, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that our ancient national monuments were rapidly disappearing, yet they were seldom destroyed because they interfered with any important improvement, or any great engineering work; on the contrary, they were generally demolished for very trifling reasons. The tumuli, or burial mounds, though each was, as a rule, the burial place of one Chief, contained not only his remains, but also those of the animals killed in his honour, and he feared in many cases of the wives and slaves sent to accompany their lord and master to the land of spirits. Under these circumstances, the earth of which they were composed was generally somewhat richer than the average, and was often carted away, therefore, to be used as manure, while the megalithic monuments were broken up to serve as gateposts, or even to mend the roads. Some time ago, there were near Marlborough three dolmens of sufficient magnitude to be marked on the ordnance map of England. The year before last he went down at Easter to visit them—one he found was still safe; the second, he was informed, had recently been removed by the occupier of the farm, because it interfered with his ploughing; the third was actually being broken up to mend the roads. In another case, a great Irish nobleman had given orders to build a wall round a field which contained the remains of Con O'Neill's Castle at Castlereagh, his object being to protect the ruins; but the agent pulled down the old castle and used the stones to make the wall. Abury—or Avebury—itself, the year before last, had a very narrow escape. Speaking of it, one of our old antiquaries said that Abury "did as much exceed Stonehenge as a cathedral doth an ordinary parish church," and though the monument was not now nearly so perfect, a large number of the gigantic stones having been broken up for the sake of a profit, which after all did not amount to more than a few shillings, still even now there was perhaps no more remarkable monument of the kind in this country, or even in Europe. The year before last, however, a considerable part of the site was bought by a building society, lotted out in sites for cottages, and actually sold in small plots for this purpose. Fortunately, however—thanks mainly to the efforts of the rector, Mr. King, and Mr. Kemm—the villagers were persuaded for a small consideration to exchange their allotments for others in the next field; which, in fact, was just as convenient for their purpose, and thus, as he was enabled to purchase the land, the threatened destruction of the remains at Abury was fortunately prevented. Now in this case, again, no appreciable advantage would have been gained by the destruction of these remains, and yet they were saved, so to say, by a mere accident. He would take one county alone in illustration. In Dorsetshire, a stone circle near East Lulworth had been entirely destroyed; four dolmens had been demolished; the Roman camp at Banbury had almost disappeared, and so had that on Hod Hill, which, according to Mr. Warne, was "an unique example of Roman military skill." It would, alas, be only too easy to quote many other examples, but he was reluctant to occupy the time of the House by doing so, especially as he held in his hand a letter from Earl Stanhope, the President of the Society of Antiquaries, in which he stated that these ancient monuments were rapidly disappearing. He might also add that Petitions expressing the same opinion, and in favour of the Bill, had been presented to this House from, he believed, every archæological society in Great Britain and Ireland. It might be said that there were now many persons all over the country who were much interested in archæology, and that we might safely leave in their hands the protection of these ancient monuments. But they all knew that what was everybody's business was nobody's business, and it was desired, therefore, by this Act to create a body of Commissioners especially charged with the protection of our ancient monuments. The Commission proposed would consist of the Inclosure Commissioners, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Society of Antiquaries of London, the President of the Society of Antiqua- ries of Scotland, the President of the Royal Irish Academy, the Keeper of the British Antiquities at the British Museum, and seven Commissioners to be nominated in the first instance in the Act, and subsequently by the Crown. In the Schedule of the Bill was a list of the best preserved and most typical examples of the various classes of monuments, selected, as regards England and Wales, by the Society of Antiquaries; as regards Ireland by the Royal Irish Academy; and as regards Scotland by the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Moreover, by the 3rd clause of the Bill the Commissioners were empowered, on giving proper notice, to apply the Act to any other ancient monument. After receiving such notice, if the said owners or occupiers wished to destroy or injure the monument, they must first communicate with the Commissioners, who would thus have an opportunity of acquiring or preserving the monument. It was proposed that the price to be paid should be determined under the provisions of the Defence Act passed in 1860 with reference to land required for the purposes of fortification. These provisions had been already sanctioned by Parliament, and it was therefore unnecessary to enlarge upon them. Of course, if the Commissioners did not act on these powers, the owner or occupier would be free to deal with the monument as he pleased. It would be observed therefore that, unless the owner of any monument wished to injure or destroy it, this Bill would not in any way interfere with him. It deprived him of nothing but the childish pleasure of destruction. Ail that was asked was, that if the possessor of a national monument proposed to destroy it, he should first be required to give the nation the option of purchase at a fair price. This was, surety, not unreasonable. It was merely applying the principles already sanctioned by Parliament in the Defence Act, and, indeed, in every railway Bill. The Bill also provided that the Commissioners should report annually to Parliament as to the state of the monuments under their control. Last year the then Government agreed to the second reading of this Bill, on the understanding that the money which might be required to purchase any monument under the provisions of the Bill should be raised privately. He hoped, however, that this would not be insisted on. The House of Commons had always shown a liberal spirit in such matters; it had voted without a question considerable sums to carry on archæological researches in other countries, and gave ungrudgingly the supplies necessary to maintain the British Museum on a scale worthy of a great Empire. In the British Museum one of the principal offices was the Keepership of the British Antiquities, now so well filled by Mr. Franks. But the truth was that the most interesting British antiquities could not be placed in a museum; these were the monuments which the House was now asked to protect on the spots where they had been erected by our forefathers. The principle that it was our duty to maintain national monuments had already been admitted. In the 25th clause of the Irish Church Act—a clause passed, he believed, without any difference of opinion in this House—it was enacted that when any church or ecclesiastical building deserved to be—

"Maintained as a national monument by reason of its architectural character or antiquity, the Commissioners shall by order vest such church, building, or structure in the Secretary of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, to be held by such Secretary, his heirs and assigns, upon trust for the Commissioners of Public Works, to be preserved as a national monument, and not to be used as a place of public worship, and the Commissioners shall ascertain and by order declare what sum is, in their judgment, required for maintaining as national monuments the churches, buildings, or Structures so vested, and shall pay such sum accordingly to the said Secretary, to be held upon trust for the said Commissioners, and to be applied by them in maintaining the said churches, buildings, and structures."

To prevent any misunderstanding, moreover, he might observe that this Bill would involve no large expenditure. Many of those monuments were highly valued by their possessors, and would certainly not be offered to the State, while those which were purchased would be acquired under the provisions of the Act at a fair valuation, and not at a fancy price. In fact, they would rather be an investment than an expense, and, moreover, the amount would be under the control of the Treasury and of this House. There was also no question that, as far as many purchases were concerned, the money required would be raised by public subscription. As regarded the Schedule to the Bill, the object had been to select the best and most typical examples of each class, and although it contained the names of those gentlemen who were the owners of the remains, yet it would not, he hoped, be for a moment supposed that the monuments scheduled were regarded as in any special danger. He trusted, therefore, that the owners of the monuments scheduled would not regard this measure from a hostile point of view, but would rather congratulate themselves as the fortunate owners of monuments which, if this Bill passed, would be declared by Parliament as of national interest. English travellers frequently made severe remarks on the manner in which, especially in Oriental countries, ancient remains were allowed to go to ruin, or used in the construction of modern buildings. Sir Gardner Wilkinson remarked of the great statue of Rameses II. that "when the Turks have burnt it for lime, it will be regretted;" and it was said that the preservation of the ancient walls of Constantinople was due to the influence of the British Ambassador. But surely our first duty was to preserve the ancient monuments of our own country. Moreover, though he was unwilling to occupy the time of the House by describing what had been done elsewhere, he might be permitted to mention that the Turkish Government had recently purchased a portion of the Hill of Hissarlik, supposed by many to be the site of Troy, and placed it at the disposal of Dr. Schliemann, who had been carrying on extensive archæological researches. Holland, also, had purchased the greater number of megalithic monuments remaining in that country, and Denmark had in the same manner acquired for the nation a number of the most typical examples. The late Emperor Napoleon spent a considerable annual sum in this manner; and, moreover, in the great museum which he founded at St. Germains had admirable models of French monuments—an example which deserved to be commended to the trustees of the British Museum, and to his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Spencer Walpole). He had seen it stated that this Bill was one which ought to be in the charge of Government—that it was of too important and novel a character to be under-taken by a private Member. No one could feel that more than he did; no one could desire more sincerely to see it in abler and move experienced hands than his. At the same time, he had been fortunate in securing valuable assistance from hon. Friends whose names were on the Bill, and whose ability and experience none would question. He would now leave the Bill in the hands of the House. He had shown that these monuments were rapidly disappearing; that they were destroyed for the slightest, the most paltry, the most trivial of reasons; that they might be preserved at a very small expense, and by the application of principles sanctioned over and over again by Parliament. These ancient monuments were the unwritten history of our country in times long gone by; some of them were connected with important events in our annals; the origin of others was lost in the remote past. Some were doubtless ancient, even at the period which the right hon. Gentleman lately at the head of Her Majesty's Government called Juventus Mundi. He could assure the House that in Committee they would welcome any suggestions and improvements. What they did ask, in the name of all those who loved and reverenced the past and the memory of our ancestors, was, that the House, by passing once more the second reading of the Bill, would re-affirm the principle that the preservation of these monuments was a national duty, and that they ought not to be allowed to perish. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

, in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he thought that this was a Bill which would have had more chance of passing in the late than it had in the present Parliament, that former Assembly being so much used to the practice of spoliation by legislation, that probably a measure of the kind under notice would have excited little, if any, surprise. He trusted, however, that a different feeling pervaded the present House of Commons. He could not help thinking that the Bill might fairly be described as coming under the head of measures of spoliation, and he was therefore surprised to see that it was endorsed by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), who was well known not only for his support of all objects connected with science and art, but also for the equity of all his dealings. It could not have been by his hand, however, that the Bill had been framed. That work must have been done by persons whose consciences were as broad as the acres they proposed to appropriate. The hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) by disclaiming any intention of invading the rights of property, had shown that he was aware of the exceptional character of the Bill, and it was easy to show that the measure would be a distinct invasion of the rights of property. In the first place, the wording of it was so comprehensive as to include everything. It applied, for example, to any tumulus or mound—in other words, to anything which rose above the level of a flat surface. Then it referred to "excavations," which might mean any hollow in the land; and the words employed might be taken to include any piece of masonry whatsoever. By the 9th clause, moreover, it was proposed to give the Commissioners certain powers of a most extraordinary character. It provided that when a power of restraint was vested in them in respect of any monument, they, or any of them, or any person authorized in writing by any of them, might at any time between sunrise and sunset enter and inspect the monument and all parts thereof, and might, in case of necessity, break open any doors or inclosure preventing access thereto, without becoming liable to any action or prosecution for trespass or otherwise. Putting that into plain English, it meant legalizing a burglary by daylight. Moreover, it was made penal for the owner to defend his property against such attacks. Was it possible to conceive anything more utterly at variance with the commonest rights of property? Would the House of Commons sanction the placing of such powers in the hands of any body of men, no matter who they might be? It was proposed not only that any of the Commissioners should possess the powers in question, but that they should be at liberty to appoint other people to exorcise them; and perhaps it would be fitting, if the measure were passed, that they should choose for the purpose some of the most experienced burglars that could be found. Not only was it desired that the Commissioners should have the power of obtaining possession of ancient monuments, but it was further proposed that they should be at liberty to pass the property to others. They were to be enabled to transfer their powers of restraint or the possession of any monument to any local authority. Then, they were not to be liable to pay any rate or assessment in respect of such property. It was hard to toll on what principle this exemption could be justified. Indeed, property that was esteemed so valuable ought, perhaps, to contribute more than any other to meet the requirements of the State. There was another exemption which it was difficult to explain—namely the exclusion of monuments in the Duchy of Cornwall from the operation of the measure. With regard to the Bill as a whole, any hon. Member who took the trouble to read it could not fail to see that a more distinct and determined invasion of the rights of property could not have been devised. The powers sought by the Bill were such as ought not to be conferred on any Commissioners, especially by a Bill in the hands of a private Member; and for that reason he should move its rejection.

said, it was with grief and disappointed feelings he had listened to the observations of his hon. Friend who had just sat down, with whom in the last Parliament he had often taken sweet counsel, and he thought his hon. Friend had not come back to this Parliament the man he was in the last. His hon. Friend who had just spoken said the last House of Commons was a House of Spoliation; but his hon. Friend himself was vitiated by the spirit of the last Parliament, for by the course he had pursued he had tried to advocate the most unblushing, the most extravagant system of spoliation, that even he (Mr. Bentinck) could conceive. This was a Bill to protect, against the ignorance, it might be, of a proprietor, but more often of tenants, bailiffs of owners of property, and ignorant labourers, property of national interest which might be of priceless value. His hon. Friend evidently had not road the Bill, because his main argument, which produced much merriment on the back benches on the Ministerial side of the House, was that it was a wrong thing to prevent a man enjoying that which he had purchased with his own money. He said the 9th clause would enable the Commissioners to commit burglary; but the fact was, that the clause would simply enable the Commissioners to obtain access to monuments which they had purchased. He (Mr. Beresford Hope) appealed to the House not to run away with the idea that this Bill would sanction an invasion of property. No man in the House was less likely than himself to support a wanton invasion of property. When his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) asked him to put his name on the back of the Bill, he, of course, read it very carefully, and if he had thought the principle of it was unjust he would never have put his name on it. The Schedule might go too far, or, as he thought, did not go far enough, and the Bill might be improved in Committee; but all that was asked now was that the principle of the Bill should be affirmed by reading it a second time. That principle was simply protection of valuable property against ignorance and wrong-headed spoliation, and if the Government refused to furnish the necessary funds let them see if private funds could not be made sufficient. If the Bill passed, the owner of a mound, or whatever it might be, would continue to hold his property, but he would have parted with the destructive ownership of his property for valuable consideration. Let it not go forth to the educated world that, notwithstanding the exuberance of their wealth, they were the only people in Europe who were careless of that great inheritance—the historical monuments which had come down from their predecessors, He appealed to the Treasury Bench, at all events, to allow the second reading of the Bill.

, in opposing the second reading of the Bill, said, he did not think it ought to be allowed to pass without very careful consideration. Of course they all accepted the principle that the ancient monuments in the Kingdom should be preserved, but this Bill proposed to deal with ancient monuments in a way which he thought was an invasion of property at the expense of the taxpayers. He said that he was induced to make a few remarks on this matter, because out of the 29 monuments in the Schedule, six were situated in the county he had the honour to represent. If a Bill on this subject was necessary it ought to be a Bill for which the Government were responsible; because if private rights were to be invaded at the expense of the public, rates would have to be imposed, and that should be done only on the responsibility of the Government. He could not see, further, why any man in possession of an estate or farm with private rights should be called upon to show cause why his land should not be dealt with as anyone else might think proper. Then, again, the Duchy of Cornwall was exempted from the operation of the Bill; but if the Bill was not good for the Duchy, how was it good for the rest of England? The ratepayers were at pre-sent heavily burdened. He was against saddling them with a new burden, which might be very large or not, according to the wishes or fancies of a number of gentlemen to be appointed in pursuance of the provisions of this Bill.

said, that although he hoped the House would assent to the second reading, yet he was of opinion that the Bill did not go far enough. There were many ancient monuments in Ireland, both historical and ecclesiastical, which were well worthy of national preservation, and great exertions had been made by a small number of private owners to preserve Pagan and Christian monuments in that country. He was sorry that the Bill did not come down to later times, and include the preservation of those monuments which belonged to the Christian era. In some instances they had experienced great difficulty in obtaining access to such monuments. One difficulty connected with their preservation was, that many of them belonged to absentee proprietors who lived in England and Scotland, and who cared very little what became of the national monuments in Ireland. If the House were to wait till the Government brought in a Bill on this subject, it might wait till the Greek Kalends, for it was invariably the practice of all Governments never to take up a question of the kind until they were urged to do so by private Members. With regard to the alleged expense, he did not believe that the people of this country would object to the expenditure of the small amount necessary for the preservation of historical monuments of national importance.

said, he regretted that he was unable to vote for the second reading of the Bill, as he was as anxious as his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) to do whatever could be done to protect really national monuments against the encroachments of modern Vandalism. The Bill, however, appeared to him to be founded upon no logical or consistent principle. Why did it stop short at the monuments of Saxon times? The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had said with great justice, that in Ireland there were many ecclesiastical as well as other historical monuments of great value. Why, so there were in England. The country was covered from one end to the other with the noblest and most interesting specimens of ecclesiastical architecture, such as Tintern, Fountains Abbey, Melrose, and Rivaulx, which could vie with any in Europe. Take such a monument of antiquity as the old Kitchen of Glastonbury? Which was the better worth preserving—such a building as that, or some one of the innumerable barrows on Salisbury Plain, any of which might come into the power of the proposed Commissioners? No one would go further than himself in denouncing any wanton abuse or desecration of such monuments as these; but was the House prepared to go the length of protecting them? If so, it was clearly a matter far beyond the scope of private legislation, and one which the Government ought to deal with on its own responsibility; and if he believed there was any serious danger of these magnificent monuments being swept away, he would not deny but that it might be the duty of the Government to interfere. If they thought fit to do so, he would go the length of supporting the Government in any proposal they might bring forward upon the subject. He would remind the House that only a few years ago a subscription was raised in this country to prevent Shakespeare's house being deported to America. Which was the more worthy of the protection of the State—the house in which. Shakespeare lived, or some ancient barrow which probably few people cared about? But even the Schedule of the Bill, as it stood, was most imperfect. It professed to deal with Roman memorials. Where was Silchester mentioned—one of the most perfect and extensive of the remains of Roman empire in this country? The Duke of Wellington—to whom it belonged—was at the present moment engaged in carrying on considerable excavations on the site of that ancient town. Extensive pavements had been discovered—the site of the Forum and Theatre laid bare, and the foundations of the principal gates of the town uncovered. It would be a reflection upon the spirit and enterprise of such proprietors, who were doing so much to discover and preserve the monuments of antiquity, if the work were taken out of their hands and vested in a body of Commissioners. There might, indeed, be this absurdity involved in the interference of Parliament to preserve our ecclesiastical monuments, that it might be said that one Parliament was interfering to preserve the very ruins which a former Parliament had created. That argument, however, would not weigh with him, if he thought it necessary to legislate at all on this subject. The present Bill, however, was one of so lame and impotent a character that he could not give it his support; and, unless its promoters were prepared to go into the question upon a much larger scale, the House could not interfere, and he must, therefore, support the Amendment.

said, he was surprised that so consistent an advocate of Home Rule as the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was not prepared to allow that principle to begin at its logical commencement—namely, the right of every person to rule in his own home. If he did so, he would allow owners of property in Ireland to deal with it themselves, and not be prepared to hand over the ancient monuments of that country to persons some of whom might come under the designation of the "cursed Saxon." He (Mr. J. Lowther) contended that this measure ought not to be proceeded with except in the form of a private Bill, and he wished to draw the attention of hon. Gentlemen to the serious departure the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) had now invited them to make from the generally established principles upon which legislation had hitherto been conducted in Parliament. When the hon. Baronet proposed last year a measure almost identical with the present one, he (Mr. J. Lowther) put down the following Amendment:—

"That it is contrary to the usage of Parliament that a measure should be proceeded with in the form of a Public Bill which deprives any individual of his private rights in his estate (named in the Bill), without notice thereof being duly Served upon him, and without an opportunity being afforded him of being heard against the same."

It had always been the practice of Parliament to protect the private property of Her Majesty's subjects in the manner to which he had referred. The Bill, however, provided that there should be an appeal to a tribunal which had never yet been recognized by the House of Commons—namely, a tribunal other than Parliament itself. He thought the House would hesitate long before it departed from a practice which it had invariably pursued as to private property. He agreed it was desirable that objects of antiquity and interest should be preserved; but there were other objects which deserved, at any rate, equal consideration at their hands, one of these being an institution us old as Julius Cæsar, and far older than any of his supposed encampments—namely, the lights of property. With reference to the rights of private property, the following was one of the Standing Orders (No. 20):—

"On or before the 15th day of December immediately preceding the application for a Bill by which any lands or houses are intended to be taken … application in writing shall be made to the owners, lessees, or reputed lessees and occupiers of all lands and houses so intended to be taken," &c.

Had notice been given in pursuance of that Standing Order to the persons whose property was affected by the Schedule? He was acquainted with the owners of some of the property mentioned in the Bill, and, so far as he was informed, they had not received notice. The 3rd clause provided that—

"this Act may be applied to any monument which is, in the opinion of the Commissioners, of the like kind to any monuments specified in the first Schedule."

The Schedule, therefore, was a mere delusion. It appeared that all property throughout the country was included in the Bill. Of what use was it, or why have a Schedule at all if the Schedule was not to intimate to persons whoso property was affected by it that they and none other were the persons included in the Bill? The Bill, he owned, was full of good intentions, so full of them, in fact, that he felt some doubts as to whether serious depredations had not been made upon the pavement of a certain locality; but for all that, he hoped the House would not interfere with the rights of private property in the novel manner proposed by the Bill, and he should therefore support the Amendment.

said, he should like to know the moaning of the Bill, for he thought it was one of the vaguest ever brought before the House. What did it purpose to do? So far as he could see or understand its scope neither the living nor the dead were to have any rest. He saw nothing in it which would prevent the Commissioners from coining to any hon. Member's churchyard and disinterring his grandfather, for under the large provisions of the Bill the Commissioners would have the power to open any tomb. The Bill, moreover, might have the effect of increasing the burdens of local taxation, and that ought not to be lightly done, and for those reasons he should vote against the second reading.

said, that he should have taken small exception to the Bill had the operation of it been confined to the monuments named in the Schedule: but the Bill would do a good deal in addition to what was indicated by the Schedule. For instance, there was not a person living on Salisbury Plain who would not be liable to be called upon at any time to defend his property against the attacks of these Commissioners, and it was this that he objected to. It was also a departure from the ordinary practice of the House to authorize the invasion of the rights of private property by such a body; but to that he should not have any particular objection, if it were not for the unqualified and unrestricted power it was proposed to confer. If the Bill as it stood were put into operation, he did not believe the farmers in his neighbour- hood could carry on their business, for it was supposed to be rich in ancient remains; and most extraordinary power was given to the Commissioners under the clause which related to British, Celtic, Roman, or Saxon remains. Then, again, how would the Bill operate in the City of London? Suppose that some ancient remains were discovered in digging the foundation for a building to be erected on a site worth, perhaps, half a million of money? Perhaps the excavators might come upon a Roman pavement, or something of that description; the Antiquarian Society would stop in, and then the Commissioners might exercise the power with which they were invested by the Bill. They might stop building to any extent in any locality, and inflict upon persons an amount of injury which it was scarcely possible to estimate. He admitted that cases of this kind were not treated as they were in the Bill of last year, by which exemption from costs and penalties was secured to the Commissioners. If the principle of the Bill was to be applied in the manner he had indicated, the question would arise, how far was it to be carried? Was there in England a gallery which would be safe from interference? It might be said that every object of ancient and modern art was entitled to preservation; but it could not be desired that each article should be abstracted from private galleries. In this respect, at all events, it would be wise not to admit the thin end of the wedge. As long as these objects were in the hands of private owners, they would in most cases be safer than they would be if they once became public property. Some of the ancient barrows, through having been first rifled by antiquarians, had been carted away and levelled by farmers; and if the notion of private property in monuments was weakened, we should find owners and tenants protecting themselves by measures of this kind. A friend of his found a gentleman on his property using hammer and chisel, and his friend, on remonstrating, was asked—"By what right do you interfere?" He replied—" I interfere first on public grounds, and secondly as one having a vested interest in the property; "and the rejoinder was—" Right of property! I always thought it belonged to the public." It was on that assumption that the man was about to take away a portion of it. For himself, he believed it was the antiquarians who had done most mischief in England: and if the ancient monuments were placed in their hands they would do still more. Stonehenge had been owned by a relative of his who was asked to give his consent to an investigation which would have involved digging to a considerable depth. He said to his relative—" You are the custodian of the place; whatever happens, you are responsible, and will be held responsible by the public; if you allow an investigation of this kind to be made in this chalk soil you will have every stone about your ears; and what will the public say then? "His relative pleaded that the application was made by great archæologists; but he still urged—"It is to you that the public will look," and therefore advised him to refuse. The refusal was accordingly given, although the letter of application bore the name of "J. Lubbock." If the hon. Member for Maidstone had carried out the proposed investigation, he would have levelled Stonehenge. [No, no!"] The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), who said "No," did not know the soil; it was not like Irish soil. You could not force your way under chalk, and the attempt to do what was proposed would have levelled the stones to the surface of the soil. He did not believe in handing everything over to antiquarians; some monuments were safer in other hands, whore he hoped the House would permit them to remain. In The Times there had appeared a letter, in which the discomfiture of the late Government was attributed to the insufficient regard paid to the rights of private property, and it was a singular fact that the initials appended to that letter were the same as those of a gentleman whose name was on the back of this Bill last year—namely, "E. P. B." (Mr. Bouverie). The warning contained in the letter should be applied to this Bill, and feeling the justice of it, he was compelled to vote for the rejection of the Bill.

said, before the House went to a division, he wished to call serious attention, on behalf of the Government, to an important deviation involved in the measure under notice from the constitutional practice and principle underlying the conduct of Public Business in this country, which was that Votes of public money should be proposed only by responsible Ministers of the Crown. That was a principle on which too much stress could not be laid, if any regard was to be paid to public economy. In America, some years ago, he was struck by the effects of an opposite practice. In Congress, there appeared to be too great a facility for independent Members to get up and propose Votes of public money, and that led to great extravagance in many cases. Anybody who had watched the way in which measures involving expenditure were brought forward and discussed in Parliament must feel that any step which relaxed the exclusive power of the Ministry to propose Votes of public money ought to be viewed with very great jealousy. The attention of new Members might not have boon directed to the fact that the 11th clause of the Bill was printed in italics, and the reason of that was that independent Members, like the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) in the present case, had not the power to introduce Bills which proposed that grants should be made from the Treasury, and if this Bill were to become law, it would be necessary that the Government should consent to propose Votes in Supply for the purpose of supplying the required funds. The reason why that initiative was reserved to the Ministers of the Crown was obvious. It was their duty, when a proposal involving expense was made, to investigate the grounds on which it rested, and to consider carefully what were its limits, and whether the Government could undertake to recommend its acceptance to Parliament. If it were desirable that any thing should be done in the way of more systematically preserving our ancient monuments, if there should be a public Commission to protect them, and if it were desirable that any expenditure should be incurred, the safest, best, and most proper manner, therefore, would be to bring the subject under the notice of the Government, and let them investigate it, and bring in a measure to effect the object. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) that questions of this kind were often initiated by private Members; but that Bill went farther, for its main object was that in all the proceedings taken under it, public money should be provided, and that the proceedings of the Commissioners should be liberally supported by contributions from the Treasury. He was far from saying that it was not for a private Member to draw attention to such a subject; but, that having been done, it was desirable on many grounds, especially financial grounds, and perhaps to some extent on that of the interference with the rights of private property, that any measure which might be introduced should be in the hands of the Government rather than in those of a private Member. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) said—"After all this is a question of detail; let us vote the principle of the Bill, establish a Commission, and see what is to be done, and if the Government will not agree to a grant of public money, let us see if we cannot do without it." He did not think they could treat the measure in that way. Last year, when a similar measure was discussed, the then Government rather favoured such a course; he thought the Home Secretary last year said the Government could not assent to the application of public money to the purpose, but they were not unwilling to consent to the second reading with the idea that some other means of providing the funds might be adopted. But a Bill resting upon the principle of a Commission, which was to be liberally supplied with public funds, and a Bill resting upon the principle of a Commission which was to find funds in some other way, were totally different things; and it was not affirming the principle of this Bill, if they agreed to it on the understanding that the Commission was not to be supplied with public money. If a Bill were under discussion which made no reference to the mode in which the funds were to be provided, it would have to be considered how compensations were to be made, and a good deal of jealous criticism would be expended upon the proposal. There was also an indication in the Bill which would very much alarm hon. Members, even more than the Bill as it stood seemed to do, if the idea of Government liability should be given up. The 16th clause provided for the transfer of monuments in certain cases to local authorities. If there were no funds provided by the Government, and if the Commissioners had to find the funds as best they could, they would, in many instances, have no other way of meeting the cost than by inducing local authorities to become possessors of those objects. Hon. Members who might be disposed to trust a body of Commissioners, such as those named in the Bill, not to annoy private proprietors by the use they might make of the monuments of which they took possession, would feel a little jealous if the monuments were to be placed in the hands of local authorities. The only possible way, therefore, in which the Bill could be made acceptable was by accepting the principle of a liberal subsidy from the Treasury; for all chance of the avoidance of difficulties between those who were anxious to preserve monuments, and private proprietors who would feel that their rights were endangered, rested upon the principle that there should be a provision out of the public funds for the purpose. If the Bill were assented to, then inquiry would have to be made as to the extent of the responsibilities it would involve, and with regard to that point, there seemed to be no limit to the applications which might be made under the Bill. If British, Roman, and Saxon remains were to be preserved, an enormous field would be opened; and the very power and strength of the Commissioners would make it difficult for the Government to resist their applications. Appointed by Parliament, the Commissioners would speak with authority when they said—" Such and such monuments are in danger; you must find us funds." A great temptation moreover would be offered to private proprietors who, at their own expense and much to their credit, were now preserving these monuments, to throw off the burden and to cast it upon the public. In conclusion he would say that by far the most efficacious way of preserving most of the monuments would be to trust to private care, stimulated by the watchfulness of those who were interested in them, and by the pressure of public opinion exercised by the welcome visits of the learned societies and by the vigilance of local papers and class periodicals. There might be exceptional cases in which more systematic interference might become necessary; and these could be brought forward specially; and when they were, Government would be willing to look into them and see what legislation was necessary. But it would be a mischievous and unfortunate precedent to pass this Bill in its present shape, and therefore he hoped the House would not accept it.

said, in support of the measure, that if some of the clauses of the Bill required to be restricted in their operation, all that was necessary could be done in Committee; and if they were to wait until the Government brought in a Bill, they would have to wait a long time. He had no doubt the feeling of the country and of the House was that some protection ought to be afforded to ancient monuments, and that was the opinion that would be expressed by those who voted for the second reading of the Bill. Seeing that many old monuments had been seriously injured, and that it was high time that they should be secured from the wilful depredations to which they had hitherto been exposed, he hoped the principle would be approved and that the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee.

said, he should be sorry to see these ancient monuments destroyed; but he thought the perfunctory manner in which the Schedule dealt with the property of many persons was a very poor return to them for the care which they and their ancestors had taken of it for many hundred years. The Bill said that such persons must not injure their property, unless they gave notice of their intention to do so, and claimed compensation for the injury they proposed to commit. If we wanted a man's property, we ought to give him fair notice of the public ground on which we wanted it, and pay him for it, and we ought not to keep a Bill like this hanging over him. It referred not only to a monument, but also to its site, and no one could tell how far a site might extend. Nothing would be more likely to lead to the destruction of these monuments than such attempts at legislation as this, and no such mode of dealing with the rights of private property ought ever to receive the sanction of that House. If the Bill went on, there was nothing to prevent the owners of some of these monuments burning the stones as lime before the Act could come into force. The definition of "monument" given in the Bill was very large and included many things, even to a ditch, and it was altogether too vague as the basis of any interference with private pro- perty. Moreover, a measure of the kind ought to be in the hands of the Government, if it was right that ancient monuments should be preserved on public grounds. The proposed method of ascertaining the amount of compensation in any case was unjust, for the Bill adopted the clauses of the Defence Act, the justification of which was that fortifications were deemed a great public necessity, but the absence of such urgency in this matter should have dictated resort to the Lands Clauses Act in arriving at the compensation to be awarded.

, in reply to the various objections urged against the Bill said, that under it the right of access to a monument would not arise until it had been purchased and paid for; while as to the apprehended invasion of a man's house, nobody lived in British, Celtic, or Roman remains; and it was not proposed to interfere with any monument situated in parks, gardens, or pleasure-grounds. The reason that the Duchy of Cornwall was excluded from the Bill was because it could not be included without consent, which was refused; and the names of the Commission were a sufficient assurance that there would be no vexatious interference with the rights of private property. The Bill, moreover, would not burden ratepayers at all, because it contemplated that the Treasury would undertake a charge which would be for the national advantage; but if the Government would not accept the Bill with that clause in it, the promoters would take it without the clause. "With regard to what had been said by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell-Henry), ecclesiastical buildings in Ireland were provided for by the Irish Church Act. Whether Silchester should be included in the Schedule was a question for Committee. Mediaeval buildings were not included in the present Bill, because it was considered that they could best be dealt with by a different machinery. Moreover, they would require a considerable outlay for repairs, which was not the case with the monuments dealt with in the present measure. The reason why the Bill named the Defence Act instead of the Lands Clauses Act was that the former contemplated partial or entire acquisition, and the latter entire acquisition only. He might state that there never was any intention to make deep excavations at Stonehenge, or to do anything which could have endangered the monument. Archaeologists, however, were anxious to have determined one point, which might have thrown light on the date of Stonehenge, and, much to his regret, permission to do that was refused. It had been said that the care of the monuments should he left to their private owners, but under their management the monuments were disappearing. There was no desire on the part of the promoters of the Bill to interfere with private rights further than to limit the rights of private destruction. He had no wish to commit the House to the details of the Bill, but was anxious that by reading the Bill a second time the House should express its opinion that it was the national duty to take steps to preserve the ancient monuments of the country.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: It is now just 21 years since the present betting law was passed. The Bill was introduced by Sir Alexander Cockburn, then Attorney General, and the speech he made on that occasion so entirely met the assent of this House, that it passed through both Houses without any discussion. Why Scotland was exempted from the operation of the Bill I have been unable to discover; but I am very-sure that if Sir Alexander Cockburn and the Parliament of that day had been aware of the result of that exemption, it would never have been made. For a considerable time the Act was not put strongly in force in England, but for some years back it has been actively carried out, and the result has been not by any means to put down the system for the suppression of which the Act was framed, but merely to drive betting-houses out of England and Ireland. Many of the betting agents settled in the Channel Islands, and at Calais and Boulogne; but they soon found they could carry on their business more conveniently in Scotland. The result, therefore, has been to send those betting men from protected England to unprotected Scotland, and in recent years the number of betting-houses in Scotland has been greatly extended. As you are aware, several attempts were made during the last Parliament to get a remedy for the evil. These attempts have never been defeated on their own merits. In no case have any of the Bills come up for discussion in this House. One of them—the Bill introduced by Lord Morley three years ago—passed through the House of Lords without opposition, and came down to this House, where it was lost merely for want of time to discuss it. Every attempt that has been made since to get the law remedied has fallen through in the same way. The reason of this is, that the late Government, no doubt with the best intentions, over-burthened itself with heroic measures, and blocked the way of all Bills introduced by private Members, and in addition to this, Scotch business was rather systematically shelved during the reign of the late Government. There has been no debate on this question, and neither party is committed in regard to it. If any party is committed against it, I think it must be the Home Rule party, for I see two distinguished Members of it have put down hostile Amendments. Indeed, they put them down before the Bill was printed, and therefore I suppose they took it for granted it would be the same as last year's in respect of being purely Scotch; and they being Irish Members were bound to interfere with Scotch legislation, it being, as I presume, one of the objects of the Home Rule party to govern Scotland according to Irish ideas. I do not object at all to their interference. I am very much pleased to sec Irish Members taking an interest in Scotch legislation, and think all Members of Parliament ought to do so. The objects, then, of this Bill, are in the first place to amend the English law, which is deficient in so far that it permits betting advertisements and circulars; and after it has been amended in this respect, to extend the law to Scotland. I consider these two objects equally important. The English Act has hitherto acted towards Scotland very much in the way of the humane gardener who got rid of the vermin in his garden by throwing it into that of his neighbour. Some English Members say I want to pass a Bill to throw it back again. It is not so. Indeed, it is precisely because I do not want to do so, that I wish to amend the English law before extending it to Scotland. In the matter of advertisements, at present, the English law attempts to put them down. There is a clause in the Act against advertisements; but when it came to be interpreted a few years ago, it was found that the authorities were unable to enforce it, because it provided that advertisements to be illegal must invite people to resort to betting houses in England, and therefore that advertisements which invited them to betting-houses in Scotland were not illegal. I wish to make it as much illegal for Scotland as it is for England. If we extend the law to Scotland without putting down advertisements, the effect will be merely to drive these betting houses out of Scot-hand and let them go to the Channel Islands, and to Calais and Boulogne, whence they will continue to hood England, Scotland, and Ireland with their advertisements, and, in short, carry on the same game as they have been doing in late years from Scotland. The extent to which this kind of advertising is carried in the country is not generally known. Hon. Members who read The Times or The Standard never see the advertisements to which I refer. I had the curiosity to look at the sporting papers of Saturday, and in one paper called The Sportsman, which is published four times a-week, I found no fewer than 56 betting advertisements, including those of the "tipsters"—learned gentlemen who advertise their willingness to confide to correspondents the names of the certain winners of particular races. In another paper, The Sporting Life, which I believe is published twice a-week, I found no fewer than 70 such advertisements, and other papers had smaller numbers. I have been informed on good authority that one betting-house alone in Edinburgh pays a single London newspaper so much as £80 a-week for advertising, and that house advertises in other papers also. One class of advertisements are called discretionary adver- tisements; and these being undoubtedly dishonest, the newspapers charge a very high price for inserting them. Now, I was very much struck, in looking over the London sporting papers on Saturday, to find that not one of them had a single "discretionary" advertisement. A few weeks ago the same papers were full of them, and it is only since this Bill has been printed that they have wished to appear as virtuous as possible by excluding these advertisements. The Sportsman, I see, has announced its intention of not publishing any more of them. That paper, however, has for years shared the plunder of these discretionary advertisements, and all the time the editor, in his Notices to Correspondents, was warning his readers against them, thus showing that he knew very well the nature of the advertisements. In fact, all newspaper editors know perfectly well what they mean. I have extracted a few of the advertisements to show the House what they are like. Hero is one from a paper rejoicing in the name of the The Sporting Clipper—

"Three splendid speculations. Great success. For the trifling stake of 15s. you can realise £3,000, for £1, £12,000, and for £8, £37,000. For particulars, apply without delay to so and so, Guernsey."

I found a number of other advertisements hailing from the Channel Islands. One was to the effect that a gentleman had, by long and careful study of the average of chances, discovered a system by which the telling of a winning horse was reduced to a mathematical certainty, and was willing to give the benefit of his discovery to all who sent him 5s. in postage stamps; while another one set forth that a former owner of race-horses was willing to send the names of certain winners, on condition that they were not backed in London, and that the applicants sent 5s. in postage stamps, the object of the charge being to stave off merely inquisitive people. Of course, the idea that there is any mathematical process whatever by which the absolute winner of any race could be foretold is so absurd, that it is hardly credible any people would believe it; but the fact remains that this class of advertisement is steadily increasing in number every day. A few years ago they were to be numbered by twos and threes—now they appear in swarms. This shows that there is a steadily increasing crop of fools ready to waste their money by sending it to these people, who profess to have these wonderful secrets, and at the same time to have so much generosity that they are willing to part with them for 5s. The extreme absurdity of the thing never occurs to the young men who send their money to get the valueless information. Advertisements of the kind I have been describing are perfectly legal. I ask hon. Members if they ought to be so. I ask them if they are not most immoral and prejudicial in their effects. We do not allow advertisements about gaming tables or lotteries; then why should we allow them about houses of this kind? One remarkable fact is that respectable editors will not admit this class of advertisements at all. Perhaps the most respectable sporting papers in this country are The Field and Land and Water. These are papers that encourage horse-racing, but neither of them will admit one single betting advertisement, not oven a tipster's advertisement. I have letters from The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily News, The Standard, The Hour, The Echo, and The Globe, all stating that they had made it an absolute rule to refuse insertion to every betting advertisement, some of them adding that they had come to this decision, notwithstanding the fact that they were offered double their scale prices for them. What conclusion can be drawn from this? Why, no other than that the editors of these newspapers know that there is something bad about the betting advertisements. We all know that newspapers are most anxious to cultivate their advertising columns, and we may rest assured they would not refuse these particular advertisements unless there was something decidedly wrong about them. 80 far, as I have been able to see, The Advertiser, and The Morning Post are the only two daily London papers that ever insert them, and they are very mild sinners, all they do being to smuggle one or two in now and then, and they always put them in very small type, as if they were ashamed of them. The worst sinners, I am sorry to say, are the provincial papers. The Glasgow Herald, however, has set a good example by refusing to insert them altogether, and I hope some others do the same. And now as to the betting-houses. These are of two classes. One class is an absolute swindling class. The keepers of them are nothing but swindlers. They take the public money without the slightest idea of ever paying anything back. All those who profess to have discretionary or optional investments may be considered as belonging to this swindling class. I would like to give some idea of what sort of inducements these men hold out to the public. They all begin their advertisements by stating the immense success they have achieved at different race meetings, and then proceed to give instances of the sums gained through their agency, stating that thou-sands are weekly made by betting on their advice, and that there is no surer method of making a fortune. Discretionary advertisements may not be generally understood. I will explain the system. A person who wants to bet, probably by way of showing his discretion, trusts his money to a man he knows nothing about, and the money is to be laid out at that man's discretion, and to be accounted for after the race is over. I have one of the accounts in my hand. It is from a house which has very many advertisements informing the public that it has an infallible method of winning, and generally at long odds. The gentleman who sent it to me invested £5, and the account shows ten bets in all—four of them winning and six of them losing bets, and the whole stake being lost. The remarkable feature is that the winning bets were in every case a bet at evens—a horse against the field—or a bet in which odds were given on the horse, while all the losing bets were those in which the odds had been accepted. Therefore, the infallible method of winning always fails unless the public favourite is backed. These discretionary advertisements are called among sporting men "muff traps," and I think the phrase is very expressive, because the advertisements only take in simpletons. It may be said that this sort of thing cannot last—that men will find themselves swindled once, and will take care not to be taken in again. It must be remembered, however, that there is a constant crop of new men growing up, and these betting men go on the theory that they can always get new customers. One of themselves very well expressed it the other day by saying—" There is a fool born every minute, and, thank God, some of thorn live." Some people think fools were made for the benefit of rogues. In some quarters it is thought to be an interference with the providential balance of equities to legislate for the protection of fools, and hon. Members will remember how the "Claimant" expressed this view—"Surely them with plenty of money and no brains were made for them with plenty of brains and no money." That is the principle on which these betting men act. They think that they can always get new customers when they have disgusted their old ones. Then there is the respectable class—those who pay their obligations when they lose; and although these are comparatively honest men, I think I will be able to show their system to be the more immoral and more dangerous of the two, because while the others all trust to new customers, these men load on the old ones from one step to another till they are more or less completely ruined. The profit they get is by giving loss than the market odds—in fact, these houses create the odds. Everybody who knows anything about betting knows that, as a rule, the backers of horses lose money even in the fairest betting, and it can easily be understood how much more likely they are to lose when they are obliged to pay their share of the enormous expense of large establishments and advertising. It is very like playing with loaded dice. Every person knows that loaded dice do not always turn up against you; but it gives them a tendency to do so, and over a long course of play you are certain to lose. In the same way, over a long course of events the balance must undoubtedly be against the backers of horses. They will always come to grief in the end. The result may be delayed—a man may occasionally win; he may even win large sums now and again; but these winnings will only encourage him to go on till he gets deeper and deeper into difficulties, till at last he reaches complete ruin, or his career terminates in some such climax as this—the paragraph is one I cut from a Glasgow paper—

"Alleged theft of £100.—A young man named———was yesterday brought up at the Central Police Court on a charge of stealing £100 from the office of his employer. It is stated that the prisoner had recently become addicted to betting."

I have letters here from the police of Glasgow and Edinburgh, and would like to read a few short extracts. The Glasgow letter says—

"At the present time there are no less than 28 betting-houses in Glasgow, the number having been nearly doubled within the last two years. The more stringently the Act is enforced in England, the more numerous become the houses here. A few years ago there were none at all. The great majority—almost the whole—of the betting men are strangers who have had to flee from London, Liverpool, Manchester, &c. That the existence of such men and places has had, and is having, a very demoralising and prejudicial effect on the young men of the city there cannot be the least doubt."

The writer then proceeds to give instances, but those I need not trouble you with. The Edinburgh police letter gives a list of 13 betting-houses existing in that city. There are two mentioned as being large establishments, which employ several clerks each. Four are mentioned as doing a very extensive business, and it is said they have £5,000 or £6,000 on every important race. Then there is a list of seven which take stakes from 1s. upwards. These houses are said to be frequented mostly by the poorer classes; but nevertheless they are frequented in such numbers that they take from £250 to £1,000 on the principal races. The letter goes on to speak of cases in which the police interfere. It states that in one house in Elder Street they found upwards of 300 letters enclosing money and stamps, and about 1,500 circulars. I have other information which I believe to be thoroughly accurate, and I am told that there are two houses in Scotland that are making £20,000 a-piece per annum. There is therefore a high pecuniary stake at issue, and the parties interested will no doubt make every possible effort to get the present state of the law continued. I now come to the objections that are urged against the Bill. First, it is said that it would be a blow to our great national sport. There could be no more unfounded objection. It does not interfere with horse-racing at all. Indeed, its only effect in regard to horse-racing would be to rid it of one of those blots which tend at present to make a noble sport appear disreputable. If it were otherwise, would The Field and Land and Water—which refuse to admit these advertisements and support horse-racing—approve of the Bill? ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear "Hear, hear," from the hon. Member for Mid-Lincoln- shire (Mr. Chaplin), and I hope he will give us the benefit of his opinion on the subject, because I am sure there is no man to whose opinion on such a subject the House would attach more weight. If this Bill interfered with horse-racing, would a Bill more stringent—Lord Morley's—have been allowed to pass another House without any question? We know noble Lords are not likely to pass any measure that would interfere with horse-racing, and my Bill is really milder than Lord Morley's, because it leaves out a strong clause he succeeded in passing through the House of Lords. The men who frequent those betting-houses as a rule know nothing whatever about horse-racing. Most of them never saw a race at all, and know nothing about race-horses, further than that they have four legs, and even that is hardly true of some of the wretched outsiders they are induced to back. Another objection to the Bill is, that it is a piece of class legislation—that it is an interference with the poor man's privilege of betting. It does not take away his right of betting. It does nothing to interfere with anyone's right of betting. It only interferes with the poor man's privilege of being robbed. It only interferes with those unfair inducements which are held out to men to make them bet. I myself do not feel that betting is in itself an immoral act, and therefore, I am not prepared to prohibit betting. I say nothing whatever in regard to those men who can afford to make bets. The immorality only comes in when the element of fraud is introduced, or when men who cannot afford to lose are induced to bet by false representations—men who, if they did lose, would do serious damage to those dependent on them, or to employers who trusted them with their money. It is only with those two points—of being fraudulent, and of unduly tempting young men to bet—that my Bill deals. The only other objection I have seen is to a particular clause which is intended to put down circulars and letters sent by post. A great deal of dirt has been thrown at this clause, which, it is said, is intended to interfere with the privacy of our letters. There is, however, nothing whatever in the Bill, or in the particular clause referred to, to give anybody any power to interfere with any letters at all; but the way in which that clause will work—and it will be very effectual—is this, that it will put the sender of a circular always at the mercy of the man he sends it to. Every one who sends a circular will know this, and it will tend greatly to decrease the number of circulars, and to make the man who sends them careful not to attempt to swindle those he sends them to; because he would know his punishment could be so easily brought about. That, however, is a point of detail, which can be dealt with in Committee. I hope I have now made my case sufficiently strong to induce hon. Members to support the second reading of this Bill.

said, the matter with which the Bill dealt was so important that he felt it would not be right for it to pass without some one saying a few words on behalf of the Government. There was one broad principle which should guide them in dealing with this question, and that was that what had over since 1853 been deemed necessary for the conduct of public morality and order for one part of the Kingdom, should apply to the whole of it. The Act of 1853 was passed with the view of correcting the very errors and faults which had been brought so prominently forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson); but since the passing of that Act the sister kingdom of Scotland, which had been omitted from its provisions, had been made the nest of the men who had previously carried on their betting-operations in England. As he understood, the Bill now proposed would extend the provisions of the Act of 1853 to Scotland, and it would also correct one or two defects in the Act itself. The statute of 1853 enacted in the 3rd clause that advertisements with respect to betting transactions in England and Ireland should not be published in any paper belonging to those parts of the country, and the result was that advertisements from Scotland and France could be published with impunity, and were published in the English newspapers, so that the intention of the Act in that respect had been defeated. The present Bill would meet that defect. When it was objected that the Bill of the hon. Member was class legislation, he would say that it was a Bill that did not come within any such definition. It did not deal with the poor man more than with the rich; but it insisted that betting transactions should be carried out on a system of honour, and not on such a system of deposit as now existed. The Government felt themselves justified in supporting a Bill of that kind, though brought in by a private Member, reserving to itself the right of making Amendments when it got into Committee. So far as the principle was concerned, they were glad to give it their support.

said, he felt it his duty to notice a remark which had been made by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) in moving the second reading of the Bill. The hon. Member said he observed that two Irish Members belonging to the Home Rule party had given Notice of Amendments hostile to the Bill. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) regarded it as an unfortunate circumstance that every opportunity should be taken by some hon. Members in that House of introducing insinuations of that nature in debates relating to other subjects. The hon. Member, moreover, was mistaken in supposing that the two hon. Members he referred to belonged to the Homo Rule party. One of them was not a Home Ruler; on the contrary, he was very much opposed to it. Home Rule should be discussed on its merits. So far as he was concerned, the earlier it was discussed the better; and he did not think that it would then be found to be a measure that could justify hon. Members on either side of the House pointing to those who hold the Home Rule faith as being, in consequence, unfitted to legislate, or to express an opinion upon general questions of the kind now before the House.

Representing one of the cities to be affected by this Bill, I desire to say a few words. I have received a Petition from the Chamber of Commerce of Edinburgh unanimously agreeing to the principle of the Bill. Some time ago I presented a Petition numerously signed from the inhabitants of the city and county of Edinburgh, likewise expressing approval of the measure, and I have just received a Petition in its favour from the Trade Protection Society, numbering 1,300 persons. All the gentlemen who sanctioned these Petitions complain of the injury that has, to their own personal knowledge, been done to young men in their employ by the facilities for gambling-held out to them by these betting houses in Edinburgh, and I am satisfied that the moral injury which is inflicted, upon the rising generation, by these betting houses is something more lamentable than hon. Members can easily conceive. Many persons in Scotland, who betted to largo amounts, and lost, have been utterly ruined, to the great injury of their families. The Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society is deserving of serious attention. It states that many evils have arisen; that many persons have been led into vicious and dishonest courses by these betting houses, which are greatly on the increase; that betting houses were almost unknown in Scotland until by the operation of the Act repressing betting in England, the men carrying on this nefarious trade were driven out of the country and removed to Scotland, where they have been instrumental in bringing about the most calamitous results. The question has been so exhaustively treated by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) that I will not say one word except with regard to the remarks which have fallen from the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department. I rejoice that the Government are going to support the Bill. If they desire to enlist on their behalf the sympathies of the people of Scotland, they cannot secure that object better than by supporting such a beneficial measure as this. Regarding what has been said by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry.) I myself have remarked that if Irishmen honestly and zealously wish that they should govern themselves by what they call Home Rule, it is certainly incumbent on them to assist the people of Scotland in this small measure of home rule; and that they are in a peculiar manner inconsistent in opposing a Bill of this kind—if they are really opposing it—seeing that they are so strongly in favour of the Home Rule principle being carried out in their own country.

said, he desired only to make an explanation to the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). He was sorry he should have said anything at which cither he or any other Home Ruler could take offence. It was not intended; for he said he welcomed them, and was glad to see them taking an interest in Scotch business, and always should be glad to do so.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object lay within a very narrow compass. In 1870, a Bill was passed in that House called the Married Women's Property Bill. The 3rd clause of the Bill enacted that every woman who married after the Act came into operation should during her coverture retain all her personal property, whether possessed by her before marriage, or acquired after marriage, free from the debts or control of her husband. The 6th clause enacted that the husband should not be liable for debts contracted by the wife before marriage; but that the wife might be sued, and any property that she had to her separate use might be taken in satisfaction of the debt. The Bill went to the House of Lords with those two clauses in it, but when it returned to the House of Commons, one of the clauses was struck out, and, as the Bill passed, the wife lost her property, but the husband was relieved from the liability to pay the debts of the wife before marriage. He believed he was correctly representing the present state of the law when he said that there were thousands of unmarried women now carrying on trade who might purchase on credit goods in which they were dealing, and the following week might marry and snap their lingers at their creditors, who would have no remedy against either the husband or the wife. He had that day presented a Petition from a large number of bankers and traders, praying that the remedy which this Bill sought to se-cure might be granted. He might mention one case as illustrating the hardships inflicted on creditors by the present state of the law. A lady purchased a piano of a manufacturer, agreeing to pay for it in eight quarterly payments. She made good three or four of these pay- ments, and then married, and the property in the piano passed to the husband, and he refused to pay the instalments due by the wife. She, by her marriage, was free from the debt, and the husband was not liable either. Another case was brought before Lord Cairns. A lady had lent £100 to a female friend. She married, and almost immediately afterwards repudiated the debt. The husband denied any liability, and there was no remedy. Lord Cairns said that was a very anomalous state of the law. When the Bill was before the House of Lords, Lord Cairns, who had charge of it, said the main principle of the measure was that whenever money or property had been acquired by an unmarried woman by her own industry it should be secured to her separate use, just as if it were actually settled upon her; and Lord Westbury said he was quite content with regard to the principle. He (Mr. Morley) was quite unable to account for the fact that the right hon. and learned Member for Southampton (Mr. Russell Gurney), who had charge of the Bill in this House, did not take exception to this change in its provisions. He believed there was great anxiety on the subject in trading circles, as spinsters or widows who kept shops might incur debts for goods, and in case of their marriage the trader who sold them the goods had no remedy. If that were not the true state of the law, he should be very glad to be corrected; but if it were, he hoped the House would give its sanction to a measure proposing to remedy such an injustice. The Bill as drawn was retrospective, but that had not been intended, and he should be quite ready in Committee to amend the Bill in that respect, as he wished simply to deal with cases in which the parties married after the passing of the Bill.

, in supporting the Bill, said, he had always been an opponent of the Act of 1870, but that having become law, he thought the Bill of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley) was a necessary adjunct. Up to 1870 the effect of marriage on the personal property of the wife was to vest it in her husband, who was liable to pay the debts of his wife; but when the Bill of 1870 was under consideration, it was thought right that if the husband was not as there to fore to take the property of the wife, he should not be liable for her debts. The Bill now before the House proposed to modify this state of the law, and to enact that the husband should not be released from his wife's ante-nuptial obligations, if he took property with her, but should be liable to the extent of the property which he took. In his opinion, however, the Bill should go farther, and prevent the husband's indefinite liability for his wife's antenuptial torts; and, with that addition, he thought it would he a useful measure.

, in moving as an Amendment, "That the Bill be read a second time that day six months," said, the Act of 1870 was the result of several years' consideration, both in that and the other House of Parliament. He objected to the Bill under notice as being likely to re-introduce a former state of things, with regard to which very strong expressions had been used by the advocates of the Act of 1870 with reference to the position of married women in relation to property. It was said that marriage was equivalent to the forfeiture of their property; but that did not fairly represent the state of the law on the subject. It would be more correct to say that the right of property was suspended during the continuance of the marriage. It was necessary that this distinction should be borne in mind in dealing with this question. And so with regard to the liabilities of the wife. If an action were brought after marriage in respect of liabilities incurred by the wife before marriage; if judgment were obtained during the continuance of the marriage, the husband, as representing both, was held to be responsible, and the liability was limited to the continuance of the marriage. This Bill would introduce a novel principle with regard to the relation of husband and wife; every woman would be treated on her marriage as dead in law, and as if her husband were her executor; just as women entering religious houses had been held to be dead and the heads of those houses had sued their own executors, sometimes bringing and maintaining actions against the relatives for their property. That state of things would be most objectionable, for it held the husband liable at any distance of time for what he had received; and while a woman might be allowed to make a present of a thousand pounds or more to a godchild, or a favourite servant, or a cousin, she would not be allowed to give a £10 note to her husband without his being called to account for it. As regarded the working of the Bill, the husband might be held liable, and even his executors, at a distance of 20 or 30 years, for every penny he received at the time of his marriage, and for every article of furniture, under the penalty of completely satisfying the liability charged against him. The onus ought to be thrown upon the creditor to prove that the husband had received from the wife property that was answerable for the liability. In the first section of the Bill the word "entitled" was used, and in the second the word used was "received." By the 1st section the husband was made liable for any property he was entitled to receive on the wife's account, so that the 1st section made him responsible not only for what he had received, but also for what he might have received but had not received. On the other hand, the 2nd section provided a remedy only for what the husband had received. He objected, also, to the provision in the 2nd section which said that the Judge should make such an order as he might think just. It was important that some general principle should be laid down for the guidance of the Judges both of the Superior and Inferior Courts, and especially of the latter, seeing that, although the amounts might be comparatively small, yet that the Bill affected the interests of a great number of persons. It was remarkable that the Act of 1870 did not extend to Scotland, and if this Bill passed in its present shape there would be three different laws for the different parts of the Kingdom. England was under the operation of the Act of 1870, and would come under the operation of the present Bill. Ireland was under the operation of the Act of 1870, but was excluded from the present Bill; while Scotland would come under the operation of the present Bill, but was not under the Act of 1870. This discrepancy might, no doubt, be remedied in Committee. The hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley) had relied upon the case of the traders, and their case no doubt might be distinguished from others, but the class of female traders was very small. The last Census gave the total number of females in England and Wales as 11,653,332, but of these only 57,237 were engaged in trade. The number, however, was sufficiently important to justify some provision to moot the case of women who were traders at the time of their marriage. He would recommend that that case should be met by an amplification of the 1st section of the Act of 1870, which secured to a married woman her earnings in trade, &c. He would suggest that the stock-in-trade, the book debts due and growing due, the assets, and the goodwill of the business of a woman who entered into the married state should belong to her for her separate use in the absence of an agreement to the contrary made at the time of her marriage The separate property would then become subject to any judgment on any contract made by her previous to her marriage. If any allegation of fraud were set up and established, the Courts would have power to meet such a case. The Bill, moreover, was objectionable as an instance of piecemeal legislation, and if Parliament undertook to alter the Act of 1870, it should be done by some complete and fully-considered measure. Seeing that the Bill only dealt with a fragment of the question, and that it failed to lay down any distinct principle on which the Courts should proceed, he had no hesitation in moving its rejection.

said, that if he saw any chance of comprehensive legislation on this subject during the present Session, he would willingly wait. A comprehensive measure was brought in last year, was supported by considerable majorities, and would have passed the House of Commons but for the half past 12 o'clock rule. Although the other House were not disinclined to criticize the proceedings of this, noble and learned Lords appeared to have framed the Act of 1870 by contributing each a section, without any one of them taking care that the different sections should be consistent one with the other. That that Act should at an early period be largely modified seemed therefore to be a matter of necessity. Those who desired such modifications, however, looting to the shortness of the Session, had determined not to bring them forward this year. There was, under these circumstances, no intelligible reason why this Bill should not meanwhile pass, and thus remedy the admitted injustice of a husband taking his wife's property, and yet not being liable for her debts. Nor was any such reason to be extracted from the not very short treatise on the law of husband and wife, with which the House had been favoured by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge. That hon. Member had remarked with some force on the absurdity of having a different law in every one of the three divisions of the United Kingdom. But the only foundation for these remarks was the fact that the word "Ireland" in the Bill had been printed by mistake for "Scotland," and this could, of course, be corrected in Committee.

said, that he had received many complaints relating to the flaw in the Act of 1870, which caused great injustice to creditors. Under the present law, a woman might contract debts to any amount, and then, if she afterwards married a man without a settlement, the creditor had no resource. This was a casus omissus which should be at once remedied, for in his opinion husband and wife should never be treated in reference to property as entirely separate persons. In the present Bill there were many points which needed amendment, but still upon the whole he should support the second reading, it being a measure which would remedy many evils.

said, that he could have wished that the Bill had been expressed in terms more apt and proper to give effect to the object sought to be attained; but still it hit what was clearly a blot in the existing law. Before the Act of 1870, a man marrying a woman possessed of property acquired that property, unless it were settled on her, but he became liable for her debts. In 1870 two amendments, or perhaps he should rather say alterations, were made in the law, the one giving the means of protecting certain property of the married woman from the husband, and enacting that it should be held to be her separate property; and the other providing that the woman's husband should not be liable after marriage for any debts she might have contracted before marriage. The consequence was, that in many cases the husband acquired all a woman's property, while her creditors lost any security they might have had for the payment of their debts. The scope and purport of the present Bill were to make the husband liable for the debts of the wife to the extent of the property he had acquired by his marriage. The Bill might, and he believed would, require some amendment in Committee, and some of the suggestions made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Marten) would deserve consideration in Committee, but he trusted that he would withdraw his Amendment and allow the Bill to be read a second time.

assented to the Bill, but with the same reservation as to the necessity of considering the wording of the provisions in Committee, as he considered they were open to amendment.

held that piecemeal legislation never worked satisfactory, and on that ground he was opposed to proceeding further with the Bill. The Act of 1870 required amendment in other respects, and it was highly inconvenient dealing with the subject in the limited manner proposed by the Bill. Although acceding to the principle put forward, he did not agree with those who wished to extend the rights of creditors over property bonâ fide put in settlement for the benefit of the issue of the marriage, but would confine their rights to monies actually coming to the hands of the husband. Without any alteration of the law as it now stood, property belonging to a woman, put in settlement on her marriage fraudulently with the object of defeating creditors, could be followed. It was necessary to amend the law by declaring that a married woman, trading separately, should be competent to contract, and be made liable, in certain cases, to be made bankrupt. He would oppose the extension of this Bill in its present shape to Ireland. He was, in fact, opposed to this kind of piecemeal legislation; and even if they put aside the argument that the subject should be dealt with in a comprehensive manner, it was a sufficient objection to this Bill that the clauses were very badly drawn up, and needed much careful consideration and amendment. As several alterations were necessary in the law as it now stood, it would be much better, in his opinion, to let the whole matter remain over for a short time, and devote the interval to the consideration of how the law affecting the whole question could be clearly and accurately stated.

said, that he sympathized a good deal with what had fallen from the hon. Member who last spoke as to the impolicy and injustice of following property which had become the subject of bonâ fide settlements made on and in consideration of marriage. The objects of these settlements were not only the husband and wife, but the children of the marriage, and their position ought not to be affected by liabilities of the mother antecedent to the marriage. With respect to the Bill itself, there seemed to be such unanimity of opinion as to the course to be taken that it was unnecessary for him to say much upon it. In principle the Bill was perfectly right; but the clauses by which that principle was to be carried out were so worded that it was doubtful if they would effect the object. There should be no doubt whatever as to the liabilities of a man who married a woman with property—namely, that, if afterwards sued for debts contracted by her before marriage, he should be liable to the extent of the property he acquired by or through her, and no further. He advised his hon. Friend the promoter of the Bill to confine it to this point, notwithstanding the friendly suggestions he had received in the course of the discussion. No doubt in some respects the Bill required alteration, but there could be little objection to the measure if it were confined to that principle.

, in reply, acknowledged the general acceptance which the Bill had met with on the part of the House, while at the same time he was compelled to admit that the objections which had been made by several hon. and learned Members were deserving of consideration. His simple object was to secure the assent of the House to the principle of the Bill, and he would be glad to take counsel with hon. and learned Gentlemen who had pointed out defects in the wording of the Bill, in order to introduce such Amendments in Committee as would secure for the measure the sanction of the House.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said that its object was to alter the grouse and partridge shooting seasons in accordance with the recommendations of a Select Committee by whom this question had been considered. It proposed that grouse shooting should commence on the 12th instead of the 20th August, and that partridge shooting should commence on the 10th instead of the 20th September. The grouse were, in fact, quite as fit to be shot by the 12th of August in Ireland as they were in England and Scotland. Under the present system any gentleman who had the shooting over a moor might, if the commencement of the season were wet and stormy, find when he was able to set to work that the birds were so wild that it was impossible to get near them. Besides, the present system afforded great facilities for the illegal sale of grouse and partridges killed, at present, on the 12th, and sold as English and Scotch birds, the law against which might to a great extent be said to be a dead letter in Ireland. It was at first proposed that the partridge shooting should commence on the 1st of September, as in England; but against this it was urged that there were different conditions in the state of the agriculture of the two countries. As there was probably good reason in this objection, he proposed that the partridge shooting should commence on the 10th of September, instead of on the 1st of the month. The only other objection was that grouse and partridges were not fit to be shot on August 12 and September 10 respectively. He could only say, in answer to that objection, that the evidence tended to show the contrary. The memorial to which he had alluded, and which was laid before the Committee, was signed by the great majority of those interested in grouse shooting. Of course it would have been competent to the other party to have got up a counter memorial, but such was not oven attempted; they let the matter go by default, calling only two witnesses before the Committee. As he saw the Bill was opposed, he would only say to its opponents that it was in its nature merely a permissive measure. All that its advocates asked was that they should not be prevented from shooting grouse when they thought fit; and, above all, that they should be placed on on equality with the poachers and the illegal sellers of game, and that thereby the inducement to break the law, which so extensively prevailed at the present time in Ireland, should be removed. On these grounds he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

, in moving as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he opposed the Bill on the ground that the proposed change in respect of the time for shooting game in Ireland was made at a most inopportune moment. But he was also of opinion that the change was not desirable either in the interest of the preservers and shooters of game, or of the tenants upon whoso land the game was to be found. The Bill consisted of two clauses, which dealt with two different classes of game—grouse and partridges. As regarded grouse, the rule in England was to commence grouse shooting on August 12, while in Ireland it did not commence until the 20th. He agreed that it would be desirable, if possible, that the shooting in both countries should commence upon the same day, because of the facility which the difference in time now gave to poachers for poaching game in Ireland, and exposing it for sale before the day on which the shooting commenced in that country. But the real question was whether the grouse were fit to be shot on August 12 or not? It was most desirable that that question should be considered by a Committee appointed solely for that purpose, so that the House should have before it the opinions of persons well conversant with the subject upon which they might then proceed to legislate. The noble Lord (Viscount Crichton) had stated that the matter was considered by the Committee which sat last year; and he had made it a strong point that this Bill was founded upon the Report made by that Committee. He (Mr. O'Conor) admitted that that was so, but he denied that the Committee had before it sufficient evidence to warrant them in coming to a conclusion upon the question at all, and for the simple reason that that Committee was appointed two Sessions previously for an entirely different purpose—namely, to consider the question of the Game Laws in general. He believed that at the present moment very few of those who had the largest shooting districts in Ireland had any notion that the Committee had investigated the matter at all. Had it been known that the Committee were about to investigate this matter, he believed that such a mass of evidence would have been brought before them as would have led them to come to a very different conclusion from that at which they had arrived. The great majority of those who owned mountain shooting in the West of Ireland were opposed to any acceleration of their shooting, because they had found that on the 12th of August the birds were scarcely fit to fly. The only persons whom he could find in favour of the proposed change were those who owned what was called the flat moor shooting; but he could say from his experience of flat moor shooting in the "West of Ireland that he had frequently gone out on the 20th August and found grouse that were perfectly unfit to be shot. Therefore, in the interest of the flat moor shooters in the West of Ireland, he was strongly opposed to this change. If the change proposed by the Bill in regard to grouse were undesirable, that proposed with respect to partridges was still more so. In the first place, the argument for altering the day for grouse shooting in Ireland did not apply to the case of partridges. In the case of the grouse, they assimilated the law in the two countries; but in that of partridges they did not assimilate the law, and if it would be absurd to commence partridge shooting on the 1st of September in Ireland, it would be just as ridiculous, in his opinion, to commence it on the 10th. His experience was that on the 10th September the corn was still standing in the fields, and everybody knew perfectly well that to go out partridge shooting while the corn was still standing would be most unsatisfactory sport. It had been alleged that the grouse became so wild that it was almost impossible to shoot them after the 20th. Such, certainly, was not his experience in that part of Ireland with which he was connected; and as to partridges, the difficulty was to get them to rise at all, they lay so close. He believed that the change would do very little good, even to those who desired it; while the effects on the whole would be productive of considerable mischief. He begged, therefore, to move that the Bill should be read a second time on that day six months.

said, that he had some experience of game shooting in the West of Ireland, and could testify that the conditions were, in many cases, different from those in England and Scotland. He thought that it would be better to assimilate the time for shooting grouse and partridges in England to that of Ireland, for if the Bill was carried they would soon have very few grouse in some parts of the latter country. In the West of Ireland, where he shot every year, on the 12th of August the grouse were not generally old enough to shoot; they were, in fact, only squeakers, such as no sportsman would care to fill his bag with. He did not attach much importance to the recommendations of the Committee as to the principle of this Bill, for he thought them beyond the order of its reference and based upon a partial inquiry. He objected altogether to the Bill, and should support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. O'Conor).

remarked that, as regarded a part of Ireland, there was, no doubt, a great deal to be said in favour of this Bill. The question resolved itself pretty much into one of locality. In the North of Ireland the shooting might be advantageously accelerated, and with respect to some counties in the South and East of Ireland, probably the acceleration of the day which was proposed by the Bill would be of use as far as partridges were concerned. With respect to the West of Ireland, however, the noble Lord (Viscount Crichton), if he looked into the evidence taken before the Committee last year, would find that the proposed change was not applicable to that part of the country. The noble Lord had said that if the grouse were not strong enough to be shot on the 12th, they need not be shot. But they would be poached upon, and shot down before they were strong enough to be shot, and thus the proprietors of grouse shooting in the West of Ireland would be injured. The best course would be to refer it to a Select Committee. If the noble Lord consented to do that he would vote for the second reading, but otherwise he would not.

said, that for years he had enjoyed the right of shooting over 40,000 acres in Mayo, and had also much experience in Scotland, and he could bear testimony to the fact that the grouse shooting might as safely be commenced in Ireland on the same day as in England and Scotland.

said, that he had rented a moor in the county of Mayo for many years, and he had therefore some claim to speak on behalf of that part of Ireland. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) that certain parts of Ireland were differently circumstanced in regard to this question. In the East, he (Mr. Bruen) did know that the 20th of August was too late a day for those who preserved game to commence shooting. The owner of one of the largest moors in the county of Wicklow had often told him that after the first three days of shooting the grouse became so extremely wild that it was next to impossible to get his game with his dog. In the West he had himself shot grouse up to the end of September, and they lay just as well then as at any previous period. Sir Roger Palmer, who was a large owner of shooting in Mayo, and the hon. Member who spoke last, both said that the grouse would be fit for shooting before the 20th August, and the change proposed by the noble Lord might with advantage be adopted. As regarded partridge, he thought it would be useless to make any change in the days, owing to the large quantity of corn which would be standing at any earlier period than that on which shooting now commenced. The birds would get into the standing corn, where they could not be shot, and ought not to be followed.

said, the alteration which was proposed in the law relative to the commencement of the season for grouse in Ireland would be very prejudicial to the interests of sportsmen themselves. It must be admitted that Leland at one period afforded very little sport in the way of grouse shooting. No doubt within the last few years the grouse had been increasing very rapidly in that country; but that increase was, he thought, entirely owing to the lateness of the season for the shooting of grouse. In Ireland it was to the mountains that they must look for the increase of grouse. In some districts, in consequence of the traffic over the bogs, the grouse undoubtedly became wild after the first one or two days' shooting; but that was not the case on the mountains in the West and South of Ireland, and in many parts of the North, where the grouse were as easily shot in September as in the month of August. He himself was about to take a moor in the county of Mayo, and he went down to have a look over the country. The owner of the moor gave them permission to have a day's shooting, and in the month of September they killed 20 brace of grouse there as easily as they could have done in August. As to partridges, he thought it would be most undesirable to alter the day for the commencement of the shooting, because undoubtedly the harvest in Ireland was so late that it would be impossible to shoot birds without doing a great deal of injury to the crops; while as to the question of poachers, it would not arise, for birds shot without having food which they had later in September would be utterly worthless for eating purposes, and no sportsman would care about shooting birds while they were in that miserable condition. He regarded the measure as a Bill for the destruction, rather than the preservation, of game; and, under the circumstances, he asked the House not to read it a second time.

said, he had not the personal experience of the last speaker, but he had studied the evidence taken by the Committee, and he could not admit that the hon. Member's description of the Bill was a just one. The main object of the Bill, and he thought also the main object of the Committee who reported upon the point, was to insure that game should be killed by those to whom it belonged; that the birds should not be shot prematurely by poachers and sold as English and Scotch birds. With regard to one objection, the Committee of last year, with every desire to ascertain the state of Irish feeling on the subject, could not have obtained better evidence than they did, so that there seemed no prospect of improving upon it by referring the Bill to a Select Committee. Acting upon the Report of that Committee, his noble Friend (Viscount Crichton) had brought forward the measure, and he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) thought there was considerable force in the statement of his noble Friend that, after all, it was merely a permissive measure, for it enabled those who found a difficulty, if shooting was put off until late, to get an opportunity which they did not now possess; while with regard to the difference of time at which the birds matured in different districts, the dates of the 12th of August and the 1st of September applied to all England and Scotland, which embraced as great differences in the times at which the birds arrived at maturity as did all Ireland; and he did not suppose that in any part of Ireland the birds were later than in some parts of Scotland. The alteration of the date for grouse, no doubt, would prevent that illicit traffic which now existed so largely; but as to partridges, he was not quite sure that the right view was taken, for the date fixed was the 10th of September, and there was, therefore, a certain time left during which the illicit traffic in partridges might be carried on. That might be a subject for consideration in Committee; but from a study of all the evidence he believed it would be well to read the Bill a second time.

said, that in Ireland the greatest difference of opinion existed about the Bill, for Lord John Browne, who was a largo proprietor in Mayo, was in favour of assimilating the dates, while others were strongly opposed to it. As there was this difference of opinion he thought it desirable before legislation that there should be further investigation; and that the Government would do right in assenting to the subject being referred to a Select Committee.

, as an English sportsman, thought that game was much tamer in Ireland than in England. He wished to point out to hon. Gentlemen who were in favour of Home Rule, that that was a question which might very well have been decided in an Irish Parliament—supposing such an Assembly to have come into existence.