Sitting of 10 June 1870

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [June 9] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Advertisements (Stolen Goods)* [159]; Dividends and Stock (Ireland)* [158].
Second Reading—Commons Inclosure [119], debate adjourned; Protection of Inventions* [157]; Telegraph Acts Extension * [142].
Committee—Report—Jewish United Synagogues* [151]; Saint Olave, &c. Charities* [152].

FEES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS OF COMMON LAW.—QUESTION.
MR. WHITWELLsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the attention of the Treasury has been drawn to the fact that the fees received in the Superior Courts of Common Law equal the expenditure less an amount of only about 6 per cent in the two years ending March 1869 and 1870, while in the Court of Probate the expenditure exceeded the fees in 1869 by £76,373, or more than one-third, and in 1870 by £55,008, or nearly one-third of the whole expenditure; and, if the Government has any intention of causing the scale of fees to be so altered as to make the probable amount of fees equal to the expenditure?
MR. STANSFELDsaid, he was afraid, in the first place, that his hon. Friend took too favourable a view of the balance between expenditure and
1842
receipt in the Superior Courts of Common Law when he said that the fees received in those Courts equalled the expenditure less an amount of only 6 percent. His hon. Friend might observe, if he looked to the Return from which, no doubt, his figures were taken, that the salaries of the Judges were not included. But, whatever the basis of his calculation might be, his hon. Friend placed on one hand the Courts of Common Law and on the other the Court of Probate, and stated that in the case of the latter Court the expenditure exceeded the fees in 1869 by £76,373, or more than one-third of the whole expenditure. The answer was, that the whole of the difference apparently in favour of the Common Law Courts and against the Court of Probate was caused by the very heavy compensation payable by the Court of Probate under the legislation of some years ago, when compensation was provided for proctors and others. He thought his hon. Friend would understand that it would be unreasonable to raise the fees of the Court so as to make the suitors of the present day pay those compensation allowances.

INDIA—INCOME TAX.—QUESTION.
MR. DICKINSONsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the intention of the Secretary of State for India to disallow the India Income Tax Act, No. 16, of 1870?
MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, the question has not yet come officially before the Secretary of State in Council; but I can imagine few things less probable than that the Act should be disallowed.

WEST COAST OF AFRICA—THE GAMBIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. R. FOWLERsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that negotiations have taken place with the view of the transfer of the Settlement of the Gambia to the Emperor of the French?
  MR. MONSELL: In answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, I beg to inform him that communications have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France, having for their object the determining the limit of English and French, influ-

  1843
  ence on the West Coast of Africa, and that the transfer of Gambia to France is one of the steps under consideration as part of that arrangement. It may be well to state that, in 1868, the European population in Gambia numbered 39 males and eight females.
  Afterwards—
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would beg to ask the head of the Government, Whether it is possible that the Settlement of Gambia, and the great arterial communication of Africa, can be conveyed to France without the consent of Parliament?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that though he was taken by surprise by this Question being put, still he might say that his impression was that such an arrangement could not be carried out without the consent of Parliament. He could not answer positively, but that was his impression and belief.
  A little later in the afternoon the right hon. Gentleman added that what he had already said had reference to the power of the Government—to the question whether there was power in the Government or not. He added that there never had been the slightest intention of taking any proceedings of the kind without the consent of Parliament.

BRITISH HONDURAS.—QUESTION.
MR. BARNETTsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government has received information of an irruption of Indians from Yucatan into the Colony of British Honduras and the seizure of the town of Corosal; whether there is any reason to think this irruption has been instigated by the Mexican Governor of Campeachy; and what protection exists in the Colony, or will be provided against such hostile attacks?
MR. MONSELLsaid, in reply, that the Government had received information of an irruption of Indians from Yucatan into the Colony of British Honduras. There had not been, however, a seizure of the town of Corosal, but only a temporary occupation, because the inhabitants, assisted by the troops, had with great gallantry driven out the Indians. The facts that led to the belief that the proceedings of the Indians had been instigated by the Mexican Governor of Campeachy, and that the
1844
Mexican Government were responsible for what had happened, were at present under the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government. There were two companies of a West India Regiment in the Colony, and at the time of the irruption 100 infantry and 10 artillery were sent from Jamaica to the Colony, and he thought they must have arrived there by this time. The Governor of Jamaica was at present in this country, and Her Majesty's Government were in communication with him as to what further steps should be taken for the protection of the Colony. When a decision on the subject had been come to he would be happy to give the hon. Gentleman information as to the result.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

CANADA RAILWAY LOAN.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. MONK, on rising to calling attention to the Correspondence laid before Parliament relative to the Canada Railway Loan Act, 1867, said, he had no intention of expressing distrust of the Government of Canada, still less of imputing to that Government any want of good faith or integrity. Neither did he believe that this loan had been prematurely negotiated under the pressure of financial difficulty, or in a manner other than beneficial to Canada and not disadvantageous to this country. Entertaining these views, he should carefully avoid making use of any expressions that could give pain or annoyance to his Canadian fellow-subjects, and if in the course of his observations he should be under the necessity of alluding to and commenting upon the acts of members of the Canadian Government, he should endeavour to do so with the greatest moderation, bearing in mind that they were responsible not to that House, but to the Canadian Parliament. It might be in the recollection of the House that attention was called last year by the hon. Member for the Fife burghs (Mr. Aytoun) to the mode in which a portion of the money which had been raised under the Canadian

  1845
  Loan guarantee had been temporarily invested by Sir John Rose, the then Finance Minister of Canada; but as the object of that Motion, which had eventually been withdrawn, had been misunderstood by the Canadians, he should refrain from making a Motion similar to that of the hon. Member, which was to the effect that no further guarantee should be given by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, except in such form and manner as should insure the direct application of the money so guaranteed to the construction of the Intercolonial Railway. That Motion, as he had already stated, had been withdrawn, after a short discussion, at the request of the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown, and upon his giving an assurance that the subject was receiving the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and that the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was being sought upon the matter. He also refrained from bringing forward such a Motion, because he believed from the correspondence before the House that the Canadian Ministry were really anxious to comply, not only with the letter, but with the spirit of the Canadian Railway Loan Act; and, secondly, because he had the fullest confidence that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and his Colleagues at the Treasury would not guarantee the remaining moiety of this loan, without taking full security that the money should be directly appropriated to the railway for the construction of which the guarantee had been given. But, although utterly opposed to the principle of colonial loans, which he regarded as a most unconstitutional method of increasing the burdens of this highly-taxed country, he should not have felt it his duty to bring the matter before the House, if a satisfactory explanation had been given, or if he did not fully concur with the Law Officers of the Crown, that the spirit and intention of the Imperial Act had not been complied with, and that the investment of money under the Minute of the Privy Council of Canada of the 27th of August, 1868, was in violation of the provisions of that Act. In 1867 an Act was passed authorizing the Treasury to guarantee the payment of interest upon the sum of £3,000,000 sterling for the purpose of constructing an intercolonial railway be-
  1846
  tween Quebec and Halifax upon certain conditions, one of which was that an Act should be passed by the Canadian Parliament for the construction of a railway along a route to be determined by a Secretary of State, and for its use by Her Majesty's troops. The Canadian Act was also to provide for the raising, appropriation and expenditure for the purpose of the construction of the railway of the £3,000,000, and for raising such further sum on the sole credit of Canada, as might be required to complete the railway. In December, 1867, the Canadian Parliament passed an Act providing for the raising of an additional £1,000,000 to complete the railway, and the Bay of Chaleurs route was selected and approved of by the then Colonial Secretary the Duke of Buckingham. On the 13th of February, 1868, the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hunt) wrote to the Colonial Secretary, approving generally of the Act of the Canadian Legislature, 31 Vict. c. 13, for the construction of the Intercolonial Railway. But when he (Mr. Monk) came to look closely into the provisions of that Act, he confessed that he felt some degree of surprise that the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury should, without a little more consideration, have expressed their satisfaction with the terms of that Act. The important clauses of that Act, which referred to the appropriation of the money, were the 27th and the 35th; the 27th clause merely repeated the words of the Imperial Act, whereas he ventured to think it should have contained Mine provision regulating the investment of the money during the interval between the time when it was borrowed and the period when it would be required for the purposes of the construction of the railway. He had, however, the greatest satisfaction in stating that the Canadian Government had acted in the most open, candid, and straightforward manner in the matter. In January, 1868, Viscount Monck, the Governor General of Canada, transmitted to the Colonial Secretary copies of the Canadian Act, and expressed the desire of the Canadian Parliament to know whether the terms of that Act fulfilled the requirements of the Imperial Act, and forwarded a letter from Sir John Macdonald, the then Attorney General of Canada, who evidently contemplated the possibility, nay, even the probability, of

  1847
  further legislation on the subject being required. Sir John Macdonald said—
  "The Canadian Legislature will re-assemble on the 12th March, and it is exceedingly desirable that it should be informed that the Act in question has been approved of, or that some further legislation is necessary."
  The late Government were by no means taken by surprise upon the question, and, in fact, when the then Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Adderley) brought forward the question of the guarantee, he received full and sufficient warning that the appropriation of the loan would be carefully looked to, and of the necessity that existed for security being taken that the money raised under it should be appropriated exclusively for the purpose of the construction of the Intercolonial Railway. What said the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lowe) on that occasion? The right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped the House would seriously consider the step they were about to take, and that, if they determined to enter upon that step, they would put into the Bill some very stringent securities to provide that the money spent under our guarantee should be applied to the purposes for which it was voted, and that it should not stick to anyone's fingers in its progress to that charming railway that was to be constructed. Those were truly prophetic words, as he should presently show. And on the same occasion his right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister said that the general system of colonial guarantees had come into just discredit within the walls of Parliament. He (Mr. Monk) would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there was any mode of bringing colonial and other guarantees into greater discredit than by a disinclination on the part either of those who give, or of those who receive, a guarantee, to be guided by the spirit and letter of the Act, providing for the appropriation of the money so guaranteed? He did not think that proper care had been taken for the expenditure of the money in the mode directed by the Imperial Act. He found no sufficient provisions in the Canadian Act for the proper custody and expenditure of the loan. He sincerely hoped he was wrong in his conclusion; but he feared he was right in the view he took of the conduct of the Commissioners of the Treasury in 1868. It was their duty to
  1848
  have taken care that the money should be expended in the mode intended by the Legislature. They had absolute control over the matter, and if they had thought the Canadian Act insufficient to afford the security needed they could have asked for further legislation. The Government did not do so, and what had been the result? The Finance Minister, Sir John Rose, as soon as he found himself in possession of funds, set to work most vigorously, and, he must add, most successfully to reduce the Canadian Debt, and from his own figures it appeared that more than one-half of the loan was so applied. Out of $10,280,000, the proceeds of the loan, three-fourths of which were guaranteed by this country, $5,536,538 were applied in reducing the Debt of the Dominion, and of the remainder $1,500,000 were temporarily invested with the Bank of Montreal. These were the moneys which were to be kept exclusively for the railway works, out of which—and out of which alone—the contracts were to be paid for the works executed on the railway. Sir John Rose now said that the Debt of the Dominion was really paid out of the Treasury balances, because, except during a short period in the quarter ending September, 1868, there was sufficient money in the Treasury for the purpose, without trenching upon the guaranteed loan. But this was not the meaning of the Minute of the Privy Council of Canada of the 27th of August, 1868, which stated that the Debt should be paid out of the money received on account of the Intercolonial Railway Loan; and Sir John Rose in his Budget speech in May, 1869, observed there would be available for recouping the Intercolonial Railway Loan certain special credits, savings-banks deposits, receipts from insurance companies, and Great Western debts in bonds specially set apart, amounting in all to $5,754,901. He thought he might safely assume that the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury in 1868 would scarcely contend that it was the intention of Parliament that the money raised under its authority should be used in paying off even temporarily the Debt of the Dominion, with the contingency of its being recouped out of savings-banks deposits and Great Western Railway bond debts. Such at least was not his opinion, and such certainly

  1849
  was not the opinion of the present Law Officers of the Crown as set forth in the Papers before the House, in which they informed Lord Granville—
  "That we regret to be unable to advise that the investment of the money under the Minute of the Privy Council of Canada is in conformity with the Imperial Act of 30 and 31 Vict. c. 16. We think that it was not the intention of the Imperial Legislature that the money should be invested at all: it was to be appropriated or set aside. … We think that the spirit and intention of the Canada Railway Loan Act, 1807, has not been complied with."
  Shortly before the Easter Recess he (Mr. Monk) called attention to a telegram received from Ottawa to the effect that the Finance Minister of Canada had stated that the Canadian Government intended to disregard the opinion of the Law Officers of England as to the appropriation of the Intercolonial Railway Loan. The Under Secretary for the Colonies at that time said that he had received no intimation of such an announcement. But, on looking over the Papers, which had lately been laid upon the Table, he (Mr. Monk) found that Sir Francis Hincks, the present Minister of Finance, admitted that some such expression had been used by him, and he attempted to justify it by saying that it was not possible to act in accordance with the opinion of the Law Officers. It would, no doubt, be felt that such a statement made by a responsible Minister of the Dominion in his place in Parliament was one of grave importance as affecting the relations between Canada and this country. But he should leave it to his hon. and learned Friends to defend their own opinion, which Sir Francis Hincks had so gravely called in question. If that opinion were of any value, he was sure that no hon. Member would maintain that the temporary investment of the money raised by loan under the guarantee was such an appropriation as was contemplated by the Imperial Act of 1867. He did not throw blame upon the Canadian Government. On the contrary, he believed that the Minister of Finance had kept within the letter of the law, though he could not agree with him that the loan had not been used in redeeming the Dominion Debt. Such an assertion, he thought, was not in accordance with the Memorandum submitted by Sir John Rose to the Privy Council in August, 1868. It savoured of something like an after-thought. He
  1850
  did, however, agree with him in considering that, owing to the action of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury in 1868, the expenditure and appropriation of the loan rested with the Government of Canada under the Colonial Act, 31 Vict. c. 13. He could not, at the same time, acquit the Commissioners of the Treasury of blame in the matter. In February, 1868, they signified their approval of an Act which did not fulfil the requirements of the Imperial Act of 1867, and they must, therefore, be held primarily responsible for the temporary misappropriation of the money which had unfortunately taken place. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. WHATMAN, in seconding the Resolution, said, he fully agreed in the opinion expressed by the Law Officers of the Crown, and he thought that if the House inquired into the past history of Canadian railways an additional reason would be found for caution with regard to this loan. The Grand Trunk line of Canada had proved most injurious to those who had embarked their money in it; and, at the time when this guarantee was given by the Imperial Legislature it was understood that none of those who had either managed or mismanaged the Grand Trunk line would have any part in the management of the Intercolonial line. It appeared, however, from the Papers that that understanding had been departed from.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the provisions of the Act of the Canadian Legislature, 31 Vice. 13, do not satisfactorily fulfil the requirements of 'The Canada Railway Loan Act, 1867,'"—(Mr. Monk,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he must remind the House that the question raised by the hon. Gentleman who last addressed it with regard to the Canadian railways had nothing whatever to do with the Motion. He was happy to find that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) disclaimed any intention of throwing any sort of imputation upon the honesty or straightforward conduct of the Government of Canada

  1851
  on the subject. The hon. Gentleman discharged a very useful function in looking with a jealous eye to the giving of Imperial guarantees to our Colonies, and calling the attention of the House to the subject. Nobody could feel more strongly than he (Mr. Monsell) did that the principle enunciated by the late Government with reference to them should not be departed from, except for very especial reasons; but he thought the hon. Gentleman had been led by his zeal somewhat too far in the present instance, and had, in consequence, taken a somewhat unfair view of the conduct of the Canadian Government.
  MR. MONKexplained, that he had brought no charge against the Canadian Government. He held them to be wholly blameless. All they had to look to was the Canadian Act for the appropriation and expenditure of the loan.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that was what he understood the hon. Gentleman to say—that he thought the Canadian Government had acted wrongly in certain instances in the appropriation of the money. But the Papers to which the hon. Member had referred showed distinctly that the Canadian Government had provided that there should be a fund applicable in its entirety and at any moment to the object for which the loan was destined—that was to say, the funds raised under the Imperial guarantee were strictly appropriated for the construction of the Intercolonial Railway; and further on there was a Minute by Sir Francis Hincks, stating that at that time there were $5,733,763 of the Imperial guaranteed loan unexpended. He understood there were now only about $5,000,000, and of that amount there was in the Bank of Montreal, to be drawn as required, a sum of $4,799,784, and on Indian Bonds in London $681,333, making in all $5,481,117 appropriated strictly for the purpose in question. Further, there was on deposit at call in the Chartered and other banks a sum of $1,814,769; but the two first sums were more than sufficient to cover the unexpended capital guaranteed. His hon. Friend would, therefore, see that up to the present time the Canadian Government had faithfully discharged their obligations to this country. They had proceeded with the railway as rapidly as they could, and they would, probably, have the whole line finished
  1852
  in 1872, having had to overcome great difficulties in the accomplishment of the task. With the conduct of the Canadian Government under those circumstances he saw no reason to find fault. He came, then, to the only serious question raised by the hon. Member's Motion—namely, whether the Canadian Act satisfied the requirements of the Imperial Act. His opinion was that it did. He had taken the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown—and, besides, had availed himself of the best advice he could obtain at the Colonial Office—and their opinions were, there was no divergence whatever between the two Acts. He did not think it was necessary to go through all the various clauses of the Colonial Act to establish the justice of that view. The Canadian Act in every particular went part passû with the Imperial Act, and fulfilled every one of its requirements, in most cases adopting its very wording. The hon. Gentleman had failed to point out a single particular in which the Canadian Act did not meet the requirements of the Imperial Act. All the Act required was that the custody and appropriation of the money should be carried out; but it was the opinion of the late and the present Governments that the mode in which it was to be done should be left to the Canadian Government. Whether it was a wise or an unwise course to adopt it was not for them then to discuss; but it was clear that that was what had been done. He submitted that it was impossible for the House to adopt the Motion, and, under the circumstances, he hoped his hon. Friend would not divide the House upon it. He seriously regretted that any question should have been mooted at the present moment which appeared to raise any controversy with Canada. Bearing in mind her recent gallant conduct, it would, he thought, be scarcely wise or judicious—in fact, it would be ungenerous, to raise any such question. He maintained that the terms of the Motion had not been substantiated, and that the Canadian Act faithfully carried out the words and intentions of the Imperial Legislature.
  VISCOUNT MILTONsaid, he found at page 23 of the Canada Railway Loan Papers a paragraph which stated that the learned Gentlemen to whom the question was submitted were of opinion that it was not the intention of the Im-

  1853
  perial Legislature that the money should be invested at all; but that it was to be appropriated, or set aside, and that, in their view of the matter, the only sort of investment within the provision of the Imperial Act would be one the value of which did not fluctuate, and which was convertible at any moment without loss; and, further, that they did not think the Guarantee Act of 1867 had been complied with. To that opinion was appended the names of the present Attorney and Solicitor General. He thought that opinion was hardly consistent with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the opinion of the Law Officers, which had been quoted by the noble Lord (Viscount Milton) had no bearing at all on the question under discussion, but referred to a suppositions case. The present Motion was to the effect that the provisions of the Act of the Canadian Legislature, 31 Vict., c. 13, did not satisfactorily fulfil the requirements of the Canada Railway Loan Act, 1867. If the opinion of the Law Officers was referred to, it ought to be borne in mind that the case on which it was given stated that the Act 31 Vict., c. 13 was passed in due form. That statute was in operation, and it might be assumed that it fulfilled the requirements of the Imperial Act. The opinion of the Law Officers was not given on that point for the simple reason that it was not asked. He must say that, as a rule, it was not very convenient to publish the opinions of the Law Officers, who are, in fact, private and confidential Advisers of the Government. They gave their advice on dry questions of law and not of policy; and the Government having received their opinion decided whether they would act upon it either to the full or to a modified extent. He had always understood it to be the rule that these opinions should not be published; but, however this might be, the opinion just referred to had no bearing on the question before the House.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COUNTY GOVERNMENT—RESOLUTION.
MR. CAMPBELL, in rising to call the attention of the House to the subject of County Government and to move, That,
1854
in the opinion of this House, the principle of representation ought to be applied to the government and financial administration of counties, said, that this question was a very difficult one to bring forward in that House, as the great bulk of those whom he was addressing were members of the body to the constitution of which he was about to take exception. It was not his intention, however, to find fault with the manner in which the Magistrates in England, the Commissioners of Supply in Scotland, or the Grand Juries in Ireland transacted the financial business of the counties, and protected the interests committed to their charge. Indeed, he believed the country owed a debt of gratitude to them for the spirited way in which they devoted their time to the public service. He could not, however, reconcile himself to the system under which they worked. It might, perhaps, be objected that the subject of the present Motion was being investigated by a Select Committee upstairs. To this he would reply that his Motion embraced both Ireland and Scotland as well as England—although it was not his intention to say anything about the state of affairs in Ireland, for the simple reason that he had no personal knowledge of them. Besides, the reference to the Committee presided over by the President of the Poor Law Board did not cover the whole subject to which he desired to direct the attention of the House. That Committee was appointed to inquire whether the expenditure and charges locally imposed upon the occupiers of rateable property should be divided between owners and occupiers, and what changes in the local bodies administering the rates should follow such division; whereas his Motion did not relate solely to financial matters, but also to the government of counties. There had been many attempts to legislate upon the former subject. In 1836 and 1837 the late Mr. Hume brought in Bills in reference to it, and since then Bills had been introduced by Mr. Hume, Mr. Milner Gibson and Mr. Wilde. Those measures had not been satisfactory to those who sat on his side, because they allowed a certain portion of the Financial Board to be composed of Justices of the Peace, leaving a small portion to be elected by the Board of Guardians. Last year the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), on behalf of the Government,

1855
brought in a Bill founded on the recommendations of a Select Committee, by which, the elected members would have numbered one-sixth of the ex officio members. All these proposals, however, fell short of what was absolutely required. He did not dwell upon this subject, however, for he believed that it was now generally admitted that taxation and representation should go together; but he (Mr. Campbell) asked the House now to go farther, and to pronounce an opinion in favour of intrusting the government as well as the financial part of the administration in counties to those whom they were not afraid to trust in regard to Imperial matters and the control of the national expenditure. Foreign critics expressed their surprise that, in a country which valued representative institutions so much, the inhabitants of the rural districts were left without any voice in their own affairs; and our want of municipal organization was deplored by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Privy Council when he introduced his Education Bill. What he (Mr. Campbell) desired was to see municipal institutions created all over the country districts. He could not see any reason why we should not have in every county an elective body corresponding exactly to a town council, imposing its taxation, controlling its expenditure, electing its officers, and, if necessary, framing a code of regulations for its government, subject to the sanction of Parliament. It might be said that that was a Utopian theory. But it had been realized in practice in the United States and Canada—where, in varying forms, municipal government existed everywhere—and in still greater perfection in Australia in the system of shire councils. In France also—although it had degenerated in the hands of successive Governments, there still existed a uniform and homogeneous system of local self-government. The system of local government established in France after the Revolution would have been one of the most perfect in the world if it had not been subsequently corrupted and distorted. In all these countries there was no distinction between country and town. But we need not go abroad for instances; how was it originally in our own country? The Roman system of town communities, in which every free man had a vote, was adopted
1856
in this country by the Anglo-Saxons. The Normans endeavoured to upset it, and to place bailiffs over the towns and viscounts over the counties, and they succeeded with the counties; but the towns purchased the right of self-government by paying a higher revenue and undertaking to collect it themselves. Up to the time of Edward III., justices, or, as they were called, conservators of the peace, were chosen by the freeholders assembled in the County Court, and it was by a statute in the first year of his reign that the mode of appointment was changed, and magistrates were appointed by commission of the Sovereign. Therefore, at one time magistrates were directly responsible to the ratepayers whose affairs they managed. The high sheriffs, similarly, down to the 9th year of Edward III., were elected directly by the freeholders; but the coroner was now the only elected officer of the county. A totally different system prevailed in Scotland, where the magistrates had nothing to do with the affairs of counties, which were in the hands of Commissioners of Supply, who were, no doubt, to a certain extent, representative, being proprietors of land of the yearly value of £100. It was by a section of the Reform Act of 1832, that the management of all county matters was taken out of the hands of the county constituencies, and placed in those of the large owners of property; and now there was no representation whatever of owners of land under £100 a year in value. Recently he moved for a Return which showed how small a proportion those who were qualified to act as Commissioners of Supply bore to those who possessed the property qualification to vote for Members of Parliament. In Orkney the proportion was 36 to 498; in Stirling it was 148 to 1,507; in Fife, 234 to 2,895; and in Lanark, 451 to 4,390. In Clackmannan there were 826 proprietor voters and 34 Commissioners; and in Bute 455 proprietor voters and 17 Commissioners; but of the last number eight were ex officio, and three were factors, or duplicates of proprietors. In the whole of Scotland the Commissioners were 12 per cent of the proprietors, and a little more than 5 per cent of the total number of voters. In Scotland, it must be remembered, the county assessment was not laid, as in England, for the taxes were wholly levied on

1857
the landlords; but, without going into the subject of the incidence of taxation, he thought he had shown, at all events, that in Scotland all proprietors under £100 were unrepresented. In addition to that, the Commissioners of Supply disposed of the grants made by the Exchequer in aid of the local contributions—as, for instance, the sums sent towards the pay and clothing of the police. He had not a word to say against the mode in which the financial part of the duties of those gentlemen was discharged, their general fault, both in England and in Scotland, being that they were too frugal; and he believed that if they derived their authority directly from the ratepayers they would have more courage to indulge in expenditure, which was frequently much required. He had obtained Returns not with any expectation that they would show mismanagement, but in order that the House might have information about Scotch affairs similar to that which was annually presented for England. The Commissioners of Supply, however, did not confine themselves to financial matters, but held a meeting every April, at which, after transacting their ordinary business, they took into consideration all pending legislation affecting Scotland, and many Bills relating to Imperial matters. They were very much given to sending up Petitions; but it generally happened that the Members for the Scotch counties voted directly contrary to the views expressed therein; and by so petitioning the Commissioners caused much irritation, and their conduct tended to widen the existing breach between landlords and tenants. Within a month an hon. Member, after presenting a number of Petitions, sent up by the Commissioners of Supply, in the name of the county he represented, was obliged to add, in a stage whisper—"From the prayer of all which I entirely disagree;" and another hon. Member assured him that, in any case of doubt, he found it a safe rule always to vote against the Commissioners. While on this matter he wished to point out to the Lord Advocate that as regarded his Game Bill, there was an ill-omened unanimity of opinion in its favour on the part of the Commissioners, which was an indication of the unfortunate feeling that existed in reference to that subject. Last Session, again, there
1858
was a Bill before Parliament relating to Education in Scotland; there was a great race to get it through, yet, at an early stage in the House of Lords, its progress was delayed in order that these county meetings might pronounce an opinion upon it. He now came to the case of the Lords Lieutenant. In England, as well as in Scotland, the Lord Lieutenant was the highest officer in every county. Lords Lieutenant were not appointed until the reign of Henry VIII., they being—according to Blackstone—representatives of the Crown, "to keep the counties in military order." It was their duty to preserve the peace; but practically that duty was intrusted to much humbler functionaries—the heads of the police in each district, who had, in that respect, usurped the Lord Lieutenant's functions. That was, so far, a change in the right direction; but he (Mr. Campbell) contended that the officer in charge of the local constabulary ought to be held even more directly responsible to the householders and ratepayers. All that was left to the Lords Lieutenant was patronage. Their functions were purely nominative. They recommended persons to Her Majesty for the commission of the peace. He could not conceive a more unfortunate channel for the appointment of magistrates, for whatever else a Lord Lieutenant might be, he was always either a Whig or a Tory. He was, no doubt, always an estimable and honourable gentleman; but he was selected for the appointment not merely on account of his character, but also on account either of his family interest, or his property, or his party services, or the rigidity and primeval derivation, of his family politics. There could be no worse reason for the appointment of magistrates than political influence. It was known that in many cases the Lord Lieutenant exercised his functions with impartiality; but the system was unsound and unconstitutional. The Lords Lieutenant also appointed to commissions in the Militia and Volunteers, and three-fourths of Army reformers were anxious that that power should be taken out of their hands; for they were of opinion that the Militia should not be made a plaything of local magnates, but should be an integral part of the Army, and the first line of an Army Reserve. No one would accuse Members on the

1859
Benches near him of being advocates of an increase of the military force of the country; but they thought that if there were to exist an Army and Militia, they ought to be formed into an efficient machine, so that all the parts should properly fit into each other. This could not be the case so long as local jealousies affected the appointments to commissions in the Militia, and so long as those appointments were made on other grounds than fitness. But the Lord Lieutenant had so much to do that he had to appoint deputies to assist him. The Lord Lieutenant's duties being practically confined to the exercise of patronage, it became a question what was the raison d'étre of the Deputy Lieutenant? He (Mr. Campbell) had no objection to an honourable local rank being assigned as a reward for public service; but he protested against its being granted by an irresponsible authority, not amenable to public opinion. He must apologize for having trespassed so long on the time of the House. The only ground upon which the changes he advocated could be opposed was that of expediency, and upon it he would address two considerations to the House. The first was connected with what he would call the educational effect it would have upon the people. He was one of those who hoped that the time was not far distant when, by the equalization of the borough and county franchise, and the establishment of electoral districts—changes to which he was glad to hear the First Minister of the Crown say not long since that he entertained no insuperable aversion—the whole nation would be reduced to one homogeneous electoral body. In Scotland the people were ready for tie change, but the same was not the ease in England, and what was the reason of the difference in the two countries? He admitted that the superior system of education in Scotland for the whole of the people had something to do with the matter, but there was another influence silently at work. In Scotland there was a certain system of Church government established—he did not mean established legally, but established in the hearts of the people—which evoked in every man a pertain amount of public spirit by investing him with public duties, and treating him as a man to do and not to be done for, and this system undoubtedly had diffused a large amount of intelligence
1860
among the people of the Scotch counties. If such was the result of the small influence derived from the source he had just indicated, he left the House to judge what would be the effect of giving the inhabitants of counties a voice in the management of all their local affairs, and he asked whether it would not be wise to prepare them by such means for a participation in Imperial concerns? In regard to this point he referred to the high authority of M. de Tocqueville, who, speaking of the townships of America, said—
"Communal institutions are to liberty what primary schools are to learning; they bring it within the reach of the people."
And then he went on to remark that the New Englander, strong in independence, clung to his township because he had a voice in the management of its concerns; he tried his hand at governing society; he accustomed himself to the forms by which alone liberty could advance without revolution, and he acquired a clear conception of his duties and his rights. These were advantages from which the inhabitants of this country living beyond the limits of municipal boroughs were excluded. Could it, then, be wondered at that an English peasant, when he rose by some happy chance to the position of a voter in a Parliamentary election, should fail to comprehend the bearing of great political questions, and should give his suffrage blindly at the bidding of his landlord, his parson, or his powerful neighbour? One word as to the effect the proposed change would have on those who would be deprived by it, if not of power, still of the monopoly of power. Here he anticipated the happiest consequences. While he had no desire to interfere with the legitimate influence due to a man's character and position, he thought the change he advocated would do more than anything he knew to take from individuals the exaggerated conventional importance which was attached to the possession of large quantities of land. What was the inducement for a man to invest all his money in land for which he could obtain a return of only 2½ or 3 per cent? Not getting a fair interest for his money, he must "take it out where he could." There was the enjoyment of visible and tangible possession, there was the charm of country

1861
life, the enjoyment of the fields—shortly, however, to be curtailed, for last year year there were three Game Bills in the House, and this year there were five. If they went on this way legislation would be necessary, if only to clear the Notice Paper. But, above all, there was the local possession, the "pomp and circumstance" with which, convention invested the great territorial owner. We were so accustomed to this that we failed to recognize it as conventional and artificial. Anything that would check the tendency of land to mass into few hands would be beneficial. There was nothing more disastrous for the country, or for the district, than that large properties should be in the hands of persons unable to do justice to them. Imagine a young man coming into possession of land worth £4,000 a year, but so burdened with debt, as often happened that his disposable income was a mere fraction of that amount. What should he do? Sell half the property? He would at 30 years' purchase receive £60,000, and suppose he paid off his encumbrances, amounting perhaps to £40,000, he would have enough left to keep the remaining half in a good state of cultivation. But then he would curtail his artificial possession of land in the county and lessen his title to the possession of feudal privileges. He (Mr. Campbell) had thus ventured to bring these two points before the House. There were the arguments of analogy, of antiquity, of logical consistency, of common sense, and of right in favour of his Motion; but there was, farther, the argument of expediency. And on this ground of expediency he rested his case on the considerations he had urged. He did not expect that all the changes which he had advocated could be carried out at once; but he asked the House, by assenting to his Motion, to express an opinion that a great and radical change was desirable, and that the direction he had pointed out was the direction which the change should take. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the principle of representation ought to be applied to the government and financial administration of Counties,"—(Mr. Campbell,)
—instead thereof.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that the hon. Member's(Mr. Campbell's) speech had covered a greater extent of ground than was comprehended within the terms of his Motion; but it must be admitted that he had brought forward with great ability many topics deserving the deepest attention. The hon. Gentleman, in the opening parts of his speech, had suggested that his Motion might be met by a dilatory plea, on the ground that a Committee upstairs were considering questions connected with the subject-matter of his proposal. But he was bound to say he would not meet the Motion in that way, being opposed to the main scope of the hon. Gentleman's speech. For his speech did not go simply to recommend some alterations such as had been heretofore suggested with a view to introducing the principle of representation into county affairs in Scotland; it went to a complete alteration of the whole system of administration where municipal government was not in force. It proposed to parcel out the whole country into municipal districts; it proposed to substitute the chief constable of police for the Lord Lieutenant. There was hardly one of the local institutions which had not been attacked by his hon. Friend. Now, he was far from saying that his hon. Friend did not adduce many strong reasons for some of the changes which he recommended. Those who believed in the principle of representation and the good effect it had on the character and intelligence of all who took part in representative government—certainly, the House of Commons—should be the last to deny that the giving a wider scope to that principle would have a happy effect on the national character. So far he agreed with the hon. Gentleman. But if they assented to this Motion they must be prepared to give effect to all those large schemes of local reform which the hon. Gentleman had sketched out in his speech. The hon. Member pointed out what had been done in new countries unencumbered by our long-established institutions; he pointed out what had been done by the great French Revolution, which swept away the old institutions and substituted others which lasted but a short time: and he tendered to the House a somewhat similar system which should be the object of the; policy of that House. So far he (Mr. Bruce) was not prepared to go. The

1863
Government had admitted in the gracious Speech of Her Majesty last Session that the admission of the representative principle into the local administration of counties was desirable; and he believed that principle had been assented to on both sides of the House, although there might be some difference of opinion as to the manner in which effect was to be given to it. If Her Majesty's Government had been unable to give effect to their wishes, the House was well aware of the reasons which had interfered to prevent them. The Bill presented last year had been subjected to some criticism by his hon. Friend, and one special ground of objection deserved a passing notice. He said the effect of that Bill was in substance to introduce the representative element to the extent of no more than one-sixth of the whole body charged with the financial administration of the county; but, in point of fact, the popular representatives introduced would, in most instances, through their more regular attendance, exceed rather than fall short of the number of magistrates present, and it was on a full consideration of that point that the scheme of the Government was proposed. This Session no measure was brought forward. Why? Not simply for want of time, but because the whole subject of local taxation—its incidence and the manner in which it should be levied—was to be brought under consideration by his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board, who had introduced a measure which had been referred to a Select Committee; and on the decision of that Committee must, in a great degree, depend the constitution of County Financial Boards. He understood that evidence which covered the whole subject had been gone into by the Committee. The question how far the rate should be levied from owners and occupiers was one on which the Committee must give their decision; and surely on that decision it must very largely depend what should be the constitution of the future body, and where the electoral power should be vested. That was a sufficient reason for delay on the part of the Government in dealing with that part of the question. He was bound to say, with respect to the other and larger question, Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to propose any large or sweeping changes. The hon. Member said truly that no dis-
1864
satisfaction had been expressed with the conduct of local affairs by the magistracy in England, or the Commissioners of Supply in Scotland. Undoubtedly, it was a very marked feature of the evidence adduced before the Committee on the subject, that those who were most anxious for change admitted at the same time that the county finance had been economically and skilfully administered by the local magistracy. But the hon. Member called for changes such as would give effect to a great principle. That House, admitting the justice of the principle that large occupiers should have a voice in the expenditure of public money, had cheerfully assented to it; but while the Government were perfectly prepared to re-consider this subject, with whatever light might be cast upon it by the Report of the Committee—while they felt by no means bound to adhere to all the provisions of their former Bill, he could not hold out to the hon. Gentleman that they were prepared to assent to that large scheme which he had developed, and the great changes he proposed to introduce into the local government of the country. It was for that reason that, while declaring their desire to give the fullest effect to the policy held out in the Speech from the Throne last year, and to consider this question, with the fullest desire to increase as far as possible the representative principle in local government, they were not prepared to adopt the Motion of his hon. Friend, and he, therefore, must, with regret, but without hesitation, meet it with a decided negative.
SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he entirely agreed with what had been said as to the position of the large occupier in Scotland as regarded his share, or want of share, in the management of county affairs. The occupier in Scotland would compare favourably with his equal in any part of the world. He was generally a man of industry and skill—frequently of scientific acquirement; directly or indirectly he contributed largely to the public expenditure of the county, and yet he had no control in its financial administration. It was true that in some cases the rate was laid wholly on the owner; but in many cases it was laid equally on the owner and occupier, especially in the matter of poor rate, and unless the occupier was placed on the parochial Board by the £20 occupants,

1865
he would have no voice in the administration of county finance. He thought it would be a great advantage if occupiers were associated with the Commissioners of Supply. Without derogating from the manner in which the Commissioners of Supply, as a rule, discharged their duties, he must say he thought the large occupiers—men who had occupied the same farms from generation to generation—had a claim, for their own sakes and the good administration of county affairs, to a seat among the Commissioners of Supply. Admitting that claim, as the right hon. Gentleman had done, he hoped the Government would take the whole of this subject into their early consideration.
MR. M'LARENsaid, the Secretary of State for the Home Department had hardly done justice to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell), which was in entire unison with the principle laid down in the Speech from the Throne; and no good reason could be advanced why this principle should not now be affirmed. It might be true that some arguments used by his hon. Friend might not be considered very logical; but what they should look to was the Motion itself. As his hon. Friend had explained already, there was not a vestige of representation existing in Scotch counties—although there was a little in England. The Commissioners of Supply were a body a couple of centuries old, dating back to a time when for some special purpose—a war with England, for example—Commissioners were appointed to see that the Supply already voted by Parliament was properly assessed in the county, and paid into the national Exchequer, and to this their name, Commissioners of Supply, was attributable. In the present day, however, no supplies were voted; and therefore they had no duties of this class to perform, beyond laying on the fixed proportion of land tax agreed upon by the Treaty of Union—that was to say, £48,000 for all Scotland. By a mere chapter of accidents it had fallen into the hands of this body of gentlemen to meet together and to regulate all county business. One would suppose from the phrase, "meeting of the county," invariably used with regard to their gatherings, that the inhabitants met in a body, or, at all events, that the meetings were
1866
open; but the whole thing was a perfect farce. He had attended some of their meetings in Edinburgh, and found, perhaps, 25 highly respectable gentlemen, who could all be trusted to manage their own affairs honestly and well; but, as representatives of a county which, including towns, contained about 300,000 inhabitants, the thing, he repeated, was a perfect farce. The whole community of occupiers were excluded from any share in the representation, and so were owners of all property less in value than £100 in land and £200 in houses. It was, perhaps, natural under these circumstances that the property of landowners was always found to be assessed upon very low rentals, comparatively speaking. In the Edinburgh journals he found the subject discussed at a meeting of the Town Council a few days ago, and in that discussion it was stated that the paper manufactory of a gentleman, formerly a Member of this House, was assessed at £1,200 a year, while the palace of the Duke of Buccleuch, in which Royalty had been received, was only assessed at £250 a year, and the castle of the Earl of Stair at £150. However just these things might be, they did not look well. Two or three years ago he obtained a Return of the amount derived from the tax upon the inhabited houses; and in the county of Sutherland, although that county included the palatial residence of the Duke of Sutherland, the whole amount of house duty levied was the veriest trifle—less than £50 a year. Facts like these, which were well and widely known, showed that a change in the present system was imperatively required. There had been no improvements in legislation which had not been opposed by these so-called "county meetings," nor would any progress take place in that direction that would not be strenuously resisted by them until their constitution was entirely changed. Reference had been made to the Game Law Bill. Well, the Bill of the Lord Advocate was supported by nearly all these meetings, on the ground that if it were not accepted they would get a worse one. Her Majesty's Government, he thought, could hardly vote against a principle which they had specially recommended to the House in the Speech from the Throne—namely, financial reform in the counties.
COLONEL WILSON - PATTENsaid, his vote should be given in support of the view taken by his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Bruce). He recognized to the fullest extent the claims of the county ratepayers to County Board representation; but before the Committee on the subject of Local Rates, over which he had presided, very considerable difference of opinion existed as to the nature of any change which ought to be introduced; and he thought it was not expedient to raise the question in Parliament, when a Committee of Inquiry into the whole matter was sitting. His vote, therefore, would not be given against the proposition submitted to the House, but in favour of going into Committee of Supply. He was not prepared to speak of finances in Scotland, but as regarded the finances of English counties it was distinctly proved before the Select Committee that little or no complaint was made of the economical way in which county affairs had been administered. Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to expect that great economy would result from introducing the principle of representation into the management of county affairs; but if the question were gone into it would be found, he thought, that the administration of finances in the counties would bear comparison very favourably with the way in which such matters were managed by public bodies in any of the boroughs. There could be no doubt that affairs in counties were more economically administered than in boroughs. He was convinced that wherever the ratepayers as a body demanded the right of immediate representation, no one would be found willing or able to resist the demand; but the whole difficulty of the case was involved in the settlement of the details, towards the consideration of which this Motion would contribute nothing. Without, therefore, going any farther into the question he should give his support to Her Majesty's Government.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he thought that the House, before effecting such a change as that now proposed, should pause and ascertain what would, be the probable results. The statements made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) were sufficient to excite a doubt as to whether the change would be welcome to the ratepayers for whose benefit it was proposed, and whe-
1868
ther they would approve the expenditure which his hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell) advocated. He could not help thinking, however, that it would be wise on the part of the Commissioners not to enter into discussions on general matters, but to confine themselves to the duties for which they were particularly appointed. He would remind the House that, inasmuch as in Scotland taxation for county purposes was placed entirely upon the proprietors, the representation should rest entirely with them; otherwise they would be violating the principle that taxation and representation should go hand in hand.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that while everyone complimented his hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell) upon the speech he had made, everyone was going to vote against him. He (Mr. Kinnaird) should, however, be an exception. He hoped his hon. Friend would push his Motion to a Division, and thus lay the foundation for a reform the necessity of which was generally admitted.
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEYsaid, he thought the Motion was unseasonable, but he felt compelled to say that while he did not place the slightest confidence in Her Majesty's Government in relation to this question, he placed, if possible, less confidence in the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department than he did in the collective body of the Ministry. The question had been most thoroughly discussed by the House when brought forward by Mr. Milner Gibson many years ago, and nothing would now be gained by the investigations of a Select Committee. Some three years ago a Bill was introduced on the subject, when hon. Gentlemen on the other side were sitting on the Opposition Benches, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. Forster) smothered it with civil words and sent it upstairs to a Committee, where it was delayed for the Session. If it had been considered in a Committee of the House it would now have been the law of the land. A Bill was brought forward the following year; but it was treated with something like contempt, having been committed to the charge of an Under Secretary, while measures of not half the importance were taken in hand by Cabinet Ministers, and it was

1869
soon found that it was impossible to pass the Bill. It was the general opinion that that Bill was a perfect sham. He would give one word of advice to Chambers of Agriculture, and it was that they should impress on their county Members the necessity of sinking party differences when questions affecting their interests were at stake. He regretted that the hon. Member (Mr. Campbell) should have introduced extraneous matter in his speech, but if he went to a Division he would support him. He wished to know from the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake early next Session to introduce a Bill to settle this question of Financial Boards.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 39: Majority 22.
Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

COINAGE CONTRACTS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. MUNTZ, who had given Notice to call the attention of the House to the statement made by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to intended operations at the Mint; and to move, That Government manufactories are injurious to the commercial classes and a burden on the taxpayers; and that it would be unseemly that Her Majesty's Government should compete with commercial firms for contracts with foreign Powers, said, he was quite aware of the peculiar position in which he was placed in consequence of the Division which had just been taken; but the subject he wished to bring before the House was of great importance, and could no longer be deferred. He had not intended to call attention to the subject of Government factories this Session; but the statement of the right hon. Gentleman rendered it necessary that the public should know something of the views of the Government on the matter. In the earlier part of the Session a Question had been put by his Colleague (Mr. Dixon) to the right hon. Gentleman with reference to certain recommendations in the supplementary part of the Report of Messrs. Fremantle
  1870
  and Rivers Wilson on the Mint. He would assume the accuracy of the report of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, which he took from The Times, and which, in effect, was this—"We are prepared to contract with foreign countries, and to undertake the execution of coinage for them." The Report on the Mint to which he had referred was presented to the House on the 11th of February, 1870, and it bore on the back the name of his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld); but he was sure his right hon. Friend had never read it, or it would not have received the sanction of his name. It was to the Supplementary Report that he wished to call particular attention. That document contained this passage—
  "One other point remains to be noticed, namely, that there would appear to be no reason why the Mint should, as has hitherto been the case, refuse to undertake the execution of coinages for foreign Governments. Many contracts for foreign coinages have of late years been executed at Birmingham, with large profits to the contractor; and it is obvious that the Mint, with the appliances at its command, and the risk to which it may at any time be exposed of being left unemployed, could with advantage undertake such contracts,"
  It then went on to say—
  "Coinages for foreign Governments are undertaken by some of the Mints in other countries. A coinage for Roumania and another for Egypt have recently been struck at the Paris Mint."
  And it thus concluded—
  "We would recommend that for the future, should any offer be made to the Mint to undertake a coinage for a foreign Government, the Master of the Mint should report the circumstances to the Treasury, and should be empowered to make the necessary arrangements for executing the work,"
  Now, he should like to know how the gentlemen who signed that Report had ascertained that private contractors had made large profits of late years by executing coinage contracts for foreign Governments at Birmingham. He was assured by one large house at Birmingham that no clerk or other person in their employment did or could know what their profits from coinage had been—that they themselves had made the estimates and could alone tell that: that the statement in this respect was probably based on Returns derived from the officers of income tax; but that even in that case the information thus obtained was delusive, because coinage work was only a small part of their business, and the Income Tax Returns could not by

  1871
  any possibility give any real clue to the amount of their profits upon that particular branch of their operations. He, however, did not think that the Government would sanction any such system of spying out the profits of manufacturers from these Returns. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] Therefore, that assertion contained in a document presented to Parliament had not the slightest foundation. Moreover, there were great fluctuations in the price of the raw material of coinage, and he had known copper in particular—which formed a very large proportion of our coinage—to vary in a comparatively short period from £70 to £140 per ton. Therefore, it was quite a commercial speculation—and a very dangerous speculation too—to enter into large coinage contracts, running over a considerable length of time, without the possibility of knowing beforehand whether the cost of the raw material might not undergo a very serious advance, entailing upon them an enormous loss. Yet that was the hazardous kind of commercial speculation in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to embark. Then, with regard to the appliances at the command of the Mint, it might be thought by some that they were very great; but he could tell the House, having himself inspected that establishment, that the Mint was 50 years behind the times, and that one firm alone could turn out as much coinage in a single day as the Mint could do in a week. He had not been there for some years, to be sure, and it might have improved since; but at the time he was much amused at the backward state of the appliances there. As to the risk to which the Mint might be exposed of being left at any time unemployed, it was true that the amount of work to be done varied enormously in the course of the year and from one year to another. It had been as low as £49,200 in one year, and as high as £11,800,000 in another. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would not like the Mint to be standing still. But how did the private manufacturers manage matters? He (Mr. Muntz) had gone through the accounts of one eminent firm engaged in coining—the firm of Messrs. Boulton and Watts—and he found that the average period during which their coining appliances had stood still for the last 10 years, was 10 months in the year. And how was that met? Why
  1872
  they had other large operations to carry on besides coinage, and when they had no coinage orders to execute the machinery and men were transferred to the other manufactures carried on by their firm. But Her Majesty's Mint was intended for coinage and for nothing else. But suppose our Mint, entering into a rivalry with the Birmingham trade, were to undertake large contracts for the Brazilian, the Italian, or any other foreign Government, and were to be subject to heavy penalties for any delay in their execution, and suppose, also, that a demand suddenly sprung up for coinage at home—the demand in 1857 rose very suddenly, and the Bank was at that time in great fear that the Mint could not coin fast enough for their necessities—in what a dilemma would the Chancellor of the Exchequer be placed! He would have to seek for more men and to increase his machinery. The Mint at Paris did not belong to the Government. The whole of the coinage for the French Government was done by contract; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would let the Mint in London to a contractor, taking proper security, he should have no objection to contracts being made with foreign Governments. The Belgian Government had their coin made on the same system. In both cases the contractors were bound in heavy penalties to supply the Government with all the coin they required. The contractors were at liberty to make coins for foreign Governments; but they had themselves to find security for the due fulfilment of their contracts, as had the private manufacturers in this country. The penalties were very considerable. In the case of the last coinage for Italy, the penalty for non-fulfilment of the contract was 500,000f., or £20,000; in that of the last coinage for Brazil it was £30,000; and in the case of a small coinage for Calcutta—the making of which was given by Her Majesty's Government to a private manufacturer—it was £8,000. Now, if Her Majesty's Government took to competing with private manufacturers, he supposed the latter would not receive any compensation in the shape of a drawback of income tax; but, putting that consideration aside, where were the penalties to come from, should any be incurred by the Government as manufacturers of coin for foreign States? He supposed there

  1873
  would appear in the Miscellaneous Estimates Votes "for loss on copper" and "loss on penalties." Then, when the Government had to ship coin there would be insurance and other charges. Was it seemly on the part of the Government to enter into such matters—to become commercial speculators? He ventured to think it would be derogatory to the dignity of the Government. The proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a species of financial seduction. All these Government manufacturing establishments began in this way, by small degrees. They began by false pretences; they were worked by fictitious means; and they ended with breach of faith. In 1806 the Government established a manufactory for guns, which was almost immediately abandoned. In 1808 they formed another gun factory, at Lewisham, which was kept up until 1815, when, after costing the country £430,000 for buildings and plant, it was also abandoned. During the Crimean War the Government factory did not turn out a single weapon, and 25,000 were obtained from America, but were not delivered. The Government had also to go to Liége, but received no guns until after the war was over. The Enfield factory was originally established in 1854 as a mere experiment. If the gun trade that now existed in the centre of the kingdom were destroyed, what should we do in time of need when we required a large number of guns to be produced at short notice? He maintained that the Enfield establishment was the result of a breach of faith. Lord Panmure, in reply to Mr. Scholefield's complaint of the injury that was being done to the Birmingham trade, had repudiated the idea that the establishment at Enfield was intended to manufacture the weapons required by the Army, and stated that the intention was only to try experiments there and make a few guns as a check on the private manufacturers; whereas now an enormous number of guns were made there, and the cost was charged in the Army Estimates. The result had been that we were now paying large taxes for the purpose of destroying a very important branch of the trade of this country. With respect to Woolwich, there was a Vote in 1849 of £141,000 for all wages, but now that charge was quadrupled. In fact, there seemed to be no
  1874
  end of experiments, the cost of which was saddled upon the taxpayers of the country. The Pimlico establishment had become a vast tailoring undertaking, and he would point out that that manufactory might with equal justice enter into a contract to supply foreign Governments with ready-made clothing as that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should enter into contracts to supply them with coin. If the State were to become a dealer in guns and coin, why should it not enter into the copper trade, and seek to supply foreign countries with copper sheathing. Why should it not enter into the cotton and other branches of trade, and become a general merchant? Of course, if there were a profit upon these transactions it was immediately said—"See how clever we are;" whereas if there were a loss upon them the country paid it, and was none the wiser. It was impossible to ascertain from the Government accounts whether a profit or a loss accrued from these establishments; because deterioration of stock, breakage, and other matters of great importance were not taken into consideration in them. If the whole country were turned into one vast Government workshop there would be nobody left to pay the rates and taxes. It had been the fashion of late to condemn contracts entered into with private firms; but all he could say was that the conditions of contracts that had been offered by the Government were such as no respectable firm would have looked at. The matter was of such importance that he had not thought himself justified in withdrawing it, though he would not go to a Division upon it. He was desirous to elicit some expression of opinion upon the subject from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was told that a Commission, composed of some of those gentlemen who had nothing to do, was about to make a tour on the Continent to visit the foreign Mints. No doubt they would have a pleasant time of it—possibly in company with their wives and families; but he could assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he could get all the information he desired within 100 miles of the Mint. Thanking the House for the patient hearing afforded him, he must conclude by once more protesting against the whole system of Government manufactures as being alike injurious to employers and workmen, and giving endless occasion for complaint

  1875
  on the part of the taxpayers; and he particularly objected to the Government making use of their plant and offices and the public money to enter into competition with private manufacturers, insuring great loss if not ruin to those manufacturers, at the same time that no one was benefited but the public officials.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, that one matter had been forgotten by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz). He could recollect something about the Maria Teresa dollar which was coined at or about the time of the Abyssinian War; and, in his judgment, it was very desirable that the circumstances connected with that transaction should not be forgotten. He wished to direct the attention of the House to that which he might denominate the corpus rather than to the Preamble of the present Motion. Government manufactures, he believed, except on an extremely restricted scale, must always be and were injurious to the commercial classes, because they inflicted a burden on the taxpayers. Consequently, it was unseemly, to use the mildest expression, for Her Majesty's Government to compete with private manufactures in regard to foreign Powers. The present discussion had been almost entirely confined to the Preamble of the Motion, the question of coinage, and the interests of Birmingham; but, in point of fact, a much larger subject was involved. If the principle to which he had adverted were established, not only Birmingham, but Manchester, Leeds, and every other large trading community in the country, would suffer greatly in consequence of the factories and the dealings of the Government. By that means, and to that extent, he considered the Government entered into the speculations of trade, with this difference, that for the purpose of carrying on such operations, public money must be used in derogation of the interests of those who contributed it. That such a state of things would be injurious to all our commercial relations and prospects was as clear as the sun at noon. With regard to arms, there might be a question as to how far the institution at Enfield was necessary as a check upon trade transactions elsewhere. He felt, convinced, however, that the effect of the operations at Enfield had been very largely exaggerated, and even in experimentalizing, it was necessary that the
  1876
  Government should not come into adverse competition with the private trade of the country. It would be a grievous error for the Government to apply the rates and taxes to the creation of a fund to enable them to enter into competition with the private firms which paid those rates and taxes. Such a principle, if carried out, would result in the annihilation of some private trades, especially as the Government were placed at a great advantage over individuals, because they could obtain the earliest and most reliable intelligence on commercial subjects. The House ought to feel itself extremely indebted to the hon. Member for Birmingham for his having brought forward this question, and, for his own part, he regretted there was no opportunity of going to a Division on the general principle it involved. As the representative of a very large commercial community, he had heard but one feeling expressed on the subject of Government competition, and he was prepared to give the Motion his most cordial support.
  MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, he wished to warn the House against this Resolution, which was one of the most insidious which had been presented to Parliament for a long time past, for it commenced with an attack on what had been proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and next endeavoured to make hon. Members parties to a general proposition in which he for one trusted they would never acquiesce. Commercial communities, like all other persons, always desired to promote their own interests. That, indeed, was the weakness of all of us. We lived in a world where every man wished to serve his individual, his trading, or his professional interests; and endeavoured, when they clashed with the interests of the Government, to make out what the lawyers called a "case." His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Wheelhouse) said—using an expression to which equity lawyers were much attached—he liked the corpus of the Motion, but that was merely a peg on which to hang a very strong Resolution. The first part of the Motion was "to call the attention of the House to the statement made by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to intended operations at the Mint." This, of course, was quite legitimate; but now he came to his hon.

  1877
  Friend's insidiousness. The Resolution was an attack upon a system which he (Mr. M. Chambers) hoped would last for many years, because Great Britain itself would not last unless that system were maintained. When he looked at the Resolution he found it one of the most serious ever presented to the House of Commons, and when he observed the small number of Members present at that moment he was struck with its occasional indifference, laziness, and negligence upon matters of the greatest interest and importance. The insidious-ness of the Resolution lay in the declarathat "Government manufactories are injurious to the commercial classes and a burden on the taxpayers." He asserted, on the contrary, that Government manufactories were not injurious to the commercial classes, but that they were exceedingly useful to the honest commercial classes, and a saving to the taxpayers. His hon. Friend (Mr. Muntz) told the House that honest firms would not contract with the Government on account of the stringent conditions put into their contracts. But what a fearful censure it was upon the whole commercial community to say that they had not attained the confidence of the Government. He (Mr. M. Chambers) went further, and said that commercial firms had not attained the confidence of the country, and that, whether they entered into private or public contracts, it was found necessary to insert the same rigorous conditions and exercise the same watchful supervision. He had always been a friend to the commercial community, and he wished to elevate them and give them self-respect—but commercial men were in error when they asked that Government manufactures might be abolished, under the idea that thereby their own interests would be promoted. The competition upon which the Government entered was not a competition for the manufacture of articles of general and domestic use, but of those necessary in a state of war; and where could his hon. Friend find any nation, ancient or modern, destitute of Government manufactories for equipping and setting forth an army or navy in time of war? The hon. Member for Birmingham said little about the Mint, but maintained that the House ought to abolish all Government manufactories. Now, he should like to take the House
  1878
  back to the last great war, when our military forces were armed with "Brown Bess" from Birmingham. If the hon. Member would consult with some yet living who were engaged in the Peninsular War and at Waterloo, he would find that the muskets sent from Birmingham under the pressure of war were most disreputable and destructive weapons—destructive, not to the enemy, but occasionally to those who had to fire them. It was upon record that the men's shoulders were so bruised by the recoil that they refused to fire these muskets. The consequence of their unfitness for use was much loss of life and very great suffering. When the Government were driven to the necessity of going to private manufacturers they raised their prices, and too often produced an inferior commodity. That was trade. When, also, the Government had relied upon private manufacturers it was found that they failed them. It was fortunate that before the Crimean War the Long Armoury in the Tower was burnt down with 20,000 stand of arms, for everyone said they were useless weapons, and that there was after the fire a probability that the Government would get good ones in their places. When the war broke out we could not get served with what we wanted in Birmingham, and we were obliged to go to Liége and endeavour to obtain a quantity of arms there. [Mr. MUNTZ: You never got any.] Well, we tried to get them; and it was, at all events, quite clear that Birmingham could not supply us at the time. Did his hon. Friend forget how the Enfield manufactory was established? It was established at the time of the Crimean War; and most admirable arms, he must say, had been manufactured there. Asimprovements were made from time to time the Government had shown itself ready to adopt them, although he could never entirely approve of the mode of management of our public establishments. But to destroy all those establishments, in the expectation that private manufacturers would give us all that we required, was a proposition which was not to be seriously entertained. Through the accidents of political life he had happened to be connected with various dockyard communities, and, confining his observations to those who really performed the duties in those dockyards, he must speak of them in the highest

  1879
  terms. He believed that the work which they produced was the best of its class that could be obtained. The outcry that had been raised against the dockyards had originated in their having been carelessly, negligently, and improperly managed, and not in there being anything inherently wrong in their organization. But he now came to something which he durst say would give a great deal of offence. It was necessary that he should speak plainly of private establishments, but he hoped he would not touch them to the quick. If so, let "the galled jade wince." His hon. Friend said that the services of respectable contractors could not be secured because of the stringency of the rules with regard to contracts. He (Mr. M. Chambers) had some experience, however, of the way in which contracts with respect to buildings were carried out, and much the same thing happened in the case of ships. In the case of the Crimean War, what occurred with reference to contracts was just as bad as that which happened with regard to American contracts in the war between the Northern and Southern States, and it was a matter of frequent occurrence that when private establishments professed to have executed a contract satisfactorily, the Government workmen were obliged to finish the articles supplied. There was no doubt that we had been exceedingly faulty in the manner in which the accounts of our public establishments had been kept, and thoughtless or interested persons had come to the conclusion that the whole thing ought to be destroyed, because extravagance had been manifested. But the commercial community ought, in his opinion, to look upon the public establishments as institutions upon the prosperity of which their own prosperity depended, and not to promote a destruction which would only tend to their own ultimate loss.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I would venture, Sir, to suggest to the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) that, before framing his next Motion, he should study the art of giving Notices; because, although a Notice should not contain a précis or an outline of the speech which is to be made, it is, nevertheless, of some advantage that it should convey a slight idea of the subject to which the speech will be directed. The hon. Member has
  1880
  dwelt at great length upon two subjects—neither of which are referred to in his Notice. There was nothing in his Motion which could give one the impression that he was going to deal with the subject of the Enfield manufactory or with the Report of two Gentlemen on the Mint which has been laid upon the Table; and the consequence is that those Gentlemen, who would have been here, and could have given him the information he seeks, are not present. But my part in the matter is a very small and humble one. I have only to answer what the hon. Gentleman says with regard to the management of the Mint. Now, I am so much at one with the hon. Member for Birmingham that when that distinguished man the late Master of the Mint died, I instituted a very strict investigation, with a view to seeing if it was possible to achieve what the hon. Gentleman desires—namely, to make the coinage of this country a matter of contract, and do away with the Government establishment altogether. And if I could have seen my way to doing this without injury to the public, I should have done what the hon. Gentleman so much desires. I took a great deal of trouble about the matter, and I found that it was impossible to do it without committing the public to a much greater expense than that which is incurred under the present system; for, although we might get the work executed by contract, we should be obliged to keep the dies in our own hands, to employ persons to test, to assay, and to superintend the work in all its stages; and when I estimated the expense which would be incurred by the employment of the persons necessary to check the process of coining by contract, I found that there was no margin left for profit to the contractor—in other words, that the process would be more expensive than it is at present. I was, therefore, compelled, though unwillingly, to give up the idea as impracticable. Then the next thing we had to consider was, what we could do towards amending the way of working the Mint. Upon that point the hon. Gentleman has indulged in some severe criticisms. We found a very defective system in existence. We found that the workmen were employed at high wages when there was any work to be done, and that at other times they received what was known as subsistence wages.

  1881
  Thus, they would at one time be in a state of utter poverty, at another in a state of comparative opulence, and, as the House is aware, nothing can be more demoralizing. We have now, however, altered this system, by giving uniform and fair payment to the workmen, whether they are employed or not. The duty of the Mint, as the hon. Gentleman and the House are aware, is to be ready at all times to execute coinage when called upon. It cannot, like private manufacturers, say when it will work and when it will not. The business of the Mint is to sell sovereigns for a certain quantity of fine gold, and whenever there is a serious demand it must be prepared to manufacture. The consequence is, that we are obliged to keep a considerable number of men always ready, because we never know when the demand upon us will come. That being the state of the case, the simple question remains whether it is right or not that the Mint under such circumstances should execute orders for other countries that have no Mints of their own? Now, is there anything contrary to sound principle, or unjust towards any trade in our earning, when we should otherwise be standing idle, some of the money required to defray the expenses of the Government establishment? Nothing appears to me to be clearer than that this course is a proper one to adopt. The hon. Gentleman says that we shall involve ourselves in great expense and difficulty, and he speaks of the heavy penalties we shall have to pay. That, however, is easily met by our refusing to enter into any contract to which a penalty is attached; and I am happy to say that the character of this country is such that we shall meet with no difficulty in making reasonable contracts unattended by a single shilling of penalty. Then the hon. Gentleman says that we shall incur great expense in the speculative nature of the raw material; but that is obviated by our requiring those who come to us to bring the metal they wish to have coined. We have no wish to force a trade or to enter into large transactions. All that we wish to do is to fill up some idle time, and to keep our men at work, and our machinery in gear, so that we may be able to lighten the burdens of the taxation which would otherwise be required to defray the expenses of the establish-
  1882
  ment. The hon. Gentleman speaks of our entering into competition with the trade of Birmingham, and refers to the superiority of resources possessed by the manufacturers of Birmingham over ourselves. But if the establishments to which the hon. Gentleman refers are so vast and our own so small, the mere fact that we earn a few thousand pounds towards making this establishment self-supporting, must be a matter of mere insignificance to the manufacturers he refers to; so that while he calls upon the House to despise us for our smallness and insignificance, he seeks to interfere with what we are doing on the ground of the injury which we are causing to private manufacturers. The whole question of the employment of the men is one of comparatively small importance; but it appears to me that it is manifestly for the interests of the country that tills establishment should be kept employed rather than that it should be allowed to remain idle. I do not pretend to vie with the hon. Member in the varied and interesting information he gave the House, which I heard with much pleasure, and should have heard with more pleasure if it had been more relevant to the main subject; but I am informed that it has not been the practice to manufacture gold and silver coin at Birmingham, and the main business of the Mint, if it were employed, would be to manufacture gold and silver coin. Therefore, what the hon. Member asks me to do is this—to increase the burdens of the taxpayers by some thousands a year, which might be saved, for the sake of Birmingham, to which, in all probability, this manufacture would not go. It is just probably a question whether the coin would be manufactured at one mint or another on the Continent, or whether it would be manufactured here; but even putting the matter as strongly as the hon. Member would wish to do, it is really better that some little employment should be withdrawn from the manufactories at Birmingham if by that means you can relieve the Exchequer of this country and make the Mint self-supporting. Under the circumstances I have described, and with the limitations I have mentioned, I do avow that it is right and proper, if we choose, to employ this machinery in making the establishment self-supporting rather than let it remain idle; and farther than that

  1883
  I do not wish to push, the matter. I am certainly prepared to stand by the proposition that as we must have a Government establishment, as we have no choice, as it is not possible to do without it, we had better make it as far as we can self-supporting, always guarding ourselves against such engagements as would form an impediment to the discharge of what is the principal duty of the Mint, the coining, whenever it is called upon, of the required quantity of gold. I hope this explanation will be considered satisfactory. This question of the Mint has nothing to do with the larger question of Government factories, because we must have a Mint under Government care and superintendence; and, that being so, the only question is whether we shall, as far possible, use it for the purpose of repaying the outlay of the Government; or whether we shall keep a large establishment of skilled men and machinery wilfully idle in order, possibly, to increase the profit of some manufacturer?
  MR. NEWDEGATEwas not surprised at the alarm occasioned by the principle involved in the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the trade at Birmingham had suffered severely by the extension of the Government factory at Enfield. No doubt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer deserved credit for any small saving he could effect; but he did not believe that the saving was worth the change in the administration of the Mint, and the few thousands a year saved by avoiding idleness might be more than balanced by the inconvenience that would follow from the further adoption of the principle of the Government becoming a manufacturer. He was a member of the Committee which recommended that £20,000 should be spent in enlarging the manufactory at Enfield; but the Government spent £450,000, and so little with the consent of the House that money voted for commissariat purposes was applied to the Enfield extension. Up to 1815 the Government had no manufactory, and the Duke of Wellington said we derived superiority from the weight of our fire, obtained from arms manufactured chiefly in Birmingham and London. The evidence given before the Committee of 1854 was that the trade of the country could not be relied upon for 40,000 stand of small arms in a year.
  1884
  The House literally compelled the Government to give orders to Birmingham and London, and in two years and three months the private manufacturers turned out 272,000 stand of arms. Warned by what had occurred at Enfield, and also at Weedon, where an establishment was broken up on the Report of the Contracts Committee, and doubtful of the propriety of allowing the Government to compete with manufacturers, not for the supply of the Government, but, in this instance, for the supply of foreign countries, he trusted the House would not consider that the hon. Member had wasted time in drawing attention to a proposal which, although now of a limited character, might in future assume much larger proportions. He hoped that the House would not, in order to effect a saving of a few thousands a year, violate the principle that the Government should not become manufacturers and ought not to employ public funds in any commercial transaction or speculation. If the House once allowed that rule to be set aside all control would be lost, and there might, in the end, be a most extravagant expenditure.

NAVY—CASE OF REAR-ADMIRAL COOPER KEY.—OBSERVATIONS.
SIR JOHN HAY: I rise, Sir, in accordance with the Notice I have given, to call attention to the removal of Admiral Cooper Key from the office of Superintendent of Portsmouth Dockyard. I had hoped, before bringing on the subject, to have seen some Papers to explain it placed in the hands of hon. Members: I moved for them before the Whitsuntide Recess; but the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty was unable to produce them. I shall, therefore, with the kind indulgence of the House, state the case as I have been able to obtain it from information I believe to be accurate, leaving to the First Lord of the Admiralty the opportunity of denying my statement or of admitting it, if he thinks he can show to the House that Admiral Key's removal is a just and proper act. At any rate, I feel sure that the case of Admiral Key deserves the consideration of the House. I think it will be right, before alluding to the treatment of Admiral Key, that I should remind the House what manner of man Admiral Cooper Key is. For though

1885
Admiral Key is probably known by name and reputation to most hon. Members, he may not be personally known to many, as he has never taken any active part in political affairs. He is not what is called an officer of great political interest; but by dint of hard work, great scientific acquirements, and considerable professional knowledge, Admiral Key attained, at a very early age, to a high position in the Royal Navy. I wish, before stating the hardships and unmerited treatment which Admiral Key has received at the hands of the present Government, to allude very briefly to some of his distinguished services. Having served very creditably in the junior ranks of his profession, he went to the Royal Naval College, and obtained his commission as a lieutenant, when a lieutenant's commission was to be obtained by hard study, combined with great mathematical acquirements. Admiral Key was one of the first officers to obtain a commission by that honourable method; and I have been assured, by those competent to form an opinion, that Admiral Key's mathematical proficiency was so considerable that he might easily have obtained the position of a Wrangler at Cambridge. As a lieutenant he served with credit, and as a commander, when in command of the Bulldog during the Revolution in 1848, he was employed on the Coast of Italy, and received the thanks of Her Majesty's Government for his prudent conduct, as well as those of the Ambassador Extraordinary—Lord Minto—who was for a time embarked in his ship. Again, as a captain, he has always obtained great credit from his superior officers; and in the Baltic, during the Russian War, he performed distinguished service, especially in the Roads of Revel, for which he obtained the decoration of the Bath. He was afterwards employed in China, under Sir Michael Seymour and Lord Elgin, and at the capture of Canton, after displaying great gallantry in the storming of the town, he, by his adroitness, personally succeeded in seizing Commissioner Yeh, which greatly assisted our diplomatic arrangements in China. At the conclusion of these services he had not only obtained honours from the Crown, but had received many recognitions and marks of distinction from the learned Societies on account of his great scientific reputation. Soon after this Admiral Key was selected by
1886
the Duke of Somerset to fill the onerous post of captain of the Excellent, and head of the Royal Naval College, and was thus placed at the head of the scientific gunnery of the Navy, a post which he held for five years, with great credit to himself and great advantage to the country. Soon after Lord Derby took Office in 1866 my right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) found it necessary to create the office of Director General of Naval Ordnance during a time of great transition in the armament of the Navy. He selected Admiral Key for that post, and the appointment was received with acclamation by the whole profession; for at a time of great change in the art of naval gunnery no man was more capable of giving good advice. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) continued Admiral Key in the office of Director General of Naval Ordnance, and on quitting Office he left him in that post, and no doubt supposed that Admiral Key's services would have been of great advantage to the present Board, for he is not only a man of great ability, but a gentleman of admirable temper and engaging disposition. He was shortly after, however, dismissed from the post of Director General of Naval Ordnance, and it is very difficult to fathom the reasons which may have led to that dismissal. For want of any better, reason, perhaps it may be found in the unintelligible desire of the present Board of Admiralty to put the country to the cost of a new trial of the Whit-worth ordnance. As the House knows, and the Estimates show, the First Lord of the Admiralty is anxious, for reasons best known to himself, to re-open the Whitworth controversy, and I find, in a Paper in the hands of hon. Members, that Admiral Key's opinions on that subject were well known to the Board. Admiral Key was their responsible adviser on gunnery matters, and he thought this fresh trial unnecessary. He had reported that—
"The service system satisfies every requirement of the service; and it would therefore be most impolitic to incur the enormous expense of introducing any other, until some defect is discovered in that now adopted, for which a permanent remedy cannot be found."
Admiral Key's opinion was opposed to that of others at the Board, who desired, for reasons best known to themselves, to re-open again this extravagant expendi-

1887
ture, and he was removed to Portsmouth to be Admiral Superintendent of the dockyard there. He had been barely a year and a few months there when he was again removed. I use the word removed and not dismissed, as the First Lord seems to object to it, and I am again anxious to ascertain from the First Lord what is the cause of that second removal. For want of any better reason, I must attribute it to the fact that Admiral Key objected to the new system of purchase adopted by the Admiralty, and because he called attention to the indifferent quality of certain articles, perhaps insignificant in amount, which had been obtained either by contract or by the new purchase system. I believe I am correct in stating that Admiral Key was the first person to call attention to the grievous blunder by which all the good anchors were sold at the price of old iron; and Admiral Key prevented the Portsmouth anchors being sent away from that dockyard to West Bromwich—where I understand anchors from other dockyards still are remaining, waiting to come back by railway during the Recess, when hon. Members may be less attentive to such wasteful expenditure. I understand that Admiral Key has also, on various occasions, called attention to the inferior quality of the coals bought by the Admiralty buyer, and has, as in duty bound, forwarded the reports of the proper inspecting officers as to the inferiority of stores received. But by his office he was bound to do this, for he was placed in the dockyard to look after the interests of the nation, and it must be to the advantage of the country that there should be in that position a man who is not only competent to give an honest opinion, but bold enough to express it, however distasteful it might be to the authorities at the Admiralty. His zeal, however, gave offence at the Admiralty, and they determined to remove him from Portsmouth Dockyard and to send him to Malta. Now, Admiral Key is not a rich man. He had expected the office of Director General of Naval Ordnance to be one in which his services would be continued at least for five years. He had come to London and had purchased a house. Well, when he was packed off to Portsmouth, the house was thrown on his hands. He had again made preparations, as in duty bound, for a residence at Portsmouth for five years.
1888
Again his expectations are disappointed, and, for no fault of his, he is again despatched to an inferior post at Malta. I understand that Admiral Key was, without any warning, summoned to the Admiralty, and, very much to his surprise, was told by the First Lord that he must be uncomfortable at Portsmouth, and that it would be better for him to go to Malta. Admiral Key said he was not dissatisfied with Portsmouth, and had no wish to leave it. Admiral Key was then told that it was for the benefit of the public service that he should resign Portsmouth Dockyard and serve somewhere else. The consequence was that he was obliged to accept Malta Dockyard or nothing, and a great point had been made of his being also second in command of the Mediterranean Fleet. But the Dockyard Admiral at Malta is, when next in rank to the Commander-in-Chief, always second in command of the Mediterranean Fleet. Admiral Fan-shawe is so at this moment, and in all my experience it has always been so. During the critical condition of affairs with France before the Syrian War, Sir John Louis, the Dockyard Admiral at Malta, came to Vourla and took command of the Fleet during the indisposition of the Admiral—Sir Robert Stop-ford. During the Russian War my old and distinguished friend the Governor of Greenwich Hospital, Sir Houston Stewart, was Dockyard. Admiral at Malta, and pushing forward the duties there with great zeal and success. But on the retirement of Admiral Dundas from the chief command, Sir Houston Stewart proceeded from Malta to the Black Sea as second in command. There is nothing new in this, and Admiral Cooper Key will be second in command of the Mediterranean Fleet in virtue of his commission as Rear Admiral Superintendent of Malta Dockyard. Well, Sir, the result of my inquiry has been to show that Admiral Key was removed from one office—that of Director General of Naval Ordnance—and sent to Portsmouth because he gave disagreeable advice to the Admiralty as to the Whit-worth guns, and he is again sent away from Portsmouth to an inferior post because he objected to the quality of certain stores. It may be said by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty that these repeated, changes have been made for the benefit

1889
of the service; but I, for one, cannot deem it advantageous to the country to take a most distinguished officer like Admiral Key and treat him in a manner be undeserved and so likely to humiliate him in the eyes of his brother officers. I have therefore thought it right to bring the matter before the House, and I now leave it in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to make whatever explanation he thinks right on the subject.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would reply, as clearly as he could, to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay); and the state of the case as to this question was simple. Somewhere about a fortnight ago the hon and gallant Baronet put a Notice on the Paper, of his intention to call attention to the removal of Admiral Key from Portsmouth Dockyard, and to move for Papers, and on the last day before the Recess he did, at a few hours' Notice, ask for Papers and coupled with the request a Motion for information as to any goods delivered under contract at Portsmouth Dockyard which had been objected to by the officer superintending there, clearly intending, as his speech that evening showed, to connect in some way the rejection of certain goods at Portsmouth Dockyard with the change made in the appointment of Admiral Key. There was no objection to the production of the Papers relating to Admiral Key, and as there had been no correspondence with the Admiralty on the subject, the Paper now placed on the Table was simply the ordinary service appointment of Admiral Key to be second in command of the Mediterranean Fleet. With regard to the second part of the Motion, in reference to goods objected to, he was anxious not to set a precedent of giving information of that kind relating to a large number of contractors in a Parliamentary Paper; but, at the same time, he was desirous that the hon. and gallant Baronet should have the fullest information on the subject, and he authorized the officer in the Contract department to show the hon. Baronet in detail information of any article he might inquire about, and which had been delivered since the beginning of last year. The statement of all the articles objected to on any grounds during the last 15 months covered many pages, and out of many hundreds of articles only five or
1890
six of the objections had been maintained. He found that altogether 46 different contractors had, since the beginning of last year, or since the present system of purchase and contract had come into operation, had their goods objected to. Of these 46 only six were firms supplying the Admiralty within the time of the present system of contract and purchase. All the rest were firms who supplied goods under the former system, and the only new firms were two or three in Birmingham and the centre of England. He would state in general terms what were the cases of objection which the hon. and gallant Officer had connected with this matter. One referred to some paper, and that was explained the other day by the Secretary to the Admiralty. A certain quantity of brown paper, delivered under contract according to the former state of things, was objected to as not being according to pattern. The manufacturer thereupon applied to the Admiralty for a revision of the objection, and the article was found according to pattern in four particulars; but it was objected to on one account—namely, on the ground that it was not of proper weight. Inquiry was then made as to the way in which the weight was ascertained, and it was explained that a single sheet was weighed, and its weight multiplied by the whole number of sheets in the ream. That, on consideration, was not thought the proper mode of proceeding, and on a ream of paper being sent for and weighed, it was found to be up to the proper weight according to the contract, and it was therefore ordered to be received. The next case referred to certain wash-stand tops, of which 26 were objected to. It was stated that they were a little warped; but they were quite available for service, and up to pattern, and they were consequently ordered to be accepted, and no complaint had been made about them at Portsmouth. Then there was a case relating to some china articles, which were, on inquiry, found good for service; but some bowls and common jugs were under weight. This china was sent to Devonport, and a new set was sent to Portsmouth and accepted. Then came the case of a certain leather contract, which had, on a former occasion, been fully explained by the Secretary to the Admiralty. It was found necessary to put an end to a leather con-

1891
tract in existence before a new contract was made, it being thought advisable to revise the contracts, because at different dockyards the same pattern was not maintained. While this was occurring there was a sudden requisition at Portsmouth for some leather. Accordingly, a quantity of leather was purchased from a firm of the highest position, he believed, in the leather trade; but when it went down to Portsmouth it was not used, and several weeks afterwards complaints were made that the leather was of inferior character. The leather was then sent to town and examined most carefully by an officer of the highest standing. It was subjected to test, and stood the test three times, and the result was that the Government, having purchased it on a great emergency, saw no reason to reject it. The fifth case was that in which certain contractors, who had supplied the Admiralty for three generations, had certain bunting rejected at Portsmouth. That was also a contract under the former arrangement. The contractors applied to the Admiralty for a revision of the decision, and a very careful inquiry was made. The result was, that after not only the officers of the dockyard, boat also of different ships, had reported independently, the white bunting was declared perfectly good, and with respect to the blue and red, which to a certain extent was inferior, a reduction of 15 per cent was made, which the contractors acceded to, and which was perfectly satisfactory to the officers at Portsmouth. There was no difference of opinion whatever between the Admiralty and the local officers on the subject. It was, in his opinion, essentially for the protection of traders that the appeal should exist, and that the manufacturers should not be left entirely at the mercy of the local officers. These were all the eases, which he had explained fully to the House, and on which the gallant Officer had founded the presumption that it had been found necessary to take steps by which Admiral Cooper Key might be placed in what was called a humiliating position. He hoped that on the subject of these contracts he had been very plain with the House. But the hon. and gallant Member had alluded to another article, as to which he was entirely under a misapprehension. He stated that a local officer at Portsmouth had rejected some coal. Now, the hon.
1892
and gallant Member had been to the Admiralty, and he was shown that there had been no case of rejection of coal at Portsmouth. He (Mr. Childers) had also made inquiry himself, and he found the fact was so. Having now gone through one by one the cases of rejection at Portsmouth which were supposed to have some connection with the arrangement, he would now explain why Admiral Cooper Key was no longer Admiral Superintendent at Portsmouth. So far as regarded the character, abilities, and position of that naval officer, he endorsed very freely and heartily all that had been said by the hon. and gallant Baronet. Admiral Cooper Key had from the first distinguished himself in his profession as lieutenant, commander, and in the higher positions he had since filled. He believed Admiral Cooper Key to be one of the ablest and most distinguished officers in Her Majesty's Navy, and he would repeat the language he had used a fortnight ago in the course of a casual debate upon the Navy Estimates—namely, that he knew no officer whose future career might be looked forward to with more confidence. But the hon. and gallant Officer had entirely misread or misunderstood—he did not impute to him that he had wilfully mis-described—what had occurred with respect to the transfer of the services of Admiral Cooper Key from the offices which he had held during the last two years; he stated that he was obliged to rely, to a certain extent, upon rumours, and in depending on rumours he might be mistaken. It was perfectly true that Admiral Cooper Key, when captain, was selected by the Duke of Somerset for the command of the Excellent; it was true that he had been selected by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington) to be Director 'General of Naval Ordnance; but it was also true that he had not been confirmed in that office till the present Board of Admiralty came in, and he himself (Mr. Childers) had moved the Treasury to make the office a permanent one. Till then, the office was a mere temporary acting appointment, and he had placed it on the Estimates at a salary of £1,000 a year. The hon. and gallant Officer had given a very mistaken apocryphal account of what he called Admiral Key's dismissal or discharge from Portsmouth, and his appointment to an inferior office, because

1893
he had run counter to the views of the Admiralty in regard to the Whitworth guns, there being, in fact, no correspondence then on the subject. There was not a word of truth in that. He was simply selected after his cruise in command of the Coastguard Fleet at last Whitsuntide, under the eye of several members of the Admiralty, for the superior office of Superintendent of Portsmouth Dockyard, which had then become vacant by the appointment of Vice Admiral Wellesley as Commander-in-Chief to the North American Station. Instead of being a discharge, or dismissal, it was exactly the reverse; the appointment was given him—as it was believed he would be anxious for it—as one of great honour and advantage to him. At the time that appointment was made, there was some difference of opinion among his advisers as to whether it would be wiser to send Admiral Key to sea in command of the fleet, or to Portsmouth Dockyard; and he must take on himself the responsibility or blame, if it should be so considered, of not giving him a foreign command. He now came to the second change of his appointment. The other day the office of Superintendent of Malta Dockyard became vacant. The hon. and gallant Officer said that office was connected with the second in command of the Mediterranean Fleet. That was the case, no doubt, some years ago; but, as the hon. and gallant Baronet knew, for some years past it had not been so.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, it was no mistake on his part. He entirely differed from the right hon. Gentleman as to the duty of the dockyard admiral at Malta.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished the hon. and gallant Baronet to understand that he did not impute any wilful misstatement to him, but only that his memory was at fault. The practice used to be for the two to go together; but for some years past there had been no second in command of the Mediterranean Fleet, and the officer who held the appointment of Superintendent of Malta Dockyard, instead of hoisting his flag in the Mediterranean, had hoisted it in a nominal ship in the harbour, and did not go outside. Admiral Fanshawe never went with the Malta Fleet during the time of his appointment. The present Board of Admiralty determined a short time since, that when the first
1894
vacancy occurred it would be desirable to revive the appointment of second in command of the Mediterranean Fleet. He would not go into the reason for that change; but they were connected with the policy of keeping our fleets at sea as much as possible, and therefore it was thought, on public grounds, that the office should be revived, and that the second in command of the fleet should be connected with Malta Dockyard. That being decided, when Admiral Fanshawe was promoted they came to the conclusion, having regard to the public advantage, that the office should be conferred on Admiral Key. He accordingly saw him, and stated to him that his appointment was made by the unanimous advice of the Board. He hoisted his flag a day or two ago, and would proceed to the Mediterranean in a few days. He (Mr. Childers) had stated that the Board of Admiralty considered it for the public advantage that this officer, of whom he had spoken in fitting terms, should be appointed to that office; and he hoped the House would not take on itself the responsibility of revising the acts of the Executive Government in respect to the appointment of individual officers, when those who were responsible said they considered their appointment for the public advantage. On that ground he hoped that on this, as on other matters, the House would continue to place confidence in Her Majesty's Government.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite had stated that Admiral Cooper Key was removed from the office of Dockyard Superintendent because he quarrelled with peculation. That was a statement of a very serious nature, involving, as it seemed to him, the character of the First Lord of the Admiralty; who must, if this accusation were true, be an aider and abetter of peculation. It devolved, therefore, upon the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite to bring the charge in some definite and responsible shape before the House.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he, no doubt, had intended to imply that it was the duty of the dockyard admiral to prevent peculation; but that the discouragement he received for endeavouring to prevent it was calculated to encourage rather than prevent peculation.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, the identical words the hon. and gallant Baronet had

1895
used, were that Admiral Key was "removed because he had quarrelled with peculation." That was a statement of so grave a character that the hon. and gallant Baronet owed it to himself to substantiate it.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he never used the words "quarrelled with peculation."
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he had taken down the words at the time. But of course, if the hon. and gallant Baronet now declared that he did not attach to those words the meaning which they would ordinarily bear, or that they did not express his actual meaning; or wished now to withdraw the words themselves, then, of course, all his charges against the Admiralty fell to the ground, and the purpose for which he (Mr. Candlish) had risen would be accomplished.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the hon. Gentleman had persisted in stating that he intended to say what he did not mean to say. He did not say what the hon. Gentleman had attributed to him; but he had no objection to the interpretation of the hon. Member—namely, that the Admiralty had removed a most efficient officer, because he challenged the stores sent in for the public service, and that by removing him for so doing they had encouraged peculation.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had described exactly the nature of the objections made.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he did not think the statement of the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite had materially altered the facts as he (Mr. Candlish) put them before the House. The hon. Baronet's statement now was, that the Admiralty, by the course which they had taken, had encouraged, or in some way had connived at, peculation, [Sir JOHN HAY: Hear, hear!] Well, if that were so, the imputation was a very grave one, and ought to rest upon unquestionable facts. But no facts whatever had heen adduced by the hon. and gallant Baronet, who was now plainly called upon to bring the matter forward in some distinct and specific shape in which the House could deal with it.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman would move for a Committee he would second it. He was sorry the Government, for its own credit, did not do it.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, the responsi-
1896
bility did not rest with him, but with the hon. and gallant Baronet himself.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought the question which had been raised by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) was sufficiently grave in itself, without having new and foreign matter imported into it by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Candlish). The hon. Gentleman opposite might wish to give to the Motion a party character, and to stop discussion, but they would not stop him from saying what truth required. The character of Admiral Cooper Key was the property of the country, and if he had not received proper and worthy treatment at the hands of Her Majesty's Government there could be no more fitting subject of Parliamentary inquiry and discussion. Admiral Key was known to the whole country; at the present day there was no man who was a greater honour to the profession which he belonged to; and the issue raised by his hon. and gallant Friend was simply this—whether Admiral Key had received at the hands of the Admiralty treatment such as he was entitled to by his high character and deserts. Two questions plainly grew out of the Motion, and, after listening attentively to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he must say that neither of those questions had been answered satisfactorily. His hon. and gallant Friend had used plain words. He stated that Admiral Cooper Key was dismissed, or sent away from the office of Naval Director of Ordnance—to which he himself (Sir John Pakington) had the honour of appointing him—because he considered there would be a waste of public funds and extravagance on the part of the Government in undertaking fresh experiments with what was called the Whitworth ordnance, when we were already in possession of guns performing the duty satisfactorily and approved both by the profession and the public. Such a statement as this at once raised the question, why was Admiral Cooper Key deprived of the post of Naval Director of Ordnance, which he held very greatly to the advantage of the country? The right hon. Gentleman opposite gave no satisfactory answer to that question. Then came the second question. Admiral Key was made Naval Superintendent of Portsmouth Dockyard, and there had to fulfil functions of great importance

1897
to the public service in judging as to the stores supplied. If he discharged his duty ably and honestly, he was bound to report to the Board of Admiralty any objections which he might discover as to the character and quality of the stores sent in. He understood that this duty was performed by Admiral Key. Why, then, was he sent away from Portsmouth? Speaking with perfect candour, he was bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman opposite gave no answer whatever to this question. According to the usual practice of the profession, an officer appointed to be naval superintendent of a dockyard retained that appointment for five years. Admiral Key had not been there more than one year when he was sent away. Now Admiral Key was known to be not only one of the most distinguished men in the service, but, it was no disparagement to say, also a very poor man; and such a removal from such an appointment was accordingly a cruel hardship upon him, unless the Government were in a position to show that good and valid reasons existed for the removal. He submitted that the fact of his rejecting stores afforded no ground whatever for his removal. The gallant admiral might have been mistaken as to the quality of particular stores; but, in objecting to those which he considered faulty or unsuitable, he was only honestly discharging his duty, and should have been thanked and encouraged, not dismissed by the Government. If Admiral Key was not at liberty to reject stores, why was he sent to the Dockyard at all? He wanted answers from the Government to these difficult questions, for as yet no answer whatever had been given. The case stood thus—a personal hardship, professional discredit, and pecuniary loss had been inflicted on one of the most distinguished men in this country, and down to that moment no explanation whatever had been given by the Government of the motives which influenced them in taking this extraordinary course.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the House would perhaps permit him to say a word in explanation. Admiral Cooper Key had been removed to an office the salary of which, he believed, was not only not smaller, but was absolutely larger than that which he had formerly received. If Admiral Cooper Key could show that by the removal he had suffered any pe-
1898
cuniary loss the Admiralty would be willing to reimburse him.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that Admiral Cooper Key had, in common with the best officers of the British Navy, expressed his opinion with respect to the policy of the change made in the purchase system. The Paper containing these opinions was not on the Table, and as Admiral Cooper Key from the time that he joined in this controversy was doomed, the House could not properly discuss this question until that document was produced. The real offence of this distinguished officer was, that he had dissented from the course the Admiralty had taken in altering the practice of buying stores through open tender to what was called the purchase system. It was not now the time to go into the question of the purchase system, though, when the time for the discussion of that question arrived, he should be perfectly prepared to grapple with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers), to show that the words which he (Sir James Elphinstone) had used on a previous occasion were fully warranted by the facts, and to prove that the system was a vicious one leading to all kinds of peculation and jobbery. What they wanted to know was this—why was Admiral Cooper Key dismissed?—for his retirement was certainly not voluntary; and the post which he now occupied was inferior to the one from which he was dismissed. For his part he believed that Admiral Cooper Key had been twice removed because he was too honest for the present Administration.

GAME LAWS.—RESOLUTION.
MR. LOCH, in rising to move—
"That, in the opinion of this House it is expedient that an inquiry into the operation and effect of the Laws relating to Game, especially as regards Scotland, be undertaken by a Committee of this House,"
said, that he desired to draw attention, in the first place, to the attempts that had been made in the last and the present Parliament, by private Members and the Government, to deal with the Game Laws, and to show that, without further and more accurate information, it was not likely, or even possible, that Parliament could advance to any practical or satisfactory solution of the question. He believed, in common with many others,

1899
that of all practical questions requiring settlement at the present moment, none was of greater moment than this of the Game Laws, and that there was great social peril in the continuance of the present system. That Parliament had made no progress towards a satisfactory solution of the question was evident by the fact that no less than five Game Law Bills had been introduced in the present Session. That indicated the strong feeling that existed as to the necessity of some legislation on the subject; but it proved, at the same time how opinions differed as to the best and most proper manner of dealing with it. A few days since there was a discussion on the Bill of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Taylor), which proposed the total abolition of the Game Laws; and, no doubt, it was the opinion of many persons, especially in the boroughs, that that was the only possible solution of the question. On the other hand, many doubted whether total abolition was the best manner of dealing with the question, and whether it would not create evils that did not exist under the present system, and whether it would not be better to modify those laws rather than abolish them altogether. In what he now said, he desired to be understood as expressing more particularly the opinions that prevailed in Scotland in regard to the Game Laws. In that country, then, there was almost perfect unanimity as to the injurious operation and effect of the Game Laws in their present shape. No question was more pressed upon Scotland during the last General Election than this question of the Game Laws. He believed that no single question, not even excepting that of the Irish Church, more largely influenced the public mind in the course of that election, or influenced more considerably its general results. In many counties it entirely revolutionized the representation; and, that being so, the Scotch naturally entertained great confidence that their views would receive respectful attention at the hands of the Liberal Government, to which they were tendering, and in so unreserved, and generous a manner, so large an amount of support. It was apparently in recognition of these services that, soon after the commencement of last Session, the Lord Advocate summoned a meeting of Scotch Members to consider whether he should or should not attempt to deal
1900
with the Game Laws in Scotland. No doubt, with the statesmanlike views of his learned Friend, he would have introduced a measure which would have dealt with the question satisfactorily; but, unfortunately, he had determined not to take that course. About the same time two measures on the subject were submitted to the House, one by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), and the other by the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. M'Lagan). Those were Bills either in all or in many respects similar to other measures that had been in previous years introduced to the consideration of Parliament by the same hon. Members. These measures generally came in in pairs, and the former seemed to have for its special purpose the hampering the latter more simple measure. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Loch), though with much hesitation, applied himself to framing a measure—a task for which he considered himself well qualified, for it had been the business of many years of his life at the same time to secure the just rights of property and to enforce the just claims of the occupying tenants. But it soon became evident that Bills of that nature, promoted by private Members of that House, had little chance of success unless supported by the Government; and that being so, it had occurred to him, seeing how little real knowledge there was on the subject on the part of a great many Members of that House, that the best course to be pursued would be to propose a Committee to examine into the whole question. He accordingly submitted his views on the subject to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the then Lord Advocate, and with their entire concurrence and support he successfully submitted to the House a proposition that a Committee of Inquiry be appointed. That step, however, had been no sooner gained than it was met by the most strenuous opposition by several Gentlemen, and amongst others by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ports-mouth(Sir James Elphinstone),who made it a point to prevent the Inquiry taking place; and his efforts were so effectual that, when it came to the nomination of the Committee, he produced by his efforts an amount of disunion amongst those from whom he had hoped to obtain support; the right hon. Gentleman at the

1901
head of the Home Office and the Lord Advocate of the day deserted; and he was, in short, deprived of the Inquiry on which he had so much counted. At the same time, the Lord Advocate promised he would introduce a Bill in the following Session. Not being quite confident that this would be such a Bill as would meet with general approbation in Scotland, when the present Session began he (Mr. Loch) re-introduced his own Bill; after some delay the measure of the Lord Advocate was brought in; and the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. P. Wykeham-Martin) also introduced a Bill—not, however, with much earnestness, for he abandoned it at the first objection. Moreover, further to complicate affairs, the Home Secretary volunteered that the Lord Advocate's Bill should be made to extend to England as well as Scotland—a matter plainly impracticable, for the law in the two countries were based originally on different principles of common law, had been further varied by different codes of statutory legislation, and the agricultural economy of the two countries were in marked contrast in every respect. It was, therefore, plainly impossible to make a Bill, which had been evidently prepared with reference to Scotland alone, applicable to England merely by inserting the word "England" in the clauses. But, in addition to that, two other Bills were introduced, one by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Greene), and the other by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Taylor) for the total abolition of the Game Laws; and thus they had before the House five measures all bearing upon the question of Game Law reform. All this made it quite impossible to look forward to any practical or useful solution of this question by means of the measures now before Parliament, and therefore it was that he ventured to propose the appointment of a Committee upon this question. It was 25 or 26 years since there had been any inquiry into the operation of the Game Laws in England, and there never had been any inquiry into their operation in Scotland. There was no adequate knowledge possessed by the generality of Members of the feeling of the people of Scotland on this question. He did not think he could urge anything more to show the necessity for inquiry, and he would only say that he feared the
1902
question was so misunderstood that there was little hope at present for the passage of the measure he had introduced, and which was now on the Table of the House. At the same time, he ventured to think that the Bill was one which, if passed into law, would put an end to all the discomforts and all the agitation now existing, and without the violation of any principle hold by landlords as regarded contracts, or putting the landowning class in any worse position than that which they now occupied. He would only, in conclusion, allude to what passed at a debate introduced by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Taylor). He was charged with having made misstatements. ["Order!"]
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member could not refer to a previous debate.
MR. LOCHsaid, any information that might lead to misapprehensions or exaggerations would be supplied by such an inquiry as he now suggested. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
MR. MACFIE: Sir, at this late hour of the night I think I shall best consult the convenience of the House if I make my remarks very few indeed. I have a strong conviction, founded upon observation of the general feeling that appears to exist on this subject throughout the kingdom, that it is most desirable that there should be an investigation not only with regard to the Game Laws and their operation, but also into the effects of game preserving generally. I trust that what has been laid before you on a subject which so gravely interests the northern part of the kingdom in particular, will not be without effect. We have so many Game Law Bills before the House that it would be quite impossible for them to be taken up in this Session of Parliament, therefore no time would probably be lost in at once referring the subject to a Select Committee, or, if Her Majesty's Government prefer it, to a Royal Commission. It seems to me that there are various aspects to this question. There is one with reference to the rights of tenants in connection with, and in reference to, those of their landlords; there is another with regard to the effect which game preserving and the Game Laws have upon the morals of the people; there is another connected with the legitimate enjoyment of field sports: but beyond

1903
all these there is another aspect of the question of much greater importance—that is, the consideration how far the present system of legislation and the present practice in reference to the preservation of game affect the main purpose for which land is, by Providence, and according to the laws of the country, entrusted to the management and charge of individuals. The object with which land has been allowed in this and other countries to be held by private individuals is for the public good, and not the good of the landlords themselves. A landlord is not permitted to hold land that he may receive large rents, but in order that there may be raised up on his estate a virtuous and healthy population, which in times of war or danger to the State will come with sinewy arms to its protection; and who, in time of peace, shall employ themselves in the pursuit of those industrial occupations which are so beneficial to the country, and in rearing up families characterized by moral, religious, and industrial habits. Well-founded fear is growing up among us that the actual system of game preserving on agricultural land is most unprofitably consumptive and destructive of human food, and tends, also, in many instances, to prevent its production on land which is quite capable of producing it. I wish particularly to direct the attention of the House to the vast amount of land which has been devoted to deer forests. On this point I may be permitted to refer to the most recently published book upon sheep farming—published, indeed, during the present year. It tells us that the land which has been appropriated in Scotland to so large an extent to deer forests is quite of the same quality as that which is devoted to the rearing of sheep. It is difficult to ascertain the exact extent to which afforesting for deer has gone. But here is an estimate of nine counties in Scotland, which shows that in them not less than 1,320,000 acres of land have been so appropriated—I should rather say misappropriated. No doubt, it must be admitted that, owing to the high prices that gentlemen are now disposed to give for permission to sport over these lands, a higher rent is obtained by the proprietors than can be obtained for it for grazing purposes. An estimate contained in this book shows that, while the profits to the landlords
1904
by the exclusion of sheep from this extent of acreage is £16,500, the loss to the nation is no less than £343,380 a year—because there is such a small quantity of food produced on the land compared with what would be produced on it if it were devoted to the breeding and rearing of sheep. I have a communication from a gentleman well acquainted with this subject. I will read an extract—
"In four counties flocks, to the extent of 400,000 sheep, have been displaced for deer, and there is in consequence a diminution to the value of £250,000 a year in food and wool. The population of the four counties in which this system of afforesting so extensively prevails has, since 1851, been reduced by 41,000. The sheep farmers on these forest lands suffer great loss in their stock."
My correspondent goes on to say—
"How are we to replace this £250,000 worth of food and clothing, and what will be the population of the Highlands in a few years? They will, in fact, be reduced to a desolate waste."
Now, whatever may be the amount of deduction which hon. Gentlemen may be disposed to make from these statements, they have been given on high authority, and I think it is high time that an inquiry should be made into the subject. This Parliament is especially expected and entitled to make such an inquiry. It is to the present Government, beyond many preceding ones, that the people look for inquiry on the subject. I must make one remark; we hear much less now than we did last Session of this being a people's Parliament which ought to look to the general good of the nation, and to the interests of the many as well as to those of the few. A word in regard to those who are chiefly connected with, and interested in, this afforesting of the land: I believe it is owing in a great measure to the fact of the superabundance of wealth among the middle classes. If this afforesting had been conducted and brought about by the nobles of the land there would have been a great outcry raised; but because those who have risen from the ranks have in so large a measure done it the wrong has passed comparatively unnoticed. But the circumstance is truly an innovation. Now, we of Scotland delight to have our English neighbours visiting our noble scenery, and rejoice at their becoming proprietors of a portion of our lands, but not in order that they should turn it into a waste for the preservation of deer or other game to the detriment

1905
of the native population, who, as I have shown, are fast disappearing from certain portions of the Highlands, and who are the real possessors of the soil, for in ancient times the chieftains and heads of families held the land in trust for the clans and people. If our English neighbours come to reside among us, it should be for the benefit of the whole body of the population. I have shown that the food of the people has greatly diminished, that the numbers of the population have also diminished. I fear that this system of afforesting land, and retention of moorland fit for the plough in the state of nature, for the benefit of a few, is one of the first symptoms of national decadence—
"Woe to that land, of gathering ills the prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay."
A use of wealth for mere gratification at such a cost as this is to be deplored. I hope, therefore, the House will agree to, and Her Majesty's Government will support, the proposition now made, and thus admit that there is just ground for an inquiry into this most important subject.
MR. PARKERsaid, he rose not so much to support the Motion as to enforce on the attention of the Government and the House the present state of the game question in Scotland. To use an old joke, it seemed to require something like a surgical operation to introduce into the minds of that House and the nation that the people of Scotland were in earnest about the Game Laws. At present the demands of the Scotch tenant-farmers were moderate; but he could not undertake that they would long remain so, if they continued to be treated Session after Session on this question as they had been. Proposals were made to that House, somewhat crude in their nature, but, no doubt, well meant, for the total abolition of the Game Laws. Now, that was not the view taken amongst his constituents. They did not desire total abolition at present. They had nothing whatever to say against the winged game; all they desired was not to sweep away, but to limit the number of ground game, and any measure which would practically effect that object would meet their views. Whether that was done by leaving them out of the game list, or whether by limiting the power of contract between landlord and tenant, or by any other means, mattered little.
1906
No tenant, either in England or in Scotland, would willingly enter into litigation with his landlord on the damage done to his farm. The tenants were anxious that the damage should not take place, and the question was, whether they could find—and it ought not to be beyond the reach of human ingenuity to find—a means by which they could extend to all tenants that privilege which at present was extended by the liberality of landlords to some. The hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. D. Robertson) said he had no difficulty with his tenants—that he allowed them to kill as many hares and rabbits as they liked, and they were content. No doubt the same would be the case if that were granted by landlords generally; and if they would do it of their own accord, there would not be the slightest need for legislation. But that was not so; and many of the landlords constituted themselves joint-stock poulterers, or they let their land to strangers, and got two rents out of it—one from the farmer, and one from the shooter of game. Last year the general feeling was, that this question was one which the Government ought to take in hand, and he was thankful for the attempt they had made; but the people of Scotland did not look upon this as a favour which the Government could give or withhold—they considered it a quid, pro quo for the warm support they had given them to enable them to redress grievances elsewhere. It was not a very usual thing that the agricultural interest should be found supporting a Liberal Government. The Scotch people had made the experiment, but the result had not been so satisfactory as it might have been; and he thought that unless the Government stood up more firmly for the Scotch tenants on this question of the Game Laws than they had hitherto done, the results of the next election, so far as the agricultural constituencies were concerned, might be very different. He hoped that justice was not to be limited geographically to one island at the expense of another. The Prime Minister had showered forth abundantly justice to Ireland. Let him now do justice to Scotland.
VISCOUNT ROYSTONsaid, the fact that there were five Bills before the House on the subject of the Game Laws showed that hon. Members took a certain amount of interest in the question.

1907
The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Taylor) had lately signalized himself by his speech on the subject; but he had received an answer which ought to be satisfactory to the House. The hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Parker) had made his appeal to the Government on this question on the strength of his return for Perthshire, and he intimated that if Government did not do something he (Mr. Parker) would not be returned a second time. The question of game appeared to him (Viscount Royston) to be a question of property, and he felt sure that no Government would venture to interfere with that question of property. The hon. Member who introduced this Motion (Mr. Loch) ought to know a good deal about the matter, for he managed an extensive property for a distinguished nobleman, the greater part of which was let out for the purposes of game. If a gentleman could let his land at a higher price per acre for game than for other purposes he had a perfect right to do so, though the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Macfie) seemed to think that this was contrary to the purposes of philanthropy, or that it was wrong to displace sheep for deer. That was neither here nor there; he contended that a landlord had a right to use his property in the way that was most advantageous to his pocket. He believed that the moderate preservation of game was not unpopular in Scotland; he was sure it was not in England. There was no reason whatever why game should not be treated as property, and its preservation be made the subject of covenants in leases, with a provision that the farmer should be compensated by the landlord for any injury done to his crops by the game thus preserved. If the Committee proposed by the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Loch) were likely to settle the matter, he would give his support to the Motion; but, as it was, he must oppose it, because he did not think any good would result from such an inquiry as that which was asked for.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, that he could assure the noble Lord who had just spoken (Viscount Royston) that he was mistaken if he supposed that discussions upon the Game Laws would not arise in Parliament so long as those laws remained in. their present state. There had been very great dissatisfaction expressed in Scotland, and there was a
1908
wide-spread feeling in England in opposition to the Game Laws. Had his hon. Friend the Member for Wick (Mr. Loch) not been prevented by the forms of the House from making his Motion in the terms on the Notice Paper, it was his (Mr. Rylands') intention to have proposed that the inquiries of the Committee should extend to England as well as Scotland. He thought there were sufficient grounds for the appointment of a Select Committee upon this subject. It was now 25 years since the last Committee was appointed. At that time the Government consented to the appointment of a Committee, mainly in consequence of the amount of crime shown to exist in connection with the Game Laws. But if that were a reason in 1845, there was still greater reason at the present time, because the crimes produced by, or connected with, the Game Laws were now much more numerous than they were a few years ago. In 1857 they numbered 5,534; in 1861 they had risen, to 8,563; and in 1868 they were 10,445; exclusive of the offences under the Poaching Act of 1862. No doubt it would be urged that the existence of convictions under an Act of Parliament was no reason for its repeal, and that he did not dispute might be fairly stated in the case of most laws; but the Game Laws occupied an exceptional position—they had not the support of public opinion, but were regarded by many people as opposed to right and justice. The offences against the Game Laws were frequently committed by persons who, in the first instance, would, shrink from an ordinary act of dishonesty, but who from being thrown into gaol were often led into a criminal course of life. In 1863 the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) brought forward a Motion for a Select Committee upon the Game Laws, which had the support of the right hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), whose authority was so great in that House; but the Motion was defeated by an Amendment, to the effect that it was undesirable to have a Committee until it was seen what would be the operation of the Poaching Act, passed the previous year. The country had now had several years' experience of the Poaching Act of 1862, and that experience was not by any means satisfactory. The number of convictions under the Poaching Act during the year

1909
1868 was 953, and he believed that many cases had occurred in which considerable injustice had been committed under the Act. At all events, he considered that the operation of the Poaching Act furnished an additional reason for the appointment of a Select Committee on the Game Laws.
SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he thought too much sentiment had been introduced into the matter. He believed that if Scottish landowners did not find that game paid better than sheep, they would not preserve it. In this country all tenants had a right to destroy ground game, and he would recommend that for imitation in Scotland. In his opinion, the abolition of the Game Laws, accompanied with a stringent law of trespass, would settle the whole question. He was astonished at the observation of the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Parker) that the Scotch agricultural Members had been returned solely with the view of effecting a change in the Game Laws of the country. After all the professions of high principles that had been uttered from the opposite Benches, he felt bound to think more highly of the agricultural constituencies of Scotland than the hon. Member appeared to do.
MR. PARKERexplained that he said that there were other great questions; but what he contended was that the question of the Game Laws was the small balance which settled the Scotch elections in favour of the present Government.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he was glad to hear his noble Friend opposite (Viscount Royston) contend openly that, as regarded game, landlords had a right to do as they liked. The hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Parker) had spoken of the feeling which existed in Scotland on this question, and he could bear testimony to the fact. In England, tenancies were from year to year, and there were understandings between the landlord and the tenant. In Scotland, however, from long usage, leases of 19 years were entered into, and it was a hardship upon the tenants that, in addition to paying their rents, they should have the additional impost upon them of nursing and rearing game, which were shot and sent up to the London market to be sold at large prices. As long as the landlord reared and paid for these things himself, and the tenant did not object to have
1910
the impost put upon himself, he (Mr. Kinnaird) had no complaint. The people of Scotland, being an intelligent and well-educated people, did not like these things. He represented a burgh, and therefore was not under agricultural influence; but he should be perfectly ashamed, of himself if he did not say that he sympathized entirely with his hon. Friend, who so worthily represented Perthshire, when he said that in Scotland there was a very strong feeling on this subject; and if the First Minister of the Crown did not pay attention to it, he would not have so many supporters at the next Election as he had at the last.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that Her Majesty's Government, recognizing the strong feeling which existed in Scotland on this subject, had endeavoured to deal with it in a Bill which had been for some time upon the Table of the House. That Bill dealt with the general subject of the preservation of game. It was as strong as it could be without infringing the rights of property; and he believed he would, at the proper time, be able to show that it was sufficient for the purpose for which it was designed—namely, of affording protection to the tenant, and ultimately of greatly reducing the quantity of ground game. He appreciated the difficulty in which the House was placed by the proposals respecting this question; but he did not think any further information was required in order to enable them to legislate upon the subject, and therefore he objected to the appointment of a Select Committee. He hoped that the House would have patience until a day could be found for a full discussion of the subject; and when that day arrived, he did not despair of convincing even his hon. Friend (Mr. Loch) that the measure introduced by the Government would, when fairly put into operation, afford adequate protection against the evil of which the Scotch farmers complained.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
Committee deferred till Monday next.

COMMONS INCLOSURE BILL— [BILI, 119.]
(Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen, Mr. Secretary Bruce.)
COMMONS INCLOSURE BILL— [BILI, 119.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that at that late hour of the night he was very unwilling to detain the House; but that, as he had been unable to make any statement upon the introduction of the Bill, it was necessary that he should preface the Motion for its second reading by a few observations. He did not wish to conceal from the House that, by this measure, a considerable change in the law was proposed; but he would state, as concisely as possible, the nature of that change, and the reasons by which he thought it might be justified. He would not attempt to occupy the time of the House by any long argument concerning the history of waste lands, and the circumstances under which they originally fell into the hands of lords of manors and commoners. There were many persons who contended that these waste lands were as much the property of lords and commoners as any gentleman's meadow is his property, the only difference being that the boundary fence has been erected in the one case and not in the other. It was argued on the contrary, by many persons, that these lands were for the most part granted originally to lords of manors with certain conditions and duties involved, and that they held them rather as trustees acting for the public than as private owners. In that case, of course, wrong must have been done to the public by their continual inclosure and absorption into private estates. But as he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) wished to consider, and to lead the House to consider, this question in a practical point of view, he thought it would be better to discard for the moment the various theories on either side, and to take for a starting-point the manner in which the Legislature had regarded the subject, as evidenced by the last general legislation in 1845. Then the House would discover what had been the intentions of Parliament; whether those intentions had been carried out and, if not, what alterations in the law might be required. The Act of 1845 followed upon a full and careful inquiry before a Committee in 1843. The object with which that Act was introduced must
  1912
  be traced, not only in the Act itself, but in the debates which preceded its becoming law. The Preamble of the Act stated—
  "Whereas it is expedient to facilitate the Inclosure and Improvement of Commons and other Lands now subject to rights of property which obstruct cultivation and the productive employment of labour;"
  so that certainly one main object of the Act was to promote inclosures, and place them upon a more satisfactory footing. Lord Lincoln, who brought forward the Bill on behalf of the Government, stated this in his speech, and that it was sought to get rid of the difficulties which surrounded private legislation. He stated his belief that in 19 cases out of 20 injustice was done to the poor by these Committees, the fact being that the poor could not, whilst the rich could, attend in London to give evidence and protect their own interests. And Lord Lincoln further made use of these words—
  "My principal object, after the accomplishment of those views which I have stated to have determined me to introduce this measure, has been to secure to the poorer classes throughout this country a more extensive and effectual protection in their rights to common lands than they have heretofore enjoyed."
  These words, and the perusal of the debates, really left little doubt as to the intentions of Parliament in the Act of 1845. How, then, had the Act operated? He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) would readily admit that, as a means of promoting inclosures, bringing land into cultivation, and simplifying titles after inclosure, the Act had been most effectual. Nor should those advantages be underrated. It must not be forgotten that, in many districts, the bringing of these lands into cultivation had been an unmixed advantage to the neighbourhood, and to the public. There might have been a time, therefore, at which it was desirable to facilitate these inclosures by legislation. The question was whether, looking at the altered circumstances of the case, it was not now rather desirable to point legislation in a contrary direction, and to regard mainly the preservation of open spaces for our crowded and increasing population. But if the Act had worked well in the above manner, wherein had it failed? He would give a brief answer from the last Report of the Inclosure Commissioners which he held in his hand. Since the passing of these Acts upwards of 531,000 acres had

  1913
  been inclosed. Of these, 364,173 acres had been subject to allotments for recreation or field-gardens, and the amount allotted had been 3,671 acres, or something like l–99th part of the whole, which the public had received, whilst the rest had become the private property of lords and commoners. Now he must not be understood as casting any censure whatever upon the action of the Commissioners, who had felt their hands tied by the words of the Act of Parliament, and who, standing as arbiters between lords, commoners, and the public, had acted to the best of their judgment. But things had got to such a state that whilst the Commissioners, considering that Parliament had retained in its own hands the revision of, and right of veto upon, each inclosure, seemed to have left it to Parliament to see that the public received the full amount which Parliament intended. Parliament, on the other hand, seemed to consider that the Commissioners had done everything before the Bills confirming the Provisional Orders came before them, and, therefore, got into the habit of passing these Bills as merely formal measures, requiring no discussion. He must give credit to the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) for having shown great activity in the matter, and having obtained the Committee which sat last year upon the Inclosure Acts. Several hon. Gentlemen who had served on that Committee were then present, and would bear out his assertion that the Committee considered and inquired into the subject with great care. Their recommendations—many carried by large majorities and some unanimously—were embodied in the Bill before the House; but Government had thought it right to go further, and to propose a larger change in the law. There were three parties to consider—the lords of manors, the commoners, and the public. The Government based their Bill upon the idea which he believed had been present to the mind of Parliament in 1845. He believed that Parliament had, in effect, intended to say this to persons desiring to inclose commons—"There have been hitherto many irregularities in inclosures and much insecurity of title. We will pass a law which will facilitate these inclosures, and enable you to obtain a simple, cheap, and sound title to your respective shares in the commons affected, by an inexpensive process.
  1914
  We do not compel you to inclose—we rob you of no right—we leave the lords even their veto upon inclosure; but if you choose to take advantage of our law, we require that in return, upon grounds of public policy, you shall give something to the public for whom we are acting as trustees." Well, then, since the passing of the Act the public had not received, anything like a sufficient portion, according to his opinion, and Government now wished to make provision for a larger portion being secured to them in future cases of inclosure. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) would briefly describe the main changes proposed by the Bill, and as the points of difference between himself and certain of his hon. Friends who did not agree with him could more property be considered in Committee, he hoped the second reading might then be taken, and the principle of the Bill agreed to—namely, that larger provision should henceforward be made for the poor and the public. The first change proposed was, that the allotments for recreation grounds and field-gardens—one or both—should be compulsory in every case, instead of being left, as at present, to the discretion of the Commissioners. Government had proposed in the Bill that a tenth of the quantity inclosed should be so allotted, instead of a ninety-ninth, as had been the case; but the precise quantity would be a matter for consideration in Committee. He might here observe that he found many hon. Members, who had in view very large commons, objected to this provision. They said that in a common of, say 2,000 acres, an allotment of 200 acres, perhaps far from any population, would be preposterous. The idea of the Government was that, in such a case, the land might be sold, and the proceeds applied to the purchase of other land, or the improvement of other grounds, nearer to the population. But both as to the proportion, and also as to the question of dealing with commons of so large an extent in a different manner, he would be ready to listen to argument. It might be desirable to exempt from the operation of this Bill commons which contained above 1,000 acres; or it might be well to fix a maximum quantity for an allotment; but all this might be discussed in Committee, and he would entertain suggestions of amendment with every respect. Then the Bill proposed

  1915
  a change with regard to field-garden allotments, which were at present given subject to a rent-charge which was difficult of collection, and diminished the value to the recipient. Government thought that this rent-charge should be abolished, and that whatever was thus given to the labouring poor should be given free of charge. Then they proposed to deal with commonable lands, which were at present not subject to allotment. The House would remember the distinction between common and commonable land; the former being land over which rights were exercised in common during all and every part of the year; the latter lands over which rights of severalty existed during a portion of the year—that is to say, a man might crop the land and the common rights of others did not come in until his crop was cut and carried. Government thought that in all cases where the public had exercised rights for a certain portion of the year—a certain allotment should be given, though less in proportion than in the case where those rights had been exercised during the whole year. The next provision to which he would allude was, that which especially referred to suburban commons, in which cases he proposed that the consent of the local authorities should be required before inclosure, so that towns and large villages might not be deprived of open spaces in the teeth of public opinion. Some portions of the Bill of the right hon. Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple) might have to be engrafted upon this portion of the Bill, which would have to be considered hereafter. Then came a recommendation of the Select Committee, which he had himself had the honour of proposing—namely, that provision should be made for paths and drives across commons, so that the public should not be deprived of their right of passage from one point to another, which might frequently be a great inconvenience. Then there were also provisions for more careful inquiry by the Assistant Commissioner before inclosure, as to the wants and feelings of persons residing near commons, and also for more detailed Reports by the Commissioners. There were various other minor changes proposed; but he had stated the principal points, and although he would willingly have gone into the subject at greater length, he hoped he
  1916
  had kept his word to the House, and not unnecessarily wearied them. His hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Walsh), who was about to move the rejection of the Bill, would probably tell him that he was trifling with the rights of property. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) thought that if you wished the rights of property to be respected, you must exercise them with discretion. If you strained such rights, or grasped at rights which were of a doubtful character, you might, in the long run, peril far more than you could possibly gain. But with respect to the rights of property, he would remind the House that property of almost every kind was represented in that House, whilst he was pleading for those whom he might call the hand-labourers of the country, who were personally unrepresented there. He said that in no complaining spirit, nor would he ever condescend to make sentimental appeals to the House on such a subject. On the contrary, alluding to this which he called the hand-labour class—for the name of "working classes" did not accurately represent one class as distinguished from another—he felt, it was true, that this was a question specially affecting that class; but his knowledge and experience of English gentlemen and the House of Commons led him to the belief that the very fact of this hand-labour class being unrepresented would ensure for any question which specially concerned them the fullest and fairest consideration, accompanied by a tender regard for their interests. He thought that with a rapidly-increasing population, too much stress could hardly be laid upon the preservation of open spaces in the vicinity of crowded districts. This was one main object of the Bill, and Government desired to preserve such spaces without throwing undue impediments in the way of inclosures where they might be necessary. He hoped the Bill would be considered in a fair spirit; its framers had every desire to do justice to everyone in the alterations in the law which they proposed, and he trusted that the measure might meet with a favourable reception from the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen.)
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he would beg to move the debate be now adjourned. The hour was too late to enter on the discussion of so large a question.
  Debate adjourned till Monday next.

  ADVERTISEMENTS (STOLEN GOODS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Bill to amend the Law relating to Advertisements respecting Stolen Goods, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 159.]

  DIVIDENDS AND STOCK (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. STANSFELD, Bill for extending to Ireland "The Dividends and Stock Act, 1869," ordered to be brought in by Mr. STANSFEID and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 158.]
  House adjourned at One o'clock till Monday next.