Commons Sitting of 2 March 1880

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [March 1] reported.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Heading—Bristol Corporation.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Metropolis Waterworks Purchase [97]; Valuation (Metropolis) Act (1869) Amendment* [98]; East India Loan (East Indian Railway Debentures)* [99].
Second Reading—Metropolis Improvement Schemes Modification Provisional Orders* [77].
Select Committee—Leases* [30], nominated. Committee—Hypothec Abolition (Scotland) [34]—R.P.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL (by Order)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Beading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Fry.)
    MR. WAITsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time upon that day six months. In making that Motion he must say that he was a member of the Corporation of Bristol, and he could speak from his own knowledge of the Corporation, and of the city and its interest. He opposed the present measure because he regarded it, instead of being a progressive measure, as one of a thoroughly re-actionary character. It proposed to deal with a question which he had no doubt was a real and genuine grievance—namely there arrangement of the wards of the City of Bristol. He was very far from saying that a re-arrangement of those wards was not necessary. The present arrangement was very far from satisfactory, and, in fact, a re-arrangement was absolutely neces-
    132
    sary. What he objected to in the present Bill was that it was altogether incomplete in its character. There were very large suburbs of Bristol which ought to be included in any re-arrangement of the city boundaries; but the Town Council, in this Bill, had made no attempt whatever to include those outlying districts within the city. He need hardly say that when these outlying districts were included within the boundaries of the city a re-arrangement of the wards would at once become a very easy matter. What he contended was that before any re-arrangement took place these outlying districts should, in the first instance, be contained within the city. The Town Council could then proceed with a re-arrangement of the wards. If it were impossible, or even undesirable, to include these outlying districts, then, instead of opposing the Bill, he should be very glad to co-operate in supporting it; but, so far from being undesirable and unnecessary, the Boundary Commissioners, who were appointed under the Representation of the People Act, 1867, recommended, in their Report made in 1868, that the city should be extended so as to include the parish of St. George and the district of Bishopston, part of Horfield in Gloucestershire, and a further part of Bedminster in Somersetshire; but it failed to pass through Parliament, and the Boundary Act of 1858–31 & 32 Vict. c. 46—was passed, Bristol being omitted. The rates of the district in 1868 amounted to £47,877, and the population to 18,663. The rating in 1880 had increased to £95,397, and the population to 35,565; in fact, both the rating and the population had doubled within that period, and the weight of the recommendation of the Commissioners had in so far increased. The population of these suburbs was urban in every respect—urban in their employments, in their expenditure, and in their dangers. They had Local Boards of their own, and they possessed every advantage that could contribute towards the constitution of a great city. There was another great and important reason why he desired that the boundary of the city should be extended and the recommendations of the Commissioners adopted. It was, he thought, very important indeed, in a sanitary point of view, that the City of Bristol should have jurisdiction over its own

    133
    suburbs. The City of Bristol had gone to great expense in regard to matters of health and improving the sanitary condition of the town; and it was in the power of one of the suburbs to be a serious source of evil and mischief and contagion to that great city. It seemed only reasonable that the city, therefore, should have control over the whole of the urban community. It was perfectly true that there was some opposition on the part of the inhabitants which he proposed to include within the boundaries of the city. A portion of them naturally wished to enjoy the advantages which were inseparable from, the neighbourhood of a great centre of industry, and they had an equally and corresponding dislike to contribute to the burden of that city. Some of them, again, were actuated by political motives, for he believed that they were nearly all of one political complexion in these suburbs; but the objections were by no means universal. There were a large number of persons who felt that their interest and prosperity would be increased if they were united to the City of Bristol. It was perfectly true that the scheme had been almost unanimously, or even largely, approved by the Town Council, and he must have been one of those who approved of it; but he was willing to admit, and he did admit in this matter, that he, with a great many others, had changed his mind, and he would rather see the Bill thrown out, so that a complete measure might be introduced, and a matter that had long been unsettled might receive a final settlement. He believed that a Memorial, which had been very extensively and widely and influentially signed, had been presented to the Local Government Board, which the right hon. Gentleman below (Mr. Sclater-Booth) presided over. Whether the right hon. Gentleman had anything to say on the subject he did not know; but the Memorial which had been presented to him expressed the sentiments of those who had signed the document, and of a great number who had not signed it. His contention was that the recommendation of the Commissioners gave that greatly increased weight, from the increase of wealth and population which had taken place in Bristol since it was first made. He did not think it would be denied by the Town Council that this Bill would hinder the development of the city; and
    134
    on that ground he thought it ought to be referred back to them for amendment, and a new Bill, embracing the points to which he had referred, should be introduced. In that case, they would have a measure which would give satisfaction, he believed, to the whole of the inhabitants, and which would insure that any improvements hitherto indefinitely deferred would be undertaken for increasing the prosperity of the city. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time upon that day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Wait.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. FRYsaid, he should ask permission to detain the House but a few moments, while he endeavoured to state as shortly as possible the reasons which induced him to hope that the House would not accede to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Wait). His hon. Friend had informed the House that the object of this Bill was to arrange the municipal wards of the City of Bristol. It was admitted by all those who had considered the subject that the object of the Bill was to remove and correct certain glaring inequalities which had previously existed. The division into wards of the City of Bristol had been made, as in other places, by the Commissioners under the Municipal Corporations Act; but it had never been looked upon in the City of Bristol as satisfactory, and it had never been confirmed under the provisions of that Act of Parliament by the Sovereign in Council. But, according to the provisions of that Act, the arrangement remained in force until steps were taken to set it aside. The House would see that in a large city like Bristol great changes must have taken place during the 45 years which had elapsed since that Bill was passed. He would not trouble the House with many observations on that point, because the condition of things in Bristol, as regarded municipal representation, was admitted to be at present far from satisfactory, and the object of the present Bill was to remedy a real and substantial grievance, and not a sentimental one. He would give the House one instance of the existing

    135
    inequalities. At present, there was one ward which had a rateable value of £51,000, and contained 1,044 burgesses. That ward was entitled, under the present arrangement, to six members. But there was another vastly larger ward, with a rateable value of £126,000, and containing 6,192 burgesses, as compared with 1,000 in the small ward, yet it only returned three Town Councillors. On this part of the subject, he would only trouble the House by quoting a letter addressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester to the Local Government Board, in which he spoke of the present condition of municipal power in Bristol in these words—
    "I believe a re-distribution of wards in the City of Bristol is a measure much needed, the present inconsistencies being quite indefensible."
    He could give many other instances of inequality and injustice in the present system; but he thought he had made out to the House that this Bill was intended to remedy a substantial and a great grievance. He would only detain the House very shortly with the history of the proceedings which led to the Bill. The question had been under consideration in Bristol by the Town Council and the inhabitants at large for more than five years; and, inasmuch as every Town Councillor in Bristol had been elected since the question had been before the ratepayers, he thought the House might fairly accept what he should show to be the unanimous resolution of the Town Council in favour of the Bill, as showing that the inhabitants of Bristol were also almost unanimous in its favour. In 1875, a Committee was appointed by the Town Council, and in their Report they recommended that a re-adjustment of the wards should take place. In 1878, another Committee was appointed to suggest a plan, and they reported in favour of the scheme embodied in the Bill now before the House. In 1879, a resolution was passed to promote the Bill now before the House. It was carried by the Town Council on the 29th of April by a majority of 41 to 6, showing an overwhelming preponderance of opinion in the Town Council itself in favour of the measure; and not only so, but under the provisions of the Borough Funds Act a public meeting of the inhabitants, owners, end occupiers had to be held.
    136
    That meeting was held in May last, and no poll was demanded; but the resolution adopted by the meeting might be said to have been arrived at unanimously in favour of the measure. Again, no longer ago than the 28th of January last, the Bill now before the House was laid before the Municipal Council of Bristol, and was then unanimously approved. Therefore, he thought it would be impossible to make out a stronger case, showing that the inhabitants of Bristol, as represented by the Municipal Council, were in favour of the measure now before the House. He need not inform the House how difficult a matter it was to come to an agreement between political Parties in a large town like Bristol in a matter of that kind. The discussion had extended fully and fairly over the last four or five years; and although it had been attended by some difficulty, after a full discussion what was, in fact, a treaty of peace between the two political Parties had been arrived at. He ventured to assert that there was no evidence whatever of any substantial opposition to the Bill. It was true that there had been a Memorial to the Local Government Board. He had not seen the document; but it was signed, he understood, by about 90 individuals, of whom he presumed his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester was one. But the city of Bristol contained 200,000 inhabitants, and some 24,000 burgesses; and, therefore, he did not think the House would attach much weight to a Memorial to the Local Government Board from the small number of 90 inhabitants. He had no doubt that they were respectable and influential persons, but they formed a very small minority; and he would ask why they did not come forward and petition the House in the usual way? Why, instead of presenting a Petition to that House, did they merely memorialize the Local Government Board upon the subject? Seeing that there was a meeting of the ratepayers held as lately as last year, he thought it was the duty of these gentlemen, entertaining such views, to have attended on that occasion in order to express their opinions and make an appeal to the inhabitants in order to ascertain whether any considerable number of the citizens of Bristol would support the views they entertained. So far as his hon. Friend the Member for

    137
    Gloucester was concerned, it was well known by all who had the pleasure of his acquaintance that he was a prominent and popular citizen of Bristol. As he himself had informed the House, he had been a member of the Town Council during the whole period that this question had been agitated; and he must ask his hon. Friend why he did not oppose the Bill as lately as last January—six weeks ago—when the unanimous vote of the Town Council was given in its favour? The hon. Gentleman intimated that he had changed his mind. He had a perfect right to do so. Probably the man who never changed his mind was far from a wise man. But he would suggest to his hon. Friend that if he had changed his mind before January last, it was his duty to have made a representation of the fact at that time, and to have brought forward the views which he entertained against this proposition. Last year the very question now before the House was mooted in the Council, and a proposal was made to postpone any action upon the Bill until the question of the enlargement of the boundaries had been considered. It was negatived by a large majority; and in the majority on that occasion he found the name of his hon. Friend. He would now ask permission of the House to say a word or two as to the grounds of the opposition which had been raised against the Bill. So far as he understood it, their opponents did not object to the provisions of the Bill. They admitted that, in justice to the City of Bristol, the wards ought to be re-arranged; but they alleged that the municipal boundaries of the city ought to be extended at the same time. Now, he would remark that the question of Parliamentary boundaries was a question for the House itself to decide; but the question involved in the present discussion was a question of municipal boundaries, and only related to local affairs—such as sanitary affairs, and local taxation. These things were most strictly within the province of a local municipal body like the Town Council of Bristol; and he would submit that the House must attach great weight to the opinion of the Town Council of Bristol upon a matter of that kind. It was true that the Boundary Commissioners, in 1868, proposed to enlarge the boundaries of Bristol in the way stated by his hon. Friend. But the Report of the Boundary Commission, was received with great dis-
    138
    satisfaction; and when the Boundary Bill was introduced in the following year to give effect to the recommendations of the Commissioners Bristol was omitted from that Bill. He had the authority of the Town Clerk of Bristol, who had been the legal adviser of the Corporation of Bristol for 40 years, for saying that the circumstances had greatly changed since 1868; and populations had grown up in other parts of the neighbourhood of Bristol than those which were considered by the Boundary Commissioners; and that, if the boundaries of the city were to be extended, the changes proposed by the Boundary Commissioners were not those which would apply now. But what he would put to the House was this—that there was an entire absence of opinion on the part of Bristol in favour of an extension of the boundaries of the city. He might even put the case higher, and say that there was a strong feeling of opposition in Bristol to such an extension. Last year a resolution was proposed in the Council that the consideration of the Bill should be deferred until the question of extending the municipal boundaries had been considered, and that proposition was negatived by 46 votes to 6. Therefore, he was justified in the assertion that there was a strong feeling on the part of Bristol against the extension of the boundaries. Then, again, what was the feeling of the outlying districts themselves? If the feeling against this proposal was strong in Bristol itself it was very strong in the outlying districts. The principal districts sought to be included were the parishes of St. George, and the district of Bishopston, in Horfield, and they had both petitioned the House against the suggested change; and not only so, but the local sanitary authorities had passed resolutions and presented Petitions to the House against any such measure being adopted. Both St. George's and Horfield had formed their own Local Boards, and were able to deal with all sanitary questions in a satisfactory manner, paying by means of their own rates for their own sanitary arrangements. They provided their own water, their own gas, and the rest of it; and he would appeal to the House that, such being the case, there was no precedent for including in a borough districts of that kind, which had their own local authorities, against their will. This was not a case in which a large city or borough came to the House and asked

    139
    that surrounding districts should be included. But he had shown the House that the city of Bristol was opposed to such a change, and that the feeling of the surrounding districts was strongly, and he might say almost unanimously, opposed to it. He would submit that, under these circumstances, it would be unjust to compel a union between districts when neither of the parties desired it. His hon. Friend had intimated that he would be prepared to modify his suggestion; but the House, he thought, would agree with him that the question for consideration now was the passing of the Bill, or the rejection of it altogether.
    MR. WAITsaid, that he suggested that the progress of the Bill should be deferred and the clauses amended.
    MR. FRYconsidered that it would be impossible to pass another Bill this year; and if his hon. Friend succeeded in obtaining what he asked no legislation could take place upon the subject this Session. He would not detain the House further. He thought he had shown the House fairly that the feeling in Bristol, and in the surrounding districts, was strongly in favour of this Bill; and he would only add a hope that in the interests of peace and good faith in the City of Bristol, and of those municipal institutions the authority and influence of which the House had always been anxious to maintain, the Bill would be read a second time.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, that on other occasions he had objected to the principle which the House was asked to adopt in the present instance. Persons who had been allowed to present Petitions to the House for the introduction of Private Bills had, it seemed to him, something more than a private grievance—something amounting, to a large extent, to a Constitutional grievance, when it was proposed that the measure which they had been induced to introduce should be rejected on the second reading. It was the Constitutional right of the subject to petition that House. Private Bills were introduced on petition; and a Bill could not be read a first time except by the House granting the prayer of a Petition demanding the introduction of such Bill. For the convenience of themselves, the House referred that Bill to a Private Committee which, practically, consisted of themselves; and having allowed the Bill to be so introduced, and thus
    140
    having given the promoters their sanction to what they were doing, then they turned round and said—"You shall not have a hearing." The hon. Member for Gloucester was opposing a Bill which interested the City of Bristol; but if what the hon. Member who spoke last said was correct, the hon. Member for Gloucester was himself a member of the Bristol Corporation, and in that capacity had already given his sanction to the Bill. Surely that was a very odd course of proceeding. If that were so, then, certainly, his opposition, to say the least of it, was out of place and inconsistent. The question which he (Sir Edward Watkin) wished to submit to the House was, were they to go on with this practice of practically seducing people to apply for Bills to be introduced into the House, and then turning round, and saying—"We refuse to hear your case." He thought it would be well for the House to take a decided line upon this question, and he would ask for the opinion of the Chairman of Committees upon it, though he had never yet heard that hon. Gentleman take the line which he ventured to suggest—namely, that there was something of a Constitutional question at the bottom of these refusals of the justice of a hearing to Petitioners to that House. He thought it would be most unjust to refuse to a great Corporation like that of Bristol a hearing before the House, when they had permitted the introduction of a Bill on the Petition which had been deposited.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHremarked, that he was anxious to say a few words to the House on the question, not as a Member of the Government, but as one of the Members for the county of Gloucester, which was much affected by the measure, as the House would have already learned from the able speech of the hon. Member who moved the second reading of the Bill (Mr. Fry). But he did not think it quite fair that the matter should be considered purely from the point of view in which the hon. Member had put it. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had not had the advantage of hearing the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for the city of Gloucester (Mr. Wait); but he had no doubt that in his speech he had made it plain that there were many interests in the case beyond those of the inhabitants of the city of Bristol. The hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) had found fault with the

    141
    hon. Member for Gloucester for his action in the matter, and had treated him as if the course he had taken were absolutely unjustifiable; but he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) might remind the House that this was by no means a new question. So long ago as the year 1867 a Commission of very high authority, charged to inquire into the boundaries of the various constituencies in England and "Wales, recommended that certain districts adjoining the City of Bristol should form their connection with the city, and be united with it for Parliamentary purposes. Well, that was a fact which had been admitted by the hon. Member for Bristol; but the hon. Member said that this was not a question of an extension of Parliamentary boundaries, but a municipal question alone. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) wished to treat it purely on municipal grounds, and, being interested in the county of Gloucester, he said that on these grounds it was not fair that these districts should continue to be part of the county of Gloucester, but that they should be united for municipal purposes to the City of Bristol, to which they properly belonged. If the House assented to the measure now before them, that question would be indefinitely postponed. It was a measure for dealing only with the wards within the city, whereas, if the whole question were dealt with, the municipal boundaries would be considered as well. He had figures here to show the urgent need for this consideration. He found that in 1867, when it was reported that these districts ought to be united to the City of Bristol, there were in the ecclesiastical district of Bishopston 347 houses, with a population of 1,763 inhabitants. In 1880 the number of houses amounted to 813, and the population to 4,065. In addition, he might say that between 150 and 200 houses were in course of erection, and would, no doubt, be quickly inhabited. In the parish of St. George's, in 1867, there were 2,614 houses with a population of 12,500; in the present year the number of houses was 5,179, the population 25,000. In that part of the parish of Bedminster which was defined by the Report of the Commissioners, the number of houses in 1867 was 802, and the population 4,400. This year the number of houses was 1,427, and the population 7,500. Now, what
    142
    was the result of that as affecting the county of Gloucester? The result was simply this—that at every Quarter Session they had to provide for some increased expenditure for the police and the administration of justice in this part of the county, which certainly ought to be included in the city to which it belonged. He thought that the time had fairly come when the county of Gloucester should be relieved from these taxes upon it for the police force and for the administration of justice within these urban districts. For this reason, he asked the House not to sanction this imperfect measure as it was now proposed, but to express an opinion that the question ought to be dealt with as a whole, and that if the matter required consideration it should include the question of the city boundaries as well as the re-arrangement of the municipal wards.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he thought it was unusual for a Cabinet Minister to come down and speak against a Private Bill. He hoped, therefore, he might be excused, although he had not heard anything of the merits of the case before entering the House that evening, for taking a part in the debate. In the first place, he wished to express regret that his right hon. Friend did not announce that this question was not a question in which the Government was interested, but only, in fact, a match between the county of Gloucester and the City of Bristol. [An hon. MEMBER: He said so.] They had heard that the Municipality of Bristol, by a majority of 46 votes to 6, decided that they wished to have the question of the division of the municipal wards settled; but that they did not wish to have that question mixed with the question of Parliamentary boundaries. What they said was—"We wish to have the question of re-dividing the wards of the city settled." He would ask the House, could there be a more legitimate subject in the world for the decision of a Committee? They would be enabled to find out, by the examination of witnesses on the one side and the other, whether the wishes of the City of Bristol for a re-division of the municipal wards, or the desires of the county of Gloucester to be relieved of an additional expenditure at the Quarter Sessions by an extension of the municipal boundaries, ought to prevail. Of all questions this was the

    143
    sort of one that ought to be remitted to a Committee; and he would ask hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House whether that course should not be adopted, if they were anxious to preserve their system of Parliamentary Committees? A question of this kind, could not be debated in a full House upon its merits, but must be remitted to a Committee if it was to receive fair and full consideration. If they were to maintain that principle it was for hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House to agree that on no consideration would they make that case an exception, but that they would send it to the only tribunal which could fairly consider it.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHobserved, that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had stated that he had not had time to study this Bill, and his speech showed very clearly that he had not. The question which he said ought to be submitted to a Committee was one which it could not deal with at all; and that was the ground, and the only ground, on which the question cropped up at all. His hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Wait) did not dispute the propriety of a re-distribution of the wards of the City; but the question was whether the inhabitants of the district had a right, while proper steps were being taken for re-arrangement of the wards, to intervene and ask the House to throw out the Bill upon the second reading because it did not go further. He had no wish to take part in the discussion; but, as his name had been mentioned, and as a Petition had been addressed to him at the Local Government Board, he must take the liberty of stating that he should feel no compunction whatever in seeing the Bill extended into one for enlargement of the municipal boundaries. It so happened that some persons in the City of Bristol had addressed a Petition to him which, in his opinion, ought to have been addressed to the House. He had only got up on that occasion in order to state its contents, because he thought that they ought to be in the possession of the House, especially as they were very short. The memorialists desired that the Bill should not pass without the further extension of the municipal boundaries of the City of Bristol, so as to include certain outlying districts. The case of the Corporation of Bristol had
    144
    been extremely well stated to the House by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Fry), and the House had also had the advantage of hearing the hon. Member for Gloucester state the grounds of his opposition. His right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had also had an opportunity of making a statement from a county point of view; and the question now rested with the House whether they would read the Bill a second time, or reject it, or defer it in order that further time might be given to the inhabitants for making their voice heard. He might repeat again that his only object in rising was to express his opinion that, when persons desired to object to the principles of a Private Bill, they ought not to address a Government Department, but should address themselves to the House.
    COLONEL KINGSCOTEsaid, that he had that day, or rather the day before, presented to the House four most numerously signed Petitions from the parishes interested in this Bill against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Wait.) He might also say that he was a little bit astonished to find that his right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) should come down there and speak in support of the Amendment, on the ground that the Bill might increase the rates of the county. Now, by his own showing, the population of St. George's and Bishopston had of late years considerably increased, and there had been a large increase of houses and rateable value far in excess of the expenditure upon these particular districts. No one would wish less than himself to increase the expenditure of the county; but he could not see how a district in which the rateable value was constantly increasing could add materially to the expenditure of the county. St. George's and Bishopston had their own urban authorities under the Public Health Act; they had their own sewage rates, and their own gas and water rates. In point of fact they were completely small towns of themselves; and they had petitioned with one voice in favour of this Bill. An allusion had been made by his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) to political matters. He was sorry that he had said anything upon that point; but if he wanted information he (Colonel Kingscote) could

    145
    give it to him. He thought his right hon. Friend would find that the gentlemen who presided over the two meetings which had been held, and at which these largely-signed Petitions were adopted, were gentlemen holding opposite political opinions to himself. He did not see anything in that matter, and he did not ask the House to reject the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester on that ground; on the contrary, what he did ask was, that the Bill should be allowed to go before a Committee to be fairly considered upon its own merits. Nobody but his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, and a very small minority in the City of Bristol, had expressed any desire, and that only within the last five or six weeks, to secure the rejection of this measure. He could point out to him privately where this opposition sprung from, and he was sorry to see that his hon. Friend had lent his assistance to it.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) had anticipated any expression of opinion on his part in this matter, by blaming him for not laying down in the House a certain doctrine which commended itself to his mind as a Constitutional one. Now, he (Mr. Raikes) had not attempted to lay down that proposition in the House, because it appeared to him to be an unconstitutional one. The hon. Member for Hythe and anyone who thought with him were apparently of opinion that whenever a Private Bill encountered opposition in that House it was contrary to the Constitution that it should be opposed on the second or third reading, or in any other part of its progress. He could only say that he agreed with him in the principle thus enunciated; but, at the same time, there could be no doubt that as the House was well aware of the Private Bills which passed through the House the enormous majority did pass through these stages unopposed, and it was a small percentage only that was opposed. It appeared to him that Bills of this kind ought only to be opposed when they raised an important principle, or when it appeared that the course of proceeding was contrary to generally recognized precedents. If the hon. Member for Gloucester had succeeded in satisfying the House that that had been the case in the present instance, in that event, no doubt, he would carry the House with him in opposing the
    146
    second reading of the Bill; but if, on the other hand, the House was of opinion that he had failed to substantiate that proposition, they would, no doubt, give the Bill a second reading, and refer it to a Select Committee. He confessed that he had sat there waiting to hear his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board speak what was the mind of the Government upon the matter, because he thought that that must be an opinion which must greatly weigh with the House. The interests involved in an extension of the borough of Bristol were of so important a character that he desired, before coming to any conclusion, that he should hear what the Government, speaking on their responsibility, had to say, and he had no doubt that the House would have adopted their view; but he did not find that his right hon. Friend had concluded by pressing any adjournment of the discussion; and therefore he took it that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the question of principle had not been sufficiently raised to justify them in taking any step antagonistic to the Bill. If he rightly construed this aspect of affairs, it seemed to him that a sufficient case had not been made out to justify the House in refusing to read the Bill a second time. The materials of the case were very simple and very plain; they had been justly and fairly stated by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Fry), who moved the second reading of the Bill; and they were not disputed by the other side. There was no question that the re-distribution of these wards was a thing that was generally desired in Bristol; that it had been approved by the Corporation by very large majorities; that it had passed the ordeal of public meetings, and that it had been the outcome of a thorough understanding between the two Parties in that city. Therefore, there could be no question in his mind as to the propriety of reading the Bill a second time, if a larger question of general principle was not to intervene, and if no responsible authority was prepared to urge that it was undesirable to deal with the re-distribution of wards in the borough before considering the larger question of the Parliamentary boundaries. On the whole, he felt inclined to acquiesce in the course proposed by the hon. Member for Bristol; but, before he sat down, he

    147
    must point out a fact that perhaps might escape the notice of many hon. Gentlemen there. When a Corporation were thus the promoters of a particular Bill, representing, as they did, the inhabitants, that fact precluded any portion of the ratepayers from petitioning against the Bill; therefore, the House must be aware that if they read the Bill a second time they were, practically, remitting it to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, because he was not aware of any interest which could appear before a Select Committee in opposition to it. The question was one of considerable gravity, and it was for the House to decide; because, in a case of this sort, they were really laying down as a fact that they thought the Bill should proceed as it stood, and that it should proceed without undergoing that sifting and examination which it would get before an opposed Committee. He wished to point out this to the House as one consideration before it. Having given the best attention he could to the subject, and having considered all the matters which had been stated on both sides, he thought the House would do well not to depart from its general custom in this instance, but to read the Bill a second time.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 163; Noes 98: Majority 65.—(Div. List, No. 31.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

QUESTIONS.

  AFFAIRS OF AFGHANISTAN.
  MR. OTWAYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been given to a telegram from Lahore, published in the "Daily News" of Saturday last, and since repeated in the other daily papers, setting forth certain conditions as those of the British Government for the settlement of affairs in Afghanistan; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have received any official communication which will justify the statement sent by telegraph from Lahore on Saturday?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir; the statement is purely imaginary.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—ADULTERATION OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACT, 1875.
  MR. VERNERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, seeing that there is an appeal to the Chemical Staff of the Somerset House Laboratory in cases where the analysis made by public analysts is disputed, If he will explain why there is not a similar reference to that laboratory in the case of a merchant who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Customs officers?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Sir, it is not quite correct to say that there is an appeal from the verdict of public analysts to the laboratory at Somerset House. What the Act of 1875 says is that upon the request of either party in a case, the justices, or Court of Appeal, may in their discretion cause any article of food to be sent to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for analysis. And I understand the object of this clause to have been to provide the Courts with the means of obtaining an independent scientific opinion, rather than that they should give a verdict against the opinion of a public analyst. At any rate, it gives no absolute right of appeal. In respect of tea, the Act puts the Commissioners of Customs in the position of a Court of Law. Their discretion is absolute and final; and as it is important that they should exercise that discretion promptly and without delay, it was probably thought right to keep the machinery by which they arrive at their decisions as simple as possible. So far as I am aware, exception has very rarely been taken to the decisions of the Board, and the present arrangements seem to me to work satisfactorily.

  ROYAL SCHOOL OF MINES.
  MR. BELLasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is true that part of the instruction formerly given at the Royal School of Mines in Jermyn Street has been transferred to South Kensington; whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to move the remainder of the school to South Kensington; and, if so, when; and, whether it was not declared by the Eight honourable W. E. Forster, on June 29th 1871, that no such removal as that referred to should be effected

  149
  without previously submitting the question to the judgment of the House of Commons?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, as much misconception seems to exist about what has been done to the Royal School of Mines in Jermyn Street, it would, perhaps, be as well if I were to state what has been done. Some years back the greater part of the instruction given at the School of Mines in Jermyn Street was transferred to South Kensington, where it was supplemented by laboratory and practical instruction, which could not be provided for in Jermyn Street. This removal was strongly advocated by the Commission upon Scientific Instruction, presided over by the Duke of Devonshire, and was also in accordance with the wishes of the Professors whose classes were so transferred. The only courses now remaining in Jermyn Street are those in metallurgy, mineralogy, and mining; and even with the addition of a hired house, and the location of the metallurgical laboratory outside the Museum, the space now occupied by the Museum and School of Mines in Jermyn Street is inadequate, and the arrangements in consequence far from convenient. We were last year informed by the Office of Woods and Forests that it was impossible, under any circumstances, to retain this house on the site upon which the metallurgical laboratory is beyond 1884; and as the immediate removal of the metallurgical class would give the additional space required inside the Museum, arrangements were made at once for this transfer. At present it is not our intention to move the remaining classes in Jermyn Street. I cannot find any answer by Mr. Forster in Hansard to the effect that the question of removal should be submitted to the House; but it seems to me clear that whatever answer was made in 1871 it referred only to the arrangements then in contemplation, and which were shortly afterwards carried out.

  INDIAN FAMINE COMMISSION— THE REPORT.
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Report of the Indian Famine Commission is now in course of preparation in England or in India;
  150
  and, if in England, how many of the Commissioners are now in this Country, particularly how many Native Members of the Commission; and, when it is probable that the Report will be presented?
  MR. E. STANHOPE,in reply, said, the Report was in course of preparation in England. Five of the Commissioners were in England. No Native Members were here, as they excused themselves on account of the climate; but before any of the Members left India the Commission discussed and agreed upon the principal points to be reported on. The first part of the Report, dealing with measures for famine relief, will probably be presented this month, and the second and last part before Midsummer.

  HALL-MARKING (GOLD AND SILVER).
  SIR HENRY JACKSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Government intend to bring in a Bill for carrying out the recommendation of the Select Committee which reported last Session in reference to consolidating and amending the Acts relating to the hall-marking of gold and silver manufactures?
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: Sir, the recommendation referred to in the Question of the hon. and learned Baronet has not been lost sight of at the Board of Trade; but, looking to the amount of Business which the Government have already undertaken during the present Session, they do not consider that it would be practicable to introduce a measure upon this rather complicated question with any hope of bringing it to a successful issue.

  ARMY—KNIGHTSBRIDGE BARRACKS.
  COLONEL MAKINSasked the First Commissioner of Works, How soon it is probable that the hoarding on the south side of Knightsbridge Barracks will be removed, so as to give the public the use of that part of the roadway which it now incloses?
  MR. GERARD NOEL,in reply, said, that the Knightsbridge Barracks were not under the Office of Works, but under the War Department. He was, however, informed that the barracks would be completed by the end of April, when, of course, the hoarding would be

  151
  removed, so as to give the public the benefit of that part of the roadway referred to.

  TURKEY AND GREECE—RECTIFICATION OF THE FRONTIER.
  MR. W. CARTWRIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can give any information to the House in reference to the reported suspension of negotiations between the Porte and Greece for a rectification of frontiers; and, if he will state when the promised Papers relating to this matter will be in the hands of Members?
  MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, that the Foreign Office had not heard that the negotiations in question had been broken off. They had heard that fresh proposals had been made by the Turkish Government to the Greek Government, but did not know what the details were. He hoped the Papers would be in the hands of hon. Members in a very few days.

  SCOTCH JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS— SHERIFF SUBSTITUTE OF KINROSS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Lord Advocate, If he will arrange that the vacant office of Sheriff Substitute of Kinross shall not be filled up till there is an opportunity of considering whether the jurisdictions in Fife and Kinross cannot be re-arranged, so as to provide better for places more important than Kinross?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON): Sir, it is not intended to fill up the vacant office, because there will be no difficulty in making arrangements by which the whole judicial work of the county, which is a small one, may be efficiently performed. At present, what will be the best arrangement is a matter engaging the consideration of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and myself. I may say the office has been vacant upwards of a month, and a great many parties interested, or who conceive themselves to be so, have made representations on the subject; and I would suggest to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy whether he would not better attain the object he seems to have in view by asking those bodies he has referred to in the Question to make similar
  152
  representations, instead of by putting a Question in so vague a form as he has done. Whilst an arrangement cannot be indefinitely delayed, I shall be very glad to receive any recommendations they have to suggest on the subject.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  MR. DILLWYNasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Why it is proposed to take Classes II. and III. of the Civil Service Estimates before Class I?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONin reply, said, his hon. Friend must know very well that No. I. was very seldom taken first. Perhaps he might even say that it was the invariable mode to proceed in the order in which he had placed the Votes on the Paper.

  POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS) BILL.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he wished to put a Question to the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury with reference to a statement he made yesterday respecting the Post Office (Money Orders) Bill. He understood the hon. Baronet to say that he had postponed the Bill for a fortnight. When he brought the measure forward, would he object to move that it should be read a second time pro formâ, in order to give an opportunity of re-printing the Bill with the proposed Amendments, so that it might be made intelligible to the public? In its present state, he would defy anyone to understand it.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON,in reply, said, he was afraid he could not comply with the request of his hon. Friend. Last night he placed on the Table the Amendments which he intended to propose, and which would be printed and circulated as a separate Paper. After the Bill had passed the second reading, he would move that it should be re-committed pro formâ, with a view to its being re-printed with the Amendments.

PRIVILEGE—(TOWER HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE (METROPOLIS) COMMITTEE).

  CONSIDERATION OF CASE OF CHARLES EDMUND GRISSELL.
  Case considered.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLE: Sir, I hold in my hand a Petition from Mr.

  153
  Charles Edmund Grissell, and I desire to explain the circumstances under which I undertook to present it to the House. Two days before the commencement of the Session I received a letter from Mr. Grissell, in which he asked me whether I would agree to present a Petition for him relating to his case. My answer was that I thought it would be better that someone who was not a Member of the Committee to which the question had been referred should present the Petition; but, inasmuch as I understood him to say that in his Petition he would express great regret for what had happened and would submit himself completely to the House, I said I would so far take charge of the Petition as to present it. At the same time, I gave him no advice relative to the Petition, as to which he must consult his own friends. The day before Parliament assembled I received from Mr. Grissell a Petition which, it was clear to my mind, would not be considered by the House as satisfactory to them, and I accordingly wrote to Mr. Grissell, stating that the offence was so grave a one—much more than a mere fault as he had designated it—that my belief was that the House would not pass by the matter so easily as he seemed to imagine, and I was perfectly confident the House would expect him to make a much more complete submission than the language he had used in the Petition appeared to me to convey. From that day till yesterday I heard nothing from Mr. Grissell. Yesterday afternoon, in consequence, I suppose, of a Notice appearing upon the Paper referring to the subject, together with the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I received a letter from Mr. Grissell, asking whether I would grant him an interview. My answer was that it appeared to me that any interview would be useless, inasmuch as I could say no more to him than I had already told him in writing, and that, therefore, I must decline to see him. Since yesterday, and in the afternoon of this day, I have received a Petition which I think is fully respectful to the House, and, as I read it, completely submissive; and I, therefore, feel no hesitation whatever in presenting it to the House for their consideration. I will now move that the
  154
  Clerk at the Table shall read the Petition.
  Motion agreed to.
  Petition of Charles Edmund Grissell presented, and read, as followeth:—
  "To the Honorable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled.
  "The humble Petition of Charles Edmund Grissell, of Curzon Street, May Fair, in the county of Middlesex,
  "Sheweth—
  "That a Select Committee of your honorable House reported in August last that your Petitioner had committed a Breach of the Privilege of your honorable House.
  "That your Petitioner was thereupon ordered to attend at the Bar of your honorable House, but that he had previously been obliged to leave London in accordance with the direction of his medical adviser.
  "That on his return he was arrested in virtue of a Warrant issued by your honorable Speaker, and was committed to Her Majesty's gaol of Newgate.
  "That your Petitioner deeply deplores the grave offence of which he was adjudged guilty, and desires to tender his humble apology and the expression of his sincere regret to your honorable House.
  "That your Petitioner desires to make the fullest submission and to throw himself upon the merciful consideration of your honorable House.
  "Your Petitioner therefore humbly prays that your honorable House will be pleased to accept of his humble apology and the expression of his deep regret for his grave offence.
  "And your Petitioner will ever pray.
  "CHARLES E. GRISSELL."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, there one or two observations which naturally occur to one in hearing the Petition which has just been read. In the first place, it would certainly have been more satisfactory if that Petition had been presented by Mr. Grissell on the first re-assembling of Parliament. He might then have seen the gravity of the offence which he committed last Session; and it would have been more satisfactory if he had, on his own motion, submitted himself and apologized to the House. Of course, another observation that might be made on the Petition itself is, Mr. Grissell scarcely sets out in full the nature or extent of the offence which he committed in disregarding the authority of the House. He speaks of a summons having been sent to him in August last; but, in point of fact, it was on the 22nd of

  155
  July that Mr. Grissell was ordered to attend the House on the following day, the 23rd. On the 23rd of July, however, the Serjeant at Arms reported that Mr. Grissell was not in attendance, and he read a telegraphic message, from which it appeared that Mr. Grissell was at Boulogne. Mr. Speaker thereupon issued a Warrant for his apprehension, and on the 13th of August the Serjeant at Arms reported that he had taken Mr. Grissell into custody. On the 14th of August the House committed Mr. Grissell to Newgate for evading the execution of Mr. Speaker's Warrant, and on the following day Parliament was prorogued and he was discharged. The Petition, in setting forth the nature of the case, does not show really what the full circumstances were. I do not believe the House will feel any desire to be vindictive in such a matter; but, at the same time, I think it right that notice should be taken of this grave Breach of the Privileges of the House, and I will move the following Resolution:—
  "That Charles Edmund Grissell, having evaded punishment for his offences against the Privileges of this House until the close of the last Session, he sent for in the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant accordingly; and that he be reprimanded, at the Bar, by Mr. Speaker, for his contempt of this House."
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I do not think the House will desire now to discuss what further steps should be taken with regard to Mr. Grissell; but it seems to me that the course proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, at all events, the first step which should be taken, and, therefore, I beg to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Charles Edmund Grissell, having evaded punishment for his offences against the Privileges of this House until the close of the last Session, be sent for in the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant accordingly; and that he be reprimanded, at the Bar, by Mr. Speaker, for his contempt of this House."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. C. BECKETT-DENISONsaid, it was very difficult for a private Member to offer an opinion of his own on such a delicate question as this after the Leader of the House had spoken; but as two points were combined in the same Resolution, he must say he ex-
  156
  pected that Mr. Grissell would have made his appearance at the Bar of the House before any Resolution was come to as to what should be done to him. Although he cordially agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no hon. Member of the House would wish to appear vindictive in such a case, yet he could not help remembering that another gentleman, Mr. John Sandilands Ward, remained in custody for the space of 10 days; and it was not until he had made ample submission that he was, upon a medical certificate, released. He had pointed out at the time that there was a great danger of the lesser offender meeting with the severer punishment; and he feared that that would be the result of the adoption of the Resolution. He should have been glad, therefore, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Resolution had confined itself to commanding Mr. Grissell's presence at the Bar of the House.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, it appeared to him that the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a proposal which, if it meant anything, meant that Mr. Grissell, if he would now allow himself to be taken into the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, and brought to the Bar of the House, would be let off with a reprimand by Mr. Speaker. He (Mr. Rylands) could not think that was by any means a course which it was desirable to pursue. He ventured to remind the Leader of the House that Mr. Grissell treated the House last Session with the greatest contempt, and that he had added to the offence by keeping out of the way, only delivering himself up at the very end of the Session. Indeed, he turned the whole proceedings into a farce. Under these circumstances, the proper course would be to pass a Resolution that Mr. Speaker issue his Warrant for Mr. Grissell's apprehension, and when he was in their custody—the House not having made any terms with him—they could then decide what should be done with him. [Cheers, and cries of "Move!"] He had not wished to move an Amendment; but as it seemed the feeling of the House, he would move that there be omitted from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Resolution the following words:—"And that he be reprimanded, at the Bar, by Mr. Speaker, for his contempt of this House."
  SIR WILLIAM FRASER: I second the Amendment. The way the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to deal with Grissell seems to me altogether inadequate. I would remind the House that both Grissell and Ward have committed so serious a Breach of the Privileges of the House as can be conceived. They stated that they could influence a Committee of this House by corruption. The Select Committee that inquired into the matter, under the presidency of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Spencer Walpole), reported that they had been guilty not only of a Breach of the Privileges of the House, but also of perjury. One of the delinquents has been punished by the House; the other evaded the Warrant by going abroad, making no valid excuse as to his health, but remaining abroad till the evening of the day before the House was prorogued. He then gave himself up, and had received the nominal punishment of one night in Newgate. I understood from the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the end of the last Session that Grissell was sent to Newgate for evading the Warrant; and that that punishment did not purge him of the contempt of which he had been guilty. This is not a case of vindictiveness, but of just punishment: if ever a case called for punishment it is this. I know nothing about these men, and pray I never may. Considering them as A and B, they merited punishment. Grissell would not feel a reprimand, but would leave the House saying "You could not punish me; or you dared not." To bring a man of that sort to the Bar of the House to be reprimanded was virtually to inflict on him no punishment at all.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "accordingly" to the end of the Question.—(Mr. Rylands.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. EVANShoped the Amendment would be carried, as it was a very great improvement on the original proposal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford must, he (Mr. Evans) believed, think so too, for he had used the words that the course proposed to be taken by the Chancellor of the Exche-
  158
  quer would the proper course to take "in the first instance." But if the Motion were carried as it at present stood, the House would feel itself bound in honour to go no further, when Mr. Grissell appeared at the Bar, than to reprimand him. He (Mr. Evans) very much questioned whether that was a sufficient punishment. He hoped no one would believe him likely to be actuated by vindictive feeling; but Mr. Grissell had set the authority of the House completely at defiance, and had acted in such a manner as to make the action of the House ridiculous to the outside world. That deserved more than a reprimand. They should bring him to the Bar, hear what he had to say, and then, after proper deliberation, they could decide upon what punishment they should inflict.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsincerely trusted the House would adopt the Amendment. How should they stand if the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his goodness and kindness of heart proposed, were to pass as it stood? The lesser offender, Mr. J. Sandilands Ward, had been substantially punished—atleast, so it was said; though he (Mr. Beresford Hope) did not think the punishment had been severe enough—for the House, in a very indulgent mood, making allowance for the ticking of the clock, let him off sooner than it perhaps ought. The greater offender was now before them, the person named in the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What was his offence? In the first place, as the Committee presided over by his right hon. Colleague had found, he had been guilty of what amounted to perjury as well as contempt of the House. In the next place, abiit, evasit, erupit, and went to Boulogne. When the Serjeant at Arms sent a messenger after him, he found this gentleman, who had to seek the sea air under a doctor's certificate, seemingly in good health. Anything more flagrantly insolent could not be imagined. This gentleman—or, rather, this person—having committed the grave offence of perjury, in the most impudent manner, ran off to Boulogne, laughing at the House, and because he was a clever adventurer, and there was undoubtedly such very grotesque elements in the case, they had laughed with him, and perhaps laughed a little too much—and

  159
  so were now expected to leave out of account how he had exposed the Privileges and Prerogatives of this House to the contempt of all the world, and particularly of that class of society to which he himself belonged. Then, at the end of the Session, he came back in order to undergo the farce of a few hours in Newgate. Let them consider, besides, the history of the Petition sent in at the very last minute, and the higgling over it. The whole thing was impudent and offensive; one step aggravated another; one thing made the offender less worthy of their compassion than another. If they let him off with a reprimand, to which he would listen with his tongue in his cheek, they would expose the House to the ridicule and petty persecution of all other men whose views of business morality and getting on in the world were like those of Mr. Grissell.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that as a Member of the Committee the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done him the honour of communicating to him the proposal which it was intended to submit to the House; and he expressed, so far as he was concerned, his willingness to support that Motion. At the same time, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the feeling which had been strongly manifested on both sides, he would not consent to modify his proposition in the manner suggested?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have not the smallest objection to take the course which has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson). What I feel on these questions is that it is, above all things, undesirable to outrun the sense of the House; and I therefore certainly made a proposal which I considered to be a mild one, but which I thought might, at all events, have received the assent of the House. I did so after communication with the right hon. Gentleman opposite and other hon. Gentlemen whom I thought it right to communicate with. It was a question of great doubt with them all whether the proposal I made would be sufficient to meet the circumstances of the case. It is perfectly evident, from the feeling of the House, that it would not be sufficient; and, therefore, I have no objection to consent to the omission of the words in the latter part of the Motion.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  Ordered, That Charles Edmund Grissell, having evaded punishment for his offences against the Privileges of this House, until the close of the last Session, be sent for in the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrants accordingly.

MOTIONS.

  GAME LAWS.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLOR*, in rising to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the existing Game Law Code, maintained for the purpose of preserving certain wild animals for sport, is unjust to the farmer, demoralizing to the labourer, and injurious to the whole community, and should therefore be abolished,"
  said: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will acquit me of having unduly pressed the question of the Game Laws upon their attention, considering the immense importance which, in my opinion, attaches to them. I observe, somewhat to my surprise, that it is as much as nine years since I last introduced the question of their abolition. Finding on that occasion that I met with but small, and that not increasing support, while there also appeared but little desire to discuss the question at all, I felt that I should be doing less good by wearying the House by an annual Motion on the subject than by endeavouring to act on public opinion in the country, and I accordingly at once assisted in the formation of the Anti-Game Law League. I cannot claim full credit for not bringing on the question during the present Parliament, seeing that for the last two or three Sessions I have only been prevented from doing so by ill-fortune at the ballot. I am particularly glad, however, in having the opportunity of doing so now—first, because it is extremely desirable that in this last Session of an expiring Parliament the farmers, as well as other classes interested in the question, should have the opportunity, previously to the General Election, of seeing by the Division List what course is taken by their Representatives, and especially by the farmers' friends in this House—real or assumed. There is another reason why it is especially important that the question should now be discussed, seeing

  161
  that for the last two or three years the shadow of agricultural distress has again come upon all parts of the country. We hear on every side of bankrupt farmers, of lowered production, and of unsatisfactory prices. We have heard recently, Sir, of numerous farms being to let, of diminished production, and increased prices; and it seems to me that it would be desirable that we should have an opportunity of discussing in this House whether this question which I have to introduce to your notice to-night, that of the Game Laws, is or is not an important element to be considered in the question of agricultural distress. I am not going to discuss agricultural distress this evening; I am only going, at present, to discuss the question of whether the Game Laws are one element in agricultural prosperity, and whether they are a potential element in the question of agricultural distress. I will afterwards proceed to discuss other questions to which this inquiry may lead.
  Now, I am quite aware, so far as I have learned the views of the farmers throughout the country, and so far as they must be disposed to speak their views through the various agricultural associations, that they do not seem to make a very strong point of the Game Laws in respect of agricultural distress. Perhaps that may partly proceed from what my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) thought so important in the position of these agricultural associations, that it was quite unnecessary for farmers to form themselves into independent bodies and farmers' alliances—namely, that in this agricultural discussion they had the enormous advantage of being under the presidency and influence of the local landed proprietor. I have certainly observed that where the farmers appear to be more free from these shackles of that partizan interest, they have spoken out with considerably more force, both with regard to the Land Laws and the Game Laws. I will, however, first proceed, with the permission of the House, to give a few reasons why I believe the Game Laws are a very active element in the question of agricultural distress.
  I will first call into the witness-box my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, who, on opposing my Motion on this subject in the year 1871, declared that—
  162
  "The landlord might let a farm at a high rent eat the tenant up with ground game, and ruin him, and yet he sure of every sixpence of his rent."—[3 Hansard, ccv. 1372.]
  I take it there is a potentiality in that statement very serious for the farmers' interests. Another rather distinguished tenant farmer, Mr. J. Shephard, who gave evidence before the Committee in 1873, declared that "landlords have it in their power to ruin a tenant simply by a little negligence in respect to game." Happy farmers! If they have a malicious landlord they can easily be ruined, and if they have a negligent one they are pretty sure to be. Again, the hon. Member for South Norfolk says—
  "In a great number of cases of insolvent farmers in Norfolk, their ultimate ruin is attributable to the over preservation of game."
  It is surely hardly necessary for me to read any more extracts to show that there is a potentiality of danger to the farmers in this question of the Game Laws.
  Since this question of the distress of the farmers has been raised, many organs of popular opinion throughout the country have sent Special Commissioners down to inquire into the subject; and I will read two or three lines from a letter of the Special Commissioner of The Daily News, who was sent to the county in which I now live, Sussex. He says—
  "It is principally of hares and rabbits that the greatest complaint is made, and by many farmers these latter are classed as vermin, the damage which they commit being, where they are allowed to accumulate, almost beyond measure, and their presence being altogether incompatible with even decent cultivation. But it is not the rabbits and hares alone which are so annoying, for if the winged game do not of themselves commit any serious injury, the keeping of them harbours rats, and wherever pheasants are fed, there, or else in the very near neighbourhood, will be found an accumulation of rats. The destruction of these pests is made the more difficult by the thickness and frequency of the cover afforded by the hedgerows, and this again is a cause of further complaint, besides the fact that the sporting landlord does not deem the damage committed by rats to be worthy of acknowledgment or compensation. The indifferent cultivation of the farms in this neighbourhood I have heard generally attributed to the preservation of game."
  Again, a land agent, writing to The Land Agents' Record, which is, I believe, a valuable organ to all persons connected

  163
  with the purchase or transfer of land, says—
  "The relations of landlord and tenant at the present time are peculiarly interesting. Never within living memory have such a number of notices to quit been given by tenant farmers. Many landlords would prefer making largo reductions in rent to giving up the game; but if they are wise they will not retain such a source of annoyance and heart-burning in their midst. No one but those who have suffered from game and rabbits know the mischief and loss they inflict, or the angry feelings they daily arouse."
  There is, perhaps, some hope of this matter interesting even landowners now, because the depression among the tenants seems to have spread even to the landlords; and we hear that they have many farms which they cannot let, or for which, in order to secure tenants, they are, at any rate, obliged to accept lower rents. One great landlord, says the Commissioner of The Norfolk News, has now 5,000 acres on his hands, and in every case game is the cause. An estate of 6,500 acres, of which 4,000 are on the landlord's hands, was lately put up for sale without finding a purchaser. Its prime element of value was that "21,000 head of game had been killed on it during the year." It is now come to this—"that the country will be uncultivated, or the head of game must be greatly diminished." I take it, Sir, that I have now made my first point that the Game Laws are potentially, at any rate, a question of enormous importance in the discussion of agricultural distress.
  But now, what are these Game Laws that we are met to discuss? A number of Gentlemen in this House speak of them as though they are very rational and reasonable laws, and say that if they did not exist now, we should have to do our best to create them at the earliest possible opportunity. That is not my view, and I will venture to give the House my explanation of what I understand them to be. They are laws which give a sanction to the old feudal principle of class privilege in regard to wild animals, permitting them to be used for the sport of one class. Of course, their effect is not in any way altered because the feudal is not the only principle now, and because the plutocracy has come in to share the privilege of the landed interest. I am not aware that the new landlords are likely to be any more careful of the interests of the farmers, or of the labourers, than the
  164
  previous landlords were in old times. Blackstone says, and I cannot do better than quote his words—
  "From this root (the Forest Laws) is sprung a bastard habit, known by the name of the Game Law; both alike were founded upon the same unreasonable notions of property in wild creatures, and both were productive of the same tyranny to the commons."
  But the matter is worse than this; these wild animals belong to the community, they belong to the people of the country. Blackstone again upon this point says—
  "It is indisputable that the wild denizens of the field marsh and forest, known to lawyers under the name of Ferœ naturœ, are the common property of men, be their degree what it may."
  The wild land of the country, and the wild animals of the country, belong alike to the whole of the community, and if legislated for, can only be legislated for in the interests of the whole of the community. The peasant has just as much right as the Duke to hunt and kill and eat the wild animals of the country, always provided he does no damage to the land on which they are killed.
  But, then, this leads me to a more serious charge; and I declare that, in my opinion, I do not in the least exaggerate when I say that the Game Laws are a permanent statutory violation of the Common Law of the land, of common justice, and of common honesty. They enable the landlord to say to the farmer—"There is land which I let you at a certain rent under certain covenants; but between the lines you must read this—that when you have your stock, your cattle, your bullocks, and your sheep, or whatever else you may choose, on the land—that then another stock is to come upon it in indefinite quantities at my pleasure, and the hares and rabbits, vermin to the farmers, shall be placed on the land as I choose; and that there shall be only this peculiarity in this kind of property—that you shall pay for them while they remain mine." The landlord says to the labourer—much as other game preservers said 800 years ago when they made the New Forest—"Our pleasure is sport, cost what it may to the country; and we will retain our amusement by the power we have in the Legislature."
  What some landlords think of these laws I will show by a very few words from a landowner who is not ashamed

  165
  to care for his peasantry—a statesman who is not ashamed to denounce abuses. The Marquess of Ailesbury, speaking at the Savernake rent audit recently, said—
  "The peasant comes home to his cottage, and there is hardly enough to make a dinner for his wife and children; over the next hedge are a lot of half-tamed pheasants, and the temptation is too much for the hungry man, and he commits an offence which those wicked laws constitute a crime, for which he is to be sent to prison. How can any just man attempt to defend such laws? He did not often sit on a bench of magistrates; but whenever he had done so, and poaching cases had come before him, he had always treated them with the utmost leniency possible, because he felt the glaring injustice of the laws he was compelled to administer."
  But this is approaching a word which is very dreadful under ordinary circumstances, and which, when it comes of the people, and is used of the property of the rich, goes under the ugly name of confiscation. You may say, how can it be confiscation when it is according to law? But there may be such a thing as legal confiscation.
  Let me give an illustration. There are land reformers going about the country, one of whose proposals, and one which is approved by large numbers of the population, is that the people should resume the land—that there should be no absolute fee-simple property in land. I say, if that measure were carried into effect without compensation to the landowners, that such an act of injustice and confiscation would be committed as was scarcely ever before known in the history of the world. But I will not admit that it is better when the property of the poor is taken for the benefit of the rich. It is then Socialism turned topsy-turvy, and not improved by the process. What is the difference? The Socialist would, by artificial legislation, take from the rich for the supposed benefit of the poor. Your Game Law system, under equally artificial legislation, takes from the poor for the pleasure and amusement of the rich. These Game Laws that we maintain so snugly have, indeed, nothing like them in the civilized world. France and Germany have equalled, if not surpassed, us, in the infamy of their Game Laws; but the Revolution of 1789 put a stop to them in France, and the Revolution of 1848 ended them in Germany.
  166
  I know it is said that there are Game Laws all over the world, and the Reports of certain Consuls and Envoys have been published, in order to show that to be the fact; but I maintain that anyone who reads those Reports fairly will see that there is none of them to compare in severity or atrocity with the Game Laws in existence in this country. Recollect that many elements must be taken into consideration; and I say, taking all those things into account, there is not a country in the world disgraced by a Game Law system such as ours. I shall be told there is a Game Law in America. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), have come back from that country, with a wondrous story that Republican America has a Game Law system. I have heard my hon. Friends spoken of for this assertion as "the Innocents Abroad." I do not think this is quite a true joke, and I think they rely too much on our innocence at home. I suppose my hon. Friends have got a catalogue raisonné of the dreadful deeds done there in America. But have they found there such a thing as farmers imprisoned and subjected to hard labour for snaring a rabbit outside their own hedges, or a list of criminals to compare with the 10,659 criminals made in one year by our Game Laws here? It is not a very easy thing to speak of a Game Law system in America, where every State makes its own laws; but, nevertheless, bold as it seems, I will challenge my hon. Friends, and I will assert that there is no Game Law from one end of the United States to another, in the sense in which we use the term, or in which it has any meaning at all. It is quite true that the Americans preserve all the wild animals of the country as we do, quite apart from our Game Laws; that they have laws and systems by which they protect the whole ferœ naturœ of the country; and that they are patriotic enough to care for picturesqueness. and for scientific discovery. But that is not a Game Law. It is true they preserve blackbirds, sparrows, and other birds; but that is not a Game Law either. When the late lamented Mr. Motley was here from America as their Minister he took great interest in this question; and I got a letter from him, four lines of which I will read, with the permission of the House. After describing their

  167
  laws with regard to wild animals, he says—
  "Practically, however, this legislation is in the interest, not of an aristocratic class—for there is none in the United States—but of the farmers and labourers, who own the land, and who do not object to its being shot over, except when the trespasser, by so doing, damages growing or standing crops. Our Game Laws are not aristocratic, but democratic or scientific."
  I can tell my hon. Friend and hon. Gentlemen opposite that amongst the things which astonish educated Americans when they come here—for many of them have told me so themselves—is the theory and practice of our Game Laws. They cannot understand that there should be a class in England that seeks to maintain them, and, worse still, a population that will endure them. That to them is one of the most astounding things they meet anywhere.
  As regards the question of the extent of the traffic in game, I had a curious illustration in a circular sent me the other day. It appears that large profits are made by the letting of land for game, and this circular comes from a shooting agency in Fleet Street. I am told that there are others, and that this gentleman is by no means one of the largest, yet he has for patrons two Dukes, six Earls, four Lords, ten Baronets, plenty of esquires—and all Scotch proprietors. The shooting he offers—and he is by no means the largest agent—amounts to nearly 1,000,000 square acres sacrificed to game. Some of the conditions of which he speaks in regard to the various properties are instructive and amusing. Mr. So and so
  "will send his list post free to a carefully-selected list of gentlemen, numbering several thousands, and embracing most of the aristocracy, the Members of the House of Commons, and the leading professional and mercantile men over the Kingdom."
  These are the notes in which he describes the various properties he has to let:—
  (No. 1) "Securely fenced off from sheep." (No. 2) "Facilities would be afforded by the proprietor for gradually removing the present sheep stock." (No. 3) "Episcopal church on the property, where a clergyman generally officiates—during the sporting months." (No. 4) "The forest is amply stocked with deer, having been cleared of sheep for 40 years. It is stipulated that no sheep shall be kept on the ground by the lessee. The proprietor reserves power to destroy hares and rabbits for the protection of his young plantations."
  168
  [Laughter.] Yes, of course, he would destroy the hares and rabbits to protect his young plantations. If he were as ready to destroy them to protect the crops of his farmers, hon. Gentlemen opposite would have more right to cheer.
  (No. 5) "The lands, as a whole, would form an excellent deer forest, being in the immediate neighbourhood of lower cleared land."
  Oh, happy farmers! who enjoy the lower cleared lands where this deer forest is to be created.
  (No. 6) "No keepers required, as estate is surrounded by carefully preserved lands."
  Does it not strike hon. Members that this is one of the most remarkable illustrations that could possibly be made by the statement that in politics, as in other things, extremes meet?
  Here we have, in this little island of ours, from the effects of what you may call over-civilization, from the enormous accumulation of wealth, from our manufactures, from the monopoly of land, and from various other things, precisely those evils re-produced that hitherto have only been supposed to exist in the wildest and most desolate regions, and amongst the most savage barbarians. When we see accounts of the Red Indian driven back by the Anglo-Saxon in America—back from the lands that his forefathers owned, back and still farther back—we pity him, for it is all that we can do. We recognize, as a fatality of history, that the savage must pass away before the Anglo-Saxon and civilization. Agriculture has to be spread; cities have to be founded; arts and sciences follow in their wake; and how can the Red Indian live with them? He requires thousands and tens of thousands of acres of prairie for his buffaloes to roam; he needs a trackless forest for the wild animals on which he lives, and by whose skin he is clothed; he requires for his own wants what would provide for 10,000 men, and so he must pass from the world. But what shall we say, when we come to our own little island swarming with humanity as ants swarm in an ant hill, and find that here we have a system which is incompatible with the existence of the Red Indian in America actually growing up on our own shores? Estates, parishes, divisions—yes, even counties in Scotland—are being sacrificed to this passion. These game-preserving magnates are as much out of

  169
  their place—nay, far more out of it—than the Red Indian in the back woods of America. They are in a false position, and, for the sake of themselves and their country, the sooner they come out of it the better, for the people will not long permit such an anomaly—such an injustice—even though wooed by the siren strain of that well-known couplet, which I will venture slightly to paraphrase, and say—
  "Let wealth and learning, laws and commerce, die,
  But leave us still our game monopoly."
  Now, Sir, as to the question, of the damage done to the farmers, it is not, of course, for me to say what it may be, for I am no agriculturist; but I have obtained from agricultural authorities what they think it to be, and it appears from their statement that the damage is so enormous as to be positively incalculable. Mr. Wright, a valuer in the county of which I have the honour to represent the chief town—Leicestershire—says that he allowed between £800 and £900 to one tenant, and that on some parts of the land the allowance was £12 to £13 an acre. Mr. Hewitt, at the Sussex Chamber of Agriculture, said, as regards rabbits, that—
  "Last year he made a valuation of a certain farm of the damage done by rabbits. He put it down, and was confirmed in his opinion by others, at £25 per day. These rabbits entirely destroyed the crops, and the farmer had to plough up his fields."
  With regard to the damage done to agriculture by hares, the Agricultural Commissioner of The Daily News in Lincolnshire says—
  "Game depredation means that anywhere in the neighbourhood of coverts you get three quarters of barley per acre instead of five. Your wheats are damaged by hares and rabbits in a way which makes the estimation of damage rather difficult. Hiding past a crop you might think it level and upstanding; but go into it, and you find innumerable tracks leading to plots which are oaten down and thus cleared as playgrounds. Rabbits nibble the roots and stems of young quick, and destroy scores of yards together of good hedgerows, in addition to which the keepers ruin the hedges in innumerable places in digging after the ferrets when catching rabbits."
  Now, my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk and South Leicestershire must be able to correct me if I am wrong in all this; and if I am not, I want to know what alternative they have
  170
  to propose? The Agricultural Commissioner of The Daily News says, again—
  "I heard of one case in which a field of turnips, lying far away from any other roots, was wholly consumed by flocks of hares, insomuch that the tenant, in an ironical mood, wrote this note to the landlord:—'Please send a load of turnips or the hares will starve.'"
  At a lecture given in Sussex, at the Botley Farmers' Club, on "Hindrances to Agricultural Progress," one gentleman said—
  "There can be no doubt that the loss by game of agricultural produce, irrespective of impediments to the cultivation, is enormous. It is not disputed by practical men that at present only one farm in five can be rented free of the game, and, probably, this freedom applies only to one-eighth of the leased land in the Kingdom."
  But people say that, so far as the farmer is concerned, he has compensation if he can prove damage. Well, in the first place, I must premise that this is not simply a question between the landlord and the farmer. Even supposing that the farmer can be satisfied with the compensation which he receives, the country and the labourer would still remain to be reckoned with. But everybody who has ever studied the matter knows for a fact that compensation to the farmer for loss by game is simply a sham. Mr. Gray, of Dilston, declared that he never knew a farmer get half what he was entitled to; and a farmer must be a very prosperous man if he can boar to venture into the Law Courts against his landlord. Here is what happened to one of them.
  "The owner of the estate lived far away, and the shooting got into the hands of a lot of lawyers, who soon had it filled with ground game. In one case a tenant was noted for his trim, well-kept hedges—they were like garden fences. These were all pulled up by the game preservers, and stuck into the ground to prevent poaching by nets. Sheep grazing in the field got the thorns fast in their wool, and they became almost wild with the annoyance. The farmer, too, was almost wild with the damage done to his growing crops. He got the damage valued, and sued the parties, getting a satisfactory verdict; but the lawyers took the case to a higher and more expensive Court, and there the original verdict was reversed. The farmer was condemned in all costs, and he was financially ruined, finishing all up by taking poison."
  [Laughter.] I am very sorry that the fact of a farmer being driven to suicide by these Game Laws should be a matter for laughter amongst hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Benches, who, I thought,

  171
  always prided themselves on being the farmers' friends.
  But then we are told that this can be dealt with by freedom of contract. I have already pointed out that even if the farmers were satisfied it does not follow that the country should be; but I may also say that there are various kinds of freedom of contract, and there are various ways of acquiescence in a particular course. The freedom of contract allowed to the farmer is of much the same kind as the freedom allowed to the convict when the hangman taps him on the shoulder and points the way to the gallows. He does not resist; he says not a word, and he goes quietly because he knows his case is settled. Be it remembered there is no class in the country whose position is more hopeless than that of the farmer. A trader can take his capital and invest it in some other business; but the farmer knows no other trade than that to which he has been brought up, and he must put up with any injustice or be turned out of his land, and left to his only other remedy—that of emigration. A most amusing illustration of the idea that farmers are free to contract is shown by the condition of the Scotch and the English Game Laws. Here, if a lease is silent respecting game, the property in it resides in the occupier; in Scotland, if there is no clause in the lease, it resides in the landlord, and nobody cares twopence whether it is the one or the other, because the landlord has only to nod or wink, and that is just as good as a clause in the lease. If the law gives him the game he keeps it, and if it does not he takes it. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), from the line of examination which he pursued before the Committee, is evidently of opinion that the landlord should get all he can for his property, and that if he can get more money by growing deer than by growing corn or sheep he is perfectly free to do so. That is a novel way of asking a question often asked before—"Am I not entitled to do what I like with my own?" It is scarcely worth while asking that question now. But the question may be answered in one of two ways. First, you may not do what you like with your own; or, secondly, you may do what you like with your own; but your land is not the sort of
  172
  property with which you can do as you like. Then we are told continually that we are interfering with the sentimental relation between landlord and tenant, and disturbing that blessed harmony which is supposed to exist between the two. Those who talk in that sort of way must be rather surprised at the number of cases in which there have been meetings of farmers to express sympathy and to give testimonials to evicted farmers. I take it that the case of Mr. Hope, of Fenton Barns, is not forgotten in the farming world; and I may add to that two little illustrations which I have in my notes. Mr. Claydon, an Essex farmer, holding 1,000 acres, whose family had been 70 years on the farm, was evicted because he would not submit to a clause preventing him from shooting rabbits, or catching rats in banks. Mr. Clark, a tenant farmer in Norfolk, said at his auction—
  "My fathers have resided here nearly 100 years. I leave "because, in my landlord's own words, I have been disposed to discuss the question of game. I trust that the time is fast approaching when the tenant farmers will support each other in this matter."
  Now, I call upon my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk and South Leicestershire to stand forward as the champions of that cause.
  I have now dealt with the way in which these laws affect the farmers—next let me say a few words as to the labourers. I have endeavoured to divide what I have to say into various portions, so as to show how these laws affect various classes in the community; but I am quite aware that it is very difficult to make that division a perfect one, because these divisions must necessarily run into each other. That which is injurious to the farmer cannot be beneficial to the community or to the labourer. Still, I make this division for convenience, and I will repeat myself as little as possible. Now, with regard to the labourer, what strikes one first, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) said some time ago, is that these Game Laws confine his right in his native land to the highways. He and his family and his children can no longer walk by the woods, or pick the wild flowers, or find birds' nests. If a man goes on the land he is accused of poaching, and if women or children venture there they disturb the game. As

  173
  Mr. Joseph Arch, that eloquent defender of his class, has said—
  "These laws destroy the produce of the labourers' gardens, and make the very existence of small freeholds an impossibility to the labourer, because these little oases are disgusting to the landlord. No more is it open to the labourer or his family to wander by the brook or in the glen in search of flowers, blackberries, or birds' nests—the man himself is charged with poaching, and his family, at least, disturb the game."
  But, above all, the damage done to the labourer is that these laws are wholesale manufacturers of crime. Upwards of 10,000 criminals suffered last year under the laws. Nothing more disastrous can be done to the community or to humanity than to make people disrespect the law, by setting the law to punish, as a crime, that which their conscience does not tell them is a sin. They may, indeed, go innocently into the gaol the first time; but facilis descensus averni, and having been there once they are pretty sure to go there again. "Oh," I have heard gentlemen say, "poachers, scoundrels, thieves; if they don't take our game, they would take our poultry or something still more valuable." ["Hear, hear!"] I am very sorry to hear that cheer, because the assertion is one utterly without foundation. There is no class in the country at the present time which regards poaching as a crime, any more than smugglers in the old days of the Revenue Laws regarded smuggling as a crime. How could it be regarded as a crime? It would be a disgrace to the country gentlemen if it were, because it is an offence which they are continually committing themselves. Mr. Young, the Secretary to the Board of Excise, said in his testimony before the Committee—"A great many gentlemen shoot all the year without taking out a licence." I had also a list sent me of gentlemen who had shot without a licence. What does a country gentleman do if he wishes to have an enormous number of pheasants? He obtains them from somebody—I will not say he steals them, because that would be to accuse him of a crime—but I will say he procures them. Lord Stradbroke, writing to The Times two or three years ago, said—
  "Only yesterday a box containing pheasants' eggs was sent from a station in East Suffolk addressed to the gamekeeper of a noble Earl in
  174
  Scotland, and I can prove that such boxes are continually sent by a notorious receiver to different places in England."
  Now, I say it would be a libel on the country gentlemen of England who are addicted to this practice if I did not maintain that they themselves do not think poaching a crime. The other day a chairman of a bench of magistrates was fined for a breach of the Game Laws for killing pheasants three weeks before they were in season. It may be asked, was there not a great outcry of public opinion? There was. But the public opinion was not against him for violating the Game Laws which he was there to administer—and, I am told, was wont to administer with something more than usual severity—his neighbours were angry that he should do so mean a thing as to shoot before the time pheasants, which had not been turned into a preserve and slightly tinged with wildness. The Chairman of the Board of Conservators, in Wales, writes—
  "My experience is that everyone, from the highest to the lowest, has a sympathy with the poacher, and willingly purchases without asking questions. I could tell you of clergymen, medical men, leading solicitors, in a large way of business, trades people, and others who all supply themselves from this source."
  Is it not rather mean, with evidence such as that before us, to brand the lowest class of poachers with being criminals and thieves? I think it is hardly worthy of gentlemen.
  The next thing to which I wish to call your attention is the astonishing violence with which these laws are maintained. Shakespeare tells us that "things bad begun make strong themselves by ill." The wonder is the country should endure the brutal violence with which these laws are carried out. I will give one or two instances. At Bridlington Petty Sessions two poachers were charged with night poaching; and Green, a game watcher, was charged with shooting one of them. Stanion, a keeper, called to Appleby, a poacher, to stop, or he would warm him. He then ordered Green to fire, and Green took deliberate aim at Appleby, who dropped down. He was examined by Dr. Alison, who found that he had 48 gunshots lodged in his thigh, back, and the right side of his head. That is hardly the way in which the law should be administered in a civilized country—to say nothing of a Christian

  175
  country. Again, a head-keeper was watching with his under-keeper and two other men in a wood. A couple of mock pheasants had been placed in a tree, and the keepers were near the spot. About half-past in the morning they saw several men coming up the ride, who went towards the tree where the mock pheasants had been placed, and directly afterwards shots were fired. Now, a great deal has been said against England as a nation of shopkeepers; but this is surely much worse than mere shopkeeping. If a tradesman hung up pewter spoons made to imitate silver ones, and, when a thief came to steal them, he fired at him, he would surely be hung if the man so shot died of his injuries. Here is a case from Mildenhall, in Suffolk. On the men seeing the keeper they ran off. He then let loose an immense mastiff, 22 inches high, partially muzzled, which succeeded in catching Mutum, and pulled him down. Whilst Mutum was defending himself from the attack of this dog, which Wharfe, the keeper, admitted was a ferocious one, he was struck on the head, stunned, and secured. Prisoners said they had both been bitten by the dog, and Mutum complained of being severely struck by Wharfe whilst trying to keep the dog off. The Bench, in consideration of the severe punishment they had received from the keepers, mitigated the punishment to two months' imprisonment, and sureties for 12 months. We have all heard, I suppose, of the cases in Wales last year, which really, in some parts of the country, almost amounted to civil war on a small scale. There was a fight between the keepers and the poachers, and the latter barricaded themselves in a stable and were besieged. A Correspondent of The Times sends an interesting incident of what occurred in Barbadoes during the administration of Mr. Pope Hennessey. In speaking of that gentleman I should like, in passing, to say how much individually I respect him, because, wherever he may be, he seems to carry equal justice and humanity to the people over whom he is placed. The Times Correspondent writes—
  "I have heard but of one complaint against the troops. It was that of a planter who declared that the soldiers had misbehaved themselves, because, though his rabbits and pigeons had been stolen, they had not shot a single nigger."
  176
  That unfortunate planter was in a wrong position. He should not have been a planter in Barbadoes, but a landlord in England. God knows we show little respect in shooting our niggers when after rabbits or pheasants—so little, indeed, that Canon Kingsley, no hater of the aristocracy or true sport, was stung into writing, in his well-known ballad of the "Poacher's Widow," what hon. Gentlemen opposite may, perhaps, deem a severe condemnation—
  "There's blood on your new foreign shrubs, squire;
  There's blood on your pointer's feet.
  There's blood on the game you sell, squire,
  And there's blood on the game you oat."
  I say, again, that there is nothing like the Game Laws in any country in the world for severity or atrocity. I will go further, and say there is no other portion of our criminal jurisdiction equalled in the partiality, harshness, and absolute illegality with which they are administered. At the South Eastern Circuit, at Lewes, before the Lord Chief Justice, it appeared that when the keepers went out to watch they took with them a large dog to hunt poachers, which ran after them, and attempted to bite one of them. It has always been thought that the use of dogs for hunting men was confined to the interior of Jamaica; but we now find that we have improved on all these things. The Lord Chief Justice then observed that the use of a dog for such a purpose was most improper, and if keepers were proved to have allowed a savage dog to worry a man, although he might be a poacher, they would get themselves into serious trouble. Only, unhappily, it appears that these keepers never do get themselves into serious trouble. Later on it appeared that after a scuffle between the keepers and three men who were trespassing in search of game, the latter ran off, followed by the keepers, and one of the latter knocked a poacher down who was running away. The Lord Chief Justice again interfered, and told the keeper he had no right whatever to do that. He had no doubt that the stick used was not a light one, and he might have killed the man. If he had, his offence would at least have been manslaughter, and possibly something even more serious. He advised the keepers to be careful in future, and not to repeat such acts of violence.

  177
  ["Hear, hear!"] Why this squeamishness on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite? Surely their expression of feeling is out of place. Do they deny that they send out bands of armed watchers to arrest and fight the poachers, and if they do, that they admit all that has here been said? Here is another case, tried only last month at Liverpool, before Lord Coleridge. The poacher ran away. He usually does run away; and, indeed, if he can get off, he of course prefers to do so. The gamekeeper fired at him, and hit him in the back; another shot was then fired, but he could not say whether it hit him or not. He went into the wood and became insensible, and lay there until he was found some time after by the keepers. After he recovered he was brought up, and imprisoned for 14 days for poaching. All honour to Lord Justice Coleridge, who, in sentencing the gamekeeper who thus wounded the poacher, said that although poachers were engaged in a pursuit that was a violation of the law their lives must be protected, and sentenced the gamekeeper to 12 months' hard labour. That surely was not a great punishment for a deliberate attempt to murder. If that poacher had died, I know no reason why that man should not have been put in the dock and tried for murder, and why his employer should not have stood by his side as an accessory to the murder before the fact. In truth, one great advantage of the abolition of the Game Laws would be that the door which opens on the gallows would no longer be slammed in the face of such unquestionable deserts. The Marquess of Ailesbury, speaking of this sort of dealing with poachers, said that through these iniquitous laws four persons had lost their lives in that neighbourhood—two policemen murdered, and two men were hanged for the murder. He said to his brother—
  "Thank God it was not on our estate; how could we ever have justified ourselves in our own eyes again had our game preserving-brought about such a horrible catastrophe?"
  Next, as to my second charge against the Game Laws—the enormous and prodigious penalties by which they are enforced. I will not trouble the House with many illustrations; but I will just quote this case. An old man named Harrison was charged at the Evesham
  178
  Petty Sessions with having shot at a rabbit near his allotment ground. That was surely not a very severe offence, and the defendant was strongly recommended to mercy by the complainant, on the ground that he had served his country as a soldier with credit. For this offence the poor old man was sentenced to pay 40s. and costs, and, in default of payment, was sentenced to two months' hard labour in Worcester Gaol. I may mention, for the comfort of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the fine was afterwards paid, and the man released. In another case, reported by The Scotsman, where the defendant, a farm servant, was convicted of what the Sheriff termed merely a "technical offence," he was fined Is. and ordered to pay £5 expenses. In another, at Epsom, a defendant who pleaded guilty to having been on land in search of rabbits, was sentenced to three weeks' hard labour, personal security for £10, two sureties £5 each, or in default six months' imprisonment. Now, I may appeal to the House whether there is any portion of our criminal jurisdiction whatever where offences are punished with such tremendous severity?
  I have charged that the Game Laws are administered with great partiality. That needs no proof. Of course they are partially administered, because they are administered by the very class who have an interest in the laws they maintain. I have not a word to say against the country gentlemen. They are Englishmen, no better and no worse than their fellows, put in a thoroughly false position; and probably do no worse and no better than any other class in an equally false position would do. Who would consent, in an issue between employer and workmen, to allow the jury to be composed altogether of masters or of tradesmen? The thing is ridiculous. The point is, indeed, very well put by The Saturday Review, when it says—
  "The magistrate who convicts a thief acts in the interest of every man in the court. The magistrate who convicts a poacher commonly acts in the interest of nobody but those on the bench. The number of magistrates who would consciously pervert the law to convict a poacher is probably very small; but the number of magistrates who unconsciously carry to the bench the passions of the preserve is very large."
  Now, with respect to the question of general damage, I do not know what specific evidence I can bring. I should

  179
  say that the curse of sterility is on these laws. If he is blessed who makes two blades of corn grow where only only one grew before, then he who only allows two to grow where there were previously three, is * *—well, he is the other thing. I will not attempt to calculate the damage. I have hoard it put at £10,000,000. I have heard it put at £50,000,000, and at a great deal more. It is, in fact, simply incalculable, varying greatly with the season, the locality, and above all, with the caprice of the landlord. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), in writing to a gentleman on another subject, said—
  "I look upon an augmentation of the supply of animal food, in whatever way it can best be effected, as the most important, perhaps, of all the questions of purely material interest which now press themselves on public attention."
  In view of that statement, I venture to ask my right hon. Friend whether the abolition of the Game Laws has not now become one of the most important of all the questions of purely material interest that now press themselves on public attention? But when we are told by Mr. Caird that we consume annually £107,000,000 of imported agricultural produce every year, what possible excuse can there be for turning loose these hares and rabbits which consume such enormous quantities of its food? My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) declared some years ago that 40,000 more sheep could be easily kept in Norfolk if hares and rabbits were only kept within reasonable bounds.
  Another reason which I would quote beside the positive injury done to the farmer, and the injury to every class of the community, is the fact that the Game Law system is utterly incompatible with high farming. It is obvious it must be so, and the larger the crop the greater the power of vermin to damage it. I say there can be no doubt that enter-prizing farmers will hardly care to invest much in a farm where a large head of game is preserved. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, if hon. Gentlemen want my authority I will mention that Mr. Pusey said before the Committee of 1846—
  "I have seldom had less on my hands than 2,000 acres, and I have inclosed 4,000 acres of waste. I found the two occupations of a game preserver and an improver of land by planting and farming perfectly incompatible."
  180
  Again, he says, as a sort of illustration of the damage done by game—
  "I allowed my gamekeeper to have four acres of land near the covers rent free; but he was obliged to give it up, the game injured him so much."
  Actually a little spot of land round these covers, given to a man rent free, was absolutely valueless. Now my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) said, on the last occasion when this matter was debated in this House, that all this talk was very well before the Corn Laws were repealed, but that now they were repealed, and we had the power of getting free corn from all parts of the world, it was ridiculous to talk about the damage to the community by this loss. That is so bad an argument that I hardly know how to answer it; but I will try to do so by venturing on an illustration. You tie a man's two arms behind his back and turn him out. He rebels, protests, objects, and, as a matter of great favour, you cut one arm free. Growing bolder by this concession, he asks to have the other freed, and then you say—"Ungrateful scoundrel, did not I free one arm, and here you have the impudence to ask for the other?" Please God we will free both arms before long!
  There is one other point to which I should wish briefly to allude—the utter disturbance of all the usual processes of nature by your system of Game Laws. In order to keep up your game, you destroy all kinds of predatory birds and animals; and you not only so lose great pictures queness in the country, and destroy scientific interest, but you do positive injury to the farmer through the increase of things which these creatures would naturally prey upon. While you destroy hawks, weasels, and owls, the farmer is eaten up by pigeons, rats, &c. No one knows more about this matter than the Rev. F. O. Morris, and he writes—
  "Six stacks of corn were thrashed out on one day and one the following, and no less than six stone of mice were destroyed on the occasion, besides the number killed by dogs—in all some 2,000 killed in two days or less, on a portion only of the stacks at one farmstead. The rats feed in the winter on the corn put down in the woods for the pheasants, and increase and multiply to a ruinous extent. Their natural enemies—the weasels, stoats, owls, kestrels, and other hawks—are most cruelly destroyed by pole traps, and others set on the ground. As for the

  181
  damage done by hares and rabbits to growing-crops in fields adjoining woods, it is most grievous."
  Why, the fact is, in any other country than ours, did such a nuisance affecting the life and property of the nation exist, we should put a price upon the head of these vermin and destroy them. In the next paragraph will hon. Members please read for "tigers" the word "hares." Dr. Hunter, the Director General of Statistics to the Government of India, states that the ravages of tigers form one of the obstacles to the extension of civilization. Already the Indian Government offers large premiums for the destruction of wild animals; and those Nawabs and Rajahs who still pride themselves upon retaining preserves of savage beasts for hunting purposes ought to subordinate the gratification of their tastes to the public welfare. In Australia they are nearly devoured by rabbits, and accordingly the Legislature has interfered and passed a Rabbit Suppression Bill. They have authorized the common "Shire Councils" to levy a rate of 1d. per acre to defray the expense of killing them. All brushwood fences in a rabbit district are to be burnt down, at the option of the Inspectors; and anyone turning rabbits loose is liable to a fine of £10 for each offence.
  Now, Sir, I may be asked why I go in for so extreme a measure?—why I do not attempt something moderate, which I should have a chance of carrying? My answer in the first place is, that no modification of the Game Laws can effect any good purpose, for this precise reason—that all the evils that I have described arise from the prodigious head of "game," and nothing but a destruction of a large part of this enormous amount of game can effect the purposes desired. My Motion is also moderate in the sense that it would destroy two extremes—it would put down the battue system, and would take away all employment from the poacher. Now, I am not alone in this opinion. Lord Hatherley stated—
  "I do not believe that the great grievance arising from the Game Laws can be relieved by any palliations, and therefore they must be entirely got rid of."
  And my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Greene)—to whose genial criticism I should have been very happy to be subject this even-
  182
  ing—said on the last occasion I brought this subject forward—
  "That there was no step between the maintenance of the Game Laws and the proposals on the subject by the hon. Member for Leicester. Either it was right that game should be preserved or it was wrong. If it was wrong, the system should be attacked."
  Now I know it is the fashion to attempt to frighten farmers by talking about the dangers of trespass; but the dangers of trespass have nothing to do with the matter. I am not now discussing the trespass laws—they may or they may not be sufficiently stringent—but this I know—that if the Acts which I propose to abolish were done away with there would be less temptation to trespass than there is now—as the farmers will very quickly see when they have no landlords to preside over their deliberations. For instance, Mr. Hewitt said at the Sussex Chamber of Agriculture—
  "Lord Malmesbury said if the Game Laws were abolished, the fact would necessitate a severe trespass law, and increase the rural constabulary by some 10,000 or 15,000 men. ["Oh, oh!"] He was glad to hear that significant cry, for he believed there was not a tenant farmer in the hall who was so insane as to put any credence in the reckless statement of Lord Malmesbury. As farmers they knew that if the temptations to poach were removed that crime would gradually decrease."
  I will also quote on this point the testimony of another gentleman, who, with the exception of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) has done more than anyone against these atrocious laws—the late Mr. Welford. He said—
  "No trespasses other than game trespasses are ever committed in England which the law does not effectually prevent or punish. But a trespass law for the purpose of protecting game—or making privileged certain kinds of wild creatures—is a demand to which no tolerance should be given. There is nothing that would do more to sweeten the breath of rural society, and pave the way for goodwill and right feeling amongst all classes in our agricultural districts, than the repeal of the Game Laws."
  Now, the impossibility of dealing in a small way with these Game Laws is also fully illustrated by the fact that, after all the inquiries and Committees that we have had, nothing has been done. The fact that I have alluded to, of the impossibility of really diminishing the evils of the Game Laws by so-called moderate reforms of them, perhaps accounts for the fact that so little has been done to carry out the recommendations adopted

  183
  in the Reports of either of the Committees of 1846 and 1873, and that little has been practically useless. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. M'Lagan) is to be complimented upon the zeal and energy with which he carried through his Game Laws Amendment (Scotland) Act. I am sure he will agree with me that, useful as, no doubt, his Act will be, he only touched the fringe of the subject, for it really only tended to give a little compensation to farmers and to tenants, and transferred the tribunal from the justices to the sheriffs.
  In regard to the recommendations of the Committees to which I have alluded I will just mention the abolition of cumulative penalties. This was recommended in both Reports, but remains untouched. Regarding rabbits as vermin, as recommended in the Report of 1873, nothing has been done. The abominable system under which the informer gets half the penalty—a gross injustice to the accused, and a terrible temptation to the gamekeeper—this, too, was recommended to be altered by both Committees, but remains untouched. But finally, if the House will allow me, I will give it the most extraordinary illustration of the impossibility of obtaining any reform of the Game Laws that can possibly be imagined. The House is already aware that the punishment for night poaching is of the most severe and atrocious character. For poaching at night without threatening violence a man may be sentenced to 14 years' penal servitude; and for just taking a rabbit at night, with no intention of violence at all, the penalty is seven years' penal servitude. The first Committee, in 1846, recommended that that atrocious punishment should be modified. In the Report of the Committee of 1873, drawn up by a late Colleague of the Government (Mr. Ward Hunt), a similar recommendation was passed. No notice was taken of it in this House. There was a curious little incident showing the feeling in regard to the Game Laws which took place last year. A Scotch farmer was subjected to an atrocious punishment for trying to snare a hare just outside his own hedge. A Scotch Member brought up a question on the subject; and the Secretary of State for the Home Department said he was prepared to bring in a Bill to modify that law. He did bring in a
  184
  Bill, declaring that when there was no evidence whatever that violence was committed or was intended, that the punishment for night poaching should be reduced to what it would have been if the offence had been committed in the day time. I at once rose and suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that, however desirable it might be thus to assist the Scotch farmers, the English farmers had every right to the same privilege, and that he surely would not dream of passing a Bill for Scotland which did not extend to England. After some consultation, the Lord Advocate frankly accepted that alteration, and promised if I would withdraw my opposition to the second reading that he would pledge himself to bring in a Bill extending the change to Great Britain. I was, unfortunately, ill at that period, and had no opportunity of watching exactly how the matter went; but I know, in the first place, that this fairly moderate piece of legislation was altered down to absolute nothingness and meaninglessness. It was provided, in the first place, that the poacher must be alone, and. that he must have no nets with him; so that it amounted to this—that if he proved he was not a poacher he should only be punished as if he had been caught in the day time. But that change was too strong for the Government Bench, and the Bill was officially burked at 7 o'clock in the morning one day in August. No doubt it may be said when the Government saw it had been reduced by their Friends to so simple a matter they resolved to put it on one side, and to deal with the matter in the Criminal Code Bill. But on examining that Bill I find in it the same atrocious clause, and it is still proposed that a man should be liable to seven years' transportation for taking a rabbit. "While that clause remains in that Bill I promise it my most unmitigated opposition; and I will stop short of nothing but that never-to-be-mentioned horror of having my humble name mentioned by you, Sir. In fact, the only alteration in the law of late years has been an alteration of the most aggravating severity; and that is the Act of 1862, called the Poaching Prevention Act. This Act did a great deal towards making game property, not so far as it turned policemen into game preservers, and actually disregarded a vital principle in our Constitution that a

  185
  man shall be deemed innocent until he is proved guilty. At present any poor labourer wandering along the road with a hag on his back may be stopped by any scoundrel gamekeeper, who can claim the right to search him in order to see whether he has or has not game upon him. The Commissioner of The Norfolk News said—
  "As I have seen and heard much of the evil of game preserving, I will add one or two facts of which I was reminded by my informant in Suffolk, who has had large experience in game districts. He ascribed much evil to the Poaching Prevention Act, by which policemen were turned into gamekeepers, paid by the county and the State. This Act has so operated that while game preserving is as rampant as ever gamekeepers are less and less in request, their places being supplied by policemen. He assured me that a little while ago in The Field newspaper he observed 60 advertisements by gamekeepers out of situations, and only two by gentlemen requiring gamekeepers."
  Probably the audacity of class legislation was never manifested in a more distinct manner than in this case, when, having first confiscated the property of the people in the wild animals of the country, the country gentlemen then forced the people to pay for the preservation of the stolen property.
  Two propositions have been made under which the present Game Laws might be abolished, to make game property, or to pass a stringent Trespass Law. To pass a Trespass Bill is simply to re-produce the Game Laws in another form; while to make game property is to increase the evil, and to make it more flagrant by making the confiscation of the property of the people absolute and certain. A stringent trespass law—why, the Night Poaching Act is a stringent Trespass Law. If you want to reduce the evil, you must reduce the head of game. If you pass a stringent Trespass Law which does not allow the head, of game to be destroyed, you will simply have made a nominal change. A much more valuable change suggested is to remove ground game from the protection of the Act, and to leave only winged game under its protection. I cannot accept the principle that ground game is the only one which does damage; immense harm is done by winged game also. The Bishop of Manchester writes:—"Ground game does more hurt to the farmer; winged game does more hurt to the peasantry." I apprehend also that of the 10,000 men convicted annually,
  186
  far more are victims to pheasants than to hares. Mr. Hammerton, of the Warwickshire Farmers' Club, declared that he had heard farmers say they had had gamekeepers hatching and increasing game for months on their farms; and when they began to peck their food, and were not able to fly, they were taken in baskets and set down in the middle of the fields to eat corn. Mr. Fisher, a Scotch farmer, said before the Committee that "a man in the Highlands had his entire crop destroyed by grouse." My objection to this change is a fatal one—that it is impossible to separate these two heads of game. If you substitute for the Game Laws a Trespass Law, as regards ground game, who is to tell which a man is trespassing in search of? The landlord will be sure to say that the man is after winged game, the trespasser will declare he is after ground game; and while there is a great head of game left on the land, not only will the evil to the farmer be undiminished, but the evil of poaching and of trespassing will be neither diminished nor done away with. We say simply to abolish the Game Laws is the only way to mitigate the evil.
  Now, this is my indictment against the Game Law system. It is a strong one I believe. It is a true and unexaggerated one. I have carried the House through the various classes affected by the law up to the whole of the community. I cannot hope that I have converted the House to my views. The House will, perhaps, excuse me for saying that if there be any subject in this House on which I could not expect it to exhibit absolute impartiality, it would be on the question of supporting these Game Laws. But if I have not converted them, and if we cannot get rid of these laws from within, we must ask assistance from without. I find an historical parallel which encourages me in what I do. We are told that many hundred years ago the fields of the Balearic Islanders were overrun and eaten up by rabbits, which could not be slain by the natives because they were sacred animals. It is interesting to the philosophic observer to notice the continuity of certain religious ideas. The rabbit is as sacred now as it was before the Christian era. Well, the Balearic Islanders found they must get rid of the rabbits, because rabbits and religion together would have been their ruin. But as they were unable to do

  187
  it themselves, they sent to Rome for soldiers to do their business, who had no religious scruples on the subject. It is what I propose to do. But the Home to which we shall have to send is not farther removed than our agricultural districts, and the soldiers who will do our business will be the enfranchised agricultural labourers. In conclusion, I beg leave to move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,in rising to second the Motion, said, he had not been in the habit of taking part in the debates on the subject; but he was of opinion that the Game Laws were radically wrong, and must be swept away, and if he had not been of that opinion, he would have been convinced by the eloquent and impressive speech of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor). He did not know whether the remedy proposed by the hon. Member was the best that could be discovered; but, at any rate, they would clear the ground. He was in a position to take a somewhat impartial view of the subject, as for the last 35 years—indeed, from the time he was able to hold a gun—he never missed an opportunity of doing his duty in the way of shooting, although with somewhat indifferent success. He quite admitted that, to a certain extent, man was a hunting animal; and that being his nature, he thought it was well that hardworking men—such as the Legislators of that House—should, after they had terminated their labours, return to their savage state, and the pursuit of wild animals. As it was a good thing to turn a horse out to grass, so it was a good thing that a man should be turned to his savage state at times. But this might be carried too far in the interests of the rich. As a consequence of the preservation of game, it was a fact that, at the present time, a Highlander had become almost an extinct animal in his own country, which had been converted into a ground of enjoyment for the rich. In the view of our requirements as a great Empire, it was, he believed, an irreparable error to have caused the wholesale emigration of Highlanders to take place. The result of such a depopulation was that we had not now the men for our Armies that we formerly had. In the Highlands, men had to give way to sheep, and sheep to grouse,
  188
  and thereby a great national loss had been sustained. His opinion, however, was that, although the Game Laws might, in many respects, operate for the benefit of the rich, and in some sense, when used moderately and fairly, be from their point of view not undesirable, still that the House should take a wider range and consider what was most beneficial to the whole community. The conclusion from the arguments of the hon. Member for Leicester was, he thought, irresistible—namely, that great and grave evils arose to the community from the existence of those laws, and that, therefore, those evils must be remedied by some very radical change. He would not go into the case of the farmers. They were, no doubt, able, to a certain extent, to preserve their interests by contract; but they could not always take sufficient care of themselves, for it was notorious that contracts were frequently found to be insufficient for the purpose intended, and great losses resulted to them from the action of the Game Laws. But his chief interest was in the general community, who might be said to be represented by the poacher. Now, the poacher was an unpopular person, although, he believed, Shakespeare, Robin Hood, and other distinguished persons, who had come down to us as great men and great heroes, were poachers. However that might be, it was certainly the case that there existed in the general community a justifiable feeling against the Game Laws. As he understood the state of things, it was this—The Common Law of England and Scotland was in favour of the poacher. Trespass upon land was not a criminal offence; its utmost penalty was payment for the damage done to fences or crops. Neither was the killing of game an offence at Common Law. But Parliament had, by statute, created a concrete offence, and trespass in pursuit of game became a crime. It was made a criminal offence by landlord enactments and Land Laws, against which the feelings of the people rebelled. What, then, was the remedy the hon. Member proposed? It was simply the abolition of the Game Laws; and he was not sure that, upon the whole, admitting that it would be an evil as regarded the recreation of the rich, it would not, if it were possible, be a good thing to have the Game Laws wholly abolished, and with the Game

  189
  Laws the game also. But he feared in the present state of things that was not possible. He thoroughly agreed with the hon. Member for Leicester that they could not cure the evil by any mere modification of the present Game Laws. There was one remedy which had been proposed, and which the hon. Member for Leicester stigmatized as idiotic. That remedy would make game property on certain conditions. Unless they abolished the Game Laws and game altogether, he thought the only alternative was to make game property. But he would not do that without compensation. The rights of the people as to free access to land had been greatly abridged in recent times. Not many centuries ago two-thirds of the land of England was common or commonable land. There was free passage over it, and there was the right to the game. Gradually these rights had been taken away, and the greater part of the land inclosed; and the people were absolutely confined to the high roads. The result was great inconvenience, and it would be an additional grievance if the right of the people to the game was swept away without any compensation. The view of the case he had to suggest was that this question of the Game Laws should be treated, not by itself, but in connection with the whole of the Land Question, which was coming rapidly upon us. Unless the Game Laws were to be abolished altogether, the only alternative was to make the game property, as sheep were, under certain conditions; and in that event the people ought to have a quid pro quo in their restoration to some of the other rights in the land of which they had been deprived. The kind of quid pro quo he would suggest would be to give the people an absolute right of way over the land, with fair compensation to the landlord, whenever it was really necessary, and to make that necessary, subject to the decision of a public tribunal, and to establish the liability of the proprietors to the expropriation of portions of the land for purposes of general benefit—for garden grounds, small properties, and other requirements of the people—with, again, fair compensation to the landlord, as had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich. The hon. Member concluded by seconding the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the existing Game Law Code, maintained for the purpose of preserving certain wild animals for sport, is unjust to the farmer, demoralising to the labourer, and injurious to the whole community, and should therefore be abolished."—(Mr. P. A. Taylor.)
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT,in rising to move, as an Amendment, "That it is not now expedient to deal with the question of the Game Laws," said, the hon. Member who had just sat down (Sir George Campbell) had given many reasons why the Game Laws should not be abolished, and yet he was going to support the Resolution of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor). The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy told them he had amused himself by shooting; but in the hon. Member for Leicester they had a man who had never, perhaps, indulged in the pastime of shooting or hunting since the day he was born. What did the hon. Member know of the feelings of those who indulged in English sports? He must know very little, if he supposed that by one fell swoop he could, by a Resolution in that House, abolish the Game Laws. He had read a great number of extracts from newspapers; but he had not verified one of them. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) did not rise to defend the over-preservation of game; in fact, he disliked it as much as anyone. He believed over-preservation had been fatal in some counties, and that had it not been for it, this outcry against the Game Laws would never have been raised. No one was more fond of good shooting than the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt); he enjoyed it, and would be sorry to see it abolished; he would be the last man to go and live or even stay in the country unless he could enjoy this sport. It did not at all follow that he liked to indulge in it to the detriment of anyone else; and it was not necessary that he need do so. They did not require the abolition of the Game Laws in order to get rid of the evils connected with them. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy did not think they ought to be abolished, but would make game property providing trespass were abolished. Suppose the hon. Member had an estate near a largo town; how would he like a few thousand people trampling over the crops? That

  191
  could be satisfactory neither to him nor to the neighbourhood; and such a proposal might be dismissed as one which, if it were tried, would certainly have to be repealed. The hon. Member for Leicester had alluded to one of the most mischievous of practices, the buying of eggs. No gentleman ought to buy eggs; it was a temptation to the poorer classes to take them in order to sell them at the highest prices they could obtain; it made them poachers from their youth; and it was an excessively mischievous thing. But that was no reason why the Game Laws should be abolished. No doubt, there were anomalies connected with the Game Laws, and some poachers had been dealt with too severely; but if the hon. Member for Leicester would look at all the cases that came before the magistrates, he would find that they did act with discrimination, and that they made a difference between trumpery cases and those in which violence had been used. He did not deny that an excessive amount of ground game had in former days done a great, he might say an immense amount of mischief; but in his (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) own county, at least, that complaint had been got rid of as regarded hares and rabbits, by letting tenants come there and have power to kill rabbits. Landlords felt that it was, indeed, to the best interest of both that they should be on good terms with their tenants; they often went out shooting together, and the tenant enjoyed sporting over the property he rented. Did tenants wish to have the Game Laws abolished? If the game on a farm were given up to the tenant he always proved to be the best gamekeeper: no one enjoyed shooting more; and whether the tenants had the game, provided they had the power to keep down the rabbits, they would be the last to say the Game Laws ought to be abolished. If they did not give gentlemen some amusement to attract them to the country and to keep them there, they would have absenteeism, which was so much complained of in Ireland. What an amount of writing there was in the newspapers about the 12th of August, the 1st of September, and the 1st of October! Would it not be a disappointment to the people in the towns if there was no game in the country? In France they could not find a blackbird or a sparrow, and now legislation was necessary
  192
  to preserve even the small birds. The hon. Member for Leicester had called to his aid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), who never had a good word to say for country gentlemen; but if the Game Laws were abolished then salmon rivers ought not to be preserved; and the hon. Member for Leicester, to be consistent, should include them in his Motion. The right hon. Gentleman was only amiable when he was catching a salmon; but otherwise he described country gentlemen as stupid, good for nothing, and who were only interested in punishing and avenging themselves on poachers. If the Game Laws were fairly administered and over-preservation was stopped, they might be maintained with less mischief than would attend their abolition, and it was for that reason he moved that it was not expedient to deal with them at the present time.
  EARL PERCY,in seconding the Amendment, said, that in mentioning Robin Hood as a poacher it had been overlooked that he was also a highwayman, and that it was as good a defence for highway robbery as for poaching to say that it was a temptation to the poor man that the rich man should have something the poor man wanted. The speech of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) was a great display of strong feeling and hard words against the Game Laws and their administration; but his strength of feeling was a good deal wasted, because no one would deny that as regarded such administration there were some evils connected with the system of game preserving which all would be glad to see removed. But when the hon. Member said they were an element in the agricultural distress of the country he did not adduce any evidence of a conclusive character. Nothing which the hon. Member for Leicester said, from the beginning to the end of his speech, as proving damage, referred to anything but hares and rabbits. Besides, the instances he quoted related to only one or two districts of the country. Speaking with, perhaps, almost equal authority, he (Earl Percy) might say he knew parts of England where no such cases, nor anything approaching to them, could be brought forward against either landlords or magistrates. Then, the hon. Member for Leicester compared the state of things in Prance under the

  193
  old régime to what now existed in England. But no such comparison could be instituted. He did not need to follow the hon. Member in all the accusations he had brought against the working of the Game Laws. Without defending the stringency of those laws, he must observe that many of the cases brought forward were cases in which the law had been stretched in a manner in which those who wished the Game Laws preserved disapproved. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had shown most conclusively, as his hon. and gallant Friend the Mover of the Amendment (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) said, what was the real value of the Game Laws in a national point of view. The hon. Member for Leicester said a poor man had now no right to go anywhere but along the highway; but that certainly was not the fact. In no country that he (Earl Percy) was acquainted with was there greater freedom enjoyed by the public to traverse the lands of proprietors than in England, and for this simple reason—that the Game Laws enabled them to put a stop to any abuse of the right. He heard with some alarm the proposal of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy that there should be right of way over every man's property; but if, in the absence of Game Laws, they were to preserve their property from mischief by trespass, it would be necessary to have a strict Law of Trespass. They had been told that if country gentlemen were deprived of the right they had to enjoy sport, they would most likely leave their homes and live elsewhere. There was a great deal of truth in that; but he put the question on higher ground. That which distinguished this country was what was called our country life, under which a body of gentlemen possessed of property, and having the interests of the people at heart, took part in the sports and directed the local affairs of their district, thus showing that they were of use and influence in the world. Of this influence the hon. Member for Leicester sought to deprive them. This was a question which concerned the whole nation. If, as he (Earl Percy) believed, country gentlemen were the most respected and respectable class in the country, if they did good work and maintained a position which gave to the country character and weight, he said it would be an evil day
  194
  for the country when those were driven from it who formed so essential an element in its direction and in its power. He hoped that day was far distant; and though he should be sorry to base his objection to the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester solely on this ground, yet, seeing in it an element of great danger, and taking other objections also into consideration, he begged to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is not now expedient to deal with the question of the Game Laws,"—(Sir Walter Barttelot,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

PRIVILEGE (TOWER HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE (METROPOLIS) COMMITTEE).

  ARREST OF CHARLES EDMUND GRISSELL.
  The Serjeant at Arms reported to the House that, in pursuance of the Order of the House, and in obedience to Mr. Speaker's Warrant, he had taken Charles Edmund Grissell into custody.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I move that Charles Edmund Grissell do stand committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms; and that you, Sir, do issue your Warrant accordingly; and that the Serjeant at Arms do bring him in custody to the Bar of the House to-morrow at 12 o'clock.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That Charles Edmund Grissell do stand committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrants accordingly.
  Ordered, That the Serjeant at Arms do bring the said Charles Edmund Grissell, in custody, to the Bar of this House, To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock.

GAME LAWS.—RESOLUTION.
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, it was amusing to hear that the Seconder of the Resolution did not agree with it, because he said that, in his opinion, the

195
Game Laws should not be abolished, but altered. In that he agreed entirely. Nothing had created more irritation in connection with this subject than the practice of selling game; and those who wished to preserve the Game Laws should do their best to put a stop to that practice. So far from the Game Laws being objected to as a whole, he had known farmers object to the small quantity of game. Farmers liked to have a few hares to shoot in order to entertain a friend. If he voted for the Resolution, it would be in the sense of the Seconder and not of the Mover, for he thought that it was desirable not to abolish but to modify the Game Laws. He had himself introduced a Bill on the subject which had satisfied that not very easily satisfied body, the Scotch Chamber of Agriculture. It proceeded upon the principle of abolishing the protection of ground game; and he believed that if that were done there would be little more agitation against the Game Laws. The Court of Session in Scotland had last year decided that rabbits were vermin, and as such ought to be destroyed by farmers without taking out a gun licence; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had refused to instruct his officers to recognize that decision in so far as to exempt farmers from the necessity of taking out a gun licence in order to shoot rabbits; and a similar difficulty, raised as to the shooting of wood pigeons without taking out a gun licence, had created great irritation, and had led to a good deal of agitation against the Game Laws; because people had got the idea that, unless the Game Laws were abolished, they could not shoot rabbits and pigeons without a licence. In conclusion, the hon. and gallant Baronet repeated that he should vote for the Resolution in the sense put upon it by the Seconder, and not in that of the Mover, because he was not for the abolition, but the reform of the Game Laws.
MR. CLARE READsaid, he stood in a peculiar position with regard to this question. He did not agree with his hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), which he (Mr. Clare Read) thought was somewhat shirking the question. He did not agree with his hon. Friend who moved the Resolution (Mr. P. A. Taylor); and he was equally unable to agree with his Seconder, or the hon. and gallant
196
Gentleman who had spoken last (Sir Alexander Gordon), as they both objected to the repeal of the Game Laws, and yet were going to vote for such repeal. He looked at the question almost entirely from an agricultural point of view, and would endorse a saying which was attributable to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright)—namely, that a farmer had a right to protect his crops from all wild animals that preyed upon them. That was his (Mr. Clare Read's) notion—that a farmer should have the inalienable privilege of killing hares and rabbits which devastated his farm. He went even further than that; he would not deprive a landlord of that power, for he had seen instances in which game was kept in such a quantity by a tenant as to seriously injure the property of the landlord. The rabbits and hares pulled down fences, destroyed quickset, and ate away the underwood; and actually, in some cases, they destroyed the young timber. If the law granted this joint right, he believed that in the majority of cases there would be no collision between the landlord and tenant. Almost the whole of the agricultural grievance centred in ground game. With the exception of wood pigeons, all kinds of birds did a certain amount of good—more good than harm—and he would be very sorry indeed that game birds should be extirpated. His hon. Friend the Member for Leicester had ridiculed his statement that there were Game Laws in America; but, although he might be an "innocent ignorant," he certainly did see and hear of Game Laws there. You constantly saw notices put up that trespassers who hunted or fished would be prosecuted. Even in the wild State of Minnesota, where there were thousands of acres of unoccupied land, there was a very stringent law regarding the preservation of wild fowl and birds. In almost every State there was a close time; and even in New York, he believed, the people were not allowed to kill a sparrow. The consequence was that there was such an enormous number of sparrows in New York that he was quite sure they must be a dreadful nuisance. It was rather curious that, while the English farmer complained of hares and rabbits, the Irish farmer rather rejoiced in the hare, so that last Session a Bill had been introduced and passed to enact

197
a close season for hares. He hoped that such a proposal would not be made for England. It was quite true that he (Mr. Clare Read) had stated some years ago that thousands more sheep could have been reared in Norfolk but for the large quantity of ground game that was to be found in that county. He had very great pleasure in testifying to the decreased quantity of ground game in the Eastern Counties at the present time. In fact, hares and rabbits were done away with on many estates. When the hon. Member for Leicester said this was a year of exceptional severity in the agricultural districts, he (Mr. Clare Head) would also observe that the year was also an exceptional one as regarded the small quantity of game in those counties; and, therefore, he did not think game could be said to have anything to do with deficiency in the crops. He agreed with the hon. Member for Leicester in thinking the Police Poaching Act objectionable. It was anomalous that a police-constable should have the right to search a man in the highway if suspected of poaching, but not if suspected of robbing a hen-roost. When, however, it was asserted that a starving labourer was under peculiar temptation to poach rather than steal, he begged to express his dissent. He could not see why a game preserve should be more tempting than a hen-roost or a sheep-fold. Under the existing law, a landlord could eat a tenant up by means of game, and yet the Law of Distress would give him the power to recover his rent. That seemed to him an injustice. The landlord might—he did not say it was often done—let his farm, and afterwards let his game. The consequence would be that the game tenant would have no sympathy with the agricultural tenant, and the latter might be ruined; and though he did not say such cases happened frequently, still he thought the law which allowed them ought to be amended. He was not a total repealer, but a reformer of the Game Laws. He thought a remedy might be found for the farmer as well as for the landlord, by modifying the existing laws. Although there were one or two Committees which had made suggestions and certain modifications which had not yet been carried into effect, he was not without hope that whenever leisure time came, Parliament would take into con-
198
sideration the present Game Laws with the view of providing an adequate remedy.
DR. KENEALY: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend, in the few remarks which I shall make, to enter into the general question of the Game Laws. The millions in this country, the bulk of the population, have made up their minds as to their arbitrary and oppressive nature, and as to the mode in which they are administered; and they are nearly all against them. But of what force or use is their opinion? This House, consisting mainly of Whig and Tory landlords, is not at all likely to repeal the Game Laws. The Whigs are as resolved as the Tories, and the Tories are as resolute as the Whigs upon this; and I shall, therefore, waste no time in argument, because I believe that argument is useless here at the present time. But I desire to mention one or two facts which have been lately brought before me; and they are of such a nature that they will weigh with those who read our debates, if they do not tell in the House itself. These facts are connected with Richmond Park, and with its Ranger, the Duke of Cambridge. This noble Duke reserves a great portion of that park for his game preserves, and he charges the public for his gamekeepers. I do not know by what right he does either. I have always thought and believed that Richmond Park was a public park, and was public property, and was open to all the public; but the Duke of Cambridge thinks differently, and acts accordingly. In the old Tory days of one of your Predecessors, Mr. Speaker, in that Chair—I mean Mr. Addington, who afterwards became Prime Minister—King George the Third was so pleased with him, that, when he presented him with Richmond Lodge, he made an offer to inclose 60 acres of land with it; but Mr. Addington refused on public grounds, and because it was a public park; and it was only after some importunity that he finally consented to have 10 acres inclosed; and with these he remained satisfied as long as he occupied the Lodge. But we live in different times now; and I hear that the Duke of Cambridge has inclosed a large part of the park, and made it into preserves, and excludes the public, and does a great many things which he could not do if he were not supported by the Game Laws. I shall mention the case of Mr. Waite,

199
which has been brought before me. I hear that Mr. Waite is a respectable man; but, under the Duke and the Game Laws, he has been treated with hardship, and I even think with injustice. He was walking some time since in Richmond Park with a dog. He saw a rabbit, for the place is thick with them, and he took it. Very few persons would resist the temptation in a park that belongs to the public, and Mr. Waite did not resist. He was pounced upon by the Duke's gamekeepers, and he received no less than four summonses. First, he was summoned for trespass; second, for trespass on a Royal preserve; third, for going there with a dog; fourth, for taking a hare. He was tried before magistrates, and for these four offences—which were really only one—he was fined £7, or four months' imprisonment with hard labour. Can we wonder that such laws, thus administered, are odious in the eyes of all persons? I shall therefore vote with the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor).
MR. PELL,as a Game Law reformer, regretted that the hon. Member for Leicester, (Mr. P. A. Taylor) should have presented his case in a grotesque and exaggerated form, such as one might have expected to find in a chapter of that celebrated satire of Swift's, Gulliver's Travels. It was an extravagant picture of the state of things which existed in this country some years back. The hon. Gentleman's remarks would have been more to the point if they had set forth the objections to the Game Laws, the abstract principle of which lay in a nutshell. It was this—that hares and rabbits ought not to be exterminated, inasmuch as they were articles of food, but ought to be kept in their places. He would admit that the Game Laws required modification in some respects. There could be no doubt that rabbits were unduly preserved in some parts of the country, and such an amendment of the law as would keep them within proper bounds was desirable. Considering that a Select Committee had sat for two years to investigate the question, he thought the hon. Member for Leicester might have submitted a more precise and more tangible proposal to the consideration of the House. For his part, he could not support the Motion of the hon. Gentleman; and he was equally disinclined to vote for the Amendment of the
200
hon. and gallant Member (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). There were many objectionable features in the Game Laws. Many of them had been pointed out by witnesses examined before the Committee to which he had referred, and of which he was a Member. He himself suggested Amendments in that Committee, and he still maintained that legislation was called for. Indeed, he had attempted it once himself, shortly after the Committee had reported. The Bill he then introduced would, he thought, give the tenant farmer an opportunity of protecting himself against the undue preservation of game by third parties. He gave great attention to the framing of the measure, and employed an able draftsman; but it was snuffed out in a moment by the late Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. M'Combie), who characterized it as a monstrous Bill. After all, it should be borne in mind that the Game Laws were really Laws of Trespass, and it was a question for consideration as to how far those Laws of Trespass might be relaxed without jeopardizing the give-and-take principle which at present obtained in the country of allowing persons to pass over land, though they had no right of ownership or occupation. Sometimes he had seen 400 or 500 horsemen come across his land, and of these not half were landowners, the majority of them being overworked merchants and men of that class whose occupations were in the City. No doubt, damage was done to the land by hunting; but in these matters the give-and-take principle must be observed. He thought the proper amendment would be—not that the Game Laws should be entirely swept away, but that as soon as possible they should be considered by the House with a view to their amendment.
MR. MUNTZsaid, the complexities of the Game Laws were so peculiar that it was very difficult to frame a measure for their removal. While it was difficult to deal with this question by Resolution it would be still more so to bring in a Bill, and if any measure were introduced it ought to be on the responsibility of the Government. If it were done at all, it must be done by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the sooner it was done the better. At present the law left the game entirely in the hands of

201
the tenant, who, if he agreed to give it up for the use of the landlord, got the land at a lower rent. He believed that, in most instances where game was not over-preserved, and where a proper feeling prevailed between the landlord and tenant, which was generally the case in England, not so much harm was done as the world was trying to represent. Still, he admitted that there was some harm done. The mischief to the crops was caused almost exclusively by the ground game. In one case as much as £60 or £70 was paid for damage to a single field committed by such game. Partridges, on the other hand, did no harm, but good, and the number of pheasants was so comparatively small as not to interfere seriously with crops. He saw no alternative whatever but to abolish ground game, and he believed that if they were abolished there would be little or no grumbling. The law might be altered with that object; but to enact a Law of Trespass was a very different affair. The present Secretary to the Treasury had endeavoured to deal with that; but the Committee that had inquired into the subject had not recommended a change. The night poacher was generally the refuse of society, and it was difficult to deal with him; but the case of a day poacher was very different. Another point was rather important. It appeared from trustworthy evidence that no fewer than 30,000,000 of rabbits were annually grown in this country for the market. That was a serious question, and it came this—Did they lose or gain by them? He believed decidedly that they lost by them, if, at least, it was true that eight rabbits consumed the keep of one sheep. With respect to sheep, he might remark that the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) had not accurately described Scotch deer forests, which, in fact, were not forests, but large tracts of wild land where deer actually lived. The evidence and the probability was that as much meat was grown in them under the present state of things as could be obtained by feeding sheep. However, the whole question was very serious, and of the greatest importance; it was impossible that it could be allow to rest; and it would sooner or later—the sooner the better—command the attention of the Government of the country, though he envied no Government that was so hardy as
202
to attempt to deal with it. Still, the Committee of 1873 had presented a very able Report, which would some day be the basis of legislation; and in the meantime, by way of protesting against the policy of inaction, he felt himself compelled to vote for the Resolution.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEthought that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) had given a rather strange reason for his intention to vote for the Resolution. He thoroughly agreed with all that the hon. Member had said about ground game, and felt sure that there would be advantage in the laws being altered in reference to those creatures. His principal property, standing as it did in a Metropolitan county, was, to a wide extent, a wild, poor moorland, in which, if not continually checked, hares and rabbits would teem to the equal detriment of the landlord's underwood and the tenant's hop-vines. But ground game was one thing, the harmless wild bird, the partridge, another, and the less than half-wild pheasant a third. He could not see why, if sheep farming was worthy of protection, pheasant farming should be less worthy of that assistance which the laws were supposed to give to the acquisition and preservation of useful and food-yielding property. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) would be glad to learn that, comparing all round—sheep, pigs, shorthorns, and other farm animals—there was no more artificial creature than the pheasant. It was the stock of the woods as beeves and sheep were of the meadows. He (Mr. Beresford Hope) owned property and preserved game, although he was not a sportsman himself; and he wished to know why, on account of a mere anatomical distinction, they should shut their eyes to common sense and refuse to admit that the pheasant was to all intents and purposes a product of civilization, and as such entitled to protection equally with the other stocks and crops of the farmer. Pheasant farming was as genuine an industrial process as sheep farming. But it was argued that pheasants did damage. That certainly was, however, merely a question of degree, and the damage done by them was a simple question of money between the landlord and the tenant, while a man who was not a fool, before taking a farm, would ascertain the conditions under which his landlord was a game preserver. To at-

203
tempt to elevate into a political grievance the bargaining which had inevitably superseded the old-fashioned relations between the typical Sir Roger de Coverley and his tenantry was to play fast and loose with common sense. The whole arrangement was a bargain; game might do damage in the fields, as sheep or pigs straying into the woods would do damage to the young shoots; and the question literally was, whether the game was worth the candle. In the case of rabbits, the damage done was so considerable that he was personally for some preventive legislation. As for his own practice, as soon as the 2nd of February came, his keeper and the tenants used continually to be out rabbiting, while the bag belonged to the tenant, and the complaint to which of late years he had became familiar was that the sport was bad. He feared that if he should happily exterminate his rabbits he might be left face to face with a tenantry discontented at the loss of their February fun.
MR. HOPWOOD,in supporting the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), said, the Game Laws were demoralizing and unjust. Nobody had anything to say in favour of them save on the ground of "sport;" and, therefore, they were asked to maintain laws that were unjust. In carrying them out, hon. Gentlemen were allowed to act as magistrates in their own cases, and very frequently to perpetrate very gross injustice. If that was a fact, of which, in his opinion, there was little doubt, it seemed to him to be a shocking and frightful evil that the administration of the law should be marked with such injustice or held up to contempt in the eyes of the lower classes. It entered their minds that those above them were unjust; that the word of a gamekeeper was worth more than their own; that a gamekeeper might shoot a poacher, and might hunt men with dogs. If a poacher was shot at, it was just a chance if the gamekeeper was brought up; but if it was the gamekeeper who was shot at, the poacher was sure to be prosecuted. The existing system led to excessive game preserving, and caused an incalculable amount of crime and suffering. In confirmation of that, he would ask the attention of the House to the result of one battue, as published by the Rev. F. O. Morris, in which the total number slaughtered was given at many thousand
204
head of game. He gave particulars of three battues, the number of head of game, and the number of tons weight of slain. Did any sensible Member in the House approve of that mode of shooting? It was the love of killing, and nothing else. "What had the 52,000 or so of persons who took out game certificates done for the country that it should give them these hurtful laws to support them in the enjoyment of their "sport," which, too often, was mere butchery? The bloodstained code of our Game Laws was monstrous and indefensible in its severity. For the first offence there was imprisonment for three months, and sureties had to be found for six months more. For the second offence the imprisonment was for six months, and sureties for 12 months had to be found; so that, for taking a rabbit or attempting to take one as a second offence, a man might be kept 18 months in prison. If three men with a stick were found on land at night in search of game they were liable to 14 years' penal servitude, a punishment double that inflicted upon persons guilty of the gross crime of perjury. The number of convictions under the summary jurisdiction of justices in 1877–8 was 12,583; in 1876–7 it was 13,521. A large number of these—he gave the numbers—were sentenced to imprisonment, amounting in the total to 55,000 days' imprisonment, one, at least, to be laid to the door of every holder of a licence. A large number were sentenced to fines. Many besides had to go to gaol for want of sureties. He hoped the Secretary of State for the Home Department would inquire how many were in gaol now for want of sureties. In addition to these were the Assize cases for night poaching, nearly 100 in number, besides those cases which were ranked as murder, but had arisen out of the painful conflicts which the conduct of keepers and the action of these laws produced. Add together the imprisonment, the loss of life, the demoralization of peasants, the destruction of food, the cost of prisons, of prosecutions, of police, and he would ask were such laws worth the sacrifice involved? Did they deserve to be maintained?
MR. W. S. STANHOPEsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Hopwood) seemed to take his notions on this subject rather from newspaper reports than from

205
practical experience. He (Mr. Stanhope) did not desire to defend those landowners who carried the preservation of game to such an extent, as some of those whose cases had been quoted; but he thought that was a matter which was gradually righting itself, and that there was now very little complaint on the part of tenants against landlords in the greater part of the country, on the score of over-preservation of game. Having been long connected with the gaol of Wakefield, and being chairman of its committee, he could say that for several years the number of those committed in that part of the country for breach of the Game Laws only varied from 1½ to 3 per cent of the total number of prisoners. That was certainly not so tremendous a result as the statistics of the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down would lead them to suppose. There was one point in connection with this subject which he wished to impress upon the House—namely, that in this country we had the most lenient form of Trespass Law, and that was owing to the operation of the Game Laws. There was in towns a number of persons of bad character ready to issue out and commit depredations on the neighbouring property. He happened to be the owner of a property of 1,200 or 1,400 acres between Bradford and Leeds. A good many years ago, when he was a young man, that property was in the hands of a tenant, a well-known preserver of game, who looked after the property as if it had been his own. Considering the nearness of the towns, he had a very large amount of game; but as Leeds grew nearer the gentleman moved to a more suitable place, and was succeeded by a large manufacturer who would not allow game to be preserved on the estate. Everything ought to have gone on well, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman; but the reverse was the case. In the first place the game disappeared, then the tenants found all their poultry was gone, Leicestershire sheep also were destroyed, and so on. Gates and gate-posts disappeared, and even trees of large size. At last the tenants said something must be done, and they formed an association among themselves for the preservation of game on the estate. That association, established 15 or 16 years ago, still existed; and the result was that it was now possible to keep sheep on the property, and
206
other animals which farmers wanted. In the West of Yorkshire a very large area was moorland, and much of it had been seized by the large towns to supply themselves with water. For that crop they paid no rent. Having erected a reservoir they assumed a right over the whole watershed, perhaps some 2,000 or 3,000 acres belonging to other people, and insisted that the water should be turned off in a state of purity fit to drink, and no manure could be put upon the moor. In his own case, being about a mile from the reservoir, he had been dragged into a Chancery suit, and, finding that the whole of the rates of a town 18 miles distant would be employed against him, he had to capitulate and pay heavy costs. Therefore, the theory about the cultivation of waste lands disappeared so far as the moors of Yorkshire were concerned. The question was, what was the best use to put these moors to? They might be used for sheep or for grouse. For grouse the rent would be five or seven times more than for farming, and the arguments against the Game Laws hardly applied there. In these days of agricultural distress, the only agricultural property rising in value was game, and the value of that had almost doubled. Was property of that kind to be sacrificed to a mere theory? Putting all these things together, he thought this was not a question for declamation, but rather for calm consideration, to see how far these laws could be put on a more practical and satisfactory footing.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, at last they had reached the true solution of the problem of agricultural distress. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Stanhope) had found out that other crops did not pay, and that game did. The Game Laws, therefore, according to the hon. Gentleman, ought to be kept up to enable country gentlemen to obtain the most profitable kind of crops. The hon. Gentleman said that the moors could not grow sheep, but they could grow grouse. The Game Laws were necessary for the maintenance of grouse, and, therefore, ought to be kept up. That appeared to him (Sir William Harcourt) to be a reductio ad absurdum for the maintenance of the Game Laws. Now they had the practical issue before the House. Whatever difficulty they might have felt as to the extent to which

207
the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) went, there could be no mistake about the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), which was seconded by the noble Lord the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy). The principle of the Amendment was "No Surrender." The Amendment raised the issue in the plainest form. They would have no alteration in the Game Laws. That was the direct issue. He had been a little curious—and he had been sitting there the whole evening—to see what line "the farmers' friends" would take upon that issue, both in England and in Scotland. There were a good many of the Scotch farmers' friends there, and they knew very well that they were all against over-preserving. But they all knew what the farmers wanted; what was said out-of-doors as to the present state of things about over-preserving, and that the Game Laws were the cause of it. What alteration were they going to make? They had been told by the last speaker that the system of large preserving was coming to an end. That might be quite true as regarded the last 12 months, because the season was adverse. But in the five years past could it be said that it had diminished? There were other things also said. Then the farmers' friends were all against ground game. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) was always making speeches against rabbits, but never gave a vote against rabbits. When the Agricultural Holdings Bill was before the House there was a proposal to give the farmer protection against rabbits, and compensation for the damage they occasioned; but on that occasion the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, amidst cheers, walked out of the House. That was the way in which the "farmers' friends" dealt with their grievances. They were always ready to enlarge upon the farmers' grievances; but when a practical proposal came before the House they were not so active. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Bead) extenuating, said—"Black is not so black, nor white so very white." So they always found a reason for not voting for remedies proposed. But when they went into the counties they were all against the damage done by hares and
208
rabbits. But what was the remedy the farmers' friends were going to propose to-night for the evils produced by ground game? Nothing whatever! for when the hon. and gallant Baronet proposed an Amendment that there should be no change in the Game Laws all the farmers' friends were with him at once. The pattern farmers' friend (Mr. Clare Read) said they would deal with those laws at their leisure. The farmers' friends would help the farmers "at their leisure." Why, he (Sir William Harcourt) did not know when they would have leisure if they had no leisure now. If the farmers waited for the leisure of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, led by the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), seconded by the noble Lord the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy), and supported by the farmers' friend (Mr. Clare Bead), they would wait long, and be disappointed at last. [Mr. CLARE READ: I objected to the Amendment, and shall not vote for it.] Yes; but the hon. Member would vote against the Amendment, and wait for the leisure. But he (Sir William Harcourt) thought there never was a Session when there was more time, for there was no engrossing subject before the House. What, however, would be thought of all this at the farmers' clubs and ordinaries? They would see what it all meant, and understand it thoroughly. They would see that these speeches made at farmers' meetings meant nothing, and that when the question of the Game Laws came before the House of Commons it was met by an Amendment of that description, that there ought to be no change in the Game Laws. He should vote against the Amendment, as, in his opinion, the Game Laws were productive of much mischief. As to what had been said about the rights of property, why should the laws be much harsher and severer in the case of offences against one kind of property than against another? It was because they were laws passed by the dominant class affecting their own interests. If it were a mere question of property, why should there be different laws? He believed there was hardly a man in that House who could say he was satisfied with the practical working of the Game Laws. Why had not the hon. Member for South Leicestershire

209
proposed something? [Mr. PELL: I did.] The hon. Gentleman, some years ago, certainly brought in a "Rabbits' Bill;" but on the accession to Office of the Conservative Government it became inconvenient. If they were out of Office they would, he had no doubt, have another "Rabbits Bill." They would probably that Session hear something about the Malt Tax—a mere flash in the pan; but when a proposal was made for a practical remedy for what was known to be a farmers' grievance, it was astonishing how quiet and how anxious to wait for leisure became the farmers' friends in that House. Perhaps his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell) would get up and express his views on the Game Question. The hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex said he would vote against the Resolution. He (Sir William Harcourt) would like to know how many country gentlemen were going to support that Amendment, and say "No change in the Game Laws." Were they going to say that the farmers desired no change? He hoped there would be a definite vote upon the question, whether the Game Laws, as they stood at present, were to be defended; and upon that vote he should say "Aye" to the Motion.
MR. RODWELLsaid, he should not be prevented by his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir William Harcourt) from making some observations because he had said that he (Mr. Rodwell), and those who acted with him, were only ostensibly the "farmers' friends." His hon. and learned Friend had used that language both in and out of the House. But before he made such statements he should have acquainted himself with the facts, and not have made use of what had been said for the purpose of a joke. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford should have listened to what had been said, and if he had not done so should have been careful to ascertain whether he was correct. He himself had been present, and heard what his hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) and South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had said; and he would venture to say that they had never committed themselves to the doctrine that no change in the Game Laws was necessary. They were, on the contrary, the advocates of some altera-
210
tion; but they did not go the length of the total abolition of those laws. That had been the sum and substance of their remarks. The conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not complimentary, to say the least of it, and he might use a stronger expression. What he and his hon. Friends said out of the House they acted up to in that House—he believed most conscientiously. He lived in a county in which game abounded, probably more than in any other part of England—and if the farmers of Norfolk, Suffolk, and Cambridgeshire were polled they would be found to be against the abolition of the Game Laws. While he declared that to be his conviction, he was bound to say, as he had more than once said, that if the Amendment meant that there was no alteration of the Game Laws required he would not vote for it. Where the landlords were resident on their estates, and in constant intercourse with their tenants, there was very little difficulty or unpleasantness; but he could not help saying that where the land was let to agricultural tenants, and where the landlord let his mansion for the purposes of shooting, difficulties and unpleasantnesses did arise, and that he had known to be the case over and over again. It would be but fair, therefore, whenever those laws were dealt with, that some right should be reserved to the tenant—that the game should not be let without the consent of the tenant, or that he should have the option of taking it himself. He quite concurred with his hon. Friend (Mr. Clare Read) that ground game, especially within the last 10 years, was gradually diminishing in many parts of England, and that where formerly there used to be abundance there was now scarcely any. In saying all this he spoke from experience, which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford did not. He could give many instances, but he would mention one of an estate of 14,000 acres, where now there was not to be seen a rabbit from one day's end to another, except round the proprietor's house and in the park, and where there used to be hundreds of hares killed in a week, now a score could not be found. He could also speak of an estate in Suffolk where on 7,000 acres over 6,000 hares were killed in one season, now the number was not 600. These facts he wished

211
to communicate to his hon. and learned Friend, in order that when he spoke with reference to the Game Laws he should not be led to make ridiculous assertions or display an ignorance of the subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had made remarks in reference to the conduct of magistrates which he regretted to hear. He quite agreed that the Game Laws ought to be modified; but it was not well that such extreme views should be entertained on the subject, because it made it so difficult for those who desired certain changes to be effected to approach those who expressed them. With reference to the remark about night poaching, and such a sentence as 14 years being attached to it, it was well known that it was only a Judge of the land who could give such a sentence, and everybody knew that it was only in extreme cases of violence that the maximum punishment was ever inflicted. For his own part, he was ready and willing to assist in amending the Game Laws; at the same time, he would not be voting according to his conscientious convictions, or in what he believed to be the wishes of tenant farmers, if he supported the Resolution. He trusted he had satisfied his hon. and learned Friend opposite, and given him some information which he might make use of on some future occasion.
MR. D. DAVIESsaid, he should vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. P. A. Taylor), because he knew very well it would not become law. He would vote for it as a protest, because he believed an amendment of the law was required. He knew better than hon. Members at the other side that rabbits were a great trouble to the farmer. When he was a very young man he took a farm from a gentleman who was very fond of sporting. That was just before the repeal of the Corn Laws. There were hundreds of rabbits on the land which the landlord said should be preserved. He declined the condition, and a compromise was arrived at. He had a clause inserted in the lease, under which he drew a line across the farm, and all the rabbits that came on one particular side of the line were his—the tenant's—if he could catch them. On his side of the line there was some fine land with nice sweet grass, near the river and he knew they would come to
212
him from the rough land on the other side. In fact, he made a point of looking after them. He killed so many rabbits that the landlord soon found it was not worth his while to go shooting anywhere, and they had never since done any harm in that part. The hares in his part of the country—Montgomeryshire—were so few that the farmers desired to see a few more than they did, and there was not a single farmer there who would vote for the abolition of hares. He had no doubt in his mind that there would be no trouble at all about this question were it not for a few landowners who over-preserved. The temptation to take hares was very great. Thirty-five years ago a hare would sell for only 15 d., but now they readily fetched 3s. 6d.; and where hares were kept in considerable numbers, there men would go to get them, for if they took three or four they found that doing so was much more profitable than working. The temptation was placed in their way by the landowners who over-preserved. The Resolution of the hon. Member for Leicester extended to all kinds of game—winged as well as ground game. For his own part, he did not care about hares, so far as eating them was concerned; but he was fond of a partridge, and the Resolution would take both out of the list. If the Motion were carried, and the ground game and winged game as well as the Game Laws were abolished, the result would be not only ridiculous, but would be ruinous. As he had said, he would vote for the Motion as a protest, because he believed that something in the way of an amendment of the Game Laws was required, such as taking the rabbit out of the game list, which would be a step in the right direction.
MR. CHAPLINsaid, he should not have risen to take part in the debate, but that he could not help being amused at the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), who always was posing as somebody's friend. He was posing as the Home Rulers' friend two or three days ago, and now he came forward in the character of the "farmers' friend." But, unless he (Mr. Chaplin) were much mistaken, the hon. and learned Gentleman was likely to be as little successful in the one as he was wholly and totally unsuccessful in the other. He could understand how the hon. and learned

213
Gentleman did not view the Resolution with favour. It was because the Game Laws were not a practical grievance of the farmer. He did not wish to intrude personal details; but he might, perhaps, mention that he owned two estates in Lincolnshire. On one of these the farmers had the whole shooting for years; he believed they also had it in the other, and what was the result? The only complaint he had was that there was a preservation of a greater head of game than was beneficial to the neighbours of the tenants. Abolition of the Game Laws was one thing, and an alteration of them was another. What people had a right to object to was the abuse, and not the use, of those laws. For his own part, he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell) that excessive preservation was going out of fashion, and his (Mr. Chaplin's) own experience was that rabbits were becoming as scarce as woodcock. The statement that ground game was on the increase in this country he utterly and totally denied. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) alluded to other grievances of the farmers, and also to a subject in regard to which he (Mr. Chaplin) had given Notice to the House; and when the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Motion which he (Mr. Chaplin) intended to make with regard to the Malt Tax was a flash in the pan, he would only say that the hon. and learned Gentleman would soon find out that he had made a mistake. No Motion was ever brought forward with a more serious intention to carry it to an issue. His hon. and learned Friend, as he had said, wished to appear in the House in the character of the farmers' friend; but he would tell him that not only that question, but a good many other questions, would before long be brought forward bearing upon the serious grievances of the farmers of the country, and those were of a nature which would test the sincerity of the character in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had thought fit to come forward; and when the day arrived he should rejoice if he were found in the same Lobby as the Gentleman of whom he disapproved so much that night.
MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTsaid, he thought that it required some courage to bring forward that Motion in the way
214
the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) annually did. He (Mr. Davenport) believed the general feeling throughout the country was one of satisfaction with the present Game Laws. The romantic poacher to whom reference had been made was extinct. The real, practical poacher was the man who went out with many others following the occupation of poachers and refusing to adopt any other. In his own case, he allowed his tenants to destroy or preserve rabbits as they pleased, and the result was that he had always plenty of sport.
MR. WALTERsaid, he regretted that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) should have thought it necessary to meet the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) by an Amendment, because he (Mr. Walter) thought it would have been far better to meet it with a direct negative. Probably few landowners in the House cared so little about the sport of shooting as he did; and the feeling he had, induced by 30 years' experience, was, considering the expense and bother of the whole thing, he heartily wished there were no pheasants. Nevertheless, he could not support the Resolution of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), because he thought it directly contrary to the first principles of justice and common sense. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), in his amusing speech, did not throw much light on the question. He did not tell them, what as landlords and farmers many of them would like to know, in what respect he wished the Game Laws should be altered. The hon. Member for Leicester left no doubt on that point; he said they ought to be swept away. The hon. Member had constituted himself for many years the patron of the poachers, and one might well wonder why—whether it was from idiosyncracy on his part, or on the part of his constituents. The part of England in which that constituency was situated was historically interesting on account of the remains of Danish settlers that were found there, and that might excuse the suggestion that the people inherited free lance principles, and thought poaching as legitimate an occupation as their ancestors thought piracy to be. The hon. Member himself

215
thought there was not much more to be said against smuggling than against poaching. He desired to ask one question of the hon. Member for Leicester. He wished to know, not only as an owner, but also as a farmer—for he farmed a great deal of his own land—was there any person who had a better right than he had to go upon his land and kill the pheasants he paid to feed, the hares which ate his turnips, and the rabbits which barked his trees and did so much mischief? He wanted to know what constituted property in any animal, if feeding did not. What the hon. Member meant by "the public" and "the people" he did not know—whether those of a parish or of the world at large—but on what ground had the people a right to come on his land and take those animals, the food of which cost him so much a year? No answer the hon. Member could give would satisfy the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. D. Davies), who knew very well what he was talking about, and spoke exceedingly good sense on the subject. For years past he (Mr. Walter) had kept a moderate amount of game, and he had had all kinds of arrangements with his tenants on the subject. With some he exercised a joint right; to some he lot the shooting altogether; in the case of others he kept it in his own hands; but he had never had the slightest trouble on the subject, and he did not expect he ever should have. Had it not been for over-preservation, and, what was worse, the letting of the shooting over the heads of the tenants, they would have had no trouble about the matter. As between landlord and tenant, the landlord ought not to let the shooting over the head of the tenant. Let the tenant have the shooting which the landlord did not want himself. If those rules were acted upon there would be no trouble about game. It was complained that rabbits and hares consumed a large quantity of food which had better be consumed by sheep and cattle; but had hon. Members any idea of the annual value of game considered merely as an article of food? Those who were well acquainted with the wants and tastes of the labouring classes knew perfectly well that there was nothing the poor man, and still more, the poor woman, enjoyed and relished so much as a rabbit. The other day he was informed that rabbits were selling
216
at 18 s. a-dozen, and he was strongly urged to try the experiment of a rabbit warren, with the view of increasing their number. Were the plans of the hon. Member for Leicester carried out, they would have the effect of exterminating all the game in the country, for no landlord or tenant would allow the people at large to come upon his land to take his game. He would prefer to make a clean sweep of it, and that being done generally, a serious injury would be inflicted on the country. He preferred to give a direct negative to the Motion, and he would much rather that the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex would withdraw the Amendment, the voting upon which would put many hon. Members in rather a false position, subject them to have their conduct misconstrued, and give a handle to hon. Members like that the hon. and learned Member for Oxford had availed himself of. He (Mr. Walter) could not support the Amendment, because he could not say that no improvement was possible in the Game Laws. [Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT: Now, now!] Why should he (Mr. Walter) say now, because if improvements were requisite there was no now in the question. The issue was very plain—whether they were to be allowed to preserve game or not, and whether the public at large were to have the right to walk over their property in the pursuit of game. The hon. Member for Cardigan rightly described the Motion as a wild Motion, though he was going to vote for it—a vote he would find it difficult to justify. But it raised an intelligible issue, and the best thing to do was to give it a direct negative.
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYdesired to state, on the part of the Government, how they regarded the Motion and the Amendment. The Motion was of a sweeping character, and the Government preferred to negative it. As he understood the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), the Motion was directed against that part of the Game Law Code which preserved the rights of certain persons to kill or take game; he did not understand him to object to those portions of the Code which dealt with the revenue and with close times for certain animals. In a good-humoured harangue, but in language which might be complained of in anyone else, who was not the slave of

217
one idea, the hon. Member spoke of the injury to the agricultural interest from excessive preservation; but that was really beside the question before the House. If they abolished the Game Laws Code to-morrow, it would only to an infinitesimal extent abate the complaints now existing as to the alleged grievances between landlord and tenant. If, again, they were to talk about the temptation which the existence of game offered as being demoralizing to the poor man, there were many other circumstances surrounding him which were also sources of temptation; and to speak, for example, of the Salmon Laws, which nobody desired to abolish, it was in resistance to them that the law was, perhaps, most recklessly broken by poachers who resorted to violence. He would be the first to admit that if these laws were unjust to the farmer and demoralizing to the labourer they were injurious to the community, because it was impossible to separate the interests of the farmer and the labourer from those of the community; but the hon. Member had entirely failed to prove his proposition. The abolition of the Code would not remove in the least degree the alleged grievances of certain tenants. The whole question of the Game Laws, as the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had said, was, in fact, a question of the Law of Trespass. If the hon. Member for Leicester would read a pamphlet written by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), and would compare it with the Report of the Committee from whose evidence he quoted, he would be satisfied that, if they abolished the Game Law Code, they must have a very stringent Law of Trespass. The especial witness of the hon. Member for Leicester admitted on cross-examination that it was impossible to do without the most stringent Law of Trespass, for he altogether repudiated the idea of the public at large being able to go where they pleased in his garden and his shrubbery. If the only remedy were to be a civil action for trespass as it existed independently of the Game Laws the licence would be intolerable, and, in fact, it would not be tolerated by any portion of the community. Would the hon. Member be bold enough to propose to the House a Law of Trespass which would be as effective as the existing Game Law Code?
218
According to the hon. Member for Beading, that Code was a moderate Law of Trespass. In the language of the Committee of 1873, it was a discriminating Law of Trespass; and for that reason alone, therefore, he might say that for an hon. Member to come forward and ask at one blow to abolish all these laws without putting anything else in their place was asking that to which the House of Commons would not agree. He should be very unwilling to say that the Game Laws were incapable of revision. That was not the proposition which the Government sought to maintain. And he might remind the hon. Gentleman of what he must have known with regard to the Night Poaching Bill, which came on at the end of last Session, when he spoke about his right hon. Friend (Mr. Assheton Cross) breaking the promise he made, and neglecting to do for England what he undertook, through the Lord Advocate, to do for Scotland. He would find that, under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, more than what his right hon. Friend had promised was done; and if passed for Scotland, it would have been open to the Sheriff, in the case to which he referred, to meet the justice of the case by a small fine. It was rather strange that the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. D. Davies) had expressed his intention to vote for the Resolution; and had then explained that he did so because he knew it would not be carried. Englishmen were not likely to stand the abolition of the Game Laws, because they were all, without distinction of class, devoted to sport. Unfortunately, in some parts of the country there had been over-preservation of ground game, and there had also been many cases of letting shootings over the tenant and to his damage; but to say that, because the Game Laws had been abused, therefore they should be suddenly and entirely abolished, without providing any substitute, was a proposition to which he was certain neither the House nor the Government of which he was a Member could agree. He should, therefore, give a direct negative to the Motion.
MR. STORERsaid, he was not surprised that the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) had brought forward his annual Motion; but he was surprised to find the hon. and learned Member for

219
Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) assuming the character of the "farmer's friend." and endeavouring to depreciate the position of his hon. Friends the Members for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) and South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read). He (Mr. Storer) must say the character of farmer's friend sat very awkwardly on the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was a character which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench had been so little accustomed to of late that they would require a great deal of practice before it sat well on them. The farmers of this country, taken as a body, did not object to the Game Laws. What they did object to was the abuse of them. The game actually belonged to the tenant, unless he chose to relinquish his right—and what law could prevent his doing that? There was this to be said about the position of farmers—that they knew when they took their farms whether they were over-stocked with game or not, and when farms were as plentiful in the market as now no man in his senses would have one of that description. He would certainly vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester. If the Game Laws were abolished a very wholesome and agreeable food would be excluded from the market, and one which, in cases of illness, was constantly asked for as a pleasing change; but which, if this Bill passed, could not be obtained. Viewed in that light, he contended that they were, so far from being injurious to the community, the very reverse.
MR. J. E. YORKEsaid, that he had not seen the terms of the Amendment, but he had become acquainted with it from what had been told him; and he should desire, as he generally did, to vote with his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). But he thought the Amendment was somewhat misleading; and he would, therefore, appeal to his hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw it. One objection that he had was that the Amendment had not been put down on the Paper; and there had, consequently, not been time to consider it. He thought there was no reason for declining to deal with the subject "now," because if the Game Laws were as injurious as the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) asserted, they ought not to hesitate, even in the last Session of an expiring Parliament, to sweep them
220
away; but if, on the other hand, they thought those laws should be retained, but were susceptible of amendment, they ought not to say that now was not the time to amend them. It would be much more expedient to take a division on the Main Question.
MR. P. A. TAYLORobserved, that, after the great length at which he had troubled the House, he would not have said a word in reply, had it not been for the special challenge of the hon. Member for Berks (Mr. Walter). That hon. Gentleman had entered into historical and antiquarian research, and had endeavoured to trace to the Danish ancestry of the inhabitants of Leicester the reasons which had made their Representative the special friend of the poacher. He (Mr. P. A. Taylor) must say that if the poachers regarded him as their friend it must be upon the curious ground that he proposed to destroy their industry, and to render their profession impossible for the future. He remembered that, some years ago, a Petition was forwarded to him from Leicester for presentation, against the Game Laws; and he was informed at the time that several well-known professional poachers had declined to sign the Petition on the ground that the abolition of the Game Laws would be the destruction of their industry. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Berks had pointedly asked him, Who could have a better right to kill the game than those who paid for its support? To that he would say, in the first place, that part of his charge was that those who claimed property in the game were often not those who really paid for its maintenance; but beyond that, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that there were many in, and more out of, that House who did not hold with the claim of landowners to do in all respects what they liked with their land; who held that land was not the proper subject for absolute proprietorship; that, in fact, it was held in trust for the advantage of the whole community; and that if it could be shown that in any respect its management was inconsistent with the public advantage, ground sufficient had been shown for change. He congratulated the House and the country upon the evidence that this debate had shown of the great progress that had been made, both in the House and out of it,

221
in regard to this question—hares and rabbits had been given up on all sides. He said "out of it" in consideration of the number of hon. Members who had declared that they would vote for his Resolution, although not agreeing in its terms, thus showing most satisfactorily the importance that their constituencies attached to the abolition of the Game Laws.
SIR. WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that after the numerous expressions of opinion in favour of the withdrawal of his Amendment he should be glad to take that course with the leave of the House. [Cries of "No, no!"]
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 160: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 32.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'it is not now expedient to deal with the question of the Game Laws' be there added."
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT moved to amend the proposed Amendment by the omission of the word "not." He did so, he said, in order to afford hon. Gentlemen opposite an opportunity of expressing their opinion as to whether it was or was not expedient to amend the Game Laws.
MR. PELLrose to second the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). He regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not present when he addressed the House. If he had been, he was sure he would not have conveyed to hon. Members so inaccurate an idea of that which he had really said upon the subject. His opinion was that the Game Laws did require amendment, and it was for that reason that he was prepared to support the Motion which the hon. and learned Gentleman had just made.
Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "not."—(Sir William Harcourt.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'not' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexpressed a doubt as to whether there had been anything serious in the debate from beginning to end. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor)
222
had made an extremely clever and humorous speech, and, knowing his opinion, nobody could doubt the perfect sincerity with which he advocated the somewhat startling conclusions which were embodied in his Motion. Those, however, who supported that Motion, had taken up a somewhat curious position. The hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. D. Davies), for instance, had stated that he would vote for it because there was no harm in it; but his speech was characterized by great good sense. But it remained for the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) to try to turn the whole thing into ridicule. The object of his Amendment was, however, perfectly transparent; and it was unnecessary, he thought, to waste much time in discussing it. He should certainly vote against it.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 119: Majority 16.—(Div. List, No. 33.)
Question,
"That the words 'it in not now expedient to deal with the question of the Game Laws' he added to the word 'That' in the original Question,"
put, and negatived.

METROPOLIS WATERWORKS PURCHASE BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, in the course of the discussion which took place in August last on the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), I gave Notice that the whole question would be taken into consideration by the Government during the Recess, with the view of seeing whether the supply of water to the Metropolis and other adjoining places could not be greatly improved for the benefit of the inhabitants; whether that could be done without seriously increasing the cost of the supply to the consumer, and whether the mode of supply could, not also be improved. The result of that consideration on the part of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board and myself has been the framing of the Bill which I shall ask the leave of the House to introduce. Again, the result of the investigation

  223
  we have been able to make, and of the advice we have obtained, has induced the belief that there is only one remedy for the confusion which exists in the present state of things, and that that remedy is the unification of all the existing Companies. Let hon. Members consider that there are eight Companies supplying the Metropolis, or, rather, the Metropolitan area, with water. I do not mean the Metropolitan area within the limit usually understood, but all the surrounding districts for some little way beyond. Of these eight Companies, five draw their water from the Thames, and three of them have what may be called a supply of their own. We have five of these Companies North of the Thames and three of them South of the Thames, all of which overlap and interlace each other; they have their reservoirs, their boards of directors, and establishments of that kind, and, as far as I know, there is no natural boundary for any one of these Companies, and there is no natural division of the water supply. If anyone were disposed to erect a system more expensive than that which now exists I think he would find himself much puzzled. Now, if we consider that to be the principal fact we have to deal with, of course it is necessary to ascertain whether these matters cannot be simplified in such a manner as to bring about a reduction of expense, labour, and waste of material. First of all, there would follow from unification a great reduction of expense for all new works and water apparatus. I desire to make my statement as short as possible; but I may say, in passing, that in the present Session the Southwark and Vauxhall Company proposed to carry out new works at a cost of £500,000, which would be absolutely useless if this Bill becomes law. Again, there are the proposed works of the Grand Junction and the West Middlesex Companies, which, if carried out—as, no doubt, they would be, for a long series of years would vastly increase the expenditure necessary for the proper supply of water to London. Beyond that, you have the reduction which will be made in the course of time by the consolidation of the officers and staff, and you will have a proper provision for the supply of water in those districts where it is required, and, what will be a point of
  224
  much more importance, a division of London according to the levels, and, consequently, a proper pressure at different heights in various parts. If anyone will look at the map of London showing the different sources from which these different Companies draw their water supply, he will be amazed at the waste of power in the machinery by which this supply is produced. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion, on the part of the Government, that unification is the great object to be attained if you are eventually to supply London with water at the least cost and in the best possible manner. Then comes the question whether this result can be obtained in any other manner, and I am bound to say that I do not think it can. This unification cannot be obtained by any mere arrangement among the Companies themselves. As there is no corporate body which can undertake this duty in London, is it possible to obtain unification by means of the several Metropolitan boroughs? It seems to me that if each Metropolitan borough were to supply itself with water, you will have probably greater confusion and greater cost than already exist. I hope the House will be of opinion that the best way of arriving at a conclusion is that the existing Companies should surrender the powers which they possess under their several Acts of Parliament to some central body which shall have absolute power over the supply of water to London. If we are to approach the subject in that way, and come to the conclusion that unification is the primary object to be gained, and that that can only be effected by the surrender of the powers of all the existing Companies to one central body, the question arises, how is that unification to be brought about? I ventured to say in August last upon this point—
  "Whether it would be necessary for the purpose that the whole of the Water Companies should—of course by agreement—surrender their powers to some body which should be practically appointed by the Government.…He would not like to express any opinion upon that point."—[3 Hansard, ccxlix. 946.]
  Now, if you are to get from the existing Companies a surrender of their powers, there are only two ways by which this result can be arrived at—you must either take them by compulsion or by agreement. So far as compulsion is

  225
  concerned, I am bound to say this would be a very strong step for the House to take. Parliament has willingly conferred enormous powers upon these Companies; and, on the faith of these powers, a very large amount of capital has been subscribed, a great portion being held upon trust. Again, after many of these Companies had spent the money so subscribed, that Parliament should step in and say—"Nolens volens, we will take this money away from you, and pay you a certain sum in compensation," is, at all events, a step which Parliament is not accustomed to take. There are certainly very few precedents for such a course, which I do not myself think a wise one. I am, at all events, certain of one thing—it would meet with the most violent opposition from every one of these Companies; and if Parliament attempted to carry it out I do not believe the measure would pass. Of course, a Bill might be brought in providing for the purchase of the Companies by certain bodies; but that would leave us to all the danger and uncertainty of arbitration afterwards. We have had some experience of arbitrations in matters of this kind, which, I believe, is not likely to lead us to follow the same course again. If we put the matter entirely in the hands of an arbitration, Parliament will be acting very much in the dark, and might find herself let in for a very much greater expense than was originally expected. The only other course, then, is to take these Companies by agreement; but that is not a very easy thing, because, when the Government approached them by way of agreement, they were met by the most positive refusal from every one of them. Again, if you are to take them by agreement, it is necessary that both parties should agree; it is of no use offering terms which they will not accept and which you cannot force upon them. If this difficulty is likely to present itself in dealing with one Company, much more would it do so when it becomes necessary to agree with eight separate Companies; for it is of no use treating for three or four; you must take them all. There is one advantage in dealing by agreement—namely, that whatever the outlay maybe which you are about to submit to, in order to get possession of these Companies, you, at all events, know exactly the extent of your liability; there is no-
  226
  thing behind, there are no afterthoughts, and when the price is once settled the whole interest of the Company is made over. If the House will allow me, I will read a part of one of the clauses of the Bill, which will enable hon. Members to see what we propose to take over. By that clause the Company will have to surrender—
  "All rents and other properties, including cash balances and investments, and all such property as may be in the possession of the Companies at any time "between January 1st, 1880, and June the 30th, 1880.
  So that everything which they possessed on January 1st of this year, and everything that may come into their possession during the next six months, will pass into our hands, with the exception of the dividends payable to June the 30th. We should have to consider what price should be paid to the New River Company, which is possessed of a considerable quantity of land in the county of Herts and elsewhere, which has nothing to do with the water supply of London. The House will, therefore, see that there can be no possible afterthought, and that we know exactly the extent of the outlay to be made. The next question which presents itself is, how the purchase-money for this purpose is to be obtained? There is no doubt that this is an Imperial question, and, that being so, it may be said, and suggestions have been made from many quarters, that the Imperial Funds should be called upon to subscribe in some form or other for the purchase of these Companies. We have, however, thought it right to lay down the principle that the State should not pay one farthing towards it. We do not think it fair to the other towns in the country that it should do so, and we have accordingly arranged to accept only the preliminary expenses if the Bill should fail; these, of course, must be paid by someone, and if the Bill passes will be eventually paid by the Water Trust. So that, beyond possibly these preliminary expenses, we think it right that the Imperial Exchequer should not be called upon, either by way of guarantee or loan, to subscribe one single sixpence. In dealing with this question, we are met with the difficulty that there existed no corporate body, which, in the opinion of the Government, ought to take this task into its own hands. Neither the City, nor the Metropolitan

  227
  Board of Works, are in a position to deal with the different Companies; and, moreover, they have no money wherewith to buy them out. Again, another difficulty presented itself to us—that of raising so large a sum by the issue of Stock or otherwise, for the purchase of these Companies would have been attended with a certain amount of hazard and disturbance to the Money Market. We had, therefore, recourse to another mode of dealing with this subject; and we have persuaded the Companies to consent to the Water Trust issuing a certain amount of Water Stock, and also that the Company should take this Stock by way of payment. Practically, then, it comes to this—that the Companies will create the Stock, and then, taking it when created, would so provide for their own extinction. This plan will get rid of the whole difficulty. The whole of the Companies have agreed to that arrangement through their directors, and they will take this 3½ per cent Water Stock as the purchase money; so far, therefore, no money is required from anybody. It will be seen that this arrangement very much simplifies the matter, and can lead to no possible disturbance of the Money Market for the time being. Of course, this Stock must have something at the back of it to make it sound; and the first thing we have put behind it will be, of course, the water rates receivable by the Companies at the present moment, and which will be payable to the Water Trust. But there must, of course, be some other guarantee, and we have placed behind this the Metropolitan rates; not that I think they will be called upon to contribute a single sixpence, but it is, of course, necessary to include them in the security. Therefore, the Stock proposed to be issued is charged with the water rates first of all, and then there will be the further guarantee of the rates of the Metropolis and the City of London. The next question is probably the most important of all, and that is the question of price; and here what I said before equally applies—namely, that if this is to be done by agreement the price must also be a matter of agreement on both sides. Now, the Government find themselves in this rather peculiar position—that they are standing, as it were, between the water consumers on the one hand, and the Water Companies on the other.
  228
  They have made the best bargain they can with these Companies, and they present that bargain to Parliament to consider—not, of course, on the floor of this House—but, as I shall presently explain, by means of a Committee upstairs, to say whether this bargain is one which ought to be sanctioned. We come before Parliament, having done our best to provide a solution of this question, and lay before it the best bargain which we have been able to make with the several Companies. Of course, the questions of Debenture Stocks, Preferential Shares, and mortgages remain precisely as they were, and all we have to deal with is the available net surplus after the payment of all necessary working expenses. That is the real matter with which we have to deal. I am afraid that one or two words uttered by me in August last have been somewhat misinterpreted. What I appear to have said on that occasion was that the Government would take the Stocks as they found them on such a day—the last day of the half-year—and that no speculative change in the value of the Stocks would have the smallest weight with the Government. Now, these words must be taken with the context, and bearing in mind the fact that we have to proceed by agreement. What I really meant, and hon. Members will see this by the context, was that there should be no speculation on the Stock Exchange; but that if there were it would not be taken into consideration at all; nor, on the other hand, if there were any action on the part of the Companies for the enhancement of prices, would that be taken into consideration. All I can say, bearing this in mind, is, that that idea has been strictly adhered to in all the negotiations from beginning to end. The only idea which the gentleman who has been advising me on this matter has ever had before him has been to find out what was the intrinsic value of the Companies at the time of purchase. In coming to a conclusion as to that, hon. Members will see at once that the value of each Company must depend on various circumstances—in the first place, on the powers which each Company had under its own Act of Parliament; and, in the next place, on its present financial and commercial position. For instance, some of these Companies possess powers different to those conferred upon others,

  229
  Some of them can only receive 7 per cent dividend, while others can receive 10 per cent; and some, if they have not received 10 per cent from their foundation, can make it up not only for the future, but going back also for the past. In the case of the New River Company, for instance, there is no limit at all; and they are entitled to recoup themselves up to 10 per cent for a period of 150 years or so. The Company has this power; and, as a matter of fact, they have, to a certain extent, begun to avail themselves of it. On the other hand, some Companies have no such power; some are limited, and some are not. Then, again, they differ very much as to their commercial and financial position. You will find some Companies with a practically assured dividend of 10 per cent, which will probably never be less, and may be increased. With some Companies it will be a matter of absolute certainty that they will be able to recoup themselves for their outlay in a certain number of years. Again, you will find that some Companies which have expended a very large amount of capital have not reaped the fruit of their outlay, and whose property is undeveloped, although gradually becoming more developed, who have gone through a series of expenditure, such as for the laying of mains, and whose profits have vastly increased from year to year. There are other Companies which are possessed of large areas of land that will be rapidly built upon, and which, of course, will produce to them in a short time a large harvest. The average increase of the net incomes of the several Companies for many years past has amounted to about £35,000 a-year. This is not to be wondered at when we consider the increase of population, and that there were built last year 19,000 houses; while, according to the last Return I have, there have been constructed during that time 60 miles of new streets. All this shows that these Companies have before them a large and promising future. In the negotiations which have been carried on with them, the Government have had the advantage not only of the assistance of two very able persons who have been for a long time connected with these Companies—the Auditor and Water Examiner—but also of Mr. E. Smith, who has been for so many years connected with the Ecclesiastical Commis-
  230
  sion. I may add that, in commencing the negotiations with these Companies, two things require our consideration—the present dividend to which the shareholders were entitled, or to which, rather, they would be entitled when the property is taken over on the 1st of July, 1880, and the increment which might be expected to have arisen had the property remained in their possession. This fact has always been recognized when dealing with other Companies situated in like manner, and the claim is one which it has been found impossible to resist. There is another matter to be considered—namely, that it was absolutely impossible, under the scheme of purchase which we have undertaken, to find the money at once to pay for this increment, which at the present moment does not exist, because the only funds which we can resort to are the water rates. It is not, therefore, proposed to pay any income to the Company in respect of the unearned increment to which I have referred until the money has been earned which the Companies would have earned for themselves. Therefore, the course which we have taken is to spread this assured increment over periods varying from four to 12 years; and it is quite certain that there will be ample funds to pay when the interest becomes due on these deferred Stocks. On the 30th of June, 1880, the Companies will receive a certain amount of ordinary Stock which would represent the dividends they themselves would have received. For the year 1881–2 they will get a certain amount of Preference Stock which will bear no interest at all for the first 12 months, while at the end of 18 months after that they will receive a half-year's dividend in the same way as the rest of the deferred Stock. Under this arrangement, the Water Trust would not be called upon to pay interest until they have received the income from the water rates to enable them to do so. There is no present charge, therefore, on the water consumers. I hope, on the second reading of this Bill, the House will not desire me to go into the circumstances relating to each Company; it would be better considered by the Committee upstairs why a certain Company gets so much, and another so much less; but the House will be interested in knowing what is to be the aggregate sum payable in 1881. That sum amounts, in round

  231
  numbers, to £22,000,000; and, of course, there is besides, the interest at 3½ per cent. With regard to the other increments, these will be spread over a number of years, and in the case of one Company—that is, the New River Company—a period of 12 years. It is, of course, much more convenient to spread these payments over long periods than over a short series of years; and the New River Company will, in consequence, receive a certain amount of additional Stock. Other Companies, like the West Middlesex, get four years; while, in other cases, the periods will be varied. The capital for each particular Company has been arranged, in order that the funds of the Company may not be called upon for the payment of a larger sum than we are quite assured they will receive from the interest accruing to them. Taking the average of 12 years the amount would be about £750,000 per annum, and, on a rough calculation, would reach to between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000. [Mr. COURTNEY: What will be the ultimate gross maximum?] Putting the whole of the sums together, they will amount to something like £31,000,000. It would apparently strike one that this mode of proceeding would be more favourable to some of the poorer Companies than to others, and for this reason—that the New River Company is an absolutely assured estate, and that its value has risen very much, while some of the lower Companies have not risen to the same height; although, in their case, their future position is as absolutely certain as that of the New River Company at the present moment. Therefore, something more than the fair market price is apparently given to the lower Company. But when the matter comes to be investigated it will be found that they have got no better bargain than the New River Company. Some few years ago it was found by the Auditor that one of the Companies had paid the sum of £30,000 out of capital which ought to have been paid out of income, and, to recoup that, they had to make up the annual amount of £8,000, the payment of which was a great drawback to their dividends. That sum, however, has been entirely repaid, and it is my impression that the Company will spring up in a short time to its natural height. The result of the financial operation for the year would be that they would have a saving of
  232
  £50,000; and, besides that, there will be all the savings from the consolidation of the staff and engineering operations. No doubt, so far as the staff is concerned, the saving will not come into full play until some of the officers, who are to be pensioned, cease to exist; but still, in the first year, there will be a saving, I am almost certain, irrespective of this, of £50,000—I hope more. There is one point which I must mention to the credit of the Companies, and that is that, after the matter of the price had been arranged, there was one question pressed strongly, and pressed so strongly, indeed, that I believe many of the directors would have broken off the bargain if the point had not been conceded. I refer to the question of the superannuation of the officers of the Companies. I believe the negotiations would have been broken off if we had not given favourable terms to the officers, and for which the directors stood out. They insisted on the matter being put in the Bill, and they were very strong on the point, and I could not resist. Well, all I have to say as to the price is this—that I do not believe better terms could be made with the Companies. As to the question of buying them by compulsion, as years would go on the price would increase. If you had bought them 10 years ago you would have saved enormously. If you defer buying them for five or 10 years you will have to pay more than now, and you must take that into consideration, when you consider the sum for which they have agreed to sell them. I believe that the Committee, when they come to investigate the sum, will find that the price is fair and reasonable; at all events, they will find that the Bill, which we place before the country, is one which forms an honest endeavour to settle this question, and which will, in the long run, tend greatly to benefit the Metropolis. But now I come to another matter, about which the House will be anxious to know something—I mean the composition of the Water Trust itself. We had no Corporation before, as I stated, ready to take. I do not think—the House, I believe, does not think—that it ought to be in the hands of the Government, that it should be a Department of the State. Therefore, we proposed that the trust shall be placed in the hands of a Water Trust; and I

  233
  think everyone will agree, as a starting point, that it is essential that the "Water Trust should command the confidence of the Metropolis. I propose that there should be three paid members—namely, first, the chairman, who would receive a salary of £2,000 a-year, and the vice-chairmen—one for works, and the other for finance—each receiving a salary of £1,800 a-year. The first chairman and one vice-chairman would be appointed by the Government, and the names will be placed in the Bill. I think that would be satisfactory to the House, and all I can say is, in a matter of this kind, that no Party considerations will enter into the question. The three appointments—the chairman and the two vice-chairmen—should be appointed during the pleasure of the Crown; and upon any vacancy we hope that the Trust will be so consolidated that the election of the vice-chairmen would be left to the Trust itself. As to the composition of the Board itself, we have, of course, placed the Lord Mayor and the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works upon it as ex-officio members of the Board. There will be two of these ex-officio members, one to be nominated by the Local Government Board, one by the Chief Commissioner of Works. There will be two others nominated by the Commissioners of Sewers, and one by the Metropolitan Board of Works. Water consumers are, of course, very much interested, and I do not think that the House would be willing to leave this Trust in the hands of a small nominated body; and therefore we propose, having got nine members in that way—in the way I have described—that there shall be 12 elected members. Now, the question comes as to the election, who are to elect, and what are to be the constituents. I do not think that the House would like, on the whole, that if there is an election, that it should be an indirect election. I do not think it would be satisfactory that they should be elected simply by the vestrymen. I think we had better go to first principles, and, if there is to be an election, let it be direct. The question, then is, who are to elect? If you take the vestries themselves—that is, the District Boards—the number would be so large that they would be a Board perfectly unmanageable. You might group them together. We think we had better follow the example of the School Boards,
  234
  and take one representative each from the different Metropolitan Boards—one for the City of London, one for Chelsea, one for Finsbury, one for Hackney, one for Marylebone, one for Lambeth, one for Southwark, one for Tower Hamlets,one for Westminster, and so on, making 10.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman said there would be 12 elected members.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: But there are other persons who take water besides the inhabitants of the Metropolis, and they would join in the guarantee. There is a large population outside the Metropolitan area proper, and it is quite right they should be represented on this Board; and, therefore, we propose, as water consumers, there should be one member representing the inhabitants referred to North of the Thames, and one for the South of the Thames—that is, for the out-districts. Now, I think the hon. Member has got his 12 members.
  SIR CHARLES W. DLLKE: What is the population?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I have not got it here. Then we propose that all these elected members should hold their seats for five years, when, of course, there would be a fresh election.
  MR. COURTNEY: The nominated members—how long?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: They will hold their seats at the pleasure of those who nominate them. Having thus made clear what is the Water Trust, I should like to read a passage as to the powers and object of the Trust. The objects of the Trust are to supply pure and wholesome water for drinking and other purposes-—other domestic purposes; for watering of the streets, for extinguishing of fires, and other public purposes; also, for manufacturing and other general purposes; and the maintenance, as far as is possible, of a constant supply in the mains, under such pressure as would effectually provide for high services. The price of the water will be reduced as circumstances permit. As to the date of the purchase, I think it necessary to say a word or two. We propose that the sale should be the 1st of July next; but, as I have said before, practically ever since the 1st of January the Water Companies will be acting as our Trustees. We have the power of a continuous Audit, and they are simply the Trustees, who are to pay themselves a certain amount

  235
  of dividend on the 30th of July, and keep the supply in proper working order. It is provided that, as the Trust would not come into operation the moment the Bill passed, the Companies should continue to carry on, free of any extraordinary expense, the business until the 1st October, by which time we hope that the Water Trust will be able to perform their duties, and then the Water Companies will be practically extinct. There is a clause in the Bill providing that there shall be a Sinking Fund for the extinction of the debt. I do not believe I need go into details. We propose that a certain sum should be laid aside by Parliament. Now, I think I have explained, as far as possible, and as fully as necessary for present purposes, the objects of this Bill. As I said at the beginning, it is the best bargain possible for us to make. I do not see that we could make a better. It is, at all events, as good a bargain as we could make; and I must bear testimony to the way in which Mr. Smith has carried forward the negotiations. I believe he has done everything in his power to induce the Companies to take as little as possible. I now ask leave of the House to introduce the Bill, and to take the first reading. If there is any question, that can be answered on the second reading. I shall propose to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Committee, and the question they will have to ask themselves is it such a bargain as they can approve. You cannot say to the Companies you agreed to take this, and we will force you to take this. I believe we have made the best bargain possible, or that can be made. I believe it will prove beneficial to the Metropolis; and I can say this—it is an honest endeavour, on the part of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) and myself, to present to Parliament a measure which will benefit the Metropolis of the Kingdom.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to muake further provision for the supply of the Metropolis and the adjoining populous places with Water."—(Mr. Secretary Cross.)
  MR. PAWCETTsaid, he was anxious to take that opportunity of acknowledging the promptitude with which the Home Secretary had redeemed his promise given last August with regard to this question; but while he was anxious
  236
  to do this he felt he would be doing a great injustice to the Home Secretary, and, still more, a great injustice to the extremely important question which he had brought forward to the notice of the House that evening, if he said a single word expressing a premature opinion on the Bill which had been sketched out. He had learned from experience that nothing led them into a more unfortunate position than to express an opinion upon a Bill which they had not seen—than to express an opinion on a Bill which had merely been introduced. And he thought that in this case it would be particularly unfortunate for the House to express any opinion whatever on the proposal until it had seen this Bill, because there were great pecuniary interests at stake; and if, tomorrow, it were reported that this Bill had been favourably received by the House, it might be supposed that the House would pass it, and speculative transactions might take place. It was perfectly obvious, from what had been said by the Home Secretary, that very important questions would have to be taken into account. There was one important question with regard to the dividends to the shareholders. The greatness of the issues involved in the Bill ought to warn hon. Members from expressing any premature opinion with regard to it. For himself, he should simply thank the right hon. Gentleman for the prompt manner in which he had redeemed his promise of last Session; and whatever might be the ultimate view taken of the Bill, whether in its favour or against it, there would be but one opinion on one point—namely, that the object of the Home Secretary was to promote the interests of the people of the Metropolis.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Hackney that it was not advisable to pass any opinion on the Bill. He thought the House would acknowledge that a very careful measure had been introduced by the Home Secretary, and that the course adopted by the Government fully justified the action taken by the Metropolitan Board in dealing with this question in 1878. He was sure it was the desire of the Government to promote a wise settlement of this question. All he could say for himself and his Colleagues was that they would

  237
  give their careful consideration to this Bill.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he agreed with the Member for Hackney, and in the few words he intended saying he should not go into any details. He had always been strongly in favour of the purchase of the water undertakings of the Metropolis. Beyond that, he would not go reserving for the future the expression of his opinions on the Bill.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that was a matter which, no doubt, most interested the Metropolitan Members, and he himself was somewhat of an outsider; but that was a subject in which he took a deep interest. He had some practical experience already in this matter, having been concerned in the transfer of a water undertaking in the Provinces. It was a considerable satisfaction to him that the principles laid down by the Home Secretary were precisely identical with those which guided the Corporation of Birmingham in the transfer to which he had referred. So far, he found himself in perfect accord with the Home Secretary. In a matter of this kind everything depended on the application of those principles. The cost to the Metropolis was necessarily exceptional, and the undertaking differed from any Provincial undertaking. After listening to the very interesting speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he could see that the Metropolis would have to pay dearly for its water. He did not know whether the people of London were not paying very dearly now. They would have to pay more for their water undertaking than Birmingham had to pay. He found that the sum paid by agreement for the purchase of the whole water supply for Birmingham was something considerably less than £3 per head of the population. Now, if the whole value of this property should amount to something like £30,000,000, the amount on the population would come to something like £6 per head of the population. ["No!"] Now, he took the population at something less than 6,000,000; but, putting it beyond that, the cost would be £5 per head as compared with £3 in Birmingham. In Birmingham they entered upon a great undertaking in perfect working order. The supply of water was admirable in quality and sufficient in quantity. They had a constant
  238
  supply, and no considerable increase had proved to be necessary. The reason for undertaking this great matter in London was that the supply was inferior in both quality and quantity; and the first thing the Trust would turn its attention to would be to give a continuous supply at high pressure. It appeared five of the Companies drew their water from the Thames, and new sources of supply must be sought at a very large increase of outlay. This would, be a gigantic undertaking, and the result would be that the Metropolis would have to pay much more for its water than they in the country were obliged to pay for it. On the other hand, he saw the immense advantage which might be derived from the unification of these various undertakings, and he did not doubt that a great saving would be made. He wished every success to the scheme, and he trusted it would prove a success.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that his impression was that the population of the Metropolis in 1871 numbered 3,200,000, and that it was at this time more than 4,000,000. He hoped that a Return upon this subject would be laid upon the Table of the House.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I am ready to admit that it is unwise, as, indeed, it would be impossible, to discuss the scheme at the present moment. I desire to remind the hon. Member for Birmingham, however, that the inhabitants of that town were wiser in their generation than the inhabitants of the Metropolis, because they restricted their dividends to 8 and 9 per cent, which rendered the future purchase more easy. I have no doubt as to the purity of the water, and that it was obtained at a comparatively small cost. Although the population of Birmingham has enormously increased during the last five or six years, the inhabitants, at the present moment, are not using as much water as they used before they had a constant supply. I have only to add that the Bill will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow morning, and to ask leave to introduce it.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Will this Stock be a Trustee Stock?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Yes.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary CROSS and Mr. SCLATEK-BOOTH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time [Bill 97.]

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  HYPOTHEC ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 34.]
  (Mr. Agnew, Mr. Baillie Hamilton, Sir George Douglas.)
  HYPOTHEC ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 34.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. VANS AGNEWsaid, that when he named that day for going into Committee, it was not with the intention of making any Progress so soon after the second reading. There were certain alterations proposed to be made in the Bill, with regard to which he had been in communication with the Lord Advocate, the hon. Member for Forfarshire, and other Members interested in the subject. He had every reason to believe that the terms proposed to be introduced would be agreed upon in the course of the week; and, if the House would allow him, he proposed that the Bill should go into Committee pro formâ.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

    VALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Bill to amend "The Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869," ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 98.]

    EAST INDIA LOAN (EAST INDIAN RAILWAY DEBENTURES) BILL.
    Resolution [March 1] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 99.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.