, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that Lord Stanley, a leading Member of the late Government, had declared that Ireland was the difficulty of the Empire, and that he had asked for a remedy but none had been suggested. Now he (Mr. Delahunty) proposed a remedy for the evils of Ireland, namely—legislative equality—to give to Ireland the same laws as were given to England, more particularly the same Currency Laws. The principle of the legislation in England with regard to her Money Laws was sound and good, while that of Ireland had resulted in disaster and ruin to that fine country. He wished to put an end to what might be called a separate system, in order that Ireland might be dealt with as a part of the Empire, and that the Union between the two countries might be a union in fact and not merely in name, for he was persuaded that until legislation took that direction, the Irish people would seize every opportunity that might present itself to separate themselves from England. In his opinion, a combination of the people of the United Kingdom under equal laws made by a Parliament sitting in this metropolis, was better than separate legislation for Ireland by a Parliament sitting in College Green. He would rather see a large combination like France than a small one like Denmark. This he was able to say, as an old co-labourer with Mr. O'Connell, was the opinion of that eminent man, who desired Imperial legislation, and who only asked for a separate Parliament when he found it impossible to obtain from the Imperial Parliament equal laws and institutions for the two countries. The condition of Ireland was a subject that enlisted his interest from his youth, and he had, in fact, taken a part in public affairs since the year 1826, working for Catholic emancipation and for Parliamentary and municipal reforms, all of which had conferred enormous advantages on Ireland. Equal laws were, he was persuaded, the only remedy for the anomalous condition of Ireland, and from his experience of that country he could say that if they were extended to it Fenianism would be no longer heard of. When the Money Laws of Ireland were the same as those of England, the country advanced equally with England in prosperity and population, as was proved by the Census Returns and trade statistics of each year The Legislative Union of 1800 between the two countries being based upon the assumption of different and independent interests, had led to the enactment of separate laws for each, which not having worked beneficially for Ireland, it became necessary to try the principle of legislative equality, so as to effect a union advantageous to Ireland. The progress of Ireland in manufactures, productions, and population, during the times when the financial and Money Laws of both countries were the same, was always, in manufactures and productions, evidenced by the ascertained amounts of exports and imports, as 1 to 4 compared with Great Britain, and in population 11¼ to 20 as compared with England and Wales. Since 1826, however, when, for the first time, different Money Laws prevailed, Ireland suffered so that her exports, imports, and population were not one-half what they would have been if her progress since then had been equal to what it was previously. The commercial vitality and progress of Ireland before 1826 were great in despite of various kinds of obstructions, impediments, and restrictions, nearly all of which had since been removed. As evidence of which vitality it appeared that, in 1812, the total shipping entered inward to the ports of the three Kingdoms, was as follows:—England and Wales, 13,002 vessels, 1,779,852 tons, 101,098 men; Scotland, 3,403 vessels, 318,306 tons, 20,792 men; Ireland, 11,656 vessels, 1,062,135 tons, 62,462 men; and at no period during the fifty years previously was the tonnage of Great Britain three times that of Ireland. Since 1826, Catholic Emancipation, Parliamentary and Municipal Reform, Free Trade, Poor Laws, &c, had taken place—railway and steam communications, with other great scientific improvements and discoveries, had given industrial productive development an immense beneficial impetus, so as to increase fivefold the exports and imports of England, in the face of which Ireland had become comparatively depressed and depopulated, and mainly dependent upon one source of industrial development—the land. There were two kinds of money now used throughout the world—first, real money, specie; second, credit money, bank or State paper notes, inconvertible or convertible into specie, as the laws of the country might require. In 1773 the specie of Great Britain and Ireland being clipped and worn to a great and injurious extent, the British Parliament considered it necessary to reform the currency by a re-coinage of the precious metals, and restricting the circulation of small notes; and, according to the account of Mr. Rose (the Secretary to the Treasury), a coinage of over £25,000,000 of gold took place, and it was considered necessary, in 1775, to prohibit notes under, £1, and, in 1777 notes under £5, which Acts were renewed every year until 1787, when they were made perpetual. The progress of Ireland under this system was known to have been great and unprecedented. In 1797, owing, as it was alleged, to the war with France, Mr. Pitt passed "the Bank Restriction Act," and as banks were thereby allowed to issue inconvertable paper, they were also permitted to issue small notes. The evil effects of displacing specie by the small paper currency were soon felt, particularly by Ireland; but as the laws in both coun- tries were alike, the comparative progress continued as before. In 1819, the Act for the resumption of cash payments passed, to take effect in 1822, but being unfortunately unaccompanied by the safeguard previously existing, which kept the gold in the country—namely, the prohibition of small notes—the effects were soon felt in the departure of the specie, which with great expense and trouble, had been purchased and brought into the country for the occasion—the consequent failure of the banks for the want of gold—the depression of the manufacturing and agricultural interests from the great scarcity of money—so that the pressure upon Ireland created the great famine of 1822—upon England the great panic of 1825, which later occurrence caused the Government of the day to bring in a Bill, in February 1826, to place the currency of England upon the ancient basis, and which Bill became law the following month, prohibiting small notes, and restoring England to the same Money Laws that she enjoyed before 1797, but leaving Ireland without change, with the laws that had at the time proved so injurious and so destructive. The new and unprecedented Money Laws, passed for the United Kingdom in 1844 and 1845, had intensified and increased in Ireland the evils of the legislation of 1819, in as much as those laws restricted the issue of bank notes of every kind, and stopped the formation of new banks of issue, before Ireland had the opportunity of establishing a sufficient number of joint-stock banks, which, after the stoppage and closing of the private banks, they had recently been allowed to do in the provinces, the Legislature having confined the monopoly of the Bank of Ireland within a circuit of fifty Irish miles of Dublin. It was true such new laws applied also to England; but the presence of the gold circulation there, continually increasing especially since the gold discoveries, neutralized its effects, which were most ruinous and disastrous to Ireland, producing in a few years, the extraordinary anomaly—that, whereas the money circulation of Ireland had, previously to 1826, been always as 1 to 4 as compared to England and Wales, but, owing to the absence of gold in Ireland, was as 1 to 8 in 1845, came rapidly down, so as to be 1 to 16 in 1849, and which propor- tion has since continued with little variation. The law of 1826, prohibiting small notes did not lessen the paper circulation of England, but the specie soon exceeded it, so that the money of the country in a short time was double what it had been in 1826, and the increased productions and wealth of the country, promoted and stimulated by the abundance of the precious metals, had since increased the gold in the hands of the public, so that it was calculated to be from £80,000,000, to £100,000,000, at the present time, whilst in Ireland the £1 note circulation had never increased, being always in amount from £2,000,000 to £3,000,000, the gold circulation not being one-tenth of that amount; and this great scarcity of money, having speedily annihilated the many manufactures that existed in 1826, and such scarcity, from the nature of the laws, being continuous and perpetual, all attempts at promoting industrial development through manufactures, unless these laws were changed, must fail. He contended it was expedient to equalize the Money Laws of England and Ireland by prohibiting, after a certain period, the issuing of promissory notes under a limited sum in Ireland. The hon. Member then read at great length the opinions expressed in Parliament in former times upon the question of the abolition of the small note circulation, particularly referring to the debates in 1826–8; to the evidence before the Committee on the Bank Charter Act in 1832; before the Committee on the Bank Acts in 1857–8; and from the Report of that Committee; and from Postlethwaite's Britain's Commercial Interest Explained, published in 1757; Jones' Present State of Kingdoms, 1772; Wallace's Essay on the Manufactures of Ireland, 1798; from Mortimer's General Dictionary of Commerce and Manufactures, 1810. The hon. Member then proceeded to say that having given the House these facts and opinions, he (Mr. Delahunty) would conclude by stating that, in his belief, very great benefits would result to Ireland if this Bill should be passed. There were many measures necessary for that country, but the great one of all was that which would give employment to the people in manufactures, and that they could not have without a gold currency; and without it Ireland would not be on a perfect equality with England.

said, he would not follow the hon. Member (Mr. Delahunty) over the elaborate survey with which he had favoured the House, going fifty and even 100 years back, and attributing the whole of the decline which had occurred in the wealth and population of Ireland to causes in which, as they related neither to the Church nor the land, all Irish Members, no matter whether from the North or the South, or to what denominations they might belong, were equally interested. The best thing, however, to do was not to go back over a large number of years; but to examine whether the existence of £1 notes in Ireland had produced, or was likely to produce, any of the evils which the hon. Gentleman had described. It was remarkable that it was not to the amount of the circulation of those notes that the hon. Member objected, but to the fact that the note circulation in Ireland was not limited to sums not less than £5. But surely an objection of that kind could not apply solely to Ireland. Side by side with. Ireland was a country which no one would hesitate to say had improved vastly in commerce, manufactures, and everything that constituted the greatness of a country, and yet in Scotland exactly the same condition of things existed.—they had a note circulation founded upon the same principles as those which prevailed in Ireland. The hon. Gentlemen had not explained the regulations on which the system was based. The circulation was limited in quantity. Those bankers who had the power of issuing notes could only issue to a certain amount, and he would call attention to this fact—that though there had been in Scotland in one or two instances a failure of banks—while for several years there had not been any in Ireland—the holders of the £1 notes had in every case received 20s. in the pound. There was very remarkable evidence given by a great banker as to the comparative unimportance in commercial operations of the amount of the circulation, whether of gold or of notes. Sir John Lubbock had stated that in the transactions of one bank in London £19,000,000 had been received in a limited period, of which £18,395,000 consisted of cheques and bills, only £487,000 of bank notes, and the rest of coin, so that the bank notes and coin together formed only about 3 per cent of the transactions. That would show how much more important a part cheques bore in the commercial transactions of the country than bank notes or coin. He did not understand the hon. Member to allege that in any case the bank note had been depreciated, or that it was anywhere worth less than 20s. in the pound. Neither had he complained of their excessive issue. The debates to which the hon. Gentleman had referred on the currency question of 1819 went all more or less upon the supposition that when they went down to a £1 circulation there was an enormous over-issue which had driven out the gold, but it was not added, as it ought to have been, that the £1 note had been depreciated. Nothing of this kind was found now-a-days; neither in Ireland nor Scotland did they find the bank note depreciated; in every instance it bore the same value as the sovereign it represented. He submitted that, though in England it might not be advisable to go below £5, there existed a very good reason why there should be a distinction as far as Ireland was concerned, because in Ireland there was a great number of small business transactions which were very much better carried on through the medium of a note circulation below £5. Indeed, the £1 note stood very much in the same relation to the business operations of Ireland that the £5 note did to those of this country. As to £1 notes driving the bullion out of the country, it should be remembered that the issue of £1 notes or any notes did not immediately send away the whole amount of bullion corresponding to that issue. It could only send away a certain proportion of it, and something like one-third of the amount they were empowered to issue would be kept in the hands of the bankers. Only two-thirds, therefore, of the issue which the banker was empowered to make could be driven out. But, as long as the note circulation was payable on demand and was not depreciated, what injury could be done to a country if two-thirds of that circulation in gold was either sent out of the country to be invested or was invested in the country itself in profitable speculations? All the charges made against the £1 note circulation were charges against bad banking. In Scotland the £1 note circulation, as now prudently limited, was nothing but a blessing to that country. As long as the £1 note was convertible it was every whit as good a circulating medium as a £5 note. He had referred to the prosperity of Scotland, and he would add that Prussia, which had of late years been particularly prosperous, had notes as low in value as one thaler, or 3s. When Mr. Wilson, formerly a Member of this House, and no mean authority on this subject, went to India as Financial Secretary, one of his propositions was to issue notes for as low an amount as 10s. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the loss of the cotton and woollen trade of Ireland, but had overlooked the enormous increase of the flax and linen trade. It was very difficult to say what was the cause of the decline of a country, but it should be considered that we were now under a Free Trade system, and that Ireland was unfortunately situated for manufactures, being without natural advantages, and close to England, which possessed those advantages with abundant capital, cheap labour, and great industry. Wherever Ireland had attempted manufactures on anything like equal terms she had succeeded. The United States, Canada, and other colonies repudiated the maxims of Free Trade, which they thought were excellent for a strong and wealthy country where trade and manufactures were established, but were not suitable for countries struggling under such disadvantages that they had no chance whatever in a competition against countries more favourably circumstanced. People in Ireland thought that question was not one to be dealt with by a private Member. It applied as much to Scotland as to Ireland, and if the Government thought the present system required improvement, they ought to take the matter up themselves. For himself, he was much opposed to the Bill as it stood, and also against referring the question to a Select Committee. The circulation of £1 notes was a great convenience to Ireland, and in no part of that country was the alteration now proposed desired. Such a course would diminish prices, and be a reflection on banking institutions which had been better conducted than those in England. The only thing that might fairly be said in favour of the Bill was that at present something in the nature of a monopoly was given to the existing banks. A high rate of interest was one of the evils of Ireland; but, looking at the doubt which surrounded every kind of property in that country, it was not surprising that the rate of interest there should be something like 6 per cent. All the good the hon. Member had done was that he had drawn attention to the subject, and the next time the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown brought forward a measure to restrict the issue of bank notes to the State, he would include Ireland and Scotland. When, five years ago, that right hon. Gentleman brought in a Bill to do away with the circulation of the private banks, after compensating bankers who had the privilege of issue, and to provide that the only issue should be by the Bank of England, although he went into the whole case, he did not draw any distinction between £1 notes and £5 notes, or notes of larger amount. The fact that so great a financier then said nothing against £1 notes was a strong argument in their favour. In 1826 there was a great controversy in regard to an attack made by the Government on the £1 note currency of Scotland. Scotland was almost unanimously against such a change, and a famous series of letters then appeared on the subject in the Edinburgh Weekly Journal, under the signature of "Malachi Malagrowther," and which were afterwards known to have been written by Sir Walter Scott. Malachi Malagrowther wrote thus—

"Here stands Theory, a scroll in her hand full of deep and mysterious combinations of figures, the least failure in any one of which may alter the result entirely, and which you must take on trust, for who is capable to go through and check them? There lies before you a practical system, successful for upwards of a century. The one allures you with promises of untold gold, the other appeals to the miracles already wrought in your behalf. The one shows you provinces the wealth of which has been tripled under her management, the other a problem which has never been practically solved. Here you have a pamphlet there a fishing town; here the long-continued prosperity of a whole nation, and there the opinion of a professor of economics that in such circumstances she ought not, by true principles, to have prospered at all. In short, good countrymen, if you are determined, like Æsop's dog, to snap at the shadow, and lose the substance, you never had such a gratuitous opportunity of exchanging food and wealth for moonshine in the water."

To a limited extent what was then said of Scotland was now true of Ireland. In the North, especially where the dependence had not been wholly upon land, a great improvement in the last fifty years had occurred. Trade had increased, wages had risen, and, as a consequence, the people were better clothed, better fed, and they were beginning to be better housed. A steady market was introduced into almost every small town for the production of the district, instead of the system of barter that existed fifty years ago. The present banks had been excellently managed, their circulation limited, their notes secure; and although he did not go so far as to say that no improvement might be made, it was not in the direction pointed to by that Bill. A lower rate of interest, if natural, would be of great advantage to trade, but to effect that they must have first security. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time upon this day three months.

said, that, if that had been an Irish question in all its bearings, he should have left the Irish Members to discuss it among themselves; but if the House came to the conclusion that small notes ought to be abolished in Ireland, a proposal to abolish them in Scotland also would probably follow. Such a proposal, if seriously made, would excite as strong an opposition in Scotland as that witnessed when the letters of Malachi Malagrowther appeared in 1826; and the motto of Scotland—"Nemo me impune lacessit," would in that case be likely to be put into practice. He did not approve of the Act of 1819. Undoubtedly the resumption of cash payments in 1819 threw upon this country an enormous burden, the burden of providing an immense metallic currency, which England could only obtain by a large amount of exports. That burden had been severely felt, and it would often have been a great relief to this country if she had had a circulation of small notes to fall back upon. In fact, a crisis had been on one occasion avoided by the issue of £1,000,000 of small notes. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Delahunty) had not told them how Ireland—a poor country—was to obtain the gold which was to form her gold currency if his Bill passed. She could only obtain it by buying it with her exports, but she now fully required these to buy food, clothing, and the other articles which she did not produce for her own people, and most of all, those raw materials by means of which alone she could continue her exports. The hon. Member for Water-ford said the Act of 1846 was a very serious blow to Ireland, because it restricted the Irish issues; and now that hon. Gentleman wanted to restrict those issues further in order to restore her prosperity. There was no doubt that the legislation of 1846 had created a monopoly of banks, but that monopoly could be easily got rid of without abolishing the small notes. They might allow the banks to issue small notes on the security of Government stock and the like. That Bill, if passed, would rob Ireland of the use of £3,242,000, the amount of her circulation of small notes. It was only with the assistance of her small notes that Scotland had maintained her place in commerce and manufactures by the side of so enormously wealthy a country as England. Scotland was allowed to issue £3,000,000 of paper, of which nearly £2,000,000 were small notes. Much had been said of the metallic circulation in past times. The metallic circulation of England had been variously estimated at from £40,000,000 to £80,000,000; and, therefore, he held that the estimate of £5,000,000 in Ireland, in 1797, was little more than a guess. He had great pleasure in seconding the Amendment on a Bill which ought to be called—"A Bill to rob Ireland for the purpose of making her rich."

It is only respectful to the hon. Member (Mr. Delahunty), who has taken so much pains with this subject, that I should give the opinion of the Government on the question in as few words as I can, as the matter is one of great importance, and it is undesirable that any misapprehension should exist in regard to it. To understand what is the question before us I think we had better try and see what it is not. It is certainly not the question of general prosperity or adversity in Ireland. It is not the question between Free Trade and Protection. If it were, I should be glad to break a lance with the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Frederick Heygate) on the question whether it is really advisable for countries whose state of society, or whose peculiar climate, or other circumstances, fit them rather to be the producers of raw materials than manufacturers, to impose heavy burdens on themselves in order to stimulate the growth of manufactures. [Sir FREDERICK HEYGATE: I only stated a fact.] I think the hon. Baronet went a little further. Nor is this a question of the Money Laws of Ireland. The proposition of the hon. Member for Waterford does not raise the question whether the principle on which, bank notes are issued in Ireland is a good one or not. He says nothing against the £5 note circulation of Ireland, which amounts to about one-half of the whole £7,000,000 of note circulation in that country. His observations were strictly limited to the issue of £1 notes; and therefore it would be irrelevant and a waste of time if I were to enter now into various topics which he has introduced, and which in themselves might be well worthy of discussion. The simple question I have to ask myself is whether the hon. Gentleman has shown any reason why we should, under very severe penalties, prohibit the issuing of any more £1 notes in Ireland, where those notes are now issued to the extent of about £3,250,000? Has the hon. Gentleman stated any theoretical objection to the issue of those notes? He quoted a number of authorities, some of whom did not seem to me to see their way very clearly in this matter. He talks of driving the gold out of the country. Now, in the first place, there is no good in itself in a country having a gold rather than a paper currency. The beau ideal of a currency would be paper based on gold, in order to save the wear and tear of gold, the gold being withdrawn from circulation and kept as a support to the paper, and the value represented by it. If two farmers have a transaction with each other, it will be of no more advantage to them if it be consummated by the transfer from the one to the other of a piece of gold instead of a piece of paper, provided al- ways that the piece of paper represents the value of the transfer. It is a mere superstition that there is any advantage in doing business by means of gold rather than paper. On the contrary, there is an obvious disadvantage in it; and that disadvantage is that gold is a most expensive luxury, and we are paying, or will shortly have to pay, dearly for the luxury of a gold circulation. I put aside that argument, therefore, as having no bearing on the question. "What, then, is the objection to a £1 note circulation that would not apply to a £5 note, or any other note circulation? Of course, a £1 note circulation requires to be guarded like any other note circulation. And it must be guarded in these ways—It must be convertible into gold, which is the case in Ireland. It must be limited in amount, which is also the case in Ireland. It ought to be based on sufficient security. I fear the security is not sufficient in Ireland; but that insufficiency does not in the least apply more to the £1 note than to the £5 note circulation of that country. Of the three requisites for a good currency, then, the £1 note currency possesses certainly two; and the part of the note currency which the hon. Member does not propose to touch has not the third requisite any more than the other part which he does touch. Therefore, on theoretical grounds, I see no reason for objecting to the £1 notes. And I say, further, that if we are going to assimilate the circulation of Ireland and England, I think we should do more wisely by imitating Ireland than by making Ireland imitate England; because the state of our gold currency is at this moment lamentable. According to the best information which has been given to me by the responsible officers of the Government, 31½ per cent of the sovereigns and 47 per cent of the half-sovereigns in circulation are deficient in weight; and a cost of £400,000 will be entailed in calling in and re-coining that light coin, which would be saved if pieces of paper were made to do the work of gold. Therefore, I have not been able to understand that any argument can be adduced against £1 notes, except, perhaps, their liability to forgery; but the improvements in the manufacture of those notes render their successful forgery almost impossible. I say, then, there is nothing that makes it right, wise, and proper to issue notes representing five sovereigns which would make it wrong, foolish, and improper to issue notes representing one sovereign. The question, then, reduces itself to the practical one of what good we shall do by adopting this proposal. And, first, let us consider the feeling of the people in the matter, because it is very odd that though the currency is the driest, and apparently the most repulsive of all subjects, there is no other subject with which caprices and prejudice have so much to do. I will give an instance of this. The Australian sovereign has a good deal of silver in it; it has a pale and yellow appearance, and is disliked in this country, where people like to have sovereigns of a reddish rather than of a pale yellow colour. But in India, on the other hand, the Australian sovereign is most readily exchanged, because the old gold mohur of that country has exactly the same sort of alloy in it, and closely resembles it in appearance. That shows how much habit, prejudice, and even caprice influence the circulation of different kinds of money. There is no doubt that in Ireland the feeling is that the £1 note is better than a sovereign, and I understand that in out-of-the-way parts of that country they take 6d. off the sovereign in giving change. [Sir FREDERICK HEYGATE: 1s.] A note also suits the hoarding habits of many of the Irish people better than a sovereign. Therefore, we should be doing great violence to the feelings of the poorer part of the population, by whom £l notes are liked, if we were to stop their issue; and we ought not to give offence to the people, unless we are to gain some clear good; whereas, in this case, you would gain no good whatever. Moreover, by the hon. Gentleman's proposal, you would, at one blow, restrict the total note currency of Ireland by the sum of over £3,000,000, the result of which would be most harsh, and cruel. Its effect would be to reduce prices enormously. The money that remained in Ireland would have to serve for all the business that is now done there, in place of this £3,000,000. Therefore, the power of every piece of money would be proportionately increased as a purchasing agent; there would be a consequent fall in prices; and misery and distress would be caused to the persons who, having produced under one state of prices, afterwards found their commodi- ties artificially lowered in value. And what would be the limit of that fall in prices? It would go on until it became worth people's while to send gold to Ireland to re-place the notes that had been cancelled. The exports of Ireland would be taxed, and profits diminished or annihilated until the £3,000,000 and upwards withdrawn from circulation had been purchased back. And that is the manner in which we are asked to benefit Ireland, at a time, too, when every Gentleman who rises to speak complains of her poverty! That is a course of proceeding to which I am sure Her Majesty's Government will never give their assent; and I think it is also perfectly certain that the House will not adopt it. If I might offer the hon. Gentleman advice, I would recommend him, as there is plenty of other business on the Paper, to allow the House to proceed to something more practical.

said, he hoped the question before the House would be referred to a Select Committee.

said, that, as the Session had, up to the present time, been almost wholly occupied with Irish questions, he thought this subject of £1 notes ought not to be allowed to stand in the way of the House proceeding with other matters of great importance which were awaiting discussion.

said, that after the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with which the people of Ireland would be highly satisfied, he was also of opinion that the subject ought not to occupy the House any longer. Hardly any of the people of Ireland, he might remark, were in favour of the plan proposed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Delahunty).

, in reply, said, that his arguments and statements were not met or refuted by any of the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken against the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, on his own part and in the name of the Government, given expression to the opinion that it would be more proper to issue £1 notes in England than to abolish them in Ireland. This was a startling proposition, and it took him by surprise, as it was directly opposite to the legislation thought right by all the great statesmen of England; contrary to the expressed opinions of the highest economic authorities, from Adam Smith down to the present day. He had read to the House the opinions of the great statesmen who advocated the abolition of the small note circulation, which contrasted so strongly with the legislation suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He preferred the legislation of the great statesmen, which had worked so well for England. It was true that it was not perfect; it might require some amendments, but he could not believe in the radical change proposed. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman had given it as his opinion and that of the Government that they would prefer a return to small notes in England to their abolition in Ireland, he could only say, that as his great object was the enactment of equal laws for both countries, and as the course proposed would secure legislative equality, he would not persevere with the Bill, but withdraw it. He was of opinion that the right plan would be to raise Ireland to a level with England, but of course he could not object to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was to lower England to the level of Ireland; the effect would ultimately be the same, for whatever legislation took place, if applicable to the United Kingdom, it would be sure, if wrong, to be amended, and Ireland, having the advantage of such amendment, would prosper equally with England. With regard to the remark of the Member for Dublin, he would only say that the hon. Gentleman knew nothing of the feeling of the Irish people on the subject.

, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he considered it a most useful measure, and one certain to be followed by beneficial results. At present the medical officers of the Poor Law in Ireland were as efficient as any similar class in Europe, but that state of efficiency could not be maintained unless a system of retiring pensions were established. He wished the medical officers of the poor to learn to look upon their appointments as permanent ones, and not merely as stepping-stones to something else. Under the Medical Charities Act of 1851, Ireland was portioned out into 716 dispensary districts, containing 1,038 dispensaries, and to those districts 785 medical men were appointed. These districts sometimes contained from forty to sixty square miles, so that the medical men had often to travel six or seven miles in order to see a patient. They were not eligible for appointment until twenty-three years of age, and they were not allowed to take any other public office, such as a coronership. In 1861 it was further ordered that no one should be entitled to hold such an office unless he had three qualifications—in surgery, midwifery, and medicine. The qualification had been continually increased, but there had not been any increase of salary. A few years ago a man could enter the Army if he were either a physician or a surgeon; and, in order to induce men of ability to enter the Army, they had to raise the status and remuneration, besides allowing the officers to practice, and enabling them after twenty years to retire on a pension of or over £300 a year. The Poor Law medical officers of England, who were paid 6s. 6½d. for each patient, were only required to have two qualifications; while the Irish Poor Law medical officers, who had three qualifications, got only 1s. 4d. for each patient. Their duties were of the most arduous nature. They were bound to attend to the poor either at the dispensary or at their own places, and attend any Bridewell or House of Correction in their districts. They had to attend at all times on the order of the red ticket sent by the guardians, irrespective of any practice of their own, on peril of being displaced. They were exposed to great risk of contagion in visiting the sick poor. In one epidemic 10 per cent of the medical men perished. Each Irish medical officer had 7,400 persons in his district, and in 1867 they attended more than 900,000 men and women, or one-sixth of the entire population. The whole rural population of Ireland was, indeed, dependent upon them for medical relief. In proof of the benefit which their services were to the community, and the fidelity and for- titude with which they discharged their duties, he need only allude to the figures given in the last Census Returns. It appeared that the number of deaths from fever in the ten years preceding 1841, was 112,072. In the decade ending in 1851, which was a calamitous period for Ireland, there were 222,029 deaths from fever; whilst in the ten years ending 1861, after the passing of the Medical Charities Act, the number of deaths from this cause was only 48,315. This marked decrease was unquestionably due, in a great measure, to the self-sacrificing efforts of the Poor Law medical officers. In 1841 the deaths from epidemic were 357,249; in 1863, the numbers had been reduced to a little more than 189,000. In the ten years, preceding 1841, there were 58,000 deaths from small-pox. In the ten years before 1861, 12,000 deaths only occurred from this cause; and in the year 1867 only twenty deaths. This was what had been done by the medical men of Ireland. Well, what was their remuneration? There were 867 of these medical men in Ireland, paid, on an average, £90 each per annum, which was about 1s. 8d. for each case attended in the rural districts, and only 4d. for each case attended in the towns; that was, supposing an ordinary disease to require four visits, the medical officer received 5d. for each visit in the former case, and 1d. in the latter. In fixing the rate of pay the guardians took into consideration what the medical men might obtain in other ways. In England the payment made by clubs for medical attendance was from 4s. to 5s. per head; in Ireland it was but 1s. 8d.; and, whereas in England the medical officer had only to attend heads of families, in Ireland the children had to be attended as well. The average number of persons attended by the medical men in Ireland was 1,212, which, at 4s., would amount to £250, showing a balance of £160, which either went to the guardians or to the Government, and the gross amount saved by under-paying these gentlemen in this way was £125,000. It was objected to this Bill that the poor rates were already too high. That he admitted; but there could be no better means of reducing rates than securing the health of the people. Dr. Wallace stated before a Committee of that House that 72 per cent of pauperism arose from illness. He must also complain that there was no such thing as a holiday allowed to the medical man. If he took a holiday he was compelled to find a substitute; and, even if he were laid up with illness, in many cases he was compelled to pay for his substitute. This was extremely hard, and he thought the Poor Law Board ought to take the medical men into their own hands, and rescue them from the Poor Law Guardians. It was of the utmost importance that the medical attendants of workhouses should be liberally dealt with; for, without the most skilled medical attendance in workhouses, the diseases of the poor might spread to the residences of the rich, and the wealthiest might thus suffer from the neglect of the poor. In looking at this question he admitted that he was interested in the profession to which this Bill referred, but he was still more interested in the welfare of the community at large. He proposed that the Poor Law Guardians should be empowered to tax the rate-payers with the view of providing for the medical officers a superannuation allowance, and the men who supported this measure were above all selfish considerations, and promoted it for the good of the country. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the Bill be now read a second time.

seconded the Motion. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman appeared to him to be entitled to support on the double ground of generosity and justice, and he thought that little harm could be done by giving to Boards of Guardians a permissive power to superannuate their medical officers after twelve years' service. From what he knew of the Boards of Guardians in Ireland he was certain that it would not be attended with any risk of abuse. He had heard the late Secretary for Ireland (the Earl of Mayo) say that this was a question entirely for the Irish Members, and that if there was a majority of Members for it, that ought to be a guide for the action of Government. Now Lord Mayo was a valuable authority on Ireland, only equalled by that of the present Secretary, who was also a resident proprietor, and he trusted the Government would be guided by his opinion.

said, this Bill was not framed upon the measure which was brought forward last year. He had been compelled to move that that Bill be read a second time that day six months; but he was glad to find that he was relieved from that unpleasant duty in the case of the present Bill. He grounded his support of the Bill not so much on justice as on public expediency; as he believed it would be for the benefit of the poor and of the public in general, that these superanuations should be given, because it would attract a higher class of medical practitioners to discharge the duties of these offices, and the poor themselves would be benefited by being attended by medical officers of the highest standing. But he hoped though this Bill were sanctioned it would not be drawn into a precedent, and that it would not be understood that any medical man in Ireland, no matter what the nature of his practice might be, should hereafter be quartered on the rates. Some alterations in the Bill would be required in Committee, but he gave his hearty support to the second reading.

said, this matter ought to be discussed in three aspects; first in relation to the poor; second, to the guardians; and third, to the medical officers themselves. He might say there was a fourth aspect, namely, its relation to the Government; for he found that part of the salaries of the medical officers were paid out of the rates, and he supposed that part of the superannuation funds would be so too. With respect to that he was of opinion that there should be some limit on the standing of the medical officers before they were entitled to the superannuation, and his hon. Friend the Member for Leitrim (Mr. Brady) was, he believed, willing to make ten years' service a necessary condition. Now, with regard to the poor, it would not admit of question that the interests of the poor demanded that the best medical service should be provided for them. With respect to the interests of the rate-payers, it was their interest, by the employment of a good medical officer, to reduce the amount of disease. It was for the interest not only of the poor but of the middle and wealthy classes that an able medical man should be settled in the district, and no possible harm could arise from his having a private practice, as he was always ready and would have to obey the orders of the Poor Law Commissioners. To speak of his not devoting the whole of his time to the public was to quibble about words. The practice of the medical officers retaining their private practice might be defended on account of the smallness of their salaries, as well as because few medical officers were to be found in the country districts of Ireland, and it was desirable that medical men should obtain varied and full experience. On behalf of the medical men he must urge that they were fully entitled to the demand that was now made in their favour; and on all these grounds he hoped the Government would give their support to the Bill.

said, he hoped the Government would not oppose the second reading of the Bill upon any technical ground, but allow it to go into Committee, and there receive such Amendments as might be thought necessary. The hon. Member for Limerick (Dr. Brady) was quite correct in stating that, if the Government opposed, it would be useless to press the Bill forward, for in form and structure it was in the nature of a Money Bill, and should technically have originated in Committee. The objects of the Bill were, however, so just and equitable, so universally approved by the Irish Members, and so advantageous to the best interests of the community, that he could not believe any advantage would be taken of the informality. If the Bill were merely to affect the financial status of the members of the medical Poor Law staff, he would hesitate to support it; though even, on that single ground, it was just and equitable. The results of the adoption of the measure would be, however, of far more importance to the country than to the medical staff, and of quite as much interest to the rich as to the poor. To the community at large it was important that the conditions of medical service should be such that men of a superior class would accept the positions of medical officers, and that the men engaged in the public service would not be at all times haunted with the apprehension of being overtaken by want in old age. The labours of the medical staff were so forcibly dwelt upon by his hon. Friend the Member for Leitrim that he (Sir John Gray) need not discuss them, but he would ask the House to remember that the service was one of peculiar risk, and that the duties were often performed at the hazard of life. He knew one case in which the medical staff of a town attacked by an epidemic consisted of twelve, and of these eight were struck down and died of disease caught during the discharge of their duties. It was the direct interest of the community to give proper encouragement to men of honour, of skill, and of humanity, to enter on the duties of a profession so encompassed with danger. But, above all, it was their interest that the medical officers of the district should be men of real skill as well as men of moral courage, for the Poor Law officer was, in many rural districts, the only medical practitioner in the district; and every resident in such a district, be he rich or be he poor, ought to feel anxious as to the competency and skill of the individual to whom was entrusted the health and lives of them all. He would go farther, and say it was the duty of the Government to assist in securing for the community the services of an able and competent medical adviser in every district in the country, and to the non-performance of that duty might be traced much of the pauperism that prevailed. If the medical practitioner were unskilled or incompetent, the result would be death in many cases, and impaired strength and vigour in many more If the bread-winner be struck down, and if an incompetent medical man be called in, the probable result would be that the bread-winner would succumb either to the doctor or to the disease. The widowed wife would be left destitute, the children would be pauperized, and wife and children would become permanent burdens on the rates. It was the interest of the rich, too, to secure the presence amongst them of an efficient practitioner, and this Bill tended, in a considerable degree, to secure such a man, by enabling the guardians to superannuate a medical officer when no longer equal to the work to be done, instead of retaining him when effete, as the only alternative to his becoming as destitute as the paupers he had under his care. He supported the measure, then, as much in the interest of the community as in that of the medical officers—as much in the interest of the rich as of the poor; for the medical officer who had official charge of the poor was, in all the country districts, the only man accessible to the wealthy who resided within the district. It was rumoured that Government would oppose the Bill, on the plea that the medical officer was not a civil servant, inasmuch as he did not, like other civil servants, give up his whole time to the public service. Now, the assertion that civil servants who gave up all their time to the service of the public were the only persons entitled to retiring allowance was not in accordance with the facts; and he saw no reason why one rule of civil service should be applied to the members of one learned profession and another rule to those of another equally learned profession. We had three professions called learned—the Church, the Law, and Physic. Compare the manner in which the members of these three professions were treated. The Church, though it had no retiring allowances, had its great prizes of £5,000, £10,000, and £15,000 a year, and which were held by the fortunate possessor up to the day of his death. The Law also had its prizes—its Chancellorships of £10,000 and £8,000 a year, which entitled those functionaries, though they might have held their offices only a month, to retiring pensions of £5,000 or £4,000 a year; there were Vice-Chancellors, Chief Justices, Judges, all of whom were entitled to retire on pensions after certain periods of service. But take especially the Chairmen of Counties in Ireland—they had salaries ranging from £600 to £1,300 a year; their duties consisted in acting as County Judges for a few weeks in each year, and for the rest of the year were free to seek private business, and each was entitled to a fixed retiring annuity. The medical officers worked 365 days a year on miserable pittances; surely they were entitled to the same consideration as the County Judges. Did not the medical man confer as much service as a civil servant on the community as did those petty Judges? Was he less learned, less charitable, less humane, less attentive to his duties? Yet, one was a civil servant, highly paid and entitled to a superannuation, though he devoted about 340 days in the year to himself and the remnant to the public; while the member of the other profession, equally called learned, was declared not a civil servant, because he did not give the entire of every day to the public, and, therefore, not entitled to a retiring allowance when old age, or sickness, or injury, received in the discharge of his duty, might disable him from earning his bread. The hon. Member for Limerick (Dr. Brady) had complained that Poor Law medical officers must have three diplomas or degrees, while two only were required in the medical service of the Army; and also that the Poor Law officer must be twenty-three years of age before he was permitted to hold an appointment. But the Army Board required the candidate to have two certificates as a necessity, but would not admit him to physic a corporal's guard until they had tested his acquaintance with disease and his knowledge how to deal with it. But, since this subject had been introduced, he (Sir John Gray) would take the opportunity of saying, and would say, without hesitation, that the Government—he did not mean the present Government—he meant all the Governments that existed in this country for the past thirty years—had most grievously, most grossly neglected their duty to the community in not securing a sufficient test of the fitness of a candidate for medical or surgical degrees, before the health and the lives of the community are handed over to a man, as is often the case, who is an ignorant and incompetent pretender. It was the duty of Government to protect the public against the possibility of a man, who knew nothing of disease, being licensed to practice. That duty had been grossly neglected, and he now asserted, without fear of contradiction, that a man who never felt a human pulse, who never opened a vein, bandaged a limb, or prescribed for a patient, might, and often did, receive a medical and surgical degree authorizing him to practise the medical profession. He knew hon. Members would be startled by the statement, and that they would probably conclude that, inasmuch as there are Colleges of Physicians and Colleges of Surgeons to regulate the granting of licenses, and a great Medical Council to regulate the education, and examination of candidates for the medical degrees—the statement he had just made, that a man utterly unacquainted with disease could obtain a license to practise, and be registered under the Medical Council—was one that could be made only by a man just escaped from Bedlam. Yet it was true—it was no exaggeration even of the truth. The late Sir James Graham attempted to grapple with the evil; but he had to succumb to the chartered bodies whose privileges he attempted, needlessly, to invade. A noble Lord, now a Member of the House (Lord Elcho), tried to effect a change in 1856; and another hon. Member, who held the Office of Chief Commissioner of Works under Lord Palmerston (Mr. Cowper), carried, in 1858, the Act referred to by the Introducer of this Bill. These several attempts to legislate were based mainly on the evidence and on the opinions of eminent medical men, some of whom stated before a Committee of this House that neither the course of study nor the mode of examination was sufficient to secure practical knowledge. The object of the appointment of the Medical Council of 1848 was to secure a high standard of education; and to ensure that the candidates were taught up to the highest point of modern science and practice, by ensuring the efficiency of teaching and examination. He regretted to say that the Council had not fulfilled these duties, and that the examinations as to the candidate's knowledge of disease—his acquaintance with disease—was as much a sham and a delusion as it was the day the Council was first formed. When a man was sick he did not want a doctor who could give him a first-rate lecture on botany—he wanted the aid of a man familiar with disease—a man to whom all the features of ordinary disease were so familiar that he would not fail to recognize them, and who would be as prompt to combat the symptoms and beat them back as he was to recognize the peculiar malady which afflicted his patient. That was the medical practitioner whom the sick man required, and no matter what the scientific attainments of a candidate for a license to practise might be, he ought not to be licensed to tamper with the health or with the life of the poor or of the rich—of any human being—till he had been so tested by his examiners as to satisfy them that he was intimately acquainted with all ordinary forms of disease, and capable of recognizing them when presented to him. Every man of ordinary intelligence will see that committing to memory the names of diseases and the description given of them in the books, and making the acquaintance of the symptoms in the hospital ward or in the dispensary are two very different things. But a man might walk the hospitals for years and not know the features of disease as he would those of a friend or of any enemy He had recently accompanied Sir William Jenner through the hospital in which he practised, and afterwards asked Sir William to explain the small degree of attention which the students paid to his able and careful explanations. The reply was—"A man does not want hospital practice in order to pass;" and at a meeting of the Medical Teachers' Association, held in Dublin, presided over by Sir William Jenner, the inefficiency of the present examination was prominently dwelt upon, and the fact noted that the only test consisted of mere certificates of hospital attendance, and mere answers from memory to certain questions, without any practical bedside examination. But it might be asked—"Are not the present examinations very severe, and are not many men rejected? No doubt they were, in some respects, very severe, but those respects were chiefly as to knowledge of the accessory sciences—they were not examinations as to a man's knowledge of disease, and many men who were not able to distinguish one disease from another were passed these examinations with éclat. But a good "grinder" would post him up in all the necessary knowledge in six or eight months. Students were now taught by grinders in their snug studies to answer questions like parrots; and the fees paid for these services ranged from twenty to ten guineas, according to the difficulty of the examinations as to the memory of words and names. The grinder's fee for passing a man through the Dublin College was, he understood, twenty guineas, for London fifteen, and for some of the Scotch degrees ten. But as regards London, the London degree, for which fifteen guineas only was charged, it was but just to observe that it was for the license to kill and not for the license to cure that this fee was charged. He would give an illustration of the practical effect of the present system of examination. A man seeking a Poor Law appointment had a surgical and medical degree, but not an obstetric degree, and was therefore not qualified. He attended an obstetric hospital, "crammed" the subject, and in about three weeks presented himself for examination. His answers were so much to the point that the examiners perceived that he had been "ground," and therefore tried him on new grounds. He was asked what he would do in a certain difficulty. He said at once that he would bleed. "But," said the examiner, "if there were constitutional or other causes to contra-indicate bleeding, what would you do?" "I would give her tartar emetic," was the reply. "How much?" "Sixty grains," was the answer. "Just think," said the examiner; '' you know what tartar emetic is?" "Oh, yes—tartarized antimony of the Pharmacopoeia." "Well, then, what dose would you give now?" The answer was—"Perhaps sixty grains would be too much to give at once; I would put sixty grains in a six-ounce mixture, and give an ounce of that occasionally." Now the dose is about the eighth of a grain, and if this medical man with his two degrees—a registered practitioner under the Medical Council—a man entitled to write ten medical letters after his name—met in practice the very ordinary and frequently arising difficulty indicated—if the patient were rich or poor—the inmate of a poorhouse or the wife of the most exalted—she would assuredly die. If a lawyer made a great mistake in the conducting of a case, there was a Court of Appeal which might rectify the error; but if a licensed practitioner, who was as utterly ignorant of disease as was this ten-lettered doctor, gave eighty or ninety doses at once, death carried away the victim of his ignorance, and there was no Court of Appeal to restore the patient to the circle of friends who mourn over the dead, but know not the hand that gave the fatal blow. To this he wanted to call public attention, this he wanted to force on the Government, and in this he hoped the House would aid him.

said, the hon. Member (Sir John Gray) had made a statement of a very formidable character, containing facts which were enough to make us all tremble when we called in a member of the medical profession. The House would not expect him to follow the hon. Gentleman into the various statements which he had made, which, no doubt, would one day demand the attention of Parliament. With respect to the Bill before the House, his main objection to it related to the manner in which it was drawn. In his view, it should be a simple extension to the medical officers of unions of the Irish Poor Law Superannuation Act of 1865. He admitted that the ease of these officers was one of a peculiar character, and in its bearing on the well-being of the poor, was deserving the consideration of that House. No doubt cases arose in which the guardians found themselves unable to make up their minds to discharge an old public servant without some adequate provision, and the consequence was that the poor were sometimes left in the hands of infirm and inefficient persons. Upon the whole he had come to the conclusion that there were sufficient reasons for giving a discretionary power to the Boards of Guardians, enabling them to superannuate the medical officers upon the same conditions as those upon which they superannuated other public servants. According to the Act of 1865, no officer was entitled to superannuation allowance on the ground of retirement who was under sixty years of age, and who had not served as a union officer for twenty years. It was only on the understanding that that course would be taken in Committee that the Government could assent to the second reading of the Bill. As to any contribution on the part of Government, no grant for superannuation was made in the case of England; and until the general law was changed in that respect, the same rule should prevail in Ireland.

said, he was glad that the Government had accepted a measure which would enable Boards of Guardians to discharge a duty which they had long felt was one due to the medical profession.

also expressed gratification at the general tone of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland.

said, that so far as the Treasury was concerned the question stood thus—The principle of the superannuation of local officers was first introduced in reference to England. The medical officers were excluded. A similar measure was afterwards introduced with respect to Ireland, and the law was exactly the same with regard to the two countries. The House under that law had been in the habit of voting one-half the expense of medical officers. That Vote, however, did not include any charge on account of superannuation. It would be necessary to confine the Bill exclusively to the action of the local authorities on local rates, which were the funds at their disposal, and he did not think there would be any difficulty in settling it in that form.

said, he was satisfied with the explanation of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, after referring to the other Bills now before the House on the same subject, said, he would not waste the time of the House in proving what was generally admitted—that there was a general and wide-spread dissatisfaction on the game question among the tenantry of Scotland. That discontent was not of recent origin—for it arose with the enactments of the Game Laws themselves, which were founded on the worst kind of legislation—class legislation. The evil complained of was the damage done to crops by an excessive number of hares and rabbits. The proximate cause of the evil was the over preservation of game generally, and the ultimate cause is the protection afforded to these animals by the Game Laws. Several remedies for the evil had been proposed; but he believed that if the proprietors would concede to the tenants an equal right with themselves to kill hares and rabbits there would be an end of the dissatisfaction, and the services of the gamekeeper might be altogether dispensed with; for there was no doubt that if that were done the tenants would be upon their honour to have a fair head of game upon their farms, so that landlords would never have to complain of a bad day's sport from the want of game. But as he did not think the proprietors were sufficiently educated up to the point which would enable such an arrange- ment to be made, he would shortly remark on the different remedies proposed for the evil. The first proposal was that of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) that the tenant should have authority to kill hares and rabbits, unless there should be an agreement between him and the landlord to the contrary; the other was that of the hon. Member for the Wick Burghs (Mr. Loch), that the tenant should be authorized to kill hares and rabbits noth withstanding any agreement to the contrary. It appealed to him (Mr. M'Lagan) that the first of these measures, while it respected the rights of property, would confer no real benefit on the tenant, and that the other would be a flagrant interference with the rights of property, and would be found practically inoperative. The proposal of the noble Lord was, in effect, an assimilation of the Game Laws of Scotland to those of England; but, in England, the Game Laws had been found wanting, and the complaints of game preservation were as rife there as they were in Scotland. As to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Wick, to do away with the private agreements between landlord and tenant in respect of game, he (Mr. M'Lagan) held that it was a violation of the rights of property; for if the landlord could get a larger rent from his tenant by conveying to him the right to kill the game on his land, why should the Legislature interfere to prevent the landlord and tenant entering into such an arrangement? The reason alleged for this interference was that such agreements were contrary to public policy; and he admitted that if there was such an abuse of the rights of private property as amounted to a public nuisance, the Legislature had a right to interfere; and he also admitted that the over preservation of game was contrary to public policy, and was a nuisance. But in this country we were very jealous of the security of property, and before the Legislature could consent to such an interference with the rights of property, they would require to be satisfied that the nuisance—if the over preservation were a public nuisance—could be abated in no other way. But in this case they had the remedy at hand. The evil complained of was the over preservation of game. This was not occasioned—or only in part—by private agreements in leases —the real cause was the Game Laws. The real remedy then lay in an extensive modification of those laws. He now came to the fourth proposal—that which was contained in the present Bill. The distinguishing feature of his proposal from the others was that by it hares and rabbits were struck out from the game list—that hares and rabbits were no longer game within the meaning of the Game Acts. In thus abolishing the main cause of the mischief, of which the farmers of Scotland so strongly complained, he believed that he would put an end to the mischief itself. The great objection he had heard urged to the measure was that it would be only too efficient, and that it would lead to the total extirpation of hares and rabbits. But he did not think it would produce such a result. He had no doubt that it would tend greatly to reduce the number of hares and rabbits; but he felt persuaded, at the same time, that it would leave a sufficient number of them for the purposes of legitimate sport. Another objection made to the Bill was that it would interfere with the rights of property. But he did not see how it would do so, further than many other changes in the law which necessarily interfered with private arrangements; and without such interference, no social or economical reform would ever be possible. Again, it was said, that the Bill would encourage trespassing on land; but, in reply to such an argument, he had to observe, that the measure would leave unaltered the existing law of trespass in Scotland. Finally, it was urged that the Bill would hold out an inducement to poaching; but he did not understand how it would be attended with any such effect, because it would tend greatly to the diminution of hares and rabbits, and, so far, it must necessarily lessen the temptation to poaching. By one of the clauses of the Bill the trial of prosecutions under the Game Laws would be transferred from the justices of the peace to that of the sheriffs of the county, and that would, he thought, be a reasonable change, inasmuch as the sheriffs were better qualified than the magistrates, by their legal training, and by the greater impartiality of their position, for such a duty. The Bill further proposed to abolish, what was really an anomaly in our legislation—the cumulative penalties under the Game Acts. By another clause in the measure prosecutions for damage done to crops by game would be finally decided by the sheriffs, and would not be allowed to be taken, as at present, from one court to another until they ultimately reached the House of Lords. Under the latter system an immense expense would have to be incurred, and the consequence was, that tenants were deterred from seeking the redress to which they believed they were entitled. He had to observe that, although he then moved pro formâ the second reading of the Bill, he was entirely in the hands of the House with respect to its future progress. He had been very glad to hear the other day that the Government meant to deal with the whole question next Session; and he trusted that, in redeeming that pledge, they would introduce a Bill which would not say one thing and do another, and that they would give effect to the opinions which had been so generally expressed by the tenant-farmers of Scotland upon the subject.

supported the Motion for the second reading, though he admitted that the expectation of legislation on the part of the Government with respect to the subject was fatal to the further progress of the Bill during the present Session. He thought the course proposed by the Government would be more acceptable to the people of Scotland than a protracted inquiry by a Committee. The great recommendation of the present Bill, to his mind, was that no objection on the point of principle could be taken against it. It did not in any way interfere with the law of contract, but merely removed the protection that had hitherto been given by the statute law to certain descriptions of game. He thought that in England we were not sufficiently impressed with the feeling that existed in Scotland upon the game grievance. In some counties it had given rise to a state of social warfare, and he earnestly hoped the Government would, early next Session, deal with the question by a measure to which they could give undivided support.

said, that as the Government had agreed to bring in a Game Bill for Scotland, he hoped they would make it such a measure as the tenant-farmers could accept. For his own part, he stood by the Aberdeen Resolutions—namely—

"That any measure to be regarded as a settle merit of the question must provide that not only the occupiers of arable farms have the right to kill hares and rabbits, but also declare all contracts for their preservation illegal and contrary to the public good."

Representing, as he had the honour of doing, a division of perhaps the largest cattle-breeding and cattle-feeding county in Britain, where turnips, to which hares and rabbits were especially destructive, were extensively grown, he must say for his constituents, that they would never be satisfied till the Game Laws, root and branch, were swept from the statute book.

said, that this game question was one of the greatest impostures that ever came before the House. Some hon. Members owed their seats entirely to agitation on this subject, and thus were obliged to bring in Bills without any earthly idea of passing them; they only advanced them to a certain stage and then let them drop. It was perfectly impossible for private Members to legislate on this subject. Legislation upon it must proceed from the Government. Proposals had been made in one of these Bill of a most profligate description. ["Oh!"] He used that language advisedly; for when a tenant-farmer had signed a lease with his landlord containing certain provisions, it was proposed that by the law of the land the provisions so made were to be nugatory. If that was not profligacy he did not know what was. If there was to be any legislation on the subject it must be preceded by a Royal Commission; and if that was granted, to inquire into the operation of the Game Laws both in England and Scotland, great exaggeration would be shown to prevail on the subject. This was altogether a political agitation, got up by agitators and certain editors of newspapers. The whole thing was a fiction. The hon. Gentleman proposed to withdraw poaching cases from the jurisdiction of the magistrates. No such case could come before a magistrate on whose land it occurred, as in those cases they always withdrew, and it would be unadvisable to deprive the country gentlemen of Scotland of those duties which the same class perform in England. The jurisdiction of the Sheriff's Courts in Scotland had been already carried too far. If any legislation was to take place in regard to game, it must be applied to both countries—he had no idea of one law applying to one part of Her Majesty's dominions and not to another. The question, if dealt with at all, ought to be placed in the hands of the Government to be dealt with as an Imperial measure.

said, that the Home Secretary, being the representative of a Scotch constituency, could not be unaware of the feelings of the Scotch tenant-farmers on this subject; but there was a growing opinion that these Bills had been shelved in spite of the pledges given on the hustings. They had heard from some who were nominally supporters of Game Law Reform, that no legislation should take place until a Royal Commission had reported on the subject; and he thought it might be worth the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman whether such a Commission might not now be appointed, in order that, during the holidays, the question may be inquired into, otherwise it might be alleged, when the subject came on for consideration next Session, that neither Parliament nor the country had sufficient facts before them to warrant legislation.

said, it was perfectly useless for private Members to attempt to bring in Bills upon this subject: neither did he think that a Royal Commission was needed. The Government ought to take this question up; but he feared there was some misunderstanding as to the intention of the Government. On a former occasion his right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate expressed himself in a manner which led him to believe that after the Whitsuntide holidays the Government would express their intentions upon this matter, and whether they intended to bring in a Bill or not next Session. But that, it seemed, was a mistake. Since then the Home Secretary did make a guarded engagement that the Government would bring in this Bill, but it was so qualified that it came to nothing. Now, it is perfectly clear that if the Government did not bring in the Bill, legislation on the question was totally impracticable. He thought it therefore incumbent on the Government at once to declare uncon- ditionally whether they would bring in a Bill or not.

said, he had intended to make some observations on the general question; but, as the hour would not permit that, he would simply say, in reference to the question of his hon. Friend (Mr. Aytoun) that on a former occasion he had suggested that the debate on these different Bills should be adjourned till after the Whitsun Recess, and that their promoters should consider whether they would not leave the matter in the hands of the Government with a view to legislation by the Government next Session. Since that time the question had been put to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who gave an answer to the effect that the Government would consider the matter—as they were bound to do—very seriously with a view to legislation by the Government next Session. He did not think the House would require a stronger pledge on a subject on which there was so much difference of opinion. After the expression of the views of the different constituencies of Scotland on this subject at the last election, he thought the Government were bound, if they possibly could, to deal with the subject next Session.

said, on behalf of the tenant-farmers of Perthshire, he had to thank Her Majesty's Government for the promise which they held out of dealing with this question next year. If there were any two points on which, from the first, hon. Members had been agreed, they were these—first, that the difficulties between landlord and tenant might better have been settled by other means than legislation, since, by kindly feeling and moderation in the exercise of the rights of property, the necessity for an appeal to Parliament might have been avoided; and, secondly, that if there must be legislation, it might best be undertaken by the Government, and not by private Members. But, unfortunately, the relations between landlord and tenant were not such that legislation could be dispensed with; and, unfortunately, the Government had their hands so full that they were unable to deal with the question this year. That constituted the justification of private Members endeavouring to promote a settlement by themselves introducing Bills. Those Bills, although they should now be withdrawn, had not been useless. The discussion they had provoked had indeed taken place at most inconvenient hours, so that it had not been possible to do justice to any one of the three Bills. Yet they had drawn out a certain amount of feeling friendly to reform, and they had obtained a promise of favourable consideration for this question from Her Majesty's Government. He did not wish to represent the engagement as more definite than it was; but he did not know that the matter could be left in a more favourable position than this—that the Government promised to deal with the question in the best manner circumstances would permit in the next Session; and that, meanwhile, those Members who advocated this reform would endeavour to bring about as much unity of opinion as possible among the tenant-farmers, and also amongst the proprietors of Scotland, so that next year the question might be more ripe for legislation.