates, and yet his reversion pays no probate duty. I say that this is a monstrous anomaly. It has sometimes been suggested that there would be a difficulty as to the valuation of land for the purposes of probate. I do not think the House need listen to any such argument, for if this matter were left to the ingenious gentlemen of the Inland Revenue Department, they would soon dispose of it without incurring any serious expense. Now, Sir, I have thus endeavoured to show that the burdens on the land are natural burdens, and that the land from the nature of the ease, enjoys peculiar advantages which enable its owners to
  596
  bear those burdens without undue pressure. I desire the prosperity of the landed interest, for I conceive that the prosperity of no interest is of more importance to the State. I ask them to treat this question as an Imperial question—to put aside all class distinctions and feelings, and to bear cheerfully whatever burdens rightly fall on them without claiming any unfair exemptions, and I trust that they may long enjoy the pre-eminent state and dignity which are theirs.
  MR. WHITEseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Law as to the Duty on the succession to Real Estate, and as to the exemption of Real Estate from Probate Duty, is anomalous and unequal, and demands the early and serious attention of the Government, with a view to its amendment."—(Mr. William Fowler.)
  MR. G. GREGORYsaid, he was not connected with the landed interest, and did not address the House as its champion; but having been generally brought into connection with land as a matter of business, he could speak with regard to the burdens and obligations which belonged to it. So far as he knew, the only exemption which landed property enjoyed from taxation was in respect of probate duty, and recently the succession duty had been imposed as a counterpoise to that which was charged upon personal property in another shape. He could state from personal experience that the succession duty had worked injustice in many instances. There was an element in that duty which was frequently lost sight of, but which was severely felt by those who were liable to it, and which materially tended to increase its amount, that was the mode in which the descent was traced for the purposes of the duty. With regard to personal property, there was only one descent—namely, from the deceased to his successor, and he paid according to relationship. But not so with regard to the succession duties, because they were frequently assessed with regard to that predecessor in the title who was a remote ancestor, and possibly a stranger in blood. The party who succeeded was often charged with annuities and jointures paid to persons who were strangers to him, and upon the falling in of them them he had to pay a succession duty of 10

  597
  per cent. Exception had been taken to the assessment of these duties on the life estate only, but he hardly saw any other principle on which the charge could be made than as on a tenant for life. Most large estates were either settled or entailed, but looking at the difficulties and the great expenses which must always attend real property, the person succeeding to it was in nine cases out of ten, for all practical purposes, tenant for life. The mode of assessment on land, too, involved a good deal of complication, the exhibition of titles, valuation, the disclosure of charges, and other liabilities on the estate, all of which added considerably to the expense of getting the succession duty assessed on real property. Personal estate paid only 1½ per cent as probate duty, but real property had to bear a number of what he called natural liabilities, such as charities, allowances to tenants, and other matters of a like kind, and above all a great demand was made upon it for local taxation, from which the greater portion of personal property was free. Then there were the stamp duties ON the alienation of real property. No man could transfer his property without paying a tax of 5s. per cent, and how, he should like to know, would the hon. Gentleman like to have personal property subject to the same tax? How would he like to have it imposed on the transfer of shares, of Consols, on time bargains, and on bills of lading? Was he prepared to go to that extent, because if equalization wore to be established at all it must be established to all intents and purposes. He submitted there were some species of personal property, as where lucrative businesses were carried on, which ought to be taxed according to the extent of the business carried on upon the premises. The good-will of a large banking house, or a flourishing mercantile business, ought to be called on to contribute; something to the taxation of the country. He denied that the Law of Entail—as it had been frequently stated in that House and elsewhere—created a dearth of land in the market, and that there was a difficulty in obtaining small holdings. He received every fortnight from the auctioneers of the metropolis, statements giving descriptions of eight or ten properties in every county in the kingdom, which were to be had at all
  598
  prices, some no doubt, at a fancy price, but the greater portion by far on terms constituting eligible investments. He believed, therefore, that there was no difficulty in the way of persons who desire to invest their money in landed property. In conclusion, he thanked the House for the manner in which they had listened to him.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, it had been stated that land was not unduly exempted from taxation, but he ventured to state that it was so, particularly in reference to the assessment of the income tax on farmers, and, consequently, whatever exemption they obtained was in favour of the landlords. If they took the years 1813, 1814, and 1815, when the old income tax was in existence, they would find that the income tax paid by farmers amounted to one-seventh of the whole tax. If, however, they went back for the last ten years, and took an average of ten years, and of three years, they would find the proportion paid by the farmers was one-seventeenth for the ten years; and for the last two years only one-twentieth of the total sum paid for income tax; Whilst the rest of the community had paid a far greater proportion during the last two years than they paid at the termination of the French war. The rents of farms had of late years greatly increased; and this proved that the farmers were unduly favoured by the artificial mode now adopted of computing their profits; and the benefit ultimately went to the landlords. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would look into the matter, and next year do an act of justice by making all persons contribute according to their real incomes to this tax.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had some difficulty in dealing with this Motion, as he had so very recently become acquainted with it, and he might venture to remark that for the future it would be very desirable, when hon. Gentlemen intended to submit Motions of this great importance to the House, they should put them on the Paper a day or two beforehand, in order that the Government might have the benefit of considering them. The hon. Gentleman, however, had merely given notice that he should move a Resolution. He confessed that not having had any great experience of the matter he felt

  599
  himself at a considerable disadvantage; but he trusted that the hon. Gentleman, having; done all he desired to do in bringing the matter forward, would not press the Government to give a decision oil-hand on a subject of such vast importance. The question involved nothing Jess than the whole problem of the principle on which all property should be taxed, find how far local arrangements ought to be taken into consideration. There was one part of the hon. Gentleman's argument to which he could not subscribe—namely, where the hon. Gentleman seemed to endeavour to prove that the question of local taxation was immaterial, and might be put aside in the regulation of the taxation of land. Now although people might differ as to the weight which ought to be given to the local element, no one, he thought, could disregard it altogether. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman himself appeared to be conscious of this when he argued as to the actual incidence of local taxation. Land paid income tax on the gross amount of the income, and consequently it bore an immense burden of local taxation. On the other hand, it was equally clear that land enjoyed a great exemption in being free from probate duty, and in having the succession duty put on with a very lenient hand, to say the least of it. The interest of the tax was assessed as a life interest, and paid accordingly; but although the law could do most things, it could not give a man the enjoyment of the land for a period longer than his life. In the abstract the Problem might be difficult, but when the different elements of it were mustered together it was not difficult to show what burdens land bore and what immunities it enjoyed. Although land might yield a small income, yet it might be regarded as a sort of lottery ticket, which sometimes turned out to be a great prize, from the discovery of mines, or the establishment of manufactories upon it. These were matters of curious speculation, and if followed out would form admirable subjects for the consideration of a statistical society. But after discussing these elements we should be only on the very outskirts of the problem proposed by the hon. Gentleman, because we should still want some common measure by which we could set off one element against another and come to some definite and practical conclusion on the sub-
  600
  ject. To this problem he confessed himself utterly unequal. He thought he apprehended the nature of the subject, and that it was well worthy of the consideration of the House and the Government. He did not think it would be wise to pass a Resolution on this subject, which might instill in the minds of some people unfounded hopes on the one side, and unfounded fears on the other; and he therefore ventured to suggest that the hon. Gentleman, after having drawn public attention to this question, should not think it necessary on this occasion to to go to a division. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would give his best attention to the subject, and if he could adopt any of the hon. Gentleman's views he should be exceedingly happy to do so.
  DR. BALLsaid, he thought the imposition of probate duty upon land was highly objectionable. Probate duty was a tax imposed on personal property, and paid by the executor or administrator out of the general mass of the personal property and land. This was objectionable as regarded land, because the duty was paid totally irrespective of the enjoyment of the property. A person had to pay it before he could enjoy the property, and if he had no capital it became necessary for him to raise the money by mortgaging the land. Nothing, he might remark, could be worse than a system which encouraged frequent charges on landed property. Apart from the general question he expressed the opinion that probate duty was not a judicious means of taxing the land.
  COLONEL CORBETTobserved that the land tax fell very unequally, because of its having been redeemed in some cases and not in others. He, for instance, paid 10 d. in the pound for land tax. This should not be forgotten in equalizing charges upon the land.
  MR. A. JOHNSTONsaid, that as no hon. Member had risen to reply to the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for the Dublin University (Dr. Ball), he would endeavour to do so, although it must needs appear great presumption on his part to attempt to confute so good an authority; but the hon. Member's arguments were such as could not be accepted on that side of the House. The hon. Gentleman had drawn a distinction between duty paid by executors, and duty paid by devisees, but he contended

  601
  that it was the Property paid Itself which and which ought to pay, the probate duty, no matter by what machinery it was paid; and this was also the simple reply to the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. G. Gregory), who had enlarged on the hardship of making a tenant for life pay the same duty as one who enjoyed the fee simple. He would get over all these difficulties by charging the property itself with the duty every time it passed by death, and then the tenant for life would pay the exact duty on the interest he enjoyed, and no more. The fact was there was one argument, and one only, for the exemption at present enjoyed by landed property—namely, the way in which it is burdened with local taxation, but that argument had been, to a great extent, met by his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), who had shown that railway property and leasehold property, although as heavily burdened as any for local purposes, yet paid legacy duty to the full. There was no doubt that, in some manner, before long, personal property would be made to bear its share of local burdens. That subject had been most ably put before the House by the hon. Members for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) and South East Norfolk (Mr. Read), whose views must shortly prevail, and then the last rag of an argument for the exemption of real property from Imperial taxation would be gone. The Prime Minister had, he believed, more than once advanced this point as to local taxation; and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman was, on those occasions, expressing his past mind more than his present or future mind on this question, or rather he would say, was resting on his oars after the long and successful struggle which he maintained in 1853 against a compact phalanx of Gentlemen on the other side of the House of great ability and legal knowledge, and who resisted with all their might the imposition even of succession duty. He might well think he had done enough. But now the circumstances were changed. In those days the right hon. Gentleman was greatly in advance of his party in financial science; he had to drag them after him, but he now led an enthusiastic band of followers, who, although many of them were closely connected with, and interested in landed property, desired equality and justice for all, and were
  602
  most anxious to sec this question settled. They had now a new Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he had listened with pleasure to what had fallen from him this evening, and he hoped that he would, before long, lead them on to abolish these inequalities, and to destroy what was really nothing more than a paltry relic of feudal privileges.
  MR. W. FOWLERwas much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what he had said upon the subject, and of course would not divide the House against his wish. But the question was important; it involved something like £2,000,000 a year, and he hoped that between this and the unfolding of the next Budget the right hon. Gentleman would give some attention to it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COUNTY FINANCIAL BOARDS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: In accordance with the promise contained in the gracious Speech from the Throne, I have now to ask leave to bring in a Bill which has for its object the introduction of the principle of representation in the control of the county rate. I wish to state at the outset that, in proposing such a measure to Parliament, Her Majesty's Government have not the least wish or intention to impute any mal-administration or want of competency to those who have hither to had the entire management of county rate expenditure. No doubt, through out the country, there are many magistrates who concern themselves very little about the general and financial business of their counties, and who are content with the occasional discharge of judicial functions in their own immediate localities. But it will not be denied that in every county in England there are to be found a certain number of the unpaid magistracy, who, at great personal inconvenience, devote much of their time and attention to the administration of the business of their counties, other than judicial, and who conduct that administration in a manner creditable to themselves and advantageous to the public. And when we are about to legislate in the direction which I have to propose to-night, I think it is but just and fair to express our sense of the value of services thus gratuitously rendered, and to guard

  603
  against the possible supposition that any want of appreciation of those services or any doubt of their value lies at the root of our proposed legislation. I would observe, moreover. Sir, that as many of the magistrates are themselves rate-payers to a considerable extent, the interest of rate-payers are not likely to be willfuly or intentionally neglected under the present system. And I think that many of those who wish that system altered, and complain of the largeness of county expenditure, are really scarcely aware of the fact that a very large proportion of the county rate is levied under the authority and direction of special Acts of Parliament, for which the magistrates are not in any way responsible; and that of the expenditure thus incurred they are not the originators, but only the ministers and agents of the law in its administration—acting under the direct supervision of Government Departments. Still, Sir, it must be owned that even in that administration there is a certain discretion according to the due or undue exercise of which greater or smaller sums may be levied upon the counties. Taking this into account, considering that the rate-payers have no voice whatever in the appointment of the magistrates, and bearing in mind that this is the only part of the fiscal system of Great Britain in which representation and taxation do not go together, we can hardly wonder that a cry has been somewhat loudly and extensively raised in favour of the establishment of Representative Boards to control the finance of counties. Sir,—speaking myself as a magistrate and country gentleman, I would venture to say that such a proposal will be by no means either unpopular with the class to which I belong, or at all likely to diminish their just influence in the country. If as a body, we have hitherto exercised the powers entrusted to us with diligent attention, and with a due regard to economical considerations, it cannot be otherwise than satisfactory to us that this fact should be more generally known among the rate-payers of our respective counties by means of the association with us of their direct representatives in the future exercise of those powers. Nor have I the least fear that any feeling of jealousy will prevent the harmonious working of the old and new administrative elements. The matter
  604
  has been already tested. On Boards of Guardians—on Fishery Boards—on Cattle Plague Committees—on Assessment Committees—ex-officio and representative members have worked together with perfect good feeling and with great public advantage, and I do not, for a moment, doubt that these elements may be blended with equal advantage in the general financial government of counties. Now, Sir, this subject is by no means new to Parliament. In 1850, a right hon. Friend of mine, whose absence from the House I am sure we all regret—Mr. Milner Gibson—introduced a Bill which proposed the establishment of a County Financial Board, half to be composed of ratepayers elected by Boards of Guardians, and half of magistrates elected by the Court of Quarter Sessions. The question was referred to a Select Committee, whose Report condemned the proposal to take the power out of the hands of the magistrates—whose administration they found to be efficient and economical—and negatived the Preamble of the Bill. This Committee, however, made several recommendations upon the general subject—they recommended that the clerk of the peace should be paid by salary instead of fees, and a measure was passed the following year which sanctioned this arrangement. They recommended that annual financial statements should be published and distributed to every union. Accordingly, an Act was passed (15 & 16 Vict., c. 81) to consolidate and amend the statutes relating to the assessment and collection of county rates, which, among other provisions, directed that all financial business should be transacted in open court, and that county treasurers should publish once a year an abstract account of their receipts and expenditure, and send copies of the same to clerks of Boards of Guardians. This Committee also recommended that "the accounts of counties should be annually audited by some efficient and responsible officer," and although no legislative action has followed this recommendation, it has been adopted by several counties with, I believe, considerable advantage. Mr. Milner Gibson introduced his Bill again in 1851, but had no better success in passing it. Nothing daunted, he brought in another Bill in 18,52, in which he ignored Quarter Sessions altogether, and proposed that the rate-payers should,

  605
  through the Boards of Guardians, elect the whole Financial Boards. This Bill was negatived upon the second reading, and the question slumbered for some years. No measure was introduced till last year when two Bills were proposed—one by the hon. Baronet the Member for Thirsk (Sir William Gallwey) and the other by Mr. Wyld, then Member for Bodmin, the result of which was the appointment of a Select Committee which was presided over, with his usual ability, by my right hon. Friend opposite (Colonel Wilson-Patten). I think that the result of the deliberations of this Committee may be summed up in two sentences. First, they were of opinion that there is no great fault to be found with the practical results of the working of the present system. Secondly, that the desire of the ratepayers to be directly represented in the management of county finance is a just and reasonable desire, and one that ought to be granted. Then, Sir, I reduce those two results into the following proposition as a basis for our legislation. Let us introduce the representative principle with as little disturbance as possible of the present administrative system. But before I proceed to describe the precise nature of the Bill which I shall ask leave to introduce, and which is, in some respects, founded upon the recommendations of last year's Select Committee, I wish to point out what I have been especially desirous of avoiding in attempting to legislate upon this matter. In the first place, it is very undesirable to have a very long Bill, introducing cumbrous machinery which is calculated to confuse the minds of those who have to administer the law. This Bill will have one advantage over its predecessors which I am sure the House will appreciate; for, whereas the Bill of 1852 contained 122 clauses and last-year's Bill 140, we have so managed as to reduce our Bill within the reasonable limits of twenty clauses. And, as my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Gladstone)'suggests, if we can only contract the county expenditure in the same proportion, we shall achieve no inconsiderable results. Then we have been anxious to avoid the creation of any now districts. Rural England is already plagued to death with sub-divisions and new districts. What with Petty Sessional Divisions, Local Government Districts, Highway Districts, Union Districts, and I know
  606
  not what besides, we have arrived at a state of confusion which I think really unfortunate. We therefore avoid the creation of new districts, and we take the Board of Guardians as the constituent body from whom we are to obtain our representative element, confining ourselves, however, to those who are themselves elected members of the Boards of Guardians, and who in electing representatives may be supposed to afford a fair index of the feeling of those who have elected them as guardians. One at least of last year's Bills proposed to introduce the permissive principle. Now, Sir,—especially considering the discussion awaiting us to morrow upon permissive legislation—I am not going to commit myself or the Government for or against the permissive principle, but I think it especially desirable to steer clear of such a principle in dealing with the question at present under discussion. I take leave to say that I think the application of the permissive principle to the Highway Act has been very unfortunate as regards the working of that Act. You have persons for and against its adoption, and where it has been adopted against the wishes of a considerable minority, it is not always carried out with that cordiality which is necessary to ensure its good working. In such a case as this, Parliament is quite competent to decide whether the plan which we propose is a wise and salutary plan or the reverse, and I do not think we ought to throw it upon the rate-payers or the magistrates to decide whether Parliament has been right or wrong, but if our measure is passed, it should be equally applied to all the counties of England and Wales. Well, Sir, what we propose, practically, is to divide the business now performed by the Court of Quarter Sessions into two divisions—judicial business and administrative business—to reserve to the court its powers as to the former, but, as to the latter, to engraft upon it a body of representatives who shall, upon terms of equality, share in the transaction of all administrative business. The technical manner of achieving this object is as follows:—We establish a County Board, to consist of official and elective members; we make the Justices of the Peace in every county the official members of the County Board; and we supply the elective members in a manner which I shall presently describe. Then we re-

  607
  serve exclusively to the Justices in Quarter Sessions assembled, the trial of offenders, the hearing of appeals, and all other judicial business. I think the line of demarcation will be tolerably clear in practice; but if any question arises as to whether any one branch of the business belongs to the Quarter Sessions or to the County Board, we propose that there shall be an appeal to the Home Secretary, whose decision shall be final. There is one other exception which we make with regard to the powers of the new Board. It is with regard to the Visiting Justices of Prisons, and to the making of regulations for prison discipline. We think this power should still rest with the magistrates, and as, in boroughs having gaols of their own, the representative council of the municipality controls the funds, whilst the borough magistrates are the visiting authority and regulate the discipline. We propose to apply precisely the same principle to counties, so that while the County Board shall control the finance, the magistrates shall still maintain their power over the prison discipline, for which indeed they are responsible. All committees appointed by the County Board are to consist of an equal number of official and elected members, and, of course, the Board will exercise the same control over its committees as is now done by the Court of General or Quarter Sessions. The general result will be that all the financial arrangement of counties, and in fact all arrangements which bear upon the expenditure of the county rate, will be in the hands of the new County Board: and we provide that the accounts shall be annually audited and examined by an auditor whom the Board shall a point. The House will be anxious to know the method by which we propose to obtain the elective or representative members, and the proportion which they are likely to bear to the official element upon County Boards. Without going into details, which may be more advantageously discussed at future stages of the Bill, I will state the broad principle upon which we desire to act. We propose that the Boards of Guardians throughout the country shall elect the representative members of their County Boards according to the gross estimated rental of their respective Unions—no Union is to return more than four representatives. A gross estimated rental up
  608
  to £50,000 in England, generally, and £25,000 in Wales and two or three of the smallest English counties, will give one representative; from £50,000 to £100,000, two representatives; from £100,000 to £150,000, throe representatives; and above £150,000, four representatives. Now it is impossible to state, with precision, the proportion which, these elected members will bear to the official members of the Board. It is impossible, because if I take the whole number of magistrates who are upon the roll in each county, and who are qualified and acting magistrates, I find that as a matter of practice, only a proportion—greater or smaller in different counties—attend to that description of county business which I have called administrative. I believe it will be found that the proportion of elected representative members to acting magistrates in each county, will average one to five upon paper; but this must by no means be taken to be the actual and reliable proportion. In counties where no great desire to be represented exists in the minds of the ratepayers, it is certainly likely enough that there might be no great attendance of the elected members. After all, if this is so, no one need complain, and the worst that will happen is that the present System will remain practically undisturbed, and undisturbed because it has not given rise to complaint's among the rate-payers. But considering the wish that has been expressed by the ratepayers for representation, and that these elective members of the County Board will have a constituent body to look after them, to whom they will be responsible, I think we may presume that where this wish really exists, the attendance of the elected members will be much greater in proportion to their whole number than has hitherto been the case with the body of acting magistrates. If this be so, the proportionate strength of elective to official members attending on the County Boards will, practically, be much greater than I have stated, and they will be able to exercise a perceptible influence upon the proceedings of the County Boards. Now, Sir, having briefly sketched the main features of the Bill, I do not know that I ought to anticipate opposition, but there are one or two possible objections to which I will allude before I sit down. I am not afraid that much objection will be raised on the part of the

  609
  magistracy. After all we only propose to engraft upon their body, for the purpose of the discharge of a certain part of their duties, a number of men who will probably be selected from the best of their class, and whose local and practical knowledge will frequently prove of great public utility. I think, however, it is probable that some of my hon. Friends near me may raise the objection that we do not introduce a sufficiently strong infusion of the representative element. For that objection I am quite prepared; but I would respectfully caution the House not to form a hasty judgment upon this point. The objection arises, I think, in the minds of those who cannot get rid of the idea that these representative members are about to enter the court to oppose the existing element. That is a great mistake. We are not going to supersede, but to strengthen and improve the existing body. The objection is founded upon the same sort of error into which a certain class of debaters always fell in our old franchise debates. There were some Gentlemen who always appeared to consider that the new voters were about to be banded as a class, and as one man, against all who had been voters before. That turned out, as I always felt sure it would, to be an entirely erroneous idea, some of the new voters taking one side and some another. Just so in the present instance; I will answer for it that in every division which may occur in these Financial Boards, there will be found ex-officio and representative members on one side and on the other; and if a case should occur in which the whole, or nearly the whole, of the representative members voted—as we should say here—in one Lobby, they would have on their side a sufficient number of the ex-officio members to make it tolerably certain that they would be in a majority. There are two more objections which may probably be raised. One is that there is another Bill before Parliament at this moment, introduced by the President of the Poor Law Board, which constitutes another Board for the valuation of the property in counties, and that a double Board may be hold unnecessary. I think, however, without going further into the question, that the process of ascertaining the proper basis upon which property should be rated, and the duty of administering the rate are two dif-
  610
  ferent things, and that the two plans may go forward together without clashing one with the other. A larger and more formidable objection may probably be raised by those who desire to see the establishment, of some great Financial Board upon the elective system, which shall exercise a control not only over the expenditure of the county rate, but over local taxation generally. There is something in this idea theoretically beautiful, but it is a serious question whether it would be found practically possible—what may come hereafter is not for me to prophesy, but such a scheme could not be carried out at the present moment without great difficulty and no inconsiderable risk of failure. But I venture to suggest that those who look forward to such a change may well accept this Bill as a tentative measure. If it is found that the representative clement does not make itself felt—that, as some fear, the representative members of the court do not attend or are over-ruled—at least the existing machinery will remain unimpaired, and the ground will be as clear as it is now for any such great scheme as that to which I have alluded. If, on the other hand, the Bill works well, and fresh vigour and popularity is infused into the county governing body by the introduction of the representative clement, it will be open to us hereafter to extend the principle and to engraft upon it any improvements which time and experience may suggest. But those who wish to supersede the magistrates entirely, as an elective body, must remember that before doing so they are bound to show that there has been some failure—or want of efficiency—in their administration. Every inquiry has resulted in a conclusion precisely contrary; and I therefore believe that we are doing that which is just as well as wise in preserving the present system of administration, and endeavouring to strengthen instead of to subvert it. I do not wish to deceive the House by professing to believe that any great changes—any vast reductions of expenditure—will follow upon this legislation. What I do believe is that a grievance—partly sentimental, no doubt, but none the less for that a grievance—will be removed—that a good understanding will be promoted between the magistrates and the rate-payers, and that without impaling the efficiency of the existing system we

  611
  shall add to its vitality and increase its popularity; that is the intention of the measure which I ask leave to introduce, and believing that it will be one of practical utility and will satisfy a demand which Parliament is bound to satisfy, I respectfully submit it to the consideration of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish County Financial Boards."—(Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen.)
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, he could not allow the opportunity to pass, without bearing his testimony to the correctness of the description given by the hon. Gentleman, as to the view taken by the Committee over which he (Colonel Wilson-Patten) presided last Session. That Committee had been unanimous upon two points—the first being that in every part of the country there existed a desire among the rate-payers to have a greater control than they had at present over county financial matters; and the second being that that desire was called forth by what was regarded as a constitutional right, rather than by any extravagance resulting from the operation of the present system. After a careful investigation into the facts, the Committee had arrived at the conclusion that if; was almost impossible that the affairs of the English counties could be managed more efficiently or more economically than they were at present. In the county of Lancaster—of which he might say he was not a magistrate, and, therefore, he spoke disinterestedly—financial matters were; managed in the most economical manner. He agreed with the hon. Member that, whatever change was effected in this matter, greater economy of administration was not likely to result from it. He had come to the conclusion that the anxiety for a change existed to the greatest extent in those counties where, unfortunately, the magistrates did not publish their accounts in sufficient detail. Wherever those accounts were published in great detail there was very little dissatisfaction, although, the finances were administered in much the same manner as in those counties where the conduct of the magistrates was open to the freest criticism. He had not exactly understood the proposal of the hon. Member with regard to expenditure for the police
  612
  and the gaols; but he should vote for the second reading of the Bill, because he believed it was based very much on the Resolutions of the Committee, although not in all particulars. He should reserve any observations on the details of the measure until the Bill had reached another stage. There was a difference of opinion, as to the mode in which County Boards should be constituted, and there was a general feeling that it was not desirable to have them exclusively composed of rate-payers, but that the magistrates should have a large interest in their management. It would, no doubt, be unfortunate, if these Boards were so constituted as to discourage the magistrates from taking part in them.
  MR. BARROWsaid, he was glad to find that they were recognizing the principle that, in county finance, taxation and representation should go together. He had been acting for three years on the assessment committee of a union, which committee was composed of selected guardians and magistrates, and no differences had arisen between the two classes of members. He was convinced, therefore, that the plan proposed in this Bill would work well. He thought, however, that the Committee would be a great deal too large. He believed that one member from each moderate sized union and two members from each large union, with an equal number of magistrates, would be quite sufficient. He would suggest, also, that the Boards of Guardians should not be limited in their choice to elected guardians, but that, if they chose to do so, they should be at liberty to send ex-officio guardians to represent them on the Committee. With the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wilson-Patten), he did not think there was any prospect of much additional economy, but he did think there was every prospect of additional satisfaction to the ratepayers.
  DR. BREWERsaid, he was of opinion, from his experience as chairman of a body constituted in the manner which it was proposed to constitute the Committee, that the two classes of members would work together harmoniously. He did not think that the largeness of a consultative body was any objection to it. For special purposes the Committee delegate executive functions to a portion of the body.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not think the; magistrates would have, or ought to have, the slightest jealousy on the subject of guardians being united with them for the purposes stated by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, Magistrates, as magistrates, had nothing to do with county finance. The power they had in this matter was conferred on them by the representatives of the people in Parliament. They had it under statutes passed by Parliament. They were responsible to the country for the discharge of certain duties in connection with gaols and lunatic asylums, and if all control over matters of finance in connection with those institutions were put into totally irresponsible hands the magistrates would have reason to complain; but, as he understood it, the proposition of the Government was to unite a certain number of rate-payers with the magistrates in a sort of separate sessions for county financial business. He did not think that the plan would lead to retrenchment, because he believed that in boroughs retrenchment had not resulted from placing financial control in the hands of rate-payers; but he approved the proposition for a regular audit and publication of accounts. Even in cases where expenditure was low there was public dissatisfaction when there was not such an audit and publication; while in eases where it was high, but in which there was a regular audit and publication of accounts, there were no complaints. Borough accounts were under the control of persons elected by the rate-payers, and the magistrates had nothing to do with them, and yet he believed a comparison would show that, all things considered, the borough expenses were proportionately greater than those of the county. He desired to ask the hon. Gentleman some questions more particularly relating to the county which he represented. Owing to the size of that county, Courts of Quarter Sessions were held in four different places, but under the local Act the county expenditure was regulated at an annual sessions held for the whole of the county. This was felt to be a great inconvenience, and he should wish to know if any remedy would be applied under this Act. There were also, he believed, as many as thirty distinct sets of rate-payers, rates for certain purposes being collected for the whole of the county, for other purposes from cer-
  614
  tain subdivisions and so on. Four largo boroughs, moreover, had Quarter Sessions of their own. He should be glad to learn how the hon. Gentleman proposed to deal with these conflicting interests, and to make them all work under this Bill.
  MR. HUNTsaid, it used to be a maxim of undisputed wisdom—leave well alone; but now they seemed determined not to leave very well alone, for a change was advocated from both sides of the House. He was not surprised, however, at the Government taking action in this matter, nor could he blame them, because, after the Report of the Committee which had been referred to, they could hardly avoid taking some step in the matter. But he believed that the cry of the rate-payers for a change arose from their not being fully informed as to the conditions under which the magistrates administered the county finance. As his hon. Friend had mentioned, that part of the expenditure which was under the discretion of the magistrates was very small indeed, and if the rate-payers were made fully acquainted with the Acts of Parliament that rendered certain portions of the expenditure absolutely necessary, and what portions of it were under the magistrates discretion, he believed the cry for a, change would sink to almost nothing. His belief was that rather than County Finance Boards should be created for the control of that part of the county expenditure that fell within the discretion of the magistrates, it would be better to collect the county rate and the poor rate separately, and to allow the tenant, on paying the former, to deduct it from his rent. He thought it a fair demand that those who contributed towards the taxation should have a voice in its expenditure; but it should be remembered that though the rates were in the first instance paid by the tenant, they really fell upon the landlords, so that the brunt of the rates was. in reality, borne by those who imposed them. That fact was not sufficiently acknowledged by those he were now so clamorous that the rate-payers should be represented. However, he had no doubt that there was a great desire in the counties for change, and he was therefore not surprised that the Government should have brought the matter before the House. At the same time he thought his hon. Friend

  615
  would find greater difficulties in his way than he imagined. It was proposed that the magistrates should continue to visit the gaols, but the Financial Boards were to have a control over their expenditure. But suppose the Visiting Justices should think it necessary that a certain expenditure was necessary, either for the health of the prisoners or for their safe keeping, in might step this Board and decline to allow the expenditure. So with regard to the police. The magistrates were responsible for the peace of the county, but they might think that a certain number of police of a certain class were required—and the class regulated the pay—in might step this Board and decline to find the money for the purpose. He did not doubt the possibility of the magistrates and rate-payers working harmoniously together, for they did so now when sitting together on Assessment Committees and Highway Boards. But one objection which he had to his hon. Friend proceeding to carry out his view this Session had been to a certain extent anticipated by his hon. Friend himself. The Government appeared to have been acting too departmentally in reference to the machinery which was to be employed; there seemed to have been no concert between the different Members of the Government on this point. Some years ago one machinery was adopted for the Highway Board: at a more recent period they had adopted another for the Assessment Committee; while there was another in the Valuation of Property Bill, which was now awaiting its second reading—that Bill proposing the formation of a county body, consisting partly of magistrates and partly of rate-payers who were not on the bench. And now in this Bill his hon. Friend proposed still another county Board, also to be composed partly of magistrates and partly of rate-payers which were not on the bench. A short time ago, too, when a Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Acland) was before the House the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown undertook that the whole question of local taxation should receive the early attention of Government. He would, therefore, ask whether it was statesmanlike or wise that the Home Office should nibble at one part of this question and the Poor Law Board at another, when the right hon. Gentleman
  616
  the Prime Minister had promised that the whole subject should receive the early attention of Government. Was it worth while to erect a County Financial Board to control the small portion of the county finances which could be submitted to their management, and if it was wise to do so, might not the duty be intrusted to the Board which was to be erected for the purposes of valuation? Then it should be remembered that local taxation could not long continue on the principle now adopted. It was only last Session that the Secretary of the Treasury proposed that the rates should be collected together; and if that plan were to be adopted, would it not be premature to introduce a Bill to set up a new machinery, involving much expense and change merely for the purpose of administrating one portion of the consolidated rate? He should not object to the introduction of the measure; but he thought it would be better, especially bearing in mind the fact that the Valuation Bill was in progress, that his hon. Friend should content himself with laving it on the table of the House, and not for the present press it further.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, the County Financial Boards were intended to take the position of the magistrates in the levying of rates; and as the magistrates had the power of assessing the county rate, he thought the County Board might very properly be made a Board for the purpose of carrying out the assessment of the counties. Having sat upon the Committee, he could confirm the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wilson-Patten) as to the strong opinion entertained in favour of establishing County Financial Boards. Formerly these representations used to come from the large towns, but recently they had proceeded chiefly from the rural districts. This feeling, which appeared to have been promoted by the Chambers of Agriculture, was based upon the opinion that it was only right and fair that taxation and representation should go together in counties as they did in other parts of the country. Many difficulties would arise, especially in transferring the management of the police and gaols to these joint Financial Boards. Similar difficulties had already arisen in some large towns, where the Visiting Justices had the power of managing the gaols, but where the financial

  617
  details were under the control of the Town Councils. In one case the Visiting Justices proposed to give certain pensions to the warders, which the Town Council refused to grant, the result being that there was for some time a doubt whether the Justices would consent to continue the; management of the gaols. Another question was whether the boroughs, that managed their own police and gaols, were to have a representative on the County Board. Whatever course might be taken on these matters, he doubted whether any considerable reduction would be effected in the county expenditure by the change. It was not the opinion of the witnesses before the Committee that any such reduction would be made. The idea in their minds was that if they paid the rates they ought to be represented. He should like to proceed cautiously and gradually, giving the lunatic asylums and county bridges and other items relating to the whole of the county to the new Board, and retaining the management of the prisons and gaols, for the present, in the hands of the magistrates.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he had listened with great satisfaction to that discussion, not only because he thought there was a general approval of the principle of the Bill, but because he thought the chief objections urged against it were capable of being satisfactorily solved. In the first place, the right hon. Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) had made a mistake in supposing that the choice of the Boards of Guardians was in any way limited. It was free to them to choose any member that they pleased, whilst, with regard to the questions raised by his hon. Friend the Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross), he believed that both of those difficulties had been met. As to the boroughs which had their own Quarter Sessions and the management of their own gaols and police, they would be excluded from participation in the County Board. The Report of his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson-Patten) suggested that there should be a County Financial Board, consisting of the magistrates and representative members in equal proportions, who should have the complete power to deal with a certain portion of the finances of the county, but who should not have
  618
  power to deal with the gaols and police. The gaols and police, however, formed a very large subject indeed, and it seemed to him that if they could frame a scheme by which that expenditure should come under the consideration of the representative body, yet be left ultimately to the magistrates, so far as the decision in expenditure for which they were themselves chiefly responsible went, they would really have solved the difficulty. They purposed, therefore, that a certain number of elected representatives should unite with the magistrates in forming committees for the consideration of the different subjects, and that these committees should be composed of an equal number of magistrates and elected members. The ultimate decision of these questions would, however, be referred from the committees to the general court consisting of the magistrates and those united with them, and as the magistrates would be in a majority there would be no danger of their due influence in those matters to which reference had been made being overruled. His hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) would therefore see that in all the important matters in. reference to the gaols and the police it would be in the power of the magistrates to over-rule, in case of necessity, the decision of the committees. On the other hand, the whole of the expenditure of the county would be submitted to the body, and they thought that this advantage compensated the disadvantage of the magistrates being able, under certain circumstances, to overpower the representative body. He agreed in the opinion that no very great reduction would be gained by the Bill. The increased expenditure under the county rate had been too often attributed to lavish outlay on the part of the magistrates. It had, however, been in a great degree forced upon the magistrates by improved prison discipline, an improved treatment of lunatics, and by the other demands of a higher state of civilization. A much greater regard for economy was manifested, however, in some counties than in others, and the voice of the representative members in such matters would make itself usefully heard. The great object of the Bill was, however, to satisfy what was a very strong and growing demand on the part of the counties—expressed at every Board of Guardians

  619
  —that they should know how the county expenditure was managed, and that they should have a voice in that expenditure. He believed that demand to be fair, moderate, and just, and it was his opinion that it would be satisfied by that Bill.
  MR. HENNIKER-MAJORsaid, that although a member of the Select Committee which sat last session on this subject, he did not intend to enter into the question now; whether this measure ought or ought not to be a part of a general measure on the subject of local taxation, or to offer any opinion on the provisions contained in it at the present stage of the Bill, but he must express his thanks,, and he believed that many other hon. Gentlemen who agreed with him in the views he took on the subject, on his side of the House, would join with him in thanking the Government and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) for bringing forward a measure which seemed to him likely to lead to a satisfactory settlement of the question. He was speaking as one of those who thought that representation and taxation ought to go together in this matter. He rose, however, principally for the purpose of asking the hon. Gentleman—and he did so not only in the interest of those who up to the present time had had the management of county finances, but also in the interest of the rate-payers who were to be admitted by this Bill to a voice in this management—whether, taking into consideration the importance of the subject, he would take steps to have the Bill printed and circulated without delay, and postpone the second reading for three weeks or a month, perhaps till the second week after Whitsuntide, so that the Bill might have the full consideration of those affected by it provisions before it came on for second reading.
  MR. KNATCBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he hoped that in two or three days the Bill would be in the hands of hon. Members. He proposed to take the second reading on the 3rd of June; but if that interval would not afford sufficient time for consideration, he should have no difficulty in still further postponing the second reading.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, Mr. Secretary Bruce, and Mr. ARTHUR PEEL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 119).]

WITNESSES (HOUSE OF COMMONS).

  MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE.
  MR. W. M. TORRENS, in rising to move the following Resolution:—
  "That whenever any person shall have been called upon by order of this House to give evidence in support or in disproof of any allegation of fact set forth in a Bill of Disability or of Pains and Penalties, it is desirable that such person should be examined on oath, or upon such solemn affirmation as may be most binding on his conscience,"
  said, that, yielding to the suggestion of many Members on both sides of the House, he should conclude by asking permission to add to the terms of his Resolution the following words:—
  "And that a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report on the best mode of carrying this object into effect."
  He did so because he was satisfied the question would rather ripen by time and further consideration. They had reason to congratulate themselves on having just escaped from the necessity of dealing with a painful question in the nature of a Bill of Pains and Penalties, and he hoped it would be a long time before they had again to consider the question. But it was only when the necessity of a change forced itself on the attention of Parliament that there was any disposition to make practical alteration in their established usages. Hence it was that not many hours ago the most thoughtful men amongst them were anxiously pondering what it might be their duty to do when called upon to vote judicially upon a question of grave importance without the advantage of having before them witnesses on oath whose testimony they considered essential to the formation of an opinion. He found no one who could account for the anomaly that existed between the practice of that and the other House of Parliament. The other House of Parliament always claimed and exercised the right of administering an oath to the witnesses examined at then Bar. It was impossible, in the judgment of many, except by an oath, to search the conscience of a witness suspected of unveracity. He was aware that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman) was of opinion that they might dispense altogether with the form of swearing witnesses; but so long as every court in the realm acted on the principle that an

  621
  oath was a useful means of searching testimony, he thought that the House ought to insist on being upon an equality with the other House of Parliament in this matter. They had sometimes sent their witnesses to be by the county magistrates; they had also sent their witnesses to be sworn at the Bar of the House of Lords; but that was a humiliation on the face of it. If the House declared that the practice ought to be changed, it would be the duty of the Government to bring in a proper measure, and carry it through both Houses: or if the House agreed to refer the question to a Select Committee, and that Committee reported that a change was desirable, the Government would, no doubt, carry that report into effect. They might proceed either by Standing Order or by Bill. He believed the House had the inherent power of administering an oath to witnesses at the Bar, and might exercise it under Standing Order; but if a Bill were brought in and sent to the other House he should be greatly surprised if that House refused to pass it. The House of Lords had on several occasions exercised its right to change its mode of proceeding, by passing a Standing Order. In 1695 the right of voting by proxy on Private Bills was put an end to in this manner, and within their own recollection the Peers, after due deliberation among themselves, passed a Resolution, which had all the binding efficiency of a law, that proxies should in no case any longer be received. These, it might be said, were instances of an exercise of authority, only as regarded their own forms of procedure, and in no way calculated to affect the rights and privileges of persons who were not Members of their Lordships' House. But in the case of Lord Wensleydale they exercised the power of refusing to admit him as a life Peer, though he held a patent from the Crown. And this they did in accordance with a Resolution, declaratory of the power and right of the House by its own inherent jurisdiction, without the consent of either Crown or Commons, to say what manner of persons should be of their House, and who should be excluded. He thought it was manifest that this was a much higher stretch of privilege than it could possibly be said to be, if the House of Commons should think fit to declare that they possessed the right to order a wit-
  622
  ness to be sworn at their Bar. But he did not wish to press that question on the present occasion. Whether by Standing Order or by Bill, he believed the general feeling was that they ought to possess, and, on suitable occasions, to exercise equal powers with those which they acknowledged in the House of Lords. It would be for a Committee comprising persons of experience and learning on either hand of the Speaker to consider how best this power might be asserted, and within what limits, if any, it ought to be placed. An hon. Friend near him (Sir John Esmonde) had given notice of his intention to move for leave to bring in a Bill on the subject. It was no disparagement of his hon. Friend to say, that it hardly lay with a private Member of ordinary weight and influence to attempt the carriage of a Bill of this nature; and he doubted whether, under any circumstances, the House would be induced to sanction a constitutional change so grave;, and so important without first taking the advice of a Select Committee. If the Report of such a Committee recommended the alteration, it would then be the duty of the Executive Government to frame a suitable measure for the purpose of carrying the recommendation into effect. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. LIDDELLin seconding the Motion, observed that it was only reasonable that the House should seek to enjoy itself that power of examining witnesses upon oath which it conferred upon its Committees. He thought the proposal a very moderate one. It was that a Committee be appointed to consider the circumstances under which this House ought or ought not to examine witnesses on oath. It appeared to him that when the House conferred on their Committees up-stairs the power of examining witnesses on oath—in other words, gave them power to use an instrument for ascertaining truth, and when it was remembered that in former days the witnesses examined before the Lords' Committees on oath gave evidence contradictory and even antagonistic when examined before the Commons' Committees not on oath, the necessity of the present, proposal was fully established.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the best means of providing for the

  623
  examination of Witnesses upon Oath by the House of Commons, and its Committees."—(Mr. Torrens.)
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, he entirely concurred in the object of the hon. Member for Finsbury, but he expressed a hope that it would never be attempted to confound legislative with judicial functions. He could not conceive anybody more utterly unfit to conduct judicial investigations on facts than that House. He should not have risen on the present occasion if he had not desired to call the attention of the Government—and particularly of the Attorney General for Ireland—to a point which had arisen in the course of the transaction, which to-day they had been most happily delivered from, he trusted for ever. The Attorney General for Ireland, in calling on the House to enter into an investigation respecting that matter, stated that what was the only course he could pursue at the time, because he could not institute a prosecution for the use of seditious language in Ireland with and hope that the case would be tried before July, or, in all probability, before November. Such an announcement coming from the mouth of the Attorney General for Ireland was one of which the House of Commons should take notice. He should ask the House what it was called upon to do. They were called upon practically to try a man at the Bar of that House because it was a shorter, more convenient, and summary method than could be adopted in the ordinary courts of the country. Was not that, coming from so high an authority, a satire well founded upon the criminal jurisdiction of this country? They ought not to be called upon to try such questions as these, simply because the proceedings in our criminal courts were so dilatory as to amount almost to a denial of justice. He did not object to the proposal to give to the House the power of administering oaths, because there might arise in future questions for which no provision was made in the ordinary courts of law, and as salus reipublicæ was the suprema lex, it was most desirable when such cases arose that the House of Commons should have the power of administering oaths; but he trusted that the House would never be called on to administer an oath judicially in a case capable of being tried in the ordinary courts of this
  624
  country. Measures ought to be taken to prevent the necessity of an Attorney General asking the House to try a question because the course of proceeding in the ordinary courts of justice was in such a discreditable condition that an ex officio information deemed necessary for the preservation of public order could not be tried till July or November, though the offence was committed in May.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would like to know how many Bills were passed which were not Bills of Pains and Penalties. Last year the House abolished their privilege of trying election petitions, with regard to which they had the power of examining witnesses on oath. Now they were proposing to travel into unnecessary danger. They were proposing to take to themselves power which, in a period of general excitement, would constitute the House a court of criminal jurisdiction. There was this other defect in the present state of matters, that there was no other official exercising magisterial functions but the mayor, who could not be displaced by the law for misconduct. He thought it was a very great anomaly that a mayor should be exempt from the law in the event of his abusing his judicial functions. In the City of London there was a distinct and a most valuable security, which was that no man could be elected Lord Mayor until he had served as an Alderman, and his brother Aldermen, therefore, had some knowledge of his qualifications before they elected him; but this was not necessarily the case in the election of other mayors. He would earnestly request the House to limit itself to acquiring for Committees on special subjects the power of swearing witnesses.
  The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Sullivan)said, it was not his intention to enter upon the general question, which had been before the House at an earlier period that day. He must remark, however, that he did not believe any proceeding known to the criminal law would have been adequate to that particular case, and the proposal of the Government was, in his opinion, the only one which could meet the difficulty. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) was entitled to the thanks of the House for bringing under its notice a matter of

  625
  great moment connected with ex officio information in the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland. He was not acquainted with the practice in England, but in Ireland informal ions were subject to great delay by reason of antiquated rules that ought to be obsolete. The matter must be brought under the notice of the House with a view to its being remedied, and he certainly should consider it with the greatest care.
  SIR JOHN ESMONDE, who had given notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce a Bill to enable the House of Commons to examine witnesses upon oath, said, that until the hon. Member for Finsbury had risen he was unaware that he had meant to alter the terms of his Motion, and to move for a Select Committee without having given notice. However, the Government had now agreed to that Motion, as modified by the Prime Minister, and he should not have risen but for the remark of the hon. Member for Finsbury that such a Bill had no chance of passing in the hands of a private Member. That statement had caused him some surprise, and the hon. Member must have changed his opinion on the subject very recently, as but a very short time back—certainly within a few hours—he (Sir John Esmonde) might have had the advantage of having the hon. Member's name on the back of his Bill.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, they were indebted to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens), and the hon. Member who had just spoken for having taken steps to establish, in a formal manner, the conviction of which they were all conscious when they came to deal with the case lately before them. The Government were conscious of it when they proposed a particular mode of proceeding, and still more so were others who thought the defect in their judicial powers, arising from their supposed inability to administer an oath, constituted a con elusive reason against the initiation in that House of a Bill of Pains and Penalties. Therefore it behaved them well to consider whether this was not a case that called for some remedial measure, and what kind of remedial measure they ought to adopt. He did not feel any doubt that something ought 1o be done. The precedents of Bills of Pains and Penalties and Disabilities introduced into this House were
  626
  by no means few nor insignificant; and everyone must admit, without, argument, that in the prosecution of such Bills it was eminently desirable, if not absolutely necessary—which would, perhaps, be putting it too high—that they should have the power of examining witnesses upon oath, and that they should not depend exclusively upon the Resolution they passed annually in defence of their own authority, that—
  "If it should appear that any person has given false evidence in any case before this House or a Committee thereof, the House will proceed with the utmost rigour against such offender."
  No doubt that was a provision fortifying the character of the evidence given before the House and its Committees, but they must feel, and it was generally admitted, that something more was desirable. Three modes of procedure suggested themselves—a Resolution, a Committee of Inquiry, and a Bill; and it appeared to him that a Committee was best adapted to the case, and most conformable to precedent. If it were desirable that witnesses should be examined on oath, the first question was, whether the House had authority so to examine them by its own proper action without resorting to any higher assistance. He was very far from making that assertion, but still, if they were to proceed upon the direct negative of that proposition, it was desirable the negative should not be a mere matter of opinion, but that it should be established by the inquiry and by the judgment of a Committee. If a Committee determined that the House was or was not in a condition to administer an oath by its own authority, that was a step towards the solution of the question. Other questions most important to be examined, and which might be more conveniently examined by a Committee than by discussion in the House, were these—whether the power of examination on oath was to be taken universally, and, whether, if taken universally; it was to be taken with the intention of using it universally, or only with the intention of using it in certain cases; and. further, whether an attempt should be made, as was made in the Resolution in the form in which it was put upon the Paper, to define, by general words, the class of cases in which it was intended to use the power; or whether, rather it should be a power put into the hands of the House to use from time to

  627
  time, and to determine by vote or by Resolution of its own to what particular case, or class, or class of cases this power should be applied. All these were very fit matters to be examined into by a Committee. If they were to refer the matter to a Select Committee it would be desirable to refer it without prejudice, and not to use words which would go so far as to assert, even Though their judgments might lean in that direction, that it was desirable they should examine witnesses upon oath. He would propose, instead of the Resolution, of the hon. Member for Finsbury, to substitute the following:—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of adopting any further measure for the examination of Witnesses upon Oath by this House or by its Committees."
  He said "any further measures" because by various statutes measures had been adopted and powers granted for the examination of witnesses upon oath, and it would be to the extension of that system such words would be understood to refer.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, he should be glad to withdraw his own Resolution, and adopt the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. HENLEYapproved the amended Resolution, and said this was a very grave question to bring on at one o'clock in the morning. It was better that the Committee should inquire into the whole question, because it would then be open to them to consider—what the House had no opportunity of considering now—what had been the objections raised hitherto to the House itself administering' an oath. It would be a grave matter if it should turn out on inquiry that the House had not the power by its own inherent authority to administer an oath, and they would have to obtain that power by the consent of the other branch of the Legislature.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the expediency of adopting any further measures for the examination of Witnesses upon Oath by this House, and by its Committees."—(Mr. Torrens.)
  And, on June 8, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. DISRAELI, the LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. HENLEY, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Mr. WALPOLE, Mr. BOURVERIE, Mr. GATHGORNE HARDY, Mr. Serjeant KINGLAKE, Colonel WILSON-PATTEN, Mr. BONHAM-CARTER, Mr. HOWES, Sir JOHN ESMONDE, and Mr. TORRENS:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

GAME LAWS (SCOTLAND).

  NOMINATION OF COMMITTEE.
  MR. LOCH MR. LOCH moved that the Select Committee on the Game Laws (Scotland) do consist of eighteen Members—The Lord Advocate, Lord Elcho, Mr. Hardcastle, Sir John Hay, Sir Robert Anstruther, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Whitbread, Sir Philip Egerton, Mr. M'Combie, Sir Graham Montgomery, Mr. M'Lagan, Major Walker, Sir Edward Colebrooke, Mr. Dalrymple, Mr. Parker, Mr. Orr Ewing, Sir David Wedderburn, and Mr. Loch.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Select Committee on Game Laws (Scotland) do consist of Eighteen Members."—(Mr. Loch.)
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONErose to move, as au Amendment, that the Order be discharged, and that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to enquire into the subject and report. The Game Laws, as everybody know, had been a fruitful source of discontent for many years past, and many expedients had been tried for the purpose of removing the difficulties to which they had given rise; but the expedient of a Royal Commission had never yet been tried. It had been reported that a Commission sat on this subject in 1844; but that was not the case. A Committee was appointed on the 27th February 1845, which, asked 17,718 questions and then adjourned. They continued their labours next Session, and they asked 7,885 more questions, so that the actual state of the ease was this—that 25,000 questions had been asked and answered on the subject of the Game Laws. Upon the Report of that Committee certain modifications were made, and things went on very comfortable for something like twenty years, but at the end of that period the agitation was renewed. Last year there were two Bills, and they were referred to a Select Committee; but nothing came of it. Now there were three Bills before the House, and it was proposed to refer them to a Select Committee. [Mr. Loch said the proposition was not to refer the Bills, but the whole subject to a Committee.] Now, what he proposed was that Her Majesty should be addressed to refer the whole question to a Royal Commis-

  629
  sion. His reasons for doing so were briefly these. The examination of the question before a Committee of the House of Commons involved the bringing of witnesses up from the country. The evidence was not allowed to be printed from day to day; and at the end of the inquiry the whole facts were digested into a large volume, which cost some 7s. 6d. at least, and which, in the case of these 25,603 questions cost something like 10 s. or 12 s. Nobody had ever read it, and for himself if he were offered the alternative of reading it through or taking a black-dose, he would prefer the black-dose. On the other hand a Royal Commission would go down into the country, take evidence on the spot, confront the witnesses with their neighbours, and if it was alleged that a district was eaten up by hares and rabbits, they could get into their gigs and go and judge for themselves; then there; would be reports in the local papers, the statements would be thoroughly sifted; and you would get a mass of evidence more trustworthy than could ever be gathered by a Committee sitting in an up-stairs-room in Westminster. The question was a most serious one. It was a question that had created bad blood between landlords and tenants, where men had lived in comfort and affection, and their fathers before them, for 200 years. His own family for 300 years had been on the most friendly terms with their tenantry until this question arose. The Commission ought not to be a family coach. It ought to be a Commission in which everybody had confidence, and its head ought to be some such man as Lord Dalhousie. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment.
  MR. ROBERTSON, in seconding the Amendment, said, he believed that nine-tenths of the people of Scotland were in favour of a Royal Commission. He had been blamed for having, on a former occasion; moved the adjournment of the debate; but the Motion for a Select Committee was brought on very unexpectedly, and all he desired was to have a fair discussion. On this subject he came into court with clean hands, for he had never sold a head of game in his life, nor had he ever had a great battue on his estate, and for the very best reason—that two of his friends had their eves shot out. Moreover, whenever he
  630
  did go shooting he always gave half the game to the tenant on whose lands he shot it, and there was not a single man amongst them who did not make him welcome. In the county which he had the honour of representing, there was no such thing as ill feeling between the landlord and tenant, and no difficulty whatever arose with respect to this question. They might depend upon it that it was a question which never could be settled by legislation. It was a question entirely of good feeling between the landlord and tenant. They were told that in England the landlord had not the game by law, as in Scotland. But was not the game always reserved to the English landlord in every lease? Practically, the law was the same in England and Scotland, or might be made so. With regard to rabbits, the difficulty was this—that if you gave them over to the tenants they would probably employ rabbit-catchers, and then there would not be a fox left in the country. He did not mean to say that the people meant to kill the foxes, but it required a very talented man to use a trap which should catch only what it was set to catch. Rabbit-catchers were a source of great misery to masters of hounds, and if the tenants got this power of killing rabbits unscientifically, hares and foxes would go as well. A Committee was appointed last year to consider this question, but what was the result? Why, when the hon. Member brought forward his Bill, it was scouted by the whole country. What would be the result of the appointment of a Committee now? A Committee could not sit during a prorogation. What he suggested was, that if they appointed three gentlemen to investigate the subject, their labours would be far more likely to produce a useful result than if they appointed a Committee of the House, who could only make a Report with which nobody would be satisfied.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words" the Order for the appointment of the said Select Committee be discharged,"—(Sir James Elphinstone,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed. "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Lord ELCHOsaid, he quite agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Berwick shire (Mr. Robertson), that the fox might be considered as a social good as the hare was a social evil. It seemed to him, indeed, that Scotch legislation on this subject was as prolific as the rabbits it dealt with. First, he (Lard Elcho) brought in a Bill, then the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire brought in one, and two months afterwards the hon. Member for the Wick Burghs brought in another. But it was a question of too extensive action to be taken up by private Members at all—it was one that could only be fitly dealt with by the Government. But it might be said the Government were in favour of referring the subject to a Committee. Now he (Lord Elcho) had a strong feeling in favour of Commissions and against Committees, Give Professor Owen a bone or two. and he would construct the entire animal. Give him (Lord Elcho) the names of a Committee, and he would write their Report beforehand. It would happen in this case, as happened in the Law of Hypothec Committee. Nine Members agreed to their Report, and four dissented—a Bill was brought in. founded on the Report of the nine; it utterly failed—and why? Because the four represented the real feeling of the country. Now, this was a question on which the Scotch people felt as strongly as on the Law of Hypothec: and a Committee on the Game Laws would fail as that Committee failed. What was wanted was not a representative Committee but a Commission that should inquire into and report facts. The same course should be followed in this instance as was followed with respect to the Scotch Education Bill, which was founded upon the Report of a Commission. The evidence upon which that Bill rested was mainly obtained by Commissioners, who ascertained matters of fact. They appointed certain gentlemen to inquire into the subject, and the instructions given to them were to bear in mind that their duty was to investigate questions of fact, and to report them. He thought they would do well to follow this precedent in the case of the Game Laws. If they appointed a Committee they could not commence their inquiries before Whitsuntide; they would not have more than eight or ten weeks before the end of the Session, and
  632
  no Member could give up more than one day a week to attend, so that the Committee could not possibly report this Session, even if the House sat over the 12th of August. On the other hand, a Commission could sit during the whole vacation, and their Report would be ready for legislation next Session. The course, therefore, which he would recommend was, that they should follow, to a certain extent, the precedent of the Educational Commission, and appoint one or two gentlemen to whom they should intrust the conduct of the inquiry; and they should be empowered at once to go into the matter and report upon it. He therefore trusted that the Order for the appointment of the Committee would be discharged.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, that the appointment of a Committee had been sanctioned by the leading Members on both sides of the House, and he had attentively listened to the arguments why a Commission would be preferable. The only reason he could find was, that those who preferred the Commission did not like the complexion of the Committee when they saw that it was to be chiefly composed of men who were bonâ fide desirous of a reform in the Game Laws of Scotland. ["No, no!"] When it was found impossible to proceed with the three Bills it was agreed that they should be referred to the same Committee. He (Sir Robert Anstruther) had fully agreed to this, thinking that a Committee investigating the whole subject could deal with it far better than a Commission going roving about over all Scotland. He trusted the Government would support the appointment of the Committee, which had been agreed to by the front. Benches on both sides.
  MR. PEASEsaid, the question was far too important to be settled at that time of the morning. It was not a Scotch question merely—there was no reason why the inquiry should not extend to England. He moved the adjournment of the debate.
  The Motion not being seconded, it was not put.
  MR. CARNEGIEsaid, that the Scotch Members had been accused of a desire to shelve this question either by the appointment of a Select Committee or of a Commission. But this was unjust. No one not acquainted with the forms of business in that House could have any

  633
  idea of the difficulty a private Member had in obtaining an opportunity for the full discussion of any subject. It seemed to him that it was hopeless to attempt to have a full discussion on this subject, and they were, therefore, reduced to the alternative of a Select Committee or a Commission. He was himself indifferent as to which but his objection to a Commission was this—a Commission must either be fixed sitting in Edinburgh, or it must be a Commission roving about the country. Now, he did not think a Commission sitting in Edinburgh could investigate the matter better than a Committee of that House; while, on the other hand, if there was to be a roving Commission, he thought it would be perfectly impossible to secure the object they had in view. There was also another reason why a Committee should be appointed, and that was that they might conclude their labours this year, which he did not think a Commission could possibly do.
  MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNsaid, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Carnegie) that it was a matter of little importance whether it was a Commission or a Committee that inquired into the subject—both would be equally useless for practical purposes. The only question of importance was, what was to be the conduct of the Government? If the Government had wished to have settled that question, they might have done so during the present Session; but the Lord Advocate said that it was not expedient that the question should be taken up. he (Mr. Carnegie) now wished to know if any Member of the Government, speaking on behalf of the Government, would give them the assurance that the question would be taken up at the beginning of next Session—that was the important point.
  MR. LOCHsaid, that what they had to decide was as to the manner in which it would be best to conduct an inquiry into the Scotch Game Laws—whether it would be best by a Committee or by a Commission. It appeared to him that much more was to be said in favour of a Committee than of a Commission. A Commission would necessarily have to move from one part of Scotland to another. They would have to go into many districts where feelings of a very keen character existed upon the subject of the Game Laws. Their inquiries would be held in the
  634
  Sheriffs' Courts, and there would be in attendance the landowners and their factors. He put it, therefore, to the House whether the tenants would speak in the open manner in the presence of their landlords which they would do if they were in the Committee Room of the" House of Commons. He thought that the evidence taken by a Committee of the House of Commons would be much the more trustworthy.
  MR. ELLICEsaid, he did not consider that this was a question which affected the tenantry of Scotland alone, but in his opinion it affected the tenant-farmers of England as well, and any inquiry into the subject would be incomplete that was not of an Imperial character. He perfectly agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Aytoun) that a Commission or a Committee was of very little consequence. He hoped that they would get an assurance from the Government that on an early day next Session they would be prepared to deal with this question. But he did not think that the debate should be continued at that late hour, and he would move that the debate be adjourned in order to afford the Government an opportunity of considering what they ought to do.
  MR. R. W. DUFFseconded the Motion, saying that the proceedings at a recent meeting at Edinburgh proved that the tenant-farmers of Scotland were not that brow-beaten body of men they had been represented; and they had shown their independence by condemning the Bill of the hon. Member for the Wick Burghs. He would certainly support the appointment of a | Commission rather than of a Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Ellice).
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, when the three Bills, to which reference had been made, were introduced, he was not prepared to give his support to any of them, because, as he thought then and thought now, none of the propositions then made would satisfactorily settle the question; although he must say he was not all disposed to sympathize with the strong expressions which had been used with regard to the Bill of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Loch). He thought that Bill, as well as the other Bills, contained germs for future legislation; but that legisla-

  635
  tion, he thought, could not be carried out this Session. Now, he had been appealed to by the hon. Member (Mr. Aytoun) to state whether the Government would take this question up. He admitted at once that the Government were bound to consider this question with the greatest possible seriousness and earnestness, because it had been one of the greatest questions during the late elections, and those who had been sent there had, to a certain extent, been returned to maintain the interests of those who were most concerned in the Scotch Game Laws. He thought, whether exaggerated or not, there was a real, substantial, and practical evil to be relieved; and the real question, and in fact the only question, to be decided was how that evil might to be met, so as to relieve it without entrenching upon interests, he was not prepared, however, to commit, the Government to any promise of legislation on the subject; all he could promise was, that the subject should be considered during the Recess, with, a view to legislation next Session, if there should appear any chance of success; but he did not think that opinion was yet sufficiently ripe. At first, he was inclined to agree with the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into this subject. The House was in favour of that Committee, as he thought, and he saw no reason to disturb the proposal for a Committee. It appeared to him that the Committee was fairly constituted, and if it was appointed he defied the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) to write the report of it. But after the discussion—somewhat excited—which they had had to-night, be must confess it did not appear to him that this Committee could be appointed with advantage; and, although he was quite prepared to have supported it, yet he did not think it would lead to the object the hon. Gentleman had in view. He should, therefore, recommend, as the best suggestion, that they should neither proceed to the appointment of a Committee or a Commission; but that the House should consent to the adjournment of the debate, and the Government would, during the holidays, consider the matter, and after that time state what they considered was the best course to be pursued.
  MR. DYCE NICOLsaid, he was glad to hear from the Lord Advocate that the Government would take into their con-
  636
  sideration the operation of the Game Laws in Scotland, with the view of legislating on the subject next Session; and, seeing the support the Government received from the Scotch constituencies, he hoped that they would bring forward such a measure as would restore harmony between landlord and tenant, which was so much desired.
  LORD ELCHOexpressed himself quite satisfied with the statement of the Lord Advocate.
  Debate adjourned till Tuesday, 8th June.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL.
On Motion of Admiral Seymour, Bill to amend the Act of the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth years of Victoria, chapter eighty-three, section nine, by extending the age at which Orphan and Deserted Children may he kept out at nurse, ordered to be brought in by Admiral Seymour and Mr. O'Neill.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 117.]

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, &C. BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Attorney General, Bill to provide for the winding up of the business of the late Court for the relict of Insolvent Debtors in England, and to repeal enactments relating to Bankruptcy, and matters connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General, and Mr. Solicitor General.

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE [SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES] BILL.
Resolution reported;
"That it is expedient to authorize the payment, out of monies to be provided by Parliament, of the Salaries, Allowances, and Pensions in the Diplomatic Service."
Resolution agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. STANSFELD.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 118.]
House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.