said, he was sorry that the arrangement he formerly suggested had not been acceded to, and that he was obliged to insist on the Motion of which he had given notice, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. He certainly regretted that a matter involving so much detail, and so little general interest, should be forced on the House at large. It was impossible to get Members to take an interest in the discussion, because the questions that arose were such as could only be well considered in a Select Committee. He would refer to some of the general features of the two Bills for the purpose of showing that the details were not likely to receive that attention in a Committee of the Whole House which the Amendments proposed required. There had been for two centuries and a half a system of registration of land rights in Scotland. There were a number of registers for districts—every Royal burgh had its own register; there was one in nearly every county, although in some cases two might be joined together to form a district; but substantially there was a local register. Unfortunately, however, there had been combined with that what was called a general register. That was kept at Edinburgh, and its original was to relieve the proprietors of baronies, which included lands in several counties, from the necessity of registering the sasines in every county in which there were lands forming part of their baronies. The effect of this was, that the registers not being limited to the great baronies, but being free for parties to register, although holding lands only in one county, lands might either be registered separately in the different counties, or in the general register where they were all mixed in one register, without any arrangement whatever; so that it became a very difficult matter indeed to make the searches which were required. Now, although about the beginning of this century certain abridgments or indices were began, so as to admit of searching the registers more conveniently, yet nobody could be sure whether the lands were registered in the local or general register; and, consequently, it was essential, before a man lent money on the security of land, or sold it, to make a double search in the local and general registers. The great amendment which both the Bills on the paper sought to accomplish is to have only one register. The Lord Advocate proposed to effect that by abolishing all the local registers, giving compensation to the parties interested out of the Consolidated Fund, and taking their offices all into Edinburgh, in order to make what is still to be called the General Register. He proposed that all the work should be done in Edinburgh, and in that way to simplify and reduce the searches from two records to one, and to facilitate the making of abridgments and indices by recording the several deeds in county order, just as it is now done in the local registers. The plan of his (Mr. Dunlop's) Bill was to abolish the General Register, which had been the great obstruction all through, and to keep up the local or county registers, which, as a collateral advantage, would obviate the necessity of compensation to the keepers. Instead of the Registrars, as at present, drawing the whole fees paid for registering the deeds, he proposed that the holders should be put on salaries as the Edinburgh Registrars now were, and in that way the expenses would be diminished, as largely at least as by the plan of the Lord Advocate, so as to admit an equal reduction in the amount of fees by both Bills. These were the main features of the two Bills, and it was necessary the House should understand them, as they formed the ground on which he pressed for the reference of both to a Select Committee. And the first ground he took was that they had not sufficient materials for coming to anything like a satisfactory decision on the various details involved in either Bill. The only information they had was the report of two gentlemen—one an Edinburgh solicitor, and the other a Glasgow solicitor—both able men, no doubt, but they had not reported to the House any of the evidence on which their Report was founded. They have given nothing but their report, and, so far, their opinion; but they had not enabled the House to judge how far that opinion was founded on the facts, and whether the facts really bear it out. He considered it essential that they should enter into some inquiry into circumstances that had not been reported on. These gentlemen were required to report only on the state of the county registers and burgh registers, which last were not dealt with in this Bill; but they were not required or allowed to look into or examine the state of the Edinburgh registers at all—the difficulties which exist there at present to get the work required done, and how it would be possible for them to undertake the additional labour it was proposed to throw upon them. That was a point on which some inquiry must be made. They were called upon to transfer to Edinburgh all the county registers in Scotland from the counties, although not a word was said against the manner in which the duty is now discharged. Two things, therefore, had to be considered—how the work was done in the counties, to which no objection had been taken; and, secondly, how it was likely to be done in Edinburgh. Now, as to this last point, they were utterly in the dark. Then as to the Report of the Commissioners, it had been stated publicly, and not denied, that their investigation into the county registers was of a very summary kind; and this is clearly beyond doubt, that they assigned as the main cause of the abridgments and indices not being in a forward state, the delay of sending up the record volumes from the county. Now, it had been conclusively proved by the Return which had been obtained by his hon. Friend the Member for Ayr district (Mr. Craufurd) that this was utterly incorrect—there was not a single county in which the registers were not transmitted to a much later date than the indices had reached. In Edinburgh the abridgments and indices had been very ill-managed and badly done. The system was begun in 1821, and if they had done nothing more than year by year made an index and abridgment of the current work of the year, there would now have been a complete index for forty years; but instead of that, they began twenty-eight years backwards, and they had never been able to overtake the arrears. The accumulation had been going on year by year, until at last, since 1830, they had been obliged to give up altogether the most valuable of all—the index of places. The index of persons was still six, eight, or even ten years in arrear. That is a specimen of the superior excellence of Edinburgh superintendence, which was one of the great charms held out to induce the House to transfer the local registers from the counties to Edinburgh. It would be a proper subject for inquiry by a Select Committee, whether the means for accomplishing the end of perfect registration were more efficient in the counties or at Edinburgh. There was another matter on which they had no information—the convenience or inconvenience of sending all the writs to Edinburgh, and having them registered there or in the counties. All that was stated on that point was, that in many counties the writs were sent to a large extent by post; but, in the larger proportion, they were delivered personally. They had no evidence as to the bearing on local transactions in the county which the sending of the sasines to Edinburgh would have, and they had no evidence as to the convenience or inconvenience of such an arrangement to the persons borrowing or lending money, and selling or buying land. To one class the convenience of having all writs registered in Edinburgh would, no doubt, be very considerable. That was the class of great proprietors who had their agents in Edinburgh, whose deeds were all prepared in Edinburgh, and were thereafter kept in tin boxes at their agents' chambers. But, after all, this class comprised but a small body of men, and the inconvenience which would arise to the great mass of persons who would be compelled to employ a local and an Edinburgh agent, and who desired to keep their deeds in their own custody, far outweighed the interests of the other. That was a point on which they might have evidence given in a Select Committee. Then, as to the delay or rapidity of recording the writs at Edinburgh, it was shown by a Return that the number of writs in the registry of the Lothians which were unengrossed on the 1st June in each year was from 600 to 700. In several cases the delay in recording a writ had been close upon eighty days. It was necessary to inquire into that subject—to see why so much delay had occurred in Edinburgh; how it would be obviated when the county registers were transferred to Edinburgh; and how far it might be necessary, for any advantage to be gained by going to Edinburgh, to sacrifice the great advantage of local registers. There was another matter on which the Lord Advocate had spoken very confidently—the saving of expense to be effected by means of this Bill. There could be no doubt that a saving of expense was a very desirable thing. But there was no evidence of such a saving of expense under the Bill of the learned Lord as he appears to contemplate, The learned Lord said that the whole expense under this Bill would be £5,000; but, looking to the present expense of the staff, he (Mr. Dunlop) calculated that it would be brought up to at least £9,000 a year. The present staff at Edinburgh was insufficient for its present duties, and it was impossible to imagine that an additional staff would not be required when these additional duties were thrown upon the office. But that, again, was a matter into which a Select Committee might inquire. Then, as to the matter of compensation:—the offices are held for life; the Lord Advocate proposed to compensate the holders out of the Consolidated Fund; whereas by his (Mr. Dunlop's) Bill, these persons would be placed on salaries, and the amount of compensation would be only the difference between the salaries and the excess which the present fees gave them; and that would not be very considerable. So far as the main objects of the Bill were concerned they could be done just as thoroughly and quite as cheaply in the country as in Edinburgh; and he (Mr. Dunlop) thought it would be better done in the country than in Edinburgh. Then there were many minor points, such as the superior local knowledge of the district solicitors over any set of clerks, and all the questions raised by the Amendments, of which notice had been given—Amendments involving the question whether they should have one register by abolishing the local or the general register; whether they should keep up the general and the particular registers of adjudications and inhibitions, or discard them and substitute the register of sasines. These subjects could not be adequately considered in a Committee of the whole House, and could be only adequately considered in a Select Committee, where the same Members were always present. Another question of great importance, raised by one of the Amendments, was the responsibility of the keeper of the general register. At present all the local keepers were responsible for whatever blunders they committed; but his learned Friend had not informed them whether he intended to make the general keeper responsible for the errors committed in recording writs in the General Register at Edinburgh. A similar question arose as to the responsibility of the searchers. Searchers were generally selected by the parties for whom the search was made, and if he made a blunder was answerable for the consequences. The Lord Advocate proposed that there should be official searchers appointed by the Treasury. Were these searchers appointed by the Treasury to be liable, like the professional searchers, for the blundering they commit, or was the Treasury to be liable? Then, again, the question of town registers was a large question, which must be fully discussed. At Glasgow, for instance, there was a register which comprised a large part of the city of Glasgow. Now, part of this scheme was that this register should be transmitted from Glasgow to Edinburgh, and made part of the county register. Now, the evidence was strong against these new county registers, and the Commissioners, having discussed the question whether burghs which had registers should retain them and other large towns, such as Greenock and Leith, which had none, should have registers assigned to them, they came to the conclusion, though with great hesitation, that these burghs should remain as they were, and suggested a mode of search which they called a search-sheet, which should be gradually adopted, and prepare the way for the ultimate transfer of the burgh registers to the General Register House in Edinburgh; and it was only on the ground that the burgh registers were ultimately to be transferred to Edinburgh that the Commissioners reported against establishing distinct registers in the large towns, not being burghs, which at present had none. But the officials had condemned utterly the search-sheet, and his hon. and learned Friend had abandoned that part of the scheme entirely, and had abandoned all idea of sending the burgh registers to Edinburgh. Should not, consequently, these towns have registers given them? Then the burghs and their suburbs were to be in distinct districts—one side I of a street would have one register and the other side another—all on one side could register their deeds and get them back immediately; all on the other would have to send them to Edinburgh. Nothing besides but burgage tenure was to be registered in the burgh registers; but why were the feudal tenures within the burgh to be precluded from being placed on the burgh register? The house property in the suburbs was in reality a burgal property—why should not they he registered in the burgh register? The burghs which petitioned in favour of the Lord Advocate's Bill while they did not care about the county registers being taken to Edinburgh they required that their own suburbs should be added to their own burghs. It was impossible to discuss these and many other questions in an open Committee of the whole House. The Lord Advocate had said that referring the Bill to a Select Committee would be tantamount to throwing it out. But, even if it were so, he (Mr. Dunlop) should say that that would be better than passing it in a way that would create dissatisfaction. Still, this was no fault of his. The Bill was brought in on the 24th February, and he (Mr. Dunlop) then suggested that both Bills should be read a second time and referred to a Select Committee, and if that had been agreed to the Bill might have been carried through the House this Session. The Lord Advocate, however, objected to this course, but allowed the Bill to stand over, no obstruction being offered by him (Mr. Dunlop), but the Bill being allowed to be read a second time without a division, there was a strong feeling in Scotland on the subject, and he was satisfied that, if the matter were referred to a Select Committee, a satisfactory measure might be agreed upon. In conclusion, he begged to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

seconded the Motion.

said, he regretted to find so much difference of opinion amongst the Scotch Members on a subject of such importance; but after the many stages of opposition through which the Bill had gone, it appeared to him that to refer it to a Select Committee, as the hon. and learned Member for Greenock proposed, would be tantamount to defeating the Bill for this Session. That was a result he could not contemplate with satisfaction; and if it was really the opinion of all the Scotch Members that the Bill should fall through altogether this Session, he thought it a pity that result had not been brought about by moving the rejection of the Bill on the second reading. No doubt it was difficult to arrive at any conclusion respecting a Bill of this kind when there had been so little public discussion on it in this House. The discussion which commenced here was adjourned to another room; and probably the opinions expressed there would have produced an effect on the public mind if they had been uttered in this House. The learned Lord Advocate proposed to make the registry general, while the hon. and learned Member for Greenock wishes it to be particular and local. Now, it appears to him (Lord Henry Scott) that if this was to be the issue there could be no groundwork for those measures which had been framed by the Lord Advocates who formerly had a seat in this House, for Mr. John Inglis and Mr. Baillie both brought forward Bills of exactly the same nature as this. It could not be said that this subject was one that had not had the greatest consideration. It had been under consideration for a series of years. Clauses had been inserted in all the Commissions given to the different local registrars, by which they were declared not to be entitled to demand compensation in case local registers should be abolished. It had been the subject of a Royal Commission; and if the Report of two able Commissioners was not enough to give us a groundwork, he did not know that a Select Committee would be able to give them more. It had been said that the Commissioners did not take their evidence in a proper manner; but from a careful perusal of that Report he (Lord Henry Scott) did not agree with that statement. It appeared to have been carefully drawn up, and went into every possible detail that could be brought before a Select Committee. He must say, as regarded the general question, that if it was desirable to have any registration at all, the opinions of all the county meetings in Scotland ought to have some weight in favour of the Lord Advocate's plan. With regard to complaints as to the present arrears on the registers, that might be got rid of by adopting the English system, and abolishing the minute-books. It has also been said that great expenses would be incurred by the Lord Advocate's plan; but when it was remembered that at the present moment the registers paid a surplus of £6,000 a year to the Consolidated Fund, and more than £12,000 to the local registrars, it appeared to him that all the expenses would be met, and that there would be a surplus. He knew also that there were complaints as to the borough registers; but it was not proposed to meddle with them in this Bill, or in the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Greenock. The whole question of borough registers was treated of in the Report, and the Commissioners gave ample reasons for not wishing to interfere with them. The real question before the House was whether they should delay the Bill by referring it to a Select Committee, and thus practically throw it out altogether; but he could not think, after the lengthened investigations of the Commissioners, that a Select Committee would be of any value, or that would, on the whole, be a wise and proper course.

said, he had presented a petition from Aberdeen against the Lord Advocate's Bill, and he must say he entirely concurred in the prayer of the petition. He held in his hand the last Report of the Committee upon Public Petitions, from which he found that there had been ninety-six petitions in all presented upon this subject; and of these twenty-three were in favour of the Lord Advocate's Bill, seventy against it, and three prayed for alteration in both Bills. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that these petitions were not signed at street corners like many petitions that had recently been presented to the House, but by gentlemen of education and position. Was it then right or reasonable that they should take upon themselves to decide here in this House, with scarcely a quorum present upon these Bills when there was evidently a conflict of opinion out of doors upon the question? He emphatically said it was not; and although it was possible and probable that a reference to a Select Committee might delay or cause the loss of these Bills for the present Session, he also said so much the better; for this advantage would be gained, that they would have the maturely-formed judgment of men upon whom they could rely. The parties who would chiefly benefit by the Lord Advocate's Bill were the Lord Clerk Register by emolument and patronage, the Edinburgh conveyancers, who would practically have a monopoly of the business, and departments of the Register House, whose returns would be increased from fees. Those who would benefit by the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Greenock were the local solicitors, the proprietors of land who would pay reduced fees, the smaller proprietors who would avoid the delay and risk of sending their deeds up to Edinburgh, and have increased facilities for searching; and the country at large would be benefited by the prevention of a great scheme of centralization and patronage. That could not be regarded as a slight advantage, when they remembered that the principle of our representation was hostile to centralization. How could they look for any advantage whatever in a complete transfer of all registration to Edinburgh when they remembered that the three local registers already in the office there were ten years in arrear? What would be the state of that office when nineteen other registers were handed over to it? Surely, under these circumstances, the simple and obvious course was to ascertain the real state of things, and that could be best done by submitting both these Bills to a Select Committee. If they were thereby lost for this Session, the public would be no losers, for a further opportunity would be given to the country at large to consider and to make up its mind upon this important subject. He should certainly support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Greenock.

said, he spoke without claiming to possess special legal knowledge, but he wished to say a few words as a proprietor—for he took the question to be, in fact, a proprietors' question. It was the interest of the proprietors that had to be guarded, and not the interest of the lawyers. The proprietors complained at present of the great expense of registering deeds. That expense was attributable to two causes—first, the great delays and arrears in writing up the index; and next, the necessity for a double search. They were all agreed upon the desirability of having only one search; and both the Bills before the House profess to have that object in view. But it appeared to him that under the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Greenock, two searches at least would be required—a search into the local registers and search into the Edinburgh register, and, if the property lay in several counties, three or four searches would be required. Even for the counties themselves local registers were inconvenient. He might instance his own county—Argyleshire—where the registers were kept at Inverary, which was less accessible to many parts of the county than Edinburgh. The tendency of all improvement in communication was towards the capital, and therefore the facilities for searching in the capital were always improving. So, as a matter of convenience, Edinburgh was the best place for the registers, especially as all large proprietors have agents in that city, and the interests of the smaller proprietors would be secured by the permanent establishment of the sixty-six burgh registers. As to security, the hon. Member for Greenock said that at present the keepers of the registers were responsible for the results of any negligence. But it must be remembered that these persons were, in general, men of very small means; whereas the responsible officers at Edinburgh would probably be persons of a superior class, from whom it would be practicable to obtain ample and satisfactory security. As to the question of expense the real expense lay in the search not in the register, and as by the Lord Advocate's Bill the search would be simplified the expense must be proportionately lessened. As to the proposition to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, they were all agreed upon the principle, and all that would have to be referred to the Committee would be the details, which could only be understood thoroughly by lawyers; and the question is whether they should be guided by the declared opinions of the first lawyers of Scotland, which is already before us, or send the question to be decided by a Committee which could not consist of persons so well qualified to pronounce upon details of this kind? He did not think that such reference to a Committee would be of any advantage to the public. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Greenock would not press his Motion.

said, it would perhaps be in the recollection of the House, that no discussion was taken upon the second reading of this Bill, at the express suggestion of the Lord Advocate. It was against his wish that the Bill passed that important stage sub silentio; and it was clear that the opponents of the Bill are under a disadvantage now from having allowed that course to be taken. The reason suggested for this course was that opportunity should be given for the discussion of the question at a meeting of Scotch Members, when some understanding might be arrived at as to future proceedings. No doubt his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Greenock had reason to expect that some deference would be paid to his views. As there was no record of the proceedings of such gathering as they had in the tea-room, he could give no detailed account of what passed in the little Scotch Parliament on that occasion; but he would simply remind those present that the Lord Advocate, finding that a majority of the Scotch Parliament was not likely to agree with him, closed the discussion by saying that he should persevere with his Bill. So, after they had been induced to consent to the second reading sub silentio, they were told that, in an exhausted House approaching dissolution, the measure would be pushed on by any means whatever. The majority of the representatives from Scotland sat behind the Government; but although that portion of the Empire was less strongly represented on this side, he could not in his experience remember any occasion when they had to complain of a measure being unfairly or unduly pressed by a majority upon a reluctant minority. Our Scotch measures were generally discussed in a spirit of conciliation and fairness, and to no one was that fact more attributable than to his hon. and learned Friend opposite. But the manner in which it was attempted to force on this measure was at variance with the usual practice. Never was there a measure more fitted for consideration by a Select Committee or even a Commission, and never was there a question less fitted for general discussion than that which was now sought to be pressed on in this unusual and unfair manner by means of calling in aid the Government supporters, who, knowing nothing of, and caring nothing for, the subject, were able to overbear the wishes of the majority of the representatives of Scotland. One reason why this Bill was distasteful to me was because it was based upon a centralizing principle. They had already a very centralized Government in Scotland. That kingdom was governed from headquarters by an official who occupied a position perfectly anomalous, whose government would not have been tolerated for a moment had it not been administered uniformly in a judicious and prudent spirit for the benefit of the country. This centralizing principle was being applied step by step to other departments of administration. In former times centralization might have been absolutely necessary, but now it could not be said that where they had had local government for centuries it was necessary all at once to introduce a system of centralization. Only in one department had local management been retained, and that was in the matter of registration of titles to land. Every county and every burgh had its register, and every one who had investigated the subject knew that a more perfect system did not exist in any country. No one denied that there were faults in the existing system—that, for instance, the fees from persons having recourse to the register offices might be advantageously reduced; nor did any one deny that some confusion had arisen from the ancient system of a double register, which was good in its time but had been abused. It could not, however, be denied that the local register was the chief register, and that the general register was essentially the subordinate one. The noble Lord the Member for Selkirkshire (Lord Henry Scott) thought that he had made a great point when he said that the General Register of Edinburgh yielded to the Consolidated Fund a surplus of £6,000 a year, while the local registers were of no value to anybody. But they were of value to those who kept them. The noble Lord was in error in saying that Bills had been introduced by Conservative Lord Advocates, or that measures similar to this had been contemplated by them; because the measure which was thought of but not introduced by the present Lord Justice Clerk, when Lord Advocate, contemplated the provision of registers for the various districts of Scotland. Undoubtedly he contemplated the removal of the local registers but he believed he contemplated their collection into certain districts. As to the weight of authority, I cannot pay to the opinion of the Lord Justice Clerk, and of the Lord Advocate, the deference which I should be disposed to pay to it upon all other questions. The weight of the authority of all the country lawyers is against the change proposed by this Bill. It is true that this was an interested opinion to this extent, that those gentlemen would lose a great deal of business if all these registers were transfered to Edinburgh; because there was no doubt that although the post might to a considerable extent be used for the transmission of deeds to the registry, or the making of inquiries, careful practitioners would never be content without going themselves, or sending their agents to the registry to report the deed, or make the inquiries that might be necessary. It was, therefore, obvious that if this change took place, there would be some transfer of business from the country to the Edinburgh solicitors, and in so far the opinions of the former might be said to be interested. The noble Lord said that the proprietors were not opposed to this Bill; but who was the best judge of the interests of the proprietors, and of how the business in which he was concerned can be best transacted? Was it not the professional man by whom that business had always been managed; and he ventured to think that in this matter the concurrent opinions of the practitioners all over Scotland is deserving of some respect. And if there be an imputation of interested motives on both sides, surely the onus probandi rests upon those who want to take the business away, and not upon those who have it now. This Bill, while it proposed to transfer the conveyancing business of all the county districts of Scotland to Edinburgh, did not propose to treat the burghs in the same way. The reason why the local registers of the burghs are to be left was, they were told that local knowledge was there of so much importance. Why was it important to burghs and places possessing municipal government, and of no importance throughout the counties cither in populous places or in purely rural districts? It was a distinction that would not hold for an instant, to say that certain burghs required a great deal of local knowledge, and that therefore their local registers should be preserved, but that all others were needless and should be swept away. But if centralization be in fact of so much importance as was represented, he should not be wrong in saying that this Bill would fail to effect that object, because there would still remain sixty or sixty-eight burgh registers. If it were necessary to concentrate all the business in Edinburgh, why did not the concurrent testimony, of which they have heard so much, propose to concentrate every one of the registers throughout the country? The reason was the burghs were too strong for the Government. Let them take warning by what was now going on. If concentration in Edinburgh was of such great im- portance, and if the improvement of communications had been so great that it was not necessary to prolong the continuance of these registers in the various localities, why should not concentration be carried a little further—why keep up branch establishments in Edinburgh itself? If concentration was to go on, rely upon it that the establishments which now afford such great public conveniences in Edinburgh will not long be left there. They would soon have their postal arrangements, and all other matters, conducted in London, and Edinburgh would sink into a mere provincial town. There were other things now kept in the counties, not to mention the registers of births, deaths, and marriages, which might be sent to Edinburgh. Why should not all the commissary business, probate, and so on, be done in Edinburgh? There was no end to the concentration that might be carried out. He did not wish to say much upon so delicate a subject; but there is a question of patronage. The Register House in Edinburgh had been used a little as an office of political reward. He did not wish to say anything invidious, but it was impossible to deny that, however excellent and worthy a gentleman might be, if the charge of the Register House was to be made a matter of political reward, and if considerable patronage was to be attached to it, people in the country would look upon such an arrangement with considerable jealousy. The only weak point in the present system brought out by the Report was the confusion which arose between the two registers. The noble Lord (Lord Henry Scott) seems to think that the inconvenience was very formidable for the registers to be in one county and the writs in two counties; but when a proprietor had a large estate which extended into two counties, the inconvenience of registering in these two counties was in reality exceedingly small. But the great argument against the Bill, and one which he thought of more weight than all the rest, was that the evidence showed that the public were satisfied with and use freely the present system. If 15,000 writs are annually registered, and if out of these only 3,000 are registered in Edinburgh, it being equally open to proprietors to register there as in the counties, that was a conclusive proof that the public had decided in favour of local registers as more convenient and best. There was only one point more to which he wished to refer. The hon. Member for Argyleshire said that this was not a matter for a Select Committee; but it was impossible to have a matter of a more abstruse and technical character, and one which in its details was more fit to be considered by a Committee upstairs. The subject had never yet been examined properly—even the Royal Commission had not examined the register, and reported their condition, and it was clear from the animus that pervaded their Report, that if they had discovered anything unfavourable they would have exposed—but there was nothing of the kind in their Report, and therefore it was to be presumed that there was nothing to expose. He submitted that this was not a case for legislation at all—that no case had been made out—and that, at least, there ought to be more inquiry before disturbing the present system—that no public hardship had been proved, or any grievance substantiated; and he trusted the House will not permit this measure to be forced through by the Government, when it was not only not required, but viewed with jealousy and dislike by the people of Scotland.

said, that he had had the honour to present a petition from Aberdeen of exactly a contrary nature from that presented by his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sykes). He (Mr. Crum-Ewing) supported the Bill because it would get rid, at a marvellously small cost, of a large and expensive staff; secondly, it would be the means of preserving greater uniformity; thirdly, it would give greater facilities for examining the writs by having them all at one place, and at a less trouble and expense than having, as now, to go through the various counties; and, fourthly they would be placed in a fire-proof building, and thus be more secure from accidents. He thought the measure one of great improvement.

I hoped, after the full discussion that had been had, they should be allowed to go to a division that night. He would only address the House upon the question whether this Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee. He contended that it was altogether an unsuitable question for such a reference, because it essentially related to the law of Scotland, and did not depend upon evidence to be taken. Under ordinary circumstances, the Members for Scotland would have been inclined to have left it to be decided by those legal authorities best qualified to form an opinion. These authorities were all on one side. There was no difference of opinion amongst the best and first jurists in Scotland that this was a most desirable measure. The Faculty of Advocates were unanimous, as indeed were most of the persons interested in business of this nature. His predecessor in office unquestionably intended to legislate in this sense. All professional and scientific opinion was in favour of the Bill, but there was another interest to be considered—that of the public. He did not want to exaggerate too much the effects of it, but this House ought not to let private interest—the interest of those local practitioners whose business might be affected—to stand in the way of a great general reform. The hon. Member for Argyleshire (Sir James Fergusson) said we had called a meeting of Scotch Members, and were now pressing this Bill against the wish of that meeting; but every one who heard the able speech, on that occasion, by his learned Friend the Solicitor General, must have been convinced of the utility and advantage of the measure. Now, he (the Lord Advocate) had made it his business to ascertain whether the Members for Scotland were in favour of this measure or against it; and when they divided it would be found that, not only on that side of the House, but on the other, they were in favour of it in the proportion of at least two to one, so that it was impossible to say they were pressing this Bill against the sense of the Scotch Members. And although the Bill more immediately affects the counties, the main opposition comes from Members for the burghs. The burgh registers were not touched by this Bill. Take any locality, and it would be found that the advantages would greatly outweigh any injury that may be occasioned. There was evidence enough on that point from men of great ability and position, and a Select Committee was wholly unnecessary except for the purpose of shelving the Bill for this Session, which is the object of its opposers in talking of a Select Committee. Very exaggerated ideas seemed to be entertained as to the transfer of business from the county to Edinburgh. The hon. Member admitted that many gentlemen of large property had agents already at Edinburgh; and agents in many cases must be employed now by others. Suppose a person at Aberdeen had money to lend at Glasgow, he would now, as his first step, send to Edinburgh to search the records, and he would employ an agent. The mortgage deed would be prepared in Glasgow; and then would come the question, where it should be recorded. According to the present system, it would be at Aberdeen; according to the Bill, at Edinburgh. What advantage would it be to the lender to record it at Aberdeen? None whatever. The fears of the hon. Members as to centralization were equally chimerical. The only difference in what he proposed and that which now took place was this:—Now, entries were made in the books at various places, and at the end of the year these hooks were sent to Edinburgh; and he proposed instead that the writing should be done at Edinburgh at once, and thus be of immediate use for reference and getting rid of the double search, which all parties admitted to be bad. The burghs were anxious not to be touched; they were anxious to have a register of their own, and the persons who opposed this measure are the persons who were connected with the burghs. It was alleged that the registration in burghs formed a separate and distinct system, involving no doubt many important interests, and standing upon a wholly separate footing, regulated by different rules, under different superintendence, and to a certain extent dealing with matters of a different nature. The burgh registries were not under the Lord Clerk Register, and never had been; they were not established by the same statute as established the county registries, and they dealt with tenures of a very different description. They might, therefore, very properly be left to district registries. Whether they should be brought to Edinburgh or left in the localities was another matter. These were the views on which he thought that House ought not to accede to the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend to send the Bill to a Select Committee. Into the merits of the Bill introduced by his hon. and learned Friend he now proposed to enter. It would be easy to show that, as under the existing law, so under the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend the expense would be very great. His hon. and learned Friend said that the expenses of deeds might be reduced by the Lord Advocate, but he must be aware that the Court would long ago have been moved in that matter but for the opposition which the proposition received from those who were chiefly concerned. Then, again, his hon. Friend raised some phantom of official patronage, and he intimated that persons would be appointed, not only to the office of Lord Clerk Register, but to other offices, because they might happen to be of the political creed of those who happened to be in power. He (the Lord Advocate) entirely repudiated such an insinuation as that. His hon. Friend says this will increase the patronage of the Crown. Does it not, on the contrary, abolish nineteen most lucrative offices at present in the patronage of the Crown? And what does it substitute? Why, a few clerkships of £300 or £400 a year, which may be in the gift of the Lord Clerk Register and the Treasury. And what did the hon. and learned Member for Greenock propose? Why, not only to keep up the nineteen offices at present existing, involving an expenditure which amounts altogether to a very considerable sum, but to add on to the country registries now existing an establishment which increases those nineteen offices to thirty. There was no ground whatever for delay, and he trusted the House would at once go into Committee.

said, he had no intention to enter into any discussion of the merits of this question, for in his opinion only a lawyer could properly discuss it; but he desired to make one or two remarks on the doctrine which the learned Lord Advocate had laid down in the speech, because he thought it one of the most extraordinary doctrines which a person in his position could lay down. The learned Lord appealed to the House not to send his Bill before a Select Committee, not on the ground that it was so late in the Session that to do so would have the effect of putting off the Bill altogether, but because he says it was not a question that ought to be investigated by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, but one which ought to be determined by authority. Now he (Mr. Aytoun) was always under the apprehension that the only authority which ought to determine anything in that House was the authority of reason and conviction in the minds of Members, and least of all did he expect to bear "authority" quoted, not by a Whig Minister—for he was afraid that a Whig Minister might rather like the term "authority" than otherwise—but by a Liberal Minister. He would surely have thought that a Liberal Minister would have desired the question to be settled by facts and reason. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that the opposition to the Bill was an opposition which is got up entirely by pressure brought to bear upon Members by political agents. Now, he (Mr. Aytoun) had the honour to represent a district of Scotch burghs which had no interest whatever in the matter, and certainly no pressure had been brought to bear upon him. He believed that it would be quite as much for the benefit of these burghs that the registers should be transferred to Edinburgh as that it should be retained in the county town of Cupar. He was not opposed to the Bill, but he said he was not acquainted with the facts, and therefore he was unable to form a judgment upon them; and on that ground he said that he was justified in asking that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, by means of whose labours he might be made acquainted with those facts of which he was now ignorant. He had no wish whatever that the Bill should be thrown out; and he assured the hon. and learned Gentleman that if he had the honour of a seat in that House in the new Parliament, when the measure was brought forward again, and if the House should determine to go into Committee upon it, he would offer no factious opposition to its passing. He had no personal feeling against the Bill. On the contrary, as far as his information goes, he must say that the knowledge he had obtained was favourable than otherwise to the measure of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but, at the same time, he did think that resolutely to refuse all inquiry had the effect of raising a feeling in the minds of the people of Scotland which it would be most desirable to avoid.

said, that the course which had been pursued illustrated the truth of the old adage, "The more haste the less speed." If the learned Lord Advocate had given the Scotch Members the inquiry they demanded, and to which they were entitled, he would probably now have been passing the Bill with certain amendments. At all events, he would have got it through this House far more easily than he was likely to do by withholding it. As to the doctrine of authority—which as a guide to legislation was one of the most astonishing doctrines that could be heard at the present day—who was to decide between the conflicting authorities? The learned Lord Advocate said that this was not a question for us to decide—that, being of a technical legal character, it must be decided by eminent lawyers, and that the highest legal authority was on his side. The effect of that was that this was a matter with which the House of Commons has nothing to do, but must follow the course which the Lord Advocate and his authorities tell it to take; or, in other words, the learned Lord says to us, "Shut your eyes, open your mouths, and see what a Whig Minister will send you." No doubt, the learned Lord and his friends were honestly convinced that the scheme they proposed is the best. The learned Lord himself, his Commissioners, and every one else who had examined the question, admitted that the system of the registration of laud rights in Scotland, viewed as a whole, was the most complete and practically useful system which had yet been devised in any country. They ought, therefore, to be on their guard, not unnecessarily to disturb that which was on the whole working well, nor listen too readily to those who recommended changes, which, although apparently more consonant with theoretical perfection, might he difficult to reconcile with the peculiarities of our existing forms of conveyancing, and with long established professional habits and usages. With respect to the advantages resulting from the saving of expenditure under the Bill, although there was a certain saving of expense, the present expenses might be very properly diminished without altering the present system a tittle. At any rate, comparing the expense of conveyancing in Scotland with the same expense in England, it would be found that in Scotland it was not one-third of what it was in England. He quite admitted that, if no system already existed in Scotland, the one proposed might be a good one. If there were a tabula rasa of the Scotch system, then there could be no objection to the proposition of the Lord Advocate; but he could not see the advantage of changing a system that had been in operation and had worked well for two centuries and a half, unless it clearly be shown that the advantages gained would counterbalance the inconveniences of a change of system. The hon. and learned Member was proceeding to show that as far as expense was concerned that might be reduced without making the slightest alteration in the present system—when it being Pour of the clock,

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether there is any foundation for a statement which has appeared in the Owl newspaper to the effect that a perfect understanding has been arrived at between Her Majesty's Government and the Canadian Delegates; and, if so, when he will be prepared to acquaint the House with the precise terms of the arrangement?

Sir, the conferences between Her Majesty's Government and the Ministers from Canada have not yet been brought to a close, but I hope very soon to be able to report the result of those conferences to the House.

said, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether information has been received of the dismissal of Prince Kung from his office of President of the Board of Foreign Affairs at Pekin, and who has been appointed his successor; and whether official Reports have been received from the diplomatic and consular authorities in China of the progress of insurrection in several provinces as affecting the Export and Import Trade of the Country?

Sir, I am happy to inform my hon. and gallant Friend that Prince Kung has been appointed his own successor. We have received a telegram at the Foreign Office from Pekin to the effect that he has been re-instated with all his dignities, and is again Prime Minister. We have no official Reports with regard to British trade, but on the whole the accounts are very favourable, with the exception of those places occupied by marauders. There is every prospect of the trade increasing.

The University of London, whose claims I have been asked to lay before the House this evening, stands in a totally different relation to the Government of this country from that of the great majority of our educational institutions. It is almost a department of the Government. Its Chancellor, and three-fourths of its Senate, are directly nominated by the Crown; the regulations made by the Senate must obtain the sanction of the Home Secretary before they can become operative, and its accounts are regularly passed by the Audit Office, like those of any other branch of the public service, By its connection with the Government, it is obviously cut off from any resources which are open to other institutions, and it is not unreasonable that, since it suffers the drawbacks, it should also claim the compensating advantages of its semi-dependent position. There was a time when its name was a watchword of party, but that stage of its history has long passed by, and one would no more expect now-a-days to hear of any party opposition to its pretensions than to those of the Board of Customs. Indeed, I shall be perfectly satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works tells us this evening that the present Government is prepared to do as much for the University as I have reason to believe the Government of Lord Derby was prepared to do when it was last in power. In order that I may make quite clear the exact relations of the University of London to the Legislature of the country, I may be allowed, in two or three sentences, to recall its history to the minds of hon. Members. In the year 1825, a number of gentlemen, dissatisfied with the attitude which the old universities assumed towards their dissenting fellow-countrymen, united together and raised a fund of about £160,000, which was chiefly spent in erecting a large building in Gower Street. The idea of those gentlemen was to call into existence an institution which should mutatis mutandis resemble one of our Scotch universities. In due time they applied for a charter, and the question whether a charter should or should not he granted to them was, from 1830 to 1835, matter of constant and somewhat acrimonious dispute. At length, on the 25th of March, 1835, the House of Commons, by a very large majority, resolved to address the Crown to give them a charter. To that address a gracious answer was returned, and the question was considered settled. Meanwhile, however, the Liberal Government, which succeeded the shortlived administration of Sir Robert Peel, saw their way to doing more to meet the views of the persons who had erected the building in Gower Street than those persons had originally ventured to hope, and determined to create an institution of wider scope and higher pretensions, for which they borrowed the name of the University of London, while the institution in Gower Street retired into the background, and continued its useful labours under the name of University College. The University of London, as constituted by its charter in the last reign, and as re-constituted by two charters in the present reign, is an examining body, which confers degrees, honours, and prizes upon those who satisfy the requirements of its examiners, but which undertakes only to test the results of instruction, not to give instruction itself. It will be obvious, therefore, that when it asks for a building it does not contemplate so large an expenditure as would he necessary if, in addition to the facilities which it desires for examining candidates, it also asked for lecture rooms, professors' houses, and all the other apparatus of teaching. The correspondence of the authorities of the new University with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Spring Rice, led them to believe that the Government would, at no distant date, provide them with a suitable building, and they immediately entered upon the discharge of their duties, occupying for that purpose some rooms at Somerset House. That was the day of small things, and the accommodation was sufficient for the moderate scale of their first operations. In a few years, however, even that limited accommodation was curtailed, for some of their rooms had to be given up to the School of Design. From that day to this, for something like twenty years, the University has been wandering from one public building to another, indebted for the use of a hall now to the Royal Society, now to University College, and now to King's College, and carrying on its examinations as it best could, sometimes at Exeter Hall, sometimes in the Thatched House Tavern, and sometimes, strange to say, even in Willis' Rooms, where the solution of mathematical problems has before now been agreeably diversified by the rehearsals for a concert going on within earshot. At the present moment things are indeed altered, but not much mended. The University is now located in a corner of Burlington House, but the accommodation which it finds there is not nearly sufficient, and at any moment it is liable to be turned out, and again sent forth as a wanderer on the face of the earth. The rulers of the University supplement their wretched accommodation by all kinds of devices; for example, they use for their matriculation examination a shed which has been erected by the Volunteers in Burlington Gardens. Do what they will, however, the constantly increasing number of candidates who present themselves for examination threatens ere long to be too much for them, and to set their devices at defiance; for, whereas in the year 1838 they had only twenty-three candidates to examine, they had in the year 1863 no less than 1,020. It cannot be said this is a creditable state of things, and the senate has been for many years entreating successive Governments to do something for it, nor has any Government, so far as I am aware, failed to admit that its case calls for serious attention. The demands of the University authorities are not excessive. They want what is necessary to transact their business, and nothing more. For this purpose it is calculated that they must have a series of examination rooms, capable of accommodating not less than 400 candidates. They must have a collection of typical specimens, from which the numerous objects which are placed before the candidates in their scientific examinations may be selected. They must have a respectable library for examination purposes—they must have a hall in which convocation may meet from time to time to perform its necessary duties; and they must have proper accommodation for the senate—these are the essential features of the building that ought to be provided. That building ought to be central, because many of the members of the senate are men in public or professional life, with very little leisure, and on whose time it is not desirable to make greater calls than is absolutely necessary. Taking its stand as it does, upon its usefulness, the University is content to say little about its right to have a building which shall not only be suitable but dignified. It is confident that it may safely leave the House and the Government to take care that no injustice is done to it in this particular. All that it wishes is that Parliament should be correctly informed as to its present position—a position of which it may well be proud—as the following facts will show:—the University of London numbered about 1,600 graduates. Its senate consists for the most part of very distinguished men. The Lord President of the Council is its Chancellor, and one of the greatest of English historians (Mr. Grote) its Vice Chancellor. Its matriculation examination corresponds to examinations passed at Oxford and Cambridge after several forms of residence. Its ordinary B.A. degree implies very much greater mental cultivation than is necessarily implied by a simple B.A. at the older universities, and its examinations for honours take also a very respectable rank. Its examiners are men of the greatest eminence. It gives degrees in every faculty except theology. Its medical degrees are very highly considered; and it confers several degrees which are not conferred at Oxford; and Cambridge. Such is the degree of M.S., Master in Surgery, and such is the new degree which it has just created, that of Doctor in Letters—one calculated, I cannot help thinking, to meet a want, and to be of great use. An institution which has done so much in about thirty years, may well claim to shed some honour upon the Government and the Parliament which has fostered it, and from which Government and Parliament it receives only the modest allowance of about £5,500 a year. And remember that this sum of £5,500 a year is not given to enable the University of London to compete with other institutions; nay, the University of London is little more than a channel by which the sum of £5,500 a year is distributed to English, Scotch, Irish, and I Colonial Institutions, whose students may desire to have the results of their education tested by a perfectly impartial tribunal. It I has no local connection with the metropolis. University College and King's College have no closer relations to it than Galway or Aberdeen, and a student at Galway or Aberdeen has now no privileges in connection with it over a student who, without going to any school or university, may have prepared himself for its examinations in the remotest of our colonies. It would be a mistake to describe it even as a national institution. It is an Imperial institution, taking no heed of birth-place, of creed, or of colour, but absolutely open to every subject of Her Majesty who chooses to offer himself for examination, and to pay a trifling fee. An institution which does so much for the State, and receives so little from it, may well ask to meet with some consideration; and, after wandering in the wilderness for a whole generation, to be at length placed in a building which it may call its own. Its authorities do not doubt that, if they once had such a building, they would be able enormously to extend the area of their exertions, and that whereas now more than a thousand candidates present themselves for examination in a year, they may have before another period of thirty years has passed away, as many as 3,000 students from all parts of the Empire coming to have the results of many different systems of education tested at this great central institution, or arranging, as has been done lately in the case of the Mauritius, to have themselves examined under the authority of the University of London, in the places where they reside. Till the University of London has such a building as I suggest, it will never have a fair opportunity of putting itself before the public; and if there were any way of testing the truth of what I say, I would be content to stake my whole case in favour of its having a building upon the assertion that at least a third of the Members of the existing House of Commons have either no definite idea as to what the University of London is, or else identify it with that exceedingly respectable institution in Gower street, to which I have already referred. If this he true, or if it at all approaches to being true, it will be generally admitted that a commodious, central, and dignified building for the reception of the University would be its best advertisement, and on the ground of mere utility I am content to rest its claims, hoping that the right hon. Gentleman may consent to do justice to them, and thereby gain credit for the administration of which he forms a part.

said, his hon. Friend had not at all over-stated the claims of the London University to the favour and support of that House. He fully concurred in what the hon. Gentleman had said of the great usefulness of the University and the great benefits it had conferred upon the education of the country. Any one who knew anything of the subject must be aware that the examinations provided by the University had been a great means of improving the education which was given in a large number of the educational institutions both in this country and in the colonies. The degrees given by the University were held in high esteem, more especially those in the branches of medical and physical science. There was no question, therefore, that the London University ought to receive all the support and encouragement in its useful labours that could be fairly and properly given by the Government and the House. He thought it was unfortunate when the charter was granted thirty years ago, that no permanent provision was made for its accommodation. It was for many years lodged in a very imperfect and inconvenient manner; but since then the University, having had the use of a portion of Burlington House, the complaints previously made of want of space had not been repeated until lately. The space it then had had now become inadequate for its purpose, and the subject of providing additional accommodation had been under the consideration of the Government for some time past. It was the wish of those who represented the University that it should remain where it now was, and it was generally agreed that Burlington House was as convenient a place as any that could be found for the purpose. Fortunately, too, there was then a considerable space unappropriated which might very well be devoted to this purpose. There were two ways in which the accommodation might be provided, and the choice between those alternatives had probably been the reason why a more early decision had not been come to on the subject. On the one hand the University might remain in the apartments, and halls, and rooms which were at present appropriated to it, and such additions made to the premises as might be necessary for its work. It would not be difficult to add one or two examination halls and some other rooms to the present building. On the other band, some of the friends of the University maintained that what was required was a new, distinct, and separate building, which might be known by all the world as a building to which the name of "The London University" was attached, and they thought that such a building would, as his hon. Friend said, act as an advertisement, and would make known to all passers by that the London University was a tangible and visible institution. He thought there was considerable doubt whether the expenditure required for the erection of a really handsome, imposing, and dignified building, especially appropriate for the purposes of a University, would be commensurate with the advantages to be thereby attained, and whether, after all, the London University was not mainly known by its actual educational work in connection with educational institutions. These were matters that required great consideration, and in regard to which so rapid a decision could not be come to as if the claims of the institution were of a more restricted character. He could, however, assure his hon. Friend that the matter had not been lost sight of by the Government. There was every disposition to provide the University with suitable and adequate accommodation for carrying on the valuable work in which it was engaged. At present, probably, the addition of one examination hall and a waiting room for candidates was all that was absolutely necessary; but he admitted that if the matter was to be dealt with they must not be content to look at the immediate wants of the University, but must remember that it was a growing institution. The number of persons who were anxious to take degrees were always increasing, and he was glad to see that the Council of the University were always ready to extend their operations whenever they found that any branches of scientific knowledge required that more attention should be paid to them, and that greater facilities should be afforded for their cultivation.

, in calling attention to the proceedings of the Ordnance Select Committee, said, that when on a former occasion he had thought it his duty to direct the attention of Parliament to what he considered the mismanagement of Ordnance Department, he then stated that the Ordnance Department had been unable during the last five years to furnish the Admiralty with sufficient guns for naval purposes; that a vast and extravagant expenditure had occurred without any adequate result; and that the Department was administered by a committee of officers, who were practically without responsibility, and who had very anomalous duties to perform; he stated that they were called upon to pronounce judgment upon the inventions and manufactures of other persons, whilst they themselves had become rival manufacturers and inventors, carrying on their experiments and transactions at the expense of the country. These statements were at the time denied by the noble Lord the Under Secretary for War, and he was also surprised to hear a very emphatic denial from his right hon. Friend the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon. He, therefore, felt, under the circumstances, that it was his duty not only to state but to show that not only was the statement he then made perfectly correct, but that the evils that existed, if continued, must prove injurious to the public service. The Ordnance Select Committee was appointed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon when he was Secretary of State for War, the previous Ordnance Select Committee having been dissolved upon the ground that some of its Members had become inventors; and his right hon. and gallant Friend stated, before a Select Committee of the House, that when he appointed the Ordnance Select Committee he had no intention that they should become inventors. He (Mr. H. Baillie) did not know what might have been the understanding at that time, but this he did know, that his right hon. Friend had not left office many months before the Ordnance Select Committee commenced their career as inventors, and he would show that the President and Vice President of that Committee had become inventors, and that their inventions were submitted to the Committee over which they were called upon to preside. The President of the Select Committee appointed by General Peel was Colonel, now General, St. George, and the Vice President was Captain Wiseman, R.N. He found, from the evidence published by the Select Committee of 1863, that a table was put in of various inventions undertaken by inventors for the purpose of strengthening cast iron cannon, so as to convert them into rifle cannon. And among the inventions he found in 1860, a few months after General Peel had left office, two 32-pounders, cast iron, smoothbore, slightly tapering from trunnions to breech, on a plan proposed by General St. George, C.B., and bored up to 68-pounders; but the experiments failed, the gun having burst after sixty-seven rounds. He found again that two 32-pounders, cast iron blocks, were treated in the same manner and submitted to a trial, and that they also burst after sixty-eight rounds; so that here they had the President of the Committee submitting his invention in cast iron guns to the Committee over which he was called upon to preside. Then he found that Captain Wiseman, Vice President of the Committee, submitted an invention for a new gun-carriage for ships, which received the seal of the Committee; so that the gun-carriage was actually received into the service. One hundred and fifty of them were constructed at Woolwich, and they were tried on board the Excellent and failed. He now came to the Vice President of the present time, Captain Heath, R.N. He, he found, was the inventor of a magnum shell with a large bursting: charge. The shell was tried on 3rd November, 1864; and one shell turned over at a distance of 434 yards from the muzzle of the gun, and the remainder were unsteady, and the experiment was regarded as a failure. Now, he did not blame those officers for trying their experiments at the public expense. It was quite natural they should do so if they were permitted; because, if they succeeded, they gained all the honour and glory of the trial, while if they failed the expense was borne by the country. It was not, however, only as individuals that the Committee were inventors. The Committee itself bad invented a gun which was brought forward as the gun of the Ordnance Select Committee. The public had heard very little of it—it was proved, but had been heard of no more—but he had been curious enough to examine into the matter. He had procured a description of the gun from an artillery officer of high rank. That description was as follows:—

"The Select Committee gun weighs 82 cwt. 1 qr.; length, 9·5–12; calibre, 7·1 in.; spiral not known; grooves, 15, 0·73 in. wide by 0·5 in. deep; charge, 16lb.; shell, a compound of steel, cast iron, and lead; body cylindrical, of cast iron, inclosing a steel core; head, hemispherical, false; lead outside all; bottom of shell secured with a wooden sabot like Bashley Britten's. Altogether, it appears to combine the worst properties of many inventors' shells without their corresponding advantages. It produced no effect on the target."

He would presently refer to another gun which had been produced by the Committee; but before he entered into what they were about at the present moment, it would be necessary that he should advert to the present state of our naval armaments, which, be regretted to find, were in a more uncertain and doubtful condition than they were when he last addressed the House on the subject a few months since. Now, what were the modern guns which they possessed at the present time? They knew that they possessed 1,000 of those fine-groove breech-loading guns commonly called the Armstrong 110-pounders; but these guns, they were lately given to understand, were not deemed suitable for naval purposes, and were to be superseded by a new 64- pounder shunt gun. It was perfectly true that at the commencement of the present year these new 64-pounder shunt guns were sent on board the ships of Her Majesty's fleet; but they now heard that these guns in their turn (150 only of them having been completed) were to be superseded by a new gun, to be called the Woolwich gun—a gun totally different in principle from either of the others, and admitted to be so far imperfect that the depth and width of the grooves of the rifling, or the gaining, or even the twist, had not yet been decided upon. With reference to the introduction of the shunt gun into the service and its discontinuance, he found the following remarks in The Mechanics' Magazine, and, from the information he had received, he believed it to be perfectly correct. The statement was to the following effect:—

"The shunt gun has been definitively abandoned, and no large guns will for the future be rifled on that principle. The 64-pounders which have so very recently been finished and issued to the Royal Navy have utterly failed on trial on board ship. The shot with the hollow head did not travel in a straight course, and were found to break up on impact, or even by a fall upon the ship's deck. The intention now is to make a new shot, which is to be hollow in the rear. The shells from this naval 64-pounder have been found to burst prematurely in the gun, and in one gun on board the Excellent the rifling was entirely destroyed from this cause. A second gun was also seriously damaged by a similar premature explosion of the shell. The rifling of the French gun, which has a gaining twist, has been strongly recommended by the Ordnance Select Committee for naval guns. The Committee, however, state that it will be necessary to introduce sundry modifications, which it is now engaged in carrying out, previously to applying the system to the naval guns of 7, 8, and 9-in. bore, weighing 6½, 8, and 12½ tons respectively. The new gun, constructed according to the Committee's modifications of the French rifling, is to be called the Woolwich' gun. This, then, is the present position of matters in this respect, a position which speaks so plainly for itself as to render more than superfluous any comment on our part."

That state of things was, he thought, sufficiently alarming for the British taxpayer, even if regarded simply as a question of present money payment; but when it was borne in mind how great was the confusion which was thus being introduced into our armaments, it would, he thought, be considered high time to inquire how such sudden changes in the opinions of those to whom those important matters were intrusted had been brought about. What, he would ask, was this Woolwich gun? Who were its inventors? Hon. Members were all aware who invented the finely grooved breech-loader, and the shunt gun, the Whitworth, the Lancaster, and various others; but of the new Woolwich gun they absolutely knew nothing, except that it was recommended to the naval service by the Ordnance Select Committee to rival all others on this principle. They had no information with respect to this gun except that it was put forward and recommended by that Committee which they had been told by the Government did not invent, and which the public believed to be sitting in calm and unbiassed judgment upon the inventions and systems recommended by others. Now, everybody knew how fond inventors were of their own productions, and it would, he was sure, be admitted that they were the last persons to be relied upon for a fair opinion upon the works of their own brain. But that did not appear to be the view taken of the subject by the Government, for they seemed to think that inventors must naturally be the best judges of their own inventions. He would, with the permission of the House, give an example of the injustice to which the system which prevailed naturally led, and of the evils which must result from it should it be continued. For the last twelve months it appeared that the Admiralty had been very urgent in their demands on the Ordnance Select Committee to be furnished with a gun rifled upon the most approved principles for the naval service. The Ordnance Committee were, unfortunately, nil abroad, and could not make up their own minds as to which system was the best. They had many systems before them, but they could not come to any definite decision as to which it was most desirable to choose. At last, being strongly pressed by the Admiralty, they determined to have a competition between the different guns under their consideration, and of that competition he held in his hand the printed programme. From that programme he found the trial was to be one between four guns rifled on four different principles. They were to be 7½ tons weight, 7-in. calibre, wrought-iron guns, which were of the size sometimes called 120-pounders, and were to be fired with five different projectiles. The guns consisted of the Scott gun, the Lancaster gun, the Bashley Britten gun, and the early pattern French gun. The Bashley Britten gun was soon withdrawn from the contest, because it was found to be incapable of standing the heavy charge of 25lb. Subsequently the shunt gun was introduced; and the competition com- menced and was carried up to a certain point, when it was suddenly stopped—no one knew why or wherefore. Up to that point Captain Scott's was the winning gun. It appeared, however, some of the Committee thought they saw that by uniting the principles of two of the systems under trial they might produce a gun of their own which would suit their purpose. They accordingly had a gun constructed adopting in its construction two of the principles of the guns brought under their notice. That was the second production of a Committee which the House was told did not invent, but which was not, at the same time, above adopting the inventions of others and bringing them forward as their own. A few hasty and very imperfect experiments were made with the new gun, but no official report had been made with respect to it. An account, however, of the competition was given in The Engineer newspaper, which was the ablest paper in the world on such a subject. From that account he would read the following extract:—

"In our last week's impression we gave a table of the ranges of the 7-in. competitive guns, supplied by the President of the Ordnance Select Committee. These ranges were the most favourable for the French gun, its shot having been fired with only 20lb. charges, which their zinc studs could withstand, but when the full powder charge of 25lb. was used the studs were partially sheared off, and the shot, consequently, had a very erratic flight. The loading of the French gun was likewise difficult—so much so that the Committee cut off the rear stud to facilitate the operation, which had, however, the effect of making the shooting still more inaccurate, and they then reduced the size of the buttons. It was at this period that the special correspondent of the Standard, who had been favoured with the ranges, &c., of the 7-in. competitive guns, reported that the French gun was virtually hors de combat, and the contest now laid between the Scott and Lancaster guns. At this point of the competition, when the victory seemed to be secured to the former gun, from its superior facility of loading and its great advantage in round ball firing, the Committee again interposed, and this time entirely broke through the rules of their own printed programme, introducing, as they themselves state, a complete alteration in the 'arrangement of the studs'—the metal was changed from zinc to gunmetal, the smaller stud was placed in front, and the larger one behind; both were attached in a different manner.' Had the inventive faculty of the Committee stopped here this change would still have been a clear breach of faith; but, having once commenced to make alterations, they now went much further, and used the experience already obtained from Commander Scott's well-known plan of loading and centring, and applied it to their new projectiles for the French gun. This plan, so much commended in the work of Mr. A. Holley, U.S.A., consists in keeping the body of the projectile clear of the bore of the gun, so that the shot readily loads upon a narrow bearing in the rifle groove, which is rounded to such a curve that the shot may rise up into the centre of the gun on the first pressure of the elastic fluid in firing."

If this statement were correct, it was obvious that the Committee had constructed their gun by adapting the system of Captain Smith to the French gun. Was this fair or honourable to inventors? It was bad enough to steal a man's purse; it was worse to steal the produce of his brains and to bring it before the world as your own. It was perfectly monstrous if this gun had emanated from the Ordnance Select Committee, or had been arranged under their superintendence, that they should be the judges of its value. That this Committee were not above the average of humanity was, he thought, proved by this startling fact—that although they had made a report on the accuracy of the shooting of this gun, under exceptional conditions as regarded actual warfare, they neglected to mention that this accuracy was accompanied by a rapid deterioration of the grooves of the gun, and that the gun was already, after the short trial to which it had been exposed, fissured or split in a very dangerous manner. That was a statement which the noble Lord might verify if he thought proper. He must, however, protest against this or any other gun being introduced into the service until it had received a fair trial before Judges who had not prematurely pronounced upon its merits. He would now turn to another subject—namely, the advice given by the Committee to the Secretary of State for War, which, it was stated, the noble Lord had accepted, and which, if carried out, would be very costly to the country. The Ordnance Select Committee had decided that the name of the 110lb. Armstrong gun should be changed, and that the gun should henceforth be called the 7-inch gun; they recommended that the weight of the projectile should be reduced from 110lb. to 90lb., and that the charge should be reduced from 14lb. to 10lb. Such a change involved the loss of all the existing projectiles that had been purchased at an enormous cost—not only those in this country, but also those in the colonies, and the immense quantity in store in Woolwich. It was also stated that60,000 projectiles of the new pattern had been ordered. The House was probably not aware of the cost of one of these 110lb. projectiles. He did not pretend to fathom the mysteries of Woolwich accounts, but the charge made at Elswick was 25s. for each projectile. Assuming that they could be manufactured for considerably less at Woolwich, the cost of the charge would nevertheless be enormous. If the money were spent in new guns, the country would have something for its money; but here was a worthless gun rendered inefficient by the charge being reduced from 14lb. to 10lb. What would be the use of the Armstrong gun to the navy with this reduced powder and charge? It might be useful for land service, but not for the navy. It was admitted that the First Lord of the Admiralty was answerable for the guns supplied to the navy. Why did not the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) take the responsibility upon himself instead of throwing it upon the Ordnance Select Committee? The noble Duke was well aware of the requirements of navy guns, which greatly differed from those used on land. There were three requirements for a naval gun—simplicity, facilities for loading, and the power of using round spherical projectiles in addition to the projectile appropriate to the gun. They might have had a gun embracing all these requirements, but the proposal was not listened to by the Ordnance Select Committee. The first Lord of the Admiralty was a man of ability and great experience—he had a knowledge of the subject, and he was surrounded by the ablest advisers at the Admiralty—men much more able than the members of the Ordnance Select Committee. Above all, the First Lord was unprejudiced. Why should not the Duke of Somerset take this question into his own hand, and decide upon the rifling as well as the description of gun required by the navy? If he would do so, he (Mr. Baillie) felt persuaded that he would not only give satisfaction to the service, but also to the people of this country, who had so long and so patiently waited for the Ordnance Select Committee to make up their minds, when it was known that it was absolutely necessary that some good gun should be obtained.

said, he had taken the liberty a few weeks ago of asking the noble Lord the Under Secretary for War whether the trial between the French gun and the shunt gun had been made under circumstances favourable to a fair comparison. The noble Lord replied that such questions were very inconvenient, and that he (Mr. Peacocke) ought to take an early opportunity of stating what ground existed for any suspicion of unfairness on the part of the Ordnance Select Committee. His hon. Friend (Mr. Baillie) had relieved him from the necessity of going further into the matter; but he would now give the noble Lord precise reasons for believing that the comparison had not been fairly conducted. The shunt gun was placed on a fixed iron platform; the French gun on an elastic if not rackety wooden one. The shunt gun was given at the muzzle just one-half the windage given to the French gun. Lastly, the bore of the shunt gun was tapered, while that of the French gun was cylindrical throughout its length. He thought that unless the noble Lord was prepared to controvert these statements the House would admit that he had been justified in asking the question of which the noble Lord had complained. The best proof of the fact that some of the members of the Ordnance Select Committee were inventors was one of their own rules, which set forth that members of the Committee should not sit upon their own inventions. This showed that a great departure had taken place from the principle upon which the Committee had been nominated, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon, when he appointed the Committee, stated that one of the fundamental principles of its action would be that no Member of the Committee should himself be an inventor.