, who had a Question on the Paper, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether there is any foundation for the rumour that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has refused to appoint to the Living of Valentia, co. Kerry, which is now vacant; and, whether the course pursued by His Excellency has been sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government? said, that considering the statement which had been made on the previous evening by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, he would not put his Question.

Sir, I trust I may be excused for answering the Question which has not been put to me by my hon. Friend; because, when once a Question has been put upon the Notice Paper it becomes a matter of general interest. What took place in connection with the living of Valentia I believe was this—Valentia has a population of 3,000 per- sons, of whom seventy-nine, or about one-fortieth part, belong to the communion of the Established Church. Her Majesty's Government have not presumed to come to any absolute and final conclusion with regard to those livings which may become vacant between the time when they came into Office and the time when the judgment of Parliament will be given upon the proposals which they have introduced with respect to the Irish Church. Especially they have not come to any resolution which will prevent them from taking care that the wants of any parish, with a considerable population, are supplied. With respect to parishes of the particular class of Valentia, what we had to consider was, that no great inconvenience would arise to the. population from any temporary delay in making an appointment, inasmuch as the present law sufficiently provides the Bishop of the diocese with the means of making provision for the spiritual wants of the living. Under these circumstances, I think the Lord Lieutenant has exercised a sound judgment in not making a new appointment in a case like this, where the population of the Established Church is only about a fortieth or a fiftieth part of the whole population, seeing that that appointment would necessarily create a vested interest for life.

said, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, as is stated in some of the public prints, it is in the contemplation of the Government to recommend to Her Majesty that Cardinal Cullen should be appointed a member of the Privy Council in Ireland?

, in reply, said, he was not aware that the statement referred to had been made in any quarter until he had read it upon the Notice Paper. No such intention had ever been entertained by the Government.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any legislation on the subject of Turnpike Trusts is contemplated during the present Session?

, in reply, said, that the Government had no intention of introducing such a Bill this Session.

said, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for New Boss, If he will kindly consent to postpone the Second Reading of his Poor Law Amendment Bill from the 7th to the 14th of April?

said, he was sorry that he could not accede to the request.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, If his attention has been called to the present condition of the Royal Naval Reserve; and if it is his intention to introduce any measure to increase its efficiency?

, in reply, said, his attention had not been called in any specific manner to the condition of the Reserve; but that he would state the course which the Admiralty proposed to adopt with regard to it when he moved the Navy Estimates.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, How many English Counties have been visited (including those now under investigation) by the Assistant Commissioners appointed under the Commission on the employment of children, young persons, and. women in agriculture; and, whether it is the intention of the Chief Commissioners to obtain any evidence in Scotland illustrative of the many subjects touched upon in the first Report of the Commission?

, in reply, said, he might be permitted to answer the Question by enumerating the counties that had not been visited. These counties were Lancashire, Staffordshire, Yorkshire, Shropshire, Derbyshire, Worcestershire, Hertfordshire, Cornwall, and all Wales. With respect to Scotland, the powers of the Commissioners did not extend to that country; but it was under consideration whether their inquiries should not include Scotland.

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any and what kind of inquiry has been or is to be instituted into the circumstances of the recent fatal accident at the Bhore Ghaut on the Great Indian Peninsula Railway, and whether any steps can be taken to guard against such occurrences in future?

, in reply, said, that the Government of Bombay had decided to appoint a Commission to inquire into the circumstances of the accident, and that a Bill was to be introduced into the Legislative Council to give that Commission full powers as to taking evidence. Meanwhile precautions had been taken to prevent passenger trains entering on the Bhore Ghaut incline when it appeared to be in a dangerous condition.

said, he would beg to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, When he expects to lay upon the Table of, the House a Return of Poor Relief Assessment, ordered on the 18th February, 1868?

, in reply, said, that the Returns had not been printed because much of the information to which they related was to be found in the proceedings of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into compound-house-holding.

said, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the large accumulations of refuse from brick-kilns, that now cover the green slopes of Hyde Park, near the lower end of the Serpentine, have been placed there in the hope that they will imitate rock-work; or, if not, for what purpose they have been brought there?

, in reply, said he could assure his right hon. Friend that he had not the slightest intention of cheating him or any one else into the belief that the brickwork was intended for rock-work. What his right hon. Friend, with a poetical licence, called "the green slopes" of Hyde Park formed merely the banks of a very dirty ditch, through which fell the outcome of the Serpentine. The brickwork had been placed there simply because it would form a good foundation for the subsoil in which certain shrubs were to be planted. He hoped that in a short time the plantation would be completed, and the offensive sight removed.

said, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, What portion of the Royal Park, known as the Victoria Park, has been leased for building sites; what average annual revenue is derived from the land so leased; what is the value of the land yet remaining unleased retained for the Park; what is the average annual cost of maintaining the Park; and whether, having regard to the population in the Eastern part of the Metropolis, the Government will sanction the permanent retention of such lands as are unleased for the public advantage?

, in reply, said, that every part of his hon. Friend's Question, except one, belonged to the province of the Commissioner of Woods, but he had obtained the information necessary to enable him to give an answer. With regard to the first part of the Question, he had to state that no part of Victoria Park had been leased for building purposes. The Crown possessed property in that quarter, consisting of 265 acres, part of which was appropriated to Victoria Park, the remainder, under two Acts of Parliament was leased by the Commissioner of Woods for the purposes of revenue and for the maintenance of the Park. The present revenue derived from the land so leased was £1,500 a year. The value of the land still unleased was, he understood, about £4,000 a year. The average annual cost of maintaining the Park was £6,300, consequently the annual rental of the Crown land when the whole was leased would go far towards meeting it. With regard to the last Question, he would say that the Government had no power to retain those lands under the Act. They were leased by the Office of Woods for the benefit of the revenue and the maintenance of Victoria Park.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, If his attention has been directed to the reports in the public journals of the large quantities of Australian and other preserved meats that are offered for sale at about six pence per pound; if he has seen the favourable statement of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh in regard to the Australian preserved meat published in "The Times" of 2nd November, 1868; and, whether, seeing that the preserved meats produced at the Deptford Dockyard (according to Parliamentary Return, No. 353, of last Session) cost eleven pence per pound, he intends to continue to supply the Navy with that manufactured by Government, or to buy in the open market?

I beg to inform the hon. Gentleman and the House that, so far back as 1865, the attention, of the Government was called to the possibility of obtaining meat for the use of the navy from the Australian colonies at a lower cost than that which was purchased in this country; and inquiries took place through the agency of one of the Australian Governments, which did not at that time end in any satisfactory arrangement being made. However, during the past year the question has been revived again, and before the present Board took Office a certain quantity of Australian preserved meat was purchased and issued to different ships, in order that the opinion of the officers and crews of those ships might be had as to the value of the meat. From many of those ships replies have been received, the greater part of which are of a satisfactory character; and, at the present time, the Admiralty are preparing a notice for tenders for the supply of a certain quantity of preserved Australian beef of the present year. I shall be able to state, on Vote 2 in the Navy Estimates, the probable financial result of such an arrangement if it is satisfactorily carried out.

said, that the second reading of this Bill stood on the Orders for Thursday, and he begged to ask the hon. Member for Meath on what day he intended to proceed with that Order? and to give him Notice that unless a day was fixed giving a reasonable and proper opportunity for discussion he would oppose the postponement of the Order on Thursday next.

said, that he stated last night, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole), that he was not then in a position to name the day, nor was he now; but he hoped on Thursday night to fix it, and it would be the most convenient he could find after Easter.

inquired of the Under Secretary for India, "What truth there might be in a very alarming rumour to the effect that the garrison of Kohat had been surprised by a party of Oorukzais, and that the British had sustained a loss of 300 men?

thanked his hon. Friend for having given him an opportunity of immediately contradicting a rumour which must have caused such terrible anxiety that day in so many English homes. The real state of affairs would be best shown by his reading a telegram from the Viceroy, dated Calcutta, Feb. 27. It was as follows:—

"On the 13th inst. party of Oorukzais surprised police post near Kohat when police were asleep. Three men taken away. One killed. Lieut.-Governor has authorized Colonel Keyes to make a day's march from Kohat into the pass for the purpose of punishment."

A later telegram said that Colonel Keyes's expedition had been a success.

, in rising to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the action with reference to Agriculture of various Public Authorities, with a view to consider the expediency of recommending that some one Department be made responsible for dealing with administrative and legislative questions affecting Agriculture, said, he did not propose to revive the debate on local taxation which had been opened by his hon. Friend (Sir Massey Lopes) the other evening in a speech remarkable for its ability and for the success which had attended it. He differed from the hon. Baronet in many respects, but when he gave notice on the first night of the Session of his wish to move for a Committee to inquire into the incidence of local taxation, it was not his intention to trespass on a subject which his hon. Friend had made his own. His object merely was to clear up certain questions as to the relation between tenants and landlords, and between country parishes and town parishes, upon which there had been a great deal of misunderstanding, tending to create an undue sense of grievance, and an expectation of remedies which he thought impossible. He did not wish to anticipate another debate, to which country Members were looking forward with great interest on the introduction by Her Majesty's Government of their intended measure for the establishment of County Financial Boards. Neither was it his intention to ask for the appointment here, as in foreign countries, of a Minister of Agriculture, whose duty it would be to nurse up farmers. But what he did intend was to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the action with reference to Agriculture of certain Public Authorities. It had been said that his proposal was to introduce new functionaries, new officers, new salaries, and in fact, as he had heard it stated that morning, a new "Circumlocution Office." But that was not the case. Public authorities were already engaged with a great deal of business which affected the interests of agriculture and the production of food in this country. The public authorities connected with that subject were of two kinds, local and Imperial. Among the local authorities were magistrates, Boards of Guardians, Highway Boards, Turnpike Commissioners, Sewers Commissioners, and Commissioners of Taxes. But he did not propose an Inquiry into all the details of those various local bodies. He desired more particularly to direct attention to the Imperial authorities established in the metropolis; and they included the Home Office, the Privy Council, and the Board of Trade; while subordinate to these were the Copyhold and Inclosure Commissioners, the Cattle Plague branch (when called into existence by the Privy Council), the Health Office, the Local Government Office, and the Statistical Office of the Board of Trade. It was not a question of creating new offices or cutting out new work, but of re-distributing existing work and concentrating and fixing responsibility. What was desired was that there should be a Department generally accessible to those interested in agriculture, and that it should be represented in Parliament by some responsible Minister. He did not, on that occasion, appear as the representative of an aggrieved interest, nor to plead for a re-adjustment of burdens as between different descriptions of property. He did not ask the House to charge on the mercantile classes the burdens at present borne by the land, still less did he ask the House to tax the hard earnings of the professional man for the benefit of agriculture. But he asked the House gravely to consider this question—were there, or were there not, in the laws of England as they now stood, or in the relations of those who, in different ways, were connected with landed property, causes which tended to impede the application of capital to the cultivation of the soil? Agriculture in these days was mainly a question of capital; and he asked whether the laws of holding and the tenure of land, the administration of the law, and the powers of various authorities, local or Imperial, tended to hinder the free and secure use of capital in agriculture? He was not aiming at centralization. He had not forgotten the words of the President of the Board of Trade last Session, nor had he forgotten the kind words uttered by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), in which he warned him that in any plan for promoting a better system of local government, it must be borne in mind that the impulse must come from without. He thought he should not be accused of unduly promoting centralization if he said that the following were legitimate functions for a central authority, namely—first, to remove obstacles to the employment of capital arising from obsolete customs or bad legislation; secondly, to endeavour to protect the weak from having their money spent for them on imprudent outlays, and to prevent the cost of improvident works from being cast upon posterity; thirdly, to collect, test, systematize, and diffuse correct information on agricultural subjects. Only that morning he heard some practical farmers talking of the agricultural statistics laid before the House by the statistical branch of the Board of Trade. They spoke warmly of the use of those statistics, but thought they ought to be more rapidly collected, and brought out as soon as possible after the harvest to be of service to the farmers, whereas, at the time they were now published they only enabled them to guess at what other people were doing with the wheat they had grown. In the fourth place, in cases where they had to struggle against obsolete customs and petty local interests, and where they could not mate progress without the Concurrence of those locally interested, he thought the State might take the initiative in stimulating local action, and guard against improvident expenditure. Lastly, he thought it a legitimate function for the Executive Government, under the sanction of Parliament, to raise a standard of professional competence for persons intrusted by law with responsible public duties affecting the interests of others. We plumed ourselves on being essentially a practical people, who thought that scientific knowledge was likely to mislead men rather than to be a safe guide to them in the management of their affairs; but those who had reflected upon the sufferings of the lower orders, and had examined into the misery existing among the crowded population of towns, and the scattered population of villages, must feel convinced that it was of the utmost importance that men charged with public responsibility should give some proof of sound education and scientific knowledge. But, supposing an Agricultural Department to have been appointed, it might be asked, what on earth was there for it to do—and what did they want with a Department to help people to do that which they could do better for themselves? He would answer by enumerating five of the subjects which, in his opinion, required the intervention of the best knowledge, guided by the best experience which the country could produce. Some of these were already in action in various branches of the Executive, while others were in their infancy, though, he thought, it would be admitted that they were all subjects which were growing daily in importance. The first related to the exchange and transfer of land, and the improvement of land and cottages. Those who had watched the proceedings of the Commission ap- pointed to inquire into the employment of women and children, and who were aware of the disclosures which would probably result from that investigation, as to the condition of cottages in this country, would admit that he was not now speaking of a subject which was unimportant in itself, or of one which had not been carefully attended to by many proprietors of the soil. It was, however, also true that over a very large proportion of the land in this country cottages were in a very neglected state, and in need of the most careful attention on the part of the Legislature. Many of of the duties connected with this subject were already discharged by the Copyhold and Inclosure Commissioners. In the next place, there was the whole question of internal communication in the country. He was not here going to speak directly of railways, although he must repeat, in passing, what he had said last year. His remarks, on that occasion, had since been greatly misrepresented. It had been alleged that he had brought forward a Motion for saddling on the overburdened ratepayers broken-down railways, and branches of railways which did not pay as commercial enter-prizes. The proposal which he really did make was originally suggested to him by a Conservative county Member, now deceased; and it was to the effect that one of the functions of the projected Department should be to facilitate the construction of railways on a cheaper system than was usually adopted, and to push them into holes and corners of the country where, as ordinary investments, they would not be successful. But what he thought called for early legislation was this,—to bring under some combined system of management the whole of the roads and bridges in the rural districts. In every county there were a number of bridges, with 100 yards of turnpike road on either side of them, under the management of irresponsible Justices of the Peace; then there were the highways, under the supervision of the Highway Board, and then roads under the Turnpike Commissioners. With regard to the bridges, he believed a fearful indictment might be made out against our ancestors by simply printing a map indicating the positions of the county bridges, with reference to the county histories, showing what families were connected with the districts where the bridges had been erected. He understood that the late Secretary of State for the Home Department had contemplated introducing a Bill to establish a uniform system of county management for roads, and he hoped the idea would be carried out by the present Government. There was obviously a great waste of money in consequence of there being three or four systems for the management of roads and bridges, and the aid of Parliament and of a wise and vigorous Executive was required in order to bring about a change in the existing state of things. The third subject to which he would draw attention was the regulation of the cattle traffic. Of course that subject came under two heads, but he referred not so much to the importation of cattle from abroad as to internal traffic. Cattle wore frequently sent very long distances, and as a matter of humanity to the animals themselves this was a subject which ought to be no longer neglected. The fourth subject he would refer to was the management of watercourses or river basins on a large scale, with a view to drainage, irrigation, sewage, and the water supply of towns. The latter question, of course, could not be separated from that of the proper use of water in agricultural districts. Fifthly, there was a subject which of itself would have justified him in considering the question he had brought forward; and in regard to this subject he could appeal to the high authority of the right hon. Gentleman who now occupied the Chair, and with whom, in 1847, he was associated in supporting the Bill introduced by Mr. Pusey, Member for Berkshire. For fear of provoking controversy, he would not state by what influences the progress of that measure was impeded. However, it reached a Select Committee, and came out of it with several important provisions, one of which was that the compensation of outgoing tenants should be arranged by two valuers and a third person to be appointed by them; but in the event of their being unable to agree the third person or umpire was to be appointed by the Inclosure Commissioners. Sanctioned by so high an authority, he would suggest as a fifth subject, which might be safely and usefully delegated to a public authority connected with agriculture, the appointment, when called upon by the parties interested, of an independent umpire to secure fair play to both parties in regard to the compensation of outgoing tenants. This was a somewhat delicate subject to touch upon, as the tenant-farmers were not directly represented in that House to any great extent. Many county Members must know very well that the great hindrance to the increase of the production of food in this country was that farmers could not always farm with confidence. They could not look forward more than six months; for though there were counties in which, by a mutual good understanding between the landlord and tenant, many valuable and liberal customs had grown up and considerable confidence existed on each side, yet he regretted to say that that confidence was not felt in other parts of the country. Farmers, following new modes, could not feel secure with less than four years before them. If he were to relate what had come within his own knowledge during the last three months, and were to repeat what had been said to him by many electors as to their reasons for voting in a particular way, hon. Gentlemen would, he thought, admit that this subject was a very important one. The difficulty to be overcome arose from the circumstance that, although some permanent improvements—such as those in fencing or farm-buildings—were capable of precise statement and arithmetical division according to the number of years over which they respectively extended, yet such a test could not be applied to the condition of land and the state of the tillage. There was an element of uncertainty in the question of compensation for crops and manure which must at last call for the services of valuers, and the difficulty was that both the landlord and the tenant-farmer distrusted the men. He felt assured the farmers wished for nothing but justice in the matter, and that the visionary views in that respect which used to be entertained had been abandoned. He hoped, he might add, that the principles which he sought to recommend would not be looked upon as being at variance with ordinary economic action; and now came the question what were the arrangements which would be likely to work best in carrying into effect the objects to which his Motion related. He had very little experience as to the discharge of official duties, but he would mention a plan which had been sug- gested to him by a gentleman who was intimately acquainted with the subject which he had ventured to bring under the notice of the House. That plan was to unite all that related to health and agriculture under one new Department, to be called the Ministry of Health and Agriculture. Such a scheme was, however, in his opinion, open to the objection of being much too large and too novel to be projected full grown at once before the public mind. He thought it therefore better, on the whole, to look in another direction. A gentleman of very great practical knowledge had informed him that he thought the best thing which could be done was to build on the Inclosure Commission, to expand the duties of that Commission, to concentrate the offices under one head, to bring that head under one of the higher Departments of the Government, and to place in such hands all the duties which might grow up in connection with land. Now, that was a plan which was not, perhaps, very different from the scheme which he would wish himself to propose; for notwithstanding the Motion which had been made by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) it was, he believed, the fact that the Inclosure Commission still stood upon the Estimates for something like £20,000 a year. It was quite true that a system was growing up, having been set on foot by the Chief Commissioner (Mr. Darby) by which the expense of working that Commission would be thrown on the parties interested, still the charge remained in the Estimates; and between the money which had been voted for the Commission and the future receipts of the Commission there would be abundant money to meet the expense of any Department or branch connected with agriculture which the House might wish to set on foot at the present time. In the Estimates there were expenses amounting to considerably over £100,000 a year for subjects connected with agriculture, and of that amount upwards of £70,000 he thought he found was spent in salaries more or less connected with agriculture. And yet everybody was under the impression that there was no branch of the Government responsible for dealing with agriculture, and no one Office to which farmers could go with confidence for assistance. There were, in his opinion, very strong reasons why the Board of Trade instead of the Privy Council should be looked to to deal with the new duties, and his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would have felt gratified if he had been behind the scenes that morning and witnessed the proceedings of a sort of farmers' parliament which had been held at the Salisbury Hotel for the purpose of expressing their views on the subject. Among the practical men thus assembled a general disposition had been manifested to look to the right hon. Gentleman and his Department as likely to do for them that which they had so long wanted. After a very searching discussion, the meeting had, he might add, come to the resolution—

"That this Chamber considers it desirable that there should be a separate Government Department for Agriculture, presided over by a permanent officer."

Now, he thought he might presume to interpret that resolution, which had been unanimously passed in the following way:—The meeting did not, in his opinion, mean by the words "a separate Government Department," the creation of a new responsible Minister, because the idea of many was that a Minister of Agriculture was not a thing to be thought of for one moment. The words, "a separate Government Department" might, therefore, be fairly construed to mean a distinct branch in a Government Department, while the words "permanent officer" might be regarded as meaning a gentleman of the same intelligence and skill as were known to be possessed by such gentlemen, for instance, as were at the head of the railway and marine branches. The names of Mr. Porter and Mr. M 'Gregor had been mentioned at the meeting as having rendered great service to the trade and agriculture of the country in former times. The words "permanent secretary" were employed in the resolution as first proposed, but it was dreaded that if it were adopted in that shape a gentleman might be appointed who would have to go out of Office with the Government of the day, and that agriculture would come to be made a party question, which was looked upon as being likely to prove extremely prejudicial to the agricultural interests. As to whether the subject could be best dealt with by a Committee or a Commission, he would only say that was a question with respect to which he did not desire to press his own views upon the House, and he should be perfectly content to leave the matter, where it should be—in the hands of the Government. He would not offer any general observations on the subject, beyond saying that whatever tended to hinder the application of capital inevitably tended to depress the labouring class, and ultimately to injure the interests of the great landed proprietors of this country. The hon. Gentleman concluded by making the Motion of which he had given Notice.

said, he had been connected with agriculture for a good many years, but he had that night heard of a good many calamities to agriculture of which he had never heard before. He would not offer any opposition to the Motion if he believed that any practical result was likely to be arrived at by the appointment of such a Committee; but it would be impossible and absurd for any Committee to attempt to deal with one-tenth of the subjects as to which the hon. Member (Mr. Acland) had addressed the House. He had taken down the heads of these subjects as the hon. Member proceeded with his address, and their number and variety were really astonishing. First he was desirous that the relations between landlord and tenant should be settled; then those between country and town parishes; next, that County Financial Boards should be formed not only to grapple with subjects as to which complaints had been made to the House, but upon a still wider basis. Local authorities and magistrates, who at present acted, it was almost alleged, improperly, were to be superseded; and not only they, but Imperial authorities likewise. For instance, the Home Office, the Board of Trade, the Inclosure Commissioners, the Board of Health, the Stationery Office, and several others were to be amalgamated, and their functions transferred to some office of agriculture, which was to possess representation in Parliament. The laws of England also were to be brought under review, more especially those Containing clauses affecting the employment of capital and labour; the employment of capital was to be assured; the existing law, which, according to the hon. Member, tended to prevent the investment of capital, being revised with that object, and some system of local government devised under which the money spent by the farmers would be secured to them. "We," said the hon. Member, "are struggling against local interests." He did not explain who "we" were, but went on to contend that there should be a standard of computation for valuers. Not content with an enumeration of general subjects, the hon. Member had invited attention to several others having branches which would require attention at the hands of the Committee. His first head, being the general subject of the transfer of land, it branched off into the improvement of land, and the improvement and sanitary arrangements of cottages. Head No. 2 took a wider range, and affected the whole internal communications of the country. There was to be a combined system of management with regard to turnpike roads, county bridges, and so forth. But the hon. Gentleman must know what a time was occupied last year upon one of these subjects alone—that of turnpike roads; and the Home Secretary had now declared his intention not to deal with that question, because it was not yet ripe for legislation. The third head related to the regulation of traffic; the fourth covered the drainage and water supply of the kingdom; while the fifth launched into the matter of compensation to outgoing tenants. This question of compensation was treated as a great grievance, and the hon. Member spoke of the timidity of landlords as a difficulty in the way of its settlement; but the matter settled itself by a valuation between the incoming and the outgoing tenant, and all that the landlord had to do was to hand over the farm from one to the other. How, therefore, there was room for timidity on the landlord's part he really did not know; and he had never heard of any case of the kind in which, if a difference as to value occurred between the two parties, there had been any difficulty in finding an umpire. Latterly a very general practice had grown up, under which the terms of the letting and holding were stated in writing, and very much simplified matters between the parties. But even that did not satisfy the hon. Gentleman. Not content with an umpire, he sought the intervention of some public body. The hon. Member claimed credit for having shown that a necessity existed for the various measures which he had suggested. He had certainly suggested a great many more than could ever be carried out in any Session of Parliament. It would be far better to take up some one subject and grapple with its difficulties than to launch out into general platitudes affecting the subject of agriculture. He quite agreed with the hon. Member that any grievances affecting the agricultural interest should be redressed, and all he believed that the agricultural interest and those representing it wanted was fair play.

said, he could not but think that whilst there was much force in what was said by the hon. Member who had just sat down, he still had, to some extent, misapprehended the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) thought that the object in the statement which had been made, was simply to lay the ground for inquiry as to whether it was desirable to institute a Department that should look to such of these matters as were fit to be attended to by a Department of the Government. Upon that point they were anxious to hear the opinion of the Government; and from his own experience in connection with the Board of Trade, he was satisfied that some improvements in the organization of Government Departments was desirable. There were a great many questions which were now unfortunately distributed between different Departments, such as the Board of Trade, the Home Office, the Privy Council, and various other Departments; and it was an object of considerable administrative importance to see whether some arrangements could be made to bring such matters into a state of greater efficiency; and he hoped that in some form or other the Government itself would agree in the appointment of a Committee. He thought that if they entered into an inquiry they should do so without committing themselves upon the subjects to which he had adverted. He hoped that if they supported this Motion, or gave any encouragement to the opinion that something was required to be done, they would not be held to express any opinion upon the various details to which attention had been drawn. He also hoped that they would not on that occasion be led into a discussion of the merits of the different questions that had been adverted to. His hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) was bound to make a pnrimâ facie case in support of his Motion; but in doing so he might possibly have expressed himself in a way which to some hon. Members seemed open to question.

said, that he agreed to a great extent with what had fallen from the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Acland), though he could not go so far as that hon. Member had done. Without going into details, he thought that it would be admitted by everybody who was in any way acquainted with land, that considerable inconvenience, if nothing more, arose from present arrangements as to questions which were of great importance to the owners of land and to agriculturists. At a time of which the House must be sick of hearing, though to agriculturists it was one of terrible trial and suffering, it was with the greatest difficulty that the owners or occupiers of land could ascertain to what Department they were to go for information and relief. They went to a variety of offices, and eventually found themselves among pens, ink, and paper, in some office not far distant from the House of Commons, and connected with the Stationery Department. But, although they were thus shifted from office to office, they did not find that any greater consolation was given to them. As far as he was concerned he thought that the question of the relations of landlord and tenant was far beyond the province of any such inquiry as was now sought for. It appeared to him that the settlement of that question ought to be left to the parties themselves who were immediately interested in it. The House would no doubt agree with him in thinking that the health of the people and the fertility of the soil were intimately connected, and that the main object of legislation in respect to those two points ought to be the getting rid of a vast quantity of matter from towns which was calculated to injure their health, for the purpose of applying it to the land where it would greatly promote agricultural interests. With this subject a Department of State might deal most efficiently, but no private Member could deal with it. If there were, as alleged, tracts of land we should have difficulty in cultivating, there were large tracts of land, well situated with regard to climate and elevation, which remained sterile, because there was no statesmanlike arrangement for utilizing upon them the waste of great cities. In this matter alone there was a greater field of usefulness for a statesman than there was in attempting to interfere in the relations between landlord and tenant.

said, the hon. Member who spoke last but one ably pointed out a vast variety of functions which the Motion of the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Acland) contemplated to be discharged by one permanent official. It had been stated, and with truth, that, owing to the fulfilment of the greater part of the work with which the Inclosure Commissioners had been intrusted, that the Commission was approaching the point of dissolution; he (Mr. Newdegate) supposed that their complaints had touched the feelings of the hon. Member for North Devon. And then the hon. Gentleman spoke of the advantages of referring those matters to the Board of Trade. Now, he (Mr. Newdegate) heard a complaint uttered the other day which might also touch the feelings of the hon. Member for Devon—a complaint emanating from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade—namely, that the functions of that Board were purely consultative, and he said that he should be glad to be intrusted with some administrative functions. If the Motion of the hon. Member for North Devon were adopted, the right hon. Gentleman would no longer have occasion to utter such a complaint, inasmuch as he would then have an abundance of active duties to discharge. Although the hon. Gentleman said he did not attempt to establish a central authority, every word he spoke pointed to the establishment of a central authority with a power that would operate in the shape of a direct interference with the ownership and the occupation of land. He (Mr. Newdegate) remembered the Bill to which the hon. Member for North Devon referred as having been introduced by himself with reference to this subject and brought before the House years ago. The result of the consideration of the matter then was that he (Mr. Newdegate) moved for a Committee to inquire into the subjects appertaining to agriculture, inquired into the agricultural customs, the con- ditions on which land was occupied throughout England and Wales. It was in 1848 the Committees was appointed, and the result of their investigation was a direct recommendation that no specific legislation on the subject should be adopted; for the circumstances of the various localities, of the individuals holding land, and their tenure, was so complex that it was impossible to frame any general law to regulate them. The Committee, however, recommended that every facility should be afforded for carrying out and the giving effect to voluntary agreements which should be made in writing between landlords and tenants, and an alteration of the law with respect to fixtures was made. He was happy to see that since that period the practice of such written and specific agreements was gradually increasing. Those written documents being stamped were legally producible in Courts of Law, and the conditions under which they were given could of course be enforced. These agreements might be made to comprehend, not only buildings if erected by the tenant, nor roads and fences if erected by the tenant, but drainage, if carried out by the tenant, but also the application of manures and certain other processes of cultivation. All the subjects alluded to might thus be comprehended in a written form, and under such an arrangement the relations of landlord and tenant might be certified in such a manner as to prove serviceable to both parties. When the hon. Gentleman said there were impediments to the application of capital for agricultural purposes, he should recollect that the agriculture of this country was in advance of every other country in the world. Although admitting that there remained something still to be done in the way of improvement, surely no one would say that the process by which agricultural interests were advancing so rapidly ought to be interrupted. In Ireland a largo proportion of the land had returned to grass. That was the effect of legislation. Years ago the Freetraders had insisted that a larger proportion of the land of this country ought to be devoted to the production of meat, and argued that the supply of fresh meat was far more important than the production of corn. But how was the view of the hon. Member for North Devon to be reconciled with that of those who hold that agriculture in this country was advancing? An hon. Member near him, whom he had had the pleasure of hearing that evening for the first time, called attention to the advantages arising from good supplies of water, and the application of the sewage of towns to the land. He (Mr. Newdegate) would remind him and the House that an hon. Gentleman, a relation of the Speaker, who had proved himself to be as able a public officer as had ever served Her Majesty either at home or abroad, was at that moment engaged in an inquiry upon this subject with the view of recommending such general measures as were material for the promotion of the best interests of the country—for the establishment of out-ports for the main arterial drainage of towns and the conservation of water for the purposes of irrigation. That gentleman was Sir William Denison, who has undertaken to discharge this important task. With respect to the utilization of the sewage and the application of town manure to the land that system, was being rapidly carried out in his own immediate neighbourhood with the best result. In the requirements made for the establishment of a central authority in respect to agriculture, it was remarkable the tendency to reaction in the course Parliament was pursuing. There was a tendency to reaction, and it had assumed a curious form; it was a tendency towards Imperialism that was marked in the allusion which the hon. Member for North Devon had made in commendation of the French administration of roads. The House should beware of this Imperialistic tendency towards reaction. He remembered the day when the agricultural interest was congratulated on being liberated from the swaddling-clothes of Protection. It appeared to him that they were trying to envelope agriculture in the swaddling-clothes of official interference. As a county Member who had witnessed the progress of all those improvements in agriculture he could not accept the maternal care of the hon. Member for North Devon. And he should feel much disappointed as to the effects of the Reform Act if he did not find that the interests of the tenant-farmers, aided now by the influence of the £12 occupiers, received due attention in that House. He, however, would warn the tenant-farmers against that interference with their interests which they had seen in the course of the legislation of the last Parliament. He referred especially to the late Act in respect of the Poor Laws, in which powers of taxation were granted to the Poor Law Board, and of interference with the discretion of the Guardians in the appointment of their own officers. Those powers went far to abrogate the principle of self-government and of local taxation. And when the tenant-farmers were asked to subject themselves to that which was in the nature of Imperial official interference, he for one would recommend them to pause and submit the points on which they wished to be governed by law rather than allow it to be supposed that they desired the superintendence of direct, uncontrolled official interference.

observed that if a Committee were appointed to consider one of the subjects which had been named—that of roads—much good might result from it. Some counties had their roads under the management of the Highway Boards, while in other counties that was not the case. As far as his experience enabled him to judge he found the Highway Boards worked better than he could have expected them to do; but on the whole he should like to see the system extended so that the minimum area of road management should be the highway district. He believed it would be impossible to have any general measure applicable to all the turnpike roads, but there were a great number of turnpike roads which would soon come on the rates, and the ratepayers would not receive them with satisfaction. The ratepayers were calling for a larger area on which turnpike roads might be charged. Though he would be glad to see turnpikes abolished, he admitted it would be rather hard on small parishes to have to pay the whole expense of turnpike roads. He should wish to see a larger district, whether the highway or the county district. He also thought the subject of bridges in rural districts ought to be taken up by the Committee, as there frequently occurred conflicts between parish and county authorities in respect to the obligation of erecting bridges in places where they were absolutely necessary, but where, in consequence, the erection was indefinitely postponed, to the great inconvenience of the inhabitants in the neighbourhood. The highways, the turnpike roads, and the bridges would afford a Committee ample material for inquiry.

remarked upon the incongruity of the many subjects that had been grouped together by the hon. Member as subjects for inquiry by a Committee. The legislation, he said, which had been effected recently, in respect to agriculture, was of a very haphazard character. At the time of the cattle plague he had been in correspondence with no less than three Departments of the Government on that subject—namely, the Home Office, the Board of Trade, and the Board of Education. From the first Department he received a courteous and official reply; from the second a considerate answer; and from the third such a response as impressed him with the notion that that; Board had not much knowledge of the: subject upon which it was writing. It appeared to him that they were in want of some distinct and definite Government authority to whom they could apply in all such cases. Some few days ago a Question was asked the Government in that House whether there was not a recent outbreak of the cattle plague in Germany? The answer was, that the Government had no cognizance whatever of such circumstance; but the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Forster) added that the Dutch Government having received such intelligence had sent a special commission to inquire into the facts. Now, that statement suggested to him (Mr. Corrance) the necessity for the establishment of an authority in this country to take special cognizance of such matters, and to institute a special inquiry into them, as the Dutch Government had done. The hon. Gentleman who introduced this Motion intimated his desire to bring this question of rates under Imperial management. He (Mr. Corrance) trusted that the cost would be provided out of Imperial funds. He confessed he entertained a strong opinion as to the supervision of the Board of Trade in those matters of agriculture—an opinion which was confirmed by what had recently taken place. Some few days ago they had received an assurance from the Head of the Government that the question of local taxation would receive the best considera- tion of the Government. In a short time afterwards, the President of the Board of Trade, rising in "another place," expressed almost a censure upon his Chief, for what he had said on the subject in this House. The right hon. Gentleman might have some reason to complain of the manner in which his propositions were received in that House; but the hon. Gentleman must admit that episodes of the class to which he had just referred might lead to differences of opinion, even among those who had the same object in view.

said, as he understood it, the sole object of the Motion at present before them was that there should be a Department for agriculture, just the same as there was for trades and manufactures. When Chambers of Commerce met they at once knew what Department of the Government to go to for information, or for what they desired; but persons who required information respecting agriculture had to wander from one Department to another, and thus, many important matters were entirely neglected.

Sir, during the short discussion that has arisen there seem to have been two subjects before the House; one of which has led to a great deal of criticism, and the other of which appears to have been almost entirely forgotten. That which has been much criticized is the speech of the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Acland); but that which has been for the most part forgotten is the Motion of my hon. Friend, as it appears upon the Paper. Now, I propose to ask the attention of the House to the Motion on the Paper, which is for a

"Select Committee to inquire into the action with reference to Agriculture of various Public Authorities, with a view to consider the expediency of recommending that some one Department be made responsible for dealing with administrative and legislative questions affecting Agriculture."

At first sight this looks not an unreasonable proposition; but if we look to the constitution of the different Departments of the Government, and what is the practice, and, perhaps, the inevitable practice, I think we will find that the Committee of Inquiry sought for will not in all probability attain the results expected from it. Agriculture, in this matter, is exactly in the same position at present as every other interest in the country. I am not defending that position, but only explaining it. Take, for example, the interest with which I have been more intimately connected—the great cotton trade of Lancashire. The Factory Acts are under the Home Office. An Act was passed last year for collecting cotton statistics under the Board of Trade, and so you might go through almost all the interests of the country, and find that for some things you come to the Board of Trade for information; and for certain other things you come to the Home Office. I am not about to say that that is a good state of things; for in all probability some have an inconvenience, and some have a difficulty and a circumlocution with regard to these things that might possibly be avoided; but I doubt very much whether a Committee will be the best means of attaining what is desired, because I presume the Committee would, take evidence from the heads of the different Departments—it may be conflicting evidence, and in the end the Committee may not be able to come to a conclusion so satisfactory to the House and the country as a conclusion arrived at by consultation and consideration by the heads of Departments themselves. I will not go over all the points of my hon. Friend's speech which has been criticized, it seems to me, I will not say with indifference, but certainly with no great desire to comprehend what he was driving at. It is quite obvious that my hon. Friend did not in the least intend that all those subjects which he mentioned should be referred to the Committee; but he thought that if there was one Department of Government to which persons connected with land and agriculture might apply, there were occasions with regard to nearly all those questions on which application might be made to that Department, and that advice and assistance some way or other should be rendered. That is a very fair proposition. I thought he included questions in his speech, respecting which, if I was at the head of such a Department, I should not like to come before me. I listened to the string of subjects which he referred to, and after dealing at length with the question of the transfer, and exchange, and improvement of land and cottages; with the question of internal communication; with the question of the cattle traffic, and the cause of humanity as connected with that traffic; with the questions of sheds, drainage, and irrigation; and, after speaking at some length on what, in the presence of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he evidently felt to be very delicate ground—tenant-right and confidence of tenants in their landlords—I listened for a moment and expected him to turn to the Board of Trade and ask them to propose some regulation on the subject of game, and it is not unreasonable that he should have sent any one to that Department. Now, I have here a card which I found in the office. It relates to six important Departments, and the various heads of those Departments number no fewer than fifty-seven. The Commercial Department is under eleven, the Railway Department under seven, the Harbour Department under seven, the Marine Department under twenty-one, the Financial Department under ten, and the Statistical Department under only one, which is not subdivided. With regard to the latter, I am sorry to say, it is not so satisfactorily managed as it might be, and it is intended to put it into such a condition as I think will enable it to furnish more correct and speedy statistics to the country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is of opinion, and I suspect that the heads of all the other Departments who have had to do with home affairs are of opinion, that there might be some improvement—that some things might be taken from the Board of Trade to the Home Office, and some from the Home Office to the Board of Trade. It would, no doubt, be of advantage to have some plan by which any one coming from the country would have to ask for only one office instead of running the risk of losing his way as he passed down "Whitehall. But trade and agriculture are in this matter precisely on the same footing. It is not, therefore, a question for the farmers to take an especial interest in. My own advice to them would be to come as little as possible to any Government office. My hon. Friend said in his speech what was very gratifying for me to hear, that the gentlemen with whom he has been holding a small parliament this morning—indeed, I would venture to call it a matter of great importance—had great confidence in me, and hinted that they regarded my present position as a very satisfactory one. I take hon. Gentlemen opposite to witness whether, looking to the past, I did not do to the best of my ability that which was highly advantageous to agriculture. I recollect a county Member who has retired from this House telling me more than once that he thought I had been the best I friend of agriculture he knew of, although during the whole of that time I was engaged in those labours he was one of my staunchest opponents. I think agriculture had never less cause to complain than at present. The landlords never had better rents nor the rents more punctually paid than at the present time; and I think that the prospects of agriculture as regards the farmers are very satisfactory. When I found my hon. Friend had put this Motion on the Paper and also that one had been given notice of by another hon. Member on the subject of local taxation, I could not help remembering a story an eminent physician once told me. He said he was sent for very hastily one morning to attend a lady of rank, who wished instantly to consult him. When he called on her she said she felt very well—that she never had been that she knew of better in her life—certainly she had not been so well for many years—but she told him she had sent for him because she felt satisfied something was going to happen to her. Now, that is just about the condition of agriculture. She never was so well in all her life, yet she is about to call in the House of Commons, the Board of Trade, and I know not what, to help her under an apprehension that something is about to happen. I, however, advise hon. Gentlemen, the friends of the farmers, and the farmers themselves, to look to agriculture, and to consider that the sun and showers and industry are better for them than anything the House of Commons or Government Departments can do for it. With regard to the particular Motion before the House, I think, when I tell my hon. Friend that at this moment my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is considering whether it is not possible to make some—I will not say any considerable—but certainly some not unimportant changes in the direction to which his Motion refers—that it will be attempted to bring things that are in some degree alike and connected into one office in order that there may not be that running about to two or three offices that the hon. Gentle- man opposite spoke of—I think he will consider that it is not necessary to press this Motion for the appointment of a Committee. There is no disposition on my part, and there is none on the part of the Government, to resist an inquiry which would be probably attended with useful results, and least of all is there any disposition to resist such an inquiry in the case of an interest which is so powerfully represented on both sides of this House. For myself and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, I can say that the question, so far as I have indicated, shall be considered, and if it appears that we can discover anything that bids fair to secure this result—and I think there are things that may be discovered in the direction of the Motion of my hon. Friend—it shall as far as possible be carried out, and probably the objects of his Notice and of his speech may be accomplished without the appointment of the Committee for which he has asked.

said, he felt much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the clear view in which he had presented the subject. His only objects were to obtain an inquiry in the most effectual manner, and, after the promise made on behalf of the Government, he thought it unnecessary to press his Motion.

, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to amend "The Representation of the People Act, 1867," said, he proposed to defer the discussion of its details until the second reading, when it would be for the House to accept or reject the measure. The first part of the Bill proposed to repeal the 7th section of "The Representation of the People Act (1867)," which abolished the system of compounding; and the 1 second part proposed to repeal the fourth paragraph of the 3rd section, and the I fourth paragraph of the 6th section of the same Act, which rendered compulsory the personal payment of rates, and decided what should be the rating qualification of a voter. The Bill provided that a person should retain his right to vote whether his rates had been paid or not, leaving the rates to be recovered in the ordinary manner. It might be said that a private Member of the House had hardly a right to submit to it a question of such great importance; but he felt that, if no other Member took it up, this was a duty from which he could not shrink. So much oppression and injustice had rarely been produced by any one measure as were traceable to the working of the new law of rating, and many Members of that House were well aware of the deep feeling of irritation and discontent which it had created, and were pledged to assist in the removal of the grievance. The public voice had long been loud and universal in condemning the obnoxious ratepaying clauses of the original Reform Act, but the vexation and suffering created were now increased ten-fold. The Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) would not settle this question. That was entirely a theoretical measure, which it was hoped would prove useful, but his Bill was eminently practical, and he hoped the House would not hesitate to allow of its introduction. The hon. Member concluded by moving for Leave to introduce a Bill to amend "The Representation of the People Act, 1867."

said, that with the title which the hon. Member's Bill bore he might bring almost every fish into his net—extend the franchise, alter the re-distribution of seats, and do other things by which the House might be taken by surprise. This was a dangerous precedent, and it would be better to confine the Bill to the repeal of certain specified Acts.

The question before us is a very simple one, and I shall only have occasion to trouble the House with three or four sentences. I must, in the first place, demur to the statement of the hon. Gentleman with regard to the practice of the House. He appears to think that the House is almost bound to permit the introduction of a Bill and its first reading. I do not accept that view of our practice. At the same time the hon. Gentleman may fairly ask us to accede to the Motion he has just made, and there is no occasion for the apology he made, with great modesty, for undertaking to legislate upon this question. It so happens that the enactment of these clauses was the work of an independent Member (Mr. Hodgkinson), and every Member of this House, especially one representing a large constituency, is perfectly justified, apart from criticism upon the mere terms of his Motion, in asking the House to assent to what he thinks the best mode of remedying the existing evil. The state of the case between the hon. Member and the Government is this—We are agreed that considerable inconvenience and hardship are caused by the undesigned operation of certain clauses in the Reform Act. We are also agreed that a remedy must be applied. The Government have considered what description of remedy, all circumstances taken together, was likely to be the most easy in its application, and the most convenient and satisfactory to the House at large. For that purpose my right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) has laid a Bill upon the table which has been circulated among Members to-day. The hon. Member proposes to adopt another method, which is certainly more direct, though whether it is equally satisfactory in regard to economic consequences and practical enfranchisement will be a question for consideration hereafter. He proposes, however, another remedy for the same grievance. Now, it would ill become us, who have obtained leave to submit our plan to the House, to grudge to any other Member the opportunity of submitting his plan as well. It will, on the contrary, be of advantage that the Bill of the hon. Member should be printed and circulated, because, ample time being allowed for the consideration of these two methods of dealing with the subject, it would be well to know the impression which they make in the country. All I desire is that nothing should be said or done unnecessarily to revive the warm feelings which arose upon the original discussion of this subject, and with this remark I gladly accede to the Motion for leave to introduce the Bill.

, having taken considerable interest in the compounder, hoped that that being had been quietly laid at rest. He regretted the prospect of revived feelings which had been raised by the discussion of 1867, and thought the plan of the hon. Member was much more objectionable than that of the Government. The measure introduced by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gosehen) did him great credit. No doubt, if great hardships were inflicted in the collection of the rates from the occupiers of small houses, some remedy ought to be applied, but it ought to be applied so as not entirely to undo the legislation of 1867. Entertaining this view, he should feel bound at some future stage to oppose the Bill of the hon. Member.

, in rising to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Poor Law in Scotland; and whether and what amemdments should be made therein, said, so far as regarded England, the question of the Poor Law was one of very ancient date; but so far as Scotland was concerned the question was one of exceedingly modern and recent times. They had, no doubt, a law in Scotland passed in the latter part of the 16th century, and regulated by ordinances of the Privy Council, which dealt with the question of the maintenance of the poor; and he would say that in his opinion—and he hoped he might not be supposed to boast too much of the advantages of the laws of the country from which he came—the principles upon which that ancient Poor Law was founded were principles which he thought were eminently calculated to meet the question of the maintenance of the poor, and were principles which were rational and beneficial, socially and generally, to the country. The principle upon which the Poor Law in Scotland was regulated was this, that it was the duty of every man according to his means to provide for the permanently disabled poor, who from infirmity were unable to work for themselves, who had no means of subsistence, and who had no relations whom the law held bound to provide for them. It was, in fact, a rate in aid of poverty, and not a Poor Law rate. Down to the year 1843 that was the general principle upon which the poor of Scotland were maintained; and he asserted now, without fear of contradiction, that the principle upon which that law was based and administered was one well adapted to provide for the maintenance of the indigent and the incapable, and was also one eminently calculated to preserve and foster those relations of charity and affection without which the social fabric cannot properly be maintained. It was held to be the duty of the relatives of a poor person to maintain him, and it was only where the means of those relatives were insufficient to enable them to fulfil the duty imposed upon them by law, that the law stepped in and called upon those who were wealthy, and consequently able, to supplement the disabilities under which the relations found themselves. Hence came the basis of their rating—a rating upon the means and substance of a person, and not a rating upon the income; for he was called upon to contribute, not necessarily in exact proportion to his income, but according to his position, and to the wealth he held in the country. Unfortunately, as population and trade increased, pauperism increased also, and the means were not managed in a manner adequate to supply the necessities of the poor. There came a time of great distress, when a question with regard to the support of the able-bodied poor appeared to be looming before the public. There were also the large evictions in Suther-landshire, driving numbers of people from their accustomed means of occupation A Royal Commission was appointed to take evidence as to the state of the poor, and as to the means best adapted to remedy the great distress then existing. The Commission reported in 1844, and in 1845 a Bill was brought in under the Government of Sir Robert Peel, which was based on the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners. That body, however, wore not quite unanimous—one of the Commissioners having sent in his reasons for dissenting from the Report of his brother Commissioners, and if he recollected rightly, the Gentleman who thus dissented was the only English Member of the Commission. When the second reading of the Bill came to be taken, a strong resistance and opposition to it was made by the Scotch Members. They objected to the principle upon which it was based, but they principally objected to the proposed establishment of a Board of Supervision at Edinburgh. Mr. Rutherford, afterwards Lord Rutherford, also most strenuously opposed the proposal to appoint that Board. It was resisted on all sides, he believed almost unanimously, by Scotch Members of the House. [Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE: No!] Hishon. Friend the Member for North Lanarkshire appeared to dissent. He would find he (Mr. Craufurd) was right if he referred to the debates of that day in Hansard.

was understood to say that he himself supported the Bill.

recollected his hon. Friend did support it, but actually the main body of the Scotch Members objected to the Bill. But, as often happened, when a Government had at its back an arrogant majority, they protested and protested in vain. They foretold all the evils that would arise from that legislation, and he believed that every one of the evils had come to pass. First of all, he would take the expenditure at the time when the Bill was passed, or shortly afterwards. He would take the first reliable Return. In the year 1845 the total expenditure for the poor in Scotland amounted to £295,000. It might be said that at that time the poor in Scotland were very badly treated; but the expenditure had gone on increasing in a rapidly extending ratio. Within a very few years it reached nearly double the amount he had named, and according to the last Report of the Board of Supervision the expenditure of the Poor Law in the year ending 14th May, 1868, was no less than £863,000. He would not grudge that money if he thought that the poor in 1868 were proportionately better off in a ratio corresponding to the immense increase that had taken place in the expenditure; but he asserted, and he fully believed that he should be able to prove it if he obtained the Committee, that while the expenditure had been increasing in that enormous ratio, the poor were no better off practically than they were in 1845. He would take, as an instance, the case of his own small country parish. At the time of the passing of the Act the population was 2,000. It was now something like 200 short of that. In 1845, the registered poor upon the roll numbered forty; their maintenance, the voluntary care of the proprietors of the parish, cost between £200 and £300 per annum; and the poor in those days were exceedingly well off. They often had allowances amounting to 3s. or 4s. per week. The cost of the poor in that parish was now altogether nearly £700 a year. The number of them was doubled, if not more, and they only received wretched doles of 1s. or 1s. 6d. per week, or 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. in cases where there were three or four dependent on them. Nor did that mark the whole difference as compared with 1845. Before the passing of the Act, it was well known that the poor received numerous assistances from the hand of charity, aided by the contributions of meal from farmers in the district; and it was also notorious that at that time in Scotland the relations maintained their own poor, and made it a matter of pride to do so, so that they would almost starve themselves rather than allow their relations to come upon the Poor Roll. All that was now changed. The legal rate, which the poor considered they had the right to come upon, had buttoned up the pocket of charity, and had destroyed the feelings of affection and of mutual relationship, and had dried up all those feelings and habits which knit together in kindly union the different members of a community. The poor were now left to fight their way as they best could, instead of being able to rely upon mutual friendship and on assistance from those above them. This had given rise to relations of determined warfare between rich and poor—the poor claiming as a right, relief, no matter how improvident they might have been, how drunken, how dissipated. No matter how entirely their distress might be owing to their own wilful folly and idleness, they claimed, in spite of that, the right to assistance; while the rich, on the other hand, resisted claims founded upon no proper moral consideration whatever. The law had been in operation for upwards of a quarter of a century; and he thought that it was enough for him to state these broad facts to justify him in asking the Government to grant the Committee of Inquiry into the whole system of the Poor Law of Scotland. Only eight years after the Act was passed, Sir John M'Neill went to Caithness and examined the state of things there, and if any Member would turn to the Report of the Board of Supervision in 1853, he would find an interesting account of the result of that investigation. Sir John stated distinctly that the consequence of that law had been to destroy all principle of independence, and to pauperize the country, and to create all those evils which it ought to have avoided. A recent Report had also been issued by a very intelligent Committee of Investigation of the Wick Board, and he understood that Report had been generally endorsed by the counties and parishes in Scotland as to the points in which remedy was sought. Now were three questions which appeared to him must be carefully investigated. One was the principle of extending the area of chargeability; and lie hoped that, having felt the advantage of adopting such a system in England, they should not be refused it in Scotland. Another was to abolish, or to largely modify the law of settlement—a result which would follow the enlargement of the area of assessment. Whether the area of chargeability should be extended to the union or to the county was a matter upon which he would not pass an opinion until he heard the evidence which might be adduced before the Committee. There might be difficulties in extending the area to the counties, because some of them were divided into districts. For instance, his own county of Ayr was divided into three districts. However that was a matter of detail; and what he wanted to arrive at was an enlarged area of charge ability. Yesterday, he received a paper containing information respecting several parishes in one county, and the writer enumerated nineteen parishes, the percentage of taxation upon which varied no less than from £1 6s. to £8, And that was all in one county. Such a state of things was highly to be deprecated, and it called loudly for relief. There was a Return lying upon the table of the House, moved for by him self a year or two ago, showing distinctly the rates which were levied in the various parishes throughout Scotland, and although those rates varied as much as from 5d. or 6d. in the pound to 2s. 6d. and 3s., it would be seen that the whole average of the country amounted to some thing like 1s. 2d. in the pound. There was also another point which he desired the Committee to direct their attention to, and that was the restoration to Scot land of its old and recognized principle that every man should contribute to the sustenance of the poor according to his means. Why was the landed proprietor, or, more than that, the poor householder in the towns and country villages, to be taxed until he himself was brought into pauperism, while the rich money-lender who had the mortgages upon that land was to escape scot-free. He might be told there were difficulties in the matter, and that they must go to a national rate. Well, if they were to go to a national rate, he saw no difficulties in the matter. He thought the support of the poor was a national, and not a local matter. It was by making it local that they had created all those inequalities and questions with regard to the law of settlement. It was all very well so long as the great staple of income was the land, and the land was the only thing which could bear the support of the poor; but since those days they had the large manufacturing interests, who, instead of gathering together their twenty or thirty labourers, bring together thousands of men who, when a mishap occurred in trade, might be turned upon the streets, not upon the men who brought them together, but upon the land. No one felt more strongly upon the subject than his own constituents, and he trusted that the Lord Advocate, who he understood was to grant the Committee, would not limit the scope of their inquiry. He wanted a thorough, entire, and radical inquiry into the whole working of the system. Do not let the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell him that he would give him a partial inquiry into some of the points, and refuse inquiry as regarded the others. He would rather not have an inquiry at all if it was to be but a partial one. He wanted such an inquiry into the causes of pauperism and the principles of the Poor Law as would settle whether they could not have something like the old law of Scotland, which would restore to them that independence of character which was once their pride and glory in that matter. He was told, but he hoped that it was not true, that he was to be denied inquiry into the Board of Supervision. Now let him ask—Of what does that Board consist? There was upon it the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, the Lord Provost of Glasgow, three Sheriffs depute or county Judges, the Solicitor General for Scotland, and three members appointed by the Crown—one of whom was a paid Chairman. They had Reports annually from that Board, but what were they? They gave them statistical Returns of the number of poor, of the expenditure upon them, and other details of that kind, and, to a certain extent, the operation of the Act; but they had no minutes of their meetings, and knew nothing of what they did or how they did it, and they believed, as always was the case where there was only one paid member of a committee, that that paid member was the supreme ruler of the entire Board. Now amongst other things which he ought to mention was the enormous increase which had taken place in the amount necessary for the maintenance of the poor in Scotland, and one of those items was the item of management. That had risen in the last Report to no less than £94,000 per year. It had, in fact, crept up regularly year by year from £17,000, which was the sum at which it stood, in 1845. He knew not whether that sum included the Board of Supervision, but he did think that it ought to be reduced, because at that rate it would soon reach no less than £200;000 a year. Therefore he said they ought to have a change in the constitution of that Board, unless it could come before the Committee and prove that what it did was more for good than evil. He entertained what was a very strong feeling throughout Scotland in respect to what were called Edinburgh Boards. There was no representation upon that Board. The Lord Advocate was not a member of it, although it did happen that the Solicitor General, who was a member of it, was also a Member of that House; but there was no fixed representation upon it, and no certainty of representation. The whole principle of it was that of a central irresponsible body, whose decisions after they were given, he believed, often produced dissatisfaction throughout Scotland. It might be, when they came before the Committee, they might satisfy them that, although in certain cases they might create hardships, yet upon the whole their action had been just or justifiable; but if they refused to come before the Committee, upon them would be the accusation that they dared not come to explain their conduct. The hon. Member concluded by moving—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Poor Law in Scotland; and whether any and what amendments should be made therein."—(Mr. Crawfurd.)

said, he must congratulate his hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) on the able manner in which he had brought the subject under the notice of the House. He most cordially endorsed all that he had said as to the necessity of some action being taken in the matter. The question was one that had taken a great hold on the mind of the people of Scotland, and he could fully bear out his hon. Friend in his statement that the people of that country would not be satisfied with any partial or incomplete inquiry. He himself was distinctly of opinion that they ought not to be satisfied with anything else than the fullest and most searching inquiry. His hon Friend might possibly be labouring under a misconception when he said that he believed the learned Lord Advocate would limit the inquiry so far as details were concerned. Should the learned Lord Advocate do so, he (Sir Robert Anstruther) had no doubt it would be upon the ground that it would be tantamount to passing a Vote of Censure upon the Board of Supervision to compel them to appear before a Committee; but he, for his part, could not see the force of any objection to an open inquiry. If the Board of Supervision conducted its affairs satisfactorily—if the sum of money it expended upon the management of the poor was not extravagant—if there be nothing to hide from the Committee—why, then, he asked should there be any objection to appear before that Committee? Their refusal to appear would certainly look suspicious; and should the learned Lord Advocate refuse to command them to appear, it would look very like as if there was something to conceal. He made no charge against the Board of Supervision; he only stated a fact when he said that there was a strong feeling in Scotland that the affairs of the poor were not satisfactorily managed by that Board. The increase in the expense of management during the last twenty-five years was something enormous. In the year 1853 it was only £67,000; but in 1868 it had risen to between £94,000 and £95,000. That such was the case, was, he thought, quite sufficient ground for demanding that the inquiry should be full and radical. The various points raised by the hon. Member for Ayr were most interesting, and he thought the thanks not only of the Scotch Members but of the House were due to him for the manner in which he had brought the subject before them. He earnestly hoped that the Government would not only grant inquiry, but would allow that inquiry to be as full and complete as possible.

said, he could not allow the remarks of his hon. Friend (Mr. Craufurd) to pass without notice. He was sure that if the House did agree to the large and expensive inquiry the hon. Gentleman had proposed it would do so in a very different spirit to that which he had displayed in his speech. He desired to bear his tribute to the immense benefit which the present law had conferred both upon the poor and upon the property of Scotland. He had not taken the trouble to refer to the proceedings of Parliament when it passed that measure, but he could at least bear testimony to the fact that it had not been passed with undue haste. Looking at the history of the measure, he thought it had been one of a most beneficial kind, whilst much of the distrust with which it was received had been dispelled by the moderation with which the law had been carried out, and the sound working of the administration in large parts of the country. He could not help feeling surprise that after the disclosures in the Report upon which that Act was founded—disclosures of the starvation of the peasantry of the country in many cases, and of their entire dependence upon the most precarious sources of relief—his hon. Friend should still speak boldly of his wish to recall the system under which those things had taken place. He must surely have forgotten, to give one instance only out of many—the very different footing upon which the lunatics of Scotland were now placed to that which they occupied before the passing of the present Act. He should, above all things, deprecate the institution of an inquiry by that House, under the apprehension, conveyed by any Member of it, that there was any disposition on the part of the Legislature to undo the work which was then accomplished. He would not attempt to deny that evils existed, but they were not so great as were attempted to be made out. He, for his part, did not deprecate inquiry into that subject; but he thought the subjects of inquiry should, first of all, be distinctly named and understood. He had no desire to exclude the Board of Supervision from that inquiry. He thought, moreover, that some of the things mentioned by the hon. Member for Ayr were well worthy of consideration. It was a difficult subject, however, to decide whether rating should be confined to house pro- perty or to land, but that was also a proper question for inquiry. He thought, however, that the- House should not enter upon an inquiry without having clear and practical views as to what it wished to accomplish. Should the Motion be agreed to, however, he hoped the hon. Member would re-model the constitution of the Committee. He observed that the hon. Member proposed that that Committee should be largely composed of the junior Members of Scotland, many of whom were quite new to that House. That, he thought, was a mistake, and he hoped some of the senior Members, such as the representatives of Kilmarnock and Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho and Mr. Bouverie) would be added to the Committee.

, having been Chairman of the Poor Law Board of Scotland before he entered that House, hoped he might be permitted to say that for some time he had seen with pain and regret the abuses that were daily growing up under the administration of the Poor Law, and which required the serious investigation of the House; and he thought that the operations of the Board of Supervision ought to be inquired into.

said, he quite agreed with what had fallen from several hon. Members who had just spoken, that the very greatest possible interest was felt in Scotland on that question. No topic seemed to have taken firmer hold of the public mind in that country than that had. At the same time, he was bound to say that, so far as his experience had gone, it was rather in regard to the area of chargeability than to any other point that inquiry was needful. The present system threw a great burden upon the city which he represented, being the centre of a great agricultural county, which needed at times all the surplus labour the town could afford; but when out of work the chargeability of the labourers had to be borne, not by the rates of the place in which they had earned their living, but they were brought into the town, and thus became chargeable on the town rates, which was felt to be an intolerable grievance. He could only say that, although his experience had not been as great in the matter as that of his hon. Friend, he considered him quite justified in asking the learned Lord to grant a Committee. At the same time he must add, that, in his opinion, there would be plenty of time and opportunity afforded after the Committee was appointed to extend the subjects of inquiry. It would therefore, he thought, be wise on the part of his hon. Friend not to lose the opportunity of obtaining a Committee on the subject that Session, even although the Lord Advocate might be of opinion that it ought to be more limited in its scope than his hon. Friend had wished. And he would also remind his hon. Friend that there would not be too much time that Session to expend on such an inquiry, and therefore that it would be very unwise to object to it, unless it was to go to the fullest extent which he desired.

said, he could not but express an earnest hope that the learned Lord Advocate would grant that Committee. His hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) expressed himself in the strongest and most forcible manner with respect to the evils attending the present system. For his own part he could not speak except with respect to the feeling in his own county, and there had been undoubtedly an unmistakable feeling expressed with regard to the existing evils under the present Poor Law system in Scotland. His hon. Friend had pointed out very clearly that it was not so much a question affecting the bulk of the population as that very large number of persons who were only just able to keep their heads above water, and who were in imminent danger of being submerged in consequence of the burden of the rates. His hon. Friend had stated to the House that the expenses of management had reached the large sum of £94,000. Surely that was one good ground why there should be a searching inquiry. Another good ground was that the present system operated very injuriously to the poor themselves. That fact had been very forcibly put before him by a gentleman of Edinburgh, Mr. Currer, and he fully confirmed what had so well been put forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Craufurd), that the existing system had a most demoralizing effect upon the recipients of the rates. He (Lord Elcho) quite admitted that some legal provision for the relief of the poor in Scotland as well as in other parts of the kingdom was necessary, but, at the same time, it ought to be administered in such a manner as to maintain, as far as possible, that spirit of independence which formerly existed in that country, but which, he grieved to say, had been, to say the least, compromised by the existing system. Formerly, the poor of that country spared no pains or labour to support their poor relations; but now he was told by those who were conversant with the subject that that spirit was in a great measure dead. There was, indeed, he was informed, a complete change in that respect, and that now, instead of making efforts to support their poor relations, their sole object was to get them off their hands and on to the rates. At the same time, he did not attribute all those evils to the administration of the Board of Supervision. He had the pleasure of being well acquainted with Sir John M'Neill, the President of the Board, who had always shown himself a most able administrator, and a first-rate man of business in every sense of the word. At the same time, he hoped that his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate would not limit the inquiry on the ground that there had been any exaggeration on the part of the hon. Member for Ayr; because if his hon. Friend had exaggerated any part of his statement, which he (Lord Elcho) did not say, the inquiry would prove that he was wrong; whereas, on the other hand, if it was limited, people would be sure to say that there must have been something which the Board of Supervision were afraid to have inquired into, and the statements were founded on correct information.

said, he most cordially approved of the Motion which had been made for the fullest possible inquiry into that subject. So far as he knew, his hon. Friend had made no exaggerated statement whatever. On the contrary, he (Mr. M'Laren) believed that he had understated the facts and the evils which had arisen under the operation of the Act of 1847. If he went back for ten years previously to that date, he could tell them a most remarkable fact. In 1837, the whole amount which was expended in Scotland on poor rates was £180,000 odd. He forgot the exact figures. He did not know that the Motion was likely to be opposed, and he had not intended, to speak on the subject. It was now nearly £900,000. In point of fact within that short period of thirty-one years it had increased about 500 per cent. If that was not a startling thing he did not know what was. From the Report of the Poor Law Board, issued three weeks ago, he saw that there were about 350,000 people in Scotland last year receiving parochial assistance—that was to say, either as actual regular recipients of poor relief, as casual paupers, or as the children of those classes, out of a population of 3,100,000, so that, in that year, every ninth person in Scotland received assistance out of the poor rates. If that was not a startling fact, and one which deserved the most serious consideration of that House, he did not know what was. He would not put it merely as a question of money—he would put it on far higher; he would put it on moral grounds. The present system was destroying the independence and the spirit of the Scotch people. The national character was being deteriorated by the present system of Poor Law relief. He held, and many people who had seen it and who were far better acquainted with its effects than he was held, that the present system of administration of the Poor Law was one great means of that deterioration. It was, therefore, the duty of that House to inquire into the facts of the case. A remark was made in order to disparage the effect of the statements which had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) to the effect that he had selected the junior Scotch Members instead of the senior to be Members of that Committee. It was almost too trifling a matter to notice, but he (Mr. M'Laren) might say that his hon. Friend did him the honour to ask him to be a Member of the Committee, but having been pretty hard worked for the last three years, he suggested whether it would not be right that his junior Colleague should work for the next year. His hon. Friend assented, and accordingly he asked his Colleague, who had far more experience in that particular branch of social economy than he (Mr. M'Laren) had, having been the Chairman of a Poor Law Board, and his Colleague had kindly assented. He thought that that statement was quite sufficient to remove any impression which had been created by the remark, that by selecting only the junior Members his hon. Friend had the intention of making what was generally termed a "packed Committee," in order to arrive at any special results which he might desire. If his hon. Friend had any intention of reverting to the old method of means and substance assessment, he was dead against him as to that question; but he had not stated in his resolution that such was his intention; and certainty they were entitled to inquire—having the administration of the Poor Law on the system that now existed—whether that system was not capable of being improved. If it was, no doubt the Committee would find out what was the best remedy under all the circumstances of the case. But, at all events, he believed it would be found quite impossible to go on without extending the area of rating. A system had come into operation in Scotland, partly from the state of the Poor Laws, and partly from the Grame Laws, that wherever a cottage in the country districts could be knocked down it was done; and go where they would, the inhabitants could find no other house open to them in the district. The effect of that was no doubt to clear the country, and in almost every district in Scotland the labourers thus removed were forced into towns. The result was that, in thousands of cases, the labouring men in Scotland were obliged to go from the towns into the country districts to work in the morning, walking four or five miles, and returning a similar distance in the evening. And, moreover, when they did return, they were, in many cases, obliged to live in tenements which wore hardly fit for pigs to live in. And all this arose from the fear that, if cottages were erected in the agricultural districts, the sons and the husbands would shoot game, or kill the fish, and partly from the fear of their becoming chargeable upon the poor rates of the parish; so that it was thought far better to get rid of them at once, and to drive them to the towns, where they were placed upon the towns' poor rate. He (Mr. M'Laren) thought that that was one strong ground for inquiring into the present state of things. His hon. Friend the Member for Ayr made some reference to the Board of Supervision, and also to the discussion which took place in Scotland when the Act authorizing the establishment of that Board was passed. He would not go into that question at the present moment; but he did happen to know something of the Board of Supervision. His hon. Friend had named the members of that Board, and among them he mentioned the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, the Lord Provost of Glasgow, and three Sheriffs depute. Now, he (Mr. M'Laren) held the first-mentioned office for three years, and had an opportunity of attending the Board of Supervision, and therefore he thought he might say that he knew just as much as it was needful to know of it; and he could state that the whole business of that Board was practically done by the Chairman and the Secretary, and that it could be done just as well if no other members of the Board were present. In the Act which had been alluded to there was a clause which enabled the Government to pay £100 a year to each of three legal gentlemen in Edinburgh, and the three Sheriffs are named in the Act—the Sheriff of Perth, the Sheriff of Renfrew, and the Sheriff of Ross. It was expected that they would attend for £100 a year. In the last year that allowance was increased to £150 a year. If those gentlemen were to attend fifteen meetings a year, they would thus receive at the rate of ten pounds for each meeting, and he really doubted whether their attendance was worth ten pence, for the business was practically arranged and settled before the meeting of the Board was held, and there was really nothing to do but to adopt the suggestions of the Secretary and Chairman of the Board. Then there was a swarm of clerks, inspectors, and people connected with the Board, whom the Government paid, and it also gave £10,000 a year for medical aid, which did not appear in those local accounts. They had thus the whole of the expenses of the Central Board paid by the Government, and over and above all those circumstances it seemed to him that if an inquiry was to take place at all the inquiry must embrace the Board of Supervision, and in his opinion that was one of the most important points upon which an inquiry was necessary. He could dwell upon that subject for a considerable length of time; but he would not further occupy the time of the House, because he took it for granted that Her Majesty's Government would not seek to limit that inquiry, being convinced that nothing but a full inquiry would give satisfaction to the people of Scotland.

said, that having just heard the experience of the Member for Edinburgh, as Chairman of a parochial Board in that town, he ventured to state his opinion, as serving in a similar capacity in a rural district, which was entirely confirmatory of that expressed by the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire: he considered that, on the whole, the operation of the Poor Law in Scotland was satisfactory; at the same time there was no subject more deserving of a full and searching inquiry. The principal grievance now felt arose from the enormous expense of litigation as to settlement; the consideration of which had been urged on the authorities for several years, but they had been unable to propose any measure likely to prove an effectual remedy. The unequal pressure of the rates is now prominently brought forward, and with reference to that alluded to by the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs, as existing in the county he had the honour to represent, and to the letter which he had received on the subject from Mr. Scott, of Brotherton, he had to explain that that gentleman's residence tad on each side of it a fishing village, and from such a population the claims for relief were likely to be large. On his own property, in the northern portion of the county, he had also two fishing villages, which of course increased the poor's rate; but much depended on the prudent and watchful management of the Board and Inspector, and in that respect there was a wide difference in many parishes. The subject of the increase of the area of chargeability should be approached with caution, for although several of the most experienced heads of the English Poor Law Board had expressed strong opinions on it, they had only been able to carry, three years ago, after much opposition, the Union Chargeability Bill. The selection of members for the proposed Committee composed of Gentlemen of well-known ability for any inquiry of importance, he, however, feared would leave an impression on the public that there was too much of the town element in it—the county Members proposed, chiefly representing counties with large villages, and the great mineral districts of Scotland, where the rate was heavy, and it would no doubt be agreeable to their constituents to be relieved from a large proportion of such at the cost of the population of the rural districts.

said, that knowing as he did the feeling of Scotland on this subject, he was glad that his hon. Friend (Mr. Craufurd) had brought forward the Motion. He had had experience of the operation of the law, both in the mineral and in the manufacturing districts, and he knew a little of its operation in the county to which his hon. Friend, who had just sat down, had referred. He might say that he had found the greatest possible dissatisfaction, even among people of different habits, with regard to the operation of the law. In the county of Kincardine, he believed it had been the means of increasing the immorality of the county to an extent which he should not like to describe. There was no doubt that the law had broken down the independence of the poorer classes in Scotland; and he was not aware of any single good which had been done by it for the poor of that country, nor was he acquainted with any place which would bear out what had teen stated by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke). The law was giving the greatest possible dissatisfaction not only as to money, but in regard to the effect which it had upon the population. It had increased immorality to a great extent; it had increased drunkenness, and it was possible to trace paupers going from the room where they got their money straight to the gin-shop, where they spent it, without taking 6d. home, and the consequence was that their family had to depend upon the charity of their neighbours for subsistence. That charity had now, to a great extent, frozen up. People now did not take the same care of the poor as they used to do. Charity was also frozen up in another direction, and people did not take the same care of the poor members of their families that they did formerly. On the contrary, sons and daughters were not un-frequently found coming forward and stating that they had nothing to do with maintaining their parents; that that was a matter which belonged to the Board, and that they expected the Board to maintain them in time coming. The result was that disputes frequently arose, which went to the Courts of Law, and entailed serious expense in litigation. He sincerely hoped that that Committee would be granted, and that the inquiry would be as full as it could possibly be made, because he felt satisfied that a partial inquiry would not give satisfaction.

said, the speakers who had preceded him in that debate had not exaggerated the import- ance of the subject which his hon. Friend (Mr. Craufurd) had brought before the ! House. He felt it himself very strongly, and in a great many of the observations which the hon. Member and other hon. Members had made, he (the Lord Advocate) had a very considerable amount of concurrence. Unquestionably, he had not been, nor was he now, an admirer of the Act of 1845. He believed it was absolutely necessary to do something at that time to make a better provision for the support of the poor. He had the impression then—and that impression was not altogether removed from his mind—that the Act ought not probably to have been so sweeping and so stringent as it had absolutely turned out. Legal provision for the poor carried with it sometimes more and sometimes less of those consequences which have been described by hon. Members; and the moment, therefore, they had a legal provision for the poor, it went to a certain extent to dry up the sources of charity, and they did what was far worse—they struck a blow at the independence of the people, and the obligation which in Scotland in former days was supposed to be paramount, of providing for the poorer members of a family. But that had been done. They could not retrace their steps. It would be utterly vain to attempt to go back to the state of things which existed previous to 1845. There was no doubt that that year was a year of calamity. There was a state of things in Scotland that was disgraceful to civilization; and the people, especially in the northern parts of the country, were in a state not of comparative, but of actual starvation. Therefore, while he had that impression he could not put his opinion against that of other hon. Members. The Act had been passed, they had a Poor Law for Scotland—he was thankful to say it was not an able-bodied Poor Law, and he trusted it never would be. The question now was, whether there were any means of improving the system that was then introduced. They could not restore the state of matters that existed before the passing of the Act. He was anxious, he admitted, to limit the inquiry which his hon. Friend had proposed, and he was so because he thought he saw some practical result would follow from the inquiry which the hon. Member wished them to embark in. He did feel, and he repeated, that if they were to embrace in a Committee of that House the whole question of the Scotch Poor Law, though they might collect a valuable mass of information, it was not likely to come to any practical result. The whole of that matter was inquired into in 1844 and 1845. The Act of 1845 was the result, and if they went back and opened up that ground, he did not imagine that their labours would be likely to produce much advantage to the country. But he could see that there were some questions in which legislation was necessary. First of all, there was the question of the area of chargeability, which was a very important topic. It had been applied in England. He gave no opinion as to whether it could be applied in Scotland; but he did see that on the one hand very considerable advantages might accrue, and that on the other hand the difficulties in the way were not insuperable. Then there was the law of settlement. Certainly his professional experience had led him to this conclusion, that in the way in which the funds were administered by parochial Boards no money was more recklessly squandered than in trying legal questions in matters of settlement, resulting in no benefit of any kind, because the rule, established by the expenditure of hundreds of pounds in one case, not unfrequently turned against the parish in another. He had a strong idea that a great deal might be done in that matter. He did not think that the law of settlement was worth the money it had cost. He thought it might fairly be considered whether it might not be abolished altogether, or, at all events, greatly modified. But then his hon. Friend proposed to go back upon the question of means and substance. There was a great deal of equity in that law in its period; but there was also in it a great deal of difficulty and inconvenience, and he believed that the Scotch Members were all of one opinion on the matter. At all events it could not be raised unless the area of chargeability was so extended that the Poor Law was taken up on something like a national footing. The last matter was the Board of Supervision. The hon. Member for the county of Fife (Sir Robert Anstruther) seemed to say that if he (the Lord Advocate) did not assent to a Committee of Inquiry on that subject, either he or the Board must have something to conceal. Now, if he thought the Board had anything to conceal, he would say that an inquiry ought immediately to be granted. And, since the hon. Member had expressed a desire that that matter should be embraced in the inquiry of the Committee, there could not be the slightest reason why it should not be so. His objection was, that it looked as if there was some reason to impugn the conduct of the Board. It was clear, and he did not in the least disguise the fact, that the burden of the poor rate had become a very serious evil in Scotland, though his own belief was that, under the management of Sir John M'Neill and his successor, the Board of Supervision had executed its duty, which its name implied, of supervising the local boards of the country, with singular fidelity. He knew very well that any inquiry would only redound to their honour. He had sat on the Board himself, and he knew its working well. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had contrived to bring in a charge against the Sheriffs who sat on that Board. He must confess, unless his informants were mistaken, that the state of matters was the reverse—at least, he had heard the Sheriffs strongly express themselves with regard to the amount of time and labour which they had been called upon to devote to the discharge of their duties. When he was at that Board he had known them give a very constant and unremitting attention to their duties, and there occasionally arose very large and difficult questions of law which it was their duty to decide. He had to remind the hon. Member for Edinburgh that when, two or three years since, a Bill was passed in relation to the sanitary arrangements of Scotland, the Board of Supervision was created in that Bill the tribunal to decide upon and to put in operation the sanitary provisions of the Act, thus throwing upon the Board a great deal more labour. And he did not recollect that upon that occasion, or in the course of the discussion upon the Bill, any objection was taken to the constitution of the Board. He had thought it right to say those few words in defence, or rather in vindication of and in justice to the Board, which, as had been observed, had no representative in Parliament. He had only in conclusion, to say, that if his hon. Friend thought fit to extend the inquiry to the Board of Supervision, he had no objection to that course being adopted. He would, however, suggest that the Committee should not be nominated to-night. It was not usual to place the names of hon. Members on the Paper before the appointing of a Committee was agreed to, and he should be obliged if the hon. Member allowed him an opportunity of consulting with him before the Committee was nominated.

said, that as the learned Lord (the Lord Advocate) had kindly consented to grant the Committee in the form in which he asked for it, it was unnecessary for him to detain the House with any reply. But he could assure the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Colebrooke) that there were the names of no fewer than eight county Members on the list he had drawn up for the Committee, and that he had no intention to do anything disrespectful to the hon. Baronet, or any other desire than to form such a Committee as might be deemed competent to undertake that inquiry. His sole object in putting the names down on that day's Paper was to elicit the expression of opinion they had had that evening, and he would at once yield to the wish of the House on that matter. As to his having selected junior Members, the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had already explained what had happened in regard to himself, and as to the hon. Members for Glasgow, their case was much the same as his. With respect to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) he had taken the first opportunity he had of inviting that right hon. Gentleman's co-operation, and he expected an early answer from him on the subject. He would at present withdraw the names he had suggested for the Committee, his only desire being to constitute such a Committee as would give thorough confidence to the people of Scotland.

, who had given notice that he would call attention to this subject, said, he did not propose at that late hour to trouble the House then with further discussion on the question embraced in his Notice, it had already been so fully discussed on a former night and almost incidentally that evening by the debate on the Scotch Poor Law. He reserved to himself the right, however, of bringing forward the subject again, and he should do so, partly because the promise of the Prime Minister had not been sufficiently definite as to time, and partly because he thought that as the Government had acceded to the appointment of a Committee for Scotland, they could hardly refuse a similar inquiry, or immediate legislation as regards England. He should bring the matter forward again shortly after Easter, and meanwhile he wished to impress upon the Government the fact that the feeling was as strong in this country as it was in Scotland, that some alteration in the present working of the Poor Law was urgently required.

, in rising to move that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Game Laws of Scotland said, the measure was almost identical with that which he brought forward in 1867. It would be recollected that it, along with a Bill introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) was referred last year to a Select Committee. And as the Amendments which were made in the Committee and embodied in the Bill, did not give much satisfaction in Scotland, as the question of the Game Laws had made considerable advance in Scotland since last Session, and as the game question was made one of the principal questions at the hustings in that country at the late election, he thought he was warranted in bringing it before the new Parliament. The main provisions of the measure, which he now asked leave to introduce were—first, that hares and rabbits should not be deemed game within the meaning of the ordinary Game Laws: secondly, that cumulative punishments or penalties for offences under the Game Laws should be abolished: thirdly, that prosecutions under the Game Laws should be transferred from the jurisdiction of the Justices of the Peace to that of Sheriffs of counties: and, fourthly, the Bill provided a speedy mode by which tenants might obtain compensation for damage done to crops by game. The principal alteration he had to propose as contained in the Bill was in the fourth clause—namely, that which provided a speedier mode by which tenants could obtain compensation for damage done by game. He might state that with regard to this matter he had availed himself largely of suggestions thrown out by the Lord Advocate in the Select Committee of 1867, and had embodied those suggestions in that clause of his Bill. He now asked leave of the House to introduce a Bill to Amend the Game Laws of Scotland.

said, he had much pleasure in seconding the Motion made by his hon. Friend, whose Bill he accepted as a compromise. He trusted that if the measure was to be opposed by Her Majesty's Government they would take the measure in their own hands, so that they might be able to legislate upon it during the present Session. It seemed to him that, considering the loyalty of the Scotch constituencies to the present occupants of the Treasury Bench, they had some right to make that demand at the hands of the Government.

said, he thought the absence of the noble Lord, the Member for Haddingtonshire, (Lord Elcho) would tend to simplify matters, for they would now have only one Bill to consider instead of two. He was, therefore, very much indebted to him for having withdrawn his Bill and thus left the stage clear for the introduction of that of his hon. Friend, the Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. M'Lagan). Like his hon. Friend (Mr. Fordyce) who had just sat down, he looked upon that Bill as a compromise, and he thought it might, perhaps, be a wise one. He trusted that his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate would endeavour, when the Bill was passing through Committee, to amend it by giving some additional power to the tenants of obtaining speedy compensation for the damage done by game. He could say, from his own experience at the last election, that there was no question which attracted more attention in Scotland than the question of the Game Laws, not merely among the proprietors of land and their tenants, but among the people themselves, who felt that there was a great destruction by game of food which would otherwise be available for the use of the people. Therefore, the question was removed from the position it used to occupy, as one chiefly interesting to the sportsman and the tenant. There was, doubtless, considerable injury inflicted by the unnecessary consumption of food which would otherwise be used as food by the people.

said, he could fully confirm the statements made by the hon. Members who had addressed the House upon that subject, that the question of the Game Laws was one that had attracted very considerable attention in Scotland, and he trusted that leave would be given to bring in the Bill.

said, there was no objection to the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire bringing in his Bill. He should reserve any observations he might have to make upon it until it was brought up for a second reading.

rose to call the attention of the House to the Supplemental Vote passed last evening, and now being reported to the House. He alluded particularly to the large sum of £11,738 paid for public buildings, and to ask how it came to pass that so large a sum had to be paid for arbitration claims in connection with Westminster Bridge? He also commented on the increased charge of £17,200 for the constabulary force in Ireland, on the charge for new pensions and retiring allowances connected with Irish Law Courts, and on the addition of £18,000 to the outlay on printing and stationery, contending that some explanation of those items was required, and objecting generally to a Supplementary Estimate.

said, he should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman, in whose name Notice of a Question stood on the Paper that evening with regard to the supply of Australian preserved meat at 6d. per lb. to the Navy—the charge for English preserved meat being 11d. per lb.—was aware of his own experience that the Australian was better than the English meat.

I shall answer the noble Lord's Question when we come to discuss Vote 2 of the Navy Estimates.

remarked that the present discussion was irregular. He complained that Supply should have been taken on Friday evening, contrary to the spirit of the arrangement which he understood had been entered into some years ago, when Supply was fixed as the first Order, with a view to enable private Members to bring forward their Notices of Motion.

said, it was open to the Government, in accordance with the arrangement to which his hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) referred, to take Supply on Fridays, unless they had given an intimation previously that they did not intend to do so; but that there might be no misunderstanding about the matter he had given Notice in the early part of Friday evening last that he intended to bring forward a Supplementary Estimate. In reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk), he had to state that, although, as far as he was concerned, he had, since he entered upon his present Office, endeavoured to carry out the wholesome rule that there should be a distinct understanding with any person who entered into a contract with the Government as to the amount of remuneration which he should receive, there had been some mistake made by former Governments on the point with reference to Westminster Bridge. The claims made in consequence on the Treasury in connection with that work had to be referred to arbitration, and the amount of the award was that which was set down in the Supplementary Estimate, besides which the Government, he was sorry to say, would have to pay all the costs of the reference, which amount would be embodied in the "general charge for the year. As to the charge for printing, he must admit that it was very heavy; but he must, at the same time, remind hon. Members that the expense under that head was one which they themselves in a great measure created, who were con- stantly asking for information which had to be printed and circulated. The only way to diminish the expenditure for printing was by a little forbearance on the part of Members themselves. There was always an indisposition on the part of the Government to refuse Returns, because it looked as if there existed a desire to conceal something. The mere preparation of the Returns cost a good deal, and when they were laid upon the table hon. Members might with advantage consider whether any urgent necessity existed for printing and distributing them. His own conviction was that a great many hon. Members did not pass their time in reading these Returns. That day, for instance, they had received nearly 500 clearly printed pages of evidence relating to two Election Petitions. He should be curious to know by this day week whether any hon. Members had read these through; if not, it was plain that a very large expenditure had been unnecessarily incurred. With regard to the Irish Constabulary, it was not surprising, in the state in which Ireland had been for some time past, that the force should have been brought up to its full complement, and. having to maintain this armed force, everybody, he thought, must agree that the best thing was to arm them in the best manner, so as to impress people with the conviction that they were efficient and capable of putting down disturbances. The last question put to him had reference to the re-organizing, under the Act 30 & 31 Vict. c. 129, of the Courts of Justice in Ireland. There was no process, he was sorry to say, in its immediate operation so expensive as that of reforming anything connected with the law. The legal profession had a great idea of vested interests and vested rights, and the moment any change was proposed, everybody insisted that he had a perfect right to remain as he was before. Whether his position had been one of idleness or of usefulness seemed quite immaterial; if he were touched in any way he demanded compensation. Unfortunately, in recent times there had been a disposition to comply very readily with this sort of claim, for the purpose, as it was described, of getting the Bill comfortably through the House. It would have been better very often to resist such claims, and to press the measure on the ground of public necessity. In this case, however, the Act, had been passed, compensation had been granted under it, and all that could be done was to carry out the arrangement. In some particulars the apparent increase of Estimate would be only nominal, for the increase of salary was in substitution for fees which would in future be paid, not to the officer, but into the Consolidated Fund. There was, also, a transfer of charge from other funds to the Vote. The three causes which he had now explained together occasioned a charge of £19,000; and it appeared to Her Majesty's Government that the best and most distinct way of bringing the matter forward was in the shape of a Supplementary Estimate, so that the House might have before it any increase in the expenditure. His hon. Friend viewed Supplementary Estimates with dislike. But if the House were to adopt that view, the only possible course would be to bring forward very outside Estimates in the first instance; and he was sorry to say that when once an Estimate was voted, everybody concerned in spending apparently thought it his duty to get rid of the money to the full extent of the Vote. The better course, therefore, was to frame the original Estimates as closely as possible to the probable requirements; and if afterwards it became necessary to provide for an excess, to bring it forward in a shape that admitted of its being examined and inquired into by hon. Members.

said, he hoped the warning just given by the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to the mania of moving for Returns would not be thrown away upon a new House. He might speak freely on this matter, for during the seventeen years he had been in the House he had only moved for one Return; it was contained on a single sheet of paper, and he would candidly admit that he believed it was nearly useless. The great body of the Returns published were not only useless but mischievous, for they produced a feeling of despair upon the Members. One very hard-working Member of the House told him that if fewer Returns were published he should read a great many more of them. The only way of checking the multiplication of these Papers would be the adoption of some salutary rule, under which the Member moving for the Return would be obliged to pay a percent- age of the expenditure involved in its production.