Sitting of 21 March 1878

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 2)*; Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment*[124].
Select Committee —Weights and Measures*[111], Mr. Muntz and Mr. Agg-Gardner added.
Committee —Roads and Bridges (Scotland) [1]—R.P.
Considered as amended —Threshing Machines*[97].

PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  PARLIAMENT — PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE—FICTITIOUS PETITIONS.

    REPORT.
    Special Report brought up, and read, as followeth:—
    "Your Committee having examined the signatures to two Petitions presented from the Working Men and other Inhabitants of Dublin, praying for the rejection of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill, which were presented on the 21st of January last, and purport to bear respectively 600 and 686 signatures, have to inform the House that a clear forgery has been committed, one in each Petition, in the signatures appended thereto; and that in the case of 10 other Petitions, also from the Working Men and other Inhabitants of Dublin, nine of which were presented on the 21st of January last, and one on the 19th of February last, against the same Bill, a certain number of the addresses given with the signatures are cither such as do not exist, or they are not the addresses of those persons to whom they purport to belong."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Special Report do lie upon the Table."
    MR. MELDONsaid, it occured to him that a very serious question must arise in this matter for the consideration of the House. As he understood the Report just read, it amounted to this—that the Committee on Public Petitions found that there had been forgeries to this Petition of persons' names who had not signed it. The Committee had also found that a large number of the signatures were fictitious. It appeared to him that some action ought to be taken in
    1738
    the matter, if the facts reported on were substantiated upon fuller inquiry, and that, as a question of Privilege, it could not be allowed to be passed over on the present occasion. The Public Petitions Committee were fettered by reason of not being empowered to take evidence; and he thought the facts should be fully inquired into, and that a Report, that forgeries had been committed, should not be passed over in silence. The proper course would be that some further investigation should be made by the Public Petitions Committee, and all the circumstances and facts accurately ascertained, before any definite action was taken by the House; and, therefore, as an Amendment to the Motion before the House, he would move that the Petition be referred back again to the Public Petitions Committee, that they should be empowered to send for Persons and Papers, and that they should make a further Report to the House. He was afraid that on the present occasion it would not be a proper course to suggest what the definite action should be, and therefore he refrained from making any suggestion. At all events, he thought the Report ought not to be entirely passed over, and he hoped the House would assent to his proposition.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is that the Report do lie on the Table of the House. If the hon. Member has any Amendment to move upon that Question, he will be so good as to bring it up to the Table.
    MR. MELDON,accordingly, went to the Table, wrote an Amendment, and handed it to the Clerk.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "Report" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "be referred back to the Public Petitions Committee, and that they inquire into the circumstances connected with the Petitions mentioned in the said Report, and make a Report thereupon to the House,"—(Mr, Meldon,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR CHARLES FORSTERsaid, he could not support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Meldon), which was not justified by precedent. The Committee on Public Petitions had

    1739
    fully attended to the matter. When the Petitions were submitted to the Committee, they were carefully examined, and the Committee were unanimously of opinion that the proper course would be the one they recommended in their Report—"That the Report should lie upon the Table of the House." He might remind the House that that was the course adopted in a similar case which occurred last year in regard to an irregular Petition from the same place and upon the same subject—Sunday closing in Ireland. On the 8th of June a Report was presented by the Public Petitions Committee stating that a Petition purporting to be signed by 11,245 persons contained numerous fictitious signatures, and the Report was ordered to lie on the Table. The course then adopted was precisely that which was now recommended by the Public Petitions Committee.
    MR. MONKsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forstor) had done all that lay in his power as Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions. The Committee had notified to the House that there were certain fictitious signatures to this Petition, and that there were also forgeries in it; and, as he understood the hon. Baronet, a Petition from the same place on the very same subject was presented to the House last year, in which there were also fictitious signatures. If Petitions were to have any weight whatever with the House, it was desirable that the House should take some notice of false Petitions. He did not understand his hon. Friend to say that the House should continue to receive these Petitions without taking any notice of them. If such a course were taken, he thought it would be beneath the dignity of the House to continue to receive Petitions at all. He was, therefore, very much inclined to support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), although, perhaps, it would be as well to print the Report before the Motion was made; but, whenever a Motion was made for referring the Report back to the Committee, he would support it in order that the Committee might take the necessary steps to ascertain how it was that such a Petition was presented. Before doing so, he thought the House ought to express a very strong opinion in regard to the conduct of persons who
    1740
    got up these fictitious Petitions. Unless the Committee were empowered to send for witnesses, and to examine them in regard to the manner in which these signatures had been attached, no weight whatever would continue to be attached to the Petitions addressed to the House.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think the course which has suggested itself to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) is clearly the most convenient course for the House to adopt—that is, to allow the Report to lie upon the Table and be printed. It will then be in the hands of hon Members, and the House will be in a better position to decide what ought to be done. I hope that course will be adopted.
    MR. D. M. O'CONORsaid, he had no objection to that course being taken, provided that an opportunity would be afforded to hon. Members of discussing the question after the special Report should have been printed. The House must remember that on the last occasion when irregularities of this kind occurred, no opportunity was given to hon. Members who wished to raise the question after the Report was presented, and the Motion for the consideration of the Report was obliged to take its chance of the ballot among the ordinary Notices. The result was, that the Motion was ultimately brought on after 1 o'clock in the morning, when there was nobody in the House, and the consequence was that not a word about it was published in the papers next day. If this debate were adjourned, and the Report allowed to lie on the Table, and a discussion raised which could be brought on at half-past 4, he would be quite prepared to agree to the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it appeared to him that something had been done which amounted to a breach of Privilege. When they had evidence of the fact fully before them, it would be competent for any hon. Member to bring it forward as a question of Privilege, and in that case the consideration of it would take precedence of all other Business.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONhoped the House would adjourn the debate, and in that case if the Report were printed, every hon. Member would be able to comment upon it. If the Motion for printing it were withdrawn, there would

    1741
    be no such opportunity. He therefore begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.)
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Motion proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would defeat his own object, because it was moved in substitution of the Motion for printing the Report. Until it was printed the House would have no opportunity forming a judgment upon the matter.
    MR. SANDFORDapprehended that when the Petitions and Report were printed, they could be brought forward as a broach of Privilege, provided that Notice was given.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I understand that the Question before the House is an Amendment to the Motion that the Report should lie on the Table. In any case, the Report would be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of the House, and I am under the impression—the Speaker will probably correct me if I am mistaken—that, as a breach of Privilege, it would be competent for any hon. Member to bring forward a Motion on that question at half-past 4.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Report now lying on the Table involves a Question of breach of Privilege on the part of certain persons who have forged signatures to a Petition to this House; and, if the debate be adjourned, it would take precedence of all other public proceedings of the House on the day to which it might be adjourned. Therefore, if the debate be now adjourned, the Motion would come on as a Question of Privilege on a future day.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped that, under those circumstances, the debate would be adjourned.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, the original Motion, as he understood it, was that the Report should lie on the Table; but if the debate were adjourned and the Report did not lie on the Table, he apprehended that there would be nothing before the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: The ordinary practice is to print such a Report with the Votes after having been read by the Clerk at the Table. Does the hon.
    1742
    Baronet the Member for Carlisle move the adjournment of the debate?
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Yes, Sir.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Monday next.
    Ordered, That the special Report be printed. [No. 97.]

QUESTIONS.
  INDIA—THE FAMINE—THE CENSUS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. POTTERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government is in possession of any information as to the result of the partial census recently taken in Mysore and other famine-stricken districts of India, with a view to ascertain the mortality occasioned by the food scarcity; and, if so, whether he is prepared to communicate it to the House?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,in reply, said, the Government had no information on the subject; but he believed they would shortly receive some information, in which case he could not conceive that there would be any objection to lay it before the House. The special attention of the Commission appointed to inquire into the administration of famine relief in Mysore and Madras had been directed to this point, as there was some reason to believe that the figures published on the subject were not altogether reliable.

  INDIA—FORT GEORGE WATER SUPPLY.—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGLASasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the bad quality of the water, supplied to the troops quartered at Fort George, which has been reported as unfit for use as long ago as March 1875, and again in April 1877, when the officer commanding the Brigade Depot, stated "the water system is very bad and requires instant attention;" whether, in October last, the medical officer, in charge of the troops, did not report
  "that the water was getting worse and worse every day, and was likely to prove dangerous to the health of the troops:"

  1743
  whether it is true that no steps were taken to procure a fresh supply of water until, on the lst of November last, two men died of typhoid fever, attributed by the medical officer to the bad state of the water supply, since which water has been carted to the fort; and, if he in-tendsrecommendingany immediate steps to be taken to procure a proper permanent supply of water for the troops, and so prevent a recurrence of this unnecessary danger to the health of the soldiers stationed there?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Sir, the condition of the water supply at Fort George has not escaped the attention of the Secretary of State for War. Up to August, 1875, the supply of water was reported as good and sufficient, and no complaint was made regarding it. In that month, however, it was found to be contaminated with sewage. There is no trace of a medical report of October, 1877, stating that the water was getting worse, and was likely to prove dangerous. It is hardly correct to say that no steps were taken to procure a fresh supply of water prior to November last; for, in 1875, a new well was sunk, but with no better result as regards the quality of the water. The old wells have been deepened and cleaned out, and the result of recent analysis shows that the water from some of the wells after filtration is fit for use. Towards the end of October, 1877, two recruits of the Militia were attacked with enteric fever and died; but the origin of the disease was by no means clearly traced to the bad quality of the water, and no cases occurred among the troops permanently quartered in the fort. Since this time, however, water has been carted to the fort, and this method of supply is still in force. Every endeavour has been made to obtain a good supply of water, and the matter is at this moment engaging the attention of the Royal Engineers.

NAVY—THE "INDEPENDENCE."

  QUESTION.
  ADMTRAL EGERTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is true that the Government has purchased the Brazilian ship "Independencia," with the armament of Whitworth guns; and, if so, whether the guns will be thoroughly tried?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes, Sir; the Admiralty have purchased the Independencia, and it is their intention that her armament of Whitworth guns shall be thoroughly, fairly, and completely tried.

THE EXECUTION ON THE "BEAGLE."

  QUESTIONS.
  LORD FRANCIS HERVEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in taking the steps detailed in the papers recently laid upon the Table of the House relative to the execution of a native of Tanna, the officer in command of the "Beagle" was not acting in excess of his instructions; whether, further, he was not inaccurate in reporting that there was no "direct proof" of Mr. Easterbrook's misconduct; and, if he is able to say what were the orders in the execution of which, as represented by Mr. Neilson, the missionary, the lives of nine Tannamen were taken, four of whom were absolutely free from complicity in the death of Mr. Easterbrook?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, Commodore Hoskins directed Lieutenant Caffin to inquire into the murder of Mr. Easterbrook, and if he considered it was not his own misconduct which led to the commission of the deed, to take the necessary steps for the punishment of the murderer. It would appear that Lieutenant Caffin was not successful in obtaining possession of the actual murderer; but, acting upon his discretion, under the directions he had received, he tried an accessory to the murder and hanged him. I am not prepared to state that in doing so Lieutenan Caffin exceeded his instructions, as I find Commodore Hoskins states that he is disposed to think his proceedings generally deserving of approval. I do not feel myself at liberty to say whether there was or was not direct proof of Mr. Easterbrook's misconduct, as I am unable to say myself what weight should be given to the evidence taken on this subject by the Court. I am not aware that there were any orders which led to the lives of nine Tanna men being taken. We have no information on the subject beyond that it would appear the Natives of Tanna themselves put nine persons to death in their efforts to secure the actual murderer.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to know how soon they might expect to receive the Papers referred to in the Answer of the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that in consequence of the distance of the place from this country, he did not think it possible that Commodore Hoskins could reply in less than sixweeks or twomonths. As soon as the reply had been received and considered by the Admiralty, it would be laid on the Table of the House.

  MINING ACCIDENTS—THE KILSYTH EXPLOSION.—QUESTION.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it be correct that the Mine in which the explosion occurred at Kilsyth, N.B., a few days ago, gave off gas freely, and yet, in the Rules exhibited for the proper discipline of the persons employed in the Mine, there was no provision prohibiting the use of naked lights?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE,in reply, said, that according to the best information that the Government had been able to obtain, this mine, when first opened, gave off gas; but two or three years ago a communication was made with the second shaft, and then safety lamps, which up to that time had been used, were dispensed with, and they were not in use again up to the occurrence of the recent accident. The prime cause of this was reported to be, not an explosion in the mine, but a fire in the down cast shaft, which reversed the air course, and produced one or two small explosions in the mine, the result of which barred the way against 16 men, and prevented them reaching the bank in safety. He had been unable to discern any evidence of explosions in the mine, fatal or otherwise, after the communication with a second shaft was opened. His information was that, since that date, naked lights have been used in the mine, and no ease of explosion had occurred.
  MR. MACDONALDgave Notice that he should again ask whether there had not been two previous explosions attended with loss of life?

THE PUBLIC HEALTH, DUBLIN.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. MELDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his atten-
  1746
  tion has been directed to the following paragraphs of the resolution adopted by the Public Health Committee of the Corporation of Dublin on the 10th of December last, and forwarded to the Dublin Sanitary Association, in reply to their request that the Public Health Committee should join the Dublin Sanitary Association in the application to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for an inquiry into the causes of the excessive death-rate of Dublin:—
  "While the Committee cannot join in applying for a sanitary inquiry, they at the same time have no objection whatever to it, and will be happy to co-operate in any way possible with the Commission, should it be appointed. The Committee would be glad if the Sanitary Association will state this in its application for a Commission, should it make such application:
  "The Committee think that the Commission, if appointed, should not only inquire into the causes of the high death-rate in Dublin, hut also into the best means of abating them. In one way the suggested inquiry might be useful—in awakening public opinion to the necessity of very active and energetic, and, possibly, costly measures being adopted if the mortality in Dublin is to be reduced to a minimum. The hands of the sanitary authority would thus be strengthened. The Committee are most anxious to do everything possible to improve the public health, but frequently find themselves hampered by the want of public appreciation of the necessity of sanitary action:"
  whether the Public Health Committee did not assent to and approve of the application; and, whether, havingregard to the offer of the Public Health Committee of the Corporation to co-operate in the matter, and to the fact that an unusually severe epidemic of smallpox is raging in Dublin, he is now prepared to reconsider the question of the propriety of ordering such an inquiry to be held?
  MR. GRAYalso asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a Report of the Public Health Committee of the Dublin Corporation, dated 28th December, on the death-rate in Dublin, and the application of the Sanitary Association for an inquiry, and containing not merely the first Report of the Association, and the Resolution of the Committee, but further Reports from the Association, and further Reports thereon by the consulting medical officer, and the subsequent Resolution thereon of the Committee, and concluding thus:—
  "Your Committee have now placed before the Council, and through it before the public, the

  1747
  fullest information in its power with reference to the important questions under consideration; that the death-rate in Dublin is high there can be no question, but it will be seen that some of the cases are beyond control, others must be dealt with gradually, and your Committee is sparing no exertion to render the city as healthy as possible under the circumstances, and since their last Report your Committee see no reason to apply for or recommend a Commission;"
  whether, before putting the public to the expense of printing the Reports as he indicated some days ago he would consent to do, he will inquire if they cannot be had gratis by any respectable person who applies to the Public Health Committee for them; whether they have not been supplied to the Dublin Press; and, whether, if he still decides upon issuing them as a Parliamentary Paper, he will take care that the entire set of Reports, and not merely ex parte portions of them, are given?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, my attention has been called to all these various documents relating to the public health of Dublin, the extracts from which, quoted respectively by the two hon. Gentlemen, I think, sufficiently answer each other without any further detaining the House. I have, therefore, nothing to add to the answer I made the other day except to say that if the hon. Member for Tipperary, or any hon. Member on his behalf, thinks fit to move for any further Papers, I shall be glad to lay them upon the Table, provided they do not assume too voluminous a form.

  SHERIFF CLERKS (SCOTLAND)— SALARIES.—QUESTION.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether, in view of the discussion on an amendment to the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Bill of 1877, to the effect that sheriff clerks and procurators fiscal thereafter appointed should not directly, or indirectly, or by others, be permitted to transact any other business for profit wherein he took part, observing—
  "That when it could be done, a sufficient salary would be paid in future which would enable them to give up their private practice. The principle had already been adopted in Glasgow, and wherever it could be applied it would be carried out;"
  he will take care in filling up the vacancy in the office of sheriff clerk of Ross and Cromarty, whose late holder
  1748
  confined himself strictly to the duties of his office, that the above principle will be followed?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Sir, it is exceedingly difficult to give a reply to this Question without making a speech, but I shall endeavour to make it as short as possible. I quite adhere to the opinions I expressed on the discussion on the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Bill of 1877, though my opinions are not correctly expressed by the single sentence quoted in the Question. I am not satisfied with the statement contained in the Question, as to the performance of the duties by the last occupant; because my information is that, instead of confining himself to the duties of his office, for a long period he was unable even to attend to his private practice; and as to the duties of the office, they were confined to giving his signature to papers. I doubt whether there is work in the office to fill up the time of a single individual, but the adjustment of the salary rests with the. Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. They revise it on every vacancy, and they adjust the future payments to the extent and character of the duties to be performed. I am, therefore, unable to give any more definite answer than that which I have expressed.

  TURKEY — INSURRECTION IN THE GREEK PROVINCES.—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If Her Majesty's Government see their way to any arrangement by which the bloodshed and destruction now going on in the Greek Provinces of Turkey maybe stayed till their position is considered by the European Congress and effect is given to the administrative autonomy which it is understood that the Porte has already engaged to concede?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, all that I can say upon this subject is that it has engaged the anxious attention of Her Majesty's Government, and that we are doing all that lies in our power with the Turkish Government to prevent the operations of war being carried on in a manner inconsistent with the usages of civilized and reasonable warfare, and that we will watch for any opportunity which may occur to enable us to assist in bringing

  1749
  these matters to an end. But I am not able to give any positive information on the subject.

COUNTY GOVERNMENT BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BOWENasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in consideration of the near approach of the time for holding Courts of Quarter Sessions throughout the Country, he would postpone the Committee on the County Government Bill until after the Easter recess?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, there would be no attempt to make progress in Committee immediately with the Bill.

  THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY, SOUTH KENSINGTON.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. CARTWRIGHTasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any periodical inspection in regard to due preservation against fire, as is made once a month by Captain Shaw in the British Museum, takes place in the buildings at present allotted to the National Portrait Gallery, either by Captain Shaw or any other experienced officer connected with the Eire Brigade; whether he will state in detail the precautions provided in this gallery against fire; the number of men always on duty by day and night who would be available in the event of fire; the character, organization, and experience of this force for the purpose of extinguishing fire; under the immediate command of what officer it would have to act if called upon to do so against fire; and, whether the force is set apart exlusively for service in the National Portrait Gallery, or whether it has also general duties to perform in other portions of the Exhibition Buildings?
  MR. GERARD NOEL: Sir, the whole of the water-mains and fire-extinguishing appliances in the building in which the National Portrait Gallery is situated are in charge of the officers of the Science and Art Department, and there is a detachment of the Royal Engineers quartered at South Kensington Museum, consisting of a sergeant and 13 men, whose primary duty is to act as a fire brigade. There is also a police night watch engaged on behalf of the
  1750
  Science and Art Department to patrol the buildings during the night, and they are supplied with keys to enable them to pass into the National Portrait Gallery. The fire appliances are examined and reported upon daily, and there is a drill once a-week. There are at South Kensington Museum three resident officers in charge of the above arrangements, one of whom is always on the premises.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES (IRELAND)— THE WATERFORD MAGISTRACY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BLENNERHASSETTasked 'the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with reference to the recent appointment of Colonel Mollon as resident magistrate at Waterford, Whether that gentleman previous to his appointment at Water-ford had acted as a stipendiary magistrate elsewhere; if so, where, and for what period of time; whether it has not hitherto been the custom in Ireland always to appoint as resident magistrates gentlemen under forty years of age, and whether Colonel Mollon had not attained the rank of lieutenant colonel twenty years ago, and is not therefore, presumably, considerably above that age; whether Waterford is not from its importance as a city and seaport a station hitherto given to magistrates of long service and experience; and, if he will state the names, dates of appointment, and length of service of the resident magistrates in Ireland, if any, who applied to be transferred to Waterford when the vacancy occurred which was filled by the appointment of Colonel Mollon?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, Colonel Mollon, C.B., who is an officer of distinguished military service, and who, I understand, took a leading part as a county magistrate a few years ago in Ireland, acted as stipendiary magistrate in the West Indies and the Bahamas for a year and for about two years at Gibraltar previous to an exchange being sanctioned between him and Mr. Byrne, one of the resident magistrates in Ireland. It has, I believe, been the custom to appoint gentlemen under 40 years of age, in the first instance, to the office of Resident Magistrate. Colonel Mollon was no doubt over that age at the

  1751
  time of his transfer from his Colonial appointment to his present post; but the hon. Gentleman will observe the distinction between the transfer in question and an entirely new appointment. Colonel Mollon's experience at the important seaport of Gibraltar was considered a special qualification for the office he now holds at Waterford. With regard to the last paragraph of the hon. Gentleman's Question, it would not be in accordance with the usual practice or, I think, in the interest of the public service if I were to enter into the details indicated.

  EDUCATION CODE, 1878, ART. 17 (G).— EDUCATIONAL RETURNS.—QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the insertion of the words "or by Parliament" in Art. 17 (g) of the Education Code now lying upon the Table, preclude the idea of teachers being paid for the Annual Return required by Regulations of 9th February 1877, relating to Education Act, 1876; and, if it be intended that managers, and not teachers, should be responsible for furnishing the Return, why are teachers who refuse to draw up the Return threatened with loss of certificate?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, the insertion of the words "or by Parliament" does not preclude teachers from being paid for the annual Return alluded to by the hon. Member. These words were introduced to assist the Department in obtaining from school boards and school managers answers to Returns ordered by Parliament, which the Department has found great difficulty in securing in previous years, and in some cases were only able to obtain by threatening to withhold the annual grant unless the Order of Parliament was obeyed. With regard to the second part of the Question of the hon. Member, teachers are not threatened with a loss of certificate if they refuse to draw up the Return he alluded to; but if they decline to make an entry from the school register, so as to give the parent the certificate of the age of his child, the certificate of school attendance, or the certificate of proficiency, to which he is entitled, in the first instance without payment, under the Education Act of
  1752
  1876; or if they make a charge for such an entry when such charge has not been sanctioned by the Department. It was found necessary to make this regulation in order to fulfil the stipulation in the Act of 1876, to which Parliament during its passing attached great importance, that the parent should not pay for the certificates which are needed to enable him to send his child to work, and also because in former cases—for example, under the Agricultural Children's Act— teachers were found to make excessive charges to parents for certificates, in some instances demanding 2s. 6d. for the information which the parent was obliged to require under Act of Parliament. I am glad to have had the opportunity of removing the misapprehension which appears to have existed on the subject.

  ARMY —THE DEFENCES OF THE CLYDE.—QUESTION.
  MR. JAMES STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can give an assurance that full consideration has been bestowed on the means to be adopted for the defence of the Clyde in case of war?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Sir, full consideration is being bestowed on the means to be adopted in case of war. There are two batteries on the Clyde— one at Fort Matilda and the other at Dumbarton Castle. The former mounts three medium rifled guns and one 80-pounder, and the latter two 64-pounders. Submarine mining stores have been provided on the Vote of Credit.

THE INDIAN BUDGET, 1878–9.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will, as early as practicable, lay upon the Table an explanatory Memorandum of the Budget details of Revenue and Expenditure of India, as recently reported by telegram; also a Statement of the alterations in the Tariff, with the calculated amounts remitted under the several articles; the addition thereto; and a Copy of the Minute of Lord Lytton, the Viceroy, about Public Works?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,in reply, said, he would be glad to give any information as to the Indian Budget; but, as they had only recently received the details, they could not give other information at present than that published in the newspapers.

EDUCATION CODE, 1878, ART. 19.

  QUESTION.
  MR. A. MILLSasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the Government will consider the expediency of modifying the regulations of the New Code (Article 19), relating to certificates of birth, by which considerable extra labour is cast on teachers, and expense on parents of children in elementary schools; and, whether the objects of sections 24 and 25 of the Act of 1876 might not be attained by requiring certificates in those cases only in which the age or proficiency of any child is required to be ascertained and proved for the purposes of the Elementary Education Acts?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, in accord-ance with the Circular which we issued to all local school authorities at the beginning of this year, we propose shortly to lay on the Table of the House a Minute modifying the regulations which were issued with respect to the certificate of birth which is ordered to be entered in the Child's School Book. We hope to issue this very shortly; but I may remind my hon. Friend that no action disadvantageous to the schools can be taken upon the former regulation before May or June next, so that there is ample time for considering the modified regulation. With respect to the second part of the Question, I can assure nay hon. Friend that the Child's School Book was considered carefully before it was determined upon; and, as we find that it is highly valued by those who have the greatest experience in school matters in all parts of the country, including most of the leading school boards; and, as we have no reason to believe that it will be a matter of great convenience hereafter both to the parents of the children, to the children, and to the employers of labour, I cannot hold out any expectation of being able to make any change with regard to it, beyond removing the difficulties which undoubtedly exist as to the certificates of birth.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—CIRCULAR REMONSTRANCE OF PRINCE GORT-CHAKOFF (1856).—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has any objection to lay upon the Table the Circular Remonstrance of Prince Gortschakoff, issued about the end of 1856, against interference with the King's management of the internal affairs of Naples, on the ground that "Sovereigns are equal among themselves," and that any such attempt,
  "by threats or" by a menacing demonstration, is a violent usurpation of the King's authority, an attempt to govern in his stead, an open declaration of the right, of the strong over the weak?"
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, there is no doubt that the document to which the hon. and gallant Member alludes is in existence, and is to be found among the records of the year 1856, as well as in some of the journals of that period. But it is not usual, nor would it be convenient, to lay a document so ancient upon the Table, referring, as it does, to circumstances which do not seem to have any immediate relation to the present state of affairs. In these circumstances, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs does not think it desirable that it should be laid on the Table of the House.

THE EASTERN QUESTION — THE FLEET IN THE DARDANELLES.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can, without inconvenience, inform the House what British ships of war are at present in the Straits of the Dardanelles and in the Sea of Marmora; whether it is true that their passage through the Straits was made under protest from the Porte; and, whether, in view of the ratification of a Treaty of Peace between Russia and Turkey, Her Majesty's Ministers propose to retain the British ships of war in the Sea of Marmora?
  LORD ELCHO: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question of the hon. and learned Member, I wish to put to him another. I should like to ask, Whether the right hon. Gentleman con-

  1755
  siders that the cause of peace and our interests in the East are likely to be promoted at the present time by Questions such as that just put by the hon. and learned Gentleman?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It certainly is the case, Sir, that at the present moment, -while negotiations are going on with a view to the meeting of the Congress, it is desirable that unnecessary Questions should not be put to Members of Her Majesty's Government. It is quite clear that an incautious word, or even, at times, a request that a Question should not be put, might produce an effect which would be inconvenient and embarrassing. With respect to the Questions of the hon. and learned Gentleman, as to two of them there can be no particular inconvenience in answering, because they have long since been answered. With regard to the number of British ships within the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Sea of Marmora, that is a matter which is perfectly well known to the public and has been mentioned in this House more than once. There are four iron-clads now in the Gulf of Ismid and two at Gallipoli; and, besides, there are seven smaller vessels in different parts of the Sea of Marmora and the Black Sea. [General Sir GEORGE BALFOUR: The Black Sea?] Well, cruising at the Sulina mouth of the Danube. With respect to the Question—"Whether it is true that their passage through the Straits was made under protest from the Porte," I stated in this House on the 14th of February last the circumstances under which the ships went up, and I mentioned the nature of the protest made at the same time, and I do not exactly understand why the Question should be repeated. With regard to the last Question, I stated the other day that Her Majesty's Government did not see any reason against retaining the ships of war in the Sea of Marmora. If there is no advantage to be derived from putting Questions of this sort, and unless there is some special reason for doing so, I trust that hon. Gentlemen will abstain from putting them. I wish to make one observation in respect of a Question on the Paper, of which the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) gave Notice, as to—
  "Whether any of the Great Powers besides Great Britain have demanded that all the points
  1756
  of the Treaty of Peace should be submitted by Russia to the Congress for discussion and revision?"
  I have to say that the arrangements under which the Congress is to meet are now the subject of discussion among the various Governments, and that it would really be very inconvenient to enter upon that matter now.
  MR. MONK: Sir, after the appeal just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I will not put the Question which stood in my name.

  NAVY—ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, In what form and when he will submit to the House the additional provision for Roman Catholic Chaplains to be employed in connection with the Navy which he is understood to contemplate?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, I intend to lay an Admiralty Minute on the Table of the House before I proceed with the Votes. We have Vote 6 and 10 in the Estimates yet to be voted.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: When will the Admiralty Minute be in the hands of Members?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, the question requires careful consideration, and some little correspondence with officers at present employed with the Fleet. It will probably be two or three weeks before the Minute is laid on the Table; but the next Estimate will not be taken until this information has been furnished.

EXECUTION OF A NATIVE OF TANNA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has received any information concerning the execution of a native of Tanna by the commander of H.M.S. "Beagle," and, if so, would he include it in the additional Correspondence to be laid before Parliament?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, the despatches mentioning this execution have just been received from Sir Arthur Gordon; but, as at the time of writing he had evidently not received

  1757
  the official information on this subject contained in the Papers recently presented to Parliament, I think there would be no advantage in presenting them.

INDIA—THE MAHARAJAH SCINDIAH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that on the occasion of the Delhi Assemblage His Highness the Maharajah Scindiah, when paying his visit to the Viceroy, was kept waiting outside the Viceroy's tent for nearly an hour previous to admission; and, whether it is true that no explanation has since been rendered to His Highness?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, we have no official information upon the incident referred to; but as I know from an authoritative private source what occurred I have no objection to state it. At the Delhi Assemblage Lord Lytton had in the space of two days to call upon and return visits from upwards of 200 of the Native Princes and Nobility. Every precaution was taken to prevent the Native Princes from being kept waiting; but, by some unforeseen accident, Maharajah Scindiah and some others were kept waiting an hour. As Scindiah was unwell upon that day the delay was doubly annoying to him, and on coming into the Viceroy's presence, though perfectly courteous, his demeanour indicated some annoyance. Next day Maharajah Scindiah spontaneously gave an explanation, which was at once accepted by the Viceroy, and upon the declaration of Her Majesty's title, Scindiah was the first to reply, and thus led the Royal response of the other Chiefs to the Viceroy's address.

NAVY—CASE OF MR. JOHN CLARE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Government is prepared to refer to a Committee of Members of this House the claims of Mr. John Clare to compensation for the alleged appropriation by certain Admiralty officials of his designs for the construction of iron-ships of the "Warrior" type of iron-clad?
  MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, he was not prepared to do anything of the
  1758
  sort. The case of Mr. Clare had been fully gone into by two of his Predecessors, and he saw no reason for further inquiry.

INDIA.—THE LICENCE TAX ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that the Calcutta Government have declined to exempt the incomes of artizans and operatives earning only ten pounds a-year, or less than four shillings per week, from taxation under the Licence Tax; whether it is not a fact that though professing to be only a licence tax, or tax upon callings, the new impost is aggravated according to amount of earnings, and thus combines the features of a tax upon incomes with the general character of a licence tax; and, if this be the case, what precautions the Government have taken to protect the poor people rated according to difference of earnings from extortion at the hands of the police?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,in reply, said, that the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Eawcett) had given Notice of a Motion for
  "Copies of all the Acts recently passed by the Government of India imposing new taxation in India for the year 1878–9;"
  and as that Motion would not be opposed, the hon. Member for Dungarvan would obtain from that Return all the information he desired. He must, however, say that it was true that the minimum income liable to taxation under the Act was 100 rupees, and that the Government had vested the whole administration of the Act in the hands of the Collectors.

  PENAL SERVITUDE COMMISSION—FENIAN CONVICTS.—QUESTION.
  Mr. RYDERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is any truth in the statement that the Penal Servitude Commission intend to hold an inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment of Fenian convicts at Spike Island, and have requested Mr. Michael Davit to give evidence as to the alleged treatment in English prisons?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he had written to the Secretary of

  1759
  the Penal Servitude Commission in reference to the subject-matter of the Question of his hon. Friend, but had not as yet received a reply. He had been informed, however, by a Member of the Commission, that there was no foundation for a paragraph in reference to the question which had appeared in the newspapers.

ORDERS OF TEE DAY.
  ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 4.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Sir Henry Selwin-Ihbetson.)
  ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 4.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—{The Lord Advocate.)
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that in rising to move his Amendment, that the House do resolve itself into the said Committee on that day six months, he was fully sensible of the disadvantage under which he laboured in opposing a Bill introduced by the Government and recommended on two separate occasions in the Speech from the Throne. But necessity had no law; and when he found the bulk of his constituents on the one side and the Government on the other, he could have no hesitation as to the course which it was his duty to pursue. It might be asked why did they not last year oppose the Bill which proceeded upon almost identical lines? Well, he confessed his error in that respect. He had followed a practice which he feared was too common in the House—intimating his intention of voting for the Bill, and at the same time making a speech against it. But if he erred, he at least erred in good company, and if he remembered aright, the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir William Edmonstone) had very little to say in favour of the Bill. But he knew that on that occasion they committed a great mistake, because they gave the Home Secretary the opportunity of saying that Scotland, with scarcely a dissentient voice, had pronounced in favour of the Bill. Now, considering that he had recently presented to the right hon. Gentleman a strong Memorial from his constituents praying to be ex-
    1760
    empted from the operation of the Bill, and also numerous Petitions from Commissioners of Supply and Road Trustees in various districts, the House would see that he had no alternative but to protest against the Bill, or, at least, against its application to the county he had the honour to represent. He was fully aware that any opposition it was in his power to offer would be perfectly futile against the Government, which could command the support not only of the majority of Members sitting on that side, but could also look for considerable support from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Last year the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had taken it upon himself to say that he (Colonel Alexander) did not represent the opinions of his constituents upon that point, and remarked that he Pro-ferred the opinion of Sir James Fer-gusson, who formerly represented the county in that House. He need scarcely say that he had the highest respect for Sir James Fergusson, who was a most eminent man; but there was in this instance no reason why the opinion of Sir James Fergusson should override the opinion of the smallest ratepayer of the county of Ayr, and he was sure that the right hon. Baronet would be the last to wish that such should be the case. He was in a position to prove that on this question Sir James Fergusson did not represent the opinion of the county. When at the annual county meeting it was proposed to oppose the Bill, Sir James Fergusson had proposed an amendment, which fell to the ground for want of a seconder. This was pre-eminently a question of local taxation; and he was really surprised that a Government—of which the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devonshire (Sir Massey Lopes), was a Member who had identified himself with every movement for the relief of local taxation, should endeavour to force upon a county unwilling to receive it a measure which would have the effect of trebling the assessment of the proprietors of lands and heritages in the county which he (Colonel Alexander), represented. Last year the Home Secretary had expressed his satisfaction at the favour with which his Bill was received; but he (Colonel Alexander) thought that the right hon. Gentleman was thankful for very small mercies, because, with the exception of the hon. Baronet the Member for Peebles

    1761
    (Sir Graham Montgomery), who certainly-expressed unqualified approval of the Bill, all the right hon. Gentleman's supporters damned his Bill with the faintest possible praise. Then the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) admitted that the Bill was an alteration in the incidence of taxation, and that it would alter the old plan under which those who used the roads paid for them; and it was precisely because it would have that effect, and would impose heavy burdens upon those who made little or no use of the roads, that he had the strongest possible objection to it. Here they would have the highest assessment and the worst roads, and he was credibly informed that in those places where the tolls had been abolished, the assessment was only kept down by starving the roads. He would ask, was there no middle course between the abolition of tolls and the imposition of assessments? There was a course which was recommended by the Commission of 1859, of which both the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) and Sir James Fergusson were Members — he meant the Consolidation of Trusts. The Commissioners said that irrespective of a change from tolls to assessments, the existing system was capable, at least, of important modifications, and that much of the expense which was now imputed to tolls was not fairly chargeable to the system. He agreed with the Commissioners that the evil was attributable principally to the number of small trusts with separate accounts, separate funds, separate management, and separate sets of officials. For instance, they found that in one county there were no less than 11 trusts over 133 miles of road, giving an average of 12 miles for each trust, and in three cases the mileage was much less. Then each district had a separate clerk and treasurer; and, not only were the funds of each district kept separate, but the funds of each road were kept separate, so that for a road passing through three districts it was necessary to keep three separate accounts. Now, that was an evil that might be remedied by the consolidation of trusts under one management, and by a uniform rate of toll levied at each bar, and with no toll leviable oftener than once in six miles. A great deal had been said about the inequality of tolls; but
    1762
    the Commissioners had said that inequality must exist in any mode of taxation, and that complaints of inequality must arise in reference to any plan that was proposed as a substitute for tolls. In reference to what had been said as to the expense of collection by tolls, they must remember that the Commissioners had also said that the expenses of collecting revenues by means of tolls were often greatly exaggerated. For instance, in the county of Mid-Lothian, where the tolls were in the hands of the trustees, the cost did not exceed 10 per cent. In the end, the Commissioners were obliged to fall back upon the sentimental objection of what was called the inconvenience of making small payments. These objections were made by people who, in the slang of that luxurious age, talked about the "awful bore" of having to pay tolls. He might state certain broad principles upon which he based his opposition. Many of his most influential constituents objected to part of the scheme for the extinction of debt. They said it would alter the whole incidence of the taxation, and that under that system a solvent road would be called upon to pay for an insolvent one. Then, again, they asked-—should an occupier who now by payment of tolls contributed to the extinction of debt be entirely relieved from that burden? In the county of Edinburgh, in the course of a few years, a debt of £98,000 was reduced to £9,000, by money which occupiers equally with proprietors contributed. He did not see why they should reverse that system, and throw the burden entirely upon the proprietors. It was also shown that under this Bill the amount of taxation that would be thrown upon burghs would be absolutely ridiculous. It was shown by Returns that about £20,000 was required annually for the maintenance of roads and bridges in the county of Ayr, whilst only about £1,000 was required in the burghs. It followed, therefore, that the sums the burghs would have to contribute would be absolutely inappreciable. It was idle to talk about the unanimity of Scotland in favour of this measure. The Commissioners said that in their opinion any resolution to adopt a system of assessment should only be arrived at at a general meeting of the whole county, especially convened for that purpose, with the view of affording to persons in-

    1763
    terestod an opportunity of objecting to the proposal. Why, in the face of these recommendations, was this legislation forced upon an unwilling county? The only reason suggested for the introduction of the measure was the fancy for so-called "uniformity," and to avoid the anomaly of having a system of tolls in one county and an assessment in another. The Commissioners ridiculed that objection. They said that the anomaly existed already, and that the case of the few persons who paid toll in one county and assessment in another was not worth consideration. He was not greatly enamoured of permissive legislation; but, with regard to roads in Scotland, it had been most successful up to the present time, and he did not see why any change should be made. "Why did the county of" Wigtown adopt a system of assessment, while the neighbouring county of Ayr faithfully adhered to the system of tolls? Simply because the circumstances of the two counties were totally and entirely different. One county was pastoral; the other was what the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Stirlingshire (Sir William Edmonstone) had called a composite county. Ayrshire was partly pastoral, partly agricultural, and partly mineral; and it had not followed the example of its neighbour of Wigtown, because it was not its interest to do so. The pastoral tenants made very little use of the roads, but transported all their cattle by the railways. It was the same with the mineral tenants, who had private railways of their own. But his main objection to the Bill was that it would treble the assessment to be imposed upon lands and heritages in the county which he represented, and any Bill which did that stood self-condemned. Not to use strong language, he would merely say that under the Bill taxation would be most unjust and unequal in its incidence. Two years ago he formed one of a deputation to the Home Secretary on this question of the abolition of tolls, and the right hon. Gentleman then told them that tolls were condemned, that they were out of harmony with the spirit of the age; and he pointed to the example of England, where, he observed, the tolls were being gradually abolished. Since that time the right hon. Gentleman must have changed his mind; for his Colleague had introduced the County Government Bill, in which power was
    1764
    reserved for the re-imposition of tolls, and the re-erection of toll-bars; so that, instead of tolls being gradually abolished in England, it would appear that they were being gradually restored, and the reason given was the difficulty created by the exceptionally heavy traffic in the immediate neighbourhood of large towns. He paid some attention to the debate on the County Government Bill, and with the exception of the noble Lord the Member for the North West Riding (Lord Frederick Cavendish), every speaker pointed out the great inconvenience that must result from restoring tolls where they had once been abolished, and that some means must be devised of escaping from the difficulty. His prescription for Scotland was very simple. If they did not get into the difficulty, they would not be put to the trouble of getting out of it. Do not let them abolish tolls, and then they would not have the trouble and difficulty of re-establishing them. So far from the abolition of tolls being popular in England, he could prove out of the mouth of the President of the Local Government Board, that the very reverse was the case. On the 19th of July last year, the President of the Local Government Board, in reply to a Question of the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Mr. Severne), whether there was not dissatisfaction at the continually increased charges thrown on the rates in rural districts by the abolition of turnpikes and the unequal incidence of these burdens, stated that the Government were very well aware that in several of the rural districts, a growing feeling of dissatisfaction had arisen at the increased charges thrown upon the rates by the abolition of turnpikes. He, therefore, begged the Government very respectfully, but very earnestly, to reconsider this question, and to substitute for compulsory, permissive, legislation. If they did so, he could promise them the lasting gratitude of the county which he had the honour to represent. The last Government was accused, and, in his opinion, accused rightly, of introducing a great deal of unnecessary legislation. He begged the present Government not to follow that bad example, but to abstain from legislation where it was not required and was not desired. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice,
    MR. M'LAREN,in seconding the Amendment, said, he heartily approved of the Motion which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Alexander) had submitted, although the course which he pursued and the arguments which he had used were not those which he would use, or the opinions which he held. He thought the Bill as it now stood a very bad one, and that the best thing they could do would be to reject it altogether. It was a thing of shreds and patches, with nothing that they could call a general principle running through it. Reference had been made to the Royal Commission which sat on this subject; and, as he was a Member of that Commission, he might say that the principle they recommended was a very simple one—that the Bill should come into operation at once, and that every burgh and county should support the roads within its own boundaries. Nothing could be more simple than that recommendation. The Commissioners did not recommend any delay; but, in point of fact, a delay of 17 years had taken place. The Commission was appointed by a Conservative Government, and the Liberal Government who followed them in office fought shy of the subject, declaring on certain occasions that the Commission was none of theirs. Since that time he was afraid to say how many Bills had been introduced. But one was brought in, two years ago, by which turnpikes were to come to an end after five years; and yet this Bill would not come into full operation for nine years from August next. Surely that was a most extraordinary proposition. In fact, the whole turnpike system of Scotland was strangely managed. In England, every Turnpike Bill for renewal came before the House, and there was an opportunity of considering whether it was required or not; but as to Scotland, no such process took place— a Bill of a single clause was passed continuing all the expired Acts for a year. This process had been going on for a very long time, some of the Scotch Turnpike Acts having expired 40 years ago had thus been continued; yet the public never had an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the injustice of this treatment. It had been urged that the trusts in each county should be consolidated; but, in the county of Mid-Lothian, there had been only one trust for the last
    1766
    40 years, and how could they consolidate that? The same remark applied to other counties—and, in fact, the consolidation suggestion of the Royal Commission was merely a remark by the way that some good might be done in that direction. By the present Bill it was proposed to continue all the Acts for nine years, and to the end of the next Session of Parliament—that was, till August 1888, unless "in the meantime Parliament otherwise provides, or this Act shall be adopted." Who was to decide whether this Permissive Bill was to come into operation or not? By the Permissive Bill, with which they were all familiar, the ratepayers gave their votes; but in this Bill no such power was given to the people generally. They had no power whatever. The landed interest was to decide, for the decision rested entirely with the Commissioners of Supply. The tenants complained that the present system relieved the land of burdens which it ought fairly to bear, yet those landowners were to decide whether the new system was or was not to be adopted. It was like proposing that Bulgaria should obtain a good system of government when Turkey chose to give it her. Who were these Commissioners of Supply? What constituted them was doubtful at one time; but an Act—17 & 18 Vict. c. 91—declared that they should consist of the proprietors of land of £100 a-year, proprietors of houses or other buildings, not farm-houses, worth £200 a-year, eldest sons of proprietors of land of £400 a-year, and the factors of landed proprietors of £800 a-year in the absence of the proprietor. These were the people who were to decide whether this Act was to be adopted or not; so that there was no provision whatever for making the voice of the constituency heard on the question; and they were required to have a majority of two-thirds to bring the Act into operation— which everyone knew it was very rare and very difficult to obtain in any business matters. If the two-thirds was not obtained at the expiration of two years, a majority could apply to the Secretary of State for a Provisional Order; and, after a preliminary inquiry, that Order might be issued by the Home Secretary, with such alterations as he should think fit, and might be contested before Committees of both Houses of Parliament— a most expensive and circuitous process

    1767
    to be gone through. It might be argued that the Commissioners of Supply were a large body, but this was not so, and the burghs were not represented at all. In Edinburgh the county proper contained 73,000 inhabitants. The Parliamentary burghs 254,000; yet the burghs were not to be represented—not even to send their chief magistrates to the meeting of the Commissioners. How could such a disparity be defended? It might be thought that the rental of the counties was a very large one, though the population was comparatively small, and that the counties paid a large amount of rates and taxes which the burghs escaped. But the facts were the other way. Taking Edinburgh county, the rental was £683,000, including railways; while the rental of the city of Edinburgh alone was above £1,500,000—and, including the three Parliamentary burghs of Leith, Portobello, and Musseltmrgh, it was £1,929,000. The rental of the burghs as against the counties was, therefore, as three to one, and yet they were to have no voice in the matter. Again, from a Return showing the income of every borough and county in the United Kingdom assessable to the income tax under all the Schedules, the county of Edinburgh had an assessable income of £1,075,000, while the city of Edinburgh had an income of above £6,000,000, and the burghs of Leith, Portobello, and Musselburgh had an income of an additional £1,000,000—making, altogether, £7,054,000 yearly, being nearly seven to one—and yet the burghs were to have no voice in the representation. Could anything be conceived more unjust than such a mode of legislation? This disparity was not confined to one county; but he would not weary the House by going over the facts relating to other counties. However, he might mention that in the county of Lanark, including all the police burghs, but excluding Glasgow, the income assessable to the income tax under all the Schedules was £4,327,000, while the income of Glasgow alone was £12,216,000. Yet Glasgow was to be ignored and trampled upon, and made tributary to the county by paying £12,500 a-year to keep up the roads of the county. This was landlordism with a vengeance. The expense of keeping up the county roads had been referred to as very great; but, while in the
    1768
    county of Edinburgh the surface repairs were estimated to cost next year £13,141, the expense in the city of Edinburgh alone was upwards of £20,000. The cost of maintaining the roads and streets in Edinburgh was now 5d. in the £, and if the Bill passed the rate would be 6d. Instead of the city being tributary to the county as Glasgow was proposed to be made, the county of Mid-Lothian was, to some extent, tributary to the city of Edinburgh; because the county now paid £1,500 a-year to the city for keeping up certain roads as county roads, although within the limits of the city, and that would cease when the Bill passed; and the causeway mail would cease to be levied, which now produced nearly £2,000 a-year. The city rate would then be 6d. in the £, and the rate for the county would be less than 6d. The expense of keeping up the statute labour roads now met by a separate rate was, in many arguments for the counties, added to the expense of keeping up the turnpike roads, and he could not see why these two things should be mixed up at all. In comparing Edinburgh and Glasgow with the counties, it might be supposed that he had selected favourable cases; but the Return which he had quoted showed that, taking all the counties of Scotland together and all the Parliamentary burghs together, the assessable rental of the counties under all the Schedules to income tax was £25,436,000, while that of the Parliamentary burghs alone, not including the police burghs, was £28,130,000. The landed interest had its own way so much in the framing of this Bill, that the burghs had a strong claim to be heard against it. In the Report of the Royal Commissioners to which reference had been made, it was recommended that small burghs should be dealt with for road purposes as for police purposes—that was, that a small burgh should have the option to be rated as part of the county; but this Bill overthrew that recommendation altogether, and took away the option suggested by the Royal Commission. In certain small burghs the rate would be most oppressive. A small burgh might be a turnpike road, with a row of houses on each side, and the road might be used for traffic from one end of the county to the other, while the rental of the burgh and the use of the road by the burgh might be very small.

    1769
    The wisdom of the old Scottish Parliament gave such burghs compensation for keeping up the repair of the roads, by allowing them to levy causeway mail and through customs. He hoped, the Lord Advocate would take into consideration that, while the Commissioners agreed to abolish these customs, they recommended, as part of their scheme, that the small burghs should have the option of merging themselves into the counties—that the two things should go together; but the Bill took away that option, and the customs, leaving the whole burden of the road on the burgh. He (Mr. M'Laren) was not an advocate for through customs and causeway mail. He had done all he could to get them abolished; but he submitted that if they took away those rights from the small burghs, they ought to leave them the option recommended by the Royal Commissioners of merging themselves in the counties. There was another objectionable principle in the Bill. When two burghs came into juxtaposition, and a turnpike road was the boundary, each burgh was to keep up one-half of the road from the middle; but when a turnpike road divided a burgh from the county, the burgh was, by this Bill, to keep up the whole of the road, and the county was to do nothing. Could that be called a just principle? Then there were the provisions with regard to debts. Four out of five of the Royal Commissioners were large landholders, so that the landed interest could not have been overlooked by the Commission; and they said that whenever a debt existed on any road, part being in a burgh, the debt should be paid off in proportion to the mileage within the burgh and to the mileage without the burgh. But the Bill did not regard the mileage within the burgh, but only the cumulo debt. Another objectionable principle was this—that where tolls had already been abolished the majority of road trustees, at a meeting called for the purpose, could actually repeal the Local Act which had been obtained at an expense of thousands of pounds and adopt the present Act. He might be asked what he would do? He would say—"Do for Scotland what you do for England. Let the trustees of an expiring Act come before the House and ask for a renewal, and then let the local parties, whether of burghs or counties,
    1770
    come before the Committee to be heard for their interests, and then let the Committee pass an equitable Bill as they now do for England." He knew that that was objected to on the score of expense; but he had no hesitation in saying that there would be loss expense to the counties that had not yet abolished tolls, in adopting that principle, than by the Bill's cumbrous principle of going to the Home Secretary, of then having a local inquiry, and then fighting the question in Parliament over again, and paying all the costs incurred by these different inquiries and contests. He apologized for having taken up so much time, and thanked the House for the patient hearing it had given him.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee,—(Colonel Alexander,) — instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    COLONEL ALEXANDERwished to correct an error into which the hon. Member for Edinburgh had fallen. He (Colonel Alexander) had not said that the cost of maintaining the roads under the Bill would be three times what it was at present; but that the Bill would treble the assessment of each individual proprietor of lands and heritages within the counties.
    ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM EDMON-STONEsaid, that since he spoke on the subject last year his objection to the Bill continued, and had not in any sense decreased. He was opposed to the Bill in the general interest of the counties, as imposing additional assessment, and also because he thought that those who used the roads should pay for them. But as the Government, after long and careful deliberation, had thought right to bring in a Bill, and as his constituents as a whole did not wish him to oppose it, lie should support the Bill, though his own objections to it were as strong as ever. He should reserve the right to deal with the details of his Bill in Committee.
    MR. BAXTERsaid, it was only fair to the Government that they should go

    1771
    into Committee. It was not necessary for him to reply to the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander), which had been utterly demolished by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren); but he would put it to the House that the Bill had been for several years before the counties, and had been thoroughly canvassed in every line and clause. The Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate had taken a great deal of trouble to give them a day for the Bill; and, now after all the grumbling which had been going on in Scotland about the neglect of Scotch Business and Legislation, it was desired to get up a great debate and not to go into Committee. The hon. Member for Edinburgh had talked about several principles of the Bill; but he (Mr. Baxter) said there was but one principle, and that was the abolition of tolls. He could not understand how anyone could advocate such an antiquated and expensive a system as that of tolls. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire had said that he was prepared to abolish tolls if some equitable system of assessment could be devised; but, in the majority of the Scotch counties, not only had such a system been devised, but it had been in operation for years, and it was not creditable to the other counties that they had not long ago followed so good an example. He appealed to hon. Members whether, where tolls had been abolished and an assessment substituted, it had not worked satisfactorily to all parties? Every one of the objections which had been made could be dealt with in Committee. But did hon. Members expect that the Government and the House were going to give them many more days for such a minor matter as the Roads and Bridges of Scotland? He appealed to hon. Members not to delay going into Committee, so that they could deal with the clauses in a workmanlike manner.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he agreed very much with what had been said by the right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter); but sometimes details were very important, and took away all the merit of the main principle, and he thought he should show that the present was one of such cases. When a Government had brought in a Bill, and subsequently brought in new clauses, they were bound to read the new clauses and
    1772
    the Bill together. When they discussed this matter on the second reading of the Bill, the new clauses were not before them. In the discussion on the second reading, he called attention to the objectionable manner in which so much power was left in the hands of the Commissioners of Supply, while there was so little of the representative principle. The Commissioners of Supply were all landed proprietors, or sons of landed proprietors, or factors of landed proprietors.
    COLONEL MUREsaid, he must demur to the statement of the hon. Member as far as factors were concerned.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, that landed proprietors of over £800 a-year had the additional advantage of having factors to represent them in their absence. He had put down Amendments on this part of the Bill, and was prepared to discuss them in Committee. But the new clauses had been brought forward since then, and they were so important to the constituency which he represented that they went far towards making the Bill a blessing or a curse to that constituency according as they were adopted or refused. If the Home Secretary persisted in carrying them through as they now stood, he must do all he could to prevent the Bill passing, and was sorry that he had not more power than he had; but whatever it was he should firmly exercise it. He hoped the Home Secretary would re-consider those clauses, seeing how unjust a burden they would put on the city of Glasgow. The Bill, as it stood, without the new clauses, would give 10 miles of additional roads to Glasgow to keep up; but this considerable burden was not objected to, though it would cost the ratepayers at least 1d. in the £ in addition to the cost of keeping up their own roads. But one of the new clauses would make Glasgow bear a share of the county debts of Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire. This, he thought, was very unjust, because for many years Glasgow had been spending enormous sums in paving and repairing its principal streets. The county had been spending and borrowing sums, and had not paid off its debts in the way in which Glasgow had done, and there was a largo debt on the county roads, whereas he thought the street debt of Glasgow was only £140,000. If the Bill proposed to throw the two debts into one, and

    1773
    that both city and county should pay, then it might be an approximation to justice; but the Bill actually proposed that the city should go on paying its own debt solely, and, at the same time, should pay equally with the county the county debt. He could not see how any proposal could be more unjust than that. But, more than that, there was another clause proposed by which Glasgow was asked to give a fixed annual contribution to the counties to assist them to keep up their own roads. Upon what principle that was proposed he could not say. The clause left a blank for the amount, and therefore he presumed that they were left to make the best fight they could as to what that amount should be. He would suggest that the proper sum with which to fill up the blank would be one farthing. In reality, however, there ought to be nothing at all. The principle was entirely unjust. There was no earthly reason why the citizens of Glasgow should be asked, in addition to keeping up their own streets, to pay an annual sum for the keeping up of the county roads, with which they had nothing on earth to do. A Royal Commission, which sat in 1859, recommended that burghs and counties should each keep their own roads, and the present proposal was entirely contrary to the Report of that Commission. All the street traffic of Glasgow was not city traffic. An immense part of it was county traffic, consisting of coals, iron, and farm produce, which were sent into Glasgow to be sent by railway or shipped at the harbour. All that traffic passed, through the streets of the city at present without contributing a single farthing towards their maintenance. Notwithstanding that, they were to be asked to pay to keep up these streets, which were used by the people in the county for their traffic, and also to pay an annual sum towards keeping up the roads in the county. His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh had informed him that the blank had been filled up with the sum of £12,500 a-year in perpetuity. That burden was to be put upon them without a shadow of excuse. That sum, divided between Glasgow and the smaller burghs which surrounded the city, would leave something like £10,000 to be paid by Glasgow— that was to say, it would leave something more than 1d. in the £ on the
    1774
    whole rating of the city. He asked the Home Secretary to consider how far that was a just burden to put upon Glasgow. Then, the share of the debt, the assessment for which was to be spread over 40 or 50 years, would, it was estimated, amount to another ¼d. in the £; so that altogether the Bill would impose upon the citizens of Glasgow, in addition to the present charge for maintaining the streets, an annual assessment of 2¼d. Of that charge they did not object to the 1d. for the new roads, but they did object entirely to the further addition of 1¼d. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider the position of a shopkeeper in Glasgow paying £500 or £1,000 a-year, and that of a landowner in the county paying a similar amount. Was the interest in the road analogous in those two cases? Yet both were to pay an equal rating in regard to the debt, entirely forgetful of the fact that the lands round Glasgow had been enormously enhanced in value through the simple fact of their contiguity to Glasgow. The value of the estates of the landowners round Glasgow had, owing to this circumstance, been doubled and trebled; and, in some cases, enhanced a hundredfold; and they now wanted to escape the burden that ought naturally to fall upon them in consideration of the benefit which they had thus derived. Unless the right hon. Gentleman would give some pledge to re-consider these clauses and deal with this matter in a more equitable way, he should be obliged to divide against going into Committee on the Bill.
    SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHERthought the hon. Members who had listened to the observations of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) would be of opinion that he was justly entitled to the name given to him by his hon. Friend and Kinsman the Member for Fife (Sir Robert Anstruther), when he called him, two Sessions ago, an "Encyclopaedia of figures." The observations which the hon. Member had addressed to the House would have been more properly made in Committee on the Bill. The same remark applied also to the observations to which they had just listened from the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). He (SirWindham Anstruther) did his best last year to help to defeat this Bill; because he thought that a measure of this import-

    1775
    ance, affecting local interests, touching property, and largely increasing the burden of local taxation, ought not to be pushed through the House at the fag-end of a Session. He did not intend to take that course on the present occasion, though he wished to guard against its being either implied or understood that he accepted this measure unconditionally. From the fact that two hon. Members differing so entirely in their views as the hon. Member for Edinburgh and the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire had joined hands across the floor of the House in order to defeat the Bill, he was led to think that there must be some good in it, and that it contained the materials out of which, with care and consideration, a measure might be constructed which, whilst abolishing tolls on highways, would do so in a manner as equitable, as such a measure could be equitable, to those who would have, by the proposed change, to bear the burden of maintaining the roads. He hoped that they might be allowed to go into Committee on the Bill without much further discussion. In Committee, when the Bill should come into operation, if certain counties should be exempted from its provisions, how far it was advisable to disregard all local interests, and to treat all the different counties of Scotland as if they were all the same length, and breadth, and height, whilst the fact was notoriously the reverse; and when, and where, and how this perfect model of cut-and-dried uniformity in pattern should be altered, could be fully considered and decided upon. He maintained that the rejection of this measure implied delay, and that again meant a continuance of the agitation for the abolition of tolls, without any probable result.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), that it was desirable to go into Committee on the Bill as soon as possible; but there was one point upon which he should like to say a word, especially as he should feel himself precluded from raising the question in Committee. He alluded to the imposition of a tax upon horses and carriages. Last year he did place an Amendment on the Paper on this subject; but he had now come to the conclusion it would so vitally affect the framework of
    1776
    the Bill that he did not think it was possible for a private Member to raise the question in Committee unless the Government were willing to accept the general proposition of which he had given Notice—namely, that no measure could be satisfactory which failed to satisfy the classes who did not ordinarily pay tolls by placing a part of the burden on horses and carriages. He did not moan horses ordinarily used on agricultural land. He admitted that, such land being taxed, there was no case for taxing agricultural horses. Speaking principally as representing a burgh constituency, he said that the most intelligent and best men connected with burghs were almost united in wishing that the Bill should be passed in a modified form, such as the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) would be able to suggest in Committee; but, at the same time, he had found by experience, that there was a strong undercurrent of feeling on the part of the smaller ratepayers of burghs who did not directly pay tolls that the effect of the measure would be to put upon them rates which they thought ought to be paid by the people who used the roads. He was quite aware that in reality, when they came to the merits of the question, this objection could be in great part met; because, although these people did not directly pay tolls, yet they undoubtedly paid more for their coal, corn, and a great many other things in the shape of tolls, and in that way they would be benefited by the abolition of tolls. But, on the other hand, he was inclined to think that in political matters, and especially in financial matters, they must not only be just but seem to be just. They must make it clear and apparent to all that they were just. Now, that indirect saving which would come to the small ratepayers was not a saving which they very clearly saw, and therefore they were not inclined to acknowledge it; and he believed that if this Bill were passed without some such provision as that which he suggested, there would be a great deal of grumbling on the part of the small ratepayers when the impost came to be enforced upon them. Therefore, he asked why a rate should not be imposed upon the horses and carriages which used roads other than agricultural horses? There was a class—no doubt a limited class—who kept horses and carriages for pleasure, and a real injustice

    1777
    would be done unless these rich, people contributed their fair quota of taxation for the purpose of maintaining the roads which they used more than other people used them. Tate the ease of two men living in houses of equal value—one of them kept a carriage and horses, and the other kept nothing of the kind. Well, those two men would pay equally to the rates, although they did not equally use the roads. That was an injustice, and he was afraid there was a feeling rising up which would spread, that this was to a certain extent a question between rich and poor. If the Government desired to satisfy the smaller ratepayers, they would endeavour to engraft upon the Bill a clause which should impose a tax upon horses and carriages using the roads for the purpose of pleasure and luxury, which should so far go in diminution of the rate imposed upon land and houses.
    SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAMEsaid, there were several matters in the Bill which appeared to be mere points of detail; but which, in fact, involved important principles, and ought to be discussed before the Committee stage was reached. One of these was the question whether it was possible to arrange for the maintenance of roads by assessment in preference to the present arrangement of tolls, or by the payment of tolls by the people actually using them? That was a question which they could not fairly discuss without entering upon those broad matters of principle which he had embodied in the Amendment of which he had given Notice—
    "That, whilst this House is not unwilling' to assent to the abolition of tolls in Scotland (if an equitable system of assessment can be devised), it is of opinion no measure is satisfactory which changes the burden of taxation during existing leases, and which does not provide that the richer classes should bear a part of the charge proportionate to the number of horses and carriages used by them."
    He did not wish to be considered as anxious to take up any position of active hostility to the Bill, but he could have wished that it had been made permissive. He had no wish to delay the passing of the Bill; because it appeared to him that when the Home Secretary stated, as he was reported to have stated, that he was determined to abolish tolls, there was very little further to be said in the matter but to endeavour to make the Bill as satisfactory as possible to all parties
    1778
    who would be affected by it. His principal objection to it was that he was very much afraid that the measure, if passed, would bring a great deal of unpopularity on Her Majesty's Government, making it many enemies, but no friends. A new rate was always an unpopular measure, and under this Bill a great many men would have to pay a rate who had never paid a toll in their lives, and when the rate collector came round they would consider they owed a grudge against the Conservative Government. If there had been any special demand throughout the country for this measure, he should possibly have considered it was worth while for the Conservative Government to incur the risk of this unpopularity; but, with the exception of the two great towns of Edinburgh and Glasgow, he was unable to find that there was any large district in Scotland that was very anxious to get rid of tolls. In his own burgh, which could not be entered except through a toll-gate, no such feeling existed; and, but for the allegiance he bore to his Party, he was perfectly free to vote with his hon. and gallant Friend who had moved the rejection of the Bill. With regard to the two points, which he had ventured to bring in his Amendment under the notice of the Government, he hoped before going into Committee that the Home Secretary would be kind enough to give the opinion of the Government upon them.
    COLONEL MUREsaid, he could not allow the House to divide on the question without saying a few words. He certainly must congratulate the Government on the marvellous allegiance displayed by their supporters. He had often been surprised at the extent to which the allegiance given by hon. Members sitting behind the Ministerial bench was carried; but he had never before been so strongly impressed by the remarkable manner in which Her Majesty's Government was supported. There were two hon. Gentlemen behind the front bench who had expressed their thorough disapproval of the Bill; but, nevertheless, owing to their allegiance towards Her Majesty's Government, although their constituents were opposed to the Bill, they intended to support the measure.
    ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM EDMON-STONE: I merely stated that my constituents did not wish me to oppose the Bill.
    COLONEL MUREsaid, the hon. and gallant Admiral was singularly lucky, for he represented a double allegiance. So much, however, for the solidity of the Conservative Party of which he had heard a good deal already, but which now appeared to be almost perfect. With regard to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander), he was anxious to have risen immediately after that speech had been made; but other hon. Members happened to be before him. Without entering into the points raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he wished to point out to the House, without alluding to any personal matter, that he himself (Colonel Mure) had a strong interest in. the county of Ayr. He lived in the county, and his interest in it was quite as strong as that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and the other hon. and gallant Member who opposed the Bill. He believed that they had exaggerated the evils that would be brought upon the county by the Bill, and he could assure them that if he saw in it the same evils that they appeared to perceive, he should be inclined to offer the strongest opposition to the measure. He was the Member for a county (Renfrew) which was overshadowed by Glasgow, and which, by reason of the enormous traffic connected with that city, would have a large amount of rates thrown upon it unless it could obtain some relief under this Bill. That relief would be afforded by the clauses that had been introduced into the measure; and although all those clauses were quite satisfactory, he nevertheless thought the Bill was one which they might fairly ask should have the opportunity of being amended in Committee. The hon. Member for Edinburgh had strongly opposed the Bill. Of course, that was to be expected. The hon. Member, on every Bill that affected his locality, when it was first brought in, and on any great measure dealing with roads, was sure to have a Notice of Amendment put against it that it be read a second time that day six months. [Mr. M'LAREN: No, no!] The hon. Member said "No, no;" but the observation made with regard to him was founded on what he (Colonel Mure) had observed with regard to the hon. Gentleman's general action on measures dealing with local matters. The hon.
    1780
    Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had also opposed the Bill; but he would point out to that hon. Gentleman that this was not a Bill brought in by the counties, as he seemed to suppose. It was, in fact, a Bill brought in by Glasgow and Edinburgh, which had been so loud in their demands that tolls should be abolished; but now that a Bill had been brought in to abolish tolls, and proposing to deal fairly with conflicting interests of the counties and boroughs, the two hon. Gentlemen to whom he had referred had put their names down against the measure, and in opposition to the view which the two cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh had enunciated when they had been crying out for the abolition of tolls. The hon. Member for Glasgow said it was wrong that that city should be called on to contribute anything in payment of the debts of the county; but it should be remembered that a good many years ago the gentlemen of that county took a heavy burden on themselves, and it was only fair, now that the tolls were to be abolished, and their security abolished with them, that Glasgow, which had been served with the county roads, should pay its fair share of that debt. The Glasgow people wanted to see the tolls abolished, because they thought it was not fair for them to pay tolls on the roads near that city; but in this they necessarily implied that they made use of those roads. Their argument was that they ought not to contribute to the maintenance of the roads because they used the rail, and not the roads; but this statement could not be true, because their very desire to get rid of the tolls was a proof that they did use the road, or the tolls would not affect them. Their position in this matter was utterly inconsistent. However, he would not further discuss the Bill as he saw the House was anxious to go into Committee upon it, and he hoped, therefore, that the debate would be speedily closed.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Ayrshire Burghs (Sir William Cuning-hame) had put the question on an entirely new footing. He looked at the question in the light in which it would affect the Government. Now, he thought they should look at it in the way in which it affected Scotland. Whatever his hon, and gallant Friend might say,

    1781
    unquestionably the feeling in Scotland had been to got rid of tolls. There might have been disputes between town and country in respect to the subject; but, unquestionably, the feeling had been to get rid of tolls, and in deference to that strong public opinion the Government had taken the matter in hand, which was one of no slight task considering there were no fewer than 20 pages of Amendments to the Bill. He considered that his hon. and gallant Friend had given good advice to the House when he proposed to refer all the questions in dispute to consideration in Committee. His hon. and gallant Friend went "the whole hog" against tolls, but the public feeling was against him in so far as he wished to maintain tolls while the Bill proposed to abolish them. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) took a different line. He did not attack the principles of the Bill, but he attacked it in every possible way in matters of detail. He said this was a principle of the Bill, and that was a principle of the Bill; and if they summed up the number of times the hon. Member said "that was the principle of the Bill," there must be quite 25 principles in the Bill. The hon. Member had discussed matters of detail which should be left to Committee. He had heard it suggested that horses and carts should be taxed, and he (Lord Elcho) represented a county which, before it abolished tolls, endeavoured to find various ways to get out of the difficulty. One of those ways was to place a tax upon horses; but they found that it would not do, and they therefore had to abandon it. It was found after all that they must either keep tolls, or abolish them absolutely. Any stranger to the subject, who listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), would come to the conclusion that the Bill proposed simply to place upon Glasgow the debt that was now paid by the county, and to make Glasgow maintain the roads which it did not now maintain; but the roads were maintained by tolls round about Glasgow, and the lion. Member was endeavouring to throw dust in the eyes of the House by ignoring the fact that there was not a just apportionment of the debt between town and county. He deprecated a fight between town and county in this matter.
    1782
    What they wanted was something that was fair and just, and the Government wore endeavouring to do it.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURappealed to the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Alexander) not to press his Amendment. He contended that the main objection they all had in view was that of the abolition of tolls. The point which he had always endeavoured to enforce was, that when all the roads of a county—namely, turnpike and commutation or statute labour roads—were combined under one management, there should be greater economy practised in regard to the maintenance of roads. The information available justified an estimate of about 21,000 miles of road in the Scotch counties, and that these cost about £252,000 per annum, which was an average of about £12 a-mile. This was direct outlay, quite irrespective of the indirect charges occasioned by letting out the turnpikes. These were about 1,000 in number, and the keepers could not be expected to earn less than £30 for each bar. That alone added £30,000 at least. Indeed, £300,000 per annum might be the direct and indirect outlay on roads of all kinds. Nearly two-thirds might be chargeable to about 5,000 miles of turnpike roads, and one-third to 16,000 miles of other roads. He saw no reason why economy should not be effected in many ways—as, for instance, in dealing with the salaries of their clerks, and surveyors, and lawyers. Looking at all the points connected with the question, and seeing how fast Scotland was diminishing the number of trusts—for in 10 years, 24 trusts had been abolished—he considered it desirable in every way that the whole of the tolls should be got rid of. That was the essential issue. The other questions at issue were matters of detail. He was sure the Home Secretary would allow Scotch Members to discuss the questions fully, and he therefore asked hon. Members who proposed the Amendment not to press for a division.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEremarked that all the reasons which could possibly be brought against the Bill by interests in the city of Glasgow and in Lanarkshire had been fairly urged, and the allegation had been made that had the Bill been brought forward in the naked manner in which it was originally

    1783
    proposed, it would have imposed a most unendurable burden upon the suburbs of the great towns. He had urged over and over again that those suburban places would suffer very much. Some years ago he went so far as to propose— what the Government had now taken up —a continuation of tolls where there was an unusual amount of traffic. A permissive measure was taken in hand, by which, in places where there was a great traffic, tolls should be levied. But the Government went further in the matter. An inquiry was instituted, and statements were made on either side, and the decision had confirmed his allegation on the matter. He admitted the great difficulty of the question as to the real adjustment of the maintenance of the roads between town and county. It would be a needless inquiry to attempt to get at the way in which different parties were interested, and he believed if the Government took the general assessment for the whole, it would be the best plan they could adopt. He hoped a division would not be taken, but that the House might be allowed to go into Committee.
    MR. MONTGOMERIEcould not say, with many hon. Members, that he wished the House to go into Committee. He rose to support the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, and thought it more necessary that he should do so seeing that his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Mure) had rather intimated that the feeling in Ayrshire against the Bill had been exaggerated. He thought that the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) placed the question on a right footing when he said the question before the House was whether or not they should abolish tolls, and that this was not a question between town and country; and he had less hesitation in saying that, because in his part of the country the towns were at one with the country. He was quite ready to admit that the abolition of tolls was necessary and desirable in some counties, although in others it might not be. His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) said that the ratepayers would have no voice in the Bill; but he only wished that the ratepayers in Ayr had the same opportunity of expressing their opinions of the measure as he had They were
    1784
    entirely opposed to the Bill. What was its object—was it to make better roads, or to make a more equitable adjustment of the expense of keeping up the ones already in use? If it was to make better roads—it was scarcely possible to do so in Ayrshire. If it was to make the burden of maintaining them fall equally, the Bill did not seem to him calculated to do that. There were so many interests involved in the carrying out of the measure that it was impossible to make a rule which would apply with justice to all. They had one coalowner sending all his coal by a railway which he had made, and had to maintain, at a great expense, while his next neighbour might be getting his whole output carried away by the roads; and it could not be said, that justice was done in making each pay the same rate for road maintenance. It seemed to him that the Bill had its origin in the love for uniformity, which was all very well in the prisons and poorhouses, but certainly was not necessary for such matters as keeping up roads. He could not see that there was much in the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for the Ayr Burghs (Sir William Cuning-hame), that the Bill was objectionable because it would make the Government unpopular. If the Government thought it good for the country they would, no doubt, carry the measure, whatever its effect might be on its popularity. All he said was that the Bill was certainly not to the advantage of the county he (Mr. Montgomerie) represented. He would still appeal to Her Majesty's Government, and to his learned Friend the Lord Advocate, that they should give effect to the recommendations of the Commission, and allow them to keep things as they were, or, at least, to make the measure permissive instead of compulsory. The Lord Advocate had formerly admitted that the county of Ayr was differently circumstanced from other counties, and it was perfectly possible for counties which had no tolls to live in peace with counties which had tolls. There was this peculiarity in the county which he had the honour to represent. On one side they had the sea, and not many carriages came from there; on the other side they had the hills, and whatever traffic went through went by rail. Let them, therefore, in Ayrshire keen their tolls. The

    1785
    present system worked well, and they did not want any change.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he was quite willing that the hon. and learned Member should keep his tolls as long as the law allowed him to do so; but it so happened that the turnpike trusts expired in Ayrshire next year, and if the Home Secretary was as good as his word, not one of these would be renewed. Therefore, it could make but very little difference to the hon. and learned Member whether this Bill was thrown out or not. Either he must face the Bill, which would allow him 10 years grace, or he must submit to inquiry into the various turnpike trusts in Ayrshire. He intended to vote for the Speaker leaving the Chair; but he confessed that if the Bill on which they were now asked to go into Committee embodied the clause relating to Glasgow which it was proposed to insert in it, he should be bound to oppose the Bill, or, at any rate, to treat it in a different manner from what he intended to do. He wished to call attention to a few circumstances connected with turnpike trusts in Scotland. Of these, 22 would expire next year, and for the sake of these 22 it was proposed to reinstate 135 for 10 years. Now, that, he thought, was perfectly indefensible. He could not help reechoing what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, that they should be better able to deal with these Turnpike Acts themselves, and in a short time they would achieve the abolition of the turnpike system in Scotland. The Home Secretary had said that it was only in ease of this Bill being prevented from coming into law by the opposition of the counties that he would insist on expiring Turnpike Acts in Scotland being referred to a Committee; but last year the right hon. Gentleman was reported in Hansard to have said—
    "If by any misfortune, which I do not at the present moment anticipate, legislation should l)c prevented in the course of another year, all these Turnpike Acts will have to be continued only after the greatest possible investigation, and a proper understanding upon them."— [3 Hansard, cexxxvi. 755.]
    There was, the right hon. Gentleman added, no reason why the Scotch Acts should not be treated in the same way as the English Acts. The expiring Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill of this year
    1786
    would renew for another year about 120 or 130 of these Turnpike Acts; and whether the right hon. Gentleman chose to construe his statement in the manner in which he had stated it to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, or according to the words used in Hansard, was of little matter; but he could promise that, so far as he was concerned, they would demand a stringent investigation before they allowed any of those Acts to be renewed another year under the Expiring Acts Continuance Bill. To show the iniquity of some of these Acts yearly continued without inquiry, he should refer to the case of two connected with the city of Glasgow. The statement he was about to make was based entirely on ex parte evidence, and he gave it simply as showing the necessity for investigation before there was any renewal of these Acts. The first was the case of the Trust of the Yoker Road. That Trust was empowered to borrow money for the purpose of maintaining the road and paying off the debt. Since the road was constructed a tramway line was made, which extended about two and three-quarter miles along it, and the tramway company maintained the greater part of the road for that distance. In 1875 the tramway company discovered that the Trust had nearly £14,000 lying to its credit in the bank, but was continuing to levy tolls all the same. The tramway company drew the attention of the Trust to that fact, and the effect was that the Trust brought in a Bill for the construction of a new road, absorbing the money and preventing the cessation of the tolls. Another instance was afforded by the tramway company on the Glasgow Great Western Road. The Trust there had enough money to pay off their entire debt, as they were bound by their Act to do. Instead of that, they left the money lying in the bank. When the tramway company drew attention to it, the Trust suddenly discovered that they were charging the tram-cars too little, and they raised the rate per car from 1s. to 2s. Now, when they were asked to perpetuate such Acts as these, it was high time that some searching inquiry should be made. He was quite willing, in order to obtain the discontinuance of this gross injustice, to submit to some trifling anomalies; and he should, therefore, vote for going into Committee, on

    1787
    the distinct understanding that he might oppose the Bill at a future stage should any objectionable provision be introduced.
    Question put.
    The House divided: —Ayes 104; Noes 5: Majority 99.—(Div. List, No. 62.)
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Preamble postponed.
    Clause 1 (Short title, and commencement of Act).
    MR. ANDERSON,in moving that the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again, said, his reason for doing so was that, although they had been engaged for several hours in a debate in which many hon. Members had spoken, the Government had taken no part in it. It was new to his experience—and he thought it must be to every Member of the House—to find that, after a long debate, no Member of the Government had attempted to reply. This, he thought, was treating the House with very great disrespect. Some Members of the Government were present now, and, in order to give them an opportunity of making the reply which they ought to have made before the Speaker left the Chair, he brought forward the present Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Anderson.)
    LORD ELCHOthought the Government, by not answering, had by no means established a bad precedent. If the Government had not spoken, the House had spoken, by 104 votes to 5, in favour of going on with the Bill. He regretted, therefore, that the hon. Member for Glasgow should have interposed to prevent their proceeding to consider the clauses.
    MR. M'LAGANwas of opinion that the Government did quite right in not speaking on this subject. He was anxious to have spoken himself; but he thought what he had to say could be quite as well spoken in Committee.
    1788
    Many of the speeches that had been made might have been deferred, and he trusted his hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson) would not press the Motion.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that he was in charge of the Bill, and that nothing was farther from his mind than to show any want of courtesy to the House. If any independent Member had expressed a desire in the course of the debate that he should make some observations, he should not have refrained from doing so. He thought, however, that by keeping silence, he was furthering the object which the House had in view—namely, that they should pass into Committee without any further discussion. He thought hon. Gentlemen who supported the Motion for the rejection of the Bill answered themselves. One opposed the Bill because it did not go far enough, and the others because it went a great deal too far. Although the questions raised in the debate were, no doubt, of great importance, he felt that it would be necessary to discuss them over again in Committee, and that the opinion of the Government might be expressed on every one of them in the discussion which must ensue on the clauses.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHremarked, that the Lord Advocate had said he did not intend any discourtesy. He occupied three minutes in making his statement—-three minutes which he might have utilized to much greater advantage in replying at the proper time to the arguments that had been urged. As they were all anxious to go on with the Bill, he hoped the hon. Member for Glasgow would be satisfied with the explanation now given, and withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he wished to express his opinion of the conduct of the Government, and he thought no hon. Member had ventured to deny that they had pursued a very unusual course. He would not, however, put the House to the trouble of a division.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Extent of Act) agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Interpretation).
    SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHERsuggested that, as this was an inter-

    1789
    pretation clause which might be affected by what took place during the discussion on other clauses, it and the 4th clause, which might also have to be considerably altered, had better be postponed.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEthought it desirable to pass the clause, in order to define the meaning of the words "burghs," "highways," &c, as they occurred in other parts of the Bill.
    SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHERmoved, as an Amendment, in page 1, between lines 31 and 32, to insert—
    "Commissioners of Supply shall not include persons whose qualification as such arises from property situated, or office held, in a burgh."
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYobjected to the Amendment, as being a still further limitation of a body which was already too limited. He thought the limitations of qualification were sufficiently narrow, and thought it very undesirable to narrow them still more.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEcould not accept the Amendment. The words "Commissioners of Supply" must, for the purposes of the Act, be taken in a wider sense than was given them by the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE MARQUESS OF LORNEmoved, as an Amendment, page 1, line 33, to leave out "and" and insert "or." The Amendment was intended to include all burghs not exceeding 5,000 inhabitants in the district assessments. It seemed unfair that when such small townships used the roads in their neighbourhoods, and cut them up by coach and cart traffic, they should not be called upon to pay something.
    MR. M'LARENconsidered that the clause, for all its purposes, was better as it stood.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEthought it a matter of extreme indifference whether the word "or" or the word "and" occurred in the clause. Either would be grammatically correct.
    Amendment agreed to; word substituted.
    MR. ANDERSONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 8, to leave out the word "five" and insert "three." The object of the Amendment, he said, was to include populous places with
    1790
    populations of under 5,000 in the operation of the Act. Under the Act, all towns with populations of under 5,000 were excluded, and he wished to extend the advantage of the Act to populations of 3,000 and over.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, to leave out the word "five" in order to insert the word "three."—(Mr. Anderson.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDON,who had a similar Amendment on the Paper, supported that of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). A great many small towns in Scotland were desirous of taking advantage of the provisions of this Bill. There were not less than 27 Parliamentary burghs with populations of under 3,000, and not less than 25 Royal burghs with populations under 2,000, and it was an anomaly that the Bill should be applicable to Royal and Parliamentary burghs of less than 5,000 inhabitants, while it would not apply to other towns having the same population. He thought the Amendment was a very reasonable one. In the Police Act of 1850, "populous places" were defined as places and villages of 1,200 inhabitants. They obtained the privilege of assessing themselves for police and municipal purposes. Again, in the next Police Act for Scotland, passed in 1862, "populous places" were defined as towns and villages of 700 inhabitants. This showed there had been a tendency to increase the number of towns which were to have the control of their own affairs. In the present Bill, however, the required population was increased from 700 inhabitants to 5,000, and he did not know upon what principle that was done.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was unable to accept the Amendment. According to the hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken, if they took the measure by the General Police Act of 1862, every place where 700 people were collected together must be dealt with as a town. Whatever might have been the expediency of admitting or excluding Royal and Parliamentary burghs-within the meaning of the Bill, it was well known that they differed widely from "populous places," which were of

    1791
    various kinds. In "populous places" it was often difficult to ascertain where the town ended and the county began, and strange results would be brought about in some cases, if they took out of the county such places, and applied this Act to them. Therefore, the limit for the purposes of the Act was very deliberately assumed, so as not to include any little aggregate of houses that really did not constitute a town.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that, while he admitted fully the reasoning of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate with regard to populous places taken under the Police Act, he thought that the case of burghs and populous places with populations so large as 3,000 was a very strong one, and he recommended that the opinion of the House should be taken upon the question. There were in his constituency and in Aberdeenshire several such places which were models of good management, not only with respect to the roads, but as to their municipal government. He thought that 3,000 was not by any means too small a population to have the management of its own roads, and if the Committee went to a division, he should vote in favour of the Amendment.
    MR. ERNEST NOELsupported the Amendment. It was an extraordinary thing to say that a small town was not to enjoy the benefits of the Bill, simply because it did not happen to be a Royal or Parliamentary burgh. He was far from wishing to take from the Royal burghs any privileges they possessed; but he could not see why one burgh was to have the right to manage its roads and bridges, while that right was withheld from another burgh in the same county and with an equal population. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate spoke as if those towns were without municipal life. He (Mr. Noel) knew one such town where the corporate life was as good as in any town in Scotland, and it was only by an accident that it had not come within the scope of the Bill as a Parliamentary burgh. It was a Parliamentary burgh in effect, though not according to the Act. He could hardly see that there was any fairness in such a state of things; and he trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider whether the magic line of 5,000
    1792
    was not one that might be modified. It would cause a great feeling of unfairness and great dissatisfaction throughout Scotland; and he could not see that any reason had been adduced for such an injustice being done.
    MR. ORR - EWINGopposed the Amendment, and asked the Committee to remember that the original number fixed upon had been 10,000, and that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had reduced it in deference to the opinion of other hon. Members. The' line must be drawn somewhere, and if it was fixed at 3,000 inhabitants, populations of 2,900 would complain of it. He hoped the Amendment would not be agreed to.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, he would join in the appeal to substitute 3,000 for 5,000, inhabitants. He pointed out that places, especially in mining districts, which were 3,000 to-day might be 5,000 and 6,000 in a very short time; but, if not permitted to take part in the Act now, they would be for ever precluded from enjoying its advantages.
    MR. DALEYMPLEtrusted that the Lord Advocate would adhere to the number of 5,000 inhabitants. He thought it would be a very unfortunate thing that at so early a stage of the Bill it should be recorded that a populous place contained less than 5,000 inhabitants, and still more absurd that such a place should be called a burgh. The number of 5,000 was a very fair number; and it was perfectly true, as had been stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire, that that number had already been reduced. He was surprised that the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) should have referred to mining districts; because, in those places, populations sprang up suddenly and diminished as rapidly, so that they ought not to be taken into account.
    MR. ANDERSONadmitted that the line must be drawn somewhere, but the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had failed to show why it should be drawn at 5,000 inhabitants. It appeared to him that 5,000 was too large a number. Towns in Scotland were not so populous as English towns. He thought a town of 3,000 inhabitants ought to be allowed to manage its roads and bridges, and therefore he should press his Motion to a division.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 38; Noes 60: Majority 22. — (Div. List, No. 63.)
    MR. ERNEST NOEL,who had an Amendment on the Paper, in page 2, lines 8 and 9, to leave out "exceeds five thousand" and insert "is not less than four thousand," said, after the last division he had but small hope of inducing the Committee to adopt it, after they had refused 3,000 instead of 5,000 as proposed by the Bill. At the same time he must express his opinion, and would like to hear something from the learned Lord Advocate on the point—as to the hardship and injustice of an enactment, which would deprive every burgh which had not more than 5,000 inhabitants within three months of this Bill becoming an Act, having no power over the management of its own roads for all future time, unless it procured a new Act of Parliament applicable solely to its own case. No one could wish to be constantly coming to Parliament for fresh Bills for the management of roads and bridges, and he hoped the learned Lord Advocate would be able to accept 4,000 as a limit, and he should therefore move an Amendment to that effect.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. Member could not move his Amendment, because the division had already decided that the words "five thousand" should stand as part of the clause. The Amendment might, perhaps, if a fit occasion offered, be moved later on.
    MR. ERNEST NOELsaid, he was afraid that there was very little use in moving his second Amendment, and he would withdraw it.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 17, after "this Act," to insert—
    "In the burghs where at present the roads are partially under the charge of commissioners of police and partly under that of road trustees, then the burgh local authority shall mean the commissioners of police of such burgh."
    The hon. Member said, that although there were a great many definitions in this clause, yet none of them met the case of his own burgh of Inverness, where there were several bodies having charge of the streets and roads within the Parliamentary bounds, and it was desirable to have only one authority.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEwished it to be distinctly understood that this Bill dealt exclusively with turnpike or statute labour) roads; and this particular clause was drawn with the distinct intention of conferring upon the authorities within burghs, who had charge of the proper streets within such burghs, the charge of all turnpike and statute labour roads which might be handed over to the burghs. But the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) was drawn in very general terms, and he (the Lord Advocate), though he agreed with the object of the hon. Member, was rather apprehensive of the effect which might follow its acceptance. For instance, it must suggest that there were to be road authorities, as distinct from street authorities within burghs—a state of things which he was most anxious to avoid. If the hon. Member thought the Bill did not sufficiently provide for Inverness, he should be glad to confer with him upon the subject, in order to the settling of a clause which would make the matter clear.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, between lines 22 and 23, to insert as a new paragraph—
    "Statute labour' shall include moneys raised as the conversion of statute labour, or in lieu thereof, and bridge money;"
    and, in page 2, line 24, to leave out after "labour" to "money" in line 25. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, the object of the Amendment was to define statute labour, which was not done in the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
    MR. C. S. PARKERmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 37, after "thereof," to insert—
    "But shall not include any bridge which any person is, at the commencement of this Act, bound to maintain at his own expense, and not from tolls, assessments, or moneys levied or collected for public purposes, or in respect of any such bridge."
    His intention in moving the Amendment was that the Act should not have the effect of releasing any company or private person from a previous obligation resting on them of maintaining

    1795
    bridges. The present definition left this open to some doubt, which the Amendment would remove.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEadmitted the propriety of the suggestion contained in the Amendment, and said he would accept it, if all the words after the word "expense" were omitted. The general terms would probably do.
    MR. ORR-EWINGopposed the Amendment, and asked the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) to point out any private bridges which would be exempted from maintaining themselves under the Act. He wished also to know what effect the Amendment would have in respect to certain bridges in Dumbartonshire?
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the bridges to which the hon. Gentleman referred were or would be more properly described as ferries. That, however, did not matter, for an agreement had been come to with regard to them which would be protected in a special clause in the Bill.
    MR. DALRYMPLEthought the language of the Amendment was much too vague. If it was aimed at certain railway bridges and at a bridge owned by Lord Kinnoul, it ought to say so. As it was, it might be feared that the case of other bridges might be prejudged by language so general.
    MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, there were certain railway bridges in the neighbourhood of Perth which would come within the scope of the Amendment. There was also a bridge in private hands to which it would apply.
    MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, the words of the Amendment were so shadowy, that he was sorry they had been so easily accepted by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) had said that his Amendment would include certain railway bridges, but there was no mention of any such bridges in his proposal. He (Mr. Dalrymple) was afraid that the Amendment would beforehand prejudice the case of certain bridges in Dumbartonshire, which could not, except by a great stretch of the imagination, be called ferries. He therefore thought it very desirable that the Amendment should be properly worded.
    MR. C. S. PARKERsuggested that, if any hon. Members wished to protect
    1796
    the Dumbartonshire bridges, they should move the insertion of words which, if accepted, would have that effect.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEpointed out that the Bill only proposed to deal with highways and bridges which formed parts of highways. The words of the clause, as he proposed it, would meet the difficulty. He should be willing to frame the Bill in such a manner as to include bridges like those referred to. In their case, there existed a sort of feudal right to collect tolls on the bridges which had taken the place of the ferries which formerly existed at the points now occupied by them. He was sure the Committee would not think of depriving anyone of those rights without compensation. But these rights did not come within the Bill, and the object of the clause as amended was simply to prevent persons who were now under obligations to repair a bridge from being freed from that obligation.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he must protest against the doctrine which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had just laid down, that these feudal rights in other peoples' pockets were to be maintained for ever. He thought the time had come when they might abolish these restrictions on freedom of movement and transit which had come down to them from former times. These Dumbartonshire bridges were an abominable relic of feudal times, and the system appertaining to them ought to be ended once and for all.
    Amendment amended, by leaving out all after "expense," and agreed to.
    On the Motion of MR. C. S. PARKER, further Amendment made, in page 3, line 14, after "include," by inserting "incorporated company."
    MR. ANDERSON,who had an Amendment on the Paper, to leave out the words in page 3, lines 15 and 16, "a Commissioner of Supply," and insert "not otherwise a trustee," said, it was his intention to propose that tenants should be admitted as trustees; but he thought the discussion would be taken better on another clause, and therefore he would bring it forward later on.
    MR. M'LARENmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 23, to leave out the word "four" and insert "ten." As the law at present stood in Scotland, a pro-

    1797
    perty, for the purpose of creating political votes, might be divided into as many £10 as the rent represented, and each £10 gave a vote. This principle had been greatly abused in the creation of faggot votes, and it was much condemned. But this clause proposed to reduce it to £4 for road purposes, so as still further to lessen the qualification. For instance, in the case of a hotel worth £40, four Parliamentary votes were now conferred; but this clause would give 10 votes each of £4 for the election of trustees. He therefore moved to make the qualification the same in the Bill as it was in Parliamentary matters.
    MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, it was quite delightful to hear a Conservative speech from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. M'Laren); and if the Amendment was only intended to affect the class of people who allied itself much more to hon. Gentlemen opposite than to his Friends, he would have no objection to seeing them excluded altogether. But there were a large number of persons—joint proprietors—who paid £4 a-year, yet who did not make faggot votes. Were they to be excluded from voting?
    MR. M'LARENsaid, the hon. Member could not have read the latter part of the clause. The Amendment only applied to cases where a tenancy was divided in the way he had spoken of; and, therefore, while tenants of £4 would have a vote, joint occupiers must have £ 10 to entitle them to it.
    MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, he thought the political principle of the hon. Member opposite was, that all persons who paid rates should have votes.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing) was under a misapprehension. The Amendment would not exclude £4 tenants; but it would prevent the division of a tenancy among a number of persons for the purpose of creating votes. Sympathizing with the desire of the hon. Members for Edinburgh and Dumbartonshire to prevent the creation of faggot votes, he would support the Amendment that they should strike out the word "four," and insert the word "ten."
    MR. VANS AGNEWsaid, that it was not likely that anyone would make faggot votes to elect a road trustee, and the effect of the alteration of the clause would be, that two brothers who were joint occupiers of a house worth £8 a-year
    1798
    would be disfranchised, 'whereas if occupying separate houses at £4 they would be enfranchised.
    MR. R. W. DUFFdid not think it at all likely that faggot votes would be manufactured.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEpointed out that there were a great many joint proprietors who had no desire whatever to make faggot votes, and he thought it a pity to lay down a rule that would have very little practical effect so far as the management of roads was concerned.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYalso declared the question to be of no practical importance, and hoped it would not be pressed. There would be no inducement whatever, that he could see, to create faggot votes, and if any such cases did occur they would be extremely few.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, Amendments made in page 3, line 26, by leaving out "published," and inserting "circulating"; and in line 27, by leaving out after "may be," to "thereto," in line 29.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Continuance of existing Local Acts.
    Clause 4 (Existing Local Acts to continue to 1st November, 1887, and end of next Session of Parliament).
    COLONEL ALEXANDERmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 39, to leave out from "the" to "this," inline 42. The Amendment would have the effect of making the Bill permissive for an unlimited period, instead of as in the clause for 10 years. He thought it would be well to leave the counties unfettered in this matter, instead of providing, as the Bill did, that the Act should come into operation on the 1st November, 1887. Surely, every county was the best judge of its own necessities. Some counties which did not care to adopt the Act at the end of 10 years, might wish to do so at the end of 20 or 25 years, owing to their circumstances being changed by the formation of new towns, the growth of old ones, or the development of mineral resources. He, therefore, hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, it was quite impossible to assent to the alteration proposed.
    Amendment negatived.
    DR. CAMERONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 39, to leave out from "November," to "Parliament" in line 41, inclusive, and insert "eight hundred and eighty." He proposed that date, because he found that the Turnpike Acts expiring then, included the whole of the Turnpike Acts of Scotland with the exception of 22. He thought it most anomalous and absurd, that for the sake of those 22, no fewer than 135 Turnpike Acts should be continued for 10 years. If his Amendment were adopted, the tolls would be abolished in May, 1880, so that there would be ample time for the new system to come into operation. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had made an objection as to the difficulties involved in existing contracts; but there was not anything in that, for the simple reason that no person had any right to contract on the faith of the renewal of Acts which were about to expire.
    SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAMEmaintained that the 10 years' delay, provided by the Bill, was not unreasonably long for the making of arrangements.
    SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsupported the Amendment, observing that he could not conceive that the Home Secretary really meant the date of 1887 which was in the Bill. The Committee had heard no reason, and he did not think that one existed, for the maintenance of these trusts, almost the whole of which had expired. He had a Re-turn showing when the Turnpike Acts were obtained, and when they would expire, and he found that the whole of the trusts of Ayrshire, if they were only left alone, would absolutely expire in 1879. In his own county the whole of the trusts had long ago expired. The whole of the trusts of Perthshire—a large number—had expired. One, the trust of Dunning, expired in 1829, six or seven years before he was born. Did the Home Secretary really mean that a trust which expired in 1829 required to be renewed till the year 1887, in order to enable trustees to make terms with the County Road Boards? The proposal of the Government was absurd. ["No, no!"]
    1800
    Well, almost absurd, and for this reason— that if they existed in the happy country South of the Tweed, those turnpike trusts would have to show cause before a Committee why they should be continued. He had sat on that Committee eight or nine years, and he undertook to say that not one of those trusts, if cross-examined, could show cause why they should be continued one year. Yet, without the slightest investigation of any kind, the Government proposed that all the trusts, whose Acts had expired, should be continued to the year 1887. Unless some very powerful reasons were given why that should be done, he thought they should be compelled to divide against a proposal so contrary to the spirit of a Bill which was introduced to put an end to all such pre-Adamite things, which seemed to prevail only in Ayrshire. He entreated lion. Members to let the Bill come into force while some of them at least were alive. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself (the Lord Advocate) must wish to see some of the fruits of his own exertions, and he hoped, therefore, he would see his way to accepting the Amendment.
    MR. ORR-EWINGjoined in the hope that the Lord Advocate would give some weight to the considerations which had just been adduced. He regarded 10 years as too long, and thought that three would be sufficient.
    MR. BAXTERsaid, that, as a warm supporter of the Bill, and as one who desired to see it passed, he earnestly entreated the Government to give way to some extent in this matter. The point which had been raised was one upon which there had been a remarkable concurrence of testimony on the part of those who were in favour of the principle of the Bill, and who were anxious as much as possible to help the Lord Advocate. No doubt, some time would be required to make the arrangements which the passing of the measure would render necessary, but 10 years were really out of the question. He was quite prepared to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). If a compromise could be agreed upon, he believed that three years would be found to give satisfaction.
    LORD ELCHOremarked that if the Bill was a good one, it ought not to be 10 years in coming into operation. He

    1801
    suggested a compromise of three or five years.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, the proposal to delay the Bill for 10 years simply indicated that the Government had not much confidence in the beneficial character of the measure; but he believed Ministers might rest satisfied that when it came into operation, they would be thanked for having promoted it. If any danger was likely to result from a speedier application of the provisions of the Bill, he should be the last to insist upon it; but there was no such danger, and the Bill was a proper one. He urged the adoption of the Amendment.
    SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHERpointed out that there was a provision in the Bill under which, if a county desired, it could make application to the Home Secretary for a Provisional Order to bring the Bill into operation. If the measure was so popular in Scotland as had been said, and if it had been imperatively demanded, why not have regard to this provision, and allow the term named by the Lord Advocate to remain?
    MR. M'LARENsaid, the phrase in the Bill was, that application to the Home Secretary might be made, not must be made. Who were to apply? It must be the Commissioners of Supply, and hon. Members must know that these gentlemen would not apply, and so there was an end of the matter. If four years were right as regarded Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire, why should a similar period be wrong for smaller counties? As the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had well said, if this was a right thing to do, do it at once. Why wait 10 years? He (Mr. M'Laren) supported the Amendment on the ground that the House should retain its character for honesty, and if the Bill was passed as it stood, its title would have to be altered, and it would have to be termed—"A Bill to continue for ten years all the Expired Trusts in Scotland —three-fourths of the whole — behind the backs of the People."
    MR. BALFOURremarked that, although there might be difficult questions, people who required 10 years to adjust their differences must either have an infinite capacity for quarrelling with their neighbours, or an infinite incapacity for managing their own affairs. He hoped the Government would make some
    1802
    concession with regard to what appeared to be the general feeling in the matter.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsupported the Amendment, remarking that there would be no difficulty whatever in bringing the Act into operation. He was sure the Government would be doing a great service to the country, if they put a little pressure, not on the ratepayers who were desirous of the Act, but on the Commissioners of Supply. These latter, though apparently paying nothing for the maintenance of the roads at present, would in reality benefit as much as anybody, by the abolition of tolls. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept 1880 as the date for the abolition of tolls. In his opinion, there was nothing to prevent that being done, and all the necessary arrangements completed by that time. In 1874, his own county—Forfarshire—obtained a private Act dealing with the statute labour roads, so that his constituents had considerable experience of the operation of such Acts. They paid, he was sorry to say, a very high assessment; but that was owing to the procuring of the Act having been so long delayed, the result being that the roads fell into disrepair. Notwithstanding the high assessment, the whole of the landlords and tenants were in favour of going still further, and obtaining an Act for the total abolition of tolls in the county of For far. There was one disadvantage which would result in so long a delay as 10 years which had not been touched upon, but to which he might advert. The roads would be allowed to fall into a state of great disrepair, as they had done in a great many counties already, and when the Act was adopted the expense of repairing them would be found to be more than the ratepayers could be asked to pay, and very likely borrowing powers would be required. Moreover, the creditors of the roads would endeavour to have their debts estimated at a higher rate than they ought to be. For these reasons, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERhoped that the Lord Advocate would not give way on what was the only good part of the Bill. He trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would so far give attention to a representation coming from so benighted a county as Ayr, as to retain the provision to which the hon.

    1803
    Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) objected.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, the proposition of the Government had had some reason in it when first brought forward, because there was great advantage in allowing time for arrangements to be made between landlords and tenants; but as the question had now been so long before the public, there was no necessity for the term previously suggested; and four or five years would afford the parties ample time to make fresh arrangements.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, with reference to a remark made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Barclay), it was practically the owners and proprietors who paid in the long run whether they had a system of tolls or assessment, and this was a point which should be borne in mind in discussing many of the Amendments on the Paper as regarded the Bill.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he had no doubt that considered from a politico-economical view, the statement of the noble Lord was quite correct; but why not therefore follow out the reasoning, and let the proprietor pay the tax in the beginning so as to save the tenant's pocket, and spare the trouble of collection?
    LORD ELCHOsaid, the question was not one of political economy, but of fact. If a man were about to take a house, he inquired what the taxes were; and if he were about to rent a farm, he asked what charges the land bore.
    MR. MARK STEWARTconcurred with the observations of the noble Lord (Lord Elcho). One point which had not been brought sufficiently under the notice of the Government was the increase of assessment in those counties where tolls had been abolished. Suppose a tenant had just taken a farm on a lease of 19 years, it was extremely hard that he should be called upon without notice to pay an increased assessment, which such a measure as this would involve. He hoped the Government would take the point into their consideration.
    MR. M'LAGANsaid, the reply to these observations was that the House did not legislate for the proprietors and tenants of holdings merely, but for the country generally. He could see no good reason why the Amendment which proposed that the Bill should come into operation much earlier than the time the
    1804
    Government had fixed should not be agreed to. The question had been before the public for nearly 30 years, many Bills on the subject had been brought forward during the last 17 years—so that the public mind was thoroughly educated on the subject. The promoters of private Bills for different counties had not asked for a delay of five years before they came into operation, but that they should commence the very next year after they had been passed; and if these counties were able to make their arrangements in one year, why could not other counties put this Bill into operation within a reasonable period? The public of Scotland were now convinced that the abolition of tolls was inevitable, so that the sooner the Act was brought into operation the better. The Government would only be consistent if they brought this Bill into operation simultaneously with the arrangement proposed for Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire—namely, four years from the present time.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the Government must see that, with very few exceptions, the Committee were strongly in favour of having the time at which the Bill was to come into operation shortened, and if they would accept three years, he thought the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) would not divide. That time would give ample opportunity to make all the necessary arrangements, as the Scotch, being a practical people, would lose no time in making the necessary arrangements. They would not care to linger for a long period over what they knew had to be done. He trusted that the Lord Advocate would accept three years, and thus save them from the waste of time which the taking of a division would involve.
    COLONEL MUREdesired to repudiate most emphatically the suggestion that road trustees would be likely to starve their roads with a view to promote their own interests by increasing the debts upon them. He had never heard a more unworthy argument used in that House. [Mr. J. W. BARCLAY said, it was true, nevertheless.] He must still deny it. As to the Amendment, he supported the view of the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. M'Lagan), believing that as the question had been so long before the House

    1805
    and the country, it would be better to shorten the time at which the Bill was to come in force; 1882 would be a very good year to fix.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had been informed that the arrangement in respect to Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire had been made at the wish of the people of Glasgow. As to the Amendment, after the feeling expressed that evening by the Committee, the Government were ready to consider the question and make a proposal on a future occasion; but they would oppose the specific proposition before the Committee, if it was pressed.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, it was quite true that the people of Glasgow had been anxious to have a settlement of the arrangement proposed for Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire as speedily as possible; but Glasgow was not then aware of the sort of provisions that were to be imposed upon her. If the Bill was a good one, the sooner it was brought into operation the better; but there was no such immediate haste for it if it were a bad measure.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLconsidered the statement of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to be unsatisfactory, and asked for a definite pledge as to what the Government would do.
    MR. BAXTERwas also disappointed at the course taken by the Government. Since he had been in the House, he did not remember to have seen so great a unanimity exhibited on any point as had been shown on this; for only two or three Scotch Members had said a word in favour of the long period, while 100 were in favour of the shorter term proposed.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he wanted, in the first place, to say a word in answer to the hon. Baronet the Member for Fife (Sir Robert An-struther). Alluding to the noble Lord who presided over the Committee that sat on the English turnpikes (Lord George Cavendish), he rather suggested that the Scotch roads were referred to him to deal with in the same manner as he had with the English roads. But there was a great difference in the circumstances of the two. The noble Lord had, in the case of the Scotch roads, to consider not only whether the turnpikes should be abolished, but what
    1806
    arrangement should be made subsequent to this; whereas, in the case of the English turnpike trusts, when they ceased to exist, there were bodies who would look after the maintenance of the roads. That being so, it was undoubtedly necessary that there should be a considerable time allowed in Scotland owing to the length of the leases. The feeling on both sides of the Committee seemed to be that the time should be shortened —["No, no!"]—with two exceptions— [Renewed, cries of "No!"]—then with three exceptions—["No!"]—he would say four—with four exceptions, he believed, that was the general feeling of the Committee — ["No, no!"]—well, he would say five. That being so, they were now asked to reverse their course, and fix on the year 1880 for the total cessation of tolls. To that time he was most decidedly opposed. He was quite sure, so far as he had been able to understand the matter, that would not be satisfactory in many of the counties. The Government had been told that they ought to be more definite in what they said. What he was going to say was, that he was quite willing at the present moment to restore the Bill to the same position in which it was when it was originally brought in, and put in the word "five" years instead of "ten."
    DR. CAMERONhad hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would have accepted three years, or left the matter open, and then he (Dr. Cameron) would at once have withdrawn the Amendment. As it was, he considered five years would be too long; he was, therefore, constrained to divide on the Amendment, and he hoped other hon. Gentlemen who had Amendments on the Paper would re-test the question.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he was dissatisfied with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. Ten years was understood to be a concession to those who had objected to the Bill, but now that period was abandoned. Neither the Home Secretary nor the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had vouchsafed a single syllable in reply to the statement of the case of one of the most important counties in Scotland. He quite agreed with the statement that the Bill would make Her Majesty's Government very unpopular, especially in his county, and would probably lead to the return of two Liberal Members at

    1807
    the next Election. In order to give the Government an opportunity of re-considering the matter, he would move that Progress be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Colonel Alexander.)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the hon. and gallant Member would not press the Motion, as it would have the effect of stopping the Bill on a night long appointed for its discussion. He did not know he had anything more to explain. The Government thought five years would be sufficient when they first introduced the Bill, and he would return to that period in deference to the general feeling of the Committee.
    SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he had given a general support to the Bill; but what his hon. and gallant Friend had said as to the probable return of two Liberal Members for Ayrshire if the Bill were passed had greatly increased his enthusiasm for the measure. That was a prospect that was most cheerful for the Liberal Party in the House. He was afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman was a hopeless ire-concileable against the Bill. They were all, according to him, going to the dogs; but his protest had been ignored by the Government. He seemed to think, too, that there was no county or part of Scotland but Ayrshire which was to be considered for a moment; but there were other counties and other interests that required to be thought of besides Ayrshire. They had now to deal with the proposal of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), and its acceptance or partial acceptance by the Government. They had not got all they wanted, but they had got a considerable concession. The Government were now clothed, and in their former mind— whether it was their right mind or not— and they were going to act on the proposal made two years ago, and continue these obsolete and expiring trusts for five years instead of 10. Considering they had not been long in Committee, he thought that was a hopeful prospect. He trusted hon. Members would not complicate matters. He thought the hon. Member for Glasgow had had a most satisfactory answer from the Government, and his advice to him would
    1808
    be to refrain from a division, and accept the offer of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to have the date 1882 inserted instead of 1887.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that if they took five years off 1887, they would have 1882. If five years had been added to the time when the Bill was brought in, the date would have been 1880.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he proposed to add five years from this time, and make 1883 the time for the commencement of the Act.
    MR. ORR-EWINGbelieved that if the counties had power, by a majority of the Commissioners of Supply, to select the time, most of them would adopt the Act long before the five years had expired.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, that if the Act did not come into operation until November, 1883, as fixed by the Bill, the tolls would not be abolished until the following May. He would not press his Amendment to a division, if the Government would substitute 1882 for 1887.
    COLONEL MUREthought that the Government had been rather inconsistent in granting four years for Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire, and insisting on five years for the remaining counties of Scotland. Why not accept one period for the whole of the country?
    MR. E. W. DUFFhoped the Government would give way. Long leases prevailed in Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire where the short period had been fixed.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the insertion of 1882 in the Bill, instead of 1887, would mean that the tolls would not be abolished until Whitsuntide, 1884. He suggested leaving out the words "until the end of next ensuing Session of Parliament," and fixing the date at Whitsuntide, 1882. He thought it would very much simplify matters if it were made absolute, so that the clause should read 1882 or 1883; and he would recommend the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) to accept that compromise.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, he would agree to compromise the matter by the insertion of 1882.
    MR. ANDERSONwas in favour of such an alteration in the clause as would make it more absolute, and he thought the exact term which Government was about to fix for Lanarkshire—namely, June 1882, would be the most suitable.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSdid not think the matter was worth fighting about. He proposed that June, 1883, should be inserted.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLremarked, that in substance the question had arrived at the point for which he had been arguing. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman now conceded until June, 1883?
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEmoved to leave out the words "November, 1887, and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament," in order to insert the words "June, 1883."
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYthought it would be necessary to leave out more words, in order to carry the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary into effect.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, the clause as it stood would not carry out the abolition of tolls until the May following June, 1883, as, according to Section 33, they were not to be done away with until the May following the adoption of the Act.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that all they could consider at that moment was Section 4, and not Section 33. It would not be competent to levy any tolls after June, 1883.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he wished that no tolls should be levied after the date, and the Lord Advocate would see that that principle was carried out in the wording of the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to; words substituted.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Certain Local Acts made perpetual).
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:— In page 3, lines 41 and 42, leave out "Parliament otherwise provides;" and in page 4, line 15, leave out after "such Act" to "perpetual," in line 16, and insert "shall continue in force until this Act shall be adopted in such county."
    MR. BALFOURinquired whether the clause would allow a county to continue its present Acts for any indefinite time?
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could see no objection to counties continuing to administer the roads; but the question involved was really a matter of agreement between burghs and counties. Where, however, only one-third of the maintenance of the roads was borne by the landlord, and two-thirds fell upon the tenants, as in the case of a Private Act, it was not proper that the former should enjoy the right of assessing the latter in perpetuity. The Act should not continue in force beyond the term of its natural existence. With the leave of the Committee, he would bring up a clause to effect the object in view at a later stage of the Bill.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Adoption of the Act.
    Clause 6 (How Acts may be adopted in counties).
    COLONEL ALEXANDERmoved, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 19, after "Act," insert the following sub-section:—
    "This Act may be adopted in whole or in part; that is to say, in parts, sections, or clauses, and a resolution to adopt this Act in part shall specify the parts, sections, or clauses so adopted, and no part of this Act which is not so specified shall be held to be adopted, except so much thereof as is requisite for giving due effect to, or as in any way modifies, affects, or controls the parts, sections, or clauses so adopted, to which extent this Act shall be held to be as effective as if the whole had been adopted according to the true intent and meaning of this Act; and any general or local Act or Acts relating to roads, highways, and bridges in a county in which this Act shall be adopted in part shall remain in force in so far as not inconsistent with the parts, sections, or clauses so adopted."
    THE LORD ADVOCATEpromised to consider the question before the Report, with a view to bringing up a clause dealing with it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. FRASER - MACKINTOSH,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 25, after "county," to insert—
    "Such adoption also to include the abolishing-any tolls or pontages still being exacted under the authority of any special Act, and of undertaking the trust thereby created, and liabilities of the same, and providing for such liabilities out of the general assessments authorized by any other Act in force in the county; and that,"
    said, it was specially intended to meet

    1811
    the ease of a bridge in the county of Elgin. Tolls were abolished in the county of Elgin, but the pontage over the Findhorn Bridge, levied under a special Act, was excepted. Under the Amendment, the county of Elgin could, if so disposed, take the Findhorn Bridge, which cost over £6,000, for little more than £1,000, being the balance of debt still subsisting; and the abolishing of the pontage would be most advantageous.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEthought the Amendment would be an embarrassment in the clause, and he recommended the hon. Member to consider whether it would not be better to bring Elgin within the list of counties entitled to avail themselves of the provisions of the Act, instead of inserting the Amendment in the clause.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHagreed to the suggestion.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAMEproposed an Amendment, the object of which was to place burghs in the same position as counties with regard to the Bill. He was not prepared to maintain that the plan he had chosen was the best that could be devised for the carrying out of his object; but if the principle were admitted, he would be glad to leave the matter in the hands of the Lord Advocate.
    MR. TREVELYANfeared that, unless the subject were carefully considered, the insertion of these words would give rise to extremely complicated arrangements. If there were any outstanding financial question between the burgh and county, he thought it would be dealt with better under Clause 8 than by a sub-section of Clause 6, as now proposed.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEagreed with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, that the insertion of this Amendment might give rise to great complication. He confessed he had some difficulty, without greater explanation, in knowing what the Amendment really meant.
    SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAMEagreed that it would be more convenient to postpone the Amendment, and take further discussion upon the subject when the Committee reached a later clause. He would therefore withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONmoved to leave out, at page 4, line 29, the words "thirty days," in order to insert "six months." The object of the Amendment was not to delay the operation of the Act, but to give a reasonable time for the consideration of so important a measure. There were half-yearly meetings held, at which the business of the county was transacted; and if six months' notice were allowed, that notice might conveniently be given at one of the meetings, and be acted upon at the next. His constituents were very anxious that more time should be given than 30 days. If the Lord Advocate objected to six months, perhaps the right hon. and learned Lord would agree to three months' notice of the adoption of the Act.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, the hon. Member seemed to be under some misapprehension as to the effect of the clause. Instead of having only 30 days' notice with regard to the adoption of the Act, the county would have all the time allowed within the limits of the Act that the convener, or the Commissioners of Supply, might avail themselves of; because it was on a requisition by those Commissioners to the convener that action was taken.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONwas under the impression that the road trustees, and not the Commissioners of Supply, took action in the matter.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, they were not one and the same body in all cases; but they were usually identical where tolls and statute labour had been abolished; and these were in the majority.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. VANS AGNEWmoved to leave out, at line 30, the word "convener," in order to insert the words "chairman of the road trustees." The clause referred to those counties where tolls and statute labour had been abolished, and road trustees established. They were to be called together at 30 days' notice; but the duty of calling them together, he proposed, should devolve upon the chairman of the road trustees, and not upon the convener of the Commissioners of Supply.
    Amendment agreed to; words substituted.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERmoved, at page 4, line 38, to omit "one year," in order to insert the words "three years." The object of the Amendment was to prevent the annual inconvenience and expense to which a county would be subjected if the Commissioners of Supply, after a decision had been come to respecting the adoption of the Act, were allowed to call another meeting and set aside that decision within the short period of 12 months.
    MR. M'LARENopposed the Amendment. This Bill sought, as one of its especial objects, to facilitate the abolition of tolls, and the Amendment would have the tendency to delay that proceeding.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEdoubted whether the alteration was a desirable one.
    Amendment negatived.
    SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAME,in moving, as an Amendment, at page 4, line 38, after "thereafter," to insert the following sub-section:—
    "la. In those burghs situated in counties in which tolls and statute labour have been abolished or are not exigible, or power has been obtained to abolish them or to arrange for their abolition, this Act may be adopted instead of the local Act or Acts relating to roads and highways and bridges therein in force, on a resolution to that effect agreed to by not less than two-thirds of the ratepayers present and voting at a meeting called by special advertisement on not less than thirty days' notice, for the purpose of considering as to the adoption thereof, and the provost or chief magistrate of any such burgh, on a requisition to that effect signed by any six ratepayers being presented to him shall call a meeting of the ratepayers with a view to consider a resolution in favour of the adoption of this Act; in the event of such a resolution not being carried by the requisite majority as aforesaid, it shall not be lawful to call another meeting with a view to the adoption of this Act for one year thereafter; in the event of such a resolution being carried the Act may be adopted subject to an agreement entered into between the local authority of such burgh and the local authority of any neighbouring burgh or burghs, or the county road trustees of any county or counties in which such burgh is situated,"
    explained that the effect of this subsection would be similar to that of the Amendment which he had previously withdrawn—namely, to place burghs in the same position as counties with regard to the Act. The hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) had on the Paper an Amendment similar to this one in effect, differing from it only with
    1814
    respect to the last part of it. His own opinion was that burghs situated in counties where tolls and statute labour had been abolished, should be entitled to the benefits of the Act, and ought not to be placed in a worse position than the counties which had not adopted, but which might at some future day adopt, the Act.
    MR. TREVELYANhoped the Lord Advocate would consider the intrinsic justice of this proposal. If the right hon. and learned Lord would do so, the Committee might safely leave to him the precise form in which to carry it into effect. He would mention the special case of the county of Selkirk in support of the justice of this proposition. In 1867, that county obtained an Act, by which tolls and statute labour were abolished. The Act was carried out by the body of trustees who were taken from the Commissioners of Supply of the county, and from among the gentlemen in the burghs who had the same qualification as Commissioners. The burgh of Selkirk, and the burgh of Galashiels, sent one representative to the board. The council, having only one vote on the board, discovered that they did not possess as much power as they thought they had a right to exercise. The burgh council wanted now to take the care of its own roads, and it would be free to place itself under Clause 11, if the county trustees agreed to adopt the Act; but it was doubtful whether the trustees would adopt the Act. Therefore, under these circumstances, it was only fair to enable local authorities like those of Selkirk to take advantage of Clause 11, and manage their own roads. There was one important difference between his own Amendment on the subject and that of the hon. Member (Sir William Cuninghame) now before the Committee. The hon. Gentleman's proposal was that two-thirds of the ratepayers should decide whether this Act should be adopted, and that six ratepayers were to present a requisition to the provost or chief magistrate for a meeting to be called; whereas his own Amendment proposed that two-thirds of the local authority should decide, and that the requisition should be signed by any five of the local authority. There was very good reason for this Amendment. In England, it was all very well to call upon the ratepayers in general to deter-

    1815
    mine whether their education was to be managed by a school board or by self-appointed trustees; and it was all very well to ask the ratepayers in Scotland and England to decide whether they would take advantage of the Public Libraries Act; but it was quite a different matter when exceedingly complicated and delicate questions of finance in a burgh or county had to be dealt with. He did think that these were questions for the consideration of men of business elected to represent the burgh in the town council. He therefore urged the Lord Advocate to allow this, or some clause to the same effect, to be inserted in the Bill.
    MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, the trustees appeared to have the exclusive power under the clause of adopting the general Act. No doubt, the Commissioners, in the first instance, appointed the trustees; but still, he thought there should be an appeal from the trustees to the Commissioners. It had been the subject of warm comments out-of-doors that the whole of the powers were taken out of the hands of the Commissioners and vested in the trustees. That he did not think was the intention of the Government; and he, therefore, hoped the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would bring in a clause to make the necessary alteration on Report.
    THE MARQUESS OF LORNEsaid, in some cases the adoption of the Act under its terms would be an injustice to neighbouring districts, unless it be provided that burghs now assessable for district roads be prevented from adopting the Act, unless an agreement be previously made with the district road trustees.
    MR. TREVELYANadmitted that injustice would be done in some instances. In cases where financial arrangements had to be made between county and burgh, Clause 8 provided a simple and effective remedy; and as the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Sir William Cuninghame) had not been adopted in regard to counties, he did not see why it should be applied in the case of burghs.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEapprehended that great confusion would arise if a burgh were permitted to adopt the provisions of this Act without coming to some agreement with the county. It would upset the whole arrangement
    1816
    upon which the provisions of the Local Act were based. He admitted that there might be some exceptional cases.
    MR. TREVELYANmoved to amend the proposed Amendment by substituting, in line 6 of the sub-section, "two-thirds of the local authority of such burghs" for the words "two-thirds of the ratepayers," and in line 10 "any five of the local authority" for "any six ratepayers."
    THE LORD ADVOCATEfeared there would be great difficulty in carrying out the sub-section in its present form. He would, however, undertake to frame a clause which he hoped would meet the views of the two hon. Members.
    Amendment (Mr. Trevelyan), by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment (Sir William Cuninghame), by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. ANDERSON (for Mr. M'LAREN),moved, at page 4, line 42, to leave out the words "not less than two-thirds," in order to insert "a majority." The hon. Member, who himself had a similar Amendment on the Paper, said, it would be prudent to adopt the proposal of his hon. Friend, because its object was to facilitate counties taking advantage of the Act; and it would be easier to arrive at that end by simply stating that a majority should decide the matter.
    SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER,in supporting the Amendment, pointed out that a majority was allowed to decide all other questions connected with county administration, and he was at a loss to know why, in this instance, a majority of two-thirds should be required. It was doubtful whether, in all cases, the votes of two-thirds of the Commissioners of Supply would be secured.
    MR. VANS AGNEWsaid, one good reason for requiring a majority of two-thirds was, that if only 30 days' notice were to be given, several of the Commissioners of Supply, who happened to be abroad, would probably be unable to attend the meeting, and the duty of carrying out an important change in the business of counties would consequently devolve upon such a majority as might be in attendance, who would probably not be a majority of the whole number.
    MR. RAMSAYheld that if a majority of two-thirds were insisted upon, it would have the practical effect of throw-

    1817
    ing an obstable in the way of the adoption of the Act. He, therefore, recommended the acceptance of the Amendment.
    MR. ORR-EWINGalso supported the Amendment, and hoped the Government would accede to it.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYthought it would be only fair to give to a majority, however bare, the right of deciding upon the question of introducing the Act. If the stipulation of the clause, that there should be a majority of two-thirds in favour of the Act, were insisted upon, it would give a very considerable power to any small knot of obstructives to oppose the view of the Legislature in introducing this measure, and he sincerely hoped the Government would give way.
    MR. MARK STEWARThoped the Government would stand firm in this matter. They had already indicated their policy, and he saw no reason why they should recede from it. He failed to see the urgency for this new form of compulsory vote, since, as the matter stood now, the worst that could happen to any county would be that it would not have the Act for five years.
    MR. E. W. DUFFurged the Committee to support the Amendment, and relegate the acceptance or rejection of the Act to a simple majority. In the earlier part of the debate that evening, the Commissioners of Supply had been referred to in rather severe terms, and some doubt had been expressed as to the wisdom of giving them the initiative in the matter of introducing the Act. But the past conduct of these bodies did not justify this impression, and he wished to remind the Committee that it was a majority of these Commissioners who invoked the remission of tolls in half the counties of Scotland where they were already abolished.
    MR. ANDERSONhoped the Government, after the strong expression of opinion in the Committtee, would give way. The object of the Amendment was simply to facilitate the adoption of the Act, and he was bound to assume that the Government themselves desired the general acceptance of their own Act. If they considered it a good Act, why not do all they could to get it adopted? while, to reject this proposition, would simply be admitting that their measure was, in their own eyes, not a good one.
    1818
    If the clause were passed as it now stood, he was afraid there were many counties in which the limitation time would be allowed to run without the requisite majority being obtained.
    SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHERappealed to the Government to adhere to their present course. It was only a matter of five years.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, if the Government decided to adhere to this new principle in their legislation of requiring a majority of two-thirds, it would be necessary to take the sense of the Committee upon the point. It occurred to him that there was no similar instance of the Government recommending the adoption of an Act to the country, and then weighting their own recommendation with a condition like this. If the majority of the Commissioners of Supply resolved to accept the Act, their decision should be allowed to have effect, otherwise the Government would simply be giving the minorities in counties power to rule over the majorities.
    LORD ELCHOremarked that the feeling on his side of the House seemed to be that the Government should not give way; but he thought it very desirable that they should. There had been no answer given to the argument urged on the other side in favour of the simple majority; and, certainly, in his opinion, it was not desirable that the minority of the trustees of a county should have power to prevent the majority obtaining a measure which they desired. The matter did not affect his county, which had local Acts; but he could not but believe that the sooner the general Act was introduced throughout Scotland the better.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the proposition was one that the Government could not regard as likely to weaken the force of the Bill, and he would not offer any opposition to it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RAMSAY,in order to make the clause consistent throughout, moved, in lines 35 and 36, and in page 5, line 9, the substitution of the words "a majority" for "the requisite majority."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Provision for case of one county adopting, and another county not adopting, the Act) agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Act may be adopted, subject to provisional agreement between county and burgh. Confirmation by Secretary of State).
    SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAMEsaid, he had given Notice of a number of Amendments, which he now proposed to withdraw; and he should beg to take the same course with reference to the Amendments to Clause 9, which stood in his name, as they were of the same character as those proposed upon Clause 6, and which had been withdrawn on the understanding that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would consider in what form the object they aimed at could best be carried out.
    MR. ORR-EWTNGmoved, as an Amendment, to add the following words at the end of line 29, page 6:—
    "Provided always, that if the local authority of any burgh, the population of which according to the Census then last taken, does not exceed 20,000, shall not have entered into any such agreement with the commissioners of supply previously to the adoption of this Act, the county road trustees of the county may at any time enter into an agreement with such local authority for the payment by such local authority to such trustees of an annual sum in consideration of the loss of tolls and statute labour, conversion money or county road assessment, which will be sustained by such trustees (as coming in place of the existing turnpike and statute labour trustees) in consequence of the adoption of this Act, and of the over-average cost, if any, of maintaining the roads around such burgh; and if such county road trustees and local authority fail to enter into such agreement, such trustees may require such local authority to concur with them in referring to arbitration what annual sum, if any, should, according to equity and in all the circumstances of the case, be paid by such local authority to such trustees as aforesaid; and such arbitration shall be conducted in the manner prescribed by the provisions of 'The Companies Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845,' with respect to the settlement of disputes by arbitration, which provisions are for that purpose incorporated with this Act."
    The object of his Amendment was to enable burghs and counties to come to an arrangement, whereby the former should come under the operation of the Act, to be reached through the medium of arbitration, if they could not of themselves come to terms. That would be better in case of disputes—at least, less costly than having recourse to Parliament for a Provisional Order, which
    1820
    they all knew was a very expensive process when opposed. The cost of such an application might not be much to a large and wealthy county; but to small counties and small burghs it might possibly have a prohibitory effect. The adoption of his suggestion would not in any way prevent the adoption of the provisional agreements between counties and large burghs which were to be made subject to the confirmation of the Homo Secretary under Clause 9.
    MR. MARK STEWARTmoved, as an Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, that the limit of population should be "five thousand" instead of "twenty."
    COLONEL MUREsuggested that a specified time should be named to intervene between the proposition for agreement and the reference to arbitration, and that the Amendment should run thus—
    "And if such county road trustees and local authority fail to enter into such agreement within three months."
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the Amendment was hardly in accordance with the principle of the Bill. The intention of the Bill certainly was that upon the adoption of the Act for the abolition of tolls a burgh should start with all its arrangements made, and the same with regard to the counties. The Amendment contemplated a totally different state of things—namely, that they were neither to have the agreement under Section (a) before adopting the Act, or at the time of the adoption of the Act, nor were they to have the provisions of the Bill put into operation at the time of its adoption. It further contemplated the making of claims subsequent to the adoption of the Act, as against the intention of the measure, which was that the burgh or county should start with an administration which was not to be subject to revision.
    MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, his intention was quite the reverse of that now ascribed to his Amendment.
    DR. CAMERONremarked that the boroughs and counties in the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Orr-Ewing's) neighbourhood did not appreciate the facilities he was desirous of obtaining for them, and they had actually sent up a deputation to protest against his Amendment,
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that what the Amendment was really meant to secure could easily be obtained if the two parties were reasonable. It was within their power to refer any matter in dispute to two or three gentlemen who could frame an agreement on the basis of their calculations. It was quite another thing to ask Parliament to grant compulsory arbitration.
    Amendment to said proposed Amendment, and said proposed. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR,in pursuance of a previous Motion, moved, in page 6, lines 5 and 6, to insert "a majority," instead of "not less than two-thirds."
    Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 9 (After two years, power to apply to Secretary of State for Provisional Order to be confirmed by Parliament).
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved to insert, in page 6, line 32, after "Commissioners of Supply thereof," "or for the ratepayers in public meeting assembled." The object of the Amendment was to enable the ratepayers at large to adopt the Act in case the Commissioners of Supply were indisposed to do so. He quite granted that the concession made in reducing the time for the Act to come into operation from 10 to five years was very important as bearing on this point; but the counties which had private Acts would be much longer affected by this clause. A great question of this kind, regarding the adoption of an Act of Parliament, ought to be decided by the ratepayers at large rather than by the extraordinary and aristocratic constituencies, which were a relic of a past age. He should hope the Government would see their way to making this additional concession.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEthought the purpose of the clause had been somewhat misapprehended. Its object was not in any way to precipitate or retard the adoption of the Act, but was to enable those desiring to take advantage of it, after a given time, if they found it could not be satisfactorily adopted, to obtain such variations as might be required by local circumstances; and it
    1822
    gave them the right of going to the Home Secretary to have added or dispensed with such provisions of the Bill as might be found by experience to militate against its adoption. To pass this Amendment would be to take away from the body of Commissioners who, by the earlier sections which had been passed, were entrusted with very important powers, the right of asking the Home Secretary to remove obstacles that might exist to the adoption of the Act.
    Amendment negatived.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he had given Notice of an Amendment upon this clause; but he should not proceed with it, as it appeared to him hopeless for any hon. Member upon the Conservative side of the House to obtain a concession from the Government, unless, indeed, he were prepared to go to the Opposition side of the House, where he might have some chance.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 39, after "county," insert—
    "Provided, That no such application shall be made to the Secretary of State unless notice of the intention to propose a resolution to that effect at a half-yearly statutory meeting of the commissioners of supply of any county shall have been given in writing to the clerk of such commissioners at their last previous half-yearly statutory meeting."
    The effect of it would be that those Commissioners of Supply, who wished to apply for a Provisional Order from the Secretary of State, should be obliged to give due notice of their intention to make a proposal of the kind. He proposed that six months' notice should be given— that was, that notice should be given at one statutory meeting of the Commissioners of Supply of the intention to make the proposal at the next meeting.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEthought it desirable to make some provision for notice, but it occurred to him that that proposed was rather long.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONbelieved the six months' notice would be found most convenient.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERmoved, as an Amendment, to insert in page 7, line 30, after the word "trustees," the words "and burgh local authority," his

    1823
    object being, he said, to make the burghs bear their fair share of the expense. He did not think the counties should be saddled with the whole expense.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY (for Mr. M'LAREN)moved, as an Amendment, in page 7, line 32, after "obtained," to add the words "or against the police assessment levied within any burgh, as the case may be." There were certain burghs which had no funds to pay these charges, and in those cases he wished them to be paid out of the police assessments.
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted,.
    On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYcalled the attention of the Committee to an apparent discrepancy between the clause and Clause 6. Under Clause 6, the adoption of the Act was to be determined by the trustees. Under Clause 9, it was to be adopted by the Commissioners of Supply. So far as he was able to compare them, Clause 9, therefore, seemed to him to require some such Amendment as that suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) that the operation of the clause should be limited to the three counties in which tolls and statute labour had been abolished; and in those counties the trustees were the proper persons to deal with the Act, whereas the clause left it to the Commissioners of Supply. As the clause stood, the Commissioners of Supply might overthrow the trustees, and adopt this Act, although it was clearly the intention of the Act to leave the matter in the hands of the trustees.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he thought the criticism was well-founded; but he would look into the matter more fully, and see how it stood.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Costs to be awarded in certain cases) agreed to.
    Road Authorities in Counties and Burghs.
    Clause 11 (Management and maintenance of highways in counties to be in county road trustees, and in burghs in burgh local authority).
    SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHERmoved to report Progress. They had
    1824
    now reached a clause on which there would be considerable discussion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Sir Windham Anstruther.)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped they would be allowed to go on for a little while. He thought it would be a great pity to stop where they were.
    MR. VANS AGNEWhoped that the hon. Baronet would withdraw his Motion. It was not often that Scotch Members got a night for discussion on a Scotch Bill. Most of them were present, and he thought they might dispose of two more clauses, if not the Bill altogether.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURmoved, as an Amendment, to add at the end of the clause—
    "And as early as possible after the assumption of office by the county road trustees and burgh local boards, they shall cause to be prepared lists of the several roads within the respective districts and burghs, with such details connected with their length, width, and condition, as will show the state of the roads hitherto maintained, for three years prior to the transfer; such lists being transmitted to the Secretary of State with a view to the same being compiled into a general statement to be submitted to Parliament as a record of the whole of the roads in Scotland at the date this Act came into force."
    The object of his Amendment, he said, was to obtain accurate information about the present state and mileage and cost of the roads taken over. In principle it had already been adopted in England to some extent, as it had been taken from the Act of 1872. He hoped the Amendment would be adopted. It was of great importance, in order to verify the state of all the roads when they were brought under the operation of this Act. At present these were of two kinds—turnpike and commutation roads. The cost of the turnpike roads was on the average of all Scotland very great— nearly £30 per mile—whereas the other roads could hardly be calculated at more than £6 per mile per annum. It was, then, necessary to have some standard by which to measure or compare the future charges for roads.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, as the

    1825
    record it provided would be a very imperfect one, and its preparation would throw a great burden on the ratepayers.
    MR. J. W. BAROLAYsuggested that a modification of Clause 103 would meet the hon. Baronet's intention.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, if the Secretary of State opposed, he did not mean to press the Amendment, though he felt it to be an important one, as they were quite ignorant of the present state of the roads in Scotland. The only information available was the Report of the Scotch Road Commission, now nearly 25 years old. Since then great changes had taken place, of which the information was very imperfect. Without the details they would be exposed to blame for all kinds of excessive outlays, because of the abolition of turnpikes. These at present did exercise a check on expenditure, because the funds collected did limit the outlay on roads.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause agreed to.
    Appointment of County Road Trustees Board, and Committees.
    Clause 12 (Appointment of County Road Trustees).
    MR. ORR-EWINGmoved, as an Amendment, in page 8, line 36, after "provision," to insert—
    "That no commissioner of supply, whose qualification as such arises from property situated or office held in any burgh, shall be a county road trustee (save as hereinafter provided), and."
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
    THE MARQUESS OF STAFFORDmoved, as an Amendment, to insert, in page 8, line 36, after the words "that no factor," the words—
    "Deriving his qualifications from the said Act, passed in the seventeenth and eighteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-one."
    The noble Lord explained that, for the purpose in view, they should be in the same position as they were at present.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he would accept the Amendment, which he thought a very proper one.
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
    MR. ANDERSONmoved, as an Amendment, to add, in page 8, line 38, at the end of the sub-section, the words—
    "And no Commissioner of Supply, who holds his position as such only in virtue of being the eldest son of a proprietor, shall he entitled to act or vote, except in the absence of his father."
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. ANDERSONmoved to report Progress, it being half-past 12 o'clock.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Anderson.)
    SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHERurged the hon. Member for Glasgow to press his Motion.
    MR. VANS AGNEWthought the Committee could not do less than complete the clause they were now considering.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERwas of opinion that the Committee had been sitting long enough.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was quite ready to go on to the end of the clause.
    MR. ANDERSONwas afraid that he would be obliged to take the sense of the Committee on the subject.
    LORD ELCHOconsidered it most desirable to finish the clause.
    MR. ANDERSONinsisted on dividing the House, as after that hour—half-past 12—the chances of what they were doing being reported in Scotland were exceedingly small.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 38; Noes 94: Majority 56.—(Div. List, No. 64.)
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, if it was too late go on before, it was too late now, and he would therefore move that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not wish to go on against the wish of the House, but he could not assent to the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSthen moved that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. He would

    1827
    put the Bill down again for Thursday Pro formâ. He could not say it would come on then, because there were other matters that must come on.
    Motion agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.
    House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUIILIC BILL—Second Heading— Public Baths and Washhouses (39).

COLONY OF VICTORIA—THE MINISTERIAL CRISIS.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked the noble Earl the Under Secretary for the Colonies, Whether any reply had been received at the Colonial Office to the telegram sent out to the Governor of Victoria on the 11th instant, with reference to the difficulties that had arisen in the affairs of that Colony?
EARL CADOGANsaid, that evidently there was some defect in the telegraphic communication between this country and Victoria. The telegram despatched from London on the 11th instant, took four days to reach Melbourne, and the reply

1707
to it had taken five days to reach this country. The reply was in these terms—
"Melbourne Government to Secretary of State, Colonial Office, London.—loth of March. —Telegram of 11th received. Negotiations for compromise still pending. Ministers propose fair terms to the Council. Nothing certain can be known for another week. The Assembly, the Law Officers, and the Audit Commissioners have declared that the 45th Section of the Constitution Act is a special appropriation, and the money thus legally available will carry on the Government until the end of June. Full reports by mail.—Governor, Victoria."
He hoped that in another day or two he should be able to lay on the Table a further instalment of the Papers relating to recent events in the Colony.

PUBLIC BATHS AND WASHHOUSES BILL—(No. 39.)
(The Lord Houghton.)
PUBLIC BATHS AND WASHHOUSES BILL—(No. 39.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading, read.
  LORD HOUGHTON,in moving that this Bill which had come up from the Commons be now read the second time, said, the object of the measure was to extend the Act for the establishment of Public Baths and Washhouses to covered swimming baths, gymnasia, and other means of healthful recreation. This would be a very useful power in the winter season, when open swimming baths and bathing places would probably he closed.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the"Whole House on Monday next.

THE EASTERN QUESTION—RUSSIA AND THE POKTE—THE CONFERENCE.

  ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  LORD CAMPBELL,in rising pursuant to Notice, to call attention to the precautions which appear to be desirable before Great Britain enters the approaching Conference, and to move for any recent diplomatic correspondence with Her Majesty's Government on the terms of peace between Russia and the Porte, said: My Lords, although it would not be consistent with the Usages of this House, as generally followed, or with the respect which I have always entertained for it, to submit a Motion of any kind, without a single argument in favour of it, no very long one seems to be required in this instance. The terms of
  1708
  peace between Russia and the Porte are not, as we are told, officially communicated, and the Government are not enabled to distribute them. There is no complaint, at least from me, upon this point. In ordinary intercourse, the necessity of seeing those terms has been perhaps, in some degree, exaggerated. It is clear that Russia will desire to retain her present acquisitions, until the European Powers intervene, in the form which so long a parturition is maturing. The principle of Uti possidetis must appear to her to sum up, if not all law, human, and Divine, at least the better part of equity and policy, at present. If the Conference is free to overrule them, the terms of peace afford but little scope for curiosity. If it is not, but one result is likely to present itself. On the other hand, from Constantinople and St. Petersburg, from Berlin and Vienna, comments have probably been made by eminent Diplomatists, as to what is going on between the two belligerents, which would do a great deal to guide opinion in this country, possibly to animate it. But we depend at this peculiar juncture on opinion for our safety. Such comments I have asked for. However, this is not a Motion to be urged upon a Government if they have no such Correspondence, or if they think it dangerous to produce it. Before proceeding further, I owe an apology to the House for venturing to trouble them at any length, with an interval so short, after the last Motion I brought forward. Nothing would induce me to adopt that course but our exceptional position. A hostile army at the gates of the capital we are entitled to defend—and much more than entitled—must alter the routine of individuals and Assemblies. It must force upon them many things they would have otherwise avoided. The Notice engages me to call attention to precautions seemingly desirable before the Conference is entered. Whether they are or not depends upon the view adopted of its function. My Lords, the approaching Conference in one striking aspect differs from all which modern history has presented. Whichever you refer to—that of Westphalia, or Utrecht, that which closed the Seven Years' war, that of Vienna, or that of 1856—this observation might be generalized. The attempt has always been to appraise the results of war, and to embody them in

  1709
  articles—to translate military loss and military gain into the conclusions of a settlement. Now, the function is diametrically opposite. It might be shadowed out nearly in this way. It is to prevent a superstructure of acquisition from being established on a basis of success, although a basis of that kind, as yet has always had the superstructure now to be avoided. On the other hand, this function is not beyond the range of possible success—first, because the European Powers surpass Russia when united in their force; secondly, because every one of them, if swayed by arguments of interest, or arguments of duty, would be ready to oppose her. But it will be a new, unprecedented masterpiece of diplomatic energy. Your Lordships will not readily assume that unless remarkable precautions are adopted, the world is about to see what in the lapse of time it has never been permitted to contemplate. The right of Europe to aspire to a result so different from the usual one, no doubt is incontestable. That the war was not begun in the interest of Eastern Christianity, is clear if only from this fact—that it was never sanctioned by the Patriarch of Constantinople, by the Armenian Patriarch, or by the Exarch of Bulgaria. In these venerable dignitaries Eastern Christianity has patrons more authoritative than the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) upon that bench and the late Prime Minister beyond it, however little either of the two may recognize the circumstance. If Russia was a mandatory —as at one time she asserted—the Powers who employed her are entitled to revise and to reject the work she has performed. If she was not a mandatory, she was an outlaw; and, as an outlaw, is exposed to general restraint. The clearness of the right would not, however, take away the difficulty of the function I have pointed to. By glancing at a few of the tasks which apparently devolve on the British Representative in any Conference which happens, I should hope still further to pave the way for the precautions it would be otherwise imprudent to advert to. He will have, as I contend, to maintain the Treaties of 1856 up to this point—that they should not be given up for any Russian object. Even if the Sultan quitted European Turkey altogether—a prospect upon which I do not hazard an opinion, and
  1710
  only mention hypothetically—it would be essential to maintain the void against a Russian tenure. It is idle to construct, as many reasoners are doing, the mental fabric of Byzantine Empires and Byzantine Federations, when you have a hostile army at San Stefano; when the occupation of Gallipoli is threatened; when villages are taken on the Bosphorus; when the Mediterranean is approached. Russia, where she is, defeats such projects altogether. The time for their discussion is summed up in an old tense, which the Phil-Hellene, no doubt, recalls with glowing admiration. It was called by the grammarians the paulo post futurum. The first task of the negotiator will be in the name of Treaties to evacuate a space, whatever creed or nationality is destined to re-occupy it. So far as ingenuity can do anything to undermine or to attenuate the Treaties of 1856, it has not been neglected. But they are not devoured yet, even by their authors. Their heirs have not succeeded in effacing them. As soon as the attack begins, on the ground of Ottoman resistance at Constantinople to what is humourously termed the "voice of Europe"—by way of proving General Ignatieff to be an eminent ventriloquist—-the unanswered despatch of the Sublime Porte on January 25th last year is summoned to the rescue. As soon as the Protocol before the war began is urged to overthrow them, the unanswered despatch of Her Majesty's Government on May 1st effectually parries the manoeuvre. As soon as it is urged that Russian arms have superseded them, the declaration which inaugurated the Black Sea Conference is summarily drawn out of the recesses which contain it. As soon as their antiquity is mentioned to their prejudice —the antiquity of 20 years—their second birth in 1871 is usefully commemorated At last the Governments of Europe are appealing to them. Like Mount Ararat, they rise above the waters of invasion. The diplomatic ark is resting on their summit. But there is a second task for the Negotiator of this country. He has on special grounds to re-establish the Protectorate of the races subject to the Porte which the Crimean War had vindicated for Great Britain. It is worth while to remark, if only for a minute, how that Protectorate escaped us. It flourished and it led to many salutary

  1711
  things until the resignation of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. The withdrawal of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe by the Government of that time, was the first blow to its efficiency. It continued, with diminished force, under Sir Henry Bulwer, afterwards under Lord Lyons, and last of all under Sir Henry Elliot up to 1870. Then arrived the turning point, which cannot be too accurately noted. From the moment of the concessions to Prince Gortchakoff, the British Embassy was lowered indescribably in its authority at Constantinople. Simultaneously, by the misfortunes of the Franco-German War, the French Embassy was paralyzed. From that time their was no bar to Russian supremacy in the capital. The Austrian and German Embassies were both instructed to adhere to it, or favour it. The Holy Alliance could be traced in every office of Stamboul, in every station on the Bosphorus. Now, the whole case of those who would oppose my proposition —-that the Negotiator ought to re-establish our influence—is summed up in the hope that Russian power effectually replaces it. If Russian power was any check to Ottoman misgovernment from 1870 to 1875, it must have wholly passed away. But, according to the school accustomed to inveigh against the Porte, at that very period it culminated in its errors. Again, if Russian supremacy over the Porte was any check to Ottoman misgovernment, it must have passed away during the eight years the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi was in vigour, and assured to Russia a preponderance which the Treaty of Kainardji has been thought—but not correctly—to have given her. On this point there is an authoritative witness who, in our various discussions, I think, has never been referred to. During that period—in 1841—the French Government, directed by the illustrious M. Guizot, sent out a Commissioner to explore the state of the Bulgarians, which had been recently disturbed. M. Blanqui was the person chosen. He rode from Belgrade to Constantinople. He drew up a Report. He published an octavo. In that volume, which I have long possessed, and have often been on the point of citing to the House, the picture which he gives of mal-administration is darker than those which here are sometimes founded upon Consular Reports, or those which out-of-doors have not a Consular Report to
  1712
  justify their tonour. M. Blanqui is the dormant scourge—at least, the dormant refutation—of those who hold that the ascendancy of Russia suffices for the welfare of the races subject to the Porte; and all the more because he shares their love of Eastern Christianity. On grounds of this kind, the Negotiator ought to re-establish our Protectorate. Unless he does, the agitation of the country and the language of the Foreign Office for two years will have been fruitless. The Negotiator has, besides, another task which cannot be forgotten. If it falls within the duty of Great Britain to claim a Protectorate over these races, it falls within it to uphold or to revive the Constitution recently put down. However tentative and crude, it implies a check to the despotic power which had led to their misgovernment; to the despotic power which had increased since the extinction of the Janissaries. But here the argument may seem to bring me into controversy with the reasoners—well-known to the House—who openly denounce that Constitution as illusory and mischievous. But these reasoners have never yet employed a fact, much less an argument, against it. Even if they had, the testimony of Mr. Layard on the spot might do a little to out-balance them. Their method is a wily one. It seems to check reply. It certainly economizes intellect. On every occasion they refer to the noble Marquess the former Plenipotentiary as their authority and shelter. Anyone who casually listened to them without a further source of information would suppose that the noble Marquess was the author of a folio against the Constitution they disparage, or that he had brought to bear upon it a series of invectives in the style of Junius; or set up an organ— the very thing he disapproves of—which week by week, or day by day, was laying waste its mischievous pretensions or intolerable principles. What are the facts? It really is not useless, or wholly un-amusing, to refer to them. In our Blue Books, the noble Marquess is the writer of one despatch upon the subject. I have not been contented with my own research, but engaged a friend to look all through the Papers of last year and see if he could find another. What does that despatch amount to? If I am able to interpret it, it amounts only to the temperate assertion that, although the Constitution

  1713
  might be irreproachable as a first attempt in a new path, it was not such an absolute security for certain definite reforms as foreign interference. The remark is wholly incontestable. All the world must see that the coercion of the Embassies—however undesirable an agency —is more certain to attain a given point they aim at than Chambers which must hear debates and then determine by majorities. To my knowledge, the founders of that Constitution do not object to the language of the noble Marquess, although, no doubt, they bitterly resent the language which is built upon it. They hold with him that at the outset the Constitution was uncertain and precarious—still more if Russia crossed the Pruth to overthrow it. On these grounds, I should contend that to revive the Constitution would be at least among the tasks of the Negotiator. If, indeed, the Protectorate of Great Britain is restored, the Constitution may be less important. So, if the Constitution is brought back, the Protectorate is not so indispensable as otherwise it would be. The two agencies conduce to the same purpose. But it will probably occur to the reflection of the House that if the Negotiator succeeds in one task, he is pretty sure to do so in the other; that, as the obstacle will be the same, so also, if he fail in one, he will be apt to fail in both of them together. The general conclusion to which I would draw the House by glancing at the function of the Conference and at the toils of the Negotiator is that, without imposing preparations from Great Britain, the whole thing is absolutely hopeless; that she ought to approach it with the obvious resolution of becoming a belligerent, unless the Conference responds to the direction she would give it. In this sense, the first precaution, I submit, resides in a single word—mobilization. As, however, the word has been employed in different senses, I define it as that which furnishes an Army with everything necessary to transport itself, whether by land or sea, from one place to another. The next precaution to be mentioned is that of despatching a conspicuous Force to Malta, with a view to the impression it would make upon the Powers of the Continent. It must appear to everyone who reasons that 20,000 soldiers there have greater diplomatic influence than 50,000 while remaining in this country.
  1714
  During the autumn I have twice adverted to this subject. The third precaution which suggests itself may need a little more consideration. It is to render the Militia—during a restricted period — available for foreign service, although it does not follow that they would ever be required to join it. Whether they are or not, a great political impression will be equally created. The existence of the Volunteers as a replacing Force would justify this measure, if the Volunteers received a slight improvement in efficiency by means of a detail which might not interest your Lordships. Good authorities consider it opposed to every maxim of defence and of economy to lock up two extensive Armies in the United Kingdom on the sedentary principle. That accomplished person, Mr. Windham, when Secretary for War, at the beginning of the century, explained its inconveniences. But they are greater now than at that stage of our history. If invasion was constantly at hand, while foreign expeditions scarcely had to be contemplated, the system would be sensible and practical; but when invasion is much more remote than it was in the time of Mr. Windham, while foreign expeditions may be essential to our objects, it is not easily defended. It has only grown up in its present form since 1859, when Volunteers were re-established. To grasp the question with precision, it is useful to keep one eye upon the mass of guarantees for which we are indebted to a noble Marquess opposite, the other on' the fact that since 1870 no Power has been well situated for invasion of Great Britain. The next precaution I intended to refer to very briefly is that of adopting every measure by which the Fleet would be enabled to advance into the Black Sea without the slightest insecurity when egress is desirable. What those measures are military men have pointed out to me, and they can better state them to your Lordships. But it is not to be contested that only in the Black Sea the Fleet will have the greatest weight as to the tenour of the Conference, because there it menaces Odessa and retards communication between the Prussian Armies and their basis. By the amended Articles of 1871 the Fleet may enter the Black Sea whenever it is thought desirable to send it. It would be easily

  1715
  admitted that nations, to be really great, must utilize whatever fortune has bestowed upon them. But there is something more to be remembered. From time to time they ought to snatch a gain out of their losses. The British Fleet commanding the Black Sea will be a better answer to the Russian manifesto of 1870 than any of the various despatches it elicited. The last precaution is one which I approach with more anxiety than any of the others. It seems to me to transcend the others in importance, because it would be nearly certain to produce them, although in itself it is neither of a naval nor a military character. To divest this precaution as long as possible of everything which bears on living individuals, it might be mentioned as a common law regarding foreign policy in our country that duality — by which I mean the action of two rival and conflicting minds —has frequently impaired, while unity— by which I mean the direction of a single mind—has always added to its excellence. During the Government of Lord Chatham it may be easily observed that the unparalleled success of foreign policy arose greatly from the fact that no one else within the Cabinet was suffered to disturb it. The same remark occurs during the early years of Mr. Pitt's Administration, before Lord Grenville occupied the Foreign Office. On the other hand, when men even so distinguished as Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell, were endeavouring to guide it both together, the evils of duality were not without some illustrations—for instance, on the Danish Question in 1864, and as regards the coup d'état in France—which anyone may summon to his memory. Without building for a moment either on the impressions of society, or the assertions of the Press, but on grounds officially avowed, it may be stated that the duality in question has now reached a pitch unknown in our annals. Such grounds alone could justify the statement. As within a Cabinet no one is entitled to betray, so beyond no one can be qualified to fathom or interpret it. It belongs to the historical events of this very Session, that the First Minister considered that the Fleet ought to advance from Besika Bay into the Dardanelles, when the Secretary of State was conscientiously opposed to such a measure. At that stage neither can be censured. Each had a
  1716
  right to his opinion on a question so momentous. Nor am I engaged in reflecting on one, or on the other, or on both, because I point to the arraignment of duality. What followed? The Fleet advanced, and it retreated. In consequence of its retreat—this sad and overwhelming fact has been imparted to many noble Lords by a most eminent authority—the celebrated lines between the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmora were finally abandoned; Constantinople was at once exposed to Russian occupation. In consequence of its retreat, it had eventually to reach the neighbourhood of Constantinople, without the sanction of the Porte, in such a manner as to give that Power—with France and Austria, who are both entitled to defend if by the Treaty of April 15th, 1856—a right of war against Great Britain. My Lords, the upshot is, that duality, and not the guilt of any person you can specify, has brought about the present situation, in which the Naval Force incurs considerable hazard; in which the ally debates, the enemy advances, and the victim is in league with him; in which the Army we might have led, have supplemented, disciplined, has vanished. It is, therefore, in the name of everything valued out-of-doors, of everything sacred to the Legislature, the time to close the perilous and inadmissible duality, which never ought to have existed, and to which such grave calamities may justly be ascribed. The appointment of a new Secretary of State would do nothing to correct it. It might even seriously aggravate it. The public interest demands, excited numbers may soon imperatively call, for the concentration of the Foreign Office in the hands of the First Minister, until the present juncture is surmounted. It is wholly superficial to object that such a measure would too much increase his toils, when really it would lighten them. The greatest official toil—Prince Bismarck recently explained it in public—is the necessity to counteract another—to overrule or to persuade him. It is not by demonstrations, articles, or speeches, that this result should be effected, although, perhaps, they might contribute to it. The late Emperor of the French has been accredited, with this searching observation—"There are certain counsels which a man must owe to himself, and not to those by whom he is surrounded." The

  1717
  noble Earl the Secretary of State has only to revert to the course his own mind had seriously prompted. If the post is not filled up in the usual manner, in less dangerous times, when the head of the Government is less required to watch and interfere in the Department, he may usefully re-occupy it. With such a definite arrangement, no self-sacrifice is wanted. The noble Earl would rather act upon the fiat of a judicious patriotism and a sensible ambition, both together. He would not, like Curtius—of whom we heard so often in the House of Commons—leap into a gulf for the advantage of his country; but, unlike Curtius, actually leap out of one and close it up as he retires. If there is a better mode of finishing the duality which weighs upon the Empire, it ought at least to be suggested. My Lords, if these precautions were adopted, there is reason to believe from their official Press, that the German Empire would be more likely to act with us at the Conference. If they do, its proper aims are seen at once to be attainable. The precautions I have mentioned would manifestly strengthen and encourage the Hungarians, by whom alone Austria can be fixed again upon the salutary path to which in 1856 she had determined to adhere. In France, they would awaken the set of public men who are anxious to withdraw their country from unnecessary fears, unfounded calculations, and a culpable indifference to the sacrifices, the efforts, which she made' in the Crimea. Last of all, in Russia, they might lead the governing authorities at first to tremble at their spoils, and then to glance at their assurances. It is said by persons of the highest information that Russia is becoming more exorbitant; that another retrogression of the British Fleet is urged as a preliminary to the Conference. In that ease such, measures are demanded. But it is difficult to grasp the truth, and I will take the other case, advanced by some, that Russian moderation is increasing, that demands have been attenuated, and rapacity controlled. But what has led, if it exists, to such a temper? It is the renovated vigour of this country. It is the re-awakened sense of those who were deluded. It is that chloroform administered on platforms has ceased to lull and to enchain. It is that those by whom it was administered are now de-
  1718
  fended by constabulary force against the just resentment of the people. The aggressor falls back before Great Britain, who emerges. Is that a reason why she should withdraw herself to vain repose and fatuous security? Is it a reason for omitting one of the precautions I have brought before your Lordships? It may, however, be remarked that while these precautions are appropriate, and while the last of them is vitally essential, I have adopted an unusual course in stating them to-night with no official character to warrant the proceeding. No doubt in common' times it would have been arrogant and imprudent in a high degree to act in such a manner. My answer is, the times are painfully exceptional. So long as the duality on which I have touched at so much length continues, in the established sense there is not any Government, however gifted all the individuals who avowedly compose it. So long as a portion of the noble Lords beneath—it would be most unjust and inexact to place them in one category—are swayed by open advocates of Russia, while the numerical resources of the Party they appear to be seceding from, listen to those advocates with wonder, with regret, and incredulity, in the established sense there is not any Opposition. The Opposition has become a martial field for rival forces to contend in by alternate weeks or by alternate fortnights, with a view that each may guide the course of the Executive. If an Opposition of the regular united form was in existence, the backward movement of the Fleet would long ago have been held up to public indignation more distinctly than it has been. A Monarchy so Constitutional as ours can hardly be expected to replace at once the well-known powers which are thrown into abeyance. A natural result has been developed. Already foreign policy has been appropriated by the masses. The law of nations is defended in Hyde Park and in Trafalgar Square, because in Downing Street it is not followed as it used to be. Under these circumstances an individual may not appear to take too much upon himself, if, after years of anxious labour on the subject, he indicates a path which is not that of war or of dishonour. My Lords, there is another ground on which a mode of acting otherwise too bold admits of easy vindication. It is the series of advantages

  1719
  which Russia has obtained, together with the obvious insufficiency of all the constituted powers in the State to balance her diplomacy. It may be viewed without a shadow of resentment. No one who has long allowed his thoughts to be directed to these questions, can withhold reluctant admiration from a long and curious display of mental force and mental perseverance in that line, although Great Britain may have suffered from it. Soon after the Crimean War the Russian Government succeeded in uniting the Danubian Principalities against the efforts of Lord Palmerston, as a better lever of any conquest to be gradually approached, persuading her more fatuous disciples that it was designed as a barrier to lessen her temptation and to hinder her advances. After that — but not till Lord Palmerston had passed away—the Servian fortresses were virtually appropriated, with what results your Lordships easily remember. Next came the forward and defiant step of 1870, with all the triumphs which it generated. Within three years the Holy Alliance—so long extinct—was re-established at the dictate of St. Petersburg. But it was not to be a sentiment or an abstraction. Its activity commenced at once in the shape of the Commercial Treaties with the Vassal Principalities, of which the design is now proclaimed, and then was manifest to all who were not anxious to be blind to it. Without a breathing time, the Herzegovinian insurrection was set on foot—in what manner Consul Holmes has long ago explained to us. The Andrassy Note was but the prelude to the Berlin Memorandum, by which so far as diplomacy extends, Russia appropriated to her system every Power but Great Britain. In a few months—by the results of a factitious movement in Bulgaria—she lured Great Britain to Constantinople, and made her there the very echo she required. Again, Great Britain was entangled in the Protocol which seemed to be the sudden cause of the invasion, when 20 years had really been preparing it. In the meanwhile, the most imposing as well as indefatigable speaker in the other House of Parliament was engaged to agitate the masses in its favour. For the first time a Russian Party was established in the capital, not as it had been in Warsaw to annihilate, but as it had been in Vienna, to perplex
  1720
  and to enfeeble; as it had been in Berlin to divide a nation from its rulers; as it had been in Paris to mock by hope, and chain to insignificance. The result is now before us. It is clear not only to your Lordships, not only to the Legislature, but to every farmer, publican, and artizan in the community, that ever since the Crimean War Great Britain has been outdone and overweighted in the struggle with her adversary. At such a time, however great the risk, no politician would be entitled to withhold the faintest service he can render. It may be objected that against a Power so remarkable for subtlety and so victorious in practice, the enumerated measures will be useless; that it is too late to fortify the Conference, or deliver Europe from the clouds which seem to burst upon her. If that were so, it would be still worth while for Great Britain to escape the heart-rending reproach to which a great Republic of antiquity exposed itself, in circumstances far too similar to those in which we are descending. The House may ask to what reproach I have alluded. It is long since I have seen the original. It used to run, however, in this manner—"The aggressor has not conquered you; he has prevailed over your inertness and fatuity. You are not subdued; but you were never roused into the dignity of effort." To shelter us from that reproach, not one of the precautions mentioned can be easily dispensed with. I now submit the Motion to the House, according to the Notice.
  Moved, That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty for any recent diplomatic correspondence with Her Majesty's Government on the terms of peace between Russia and the Porte.—[The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I will not trespass long on the attention of your Lordships. I understood the noble Lord (Lord Campbell) to apologize to your Lordships for the postponement of this Motion from time to time. I believe, however, that your Lordships would not have required an apology even if he had postponed it sine die. The noble Lord referred to M. Guizot. Well, I remember once asking that distinguished statesman who was his most formidable opponent in the old Chamber of Deputies? He said—"M. Thiers; but if you had put the question in a different form, I should have named

  1721
  another person. If you had asked me who is the most difficult Member to answer? I should have named a very eminent orator and great poet, who speaks for an hour or more amid tremendous cheers, and at the end of that time I do not know what facts I have to deal with and what arguments I have to refute." Of course, I do not wish to compare myself to M. Guizot or the noble Lord to the great French poet. I am aware I run the risk of having the old joke applied to me as was applied to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the other night, when the noble Lord (Lord Campbell) said he was not bound to provide understanding for those persons who could not understand; but yet I must confess that this evening, as on a good many previous evenings, I have been altogether unable either to construe or to understand the greater part of the noble Lord's remarks. There was one point which was tolerably clear —-namely, as to the precautions which he recommended Her Majesty's Government immediately to adopt. The first recommendation was to mobilize the Army. Well, I thought we had been assured by Her Majesty's Government that they had one division ready for work and that another would be ready shortly. Then the noble Lord said that troops ought to be sent to Malta. Why, I thought that during the last 18 months troops had been sent to Malta, until there was no longer room or barrack accommodation for more. Next the noble Lord proposed that an Act of Parliament should be passed for sending the Militia out of the country. If war should arise, such an Act might soon be passed. Then the noble Lord said Her Majesty's Government ought to enable the Fleet to go into the Black Sea. Surely these are precautions which are not quite well placed at a moment when Her Majesty's Government — and I quite believe that they are conscientious -—are trying to devise some means of entering into a friendly Congress which may settle some of the gravest questions that have arisen for a very long time. Another thing recommended by the noble Lord was that the noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury should, in imitation of the late Duke of Wellington in the absence of Sir Robert Peel, take nearly all the princi-
  1722
  pal Offices of the Government into his own hands.
  LORD CAMPBELL: I rise to Order. What I recommended was that the noble Earl at the head of the Government should also be the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. That does not imply all the other Offices.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I understand that at any rate the noble Lord proposes that the First Minister of the Crown is to occupy two principal Offices in the Government. I have no doubt that the object of the noble Lord is, as he has assured us it is, to strengthen the hands of Her Majesty's Government in dealing with these questions; but I cannot help thinking that the course recommended by the noble Lord, instead of strengthening the Government, is calculated to make it more difficult for them to settle any really great and important questions. I do really ask your Lordships whether the noble Lord has a right to accuse the Opposition of neglect, because we do not bring forward such impractical conclusions as these?—and I ask your Lordships to dismiss what I must call such nonsense. As to whether the Secretary for Foreign Affairs—to use the classical allusion adopted by the noble Lord— should fill up the gap, not by coming in, but by going out of the Cabinet, I do not think it is for the dignity of this House to propose to discuss such speculations. The position of things is this— Her Majesty's Government have now received from both Houses of Parliament the full powers which they asked in the shape of this Vote of Credit, and they have given us the most formal assurances that they mean to support certain British interests, which they have specified; and, in addition to this, they have given us the most solemn pledges that they are doing as much as they possibly can to maintain peace between ourselves and Russia. That is a very grave duty, and it is a very great responsibility which is laid upon them. I do not know, and I do not believe that the noble Lord knows, what is the state of negotiations at this moment between this country and Russia—indeed, there are a great many things which I should like to know, which I should like to have cleared up, which I do not understand, and which I should like to have explained; but I am quite sure that it is not for the advantage of our national

  1723
  interests that the Opposition should be constantly asking Questions, and that Her Majesty's Government should be answering Questions at this very critical moment, just before the possible meeting of the Conference. I, therefore, venture to say these few words because I entirely dissent from the drift of the noble Lord's observations.
  LORD HAMMONDregretted that the noble lord (Lord Campbell) should have seen fit to discuss such subjects as those he had referred to at the present time. The noble Lord had referred to the inconveniences which arose from what he called "dual administration;" but the proposed change in the Ministry was not one which their Lordships could seriously entertain. It had always been understood—at least during his official career—that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs were jointly responsible for the foreign affairs of the country—subject, of course, to the supervision of the Cabinet. With regard to the approaching Congress, the noble Lord (Lord Campbell) had defined the precautions which this country ought to take previous to entering into it. But he (Lord Hammond) scarcely thought it would be desirable for their Lordships to define the precautions which Great Britain should take before participating in the deliberations. Such a definition would be calculated to fetter the free action of Her Majesty's Government and of Her Majesty's Plenipotentiaries, and might very much embarrass them in their negotiations—and, further, it would give a handle for opposing Powers at the Conference to thwart the policy of Her Majesty's Government. In his opinion, the conditions under which, as stated a few nights ago in "another place," Her Majesty's Government had agreed to enter the Conference, went as far as any conditions could safely go in the way of precaution—namely, that each State should preserve liberty to retire at any moment from the Conference—that the majority should not bind the minority— and that every Article of the Treaty between Russia and Turkey should be placed before the Conference in such a manner as that the Conference might judge whether it should be accepted or not. He thought that not only no good, but much inconvenience would result from discussing in that House the several Articles of the Treaty when
  1724
  Her Majesty's Government should be enabled to lay them upon the Table. Those Articles, so far as as they affected the interests of each and every one of the Powers, were reserved for the consideration of the Conference, where the several Plenipotentiaries would speak under the authority and with the responsibility of their respective Governments, and where alone the great interests at stake could be usefully and properly discussed and decided upon. Indeed, he trusted there was no intention, such as had been stated in some of the daily papers, of holding a preliminary Conference. Such a Conference could not be needed for establishing the bases on which the definitive Conference should proceed, for there was only one basis, and that had already been agreed upon by a majority, if not by all, of the Powers—namely, that every Article of the Treaty of San Stefano should be placed before the Plenipotentiaries in such a manner that they might judge whether it should be accepted or not. The only effect of an attempt to lay down in a preliminary Conference the principles upon which that basis should be acted upon would be to restrict the ground for the deliberations of the Conference by tying down the Representatives of the Powers to foregone conclusions. Whatever the conclusions at which the Conference, whether preliminary or definitive, might arrive, he trusted they would not involve the establishment of a Russian right to interfere hereafter for the protection of any part of the population of the Turkish Empire, whether severed from the direct rule of the Sultan or still remaining subject to his sway. Limited as might be the sphere in Europe in which such a right of protection might be exercised to the prejudice of the Porte, the case would be different in Asia Minor. A Russian Protectorate there would be tantamount to the establishment of Russian sovereignty from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean; for there never would be wanting a pretext for Russian interference on behalf of populations alleged, whether truly or falsely, to be groaning under Turkish maladministration. Bad and oppressive as Turkish administration might be, and grievous as might be the sufferings of Armenian and other peaceable inhabitants, there could be no doubt that much of those sufferings might be laid to the

  1725
  charge of the nomad population—Kurd, Bedouin, or Circassian—by which the country was systematically harried and devastated; and the Porte could not better employ those forces, for which it would no longer have occasion in the field, than in bringing those wild tribes under control. It might seem a sanguine expectation, but he thought that notwithstanding all the disasters Turkey had sustained, there was still, even beyond the limits of Europe, an opportunity to re-establish herself in general opinion. Notwithstanding all that had happened she might still rehabilitate herself if she would devote her energies to the establishment of a system of government which would tend to the happiness of her subjects and secure the country from further devastation. In the Greek population in Asia Minor subject to Turkish rule there was no want of intelligence, industry, and commercial activity, which, if admitted to take part in local government in common with the Mussulman population, would afford a sure means of developing the resources of the country and maintaining good order and tranquility within its borders. No effort should be spared to induce the Porte to act on these principles in dealing with its Asiatic Provinces; and it might be hoped that the lesson which it had now learnt of the fatal consequences of apathy and neglect of its duties to subject populations would induce it hereafter to enter upon and follow up a course' tending to uphold the Sovereignty of the Sultan in all parts of his Dominions. With reference to Greece, he would remind their Lordships that the Conference was to assemble to consider and determine how far the late Treaty between Russia and Turkey was consistent or not with the provisions of the Treaty of 1856, to which England, Austria, France, Italy, and Prussia were, with Russia and Turkey, alone parties, and that as Greece was no party to it she could have no locus standi in the Conference. Greece, however, might very well be invited to depute a Representative to Berlin, who would be prepared to plead her claims before the Conference in the event of any question arising in which the interests of Greece might be involved. And he was free to say that any such interests would deserve the most considerate attention at the Conference, not only for the sake of Greece herself, who had such
  1726
  large claims on the sympathy of all civilized nations, but also for the sake of Europe at large, which was deeply concerned in the extension and well-being of the Hellenic Kingdom. A somewhat parallel case might, indeed, be found in the proceedings of the Congress of Vienna of 1815. Switzerland was not represented in that Congress, but the interests of Switzerland, and those of Europe involved in them, were there discussed and provided for, and Lord Stratford de Red-cliffe, then British Minister in Switzerland, was summoned from Berne and took part in a Commission by which the arrangements for Switzerland were considered before they were finally adopted by the Congress. If such a course were followed as regarded Greece in the approaching Conference, no reasonable objection could be made to it.
  THE EAR OF DUNRAYENsaid, he was aware that there existed some difference of opinion even among Members of their Lordships' House as to how far the Treaties of 1856 and 1871 had or had not been broken by Russia. The noble Lord who had just sat down (Lord Hammond) had spoken of them as "the late Treaties," and the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) the other evening said that if the Treaties had been broken they had not been broken by Russia. He (the Earl of Dunraven) could not say whether they had been infringed or not; but if they had not, it was easy to suppose that cases might occur in which certainly they would be broken. If, for example, Russia were to obstruct the entrance into the Black Sea, she would, he presumed, by assuming functions that had been deliberately delegated to another nation, be breaking the Treaty of 1856 as far as it lay in the power of any one nation to do so. If, also, Russia were to decline to submit to the signatory Powers every part and every term of the arrangement into which she had entered with Turkey, she would, he imagined, be infringing the provisions of that Treaty, and destroying it, as far as was practicable, by attacking the very principle and essence of it. Now, what he should like to know was, how far, if any one of the parties to the Treaty broke it, the other Powers who were parties to it were severally bound by the Treaty or any other arrangement subsequent to it and legitimately connected with it? Would England, for

  1727
  instance, if Russia refused to submit the terms of the Treaty between her and Turkey to the Congress, consider herself bound by the Declaration of Paris? That Declaration grew out of the Treaty, and was practically part and parcel of it. If England were to go to war because of an infringement of the Treaty of 1856 with Russia, would she be bound by the Declaration of Paris? It appeared to him to be monstrous that Russia should in such an event be allowed to reap the benefit of those restrictions in regard to maritime rights which were imposed upon us by that Instrument. He would remind the House—and he thought it was significant—that the Power to which Russia had taken the greatest pains to be civil—he meant the United States— was the only powerful State which had refused to sign the Declaration of Paris. There were, he might add, two points on which he wished particularly to touch, although he should have preferred waiting until the terms of peace were known. But as it was difficult to say when they would be laid before the House, and as hope deferred made the heart sick, he should be, perhaps, excused if he referred to them briefly on the present occasion. A noble Lord who addressed the House a few evenings ago spoke of the apprehensions with which the position of Russia in Armenia ought to be viewed; and it was self-evident that with the possession of so strong a position as the Quadrilateral in Asia Minor she could in that locality do anything she pleased and go wherever she liked. And in case we should have any doubts as to Russian designs in the East, she was kind enough to explain thematter clearly. Now, Russia said that to enforce order in Asia Minor, as well as to protectthe Christians against the Kurds, reforms would have to be carried out under the surveillance of a Russian Commissioner. That was plain speaking—of that declaration he who ran might understand the meaning. Turkey was asked to do under the surveillance of a Russian official that which it might be impossible for her to do; and then, when the opportunity arose, one of those Commissioners had only to report that the reforms were not being effected, and that would afford Russia a pretext for moving in any direction she might think fit. He was glad to hear the question of the admission of Greece into the
  1728
  Conference referred to. He hoped she would be admitted, and that her rights would be attended to—Greece had undoubted claims; and it was pitiable to see the anxiety she showed towards the end of the war; how she ran about trying to kill somebody before it should be too late, knowing very well that, under the new reign of disorder that governed Europe, the best chance she had of obtaining admission to the Conference was to knock at the door with fingers that left blood-stains behind. It appeared to him that in giving effect to her claims lay the best chance of curtailing that New Bulgaria of which their Lordships had heard so much. It was, it seemed, to extend to the Ægean, and to include the port of Kavala, which was, he believed, well adapted for a naval station and arsenal. Bulgaria was further to be occupied by a large number of Russian troops, and if the tribute which was to be exacted from Turkey was not punctually paid, Russia would have such a hold on the Province that it was needless to say it would soon become more or less Russianized. He would merely add that if Russia were to be permitted to have a naval station in the Mediterranean, our position as to the Straits would be completely changed, and our flank would, as it were, from a military point of view, be completely turned. In a commercial point of view the Straits would be as valuable to us as ever; but from a military point of view, should Russia obtain the station he had mentioned, the position would be completely reversed.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he would not have taken any part in the discussion but for one or two remarks which had been made by the noble Earl who had just sat down. The noble Earl had alluded very fairly as to the difference of opinion which existed in that House as to whether the Treaties of 1856 and 1871 had or had not been violated by Russia or some other Power. But he then went on to say that, whatever might be their Lordships' opinion as to the beginning of these matters with regard to these Treaties, it was quite certain", that they might be violated, and would very probably be violated, by Russia; and he went on to specify cases in which there might be such an infringement of its provisions. Now, he quite concurred with the noble Earl in thinking that it was quite possible—he hoped it was not

  1729
  probable, nor did he believe it was—that Russia might have entered into some understanding with the Porte, the carrying into effect of which would be a violation of those great European interests which the Treaty of 1856 was intended to guard. It was conceivable that Russia might have made some stipulation with regard to the entrance of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus, which was a question undoubtedly affecting European and British interests, and one to the importance of which the Government had shown that they were perfectly alive. But the noble Earl then went on to say that the Treaty of 1856 would undoubtedly be violated if Russia were to refuse to submit to the Congress the whole of the Treaty into which she had just entered with Turkey and every part of it. Now, that is an observation to which he desired to refer. He had no question to ask the Government—it seemed to him a very inconvenient time to do so. The Government had, he thought, said all that a Government were bound to say on the subject. They had told the House all—not that it wished to know, but all that it need know, of the state of affairs; and he was bound to add that he was satisfied with the language of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He (the Duke of Argyll) did not, however, understand his noble Friend, or the Representative of the Government in "another place," to have laid down the exact proposition of the noble Earl. He understood the Government to say that they had a right to know what the Treaty between Russia and Turkey was, to prevent the discussions at the Congress from being nugatory and absurd; but he did not understand them to maintain that beyond that Russia was to enter the Congress and to declare that every one of the stipulations of the Treaty was to be disposed of as the Congress thought fit. That, however, was the view the noble Earl put upon the matter, and the same view had been extensively adopted by the Press of this country. Now, he would just ask this one question—would it be reasonable to say to Russia, who had sacrificed 100,000 men in the late war, besides a very large amount of treasure, that she must enter into the Congress, and that the whole result of that war was to be disposed of by the majority of the Congress? Nobody had said that that ought to be the
  1730
  result; but that interpretation had been put upon language which had been used; and he desired to take the opportunity of saying that the demand was, in his opinion, one to which Russia could not reasonably be expected to assent. She had gone to an enormous expenditure of both men and money for what she considered legitimate objects, and she had a right to secure the objects for which she fought. And all he understood the Government to say was, that they insisted on being assured that there were no secret engagements in the background, and that Europe had a right to see that none of them were injurious to itself. That was a fair and legitimate demand; but it was not to be supposed that all the results of the war were to be rendered nugatory. There was a part of the speech of the noble Earl to which he wished to direct attention, and that was the language he had used with regard to Armenia. Englishmen in general were much more jealous of Russian acquisitions in Asia than in Europe; and though the Government apparently kept silence on the subject of Asia, it was evident that that part of the question excited at the present moment the most jealousy. Now, the Blue Books recently presented to Parliament, show that no part of the Turkish Empire was more abominably governed than Armenia—it was simply a chaos and a scandal. The noble Earl had said that Russia was imposing certain conditions on Turkey which she would not be able to fulfil with respect to the government of Armenia. That meant that Turkey could not fulfil the most ordinary conditions of good government. As to European Turkey, they must either themselves take the protection of the people, or suffer Russia to do so. His noble Friend behind him had ox-pressed his hopes for the future of Turkey; and certainly, it was just conceivable that, with a considerable Empire still left to her in Asia, she might, by means of her Army, if she were independent, be able to maintain order in that country. That might possibly be the ease; but it was an intolerable thing that Europe should profess herself regardless of the manner in which that great Province of Asia was governed, and should prohibit all precautions and measures tending to its good government. Some other policy ought to be suggested; but he found that when noble

  1731
  Lords spoke on the subject of the East, they treated that point as a thing of nought and wholly unimportant. It was not reasonable that England should take up such a position, and he only hoped that it was not held, by the Government. As for the observations of the noble Lord who had introduced the Motion, there was only one point of his speech which was new to him, though he was bound to say that one point deserved consideration. He had said that he had a Report of M. Blanqui, who had been sent by France to inquire into the condition of European Turkey in the years 1833 and 1841—according to which Report, bad as the condition of the Christian Provinces was now, it was far worse under the Russian Protectorate—the Protectorate of Russia was as useless as that of the rest of Europe. He agreed in thinking that those nominal Protectorates were no better than humbugs. Protectorates of that kind were of no value whatever; and, for his part, he was confident that the good government both of European and Asiatic Turkey was dependent on the autonomy of her Provinces under decent government. The proposition made by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), at the Conference of Constantinople, of a European guarantee in the selection of governors would have been almost sufficient, as the appointment of good men under the sanction of the European Powers would have gone a good way to cure the evils complained of.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENwished to say that the noble Duke had not quite appreciated the purport of his remarks. If the preliminary contained Articles that did not affect European nations other than the belligerents, there could be no necessity for discussing them; but he certainly thought that every part of the Treaty between Russia and Turkey ought to be laid before the Congress, otherwise the Congress would be unable to judge which Articles affected the rest of Europe and which did not.
  THE EAR OF DERBY: My Lords, I hardly know whether your Lordships will expect or desire me to address the House, for I quite agree with the noble Lord opposite, that as matters now stand, the present is not a convenient time for a general discussion of Eastern Affairs; and, I may add, even if the moment were more suitable, I should feel considerable difficulty, remembering the
  1732
  conversation of the last two hours, in knowing which are the points on which an answer is expected or desired. I do not think that the noble Lord who brought forward the Motion will wish me to follow him through his long historical retrospect—especially as, with the utmost care I could give to it, I am not able to ascertain very clearly what the object of that retrospect was. The noble Lord, indeed, told us little that was new; and I am only repeating the observations of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), when I say that the points he enumerated have long since been considered by the Government. For instance, the noble Lord spoke of the state of readiness of the Army; and I only echo the statement of the noble Earl when I say that, with regard to military preparations and precautions, they are, for the most part, those which the Government on their own responsibility have long since undertaken. The noble Lord thinks that we ought to have some portion of our Army in a state of preparation; so that we may be ready in the event of necessity—in the event of any possible contingency—to act either by land or sea. I am able to state that we are in the military position suggested in that respect. The noble Lord spoke of strengthening the garrison of Malta. I cannot give the details, but the garrison was strengthened last year; and I believe there is now as large a military force at Malta as can with any convenience be accommodated there. The proposal that our Fleet should enter the Black Sea is of a very different character, and I think your Lordships will see there are strong and obvious reasons why that step cannot be taken at the present moment. I am sure, also, your Lordships will see that this is a delicate matter to be discussed. Nor will I waste the time of the House by arguing against the suggestion of the noble Lord, who told us there was no reason why the noble Earl the Prime Minister—having nothing to do in his own Department— should not take upon himself, in addition, the administration of the Foreign Office. There is no man to whom I would more willingly hand over the duties of my Department than my noble Friend; but, considering what the duties of our two Departments are, I think the proposal of the noble Lord, that they should be united, implies the official

  1733
  suicide of one Minister, and the physical suicide of the other. The noble Lord spoke of duality, and hinted at differences amongst the Members of the Cabinet. I wish to enter my protest, my Lords, against statements of that kind. If they are founded on anything publicly stated by Members of the Cabinet, no doubt they are perfectly fair matters of inference, and I do not object to them; but when there are no better grounds for them than club-gossip reports and stories floating about London, it is not consistent with the dignity of this House that they should be mentioned in debate. I pass from that, however, and come now to the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Hammond), who was so long connected with the Foreign Office, and whose experience in that Department is so great. The noble Lord touched upon various subjects, and, among others, that of the admission of Greece to the Congress. As a matter of fact, the question has never been raised as to the precise footing on which Greece ought to be admitted to the Congress. There is something to be said in favour of putting the Powers who have signed former Treaties affecting Turkey in a different position from those which took no part in that arrangement. What we have asked is, not that Greece shall be placed necessarily on the same footing as the other Powers, but that she should be represented in some manner, and have an opportunity of making her voice heard. The noble Duke who spoke later in the debate (the Duke of Argyll) said he would reserve his opinion on many subjects on which he had to speak until the terms of the Treaty of Peace were before your Lordships; but he also expressed a doubt as to whether we should soon have them. I believe, as I stated the other night, that they will be in the hands of the Government by Saturday next, and they shall then, with as little delay as possible, be placed in the hands of the Members of both Houses of Parliament. Then the noble Duke raised a very important question, and one to which the attention of the Government is at this moment carefully and anxiously directed, and that is, the conditions upon which England should enter into the proposed Congress. Perhaps the best course I can follow will be for me to state simply, as a matter, of fact, what are the opinions expressed by
  1734
  us on that subject. On the 9th of March we suggested, in a letter addressed to the Austrian Ambassador at this Court, that, whilst we had no objection to the change of place for the meeting of the Congress from Baden-Baden to Berlin, we considered it desirable that it should be understood that all the terms of the Treaty of Peace between Russia and Turkey should be discussed in the Congress, and that no alteration of the condition of things previously established by Treaty should be held as valid until they had been considered by the Congress. There was some doubt as to the meaning of that declaration, and I repeated in a letter of the 13th that Her Majesty's Government must distinctly understand before they enter the Congress that every Article of the Treaty will be placed before that Congress— not necessarily for acceptance, but in order that it might be considered which of them would require the acceptance and the concurrence of the several Powers, and which would not. Some communications passed after that expression of opinion, and we have on the part of the Russian Government the declaration that the text of the Treaty will be communicated to the Powers as soon as the ratifications are exchanged. But the further question now arises as to whether it is to be understood that all the conditions of the Treaty are to be placed before the Congress for discussion. I will not now quote to your Lordships from the Correspondence, although it will, no doubt, at no distant day, be laid before Parliament; but the question which we put is this—whether the communication by the Russian Government of the Treaty in its entirety to the Powers shall be treated as placing the whole Treaty before the Congress, in order that its relation to existing Treaties may be examined and considered by the Congress? I have one remark to offer as to the observation made by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) on this subject. The noble Duke said it was not reasonable to expect that the Russian Government, after the great efforts and sacrifices they have made, should place before the Congress all the results they have obtained in consequence of those efforts and sacrifices, and should submit them to the decision of a majority of the Conference. My Lords, no proposal of that kind has been made by Her Majesty's

  1735
  Government. As a matter of fact, I believe it is the universal rule that in a Congress the matters discussed by the several Representatives are not settled by a majority of votes; no vote is taken. Therefore, there is no question of asking —what I agree with the noble Duke it might not be reasonable to demand—that Russia should submit all those results to the decision of a majority of the Congress. That we do not claim. But we do ask that all the Articles of the Treaty shall be laid for discussion, but for discussion only, before the Congress—because we conceive that in that manner only is it possible for us to decide which of the Articles do, and which do not, affect the European settlement with which we have to deal. We have a certain condition of things established by the Treaties of 1856 and 1871. That condition of things is obviously modified, to a great degree, by the changes now in progress, and the object of the Congress is to give a European sanction and recognition to the settlement that is now to be made. We contend, therefore, that we ought to have the whole of the Treaty before us to be discussed, and not a part of it only. That is the sole question which is at present at issue. I am not prepared to say what answer the Russian Government will give to our demand; but I think your Lordships will consider that the demand itself is reasonable, that it is moderate, and that without such a condition as that which we make, it would be of very little use for the Congress to meet.
  LOUD CAMPBELL: My Lords, I shall not long detain the House, although, perhaps, some answer is incumbent on me. Let me congratulate my noble Friend on the left (the Earl of Dunraven) upon having once more proved that the terms of Liberal and Russian are not entirely identical. As to the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), it is satisfactory to draw from him the admission that a Russian Protectorate of Eastern Christianity has ceased to be the system which he favours. The noble Earl the late Secretary of State (Earl Granville), has revealed in somewhat extraordinary terms, his dissent from the opinions I have advocated. There is nothing to astonish in the fact of that dissent, or even that discrepancy. The noble Earl has more or- less encouraged the aggression on the Porte. I have
  1736
  constantly endeavoured to deprive it of its pretexts. The noble Earl has thrown a veil, so far as he could do so, over the character of the new Holy Alliance. I have done my best to drag it into light, before it was too late to counteract it. The noble Earl accepts the late Prime Minister as an oracle or an authority upon the Eastern Question. In common with an immense majority in both Houses of Parliament, confined to no one Party in the State, I repudiate him altogether as a Leader on the subject. Beyond that, the discrepancy between the noble Earl and me was manifested at a far more early stage of these remarkable transactions. When the three Powers opened their design upon the Vassal Principalities, in 1875, I repeatedly adverted to it. The noble Earl opposed all consideration of it until official Papers were produced. When, after a long delay, the Papers were before us, I originated a discussion which had an echo in the world. The noble Earl withdrew himself to Goodwood Races. On Eastern matters, after such a circumstance, your Lordships will not require me to contend at any length with such an adversary. The noble Earl the Secretary of State (the Earl of Derby) judiciously avoided too much expression of opinion on the last precaution I upheld. None at all is called for upon his part. He declared, however, that the greater part of my proposals was anticipated by the Government. What more could be desired? I am not sure whether he consented to produce the kind of Correspondence which the Motion calls for. If he declines to do so upon public grounds, I shall be ready to withdraw it.
  THE EARL OF DERBYintimated that he would be happy to produce the Papers asked for as soon as possible, but he could not do so at the present moment.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.