said, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether (under 14th protocol, page 59, of Conferences of the Plenipotentiaries at Paris, 1856, relative to the Treaty of Peace) there has been a revision of the stipulations which regulate the commercial relations of the Porte with other Powers, or in the position of foreigners resident in Turkey, and whether (agreeably to the recorded wish of the Plenipotentiaries) a deliberation had been opened at Constantinople since the conclusion of peace between the Porte and other Powers, with the view of attaining the twofold object in such a manner as to afford satisfaction to all legitimate interests; and, if there have been no such revision and deliberation, whether this country, in its commercial relations with the Porte, ranks among the most favoured nations as to fiscal and other duties in all commercial transactions, and the residence of British subjects in Turkey, and whether any beneficial change had taken place since the war; and are negotiations in progress to facilitate the commerce of this country with Turkey.

Sir, in answer to the first question which the hon. Gentleman has put to me, I have to state that there has been no revision of the stipulations which regulate the commercial relations of the Porte with other Powers. Deliberation on the subject, however, will probably be soon commenced. The hon. Gentleman also asks what the position of the inhabitants of this country is in regard to the Porte as contrasted with that which is occupied by other nations, and I may inform him that I believe we stand at present in the same line with respect to commerce and civil privileges as the most favoured nations. As to the stipulations which regulate our commerce with the Porte, the hon. Gentleman will permit me to say that he is, perhaps, unaware that by the Treaty of 1834 Commissioners were appointed who were invested with the functions of periodically revising the Turkish tariff. The power of doing that still exists, has been acted upon, and will be acted upon again. The Russian war, of course, precluded the regular and accustomed exercise of the right. I may add, in answer to the question whether any beneficial change in our commercial relations with the Porte has taken place since the war, that there has been no revision of the stipulations of the Treaty of 1834 since that period.

, in rising to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the subject of tenant right in Ireland, said he felt very deeply the overwhelming responsibility of the question which he had undertaken to submit to the House, knowing the immense amount of property belonging to his own constituents, and those of the adjoining counties, which depended on the decision of that question, and knowing, also, the great talent and ability with which the subject, in a somewhat different shape, had, on previous occasions, been brought before the House and the country. The particular proposition which he meant to submit to its consideration differed very much from that which was embodied in the Bill which had lately been introduced by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire). That measure dealt with the future improvements which a tenant might make upon his land, and recognised as the property of the tenant any existing improvements which he might have effected by means of his labour and capital, whereas the question to which if successful in his Motion, should invite the favourable attention of the Committee to be appointed, related simply to improvements which had already been carried into effect, with the sanction of the landlord, and which were recognised by him, in accordance with the custom of tenant right in the north of Ireland, as the property of the tenant. It might please the House to legislate solely for the future, or solely for the past; or they might protect by law both the past and future interests of the tenant, as he hoped they would. As to the form of his notice, it had contained, in the first instance, no reference to Donegal. He had, however, been induced to make special mention of Donegal in his Motion, in consequence of the violations of the custom to which he alluded, which, it was alleged, had recently taken place in that county, and in accordance with the prayer of a petition which he had presented from that county, signed by 3,400 of its inhabitants. His reference to that county, however, was more as an illustration of the nature of the grievances of which he had to complain than anything else. The House, however, had recently had under its consideration the occurrences in Donegal of which complaint had been made, and had referred the subject of some of these complaints to a Select Committee. For this reason, and because he had been told that so pointed a reference to Donegal seemed to imply the imputation of greater culpability to the landlords of that county than to those of the adjoining counties, which he was not aware that they, as a body, deserved, he now proposed to alter the terms of his Motion, by leaving out Donegal and confining the inquiries of the Committee which he asked for, to "the alleged recent violations of tenant right in certain northern counties of Ireland." The custom of tenant right prevailed as far back as the Plantation of Ulster by James I., although some authorities even traced it back to the old Brehon laws. In the first documents relating to the Plantation of Ulster, it was clearly proved that the advantage of the commonwealth was as much an object as the benefit of those upon whom lands had been conferred. The "Concise View of the Proceedings of the Irish Society" contained certain articles of the original Plantation, as published by James I., which clearly indicated that it was the design of the founders of the colony that the settlers who should be taken over should themseves be prepared to build their houses, and undertake all needful improvements, such as in this country, at least, the landlords usually provide. The celebrated Pynnar's Survey which was published in 1619, gave a detailed and interesting account of the same settlement. On account of their short comings, the Irish Society's original charter, of 1613, was forfeited in the court of the Star Chamber some twenty years after. However, it was again renewed in the reign of Charles II., in terms of the original grant, so that the entire plantation was still under the original conditions. During all that time as the House would observe, the occupiers had a continuing interest in their own improvements. That was what mainly characterized the custom. The tenants had expended their capital in building houses and reclaiming the waste uncultivated lands, and they were permitted to enjoy these houses and lands the fruit of their own industry at easy rents which left thorn a fair margin of profit. What was true of the Irish Society's plantation in Londonderry was equally true of the other northern districts then planted; and hence the origin of the custom. The Report of the Devon Commission contained a curious document, brought before them by Mr. Beresford, agent to the Irish Society, showing that, in 1766, nearly one hundred years ago, the tenant right custom was well known and understood. In stating the terms on which, alone, the Irish Society would renew the leases of their tenants, they laid down certain conditions, of which the following was first:—

"That the present leases be surrendered upon or before Michaelmas, 1767; in default thereof, no regard shall be had for the future to what is called tenants' right, or shall any such leases be thereafter renewed on any terms whatsoever."

Arthur Young, in his Travels, showed the agricultural condition of the north, as well as other parts of Ireland, the scale of rents and prices which then prevailed. From his testimony, and other records of the last century, it is manifest that tenant right had existed in Ulster ever since the settlement of the country, and the peculiar custom of allowing tenants a continuing interest in their holdings had been acknowledged by landlords, and acted upon ever since that time. To show the vast improvements which had been made, he might state that it appeared from a presentment of the grand jurors of Londonderry, dated in 1697, that the total annual value of the property in that county amounted to £11,800. At the present time, according to Mr. Griffith's survey, the value was over £220,000. He took it that that vast difference was the result of the capital and industry of the tenants; but he did not intend to argue therefrom that the rentals should be calculated upon the original basis of value. In the discussion upon the Tenants' Compensation Bill, it had been argued by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Radnorshire (Sir J. Walsh), and by the noble Lords the Members for Tiverton and Cockermouth (Lords Palmerston and Naas), that because that Bill laid down the broad principle that the tenants' improvements should be held to be the tenants' property, it therefore followed that the tenants desire to reclaim for themselves the value of all their improvements, and to reduce their rents to what the land would be worth in a state of nature. This, he contended, proceeded upon a false construction of that Bill, for it recognized the existing rents, as the measure of the landlord's present rights. And, in the same way, he admitted the gradually increasing rents which had grown up under the custom to be fairly due by the tenant, while they left a reasonable margin, short of a rack rent. In this view there was no desire to reduce the rents which were now paid when these had grown up gradually in conformity with the custom. But the object of the Bill was to prevent any future increase of rent without leaving a sufficient margin to cover the tenants' own improvements. It might not be known to the greater part of the Members of that House that, in the parts of Ireland where the tenant right custom prevailed, there was a well recognized interest at present existing in the tenants. The tenants were permitted to sell their interest when convenient or necessary, but subject, in some instances, to the consent of the landlords; and the custom had been recognized by Courts of law. The tenants' interest in his farm was as marketable a commodity as any part of the produce of the farm, and was admitted by common consent to be as much his property. But that species of property had this inherent infirmity, that it was not recognized by the Courts of law as against the landlords—and the result was that, substantially, nearly the whole of that large property, valued at £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 sterling, was administered, not by the ordinary Courts of law, or by the County Courts in Ireland, but by the landlords, through their agents in the landlords' office—in fact, there was a separate administration of property in the landlords, office, according to the whim or caprice of the landlords or agents, and not according to the rules of law. It depended wholly on the will of the landlord, and not on the rules of law or the decision of competent Judges, whether, for instance, the creditors of a deceased tenant should be paid their just debts in the ordinary way, or whether the farm, constituting, perhaps, his whole property, should be handed over to his family. In this way he had known many instances of what might be called gross injustice committed through the machinery of an agent's office. He apprehended that the House of Commons, which was so jealous of the administration of the law and of the rights of property, would be slow to recognize such a right as virtually set at nought the laws of the land. The copyhold tenure in England was somewhat analagous to the tenant-right custom in Ireland. In the old feudal times, when the occupiers of the soil were mere serfs or villcins, the slaves of their lords, instead of receiving wages for cultivating demesne lands, these serfs or labourers had portions of land assigned to them, out of the produce of which they were to support themselves and their families. These lands they occupied at will. But, in course of time, when they had occupied and improved the same lands for generation after generation, it was held by the courts of law that they could not be removed out of their lands by their lords, as long as they fulfilled the conditions of their tenancy, because, though they held at the will of the lord, it was still according to the custom of the manor: so that here a custom, which the landlord might have altered or violated with impunity at any time before it was held to be binding on himself, was found to prove effectual for the protection of the property which the poor bondsman had created by his own extra labour and industry. From feudal times the tenants of copyhold estates in England held them at the will of the lord of the manor, and according to the custom of the manor. The copyhold system conferred rights by mere custom on men who were not at first even free men, simply because they had cultivated the land for themselves and improved it for themselves. That description of property had been dealt with from time to time by Parliament, and had been recently assimilated to the rest of the tenures of this country. How, then, could it be argued that injustice would be done to the landlords by dealing out to those whose forefathers had been persuaded to settle in a new colony and expend their capital in reclaiming uncultivated lands, the same measure of justice which had been previously secured by mere bondsmen, who had no independent rights when they began to make improvements? He appealed to them earnestly to deal as liberally by the tenant-farmers of Ireland as they had dealt with the villeins and copyholders of the feudal system. Again, in almost all continental countries, the occupier of the soil was to a certain extent, the owner of it, and had all the motives for improving the property which sprang from a direct participation in such improvement. And that was the principle, sought to be introduced into some of the Bills relating to tenant-right in Ireland several years ago. Even in some parts of India, and especially in the Presidency of Madras, the same principle had been recognised by the East India Company in their dealings with the ryots, and he trusted that the House would not be less favourable to the rights of the Irish tenants than the East India Directors had been to those of the ryots in India. The science of agriculture had of late greatly increased; but unless power was given to tenants to apply that science to the increased production of the soil for their own benefit, they would be found lagging behind, and the improvements of agriculture in Ireland would be impeded. It was impossible for the landlord, or any one not in actual occupation, to keep lands up to the highest degree of fertility. That could only be done by the actual occupier; and it would be done only when he bad a right to the full benefit of the required improvements which would give him the necessary motive to expend his labour and capital. But he regarded this not merely as a question between landlord and tenant, but as a constitutional question—as one involving the regular development of the resources of the country and the rights of labour—as one intimately connected with the market for labour in Ireland; so that the population, instead of seeking employment abroad, might be able to find it at home, and he at all times available when required for the service of the State. Instead of that, we had them now seeking employment in the colonies of America and Australia, in numbers varying from 100,000 to 300,000 annually, and leaving their native land destitute of both la- bourers and recruits. The chief objection taken to the claim he now advocated was, that it interfered with the rights of property; but what right of property had the landlord in the possibility of the land being so improved as to yield a greater return; if he so chose, he could borrow capital from the public exchequer and make the improvements himself; and even that was an exceptional privilege given to him, contrary to the ordinary principles by which the supply of capital is regulated. But when he failed to do so, he submitted that to allow him to claim the benefit of all improvements that were made by the tenant, except under the stipulations of a lease, was rather an interference with the property of the tenant than with that of the landlord. He had no feeling of hostility to the landlords of Ireland, although advocating so strenuously the rights of the tenant. On the contrary, he freely admitted that in the tenant-right districts, speaking generally, their moderation and liberality to their tenants were praiseworthy. As a rule, they recognized the right which he now contended for. They had sanctioned it from the first, without any constraint of law, but from a sense of justice. They profess, one and all, to have no desire to encroach upon the tenant's interest, or deal with him harshly; and surely it could be no injury to them to render legal that which they were already accustomed to grant. When he compared the conduct of Irish landlords, permitting a large amount of valuable property to accumulate for generation after generation in the hands of their tenants, outside the pale of law, and wholly unprotected against their claims, and compared it with the conduct of other classes—of merchants and traders, for instance—speculating with other people's money, and ruining their creditors, or even of tenants, as sometimes happened, decamping from their holdings and leaving their rents unpaid, he regarded the tenant-right landlords of Ireland as deserving of their admiration. But though this property in improvements had been recognized by the landlords as one belonging to the tenants, it had from time to time been subjected to encroachments, and evictions had taken place in nearly all the counties of Ulster. He had a long list of evictions and other encroachments with which he would not trouble the House. He would only mention two or three cases of recent occurrence, which had been publicly proclaimed through the newspapers, and had caused much feeling and excitement in various parts of the country. For the evil of these tyrannical proceedings is not to be measured by the loss inflicted upon the immediate sufferers. A painful feeling of insecurity and apprehension is spread far and wide, which it is impossible to calculate, which destroys the peace and comfort of families, and prepares them for leaving their native land. The most inexcusable evictions, however, had taken place in the county of Donegal. Within the last two years there had been evictions on the property of a noble Lord (Earl of Leitrim) of tenants from houses which had cost the occupiers from £2,000 to £3,000. It might be said these persons were to blame for building houses without the guarantee of a lease; but it was well known that in that part of Ulster the landlords, if tenants for life, were not empowered to grant building leases till within the last two years, and also that the tenants had been accustomed to lay out money on buildings with almost the same security as if they had a lease. A passage from the will of the late Lord Leitrim, as published in the Northern Whig, laid down in a very forcible way the kind of intercourse that existed between landlords and tenants in that part of Ireland. It set forth that—

"Inasmuch as his son had all his property in Ireland, and had been born there, he wished him to consider himself as an Irishman, and not to look down on his countrymen; that he should have an affection both for England and Ireland, seeing the interests of the two countries were so closely connected; but he was to remember that be could never be of consequence or be respected in England unless he was respected in Ireland, and that, therefore, he ought to visit his estates as often as he could, and cultivate, to the utmost of his power, the attachment of his tenantry."

These sentiments were, he thought, deserving of the approval of the House. The tenantry believed they had a security equal to leases under the author of this will, and by virtue of their tenant-right claims. He (Mr. Greer) contended that it was the duty of the House to inquire how far it was in the power of the Legislature, consistently with the rights of the landlords, to deal with this grievance of the tenants of Ireland; and he proposed to give the Committee the power to consider the whole question, and to recommend such a measure as would settle it satisfactorily, consistently with the rights of all parties. It would be their duty to examine over what area the tenant-right custom prevailed, and what may be its average value, and what have been its social and economic effects and influences. It was said that the result of appointing a Committee would be to perpetuate the existence of small farms in Ireland. But the landlords were quite as much responsible for the smallness of farms as the tenants, and the landlords had no right to object to that which they had the means of preventing. The law invested the landlord with the right to covenant against subletting, and to enforce that covenant. If he neglected to do so, or if he cut up his estate into small farms to create 40s. freeholds, the tenants were not to be held responsible for the subdivision of the land, though he did not admit this to be such an evil as was alleged. But even then, the landlord would have full power to consolidate small farms and evict his tenants; but he should do so after giving a fair compensation to the tenants for their existing improvements. The Committee would have many subjects of inquiry referred to them, which had never yet been fully and fairly examined. The Devon Commission in their Report dealt with this subject at considerable length. The question of tenant-right was not specifically referred to them, but the relation between landlord and tenant was, and a portion of their Report referred to the evidence given as to the custom of tenant-right prevailing in some of the northern counties. The Devon Commissioners Report (page 14) was to this effect:—

"In the account given by witnesses throughout Ireland of the mode in which occupiers hold their land the most striking peculiarity is the custom prevalent in the northern counties, called tenant-right."

"The origin of this custom has been the subject of much speculation, but is now rather a matter of curiosity than of present interest. It dates from a very early period, having probably sprung up, as we have already noticed, as a natural consequence, from the manner in which property was generally granted and dealt with in that part of the country. Large tracts having become the property of public bodies, or of individuals resident at a distance, the landlords were well contented to let their farms to those who would undertake the cultivation and entire management, reserving to themselves a rent, but making no expenditure, and exercising little interference with the land.

"Under such circumstances it seems neither extraordinary nor unreasonable that a tenant, quitting a farm, either at his own desire, or from any difference with his landlord, should obtain from his successor a sum of money, partly in remuneration of his expenditure, and partly as a price paid for the possession of land which the new tenant would have no other means of acquiring. From this state of things a feeling of proprietorship appears to have grown up in the tenant, which continues in a great degree to the present day; and the extent to which it prevails may be seen by reference to various parts of the evidence taken in the province of Ulster. Under the influence of this custom the tenant claims, and generally exercises a right to dispose of his holding for a valuable consideration, although he may himself be tenant at will, and although he may have expended nothing in permanent improvements."

In that passage the Report seemed to imply that when a tenant obtains by purchase or inheritance a highly improved farm, his right to sell it again should hardly be conceded, unless he have raised it to a still higher pitch of improvement. Now, such a doctrine seemed to be very unreasonable, because the essence of the custom was the reclamation of the ground and the improvements originally made thereon; and if the tenant had not himself performed those works, it came to the same thing, if the improved value be actually there, having descended from his father or been purchased from a stranger. The Report went on—

"We found that in various parts of that province, sums equal to ten, twelve, or fifteen years' purchase upon the rent are commonly given for the tenant right; and this not only where the rent is considered low, but where it is fully equal to the value."

It is somewhat difficult to receive this statement in its full literal meaning. The farms so purchased must certainly have been considered of some value by the purchasers, who may fairly claim to have some voice in the decision of that point. In another part of this paragraph the Report conveys, I conceive, a very inaccurate impression. It suggests ten, twelve or fifteen years' purchase as the ordinary scale of prices; whereas the evidence they have published shows that the great bulk of tenant right property was estimated much lower—from two or three years' purchase up to six or seven—so that probably the average value would not be found to exceed seven or eight years' purchase of the rent, though in some instances it was up to twenty years' purchase, and even higher. The Report went on:—

"Proprietors generally have been enabled to place a restriction on this tenant right, so far at least as to secure a power of selection with respect to the tenant, and to place some limit upon the amount to be paid; wisely judging that a tenant who pays a large sum of money—part of which he probably borrows—in entering upon a farm, will be crippled in his means for the proper management of it."

This paragraph seems to indicate on the part of the Commissioners a desire to limit, if not ultimately to extinguish this custom. They speak of placing restrictions upon it with manifest approval; and they suggest the idea, without directly asserting, that these purchasers of tenant right, at what they obviously deem insane prices, have usually to borrow money to enable them to pay the purchase-money, and that they are pretty sure ultimately to ruin not only themselves, but those who are foolish enough to lend them money. Now, his (Mr. Greer's) experience led to the very opposite conclusion. He had observed that the purchasers of additional farms were usually those who had already made some profits by their farming, and who sought to employ their industry and capital on a wider field—that they were often the most successful farmers in the district, and if obliged sometimes to borrow money, were soon able to pay it off again. The Report proceeded:—

"Anomalous as this custom is, if considered with reference to all ordinary notions of property, it must be admitted that the district in which it prevails has thriven and improved, in comparison with other parts of the country; and although we can foresee some danger to the just rights of property from the unlimited allowance of this 'tenant right,' yet we are sure that evils more immediate and of a still greater magnitude would result from any hasty or general disallowance of it, and still less can we recommend any interference with it by law."

This is the last paragraph of the Report relating specially to tenant right, and though it bears a strong though reluctant testimony to the good effects which have resulted from this ancient custom, it not only abstains from suggesting any means for strengthening or perpetuating the custom, but darkly hints, without sorrow or alarm, at its ultimate but gradual extinction. A "hasty or general disallowance" might, no doubt, be dangerous, but a gradual and judicious denial of it would, as they were left to infer, be sound policy, and would soon extinguish this troublesome anomaly. This was a doctrine calculated to excite the utmost alarm wherever the custom prevailed. It held out no hope of the sanction of law to protect the tenants' customary interest. It rather deprecated the arm of the law to be employed as an agent in putting an end to the custom, but gave it over to the landlords to be restricted and limited, and at length gradually, but surely, extinguished altogether. Now, the Devon Commissioners had so many subjects to report upon, that this matter of tenant right does not fill the twentieth part of their Report. They took a great deal of evidence on the subject which would be available and exceedingly useful to the proposed Com- mittee. But after dealing with it on the slip-shod and unsatisfactory manner to which he had adverted, he thought their own Report demonstrated that the subject required more thought and investigation than they had deemed it worth while to bestow. The Committee, if granted, might direct their attention to the extent of the area in which the custom prevailed, the average value of the interest which the tenants held under the custom, and the land subject to it, to the desirability of recognising the rights of the tenants, and to the manner in which those rights could be secured. He appealed to the justice of that House on behalf of a suffering and unprotected class, to secure them the fruits of their own industry; on behalf of the country at large, to permit the full development of its industrial resources and its material wealth; on behalf of the working classes to provide an abundant and profitable home market for their labour. That House was then showing a praiseworthy anxiety to better the condition and protect the interests of the Hindoo Ryot in its eastern empire; it had proved its care for the safety and protection of the Chinese Cooly when carried off from his native home. Above all, it had followed, with compassionate regard, the unfortunate negro doomed to a life of slavery, and had sacrificed the enormous suns of £20,000,000 sterling to emancipate the slaves in our own West Indian Colonies. He contended that those who were robbed of the fair and natural fruit of their labours were, to that extent, as truly slaves as the West Indian negroes. It was only a question of degree. He appealed to the well-known generosity of that House to consider the grievances of his fellow-countrymen, and redress their wrongs. He only sought for a Committee to inquire, consider, and report. The House would not be pledged to his views, nor even to those of the proposed Committee by adopting his Motion. The tenant farmers were naturally anxious about their position. He had presented many petitions on the subject. It was gradually becoming better understood in this country, and must soon be dealt with as justice required. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the nature, origin, and extent of the Tenant Right Custom in Ireland, the alleged recent violations of it in various northern counties, and to consider and report how far it may be practicable to protect, for the benefit of the occupying tenants, the property which has been created under that Custom."

said, he should not follow the hon. Gentleman over the wide field which he had travelled with reference to the tenure of land in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman asked for a Committee to inquire into the system of tenant right as it existed in the north of Ireland. No doubt that was a question of importance; but there existed in the library of the House ample information on the subject. In the library there were four ponderous volumes the result of the labours of the Devon Commission. That Commission, formed of able and experienced men, had examined landlords, tenants, labourers, and individuals of every class, and had obtained the fullest information from that evidence. The hon. Gentleman, or any other Member who wished for information on this subject, would find every particular stated at full length in those volumes. The tenant right of the north of Ireland differed in this essential particular from any tenant right in England—namely, that it was not limited to claims for unexhausted improvements made at the expense of the tenant, but included payments by the incoming to the outgoing tenant for the goodwill or occupancy of the farm. Much might be said both for and against the custom. It often secured the landlord against arrears of rent, and it also secured the tenant compensation for improvements; but it also often acted prejudicially, for tenants often expended all their capital in buying up the tenant right before they entered on the occupancy, and then they were crippled in their future operations. At the same time it was a right which was so vaguely defined, and a matter so purely of personal arrangement, between the landlord and the outgoing and the incoming tenants, that it would be impracticable to deal with it by legislation. In the Province of Ulster the custom had grown up naturally and was likely to remain in its present form, for he had heard of no attempts on the part of the landlords and tenants in the north of Ireland to shake the custom. The hon. Gentleman had mentioned one or two instances, but he admitted that there was no general inclination to depart from it. What he (Lord Nass) wished to show, however, was, that as the custom existed, it was beyond the power of Parliament to deal with it in any respect. Tenant right varied in different localities. It varied in value from £5 to £20 an acre. Different sums were given for almost the same thing. The value differed whether a lease was given or not, and according to the character of the landlord. It varied with the price of agricultural produce, with the demand for laud, with the amount of population, with the locality, and with the state of the farm when the change occurred. It was impossible for the ingenuity of man to draw up an Act of Parliament to regulate a custom of so variable and changeable a character. Much valuable information could be obtained from the result of the labours of the Committee of inquiry into English tenant right which was presided over by Mr. Pusey. The opinion to which that Committee came was, that it was not possible to legislate satisfactorily for tenant right in England, and how much more difficult would it be to legislate for tenant right in Ireland, which comprised many more considerations in the calculation of its value than it did in England. He did not think that any practical end would be gained by granting a Committee. The information before the House was full and ample; legislation was not only impracticable, but might be most mischievous; for any attempt to legislate would tend to lower the value of tenant right as it existed in Ireland. He should therefore oppose the Motion.

said, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Greer) having referred by name to two landlords in that county who were friends of his, he wished to say a few words. He objected strongly to the practice of introducing the names of persons in that House who were not present to answer for themselves. In no county was tenant right more established than in the county of Derry, and yet there were some landlords who had no tenant right on their estates. Unsuccessful attempts had been made by Governments of different politics, to legislate on the question, and the opinion of most men who had studied it was, that in attempting to deal with tenant right, they would damage the interests of tenants. For while the landlords were now content to let things remain as they were, if they came to legislate, the landlords, especially in an English House of Commons, would recover many rights which they did not now possess. It was not worth while to discuss this subject then, when there was an adjourned debate in the question now before the House; and he thought it would be better to proceed at once to a division, and negative he Motion.

said, he would appeal to his hon. Friend whether it was worth while to press his Motion. He (Mr. Fortescue) had a strong feeling in favour of the tenant right of Ulster. There might be objections to it, but he believed it to have been one main cause of the great prosperity of the north of Ireland. It had been a check on the evil of extravagant competition for land in Ireland. But in the interests of Ulster itself, he objected to the inquiry sought. Tenant right was so various, it was almost impossible to embody it in any scheme of legislation. The probable result of the Committee of Inquiry, if it was obtained, would be that it would come to the same conclusion as that which inquired into tenant right in England—namely, that legislation was impossible.

said, he also would advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion, because at present tenant right, as it existed in the north of Ireland, was accepted, and it was not desirable to weaken the efforts of the advocates for a general tenant right by bringing forward isolated cases like the one then before the House.

said, although the feeling of the House appeared to be against him, he should not withdraw his Motion. There was a strong desire in Ireland for an inquiry, and he had presented petitions in favour of it. The Devon Commission did not touch on many of the points on which inquiry was wished, and further investigation was necessary to enable the House to legislate on the subject.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to assimilate the county franchise of Scotland with that of England. In seeking to carry that object into effect, he did not wish to create a new franchise, but simply to extend to the former country those electoral rights and privileges which had been enjoyed by the latter ever since the passing of the Reform Bill. A brief statement would serve to show the difference between the two countries in respect of the franchise. He found by certain returns which had been recently laid upon the Table of the House that while in Scotland not more than every thirty-four, in England every twenty persons were in some degree poli- tically represented; and that while in the case of the county electors of England four-fifths were freeholders and only one-fifth occupying tenants, in the counties in Scotland two-fifths were owners and three-fifths occupying tenants. The result of this was, that a majority of the electors in Scotland being the occupiers of other men's property, were a much less independent class than in England. The difference in the classification of electors in the two countries was due to the fact that while in England every proprietor of 40s. of free income in land enjoyed the franchise —a privilege which might be purchased by an outlay of £40 or £50, in Scotland an expenditure of five times that amount would be required in order to secure a similar privilege. Again, another source of difference between the two countries arose from the fact, that in England a freehold in a borough which did not give a vote for the borough gave one for the county; but in Scotland the soil of the borough was excluded from the county. The result of this was that the great commercial cities in Scotland possessed no influence in the county elections, and as there were thirty county as opposed to twenty-three borough Members, the Government of Scotland was practically in the hands of the aristocracy, while the whole artisan and peasant population of Scotland were disfranchised. At the passing of the Reform Bill, in 1831, a distinction was made in the two countries in this respect; the 40s. freeholders were continued in England, as were the old freehold superiorities which had existed in Scotland from the time of Charles the II.; but the practical distinction between the two classes was, that England enjoyed the advantage of a 40s. franchise at the present value of money, whereas in Scotland a 40s. freehold was the representative of the value of 400 years ago. From this it resulted that the constituencies in Scotch counties were narrowed to the landlords and their farm tenants. The question was seldom put to the different constituencies as to what candidate they would support; but a few landlords selected the candidate, and it was felt and known as a matter of fact, or rule, that the occupying tenants were never referred to for their opinion. He did not complain of hon. Gentlemen on one side of the House more than on the other, for it was notorious that this was the regular rule followed by both parties—Liberals as well as Conservatives. The occupying tenants were expected by all to follow the wishes of their landlords. The truth was the county franchise in Scotland had not really been changed by the Reform Bill, and the system was practically still to allow ten or twenty landlords to return the county Member. That this was so, was proved by the fact that although out of the 50,000 county electors in Scotland 30,000 were tenant farmers, and although that class were remarkable for their intelligence, and had engaged a capital of no less than 50 millions on the agriculture of the country, they had never shown their independence by sending to this House a single Member of their own class. Now, he was ready to admit that the present county representatives of Scotland were most respectable men, so are the Lords Lieutenant chosen by the Crown, but that, he contended, was no good reason why the body of the people should not have a voice in choosing their representatives. The Bill which he proposed to introduce, with the view conferring upon them that privilege, involved no novel principle; and he might add that he had in favour of that principle the authority of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, who in the discussion upon the introduction of the Reform Bill of 1832, had expressed it to be his opinion that no alteration should be made in respect of the 40s, freeholders in counties, who constituted a class well calculated to exercise with advantage the electoral franchise, and took care to protect that franchise in the English Bill—it was only because the Scotch Reform Bill was unfortunately less under the attention of that noble Lord that the same principle was not then carried out for Scotland. It might he said that a reduced qualification would lead to a manufacture of fictitious votes; but the answer to that was, that it was as easy to fabricate fictitious £10 votes as 40s. votes. The class of persons who under a 40s. franchise would be entitled to vote for the election of county Members in Scotland would well bear a comparison with the Same class in England. Owing to the absence of small dwellings he found it stated in an agricultural work that the populations of each of 479 Of the 981 Scotch rural parishes had diminished within the present century. The evils which had arisen front the disinclination of landlords to encourage a cottage population upon their estates were so great As to amount to a positive blot upon the agricultural system of Scotland. There was an almost universal preference given to unmarried men as agricultural labourers, owing to the comparative cheapness with which lodgings could be provided for them, This had led to the erection of "bothies" as they were termed, and tile working of tint system had been shown in cases which had recently come before the Scotch law courts, which exhibited a state of things much to be deplored by every Scotchman, In 1857, in Forfarshire, a farm servant wee prosecuted for deserting Ids service, and the defence he set up was that the "bothie," which was allotted for his dwelling was in ranch a such as to render it impossible for him to remain. The magistrate deputed two medical men to visit the "bothie," and they described it as a circular house apart from the other farm buildings, with a puddle of stagnant water in front of the entrance. The diameter was 13 feet, and the unplastered walls were six feet in height. The floor was mud continually damp. The sleeping apartment for the men was above the stables, and was only 5 feet 9 inches in height. The room was 16 feet in length and 6 feet 9 inches in breadth, exclusive of the space occupied by the bedsteads, which were five in number, although only three were in use, being the sleeping accommodation for six men. The medical men added that the whole arrangements were such as must tend to injure the health of the men. Instances such as these exhibited a deplorable state of things, which the assimilation of the Scottish county franchise to that of England would be useful to correct, as it would encourage the labouring population to erect dwellings for themselves—the next great distinction between the Scottish and English systems was that in England property situated in boroughs is capable of conferring a right to vote for the county. There was no such right in Scotland, and when he mentioned that one-fifth of the whole county constituencies of England voted in respect of property situated in boroughs, it would be seen how the absence of that right must limit the franchise in Scotland. Upon taking two Scotch counties and comparing them with one English county of nearly similar extent, and possessing nearly similar resources, the inequality was apparent. In Ayreshire and Lanarkshire the population was 310,000, and the number of electors 7,100. In north and South Staffordshire there was a population of 345,000, and the number of electors 20,738. In the English county there were 13,000 more electors than in the two Scotch counties, the population and annual value of the property being nearly the same in each—At the passing of the Reform Bill grave apprehensions were entertained with regard to the right to be given to boroughs to vote in adjoining counties, and one influential Member (Sir Edward Sugden) said, that the effect of giving freeholders and copyholders in towns the right of voting for counties would be that such towns as Birmingham would invariably carry the county election, and that the county Members would be the representatives of the political unions of Birmingham. Now, after twenty-five years experience, who were the Members for North Warwickshire?—Two hon. Gentlemen who were not at all likely to endeavour to subvert the constitution of the country, or to injure its Protestant establishments—there was another point of some importance, not only with regard to the extension of this principle to Scotland, but also with regard to the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting the larger number of county voters as compared with the number of borough voters. According to the census it appeared that a gradual change was taking, place in the occupation of the people of this country. Every census since that of 1811 had shown a gradual decrease of the agricultural population as compared with other classes of the population. In 1811 the agricultural population was 35 per cent; in 1821 it was 33 per cent; in 1831 it was 28 per cent; in 1841, 22 per cent.; and in 1851 only 16 per cent. of the adult population. A fact of great gravity and well deserving the attention of Statesmen both in its causes and its consequences. The Census Commissioners said the union between town and country had become more intimate by trading and other associations than at any previous time. That seemed to him a strong ground for continuing the system which prevailed in England of drawing no marked distinction between the dwellers in the towns and the dwellers in the country. The town and country populations in Scotland were in exactly the same proportion as in England, and if that was a good reason why a mixed franchise should continue in England it was also a good reason why it should be promoted and extended in Scotland. He did not dis- guise from himself the great addition which the extension of the principle that now prevailed in England would give to the county constituencies of Scotland. It might perhaps double the constituencies in the neighbourhoods of the large towns in Scotland—that was his great argument in its favour. Bethought it would be a great advantage that so large a mass of respect, able and intelligent people should no longer be deprived of privileges which were enjoyed on this side of the Tweed. In a moral point of view also, the advantage of giving to the Scotch people an interest in the acquirement of small landed properties was very great. That system in England had been found to conduce to prudence, sobriety, and economy, and he was informed that investments in property of this kind took place in Birmingham alone to the extent of £100,000 annually. He expected that technical objections might be raised to the proposition he was then submitting to the House. It would be said, probably, that they had no similar tenure in Scotland to an English 40s. freehold. But there could be no doubt that they had the fact of property in Scotland as well as in England, though the tenure might be known under another name. The Scotch feu in its character of perpetuity was equal to the English freehold, and he did not ask the right for leaseholders any more than it was asked for them in England. He asked only for substantially a similar right to that which England already possessed; and if the want of similarity of tenure were a good reason for withholding the franchise, the same principle would disfranchise the whole property of Scotland. Having sketched the objects of his Bill, he might now refer to an event in very recent times, to show the want of sympathy between the people of Scotland and the county Members. He alluded to the disruption in the Church of Scotland in 1843, when one morning 450 ministers of that Church left their manses and glebes, and relinquished stipends amounting in the aggregate to £110,000 a year, inflicting a blow on the Establishment of that country from which it could never recover. Such a circumstance could never have happened if the House of Commons had been kept in intimate knowledge and relationship with the people of Scotland through its county representatives. He appealed to the English Members to support the Motion he was about to propose. He was asking this concession for men who paid the same taxes as the people of England, and who were ready on all occasions to put their shoulders to the wheel in any exigency of their common country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford made an eloquent appeal to the House the other night on behalf of the Dacian peasants on the banks of the Danube. He (Mr. Caird) asked for a re, cognition of the rights of 2,000,00 of his countrymen north of the Tweed. Addressing himself to Scotch Members, he would ask—could they refuse to recognize in their own countrymen those qualities of prudence and that degree of education which certainly they would never say were inferior to those possessed by the same classes who enjoyed the franchise in England? He would ask them to consider how many of the country population were at this moment unenfranchised; how many men of worth in that class from which James Watt and Burns, the poet, sprang? The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to assimilate the county franchise of Scotland with that of England.

said that, although he had not had the honour to present any petition in favour of this Bill, and had had no communication with his constituents upon it, he had no hesitation in seconding the Motion of his hon. Friend; and he hoped he might appeal with success to English Members to extend to their Scotch brethren the same franchise which they enjoyed themselves. He did not approve of all that had been said by those who advocated this measure, for he was ready to admit that some of the friends of the movement had acted not very judiciously. In saying this he did not allude to Dr. Begg, the originator of the movement, who, although some of his language could not be justified, had by his acts shown an earnest desire and perseverance in improving the condition of the labouring classes. But he referred to a certain number of individuals in the city which he had the honour to represent, who had been aiding in carrying on the agitation for the movement which had resulted in this Bill. Those persons who were seeking to make political capital out of the question, were in the habit of making attacks on the Scotch Members, and had accused him and some of his friends of being tied neck-and-heel to the late Lord Advocate. They had represented them as being unfriendly to this movement; and they had made statements which were utterly false; but he would treat them with that contempt which they deserved. There were only two objections urged to this Bill. One was, that the effect of it would be to swamp the counties. He had no wish to swamp the counties, and certainly the 40s. franchise had not had that effect in England. Another objection was, that it was likely to lead to the manufacture of fictitious votes. That was a matter which would require the consideration of the House. At the time of the anti-corn law agitation, he purchased a 40s. freehold in Carlisle, in order to give him a vote for East Cumberland. It was not a very profitable investment. Some time afterwards he saw his name amongst others as that of a fagot voter, and he felt somewhat ashamed of it. He did not think that the obtaining a vote under those circumstances was justifiable, for he had no connection with the county of Cumberland. He regarded with lively satisfaction the great improvement which had taken place in the condition and conduct of the lower classes. He remembered when the Luddites Were banded together to destroy machinery. There was no such feeling now, and he thought the loyalty and good conduct of the people showed that they were well deserving of the franchise. It was his opinion, however, that this extension of the county franchise should be accompanied with measures for simplifying and cheapening the transfer of land, and relaxing still more the system of entail in Scotland. He trusted the Bill of his hon. Friend would receive the support of the accommodating Government that now occupied the Treasury bench.

said, he was anxious to state the grounds why he thought that the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Dartmouth, as far as he could comprehend it, ought not to be adopted by the House. If the Resolution originally placed on the paper had remained there, he should have had no difficulty in giving it a decided negative; but his hon. Friend had, at the last hour, altered his plan, and his Motion now took the ambiguous shape of a proposal to assimilate the county franchise of Scotland with that of England. But even after listening to the speech of his hon. Friend, he still felt some curiosity to know in what way this assimilation was to be accomplished by the Bill of his hon. Friend, whose speech savoured more of agricultural statistics than of electoral law or questions relating to the franchise. As far as he could understand it, his object appeared to be to introduce into Scotland the 40s. freehold franchise with all its incidents, characteristics, and defects. Now, in the first place, that was impossible, and any equivalent for that franchise would not deserve the name of a reform. Let him explain the difference between the tenure of land in the two countries. The freehold tenure in both countries was originally the same. The freeholder was a vassal of the Crown, bound to give attendance on his Lord, and bound, therefore, to give his attendance in Parliament. Before the reign of Edward I. the superior vassal was entitled to give all his property to sub-holders, and that was the law in Scotland to this day; but these sub-vassals never were freeholders. In Edward I.'s reign a statute was passed, which enabled the superior vassals in England to alienate the fee, and in that way the small freeholders became a large body. The franchise, however, by a statute of Henry VII. was limited to freeholders, whose holding was of the annual value of 40s. The great mass of property in Scotland was held by the sub-feuars, and the consequence was, that it was impossible to introduce the 40s. franchise in Scotland, It was a great mistake to suppose that the Reform Bill created the 40s. franchise in England. The Reform Bill found this franchise in existence, and left it as it found it. The Reform Bill created a £10 copyhold and a leasehold franchise for England and for Scotland, and it was a mistake to suppose that the two countries were dealt with differently in that respect. In the days of rotten boroughs, the spark of liberty in England was formerly kept alive by the 40s. franchise, and as it was a relic of ancient times and had done good service in its day, Parliament preserved it intact. Scotland, moreover, did not possess the freehold tenure which would give this franchise. To whom, then, did his hon. Friend propose to give it? From the proposed Bill, it was impossible to say who were to be enfranchised. Did the hon. Gentleman mean to enfranchise leaseholders or life-renters, or those who held burgage in the boroughs? The House had not been told; but, if they were not to be enfranchised, he should like to have the hon. Member's reason why any species of property was to be excepted. He had some curiosity to discover who the people were who would be benefited by this mea- sure. It had been said that the whole artisans of Scotland were unrepresented, but one little fact which his hon. Friend had not mentioned was, that the majority of the county Members of England sat upon the Ministerial side of the House, and the majority of the Scotch county Members upon the Opposition benches. Having heard that the rights of Scotland were trampled under foot in that House, he tried to discover who those were who were so injured and oppressed. The result of his inquiries convinced him that there was no great class of the community who would be reached by this franchise, and that the enfranchisement of the 40s. proprietors in Scotch counties would give a body who were not greatly to be wished for on one hand or trembled at on the other. He had made an analysis of the county of Edinburgh, and he found that there were 4,520 tenements of between £2 and £10 value. It would be, however, a great mistake to suppose that these tenements represented the same number of possible constituents. After deducting the number of those persons who were on, or entitled to be on, the electoral roll, there remained only 290 tenements which were capable of giving the franchise, and from this number must be again deducted the tenements of those who were in their minority or absent from the country. So that in the large metropolitan county of Edinburgh the 40s. franchise would carry with it comparatively no extension of the suffrage at all. But his hon. Friend said he was going to introduce a borough vote. Now, four or five of the smaller boroughs of Scotland were grouped to elect Members, which was not the case in England. But the material distinction was that, while in England the owner of property must reside within a boroughs to have a vote, in Scotland he had a vote if he resided within seven miles. The result was, that in Scotland there was a large ownership franchise enjoyed by those who did not reside within the boroughs. In the boroughs of Scotland there were no small tenements, or, at all events, a very inconsiderable number capable of giving this franchise. In the city of Edinburgh there were £1,500 tenements valued at £2 and less, and they belonged to twenty-nine individuals. In Leith there were 355, and the number of fortunate proprietors was two. Between £2 and £12 in value the number of tenements in the city of Edinburgh was 22,000, and the number of proprietors 1,000, the great mass being the property of persons already possessing the franchise. The owners of tenements above £12 in value would really be the persons who would be enfranchised. The number of such tenements in Edinburgh was 13,000, belonging to 7,000 persons; and if the law of England were introduced, the result would be to import from the town constituency into the county constituency of Edinburgh 4,000 voters, or four times as many as the existing county constituency. [Hear, hear!] Hon. Gentlemen cheered that statement, but he did not think that such a result would be advantageous. The interest connected with the counties was different from that of the towns, and he thought the measure would be undesirable even if it merely rested upon the fact that such an extension of the franchise would upset the electoral balance, and make it a mere money question, in which the largest purse would insure the creation of the greatest number of votes. A contest would immediately spring up between county and borough. The agricultural interest would not submit quietly to he overridden by votes imported in that way from the towns. As had always been the case, they would eventually succeed in the struggle; the purity of the franchise would not only be endangered but destroyed, and, instead of liberal opinions being promoted, a feeling opposed to them would probably be engendered. The £10 franchise in Scotland had been the cause of fictitious votes to an extent which would now sound incredible; but those votes were now dying out, principally because £10 was rather a high figure. He could scarcely conceive the possibility of such a crude, ill-digested measure passing; but if it were to become law, the system of creating votes—he would not call them fictitious votes—would instantly commence, and he believed no greater calamity could fall upon the system of representation in Scotland. His hon. Friend seemed to think-that this franchise would encourage the working classes to invest in £2 purchases, but it was impossible to suppose that the artisans alone would purchase houses of £2 value, and he did not hesitate to say that acquiring votes in that way, whether by societies or individuals, was not in the true spirit of representative government. The franchise was given to persons because they had an interest in the locality in which they voted, and people who lived in London or elsewhere had no right to go to Edinburgh, and, simply because they had £40 or £50, seek to stifle the independent voices of those who had a real interest in the locality. If the hon. Gentleman really wanted to increase the popular element in the constituencies, he recommended him to turn from a property franchise to an occupation franchise, whereby he would be sure that the right man obtained the privilege. Although he should like to see this Bill, if a division took place he must vote against leave being given for its introduction.

said, he thought that the number of public meetings which had been held of late in various parts of Scotland, and the number of petitions which had been sent to that House on the subject, indicated an amount of dissatisfaction with the county franchise on the part of the people of Scotland, which did call upon the House to take the matter into their serious consideration. At the same time he was not sure that the hon. Member (Mr. Caird) had hit the real grievance. It struck him (Mr. Baxter) that the real grievance of the people of Scotland was, that the Members for boroughs were not so numerous as in either England or Ireland. The English borough Members represented an average population of 29,000 persons, but those of Scotland represented 44,000. Again, to bring up the proportion of county voters, to those of England, Scotland ought to have 83,000 county electors instead of 40,000, and he believed that the people of Scotland attributed this fact to the absence of the 40s. franchise. The complaints heard from all parts of Scotland were worthy the attention of the House; but though the representation for Scotch counties did require alteration they could not shut their eyes to the fact that the question had not yet been sufficiently matured. In the present state of feeling in that country, the hon. Member for Dartmouth could not expect to pass his Bill through the House, and he would suggest to him the propriety of withdrawing the Bill and moving the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the whole subject.

said, that he was not unwilling to see an extension of the county franchise in Scotland, for he considered that such a measure might be carried into effect with safety to the Conservative interests in those counties. He could not support this measure, however, because he thought it would have a direct tendency to encourage the creation of fic- titious votes. During the debate upon the disfranchisement of the Irish 40s. freeholders, a friend of his, Mr. Brownlow, stated that an Irish gentleman, who, like all Irish gentlemen, possessed every virtue except that of residing in his own country, was required by the Government to discharge the duty of high sheriff of the county in which his property was situated. He endeavoured to evade the appointment, but without success; whereupon he exclaimed, "By heavens, if I am obliged by the Government to go to Ireland, I'll become a Member of Parliament to vex them, and I'll make them regret it to the last day of their lives!" He divided his estate into 2,600 divisions, upon each of which a man could only live in a state of beggary, and came to Parliament without asking a vote from a single independent elector in the county. During the same debate the late Lord Dunfermline, who was universally respected as a lawyer of sound constitutional views, and a most liberal man, and whom every hon. Member of that House must regret, said that the 40s. franchise was a system which must ruin the independence of general elections, and would ultimately exclude persons of the middle classes from all real share in them. He believed that a similar result would follow the introduction of that system into Scotland. The hon. Member for Dartmouth (Mr. Caird) had pointed to the fact that such men as the poets Hogg and Burns did not enjoy the franchise; but he would remind him that that privilege had been possessed by another poet, who wrote a song about a certain celebrated freebooter, recommending the good man to "Steek the awm'ry and lock the kist," because "DonaldCaird's oot agen." He did not know whether Sir Walter Scott had the hon. Gentleman in his mind when he wrote that song; but he thought that he must have had some vision of his endeavouring first to force the Scotch system of agricultural statistics down the throats of the English, and then to extend the English franchise to Scotland.

said, he wished to clear away a little of the legal mystification which the right hon. and learned Member for Leith (Mr. Moncreiff) had thrown over the question. The learned Gentleman had talked about the Statute of Quia emptores; but he might just as well have talked about the Statute of Limitations, or the Statute of Frauds; for it had really nothing whatever to do with the question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said there were no freeholds in Scotland; and in a technical sense that might be true. The old Scotch franchise depended upon tenure. Those who held in capite of the Crown, the greater and the lesser barons, sat together in one chamber; and there could be no doubt that the process of sub-infeudation had had a tendency to diminish that franchise. Practically speaking, however, the freehold franchise in Scotland was a question not of interest but of tenure, and there could be nothing unreasonable in recognizing that distinction in their legislation. The hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the Bill would give the franchise in Scotland to persons who had the same real interest in the land which was possessed by voters in this country, and it appeared to him (Mr. Bowyer) that that was a perfectly fair proposal.

observed that there was something ambiguous in the expression of a 40s. freehold in Scotland; and it would be more honest to describe the Bill as an attempt to reduce the existing £10 franchise to one of £2. Looking at the practical difficulty of carrying out any reform now-a-days, when that House, apathetic as it was, was nevertheless in advance of the country on this subject, he thought it would be deceiving the people to say that there was the slightest chance of passing a Bill like the present. While opposed to reducing the franchise in Scotland all at once from £10 to £2, he yet believed that the possession of a moderate amount of property would insure a very good county constituency in the country. He was not afraid of the danger of the manufacture of fictitious votes, thinking, if that House were in earnest, and insisted on the conditions of occupancy and residence, that that evil would be prevented. Arguing this question as a borough representative, he asked, was the borough franchise in Scotland to be made the same as in England, for the principle of assimilation went that length? Though as strongly opposed as any one to a £2 franchise, yet as there was a very respectable body in Scotland set in motion by a rev. gentleman who had been alluded to, who were in favour of what was ambiguously called the 40s. franchise, he regretted that the right hon. and learned Member for Leith (Mr. Moncreiff) had thought it necessary to oppose the introduction of this measure. It would be only courteous to its advocates to allow them to "table" their proposition. He was prepared to support an extension of the county franchise, and if the Bill were brought in it would be perfectly open to him or any other hon. Member to fix that franchise at any other limit than the one now proposed.

said, he would hardly have deemed it necessary to trouble the House at that stage of the debate with any observations, had it not been for what had fallen from the hon. Member who spoke last, and also from the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter). Both of those hon. Gentlemen were opposed to the principle of the Bill as it had been explained by its author, and yet they desired that leave should be given to introduce the measure. It was not easy to understand the reason for that apparently inconsistent conduct, and some very excellent reasons might be assigned why the House should not adopt the course recommended by those hon. Gentlemen. This Bill was the result of an entire misconception existing in the minds of certain persons in Scotland; and while the present discussion might be instrumental in removing that misconception, on the other hand the consent of the House to the introduction of the measure would have the effect of increasing and perpetuating it. The delusion under which the persons who had promoted this movement seemed to labour was, in supposing that it was possible to accomplish what might properly be called an assimilation between the franchise of England and of Scotland. The right hon. and learned Member for Leith (Mr. Moncreiff) had demonstrated that this was an impossibility, and his argument was nut founded on technicalities, but on substance. He (the Lord Advocate) agreed with the hon. and learned Member, for two very plain reasons. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) had said the difference of the freehold franchise in the two countries was this—that in Scotland it depended on tenure, but in England on interest in the land. The hon. Gentleman would have been much nearer the truth if he had reversed that proposition, because the freehold franchise in Scotland depended almost entirely on interest, and not upon the mere technical character of the right; whereas in England the freehold franchise depended so entirely on tenure that, without it, it could not exist. He thought the Reform Act did fair justice to Scotland at the time in the matter of the franchise, and assimilated Scotland to England in that matter, so far as it was possible. That Act introduced the £10 franchise into England, giving votes to all proprietors of land to that amount, including freeholders, leaseholders, and copyholders. The same franchise was given to Scotland, and included freeholders, feuars, and long leaseholders to that amount. So far there was a similarity. But in England there was a franchise which the Act did not create, a franchise unknown to Scotland—namely, a freehold tenure to the extent of a forty shilling income. No such franchise existed in Scotland, and the Act could not have created such a franchise there, for the attempt would have resulted in something very different in character and interest; and he was quite certain that, if no such franchise had existed in England, that Act would never have created it. It was entirely unknown in Scotland, and to attempt now to extend this old franchise over a new field of representation was certainly a strange application of the principle of equality. But the difficulty did not end there. The hon. Member for Dartmouth (Mr. Caird) said that four-fifths of the voters in the English counties were freeholders, and one-fifth occupying tenants. By freeholders the hon. Gentleman must have meant freeholders, copyholders, and leaseholders; and consequently that his proposal, so far as it was applicable to Scotland, must include freeholders, feuars, and long leaseholders, and that these should be entitled to the franchise, if their holdings were of the yearly value of 40s. Was that a similarity? Was it not a great dissimilarity? Was it not introducing into Scotland, for the first time, a franchise which was not to be found either in England or Ireland? Yet the Bill was entitled "A Bill to assimilate the County Franchise of Scotland to that of England," so that in terms the Bill was a contradiction to its title. The hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr.Ellis) described it truly as a modification of the franchise from £l0 to £2, and like that hon. Member he (the Lord Advocate) was opposed to such a proposition. The Bill would lead to the creation of votes, he did not say fictitious votes, but of real votes. The voter under this Bill would undoubtedly be the real proprietor. It would lead to the creation of estates in order to give votes, and the effect of that would be, as had been described by the hon. and learned Member for Leith, that the person with the longest purse would be at the top of the poll. He need not point out the power which would be vested in a few individuals to create the franchise for the boroughs; for, by spending a small sum of money in conveyancing, a man would be able to overpower the legitimate voters.

said, he was in a great measure indebted to the people of Glasgow for the honour of a seat in that House as the representative of Lanarkshire, and he could not, therefore, be suspected of entertaining against them any unfair bias. But he did not wish to see the franchise in the Scotch counties so altered that the inhabitants of the great towns would completely swamp the agricultural constituencies. That, however, would, in his opinion, be the result of the Bill, and thus the present distribution of power, between the two great interests of the country, which operated, as he believed, for their mutual benefit, would be overturned. Besides, he did not think there was, after all, much practical difference between the elective privileges of Englishmen and Scotchmen. A person who had a small property might make a very good voter; but if he had to borrow money to acquire the right he was more dependent than one without property at all. On the other hand, he did not think that the introduction of the Bill could be opposed by those hon. Gentlemen who were desirous of seeing the franchise reduced below the existing limits, and he should therefore support the Motion, reserving to himself the right of proposing any alteration which he might think desirable as to the limit to which the franchise should be restricted.

said, he should vote in favour of the Bill in the event of a division, as he thought an opportunity should be given for discussing the principle of the Bill. This was a step towards a reform of the electoral franchise. The people of Scotland felt it a grievance that they had not the same electoral rights as the people of England. It was said there was no freeholders in Scotland—they were all feuars. But every one knew that in England wealthy men on both sides of politics were purchasing estates, and partitioning them out to create votes; and why should not they do the same in Scotland?

said, that he was obliged to defer to the opinion which had been expressed by the two learned Lords who had addressed the House as to the details of the proposed Bill, but at the same time it was clear that the great majority of the Scotch Members were of opinion that some change should be made in the existing system, and therefore he felt bound to support the hon. Member without saying whether the present time was the best for the purpose, or whether the Bill was the most fitting mode of carrying out the proposed object. In his view it was a proposal to extend the franchise, and that was a step in the right direction, and he did not see why 40s. freeholders in Scotland should not be placed upon the same footing as regarded the franchise as those in England. The people of Scotland were as good and loyal subjects as those of any other part of the empire; and if the Scotch Members were of opinion that an extension of the franchise was required, he thought it was the duty of the English Members to support the Bill.

said, that the hon. Member opposite appeared to think that because the 40s. freehold existed in England the people of Scotland ought to possess the same. If that principle were to be admitted they should go further, and extend it to Ireland [Hear, hear!] That observation seemed to meet with a response from some hon. Members. Now he did not know whether those hon. Gentlemen recollected the history of the 40s. franchise in Ireland. It by no means followed that because a certain system answered in England it would answer equally well in Scotland and Ireland. There was a fallacy in such an argument. When the question of Catholic Emancipation was being carried great discussions arose in that House as to the 40s. franchise then existing in Ireland, What was the effect of such a franchise? He (the Attorney General) had seen an election in the sister country carried by the 40s. freeholders, who were a shoeless, shirtless, unfortunate class of men, who were first made use of by their landlords for their own individual purposes, and next by the priests of the country. Those 40s. freeholders represented neither the intelligence, the industry, nor the independence of the country. After they had been used for the worst political purposes, what happened? Why, Parliament destroyed them at once in their thousands; and in the Emancipation Bill it was provided that that franchise should be abolished, in order to create a counterpoise to the political influence that was then granted. And now hon. Members opposite set themselves up as the advocates of a 40s. franchise in Scotland; and as champions of equal rights, they would of course have the principle extended to Ireland. But the hon. Members for Ireland had asked for no such thing. Now, of all the blunders ever committed by a legislative assembly, the vote of the Irish Parliament creating the 40s. franchise was one of the greatest. Why, it covered the country with paupers, and created numberless small farmers, which it was the general policy of late years to annihilate. He humbly submitted that the proposition to create a 40s. franchise in Scotland was impolitic, unwise, and injudicious. Did those hon. Gentlemen opposite imagine that a class of 40s. freeholders in Scotland or Ireland could form an independent body of men, qualified to return representatives to Parliament? Then if they said so they ought to go a little further, and establish at once the principle of universal suffrage. Their experience of the results of universal suffrage in neighbouring countries ought to be sufficient to warn them from advocating the adoption of any such system in this kingdom. He, therefore, thought that the attempt to re-open the question now was a movement in the wrong direction, and he would consequently vote with his right hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Moncrieff.)

remarked that he did not believe that Scotch proprietors would, if this Bill were passed, subdivide their estates in the manner apprehended by the Attorney General for Ireland, to create fictitious votes.

said, that the fact of this measure being proposed by a Member for an English borough was primâ facie evidence that there was no great demand for the change in Scotland. This was confirmed by the observations which had fallen from the Scotch Members which, in his opinion, showed that the feeling in Scotland was rather adverse than in favour of the Bill. A party had, however, taken up the question, and tried to urge it at the last election. He was asked at the hustings whether he would support the 40s. freehold franchise. He answered in the negative, and in justification told his hearers what took place in England with a 40s. franchise. But, before creating a freehold franchise, they must first get their freeholders; for there was no such class at present. Still, he would not resist the introduction of the Bill, but would allow the question to be fully discussed, prepared to abandon any erroneous opinion he might have formed. The real way to assimilate the franchise of England and Scotland was to extend the franchise of occupancy; and he should move an Amendment in the Bill to that effect.

said, as the Scotch Members generally spoke against the principle of the Bill he thought it would be absurd to allow the introduction of the measure.

submitted that, inasmuch as every Scotch Member who had taken part in this discussion had argued against the Bill, the House ought not to grant leave for its introduction. The present and the late Lord Advocate had clearly shown that the Bill would prove a delusion and that it could not effect what it professed—namely, assimilate the law of Scotland to that of England on this subject. Why, then, should the House, for mere courtesy's sake, waste its time and the money of the public about it? [Oh!"] The cost of very printing, merely this Bill might not be very much, but the House should remember what a multitude of Bills were introduced and printed in the course of a Session, of the passing of which there was no probability. As the representative of a county constituency he protested against the Bill, because it would swamp the county constituencies.

said, that although he did not approve the Bill, he hoped the House would permit its introduction. Its author said that it would assimilate the franchise of Scotland to that of England, but that would not be a boon, but in some respects a great calamity to Scotland. Still it was desirable that the amount of qualification should be lowered in the Scotch counties; for there was no more desirable franchise than that which rested upon property. If the Bill were allowed to go into Committee some useful Amendments might be introduced; at all events the discussion would he of advantage.

said that, notwithstanding the efforts in Scotland to obtain the assent of the population to the principle of time Bill, only sixteen petitions, with 2,920 signatures, had been presented in its favour up to the 28th ult. The House would stultify itself by admitting a Bill against which almost every Scotch Member had protested. If the feelings of the people of Scotland were to be gathered from their representatives and from the petitions which they had forwarded to Parliament, it was evident that they cared nothing about this Bill, and his own opinion was that, instead of extending the 40s. franchise to Scotland, it would be necessary before long to alter it in England if the practice of parcelling out land for the express purpose of conferring votes continued to be carried out to the extent that had recently prevailed. He regarded this as an attempt to get in the thin end of the wedge, with a view to the adoption of universal suffrage.

, in reply, said that hon. Members representing the counties of Scotland had spoken against this measure, which was, in fact, an appeal from those who were unenfranchised. Last year he presented a petition from Edinburgh, which was signed by 10,000 persons, and between 13,000 and 14,000 other persons had sent petitions in favour of the Bill. The practical question they had to consider was this, that while in England a 40s. freehold gave a man the franchise, in Scotland a freehold must be of the value of £10 per annum, or five times the English amount to give the same right. Now, if the arguments of the hon. Members who opposed the Bill were good for anything, they went this length—that the House ought to pass a measure to disfranchise the 40s. freeholders of England. With respect to the objection that had been taken to the word "assimilate" in his Motion he stated that the definition of that word, according to Johnson, was "to bring to a likeness or resemblance." It clearly expressed, therefore, his object, which was to bring the Scotch county franchise to a resemblance with that of England, his desire being to increase the basis of representation in the county constituencies of Scotland.

said, he rose to move an Address for Copy of the Order in Council of the 6th day of April, 1858, approving certain rules made by the Lords' Committee of Privy Council for the more effectual observance of the convention between Her Majesty and the King of the French concerning the fisheries in the seas between the British islands and France. The object of his Motion was to induce the Government to use its influence with the Government of France to obtain the permission of the latter for English fishermen to dredge in mid channel for oysters in the months of May and June. It was a vulgar error, he said, to suppose that oysters lost their flavour in those months, especially those which were dredged for in deep water.

said, he would consent to the Motion. The draft Order in Council had been prepared in consequence of an attempt on the part of the crews of the fishing boats to conceal their numbers. He could not hold out any hope to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the law would be relaxed so long as the treaty with France was in existence.

said, that as a Member for the town most interested in oysters (Colchester), all the fishermen asked was, that a fish which was very nourishing might be allowed to be caught at the season when it was at the highest possible perfection. He could vouch for the flavour of the deep sea oysters at Midsummer. They spawned two months later than those bred in shallow waters.

said, that inasmuch as the Bill on this subject, introduced by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Trelawny), would come on for discussion next week, it would be impossible, even if leave were given to introduce his (Mr. Lygon's) measure, that it could be printed and circulated in time to progress with the other, and he therefore begged leave to withdraw the notice he had given; at the same time, he would express a hope that some amicable settlement of the question would be come to in the present Session.

complained that by the use of the term "freehold" in the Bill, it would appear that the foreshore to which the measure referred was the freehold of the Crown. If such a principle were sanctioned by Parliament, the whole shore of the kingdom might become vested in the Crown, by which it would be held not as the guardian of public rights, but as private property, to the great detriment of private interests and of the rights of usance possessed by the public. He suggested that these jura regalia ought to be vested in the Crown merely as the guardian of the public rights, and that they should be transferred, not to the Commissioners of Land Revenue, as was proposed, but to the Commissioners of the Admiralty. The Bill also provided that two-thirds of the produce of the sale of any rights of the Crown were to go to the Treasury, and the remaining third to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He considered that this was reserving too great a benefit to the Crown.

said, that the observations which the hon. Gentleman made referred to alterations that could only be introduced in Committee, and not on the second reading of the Bill. He would not, therefore, undertake the discussion at present; he would only say that the object of this Bill was merely to remove some doubts which had arisen in consequence of the wording of an Act formerly passed, which was intended to transfer to the Crown the palatine jurisdiction of the Bishop of Durham. A question had since arisen whether or not the foreshore had also been transferred. A good deal of discussion took place, and it was ultimately decided by agreement that the right should be transferred to the Crown. The object of the Bill was to carry out this agreement; and when it was in Committee he should be ready to answer the observations of the hon. Gentleman.

said, whatever rights were possessed by the public, they were not interfered with by this Bill. The doubt resting on the statute of IV. was very inconvenient in many ways, and it was therefore desirable that the Bill should be passed.