Commons Sitting of 16 June 1880

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Parliamentary Oath (Mr. Bradlaugh) [No. 226].
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered —First Reading — Merchant Shipping Act (1854) Amendment * [224].
Ordered-First Reading —Jurors' Remuneration*[223]; County Bridges* [226]; Statutes (Definition of Time)* [225].
First Reading —Vaccination Acts Amendment *[222]; South Western (of London) District Post Office * [227].
Second Reading—Town Councils (Aldermen) [133]; Licensing Laws Amendment [183], debate adjourned.
Select Committee—Births and Deaths Registration (Ireland)* [166]. nominated.
Considered as amended— Judicial Factors (Scotland) * [162].
Third Reading—Local Government (Gas) Provisional Order* [123], and passed.
Withdrawn —Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) (Notice of Removal) [141]; Gun Licence Act (1870) Amendment [193]; Employers and Workmen Act (1875) (Extension to Seamen) [204].

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House, that he had received from Mr. Justice Denman and Mr. Justice Lopes, two of the Judges selected, in pursuance of The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, for the Trial of Election Petitions, a Certificate and Report relating to the Election for the Borough of Gravesend; and from Lord Chief Justice Morris, one of the Judges selected in pursuance of the same Act, a Report relating to the Election for the County of Wicklow.

GRAVESEND ELECTION.
To the Rt. Honble.
The Speaker of the House of Commons.
We, the Honorable George Denman, and Sir Henry Lopes, knight, two of the Judges of the High Court of Justice, and Judges for the time being assigned for the trial of Election Petitions in England, do hereby, in pursuance of The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, certify that upon the 31st day of May and several days following, we duly held a Court in the Borough of Gravesend for the trial of, and did try, the Election Petition for the said Borough between Sir Francis Wyatt Truscott, knight, Petitioner; and Thomas Bevan, Respondent; and, in further pursuance of the said Act, We determined that the said Thomas Bevan was not duly returned nor elected, and that the said Election was void.
And we now certify such our determination to you according to the Statute.
And whereas charges were made of corrupt practices having been committed at the said Election, We, in further pursuance of the said Act, report as follows:—

1. That no corrupt practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any Candidate at such Election.

2. That the following persons were proved at the said trial to have been guilty of corrupt practices within the meaning of The Corrupt Practices Act, 1854. And that the nature of the corrupt practices proved, and the names of the persons against whom they were proved, are as follows:—

Robert Williams,

Of bribing.

Henry Howard,

William Badman,

James Weeks,

Patrick Dooley,

Of being bribed.

Thomas Allen,

Edward Best,

Alfred Woodford,

William Sheen,

Of corrupt treating.

William Charles Mid-dleton,

3. That we have no reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the Election to which the said Petition relates.
4. We further report that the said Petition contained a claim to the seat and also of a scrutiny. This portion of the Petition was subsequently abandoned.
The Respondent set up a recriminatory case which was also abandoned.
We have no grounds for making any further Special Report.
Dated this 15th day of June, 1880.
GEOROE DENMAN.
HENRY LOPES.

WICKLOW ELECTION.
High Court of Justice in Ireland.
Common Pleas Division.
Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.
In the matter of the Election Petition for the County of Wicklow.
William Wentworth FitzWilliam Dick, Petitioner; James Carlisle McCoan and Howard Brooke, Respondents.
The said Common Pleas Division, in pursuance of the provisions of the 36th section of the said Act, do hereby report to the Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons,—
That the Petition in this matter, a copy of which is hereunto annexed, was duly presented to this Division on the 3rd day of May 1880, and that the Petitioner, on the 14th day of June inst., applied to the Court, by special application, pursuant to the said statute, for leave to withdraw said Petition.
And it appearing to the Court that the notice of the said application required by the said Act had been given in the said. County, and no person having applied to be substituted as Petitioner instead of the said William Wentworth Fitz William Dick, the Court, on the said 14th day of June inst., made an order permitting the said Petition to be withdrawn, and the same has been withdrawn accordingly.
And the Court do hereby report that, in their opinion, the withdrawal of the said Petition was not the result of any corrupt arrangement, or in consideration of the withdrawal of any other Petition.
Signed on behalf of the Court, this 15th day of June 1880.
M. MORRIS,
C. J. C. Pleas.
And the said Certificate and Reports were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  TOWN COUNCILS (ALDERMEN) BILL.
  (Mr. James, Lord Ramsay, Mr. Dittwyn.)
  TOWN COUNCILS (ALDERMEN) BILL.

    [BILL 133.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. W. H. JAMES,in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, remarked that the office of Alderman was very ancient; but there was an impression that it had degenerated into a somewhat useless office. It was originally a combination of duties partly local and partly magisterial; and it was, as they all knew, derived from Anglo-Saxon times. It was aspired to as being a stepping-stone to the highest office of local government — that of Mayor—of the various municipalities throughout the United Kingdom. The measure introduced by Lord John Russell in 1835 for the reform of the Municipal Corporations proposed the abolition of the aldermanic office; but Lord Lyndhurst carried an Amendment in the House of Peers, to the effect that one-fourth of each Town Council should consist of Aldermen to be elected for life. This Amendment was opposed in the Commons, and after a good deal of discussion it was proposed that one-third of the Aldermen should be appointed for six years, and that half of them should retire every three years. A conference of the two Houses was then held and the compromise was then accepted. The Bill was only passed on the explicit understanding that the question of a self-elected body existing within the Town Councils should be reconsidered at an early date. Other matters of greater importance intervened, and the consequence was that the state of things then introduced had remained unchanged down to the present time, although great dissatisfaction had arisen in many boroughs—notably Leicester, Leeds, and Winchester, where resolutions had been passed for an alteration in the law. In some instances the Town Council had, in the election of Aldermen, wholly disregarded the deliberately expressed opinions of the ratepayers. To remedy this state of things, his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Heygate) introduced in 1875 a Bill which was intended to provide for the appointment of Aldermen by the cumula-
    116
    tive vote. There being many objections to the principle of cumulative voting, the House could not accede to the proposal; but the Government thought the circumstances submitted by the hon. Member for Leicestershire were sufficiently grave to induce them to take up the question, and the late Secretary and the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department expressed themselves entirely in favour of the general principles advocated by the introducer of the Bill, and promised to deal with the subject at a future time. Indeed, the Home Secretary moved the Previous Question on the distinct understanding that he would deal with the subject in another year. But nothing was done, and the matter still remained unsettled. The proposal of his Bill was perhaps the simplest and most moderate in its tone that anyone could make. It proposed that no Alderman hereafter elected should be entitled to give his vote for the election of another Alderman, and thus perpetuate a system of self-election which was diametrically opposed to the views held by all parties in that House in regard to local government generally. One of the results following from the prevalence of the present system was that it tended to encourage the introduction of Party politics in municipal bodies, the general rule being that the election of Mayor indicated the political majority of the Corporation, and the result was generally determined by the number of Liberal or Conservative Aldermen. At the municipal elections of last year it was stated that in no less than 72 cases the results were regarded by one side or the other as Party gains or losses; and it was a fact that the prevalence of Party feeling and motive in these elections had greatly increased of late years. Their desire must be that the best men should fill municipal offices; but under the present system men were made Aldermen not on that ground, and many were elected after they had been rejected by the ratepayers. He hoped that the Government would state definitely what course they intended to take in regard to the question; and he trusted that the House would state its opinion strong enough to show that the office was a useless one, and that this Bill ought to be passed into law this Session. The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. W. H. James.)
    MR. GOURLEYdid not think that his hon. Friend had proved that the office of an Alderman was more useless than that of a Town Councillor. It was an office almost invariably conferred for services rendered to the public; and he did not understand why those who held it should be supposed to be specially incompetent to vote on municipal questions in the Council. He believed that the measure had been introduced with regard to the borough of Liverpool, and a few other corporate towns, where a certain political Party had obtained a preponderating influence in the Town Councils. No demand had been made on the part of the boroughs by ratepayers or public bodies for the change now proposed. The true solution of the difficulty, if there really was a difficulty, would be found in leaving the elections in the hands of the ratepayers. If the ratepayers found that there was any necessity for the discontinuance or a change in current of aldermanic seats, they would be sure to exert themselves and make a change. If they were to prevent an Alderman from voting for Aldermen, they might as well debar him from giving any vote at all. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
    MR. ROWLEY HILLseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Gourley.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. CAINEsaid, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) had put the whole question in a nutshell when he urged that, under the present arrangement, the whole system of popular representation was set aside. At Liverpool in particular the results of the present system were extremely unsatisfactory. If Town Councillors were elected for four years, then he would suggest that at the end of the third year the senior should take the office of Alderman. Such a mode of nomination would bring about a better arrangement than that which existed at present. He even
    118
    wished that his hon. Friend had brought in a Bill to abolish the office of Alderman altogether; but, as that was not now proposed, he sincerely trusted that this Bill would become law, and be in operation next November. They would have better and more popular municipal government under its provisions.
    MR. DALYstated that, having a lengthened experience as Alderman, he could not admit the principle of the present Bill or the remedy proposed. If the promoters of the Bill had been more courageous, and had endeavoured to assimilate the principle of election in the English municipalities to the principle existing in the Irish boroughs, they would have contributed in a much greater degree to the interests of the country. If they were to consider the operation of the recent laws as connected with the administration of the Corporations, one could hardly fail to be struck with the important duties which now devolve upon Corporations. A Corporation was the instrument by which all the sanitary laws were put into operation. It had the power of enabling a city to become healthy or not; it had the power to control the sewers of the city; and it had the power to compel the owners of property to effect such sanitary measures as conduced to the health of the city. Now, the principle of election was a faulty one where the burgesses had not the power of affirming or condemning the action of Aldermen. The principle of election existing in Irish municipal boroughs was that Town Councillors should present themselves for election every three years, and Aldermen every six years, whether he be a new man or a tried one. Such a system was much more perfect than that existing in England, because it gave to the constituencies the opportunity of expressing their approbation or disapprobation of the members of the Town Council. 'He himself had had the opportunity of recognizing the influence of what was called new blood; and he found that the real operation of the municipal laws depended to a great extent upon the activity of the persons constituting the Corporation. Of late years a great deal of activity had been displayed in the Municipal Corporations, owing to the pressure put upon them by their constituents. Returning to the measure before the House, he repeated that the principle

    119
    of the Bill was faulty and defective, and that there medy proposed was defective, inasmuch as it practically disqualified certain of the representatives of the constituency. He therefore recommended to the hon. Gentleman who introduced the measure to have a little more courage, and bring in a Bill which would provide that the Aldermen should be elected by the constituency they had to represent.
    MR. LEWIS FRYpointed out that in Bristol a considerable proportion of the gentlemen who filled the office of Aldermen were young men, and, as in many other towns, very few of the Aldermen had previously been elected Councillors. He considered that the more Party feeling was kept in abeyance the better it would be for the conduct of their municipal affairs, and the present system had rather a tendency to promote and increase Party feeling, because there was a strong sense of dissatisfaction on the part of the ratepayers when they felt that their opinion was not represented by the majority of the Town Council. With respect to the present proposal, he rather thought that the preferable remedy would be to repeal that provision of the Municipal Corporations Act which enabled the Town Council to elect Aldermen from gentlemen who were not members of the municipal body; but the present state of things was so very unsatisfactory that he should support the Bill as a protest against it.
    MR. DAWSONagreed with the hon. Member for Cork that there ought to be a more radical measure to remedy the existing evil. He would support the Bill as a step in advance; but he trusted that at no distant day the more radical measure indicated by his hon. Friend would be introduced. He was anxious to assimilate laws of Ireland to those of England from which the Irish people would derive a benefit; and he likewise very much wished to assimilate laws of England to those of Ireland by which the English people would get a benefit. In Ireland an Alderman was elected, in the first instance, by having a majority of votes of the ratepayers; and, therefore, the will of the ratepayers was entirely carried out in the matter. In England it appeared that Aldermen were elected from an already elected body; and he always looked with very grave suspicion upon elections which were of such a very circumscribed character. He considered that the rate-
    120
    payers should have the selection, in the first instance, of the entire Corporation, and that when they had served a certain period, and had got an acquaintance with all the minute and multifarious details of the work required of them, the Aldermen should be chosen, not by themselves, but by the constituents. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that if a man had served for four years in the Council, and had shown very great attention and assiduity in his work, he was entitled to be promoted, and that his power to do good would be greatly increased. It was a very lamentable thing even in Ireland to see some new person, for reasons thoroughly apart from his qualifications, made Alderman and put over the heads of those who had probably served a diligent apprenticeship in the Town Council. Such a thing, it appeared, was done in England in a more dangerous manner. The hon. Member for Cork had spoken of the daily increasing duties which had been put on the various municipalities by the Acts which had been passed in recent years. Now, it was necessary that the men who came to administer these laws should have had experience in sanitary matters. In England the Corporations had to deal somewhat with educational matters; and they had the power of instituting reforms and inculcating social habits which, he believed, more than any restrictive laws, would prevent excesses which they all deplored. He should support the present Bill, trusting, however, that a more complete measure would shortly be introduced.
    MR. ROWLEY HILLdid not deny that the position of Alderman was an exceedingly anomalous one, but thought that the remedy proposed would be worse than the evil which the hon. Member for Gateshead sought to remove. So long as Aldermen were by law made members of Town Councils, and invested with all the duties and responsibilities of Town Councillors, so long it seemed to him it would be perfectly inconsistent that their power to vote should be limited on any occasion where their personal interest was not concerned. The point dealt with by the Bill was not the only one in which the municipal laws required amendment. He objected to a piecemeal measure, and hoped that the Government would introduce before long a more extensive reform.
    MR. CAUSTONdesired to call the attention of the House to a state of things in the borough of Colchester, which he had the honour to represent. For 43 years the Conservatives had had the ascendency in the Council—in fact, a Liberal Alderman had never been elected since 1836, until the February of this year. That was only because the Liberals were fortunate enough at the last municipal election to secure 13 representatives out of 18 elected Town Councillors. He ought, in the first instance, to state how the Corporation of Colchester was constituted. It was comprised of 18 Town Councillors and 6 Aldermen. At the last election of Aldermen the Town Councillors consisted of 10 Liberals and 8 Conservatives; but although the former were in a majority they had no control over the election of Aldermen, because the Aldermen who had previously been elected, not by the voice of the town, but by one another, were able to out-vote those who really represented the popular feeling of the town. His hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland said that, as a rule, Aldermen were elected from the Town Councillors. He should like to point out that during the last 43 years, although the Conservatives of Colchester had had the control of the election of Aldermen, only two had been chosen in that time who had ever received any votes from the ratepayers. That was an evil which ought not to exist. The hon. Member for Sunderland had also said he would like to leave the matter in the hands of the ratepayers. He (Mr. Causton) believed that that was very desirable; and he thought that if they provided that Aldermen should have no control over the election of Aldermen, the matter would virtually be left in the hands of the ratepayers. He thought, moreover, that it was very desirable that the Town Council should have the power to elect as Aldermen gentlemen who, not caring to go through a contested election, were able and willing to render considerable service to their fellow-townsmen. It would be admitted by both sides in the borough of Colchester that there had been men in this position; but simply because they happened to be Liberals the Tories had made use of their power to keep them out. Fortunately, the Liberals were now in the possession of power which would possibly give them
    122
    control over the election of Aldermen for the next 30 or 40 years, whether this Bill passed or not. They had now 13 Town Councillors and I Alderman out of a total of 24. He trusted, therefore, that it would not be imputed that he was making this speech for any Party purpose. He thought the measure a wise and just one, which ought to pass, and hoped the House would allow it to become law before the end of the Session.
    MR. GILLdesired, as a member of the Corporation of Dublin, to make one or two observations on the Bill. Some of his hon. Friends on the Opposition side of the House had suggested the assimilating of the election of Aldermen in England. In Ireland an Alderman held office three years, at the end of that time the Alderman had to go before his constituents, and in all respects his election was the same as that of a Town Councillor. As an instance of how Aldermen did not always please their constituents, he might state that he knew of many cases in which they had lost their seats as Aldermen, but had been given another chance as Town Councillors. If they did not please their constituents in that capacity, they had at the following election been turned out. He thought that the hon. Gentlemen in charge of the present Bill ought to try to assimilate as near as they could the law of England in that respect with that of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman had said he would like to see Aldermen abolished altogether. He did not see any necessity for that, for he thought that by limiting their powers everything would be done that was necessary. They might have some slight advantage over Town Councillors; but not the very great advantage which they appeared to have in the English municipalities. As far as he could make out the municipal feelings of the ward, it would be much better represented by the adoption of the Irish system of election, for then there could be no such thing as a close constituency. He had made those observations in the hope that the hon. Members who brought forward the Bill, and for which he intended to vote as an advance towards a better state of things, would go more rapidly so work, and bring in a Bill something after the lines he and his Irish Friends had indicated.
    MR. STEVENSONsaid, that the recommendation of the Bill, to his mind,

    123
    was its moderate character, and entitled to every support. The anomalies complained of must be dealt with; but not by the adoption of the cumulative vote, as had been proposed in previous Sessions. Their object in those days should be to strengthen the municipal institutions of the country; and that would be done by making them more directly representative. At the same time, it was most important that the knowledge of men who had experience of municipal business should be retained and made available for the service of the public. As a friend of the continuance of the Aldermanic system, and to remove the blot upon it, he supported the Bill.
    MR. A. H. BROWNobserved, that in most boroughs the position of Aldermen was the reward of political service. That was not good for the municipality; and as he thought this Bill took a small step towards improving the present state of things he would support it.
    MR. BARRANsaid, that Liverpool and Bristol had been brought very prominently before the House in relation to the injustice done to the ratepayers by the existing law. Now, he was very much inclined to think that if Bristol and Liverpool had had a representation on the Aldermanic Bench of a different hue, they would very likely have heard nothing of the inequalities in those two great cities. The fact that in Liverpool the Conservatives had had for many years a majority in the Town Council had very naturally created dissatisfaction on the part of the opposing political Party. As far as Liverpool was concerned, he thought matters were improving. At the last municipal election the return of Liberals was far in excess of Conservatives, who at present held power in the Corporation; and he thought that before long the position of parties would be reversed. As to Bristol, he would tell them what was necessary to be done, and they would soon see a different state of things. The inequality of representation in Bristol was very manifest. The wards of the borough were not wards which represented the population, and they were very unequally distributed. The remedy for this evil was that there should be some inexpensive and speedy mode of distributing voting power, in order that a fair representation of the burgesses might be
    124
    sent to the Town Council. They had been told that they were to be careful not to cast any reflection upon, or to diminish the power or influence of, the Municipal Corporations; and he was of that opinion, because, considering the great and important work which they had done, and considering the responsibility which had rested upon them, and the very efficient way in which they had done their work—they ought to be very careful indeed not to take any steps which would tend to diminish the confidence of the general public in these institutions. Let them reflect upon what had been done since the passing of the Municipal Act. Birmingham was a noble example of what had been done in the way of enterprize in providing for all the necessities of the town and its development, structurally and otherwise. The borough which he had the honour to represent had not been by any means behind in the work that it had done. In the establishment of their large public library, an institution which was circulating at the present time more than 50,000 volumes free to the ratepayers, they had something of which they might be justly proud; and the provision they had made with regard to gas and water and other things was of a character and on a scale worthy of them as a Corporation. In the Corporation of Leeds they had a largo preponderance of one political Party, and they had had that for a great many years. Mr. Wheelhouse, his late Colleague, introduced a Bill into Parliament for the purpose of securing the election of Aldermen by the cumulative vote. If it had not been that in Leeds the Liberals predominated in the Town Council, they would never have heard of the suggestion. Therefore he was of opinion that to confine this kind of legislation to exceptional circumstances was undesirable. Although in Leeds they had a preponderance of Liberals in the Town Council, they had only used their power occasionally for the purpose of electing gentlemen outside to the Aldermanic Bench; the last instance was the hon. Gentleman who now represented the Eastern Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire. The argument used by the Town Council of Leeds was this—that unless a man was prepared to present himself to the burgesses of the borough, and was willing to go through the ordeal of a con-

    125
    tested election, if necessary, he was not entitled to the confidence and support of the Corporation as an Alderman. The Aldermen of Leeds were elected to the office on account of their qualifications for the office. Almost all their committees were presided over by Aldermen; and he thought he might say that the business of the Corporation of Leeds was conducted is such a way as to give satisfaction to the general body of ratepayers. Liverpool, Bristol, and Colchester had been specially referred to in the course of the debate as places in which an unsatisfactory state of things existed. Was that the fault of the institution, or the fault of the Party? and if the Party pursued a course of this kind—if it disregarded the claims of individuals, and also disregarded the demands of the constituency for justice and fair play-then make whatever law they might these men would still evade it. In the case of Bristol and Liverpool, he believed that the unsatisfactory state of affairs could be reversed. If the city of Bristol were to memorialize Parliament some steps would be taken to remedy the evils which existed there.
    MR. LEWISFRYsaid, that a Bill had passed during the present Session to alter the distribution of the municipal representation in Bristol, and thus to remedy the evils to some extent.
    MR. BARRANwas very glad that such a Bill had passed, which would remedy the evil. It would then be found that the ratepayers of Bristol had the power in their own hands. If they were going to discourage household suffrage because it did not result in sending certain men to the Councils of their boroughs, they would have to pursue a course which, he believed, would be destructive to the best interests of their municipal institutions. The Corporations of England were representative so far as the Town Councillors were concerned, and those Town Councillors were bound to obey the behests of the burgesses. If a Corporation, say the Corporation of Leeds, were to elect Aldermen who were distasteful to the general burgesses of the town, rest assured that the electors would at once say that men who voted for persons as Aldermen who were distasteful to the people should not be returned again to the Council. The burgesses had the remedy in their own hands; and he was quite sure that, by a fair distribution of
    126
    the voting power in the towns of England for the purpose of electing Town Councillors, an influence could be produced which would tell favourably in the election of Aldermen. He hoped nothing would be done in legislation of this kind which would for one moment cast a reflection on the institutions which had done so much good, and which, he believed, were destined to do much more in the future.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, that hon. Gentlemen who had already spoken on this subject had alluded to particular boroughs; but, for his part, he thought it ought to be considered on its general merits. While he fully acknowledged that the Bill was one which might be called piecemeal legislation, he felt disposed to support it, at any rate, as a provisional measure. At the same time, he must say that he should very much like that Her Majesty's Government should make some statement to the effect that they would undertake, in a general measure, to deal not only with this, but with other matters connected with municipal government. There ought, in his opinion, to be some self-acting machinery to re-adjust the representation of the people in proportion to the population. It was very desirable that the gentlemen elected to the Town Councils should reflect the sentiments of the time in the borough, for all institutions ought to be in harmony with the existing sentiments, and not with the past sentiments of the people. This was not a Party question, because they knew perfectly well that in some boroughs Conservatives were in the majority, and in others Liberals had the preponderating influence in the Town Councils. They also knew that, in many of those boroughs, the stronger Party for the time being had used its power to perpetuate a system which was not in harmony with the views of the electors generally. That state of things he regarded as mischievous. That was only part of a great question of municipal reform. There was a large number of boroughs in which the wards were grossly unequal. In considering the general question of municipal administration, it was important to devise some easy self-acting machinery, in order to bring the Town Councils into immediate harmony with the sentiments of the people; and he hoped that the Government, amongst the many onerous duties which devolved upon them, might find

    127
    some opportunity of giving their attention to that question. If the Government were now to make some promise to deal with the subject, he presumed that the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) would not, in face of such an assurance, persevere in pressing on his Bill. But if there were no hope of the Government doing anything in the matter, then he, for one, hoped that the Bill, though a small and piecemeal measure, would be accepted by the House as a step in the right direction.
    MR. ROBERTScordially supported the Bill, believing that it offered a simple remedy for an evil—the power Aldermen now had of electing their fellow Aldermen, irrespective of and often contrary to the feelings and opinions of the majority of the elected members of the Corporation. As a citizen of Liverpool he had many years' experience of the system working adversely to the interests of the Liberal Party; but he believed that there were many places where the proposed change would be of advantage to the Conservatives; and he was confirmed in this belief by the action of some hon. Members on his own side, and the absence of opposition to the measure by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Bill would cut both ways, so that they were able to regard it as a matter of principle, irrespective of Party consideration. He objected to the present mode of electing Aldermen in England, mainly because under it municipal bodies could, and often did, represent the opinions, not of the present electors, but those of electors of three, six, and more years previously. Imagine such a system applied to our Parliamentary representation. Suppose that the majority of the Members of that House had the privilege of electing one-fourth of its Members, and that half of the number so elected had the privilege at every General Election of voting for successors. The result would be that if the Liberal majority at the last election had been 80, instead of twice that number, the country' would now be governed in accordance with the result of the Election of 1874, and not that of 1880. Such a state of things would, of course, be impossible, because unendurable; and the same principle was as unfair, though not as important perhaps, in the election of Municipal Corporations. He asked the House to pass this Bill, not merely to
    128
    remedy the special grievances which had been referred to, but in recognition of the principle that municipal government, like Parliamentary, should be representative, and that this Bill would make it more directly such.
    MR. MUNTZsaid, he was of opinion that no case had been made out in support of the Bill. Any stranger hearing the debate would imagine that Town Councils were elected only for political purposes. But Town Councils were elected for attending to the lighting, paving, and other duties important to towns. When Aldermen were appointed —he regretted sometimes for political reasons—they were elected by those who had been chosen by the ratepayers. There was this advantage in having Aldermen on a Corporation: they acted as a continuity of the line of business or policy adopted by a Corporation; and thus, if a great change occurred in the constitution of a Corporation, the Aldermen were able to continue the thread of the municipal business. Now, he thought it would be generally admitted that the present system had worked very well. It was for the burgesses to return whom they liked to the Town Council, and in the end the burgesses generally had their own way. The case of Colchester had been quoted, where there were three Aldermen; and one of them would, of course, have the power of giving the casting vote. But then the burgesses would ultimately have the right of expressing their opinion. He would ask the hon. Member, under all the circumstances, to let well alone. Some people said that this was all that was wanted; but his opinion was that there should be no change in the law, unless the Government thought fit to take up the subject, and he submitted that no case had been made out for a change in the law.
    MR. WILLIAMSON,as a citizen of Liverpool, said, that if they allowed the present system to continue, it would not be a case of letting well alone. The present system of electing Aldermen was a relic of the old rotten borough system, and he hoped it would be reformed by the passing of this Bill. He did not object to a small body of experienced men having the distinction of Aldermen; but this distinction ought not to be given by a majority, only obtained by the voices of other Aldermen. He agreed with the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Stanley) that the Town Councils ought to repre-

    129
    sent the opinions of the burgesses who elected them, and not those of former burgesses. Whatever was the original intention, it was now unfortunately the case that political considerations entered largely into municipal elections. These considerations were often allied with some special interest. In Liverpool there had been an identification of the predominant Conservative interest with the grog interest in the town, so that often men who had been rejected as Town Councillors by the ratepayers were elected afterwards as Aldermen. He would leave the election to the Town Councillors chosen by the ratepayers, and not allow Aldermen to have a voice in it. For these and other reasons which he could not now urge he hoped the measure would be passed.
    MR. ARTHUR PEELsaid, that many remedies for existing anomalies had been suggested. The first was the abolition of Aldermen, the second the allotting of the Aldermen to the several wards; and then there was the proposition of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) that in future elections Aldermen should be forbidden to vote for Aldermen. He was aware that political feelings were touched rather deeply by a proposition of this kind; but he desired to consider the question solely on its own merits, and without any regard to the result which the passing of the Bill might have on political Parties in boroughs, which was a consideration that was altogether beneath their notice. It certainly was a very strong objection to the present state of things that a citizen who had been rejected by his ward should obtain admittance to the Municipal Council almost, as had been stated, surreptitiously. An hon. Member well acquainted with Liverpool had stated that if the minority of 21 in the Council united with their 8 Aldermen who did not retire they would be able to secure a majority of the Council. That was as much as to say that when political Parties on one side or the other gained possession of the Town Councils, the same state of things was continued, and the same political circumstances were perpetuated. That condition of things was clearly objectionable. The support of the second reading of the Bill did not imply any disparagement of Municipal Councils from the way in which they had performed their duties. He had reason to know
    130
    that since 1835 the population and rateable value of the wards in the different Municipal Councils of the country had entirely changed. It was most important that the representative element should pervade those bodies in their entirety. They had to provide for the health, the amenities; and the intellectual amusements of the community; and it was therefore necessary that they should, as far as possible, be directly representative of the ratepayers. It was within his knowledge that the representation of wards, in some cases, was so manifestly unjust that, speaking individually, he thought the question was one that ought to be taken up for the purpose of readjusting the boundaries of wards and basing their representation on what was at present their rateable value and population. He thought that a much larger measure, embodying the representative principle, was needed; and he hoped that it might be in the power of the Government—though he could not speak with authority at the present moment— to bring in a Municipal Corporations Consolidation and Amendment Bill. He should not feel justified in opposing the second reading of the Bill, because there was so much in it which recommended itself to their ideas of fairness and justice. But it had only recently been introduced, and he was not aware that any expression of opinion had taken place in regard to it in the different boroughs of England; and to enable that expression of opinion to be given he hoped, if the House consented to read the Bill a second time, the Committee would be delayed for a fortnight.
    MR. BARRANsaid, he had presented a Petition from the Corporation of Leeds against the Bill yesterday.
    MR. MAPPINwould support the second reading, to give time for the consideration of the measure by the different Town Councils.
    MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he should be happy to consult with his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur Peel) with regard to fixing a day for Committee.
    Question put.
    The House divided: —Ayes 134: Noes 48: Majority 86.—(Div. List, No. 24.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday 25th June.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) (NOTICE OF REMOVAL) BILL.
(Sir Alexander Gordon, Mr. M'Lagan, Mr. Barclay.)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) (NOTICE OF REMOVAL) BILL.

  [BILL 141.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the object of the Bill was twofold. The first object was to provide for the continued cultivation of land up to the fullest power of production that was possible, instead of allowing it to fall into a low condition at the end of an old lease and the beginning of a new one; and the second object was to provide security to a tenant that he should receive at the end of his lease compensation for his unexhausted manures. The one was the interest of the State, and the other was the interest of the tenant. It was the interest of the State that the land should always be fully cultivated, and it was the interest of the tenant that he should fully get back the value of the money he expended. He would like to explain that the system of tenure was very different in Scotland from what it was in England. In the majority of cases in England, yearly tenancies were the rule, and leases were the exception. In Scotland it was the reverse. It was usual there for the land to be occupied under leases, yearly tenancies being exceptional. Leases in Scotland generally ran for 19 years; and the law, as it now stood, made him only receive 40 days' notice before the termination of his lease, so that a farmer might remain 18 years and 325 days in his holding, as he believed to the satisfaction of his landlord, and then have only 40 days notice to clear out of his farm, in which he might have invested thousands of pounds, and might provide himself with a farm, if he could, elsewhere. That was a state of things that the Bill was intended to remedy. The law of England and Ireland required that no less than a year's notice should be given even in cases of yearly tenancies. Even where farmers only held from year to year, they were entitled to a year's notice, unless they had contracted themselves out of this rule on their own accord by making another arrangement. When it was considered that in Scotland they had only 40 days' notice, even in cases of leases of
  132
  19 years, he thought the alteration proposed by the Bill would commend itself to the House. The law of 40 days' notice had been in force for 325 years. It was enacted in the time of Queen Mary of Scot-land in the year 1555. It was then thought a very judicious and humane measure. The previous custom was described by Erskine, in his Institutes, as an injurious and barbarous custom, for all that required to be done was to break a wand at a tenant's door as a notice to quit. It was then also provided that the 40 days' notice should be 40 days' before the Whit Sunday of the year of the termination of the lease, so that whenever the lease expired in Martinmas—11th November—as the tenant had his notice 40 days before the 15th of May—the legal Whit Sunday in Scotland—that gave him more than six months' notice. If the lease terminated on a Whit Sunday, the tenant must have a year and 40 days' notice, because the law required that notice must be given before the Whit Sunday preceding what they called the "ish" or exit of the lease, so that in some cases the tenant might have a year and 40 days' notice. That system of giving 40 days' notice before Whit Sunday existed from 1555 till 1853, when a Bill was brought into Parliament and passed into an Act, which provided that the 40 days' notice should apply to any date. It took away the provision that the notice must be given before the preceding Whit Sunday. That was a great loss to the tenants of Scotland, because it took away six months at least of the period notice hitherto given to the tenant; and, strange to say, the Act which contained that little clause was an Act passed ostensibly to facilitate the procedure before the Sheriff Courts. He found that there was not a single word said in either House of Parliament on the subject of this clause, which was of such great importance to the farmers of Scotland. When such a measure was passed in 1853, without eliciting the slightest observation, it was not unjust to say that it passed without sufficient conderation of its importance. Now, although, as he had shown, the law in Scotland had been altered in what he called a retrograde manner on behalf of the tenants by allowing simply the 40 days' notice, in England and Ireland only recently the period of notice had been

  133
  extended. In 1875, in the English Act, the notice was increased from six months to one year; and in 1876 it was increased in Ireland to the same period. If the law had been so altered in these countries in the case of yearly tenants, it was not too much, he thought, to ask that the Scotch law should be altered to two years' notice in the case of 19 years' leases. There was another part of the Scotch system which he would like to allude to. It was, that when a lease expired at the end of 19 years, or the period decided upon, if there was no arrangement between the landlord and tenant, and no notice, what the Scotch called tacit relocation took place, and this entitled the tenant to remain for another year, and so he went on from year to year, without any written engagement. It entitled the tenant to one year more of possession of his holding. If this Bill passed into law, it would be very popular, especially in view of the Bill which, he supposed, would also be carried this Session in regard to certain wild animals. The effect would be that when the leases expired tenants would be allowed to remain under the system of tacit relocation from year to year, and they would have a right to have two years' notice. A very important point in the system of two years' notice was this—that it would settle the question of unexhausted manures to a great extent. By a short clause in the English Agricultural Holdings Act, it was provided that compensation should be given to tenants for unexhausted manures put in within two years of the termination of their leases, in order that they might not lose the value of the money invested in manure, and yet that the land might be cultivated up to the highest point to the very end of the lease. It might happen in Scotland, under the existing law, that a man might remain for 18 years and 325 days upon a holding, and, might manure it properly, expending money upon it up to the very last year; and yet the landlord might come to him and say—"You will go in 40 days, and I will have all the benefit of your manure." That was a very hard case, and it was provided for, in so far as England was concerned, in the English Act, and it would have been in the Scotch Act if the Agricultural Holdings Act for Scotland had been pressed on; but the late
  134
  Government withdrew the Bill the same year as it was introduced, so that in Scotland they had not that provision. Scotch farmers did not yet enjoy the presumption of law enjoyed by the English farmers. By the action of relocation, a farmer might be allowed, after his lease expired, to continue his occupancy of his farm without the security of any written document, being content to remain on the same footing as before. That was a very satisfactory thing to see, because it showed that the tenant and the landlord were on a footing of confidence. He would just read a short paragraph from Lord Stair's Institutes as to the meaning of tacit relocation:—
  "Tacit relocation is that which is presumed to he the mind of both parties after the expiry of the tack, when neither setter warneth nor tacksman renounceth."
  Well, he had put in the Bill that a notice should be given not less than two years, and not more than three years, and the object of that was that the tenant should not receive notice at the commencement of his long lease of 19 years, and then hear nothing of it until two years before his lease terminated. It had always been thought that notice should be within a reasonable time; and in an Act of Parliament in 1676, or some such date, it was provided that warning should be given not more than three years, and when they considered that a landlord had a tenant under his observation for 17 years, it was surely no hardship to ask him to make up his mind whether he would keep his tenant or not, and it was due to the tenant he should know what his prospects in life might be. If the landlord was undecided he only had to give his tenant notice that he would have to go, and the landlord thus would save himself from any inconvenience; but it did not follow that he needed to act upon that warning —he might let the tenant remain if he liked when the lease expired. He thought it was for the interest of landlords as well as of tenants that such a Bill as this should become law. It would be to the interest of the landlord to have his land fully cultivated up to the end of one lease and the commencement of another. The incoming tenant, on the other hand, would find the land manured to a greater extent than was now the case. It would be to the interest of the State

  135
  that that should be the case, for more food would be produced for consumption, and more content would be spread amongst the occupiers of land, as there would be more time allowed them to make their arrangements. Though he did not go the length of many Members in regard to the land, yet he thought it was perfectly right that the State should control the action of landlords in this country. They occupied the land for the beneficial interest of the public; and if their arrangements were not such as were conducive to the public benefit, he thought the State had a perfect right to step in and say, to a certain extent, what they should do. Large tracts of land were now going out of cultivation, and there was no question that the State had a right to step in and prevent this waste of food-producing power. The provision he was asking the House to adopt had reference to no hypothetical case. What he desired had actually been given on some properties, where it was found to be of very great advantage. He had here an extract from a lease on a large property with which he was acquainted—
  "I (so-and-so) bind myself and my successors to give two years' notice before the termination of this lease to the tenant thereof, whether said lease is to be renewed to him, and if so, on what conditions."
  That clause in the lease was found to be a very satisfactory clause, both to landlord and tenant. The tenant felt a security in all that he did, and the landlord gave up no control whatever over his property. His agent and factor had only to say two years before the expiry of a lease that it was to be terminated, if the landlord wished to get rid of his tenant. This cost nothing, and was giving away nothing when they had a long lease. He rather thought that English Members who were not acquainted with the working of the long-lease system in Scotland were afraid of granting the right to two years' notice; and certainly, when compared with 40 days' notice, it was a great jump to make. But when they considered that in England a year's notice was given in the case of a year's tenancy, two years' notice was worth nothing more than a Scotch farmer was entitled to with his long lease. He hoped the Government would assent to the principle of the Bill, because it really only went on the lines which Members of the present
  Sir Alexander Gordon
  136
  Government had so often announced on the hustings their approval of. The Bill assented to the same principle as the Government had announced their intention of embodying in the measure they were going to undertake next Session.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, it was with great reluctance that he rose to address the House on this occasion. The laudable object of the Bill of the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire was to secure compensation to tenants who had used artificial manure in the cultivation of their land. But, in his (Mr. Ramsay's) opinion, the Bill would have very different results from those which the hon. and gallant Member expected would be derived from it. The hon. and gallant Member had said that the most of the land in Scotland was held under leases, while leases were exceptional in England. What he (Mr. Ramsay) deprecated as one of the probable results of this measure was that the landlords in Scotland would be compelled, as in England, to do without leases. He deprecated any interference by piecemeal legislation between landlord and tenant. If the State was going to interfere—and he did not dispute the proposition that the State had a right to interfere when the people of the country were prejudiced by existing law—indeed, it was well known that it did interfere in such cases, with or without compensation, as the circumstances required. He should rather see the views of the late Mr. Mill carried out, and that the State should take over the land, give compensation to the owners, and farm it itself, or let it to such farmers as it pleased, than see the relations of landlord and tenant disturbed in every succeeding Session of Parliament by measures such as the present Bill. The tenants were quite able to take care of themselves. His hon. Friend assumed that the tenants were unable to take care of themselves, and complained that the land might not be cultivated during the last two years unless his Bill was passed. But he (Mr. Ramsay) saw another probable result of passing it. The landlord might give the two years' notice saying—"I have given the statutory notice; if you do not think of

  137
  leaving, it will be open to you to arrange with me before it expires." In such a case the two years' notice would be of no use to the tenant. He would be in doubt whether the notice would be put in force or not. It would be better to continue the 40 days' notice, with the distinct arrangement embodied in such lease that the tenant should quit at the end of the expressed term of years without any notice at all. Their leases contained a notice to remove at the end of the lease, with or without notice. But in addition to the 19 years' notice to quit, expressed and agreed on in the lease, the law said he should get 40 days' notice immediately prior to the stipulated term of removal, and that if he did not get it, he should be entitled to remain in possession under tacit relocation, which was equivalent to saying that the tenant sat on from year to year on the same terms as he had previously held the land under the lease. It would be all very well to legislate in this fashion if the whole of the land of Scotland were arable land under cultivation. But it was less than one-fifth of the area of Scotland which was under cultivation; and such a sweeping measure as this would disturb the relations of landlord and tenant where there was no need of such change, as might be needed in the case of arable land. Farmers on arable land and farmers generally in Scotland were quite able to judge of the nature of a bargain. He had had experience of a large number of tenants, and over a wide area, and he found them quite as well able to take care of themselves as the landlords. He did not see on what grounds the House should be asked to sanction the second reading of a measure of this kind, without there being any sufficient reason shown that the State had such an interest in the question as should constrain it to legislate in the way proposed by this Bill. He trusted that the Government would be pleased to intimate that they had resolved to take up the whole subject of the relations of landlord and tenant, and adjust them in a comprehensive fashion, not allowing them to be disturbed annually by measures such as the present, and such as had been previously brought before the House.
  MR. ORR EWINGsaid, he was very sorry that his hon. Friend the Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay)
  138
  looked upon the Bill as such a violent and sweeping measure. He was surprised to hear his hon. Friend say that he would rather see the land in the hands of the State than this Bill passed. He (Mr. Orr Ewing) thought it was a just and reasonable measure in the interests of landlords as well as in the interests of the tenants. Agents or factors generally began to deal with the tenants long before the end of their leases. They generally gave the tenants to understand whether or not they were to go on before its termination. But there were landlords and landlords in Scotland, just as there were farmers and farmers in Ireland. Under the law as it at present stood, a man might have been 19 years on a farm, and, perhaps, have spoken to the factor about his lease being renewed. There might have been an understanding, though actualty no bargain, that it should be renewed; but something might, ere the old lease actually expired, take place between the farmer and the factor which would result in the farmer getting the 40 days' notice to quit. The farmer might be obliged to leave his farm without having dealt with the land as he would have done had he known he was to leave, and no compensation was allowed to him. If that Bill were passed, such a thing as that could not take place. Could it be said that 40 days were sufficient for a tenant farmer —perhaps a very large tenant farmer—to look out for another farm in which he could locate himself? It was impossible to get a farm at 40 days' notice, and farmers would, consequently, be put to great loss. His opinion was that that Bill would be a very judicious settlement of the question. It would improve the cultivation of the land, because they knew that where there was no arrangement made between landlord and tenant, the latter exhausted the land at the end of his lease by putting in white crops to a great extent and putting in no manure, and the incoming new tenant found the land was very inferior to what it should be. He did hope that this measure would meet with the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government, for he thought it was a reasonable and just measure for the tenant farmers as well as the landlords.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he was glad that the hon. Member who had just sat down had so completely and fully

  139
  answered the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay), who had taken a rather extreme view of this Bill. The hon. Member did usually take an extreme view of the rights of landlords in regard to the holding of land. He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) thought this Bill was a step— he did not say a large one—in the right direction, and that was towards continuity in the occupation of the land which must accompany high cultivation. The necessity for the landlord, or more probably his agent, giving two years' notice before their relations could come to an end, would be a strong warning to landlords and farmers that they should then endeavour to agree upon the provisions of a new bargain. Under the present arrangement, an agent neglectful of his landlord's interests might put off from one day to another giving the farmer any clear idea whether he wished him to go or stay; and the consequence was that the farmer would, during the last two or three years of his lease, put no money into the land which he could avoid doing. He would try, on the contrary, to get as much out of the farm as he could. Such a practice was neither advantageous to the farmer, the landlord, nor the public at large. It might be said that the proposal was an interference with the freedom of contract; but the provision as it now existed of 40 days' notice was a decided interference with the freedom of contract. ["No, no !"] He thought he was justified in so calling it. The landlord stipulated in the lease that the tenant was to quit the farm without any notice whatever, and if that notice were not given, then the tenant had a right to stay on for another year; but if the law overruled that express contract in the lease, as was the case, and said that a tenant was not bound to leave if he had not 40 days' notice, that appeared to him as explicit a case of interference with the freedom of contract as it was possible to have, and it might be some consolation to the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) to know that it had existed for 325 years without the Constitution of this country being seriously damaged in consequence. So far as this question of interference with contract was concerned, it seemed to him that it was merely a question of expediency. Parliament did and ought of necessity to interfere with contracts, when it appeared to be a necessity, in the in-
  140
  terest of both parties and of the public. He was not in the least afraid that landlords would have recourse to yearly holdings in Scotland. Leases for long periods had done far more for the landlords of Scotland than for the tenants. But for them the landlords would have been obliged to accept large reductions of rent at the present time. Under yearly leases, a large portion of the land in Scotland would go out of cultivation, as it could not be the interest of the tenant to cultivate it on such terms. It was said that the tenants were able to take care of themselves. He was not surprised that the landlords should bring forward this argument. The landlords might say that the tenants were able to take care of themselves; but did the facts substantiate this statement? There was no doubt of what the opinions of the farmers themselves were. They were of opinion that they could not take care of themselves in their bargains with the landlords. If the House would consider the conditions to which they had to submit—and the conditions of a bargain were about the best evidence that the public could get as to whether, in the case where it applied, the parties to it were on an equal footing—the House would see that these conditions were manifestly unjust and one-sided, and that the only conclusion that would be come to by a jury considering it would be that one of the parties was not in a position to take care of himself. He was prepared to contend that there was no class of people in this or any other country more independent in character than the farmers of Scotland. They had shown this at the recent Election; and the fact that even they had to submit to conditions manifestly unfair and one-sided was the strongest possible evidence of the great power and pressure they had to contend against in making their bargains. This Bill being a step in the right direction, he hoped it would have the support of Her Majesty's Government. Though it interfered with contracts, it only interfered in a slightly greater degree than the present law interfered. They were only extending a principle which had existed for 325 years, and the necessity of which was becoming more and more apparent as the cultivation of land became more and more developed.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he had listened carefully to all the

  141
  speeches made on the subject, and he had failed to find that a single instance had been given of evil arising out of the present state of the law which would justify the Bill before the House. What did the Bill deal with? It did not deal with tenants below five acres, or with tenants at will. It had nothing to do with those two classes for whom, if at all, some protection was needed; but it proposed to deal with parties who voluntarily entered into engagements extending over a considerable time, in Scotland generally 19 years, and to provide against the contingency of the two parties not coming to an agreement as to the renewal of the lease within 40 days of the expiring time. He challenged his hon. Friend whose name was at the back of the Bill (Mr. J. W. Barclay), or any hon. Gentleman connected with Scotland who knew anything of the working of the lease system in Scotland, to produce to him any instance where a grievance had arisen out of the present state of the law. Judging from his own experience, the usual practice was that leases were entered into for 19 years with the full understanding that if they did not come to a further agreement before the expiration of the time first named the lease came to an end. That was the usual practice in his neighbourhood, and, he believed, everywhere. It was only common sense to expect that no prudent man would allow his lease to run out just on the chance of its being renewed, or on the chance of tacit relocation. The farmers generally wanted a renewal of the lease, and if they could not get it they left their farm and went away somewhere else. It might be that extreme cases did occur when negotiations went on sometimes up to the last moment; but he thought it was very exceptional, for in practical life he thought the tenants generally knew very well what they were about. What was the object of the Bill? What earthly benefit would it be to the tenant farmers? An hon. Gentleman below him had said that it would lead to the disuse of leases; but he did not believe that there would be a disposition on the part of the landlords and tenants of Scotland to part with leases, nor did he believe that would be the result of the Bill. But what he did think the result of the Bill would be was that the notice would be given two years before
  142
  the end of the lease, and then there would be an agreement between the landlord and tenant, so that in reality the Bill would be an utter nullity. He believed that would be the result of the Bill; and unless some hon. Member connected with Scotland could get up and lay his finger upon a case which could show that there was great necessity for the proposed legislation, he was of opinion that the Bill ought not to go on; but if, as was stated by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), there was a necessity for the alteration of the law with respect to the 40 days' notice, then he would be quite ready to consider that subject.
  MR. BIDDELLsaid, he held two or three farms under leases; and certainly, unless a fresh arrangement was made, his term would expire at the end of the lease, the result of that being that instead of getting 40 days' notice, as the Scotch did, the English farmers did not have any notice. The usual practice was that a lease terminated when the time expired, unless it was renewed. At the same time, he was of opinion that the principle advocated by the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) was a right principle. He believed it would be mutually advantageous if the law compelled the party wishing to terminate an engagement to give, say, one year's notice. Two or three years he thought to be too long a notice. In the Chamber of Agriculture of which he was a member the subject had been discussed, and that body had come to the conclusion that it would be of mutual advantage if one year's notice was the rule. This would afford no more protection to the tenant than it would to the landlord. Landlords had, certainly, land thrown upon their hands when they did not expect it, and he thought the principle laid down in the Bill was a just one.
  MR. M'LAGANsaid, an hon. Gentleman had challenged any Scotch Member to adduce cases where a grievance had been created by the existing law. He knew a case in his own neighbourhood where a landlord had let the land on the best terms possible. The tenant requested the landlord to renew the lease; but he declined to state what course he intended to take before the 40 days. It might be said that the landlord did not put the tenant out of the farm; but then

  143
  he put him to great trouble and inconvenience in not knowing whether he was going to be allowed to remain or not, and it had often been found that farms were not easily to be obtained at 40 days' notice. It was not merely the question of compensation for unexhausted manures which the tenant had put in his holding; but it was necessary for the tenant to get a longer notice to quit in order to enable him to obtain another farm and a house in which to live; and on that ground alone he advocated the principle of the Bill before the House, and should support its second reading. He was very much surprised to hear the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) speak of the question as if it was such a great interference with the freedom of contract. He (Mr. M'Lagan) was as much opposed to interference with freedom of contract as anyone, and he agreed that any interference on the subject ought not to take place except under circumstances of public necessity; but in the case of the Bill before the House it was not introducing a new principle at all. They had the interference of the State existing already, in so far as legislation was concerned, as it was already provided that 40 days' notice must be given. That was provided in the event of the landlord and tenant coming to no terms whatever, and to prevent any dispute as to what time notice should be given; so it was said and laid down as a principle that it would be absolutely necessary to give 40 days' notice to render any dispute easily settled. It was not laid down that a landlord was compelled to give 40 days' notice. He might give one year or two years' notice if he chose; but in the event of any dispute between the landlord and the tenant the Legislature had laid it down as a matter of expediency that 40 days' notice must be given. The hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs had said that it would have been much better for the Legislature to take all the land into its own hands and deal with it altogether than to have the present interference. On that question he maintained that they were anticipating altogether a discussion which would take place on another Bill which was before Parliament, when the question of interference with the freedom of contract would come up. The question now before them was very clear. It was abso-
  144
  lutely necessary that the tenant should know in time whether he was to keep his land or not, so that he might prepare for it either by manuring his farm heavily or by not manuring it so much, so as not to leave too much of his money in his land for those who might come after him. He knew of many cases where tenants were not told that they were to leave the farms, and the result was that they left a large amount of their capital behind them in the land; but, by giving two years' notice, they would be enabled to do that which was right and proper. He did not say that the landlords would be the losers by the proposal; but he thought that if the Bill passed into law the landlords would make agreements with the tenants that the farms should not be run out at the end of the lease. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in one of his election speeches, stated that he thought a good arrangement between landlord and tenant would bo to allow the tenant to farm land according to the best rules of husbandry, and during the last four or five years of his lease to bind him down to a particular rotation. That was simply giving four or five years' notice to quit to the tenant. It would not be necessary to give that notice at all if the landlord wished to part with him. That was the method which many of the best proprietors of England were adopting in regard to the cultivation of the land. They allowed the tenants to farm the land as they thought proper until nearly the end of the lease, and then they bound them down as to the way in which the cultivation should be pursued. They had been told from the front Treasury Bench that a Bill which was lately introduced was simply carrying out a practice which good proprietors adopted in the country. He was now only asking the House to carry out the practice which every good proprietor in the country adopted. Such a one would take good care to give his tenant due notice whether he intended to part company with his tenant at the end of his lease. He did not think two years' notice was too much. On the contrary, he put in his own leases sometimes four or five years, so as to allow the tenant on a farm to bring it into a proper state when he was about to leave. That, he contended, would be better than the present system, where a landlord had

  145
  only to give six weeks' notice to leave. He trusted the Government would support the measure. But, if not, he hoped they would give the House a promise that when they took up the question of reforming the Land Laws that the question they were discussing would be particularly considered, and that due notice should be given to tenants before they were compelled to leave their farms. If they got that assurance from the Government he should advise his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) not to put the House to the trouble of dividing; but if they did not get that assurance he should certainly advise him to take the sense of the House on the question.
  MR. ARTHUR PEELsaid, he heartily wished a Scotch lawyer was present to deal with the question; but, under present circumstances, he would do his best. First, he must give every credit to the motives of his hon. and gallant Friend in bringing forward the Bill in the interests of the outgoing tenants, and to secure that what he thought due notice should be given him before the termination of the lease. He thought, however, that a strong expression of opinion had been given in that House that two years' notice was too long, and that to meet the circumstances of the case a much shorter notice would be necessary. But it appeared to him, as an individual, that the weak point in the Bill was this. Supposing he (Mr. Peel) were a proprietor, and he did not like the system of long leases, what, then, was to prevent him giving notice to his tenant as a matter of form, for the purpose of securing himself against probable loss? He should say to the tenant—"I am really not going to oust you at the termination of your lease; but I should like, in the meantime, to consult with you as to whether you can give me a sufficiency of rent, or equal to what another tenant will offer." In that case he did not precisely see how the tenant under the Bill would be in any different position to that which he was in under the existing law. It appeared to him that that was the weak point of the Bill. The suggestion had been thrown out that the Government should say that the subject was under consideration. All he could say was that the subject itself, as well as the question touched on in the Bill, and the question of the permanent
  146
  improvement of the relations between landlord and tenant was one eminently deserving of consideration, and one which ought to form part of any scheme on the subject. As the Bill was drawn he did not think it exactly answered the purpose which was intended; and he hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not press it at the present time, but take the assurance that the subject he had raised, and the other matters put forward as to the position and relations of the out-going tenant, would be carefully considered by the Government when they came to consider the whole question of the Land Laws.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he had not known that this Bill was to be brought forward, and he had only seen it that day at the Bill office. From what he had heard he should say that the Bill was one of those Bills showing the tendency of the Legislature to interfere in every possible way with everyone in every relation of life. At one time it was between employers and employed, with reference to injuries; at another time it was with seamen and their wages; and at another time it was with landlords. At the present moment, in consequence of the agricultural distress, the Liberal Party were attempting to make political capital out of it. It was supposed that that Party had incurred a debt to those who returned them, and they were endeavouring to pay that debt by interfering in every way between landlord and tenant. He maintained that the legal and official astuteness of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had made clear the defects of the Bill—that it would prove to be a nullity. But it was not a nullity in regard to the pinciple it embodied, of further interference with contract Anything like the reasoning of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, logically speaking, he had never heard. In fact, he (Lord Elcho) had, by way of experiment, drawn a fresh Preamble to the Bill. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had asked them to contrast the state of things in England, where there was only a yearly tenancy, with a year's notice, and the state of things in Scotland, with 40 days' notice, and then proceeded—"Is it possible, in a country where the farmer is in possession of an 18 years' lease, to be turned out at 40 days' notice, while in England the tenant with no such lease had a year's notice?"

  147
  Therefore, the Preamble ought to run thus—"Whereas in England, where the tenant has no other security than a yearly tenancy, and of a consequence a year's notice is made necessary at the termination, ergo be it enacted that in Scotland, where the tenant has a security of 19 years' lease, two years' notice shall be required." He thought the reasoning was rather the other way. The whole theory of leases in Scotland was based on the security of long leases such as 18 or 19 years, and in consequence of that they only gave 40 days' notice. But they had heard, in the course of that debate, from many hon. Gentlemen, that the tenants in England with respect to leases were in a very much worse position than the tenants in Scotland were, whether in regard to house or land tenancy. As regarded the practical grievance, however, he dared any of the Gentlemen whose names were on the back of the Bill to say that any real practical grievance had arisen under the present system, and that the practice generally, as had been stated, was not to give ample notice to the tenant, whether they were or were not entitled to it. Hon. Members seemed to forget that what they proposed was an interference on the part of the State. He maintained that the State had no right to interfere, and should not interfere in this fashion. It simply led to bad blood between landlords and tenants; and he agreed with the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs that if the State was going to deal with land in that way—following the precedent of the Irish Land Act, which overrode all contracts and confiscated property in every possible way without compensation—if it intended so to deal with land in this country, the sooner they knew of it the better, and the sooner the State acted honestly in this matter the better. The honest way of dealing as was suggested by the Member for the Falkirk Burghs, was that the State should say—"We think that the present system of Land Laws is in the interests of the country unsound, and the property on land ought not to be held by individuals. The State can do these things far better than individuals can; and, therefore, we will take the land and compensate them who hold it for the full value." That was a more rational and honest plan of dealing with this question than for Members who had pledged
  148
  themselves to their constituencies or to their Party coming to that House with perpetual Land Bills—not that it had been done on this occasion—and, thinking they had a majority on their side, giving in to such wrongful principles of legislation. As regarded the questions of entail, settlement, and cognate subjects, he could understand them being placed under the heading of land legislation. But the present proposal was a distinct matter. Scotland had been brought from a barren moor under a system of free contracts, and all this interference with contract would simply have the effect of making men very careful how they gave these contracts and leases. As for himself, he would rather have his property at a less rent free from these trying, hampering agreements made by the State, than with a nominally larger rent under State supervision and State hatching such as had grown up in Ireland. In Scotland he trusted they should remain free. He should have been perfectly prepared, if the Government had expressed approval of this Bill, to have resisted it; and he thought his hon. Friend opposite would have stood by him in resisting this unnecessary meddling and uncalled for interference for political purposes, in payment, he believed, of political debts incurred at the hustings. Happily, however, the course taken by the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department removed from him the necessity of resisting the measure. He trusted that when the Government came to revise the Land Laws they would not think that that part of the subject required attention—namely, the relation between landlord and tenant, and that freedom of contract which in Scotland and in this country had produced beneficial results to all parlies concerned.
  MR. LITTONsaid, that, as the Irish Land Act had been referred to, he might assure the House that the Irish Land Act had worked very well in Ireland, and he had no doubt but that its principles would find their way into Scotland before long. The principle of that Bill seemed to be a very reasonable one, and its object was to extend the 40 days' notice now given to a two years' notice. It was not fair to allow a man to remain in uncertainty up to almost the last day of his lease, because he might have an opportunity of taking another farm else-

  149
  where if he knew in time what the landlord intended to do. In Ireland it was not unusual to find a man in occupation of land before the lease was drawn up, and the tenant would expect to remain in occupation at the expiration of the lease. It was extremely desirable that the tenant should have sufficient notice as to whether he was to remain or not at the expiration of the lease. In his opinion, a two years' notice prior to the expiration of the lease would be a favourable compromise. The noble Lord (Lord Elcho) called the provisions of the Irish Land Bill confiscation.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that what he meant by confiscation had reference to disturbance—to what was described by the late Sir John Gray as the taking of £8,000,000 from the pockets of one class in order to put it into the pockets of another.
  MR. LITTONsaid, he accepted the explanation of the noble Lord; but if the question of confiscation was to be raised he would be quite prepared to show there was no confiscation. The noble Lord had said that there was in the present Bill an interference with private contract; but he must be aware that, in order to maintain a contract, the parties must stand on an equal basis, and unless the two sides were perfectly independent and free it could not be said that contract was interfered with. In Scotland it might be that the tenant came to his landlord on equal terms. If that were so, he should be inclined to agree with the noble Lord that it was objectionable to interfere with contracts. On the other hand, if the man in possession had to accept a contract under the penalty of removal, or of not obtaining the terms which he would have a fair right to expect, then he should say there was no interference with the contract.
  MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), in his opinion, dealt with a very useful subject; but although he agreed with the principle expressed he did not think it applicable to that Bill. At the present time there were many tenants who did not care to take a lease, and it was not wise on the part of many landlords to ask their tenants to take a lease, but rather, owing to the depression, to let them remain on from year to year. Sup-
  150
  pose the Bill were carried, a simple notice of termination of leases would be given, not necessarily binding on the part of the landlord or the tenant. What would be the use of burdening the Statute Book with Bills which would only confuse instead of guiding those who were anxious to take the fair view which the law laid down on those questions. If his hon. and gallant Friend accepted the views of the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department he would do well. He had listened to the debate, and as much opposition had been shown on the Ministerial side as on that of the Opposition. This opposition was not necessarily to the principle of the Bill, because if they came to what amount of notice should be given more than two years were required. In his own part of the country five years were required, if they expected a man to farm as high. as was customary; and therefore, as far as this went, two years would not be one whit better than one year. He was quite certain that the more impediments they put to freedom of contract between landlord and tenant, the greater difficulty one had with tenants. He hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not press the matter to a division, for if he did he was afraid he should have to vote against him—not because he did not agree with the principle that 40 days was too short a period, but because he thought the provisions of the Bill were unnecessary, and, besides, such matters were far better left to the good feeling subsisting between landlord and tenant than to any Act of Parliament.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he could not see on what principle the law of Scotland required notice of 40 days. It would be much better that it should be understood that the tenancy should terminate upon the expiration of the lease as it did in England.
  MR. PARKERsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had informed the House that he was not aware of the existence of the present Bill till he came down to the House that morning. Had he read it more carefully he might not have found it necessary to say so much about confiscation under the Irish Land Act, and interference with freedom of contract. The Bill did not propose to interfere with freedom of contract. But then, said the noble Lord, it was open to other

  151
  objections. Notices might be served as a matter of form two years beforehand, leaving the landlord to do as he liked till the last. Well, no doubt, landlords would have a perfect right to do so; and, therefore, he did not attach very much importance to the passing of the Bill. There was one ground, however, on which he would support the Bill. If the law prescribed a term of notice at all it was well that it should correspond to the practice of the best landlords. But the present notice as to renewal had been enacted 300 years ago, when 40 days' notice, no doubt, might be sufficient, considering the method of agriculture in vogue at that time. Now, however, there was a totally different system of agriculture, and it was generally recognized as important that tenants under leases such as prevail in Scotland, and under a system of high farming, should have at least two years' notice as to the renewal of the lease. The Representative of an English agricultural constituency had told them that two years was too long a notice. That, of course, might be debated in Committee; but he thought Scotch Members would be prepared to show that if a time were to be named at all two years were not too much. Where there was uncertainty as to the renewal of a lease, the land was often allowed to fall off in condition, and several years were necessary before it could be brought back to its former state if the renewal was obtained. On that ground he thought it worth while that some such enactment should be placed on the Statute Book as Tan indication to landlords of the term of notice that tenants might fairly expect. If his hon. and gallant Friend thought it necessary to go to a division he should vote with him; but after the consideration which the Government had promised to the subject he did not think a division was required.
  MR. HICKSasked why this Bill stopped short at large farms, and was not extended to holdings of less than five acres in size? He indicated his opinion that great dangers would be incurred in way of interference with freedom of contract.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDON,in reply, said, that a great deal had been said as to the alteration in the law his Bill proposed to effect. He could only say that the law as it stood, declaring
  152
  as it did 40 days to be held the legal notice, was an interference with contract. It had been stated that the Bill had been brought in for political purposes. It was very easy to insinuate a motive, because no man could tell another man's motives. He thought, indeed, he had quite as much right to say that the opposition of the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) was due to private interests, as the noble Lord had to say that his action was prompted by political purposes. As to what had been said by the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department about formal notices, he would explain that if such notice were given the land would go out of cultivation. It was the object of the Bill to prevent the tenant receiving formal notice. The landlord who gave a formal notice would thus lose the interest he had in the land; and, therefore, no landlord would give such notice unless he intended to act upon it. He had no wish to put the House to the trouble of a division after the assurance of the Government that they would take the question into careful consideration, and that the result of that consideration would be embodied in a Bill next year. He had not altered his opinion as to the value of the measure in the least degree, although he now consented to withdraw it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

GUN LICENCE ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 193.]
(Sir Alexander Gordon, Mr. Pell, Mr. M'Layan, Mr. Mark Stewart.)
GUN LICENCE ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 193.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDON,in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the object of the Bill was to remove a grievance caused by the Act of 1870, by which a tax was imposed on the guns of those engaged in agriculture. Up to that period occupiers of land in Scotland and Ireland had been free to destroy hares and rabbits, and birds that preyed upon their crops without being taxed; but in thai year a proposal was made to alter the game certificates, and a gun licence was imposed on all persons who carried a gun for the killing of these animals. A

  153
  person might carry a gun and use it for frightening birds or for killing vermin; hut if the person killed the birds instead of frightening them he had to pay a tax of 10s. for his gun. Farmers considered this a great grievance. The amount of the tax was not large; but they objected to it on principle. Parliament had not taxed a man's plough or his spade, and a gun was as necessary a tool to the farmer as either the plough or spade. They had no business to tax it any more than any other instrument of husbandry. He believed that if the Government were to remove the gun licence they would increase rather than diminish the Revenue, because many persons took out a gun licence not only because it enabled them to frighten and kill birds, but because under cover of it they killed game and other animals. They thus avoided taking out a game certificate, for which they would have had to pay £3, and so by only taking out a gun licence they saved £2 10.s. If they would look at the number of game licences issued this year they would find it was 54,726, from which the Revenue derived £188,980. Gun licences had been issued to the number of 136,257, which brought to the Revenue a sum of £80,701. If they turned to the Returns of the Inland Revenue, they would find that every successive year there were some remarks made upon this point on the evasion of the game certificates by persons who took out gun licences. The Report of this year, for instance, said—
  "The increase of game licences since 1871, when the gun licence was imposed, has only been one-fortieth of the total number; but the increase of the gun licence for the same period has been one-third of the total number."
  And they went on to say—
  "One reasonable inference to be drawn from these facts is that a larger number of persons who wish to shoot game take out only a gun licence, under which they carry their guns about without molestation of the Excise officers or gamekeepers, and accept the risk of being found killing game."
  Another year they reported—
  "It is impossible to believe that the large number of persons who go out to shoot game take out game licences. Many of them take no more than a gun licence."
  It would therefore be seen that if they were to abolish the gun tax the Revenue
  154
  would lose nothing, because many persons would be driven to take out a game certificate who now evaded it. Last year this question was brought before the House, and he had hoped that the Government would assent to the principles of the Bill; but it was talked out on that occasion. The chief objector to the Bill on behalf of the late Government was the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. James Lowther, whose memory was blessed by every Irishman. He said, on behalf of the Government, that he could not sanction the Bill, because it would be dangerous to allow Irishmen in Ireland to carry guns, and he would not take upon himself the responsibility of allowing the occupier of land there to have them. So little had that gentleman considered or cared about the subject that he did not know that the gun licence did not prevent a single person keeping a gun in his possession. Every man could have a gun in his house without paying a tax, and he might use it for any purpose he liked other than those he mentioned. It was not until he took it out to shoot birds that he became liable to pay the tax. The Excise officer might see him carrying a gun, but could not touch him if he said his only purpose was to frighten birds. It was only when the Excise officer caught him killing the birds that he forced him to pay the tax. The object of the Bill was to force occupiers of land to protect their crops from injury without the tax; and he expected this year the Bill would receive a more favourable consideration on behalf of the Government than it had last, because they had before them a Bill to enable the tenants to protect their crops from hares and rabbits. This Bill was proposed, therefore, on the same lines as that Bill, and it ought to receive the sanction of the Government. He thought he had shown the tax ought to be removed. In his part of the country they called it a Game Law in disguise, which, in point of fact, it was.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
  MR. SEXTONthought it was desirable that occupiers of land should be able to protect their crops without being taxed; but he was not willing that any Bill should pass which would benefit

  155
  the people of one portion of the United Kingdom at the expense of the people of another portion. The people of Ireland were now, by the expiration of the Peace Preservation Act, placed in an equal condition with the people of England and Scotland with regard to the carrying of arms; and with the view of preventing that state of things being disturbed by the passing of this Bill he moved that it be read a second time that day three months. If he were assured that the Bill would not prejudice the rights of the people of Ireland as to carrying of arms he would be happy to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. ANDERSONsaid the hon. Member's speech had been in favour of abolishing the gun tax, and he pretty much agreed with him; he believed the gun tax to be unproductive and useless, and very often evaded. But the Bill was not for abolition by any means. The Bill provided only for exemption, and it proposed such exemptions on the ground that the gun was an agricultural implement. He had never heard a gun called an agricultural implement before. If the hon. and gallant Baronet could make out that the gun was an implement of that kind, perhaps there might be some reason for asking for this exemption; but he did not look upon the gun in that light, and, besides, he did not like exemptions. If there was to be a tax, let it be levied; if it was to be abolished, then let that be done. If the present Bill had been one to abolish the tax he should have supported it; but as it proposed to do no more than create an exemption he should oppose it.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). He was afraid that in the present state of the finances of the country it would be inexpedient to pass the Bill. The amount of the licence was only 10s. Viewing the danger of all these exemptions, he thought it would be unwise to nibble at that question. If they
  156
  dealt with it, let them do so in a comprehensive, and not in a piecemeal, manner.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, considerable ambiguity prevailed at present as to the law with regard to the right of scaring birds. A case had occurred in his own county in which the decision of one Court had been reversed by another —the decision of the local Court had been overturned by the Court of Quarter Sessions. The case to which he referred was this:— A farmer was prosecuted for killing wood-pigeons. He was told that he had a right to scare these birds, but not to kill them; but his reply was, that he could not scare them without killing them. The local Court, as he had said, decided to inflict a fine; but the farmer, on appeal to the Quarter Sessions sitting at Ayr, got it decided by a majority that scaring birds included killing them. The Board of Inland Revenue was not satisfied with this decision, and announced an intention of appealing to the Court of Session; but at the last moment they abandoned the case. The farmer, however, had spent a considerable sum in the meantime, and that sum with some trouble he had recovered from the late Government. He merely wished to point out the unsatisfactory state of the law. In his opinion, the farmer was quite right in saying that it was impossible to scare the birds without killing them. They did a great deal more harm than hares and rabbits; and he thought, therefore, the law ought to be placed in regard to them on a more satisfactory footing. He could not agree with what the hon. Member for Glasgow had said in reference to the gun tax. Before that tax was proposed, the highways used to be infested with men and boys shooting at birds; but since the Act was passed a very great improvement had been effected.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW),referring to the observations of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), said he was not aware that there was now any difference between the law in England and in Ireland as to the right of having or carrying arms.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, in that case he should withdraw his Amendment.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONalso intimated that in consequence of what the

  157
  noble Lord had stated he should withdraw the Bill.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

EMPLOYERS AND WORKMEN ACT (1875) (EXTENSION TO SEAMEN) BILL.
(Mr. Burt, Mr. Joseph Cowen, Mr. Gourley, Mr. Gorst, Mr. Macdonald.)
EMPLOYERS AND WORKMEN ACT (1875) (EXTENSION TO SEAMEN) BILL.

  [BILL 204.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. BURT,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the object of the Bill was to remove an invidious and unjust distinction between seamen and other classes of the community with reference to the fulfilment of contracts with employers. Seamen were subject to Criminal Law, and might be sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for 12 weeks if they did not present themselves to go on board a ship of which they had contracted to be one of the crew at the time she was about to start. Seven hundred seamen, on an average, were imprisoned every year for that offence. He should like to hear from the Government what they intended to do with reference to this question.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Burt.)
  MR. CHAMBERLAINthought they all sympathized with the object which his hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth had in view. He was sure that all would agree with his hon. Friend that if, without serious injury to trade, this anomaly could be removed it ought to be removed. At the same time, he must remind his hon. Friend that they were dealing with a class who were already the subject of special legislation. He referred to the exceptional legislation with reference to advance notes to seamen. Many shipowners had declared that unless some exceptional provision were made by the law they did not see how it would be possible that their ships could be manned, because it appeared that in too many cases seamen did not go on board till the last moment, and that they went or were taken to the pier in a state of intoxication; and unless there was a
  158
  special power by which they could be put on board it was probable the vessel would have to sail without a crew, or have to take on board at a moment's notice men who might not be qualified for the work they undertook to perform. Having, however, studied the evidence given before the Committee of 1878, he did not think that the arguments in favour of the existing law were at all conclusive. His decision was that it might be possible to assimilate the law as to seamen and other workmen; but he did not think it would be possible to do away with the power which at present existed of putting seamen on board when they had made a contract to join a ship. With such restriction and modification of the law, he did not think the sailors' friends would have any cause to complain of it, while he hoped the Merchant Service generally would find no difficulty in manning their ships. He could not accept the present Bill, because it went too far; but early next Session the Government would themselves present a Bill dealing with the whole subject of discipline in the Merchant Service.
  MR. CORRYthought it would be well to leave the matter in the hands of the Government.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he thought the President of the Board of Trade had adopted a wise course in declining to support the Bill. At the same time he must express his sympathy with the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) in his desire to put merchant seamen on a footing with all other workmen. But there was a time for all things; and if they waited awhile and did all they could to raise the position of merchant seamen they might be able to put them on the same footing as other workmen in this particular. The occupation of a merchant seaman, however, was totally different from other occupations; he was exposed to greater temptations; there were epochs in his avocations, such as starting for long voyages and returning from them. During a voyage he was isolated from the rest of the world, and at other times he was exposed to great temptation, and led into great perils, so that he was hardly responsible in the same way that other men were, and he could not be dealt with as they were. For these reasons, some of the best seamen rather approved the power of arrest without warrant as a means of

  159
  saving them from themselves and getting them on board when otherwise, owing to circumstances beyond their control, they would be likely to break their engagements. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to insert in his Bill relating to Merchant Seamen's Wages the provision which he had himself proposed, by which a seaman should no longer be exposed to imprisonment for neglecting to join his ship without the option of paying a fine; if the fine were not paid, then let there be imprisonment in default. Experience had taught that it was not an easy thing to deal with the question of discipline in the Merchant Navy. As a great many questions were coming on next year, it would be well to secure this year the boon he had suggested for merchant seamen; and it would not interfere with any further legislation on the subject.
  MR. BURTsaid, that, after the assurance given by his right hon. Friend that he would deal with the subject next year, he begged leave to withdraw the Motion and the Bill. But he thought it would be a good thing if the right hon. Gentleman could embody in his Bill the principle suggested by the noble Lord.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

LICENSING LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
(Sir Harcourt Johnstone, Mr. Birley.)
LICENSING LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL. 183.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that within the last eight or nine years several attempts had been made to reform our Licensing Laws; but they had failed to supply a proper solution of the question. In 1871, and again in 1872, he and those who acted with him approached Lord Aberdare (then (Mr. Bruce) upon the subject. He proposed similar clauses in the Government Bill; but they met with opposition and were withdrawn. In again introducing the principle, he wished it to be understood that it in no way interfered with the Resolution of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). On the contrary, while it was supposed to militate against his
  160
  views, it actually enlarged the scope of his measure. While the Bill of the hon. Baronet aimed at nothing more than the prohibition of licensed houses in a neighbourhood without the consent of the ratepayers, this measure proceeded on the old lines, and would retain the magistrates, associated with five elected ratepayers, as the tribunal which should determine where and to whom licences should be granted. On the ground, then, that this Bill admitted the principle that the ratepayers should have a voice in the matter, it ought to receive the hon. Baronet's support. It emanated from a highly Conservative body, the Church of England Temperance Association, the same body which two years ago took special care of the inquiry into intemperance before a Committee of the House of Lords, and it was founded upon the recommendations of that Committee. Therefore, so far as the Conservative Members were concerned, the Bill ought to have their fullest support, unless as regarded those who were themselves engaged in the trade. It was unnecessary for him to say that the brewers, the licensed victuallers, and all who were so engaged were vehemently opposed to it. A body known as the Good Templars, great promoters of sobriety, were equally violent in their opposition to it. If, then, it was so thoroughly abused on both sides, the House might be sure there was some good in it. One set of persons blamed it because it went too far, and others because it did not go far enough, all which went to prove that it was a truly moderate measure. There was, no doubt, a strong feeling throughout the country that the ratepayers should have a local option in respect to the granting of licences, and he had in the Bill yielded to that feeling; but, at the same time, he thought it desirable to retain the jurisdiction of the magistrates. With this arrangement the control of the ratepayers would be still as complete as it would be under the Bill of the hon. Member for Carlisle. All, however, that he at present wanted was that the House should affirm the principle of the Bill, which introduced local option in a measure of Conservative reform.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a secondtime,"—(Sir Harcourt Johnstone.)
  MR. BIRLEY,in supporting the Motion, stated that he fully approved of the proposal that representatives of ratepayers should be associated with the magistrates in the issue or withdrawal of licences of public-houses. Such a scheme was in accordance with constitutional principles, and had been followed long ago in the constitution of the Courts Leet which controlled the alehouses in feudal times. It was true that during the last 400 years such matters had been left under the direction of the magistracy alone, and he ventured to say that they had conducted the licensing system very well upon the whole. But it had become absolutely necessary to satisfy public opinion in regard to the perfectly reasonable desire that those who were so much interested in the issue or withdrawal of licences should have some share in the management of that which was now intrusted solely to the magistrates. That was the great and leading principle of the Bill which had been adopted by the Church of England Temperance Society, partly in deferenoe to the opinions and views enunciated by the Convocations of the Provinces of Canterbury and York. There was a second part of the Bill which had not been mentioned, but which deserved some attention, for it sought to provide for a fund out of which compensation could be given for the withdrawal of licences in certain cases. He thought that would be found more practicable upon examination than it might appear to be at first, and he believed that the result would be to close many houses of a class which it was generally admitted ought not to exist. He would not detain the House by going into the many other questions of interest which were connected with this Bill; but he trusted the House would assent to the second reading.
  MR. MONTAGU SCOTTbegged to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. He wished to explain to the House the reason why he asked them to adopt this course. They had been told by the hon. Baronet who introduced the measure that already two very powerful associations were opposed to the Bill, that the licensed victuallers were opposed to it, and that it was equally opposed by the Good Templars. It was the custom to represent the licensed victuallers
  162
  as the friends of intemperance. But they had no interest in being so. On the contrary, in the interest of their business, it was their policy to promote temperance; and he protested against the manner in which they were held up to opprobrium. Because he opposed this Bill he was not to be set down as an advocate of intemperance. There was no man a greater opponent of intemperance than himself, and what he said practised. He was neither a licensed victualler nor a Good Templar. Those whom he represented were all friends of temperance, although they were opposed to the use of coercion to keep men sober. Those, however, who were always meddling and interfering with the comforts of others were the real promoters of intemperance. The Bill was a slight upon, and an insult to, the magistracy of England. The question raised was whether the House had confidence in the magistrates, and whether they had done their duty in the past? ["No, no!"] The two hon. Members who cried "No!" might have no confidence in them; if so, they could not approve of the Bill. But the House had confidence in them, and so had the country. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Birley) had admitted that the magistrates had exercised their functions with discretion and for the good of the public. If so, why were they to be checked by the association with them of elected ratepayers? The magistrates had the greatest interest in maintaining the moral and social well-being of the people, and were not likely to grant licences in any locality where public-house accommodation was not required. From their interviews, too, with their neighbours, they knew who were and who were not fit to be intrusted with such a privilege. They had hitherto exercised their jurisdiction with care and judgment; and therefore it was that he asked the House, by rejecting this Bill, to show that they had still confidence in the magistrates. If the House had not confidence in them, then it ought to do away with them. The House would show its want of confidence in them if it gave the local five assessors chosen out of the ratepayers, without saying whether those elected were to pay rates to the extent of 1s. or £100. The licensed victuallers and brewers were not to be elected; but did the House suppose that

  163
  the licensed victuallers would not take an active part in the election so as to secure the return of their own friends, so that there would be an agitation kept up all the year round? And if they succeeded, would not they be more anxious for the granting of licences than the magistrates were at present? The magistrates had no special inducements to grant licences. They were residents in the districts, and had due consideration for their families and neighbours; and it was an advantage that they were not dependent upon popular election, so that they were not unduly influenced by the popularity or unpopularity of granting or withholding a licence. He should not complain then that the trade was to be harassed; every trade was harassed, and every interest, every landed proprietor, and every country gentleman, by those hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were never happy unless they were harassing somebody. The hon. Member was still speaking, when—
  It being a quarter of an hour before Six o'clock, the debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR, BRADLAUGH).
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
  MR. WALPOLE: In moving, Sir, that this Report lie upon the Table, it may be convenient to the House to know that the proceedings of the Committee were somewhat complicated as well as the evidence, and that although the evidence is not very long, it will require probably some little time to complete. I do not think it will be completed before Friday morning; consequently, in case any action is taken on the Report of the Committee, it may be convenient for hon. Members to know how soon the proceedings of the Report will be in their hands. This will be either on Friday morning or Friday afternoon.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: After what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, I beg leave to give Notice that I shall defer my Motion that Mr. Bradlaugh be allowed to Affirm until Monday next.
  Motion agreed to.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 226.]

MOTIONS.

  JURORS' REMUNERATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN, Bill for the remuneration of Jurors, ordered to be brought in by Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN, Sir HENRY JACKSON, Mr.BURT, Mr. O'CONNOR POWER, Mr. PASS-MORE EDWARDS, and Mr. JOSEPH COWEN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 223.]

  COUNTY BRIDGES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BEAUMONT, Bill to make provision for borrowing in respect of certain County Bridges, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BEAUMONT, Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, and Colonel KINGSCOTE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 226.]

  AMENDMENT BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854."
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. GOURLEY, Mr.CHARLES WILSON, Mr. JENKINS, and Mr. JOSEPH COWEN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 224.]

  STATUTES (DEFINITION OF TIME) BILL.
  On Motion of Dr. CAMERON, Bill to remove doubts as to the meaning of expressions relative to Time occurring in Acts of Parliament, deeds, and other legal instruments, ordered to be brought in by Dr. CAMERON, Mr. DAVID JENKINS, and Mr. ERRINGTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 225.]

  BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  Select Committee on Births and Deaths Registration (Ireland) Bill nominated:—Mr. MELDON, Sir HERVEY BRUCE, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND, Mr. GIBSON, Dr. LYONS, Mr. MACARTNEY, Mr. ERRINGTON, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mr. DALY, Mr. TOTTENHAM, Mr. BROOKS, Mr. SEVERNE, and Mr. FOLEY:—Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.