said, that he did not rise to offer any opposition to the Instruction, but to throw out a suggestion to the hon. and gallant Member. By the present practice of Committees on Private Bills, it is not competent for a Select Committee on a Private Bill, whether opposed or unopposed, to make any inquiry into matters which by Standing Order No. 92 were ordered to be inquired into by the Court of Referees. In this way several Bills passed through the House with too little inquiry as to the engineering merits of the scheme. Sometimes inhabitants of a town or parties interested did not like the expense of opposing a Bill, and thus schemes of very inferior merit often passed into law. The suggestion he would like to make was, that every Private Bill, whether opposed or unopposed, should be referred to the Court of Referees for inquiry as to the matters detailed in Standing Order No. 92. That Standing Order required the Referees, in the case of all opposed Bills, to inquire into the engineering details and efficiency of the works, and the sufficiency of the estimate for all railways, &c.; also in the case of Waterworks Bills, into the proposed source of supply, the quality of water, and the storage reservoirs; and in the case of Gas Bills, into the quality of the gas, its supply and price, cost of production, &c. He merely wished to throw this proposal out as a suggestion to the hon. and gallant Member as Chairman of the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

said, that if his hon. Friend would bring the matter forward before the Standing Orders Revi- sion Committee, they would be very glad to consider the suggestion.

said, he wished to ask Mr. Solicitor General, If his attention has been called to the length of time Jurymen in the Metropolis have frequently to wait before they are called on the trial for which they are summoned, to the inconvenience of their having three or four summonses for different courts in one week, and to the frequency with which the same persons have to serve; and, if so, whether it is his opinion that a measure could be devised to fix the day when Jurymen are actually required to attend, to make the fees of Special Jurymen more in accordance with the time they are compelled to serve, and if it would not be to the public interest that trials should be shortened?

replied, that his attention was directed almost daily to the time that jurymen in the metropolis had to wait before the trial was called on for which they were summoned. This, however, was unavoidable. Special jurors were summoned to try a particular case, and if the preceding cases occupied much time the jurors were obliged to wait. As to the inconvenience of having three or four summonses for different courts in a week, that arose from the existing state of the law. In London and Middlesex juries were summoned for particular cases. In the rest of the country the law was different. When the law was altered in 1852 as to the mode of summoning juries in the provinces it was allowed to remain as it was in London and Middlesex. As to the frequency with which some persons were summoned to serve, that also arose from the state of the law. In his opinion, no measure could be devised to fix the day when jurymen were actually required to attend, because the time when any trial would take place must depend on the time which the cases preceding it in the list occupied. As to making the fees paid to special jurors more in proportion to the time they were compelled to serve, he would remark that special jurors were paid a guinea each trial. It would be easy to fee the special jurymen higher; but however easy it might be, it would not be a measure of justice unless something were also done in the way of paying common jurymen, who now received only 8d. per cause. And although a guinea was the proper fee payable to special jurors, he knew a case—the celebrated Windham trial—where each special juror received thirty-five guineas for thirty-five days' attendance. As to shortening the duration of trials, his opinion was that it would not he expedient to shorten them. The complaint generally was, that trials were not too long, but too short. Nor did he think it would be for the public interest that trials should be shortened.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government have any intention of introducing any general measure of Road Reform for Scotland during the present Session?

said, in reply, that he was not aware that any measure for road reform in Scotland would be likely to lead to a satisfactory result.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether Specifications for building Iron Gunboats and other Ships of War are not being prepared; and whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to invite Tenders from the builders on the Thames exclusively, or whether builders in other parts of the kingdom will have the opportunity of tendering for such vessels?

My answer, Sir, to the Question of the hon. Member for Durham is this—it is the intention of the Government, in moving the Navy Estimates, to propose the building of two iron gunboats; and the specifications are now being prepared, so that we may receive the tenders as early as possible. This course has been taken on account of the great distress which has been found to prevail among the shipbuilders in the East of London, and with the object that, if Parliament sanction the building of those ships, the companies on the Thames may, as early as possible, prepare for work. This is the course the Admiralty are taking; but it is not the intention to confine the tenders to the Thames companies only. On the contrary, it is intended to call on all the shipbuilders, usually called on, to send in tenders, and the most satisfactory ones will be selected.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as great distress prevails among those engaged in the iron trade as among the shipbuilders on the Thames?

I think I can say that no favour or partiality will be shown to the builders on the Thames over those anywhere else.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Petition from the clerks in the various Government Prisons, praying for an increase of salary, as sent to the Directors of Convict Prisons on the 19th of November, 1866, has been forwarded to the Treasury; and, if so, whether an answer may soon be expected, or if its prayer will be granted?

said, in reply, that the petition had been sent to the Treasury at a much later date, and had not come under his notice until the Estimates for the year 1867–8 had been closed. It required to be referred to another Department before coming to the Treasury for decision.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, When he proposes to lay the Supplementary Army Estimates upon the table of the House? He wished also to know, whether he was to understand from a reply of the I right hon. Gentleman on a former evening that he declined, under any circumstances, to lay upon the table the Report of the Committee on the Land Transport Corps?

I propose, Sir, to lay the Supplementary Army Estimates on the table on Monday next. With regard to the Report of the Land Transport Committee, my answer was that that Report had not yet reached me, and until I had seen it myself I could not say whether it should be laid upon the table or not.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the continuation of the Correspondence relative to the war in the River Plate may be expected to be laid upon the table; and if the Mediation of Her Majesty's Government has been solicited by either, and which, of the belligerents, and with what result?

The Correspondence to which my hon. Friend refers is now in the hands of the printer, and I hope to be able to lay it on the table in a few days. The mediation of Her Majesty's Government has not been solicited by either of the belligerents.

said, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true that a reporter employed by the Cork Herald newspaper was arrested at Killarney, and has been imprisoned, and is still in close confinement, because, in the discharge of what he considered to be his duty, he offered for transmission by Telegraph a message bearing the heading "Disaffection amongst the Military;" and, if it be true, by what legal authority that arrest has been made?

Sir, on the 20th of February a telegram was taken to the telegraph clerk at Killarney to this effect—

"Rumoured disaffection of troops. Officers heard men singing songs with civilians. Removed by police. Military sent to quarters. Fourteen soldiers missing this morning. A wire cut last night at Cluanmullane."

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in the preparation of the promised Reform Bill, the practice adopted in 1858 of availing himself of the services of the professional agents of the Conservative party, in lieu of the ordinary advisers of the Government, will be followed, seeing that such a mode of procedure led to a cost of £3,608 17s. 2d., as per Treasury Minute of June 13, 1859?

I am sorry, Sir, to say that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton is under an erroneous impression as to the ordinary Advisers of Her Majesty's Government in drawing Bills. I regret to say that at the Treasury at the present moment there is no equity draughtsman who can assist the Government in that respect. There ought to be one; and I made an offer this year to one of the most distinguished men in the profession; but so great is the reward which first-rate professional talent now commands, that the application of the Government was fruitless, and I did not think myself justified, though the sum offered was considerable, in increasing that offer. The hon. Gentleman perhaps had in his mind the case of Mr. Thring, a very eminent man, who is usually employed professionally in drawing Bills for the Government. The appointment really filled by Mr. Thring is that of standing counsel to the Home Office, though he is employed mainly in drawing up Government Bills. But Mr. Thring is so over-worked just now, and such considerable appeals have been made to his energies, owing to the number of Bills introduced by Her Majesty's Government, that we have been obliged to give him extra assistance, and to ask him to undertake the work of draughting a Reform Bill, in addition to the labours which already overburden him, would be almost an insult. I trust the House will feel that the Government are not asking for too much confidence when, they hope that the House will allow them to select the best talent they can procure to perform the work now in hand; and I will not therefore dwell further upon that point. With regard to the sum mentioned by the hon. Member of £3,600, which appears in the Treasury Minute as the cost of the Reform Bill of 1859, I would observe that that sum really includes, besides the cost of drawing the Bill, which was comparatively small, the payments made to some of the most eminent statisticians and men of science, whose services were engaged in procuring facts and information upon the subject of Reform. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if he believes that £3,600 is an extravagant sum for the preparation of a Reform Bill, he labours under a very erroneous impression. To my knowledge there have been other Reform Bills which have cost much more than £3,600. But I am sure the House will never grudge payment for any conscientious efforts in this direction. I believe I am right in stating that owing to the accumulated information now at our disposal, the cost of the present Reform Bill will amount to a sum which will quite satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

I wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman arising out of the answer he has just given to the question of the hon. Member for Brighton, and also respecting an entirely different point. The right hon. Gentleman has not merely dealt with the right of the Government, which is undeniable, to engage the services of any gentleman they may select for any particular task, but also with their right to appoint a new draughtsman of Bills, who is to stand in an official relation with the Treasury. Now, I think the House would wish to receive from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that in making any such appointment he will be careful to make it known that any title which any gentleman may obtain from such an appointment, and the salary connected with it, will be subject entirely to the judgment of this House. The other point to which I wish to refer has reference to a misapprehension existing on a subject of great public interest—I mean respecting the time when we may anticipate the introduction of the Government measure relating to the amendment of the Representation of the People. On Tuesday I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he could not then name a day for the introduction of that Bill, but could state with tolerable confidence that it would not be later than Thursday in next week. I have understood from other sources that last night an assurance was given that before the right hon. Gentleman introduced such a Bill, he would give notice of the day. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will have the kindness to say in what way these different versions are to be reconciled, because great anxiety prevails upon a subject of so much importance. I think I have stated clearly the two versions, and I hope that the first of them is accurate?

The two statements I made were, I think, perfectly consistent. I hoped that I might be able to introduce the Bill on Thursday, but I particularly guarded myself on that subject. The right hon. Gentleman said—as I thought, courteously and fairly—that it was a business in which a Minister ought not to be bound to any particular day. Yesterday there was some conversation in the House on the subject. I said that fair notice should be given; and I propose on Monday next to name the day on which I will bring forward the Bill.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has any objection to lay on the table of the House a copy of the Correspondence that has taken place between the Admiralty and Lieutenant Brand subsequent to his being placed on Half-pay?

Sir, before answering the Question of the hon. Gentleman I must apologize to him and to other hon. Members for my not being in the House yesterday at the time a question on this subject was put. In answer to the hon. Member's Question I have to say, that as soon as Lieutenant Brand landed in this country he addressed a letter to the Board of Admiralty with regard to the rebuke which he had received from them in consequence of his letter to the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Buxton), and I am bound to say that letter was written in very becoming and proper terms. It was ackowledged by the Admiralty, and no further correspondence has taken place. If the hon. Gentleman moves for the letters, they will be produced.

said, that in this instance the policy of extending leniency to the minor offenders, and being more severe upon the leaders of the Fenian movement, had not been observed. It was well-known that Morris was a head centre of the Fenians in Carlow, and that he had been most active and energetic in fomenting discontent in that district. It had been proved on the evidence of two witnesses at the trials of Luby and Moore, before the Special Commission, that Morris had received fifty pikes on an order in the handwriting of Stephens, and that he had taken these pikes with him by train, and had been called upon to pay excess of luggage upon them. There was at this moment in the hands of the Irish Government a ledger containing the names of all the persons to whom pikes had been delivered on the order of Stephens, and in this list the name of Morris appeared. In consequence of this evidence, the arrest of Morris was determined upon, and a reward of £50 was offered for his apprehension, the amount being subsequently increased to £100. The people of Carlow, anxious to show their loyalty and support the Government, raised by public subscription £177 to supplement the reward offered by the Government. The result was the apprehension of Morris in the spring of last year, he having been arrested with some difficulty and committed to Mountjoy Prison. In the month of August last the Government communicated with the magistrates as to the course that ought to be pursued with reference to Morris, and their advice was that Morris should be brought to trial. This advice, however, was disregarded, and a few days afterwards Morris was placed on board a steamer for America, and a free passage given to him in order that he might assist in cutting the throats of our esteemed friends the Canadians. It was not for him to cast any blame on the Government, because he be- lieved that the release of Morris was the act of a subordinate, without the knowledge or consent of the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland; but it was evident that the magistrates had been grossly snubbed, that a failure of justice had taken place, and that there were sufficient grounds for further inquiry. He could not believe that that the Irish Law Officers had advised the exercise of such dangerous leniency. The best way of clearing up the matter would be by the production of the papers asked for.

said, it was perfectly true that Morris had been a man of considerable importance, and had been connected with the Fenian conspiracy. He was consequently arrested and underwent a certain amount of imprisonment; but the Attorney General for Ireland being of opinion that it would be well to accept the offer which he made and to release him on condition of going to America, he was released in the same way as a number of other prisoners equally guilty. The Government had always acted on the principle that persons arrested under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant should not be kept in confinement any longer than the public safety required. Such persons were not arrested for the purpose of punishment, but as a preventative measure, in order to secure the preservation of the public peace. His hon. Friend was in error in supposing that a free passage to America had been given to Morris or to any of the released prisoners. No assistance was given to them either by the late or present Government, and they had invariably gone out at their own expense. Many others would have accepted the alternative of the Government sooner had they possessed the means of paying their passage. He was sorry he could not accede to the request of his hon. Friend to produce the opinion of the Law Officers. The arrest and discharge of Morris were equally effected on the responsibility of the Irish Government, and it would not be proper that the reasons which induced the Government to issue Lord Lieutenants' warrants should be made public. All he could say was that the Government acted upon each case on its own merits, and in deference to the opinion of those best qualified to advise them on the subject.

said, he thought the documents ought to be produced to satisfy the House of the prudence of the step taken. There was one point which the noble Lord had omitted to notice—namely, that Morris, who had promised to remain in America when he went thither, had now, in spite of that undertaking, returned to Ireland, or at least to some part of Her Majesty's dominions. This fact had been substantiated, and ought to be brought under the notice of the Government, for it certainly suggested the inference that there had been some negligence in this instance in granting Morris his liberty without taking a sufficient guarantee that it should not be abused.

said, that he thought it would be highly improper if confidential communications of this character were to be laid before the House. The hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly) had informed the Government that Morris had returned to this country, As far as the Government were concerned, they had no knowledge of the circumstance, nor had they any reason to believe that Morris was in any part of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Member for Donegal could furnish the Government with precise information on the point they would be glad to avail themselves of it.

If Fenianism that has been over-riding the country is to be put down it will not be by allowing the leaders to escape and go to some other point more convenient for their designs. I cannot refrain from expressing my deep regret that the Government should have allowed these men to go free, and that you did not, when you had caught them, keep them. When you catch rats—

said, that in the face of the opinion expressed by the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland he could not persevere in his Motion.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the existing state of the Law as regards the right of access of light and air to ancient windows, and to the necessity of providing by Legislative enactment some means by which owners of property, under proper regulations, and on payment of compensation, if necessary, may be enabled to increase the height of their buildings. It appeared that so far back as the reign of Richard the First it was anticipated that the City of London would become overcrowded with buildings, and from that time till 1834 there was a custom which enabled the owner of a house in the City to raise it to any height he pleased, notwithstanding his doing so might diminish the access of light and air to adjoining tenements, A jury of twelve aldermen, with the Lord Mayor as Assessor, were to sit and determine the rights of the parties. But in 1834 an Act was passed which gave the owners of property a right to a perpetual injunction to prevent any diminution of the access of light and air to their property. This question was one of considerable importance, owing to the constantly increasing pressure for increased extent and accommodation of buildings in the metropolis, and the consequent necessity that was felt more and more of increasing the height and improving the character of ancient buildings. The law as it at present stood was such that persons anxious to improve and heighten their buildings were at the mercy of their immediate neighbours, and most extortionate demands were commonly made when any alterations of this character were contemplated. When the Act of 1834 came into operation the difficulties which now existed began to arise, and it has been held by Lord Westbury that when any window of a dwelling-house shall have been actually enjoyed for a period of twenty years without interruption, the right to such window shall be absolute and indefeasible. The difficulties to the public arose in this way. Supposing a man to have only a small window, admitting only a comparative small quantity of light, and another, in order that he might alter his house or premises, wanted him to enlarge his light, the law said you shall do nothing that can compel a man to enlarge his window unless he chooses. Suppose a person wishing to build said to the owner of a small window, "If you will enlarge your window, or do anything that will bring in rays of light, and will at the same time allow me to erect a building near your property, then you will not suffer from any diminution of light and air, but will obtain a greater access of them." The owner of the small window might refuse unless a very large pecuniary compensation was given to him. A case came before Vice Chancellor Wood, and the answer given by the Court was, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to make any alteration in his house to enable another to deal more advantageously with his own property. On that decision a party owning a small window could make terms advantageous to himself. In a work recently published, he found in the preface this extraordinary statement—

"Since the demand has arisen for now and enlarged buildings, the right to window lights has become of considerable pecuniary value."

said, it would be impossible to accede to any such Motion. The subject was no doubt one of growing importance; but he thought it had been somewhat exaggerated by his hon. Friend. It should be borne in mind that the law was carefully considered and settled so late as the year 1834. In the City of London, up to that time, there was a custom that tenements might be built upon old foundations to any height without regard to other people's light. That was greatly complained of, and it was thought proper to abolish that custom. The owner of a tenement had a right to a certain amount of light, and if he had enjoyed that light for twenty years it was his property. Of course, if the interests of the public required it, the right might be taken away on payment of compensation. No doubt there must be some cases of hardship under the present state of the law; but he thought it would be unreasonable in an offhand manner to unsettle what had so lately been, after full consideration, settled. It was impossible either for a Select Committee or the Government to take the subject into consideration during the present Session; and he therefore trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not press the matter further. In another Session, perhaps—if the hon. Member again introduced the subject—the matter might be fully considered.

said, he had given notice that he would ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What are the intentions of Government with reference to the Law of Master and Servant; but instead of putting a direct question to the right hon. Gentleman, he would venture to make a request. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman publicly, as he had already done privately, to undertake to bring in a Bill to legislate on this question. He had a faint hope that such an expression of opinion would be made by hon. Members that the right hon. Gentleman would be encouraged to legislate upon it. This question of the law of master and servant was one which required to be dealt with by Parliament early in the present Session. The law, as it at present stood, was this—that a servant, if he broke a civil contract, was liable to a criminal prosecution, and might be imprisoned with hard labour. Such a state of law as this was harsh, unjust, and un-called for—and required remedy at the hands of Parliament. The position in which the question stood was this:—Last Session a Committee sat to inquire into the law regulating contracts between master and servant, and the Committee unanimously came to the decision that the present state of the law was objectionable, and they passed certain Resolutions recommending some changes in the law. A Committee, representing the united trades of the United Kingdom, had expressed their approval in general terms of the Resolutions arrived at by the Committee. It being admitted that a change was necessary, the question arose by whom was that change to be made. He felt very strongly that the question was one of such importance that it ought not to be dealt with by a private Member of this House. It ought to be taken up and dealt with upon the responsibility of the Government. The Secretary of State had gained just credit to himself for the way in which he had dealt with the trades unions; but he (Lord Elcho) thought this ! question of the law of master and servant was not less important. It was the wish of the master as well as the workman that Government should take it in hand, and with such a general concurrence of opinion upon the subject the Government ought not to hesitate to speedily act in the matter. He was also supported in this view by the opinion of the Committee, who thought the question should be dealt with by a Bill introduced by the Home Secretary. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would be induced to take up the matter in the present Parliament, and introduce a Bill to regulate the law with regard to it.

said, he thought the question was so much mixed up with that of trades unions, that it would be better to await the result of that inquiry than to institute hasty legislation. The delay of a year or two could do no harm, for the evidence taken by the Committee disclosed very few cases of harshness or oppression, and he believed that the law was not often enforced except in cases which came under the Combination Act. The Committee did not discover a single instance of the law having operated unfairly in the district where textile manufactures were carried on, which branch of industry employed the largest number of hands in the kingdom; and his own experience, both as an employer and a magistrate, was to the same effect. If, however, a Bill were introduced, it ought to be under the charge of the Home Secretary.

said, the hon. Member who had just sat down had stated that questions between masters and servants coming for adjudication before a magistrate arose frequently out of trades unions under the Combination Act. He (Mr. Candlish) had had great experience both as a magistrate and an employer of labour, and he could not remember a single instance of the kind. His experience went to show that the prosecutions under the present law were cases simply of breach of contract, and had nothing to do with the Combination Act. They occurred especially in seaports, sailors being proceeded against for refusing to go to sea. A general feeling prevailed that the law which imposed only a penalty on the employer for the breach of a civil contract while it sent the workman to prison was unequal, and ought to be amended. He hoped the Home Secretary would introduce a Bill on the subject at an early day. He was quite sure that such a Bill would receive the cordial support of both sides of the House, and of masters as well as men.

said, he concurred in the request that this subject should be taken in hand by the Government, without any loss of time, and that the summary and humiliating process of arrest should be put an end to by statute. He believed that the cases were rare in which a workman, who was supposed to have been guilty of some breach of duty, was manacled and brought before the magistrate as a felon; but he thought that there was a widespread opinion among the masters, and an almost universal opinion among the workmen, that the law was one which tended to dishonour and degrade the workman, and which, in a case of a breach of contract, placed him in a state of inferiority, mischievous to him and injurious to the master. There was one proposal of the Select Committee which ought not to be overlooked—namely, that in cases of aggravated breaches of contract, which might have caused injury to persons or property, the magistrates should have power to award punishment by imprisonment, instead of by fine. He alluded to such a case as that of an engineer who, carelessly or wilfully, left his engine, which was attached to a colliery, whereby a man ascending or descending the shaft might have lost his life, but some one providentially discovered his absence, and averted the calamity. The arrest of wages in Scotland for the payment of fines ought to be abolished. He hoped the House would very shortly deal with that question, and sweep the arrest away, as a relic of a past age, and unworthy the time in which they lived.

This is, Sir, one of the most important questions that can engage our attention. The Committee of last year arrived at certain conclusions by way of Resolutions, which I thought my noble Friend (Lord Elcho) would have embodied in a Bill and submitted to the consideration of the House, That Committee, my noble Friend reported, were unanimous in the Resolutions they adopted. But this very night has shown that very great precautions are necessary in adopting these Resolutions, because one Member of the Committee has expressed doubts as to these Resolutions, and has given his reason for so doing. My noble Friend has recommended to Her Majesty's Government the propriety of bringing in a Bill on this subject. I will not put him off by the observation which I might make, that, owing to the great pressure of the Government business, I do not see the probability of bringing in such a measure at an early opportunity. I admit that this subject ought to be taken into consideration at an early period, and I think that both the House and the Government equally desire to entertain it. At the same time, the subject is one which it is not easy to grapple with. I am engaged in communications with the Attorney General on this matter, and, without any positive pledge as to the time when we can introduce a Bill, I will give my best attention to the subject, and will if possible bring in a measure.

said, that a few days ago he had warned the Government that when it was known in Scotland that no addition would be made to the representation great dissatisfaction and disappointment would be felt in that country. He had reason to believe that he had by no means exaggerated that feeling. He begged to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a Return laid on the table last year. That Return showed the proportional number of Members which ought to be given to each of the three kingdoms. First, proportionally, as to population; secondly, proportionally, as to contributions to the revenue; and thirdly, the mean between the two. According to population the Return would give to Scotland sixty-nine Members. According to taxation it would give eighty-six Members. And the mean between the two was seventy-eight. The present number of representatives was fifty-three. He did not expect that a claim of that kind would be paid in full; but in the Bill of last year the claim was acknowledged, and it was proposed to add seven Members to Scotland. In 1859, although no specific increase was promised, he remembered that the Lord Advocate, at the close of the debate on the second reading of the Reform Bill, pointed out, in reply to a question, that there were still seats not allotted to other parts of the Empire, and that hon. Gentlemen were not to suppose that no increase was to be made to Scotland. It was generally understood at the time that they were to have three new Members. He wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer merely to apply the same rules to Scotland which he had laid down for England. His right hon. Friend had enlarged with great force and clearness on the necessity for enlarging the county representation in England. Yet the greatest and wealthiest county in Scotland sent no more representatives to that House than half the number sent by the county of Rutland. His right hon. Friend proposed to add to the representation of Stafford shire a new Member, who was to represent what he called the "Black Country." He begged to remind his right hon. Friend that in one of the largest counties in Scotland—Lanark—they had also a "Black Country," which was growing daily in wealth, importance, and population. Yet that county was only represented by a single Member, unless they added to its representation one-third of the Member for the Falkirk district of boroughs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had now introduced the sixth of the Reform Bills which had been introduced during the last fifteen or sixteen years. The right hon. Gentleman was taking a step, in the name of the Conservative party, in the direction of Reform greater and more solemn than he had taken before. A large majority of the Members from Scotland had always declared themselves in favour of Reform, and if the question had been left to them it would have been settled long ago. Now, it appeared to him that the Conservative Members who assisted the right hon. Gentleman in taking this question out of the hands of the right hon. Gentleman opposite were bound to see that the interests of Scotland were as much considered and as carefully weighed by their leader and his Cabinet as they would have been by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. They were making a concession to the opinions of their hon. Friends opposite, and if that concession were to do any good, it must be fairly and handsomely made. Would it be fair, or handsome, or wise, that a suspicion should be allowed to arise in Scotland that that country was not treated upon that side of the House as it would have been treated on the other; and that, in fact, it was to be deprived of its fair share of the new representation because the timepiece which regulated the opinion of the Treasury Bench went a little slower than that which regulated political opinions on the Opposition? As regards the second part of the question, respecting the source from which the increase might be derived, there were several seats which might be now said to be vacant. That part of the speech the other night, in which the right hon. Gentleman announced the proposed disfranchisement of the four seats which had recently been reported for bribery, was received with especial favour. If these boroughs were to be deprived of the right of sending Members to the House of Commons, would it not be wise to consider the claims of that portion of the kingdom which contained no boroughs that could be disfranchised for a similar cause? If these seats were to be taken away for the purpose not only of punishing the peccant boroughs, but also in order to give a solemn warning to the boroughs which had not yet been found out—though their bad eleotoral habits were, to say the least, strongly suspected—if such were the case, would it not add force and meaning to that warning if some of the seats were transferred to a country which, whatever might be its shortcomings, had during the last thirty years conducted its elections with almost unsullied purity? He asked this question with great reluctance, not with any desire to embarrass the Government, but because the subject excited the greatest possible interest in Scotland. So far from wishing to place any additional obstacle in the way of the right hon. Gentleman, he desired to bring the subject under his notice in order that he might take timely means to remove a difficulty which might otherwise prove serious. He begged to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in his proposed scheme of Reform, it was proposed to give any additional representatives to Scotland; and, if so, from what source the increase was to be derived?

said, he hoped that the Government, before producing their Bill, would re-consider their proposals as they affected Scotland. The hon. Baronet who had brought this question forward had not exaggerated the dissatisfaction which existed in Scotland on this subject. He should not be doing his duty if he did not state that many places in Scotland, including the borough he represented, were, from their increase in population and wealth, fairly entitled to additional representation.

said, the feeling in Scotland upon this subject was very strong indeed, and he found himself in a position of some difficulty; for, though he desired to lend his support to Her Majesty's Government in bringing to a settlement the most difficult question which they had taken in hand, he was considerably embarrassed in consequence of the marked silence maintained by the Government in reference to a subject which excited very great interest, not only in his own county, but throughout the whole of Scotland. That was not exactly the time to enter upon the question; but he might state that he represented one of the largest counties in Scotland (Lanark), in which there were five towns of many inhabitants wholly unrepresented. There was not a case in the United Kingdom with stronger claims to be considered, although its claim was not peculiar, for Ayrshire, Perth, Aberdeen, and a number of Scotch burghs were imperfectly represented, and had also strong claims on the Government. He submitted the claims of Scotland in the interest, not only of the country itself, but in the interest of the Government and of Parliament. He desired to ask English Members whether it was fair that the position of Scotland, which was now in the enjoyment of so much wealth and prosperity, and which contributed so largely to the national resources, should remain, with regard to representation, even below the position occupied by it on its union with England. At that time, when only forty-five Members were given to Scotland, the proportion was one in twelve, and it was less than that at the present day. The union between the two countries was a close and hearty one, and English Members should not object to the claim now made for additional Members for Scotland.

said, he begged to join with those hon. Members who had preceded him in raising his voice in support of the claims of Scotland to be fairly considered in this matter. He wished to enlarge the question, and to suggest an extension of it to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The discussion which had taken place had turned chiefly on the question of giving more Members to counties; but that point could be much better considered when the discussion on the Reform Bill took place, and he did not intend, therefore, to offer any observations upon that matter now. But his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton had made an inquiry of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that evening respecting the sum of £3,600, paid out of the public Treasury for the procuring of statistics upon which to found a Reform Bill in 1859. The right hon. Gentleman very properly justified that expenditure on the ground that the information then obtained was of a most valuable nature, and that some of the first statisticians of the day, and some of the most scientific men, were employed to procure that information. He (Mr. M'Laren) had an opportunity of reading these private papers, which had never been published, and one of which was specially directed to the claims of Scotland. It was, as appears from the heading, prepared at the request of the noble Lord, now First. Commissioner of Works; and it placed those claims on such fair grounds that he should be prepared at once to accept those grounds, and ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was prepared to give effect to the opinions expressed by the scientific gentlemen and the eminent statisticians whom he employed for the purpose? The summing up of the argument, in which the claims of Scotland were rested, was as follows:—

"In order, therefore, to ascertain whether the Scotch Members for counties and boroughs ought in fairness to be increased or diminished, he ought first to ascertain to what number of Members Scotland is entitled by virtue of her population, and then to what deduction from that number she ought to be subjected in consequence of the smaller amount of her real property."

said, he wished to urge the claims of the Scotch Universities. The English Universities and the University of Dublin were represented in that House by six Members, and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of giving a Member to the University of London, while the, Scotch Universities were altogether unrepresented. He was informed that the constituency of the University of London would not amount to 2,000. The Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh would give a constituency of 4,000. They were entitled to one Member, and the Universities of St. Andrew's and Aberdeen ought to have one also.

said, he hoped that, in dealing with the question of Reform, the Government and the House would consider what was for the substantial benefit of the country. It was said that the Act of 1832 was a settlement of the question. He denied it. That Act had only unlocked the mind of the country.

said, he would remind the hon. Member that the general subject of Reform was not under discussion. The discussion was confined to certain matters referred to in a Question put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I was wandering. Every interest has been attended to but the claim of 5,000,000 of our fellow-subjects. ["Order, order!"]

Ample occasion will be given to enter into that.

The people of Scotland are the friends of liberty and enlightened policy, as is shown by the Members they send to this House. Scotland is an example to the United Kingdom. I join in the request made by the hon. Gentleman. It is a glorious opportunity, such as is seldom given to any mortal man, that is now given to my right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)—an opportunity of elevating the character of the United Kingdom.

said, he was disposed to augur favourably of the result of this discussion from the expression of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's countenance while he listened to the figures which were cited by the hon. Baronet who had introduced it, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state what his intentions were.

Sir, it appears to me that the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire is framed on a misconception of the precise state of affairs. I have promised the House that, with their permission, I would introduce a Bill that will improve the representation of the people in Parliament. Her Majesty's Government have not arrived at the conclusion that there is too much representative power in England. The conclusion at which we have arrived is that the representative power in England might be more efficiently distributed. As to that we have a clear opinion; but there is a great difficulty in extending the representative power in some places and curtailing it in others, so as to distribute it in a more efficient manner. In the Bill which I shall shortly ask for leave to introduce, we make proposals when we believe will render the representation of England more efficient. We call into the representation a number of towns which have risen into importance since the passing of the Bill of 1832. We also propose to give more representation to large districts, which, I believe, every one of candid mind admits to be insufficiently represented. We see no reason to believe that the representative power of England is greater than its population, its property, and those mixed considerations, which ought to be admitted in an adjustment of such important details, entitle it to. Therefore, I cannot admit that, in attempting to improve the representation of England and Wales, we are bound to consider the claims of any other part of the United Kingdom. I think it a course much to be deprecated that the justice of any claim, which may be urged on behalf of one part of the United Kingdom, should be made to depend on what can be subtracted from another part of the kingdom. Having said that, I must beg the Representatives for Scotland to understand that Her Majesty's Government, when dealing with the case of Scotland, will consider it without any foregone conclusion, and solely with reference to the claims which it may fairly put forth to perfect its representation in this House. The claims to representation of the Scotch Universities are, no doubt, claims that may fairly be urged. My hon. Friend has spoken of the superiority, in point of numbers, of the Scotch Universities as compared with the University of London, to which I said a few nights ago it was the intention of the Government to recommend that a Member should be assigned. But my hon. Friend cannot accuse the present Ministers of the Crown of any neglect of Scotch Universities. These Universities may now appeal with pride and confidence to the character of their constituencies and to the interests which they represent. But to whom are they indebted for that character and for those constituencies? It was the Bill introduced under our auspices in 1859 which gave, I may say, a corporate character to those Universities, and laid the foundation of the claim which they could not before then have with any propriety urged. It cannot be supposed, therefore, that we, as a Ministry, are insensible to the claims of the great seats of learning in Scotland. I have always been favourable to constituencies which, mixed with those based on the great material interests that must always form the bulk of a representative assembly, should be founded on intellect and educa- tion. I can only repeat to the House, and especially to the Representatives for Scotland, that they are under a very great error, if they suppose that the Government are insensible to their claims, or unwilling to consider them; but they cannot consider them on the condition, that the improved representation of Scotland is to be satisfied by the sacrifice of English interests.

said, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Scotch Reform Bill was likely to be introduced? The character of that Bill might make a great difference in the support the English Bill might receive from Scotland.

said, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could inform the House of the number of male occupiers resident in the boroughs and cities of England and Wales who would be placed upon the register for the election of Members of Parliament, by a household suffrage, accompanied by a three years' residence and the personal payment of rates? He had no wish to provoke a premature discussion on Reform; but the need of information on this point was sorely felt by many representatives of boroughs in England, and by none more than by some hon. Friends who sat on the Benches near him. If the right hon. Gentleman had it in his power to grant the information, or could suggest any other form in which the question might more acceptably be framed, he felt certain that, with his invariable courtesy to the younger Members of the House, he would not object to do so. From the information already in possession of the House it would appear that the borough occupiers in England and Wales, resident in houses of £10 and upwards, amounted to 639,000. Including the metropolitan constituency, these 639,000 were divided into equal halves at the £20 point; but, deducting the metropolitan occupiers whose house-rent was exceptionally high, there would remain 400,000 equally divided at the £18 point. So much for the houses above £10. Now, what was in the abyss below that limit? Looking down into it, he could not say, with Sir Charles Coldstream, that "there was nothing in it," but he believed there was much less in it than was generally supposed. The number of occupiers below the £10 level he took to be 650,000 or 700,000, not greatly exceeding therefore the number of those above the £10 level. What he wished to ascertain was the number of those who would come upon the electoral register in case the conditions of a three years' residence, with personal payment of rates, were insisted upon. In putting this question he was actuated by an earnest desire for the satisfactory solution of the question of Reform upon some basis that should satisfy the conditions of an equitable, a comprehensive, and a conclusive settlement?

said, that this measure was not intended to interfere with the Mortmain Acts further than to permit the founders of certain institutions to purchase or give land upon which the necessary buildings might be erected. He did not wish to enable parties to take large estates; and therefore the Bill limited the quantity to be taken, at full value, to two acres. He proposed no alteration in the laws of Mortmain, which Blackstone said were intended to prevent a dying man from endeavouring to atone for a bad life by giving to God the wealth which he could no longer retain.

said, that the Bill of his hon. Friend had been very carefully and judiciously guarded, being limited to sites for buildings and bonâ fide purchases. He thought it would be a great improvement in the law, and he would be prepared to go further in the same direction. Its principle should be exempted from the strict rules of the Mortmain Act. He was prepared to give the measure his cordial support.

said, the question was one of some importance, and he should therefore reserve his opinion upon it until the Bill was before them. The Mortmain Act had been a very useful one in preventing languishing and dying persons leaving gifts to religious and charitable uses. The present measure was intended to strike a blow at that Act, although it only referred to the purchase of sites, because a languishing or dying person might on his death bed, under its provisions, ask another to buy two acres of land in the City of London, saying he would give full value for it, and make it a site for a church or chapel, or school, or anything else which came within the category of a charitable purpose. He would not, however, oppose the introduction of the Bill.

said, that the proposal now made was in strict accordance with the recommendations of two Select Committees of the House, one of which was presided over by himself, and the other by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield).