said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the attention of the Treasury has been drawn to the fact that the fees received in the Superior Courts of Common Law equal the expenditure less an amount of only about 6 per cent in the two years ending March 1869 and 1870, while in the Court of Probate the expenditure exceeded the fees in 1869 by £76,373, or more than one-third, and in 1870 by £55,008, or nearly one-third of the whole expenditure; and, if the Government has any intention of causing the scale of fees to be so altered as to make the probable amount of fees equal to the expenditure?

said, he was afraid, in the first place, that his hon. Friend took too favourable a view of the balance between expenditure and receipt in the Superior Courts of Common Law when he said that the fees received in those Courts equalled the expenditure less an amount of only 6 percent. His hon. Friend might observe, if he looked to the Return from which, no doubt, his figures were taken, that the salaries of the Judges were not included. But, whatever the basis of his calculation might be, his hon. Friend placed on one hand the Courts of Common Law and on the other the Court of Probate, and stated that in the case of the latter Court the expenditure exceeded the fees in 1869 by £76,373, or more than one-third of the whole expenditure. The answer was, that the whole of the difference apparently in favour of the Common Law Courts and against the Court of Probate was caused by the very heavy compensation payable by the Court of Probate under the legislation of some years ago, when compensation was provided for proctors and others. He thought his hon. Friend would understand that it would be unreasonable to raise the fees of the Court so as to make the suitors of the present day pay those compensation allowances.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the intention of the Secretary of State for India to disallow the India Income Tax Act, No. 16, of 1870?

Sir, the question has not yet come officially before the Secretary of State in Council; but I can imagine few things less probable than that the Act should be disallowed.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government has received information of an irruption of Indians from Yucatan into the Colony of British Honduras and the seizure of the town of Corosal; whether there is any reason to think this irruption has been instigated by the Mexican Governor of Campeachy; and what protection exists in the Colony, or will be provided against such hostile attacks?

said, in reply, that the Government had received information of an irruption of Indians from Yucatan into the Colony of British Honduras. There had not been, however, a seizure of the town of Corosal, but only a temporary occupation, because the inhabitants, assisted by the troops, had with great gallantry driven out the Indians. The facts that led to the belief that the proceedings of the Indians had been instigated by the Mexican Governor of Campeachy, and that the Mexican Government were responsible for what had happened, were at present under the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government. There were two companies of a West India Regiment in the Colony, and at the time of the irruption 100 infantry and 10 artillery were sent from Jamaica to the Colony, and he thought they must have arrived there by this time. The Governor of Jamaica was at present in this country, and Her Majesty's Government were in communication with him as to what further steps should be taken for the protection of the Colony. When a decision on the subject had been come to he would be happy to give the hon. Gentleman information as to the result.

, in rising to call the attention of the House to the subject of County Government and to move, That, in the opinion of this House, the principle of representation ought to be applied to the government and financial administration of counties, said, that this question was a very difficult one to bring forward in that House, as the great bulk of those whom he was addressing were members of the body to the constitution of which he was about to take exception. It was not his intention, however, to find fault with the manner in which the Magistrates in England, the Commissioners of Supply in Scotland, or the Grand Juries in Ireland transacted the financial business of the counties, and protected the interests committed to their charge. Indeed, he believed the country owed a debt of gratitude to them for the spirited way in which they devoted their time to the public service. He could not, however, reconcile himself to the system under which they worked. It might, perhaps, be objected that the subject of the present Motion was being investigated by a Select Committee upstairs. To this he would reply that his Motion embraced both Ireland and Scotland as well as England—although it was not his intention to say anything about the state of affairs in Ireland, for the simple reason that he had no personal knowledge of them. Besides, the reference to the Committee presided over by the President of the Poor Law Board did not cover the whole subject to which he desired to direct the attention of the House. That Committee was appointed to inquire whether the expenditure and charges locally imposed upon the occupiers of rateable property should be divided between owners and occupiers, and what changes in the local bodies administering the rates should follow such division; whereas his Motion did not relate solely to financial matters, but also to the government of counties. There had been many attempts to legislate upon the former subject. In 1836 and 1837 the late Mr. Hume brought in Bills in reference to it, and since then Bills had been introduced by Mr. Hume, Mr. Milner Gibson and Mr. Wilde. Those measures had not been satisfactory to those who sat on his side, because they allowed a certain portion of the Financial Board to be composed of Justices of the Peace, leaving a small portion to be elected by the Board of Guardians. Last year the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), on behalf of the Government, brought in a Bill founded on the recommendations of a Select Committee, by which, the elected members would have numbered one-sixth of the ex officio members. All these proposals, however, fell short of what was absolutely required. He did not dwell upon this subject, however, for he believed that it was now generally admitted that taxation and representation should go together; but he (Mr. Campbell) asked the House now to go farther, and to pronounce an opinion in favour of intrusting the government as well as the financial part of the administration in counties to those whom they were not afraid to trust in regard to Imperial matters and the control of the national expenditure. Foreign critics expressed their surprise that, in a country which valued representative institutions so much, the inhabitants of the rural districts were left without any voice in their own affairs; and our want of municipal organization was deplored by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Privy Council when he introduced his Education Bill. What he (Mr. Campbell) desired was to see municipal institutions created all over the country districts. He could not see any reason why we should not have in every county an elective body corresponding exactly to a town council, imposing its taxation, controlling its expenditure, electing its officers, and, if necessary, framing a code of regulations for its government, subject to the sanction of Parliament. It might be said that that was a Utopian theory. But it had been realized in practice in the United States and Canada—where, in varying forms, municipal government existed everywhere—and in still greater perfection in Australia in the system of shire councils. In France also—although it had degenerated in the hands of successive Governments, there still existed a uniform and homogeneous system of local self-government. The system of local government established in France after the Revolution would have been one of the most perfect in the world if it had not been subsequently corrupted and distorted. In all these countries there was no distinction between country and town. But we need not go abroad for instances; how was it originally in our own country? The Roman system of town communities, in which every free man had a vote, was adopted in this country by the Anglo-Saxons. The Normans endeavoured to upset it, and to place bailiffs over the towns and viscounts over the counties, and they succeeded with the counties; but the towns purchased the right of self-government by paying a higher revenue and undertaking to collect it themselves. Up to the time of Edward III., justices, or, as they were called, conservators of the peace, were chosen by the freeholders assembled in the County Court, and it was by a statute in the first year of his reign that the mode of appointment was changed, and magistrates were appointed by commission of the Sovereign. Therefore, at one time magistrates were directly responsible to the ratepayers whose affairs they managed. The high sheriffs, similarly, down to the 9th year of Edward III., were elected directly by the freeholders; but the coroner was now the only elected officer of the county. A totally different system prevailed in Scotland, where the magistrates had nothing to do with the affairs of counties, which were in the hands of Commissioners of Supply, who were, no doubt, to a certain extent, representative, being proprietors of land of the yearly value of £100. It was by a section of the Reform Act of 1832, that the management of all county matters was taken out of the hands of the county constituencies, and placed in those of the large owners of property; and now there was no representation whatever of owners of land under £100 a year in value. Recently he moved for a Return which showed how small a proportion those who were qualified to act as Commissioners of Supply bore to those who possessed the property qualification to vote for Members of Parliament. In Orkney the proportion was 36 to 498; in Stirling it was 148 to 1,507; in Fife, 234 to 2,895; and in Lanark, 451 to 4,390. In Clackmannan there were 826 proprietor voters and 34 Commissioners; and in Bute 455 proprietor voters and 17 Commissioners; but of the last number eight were ex officio, and three were factors, or duplicates of proprietors. In the whole of Scotland the Commissioners were 12 per cent of the proprietors, and a little more than 5 per cent of the total number of voters. In Scotland, it must be remembered, the county assessment was not laid, as in England, for the taxes were wholly levied on the landlords; but, without going into the subject of the incidence of taxation, he thought he had shown, at all events, that in Scotland all proprietors under £100 were unrepresented. In addition to that, the Commissioners of Supply disposed of the grants made by the Exchequer in aid of the local contributions—as, for instance, the sums sent towards the pay and clothing of the police. He had not a word to say against the mode in which the financial part of the duties of those gentlemen was discharged, their general fault, both in England and in Scotland, being that they were too frugal; and he believed that if they derived their authority directly from the ratepayers they would have more courage to indulge in expenditure, which was frequently much required. He had obtained Returns not with any expectation that they would show mismanagement, but in order that the House might have information about Scotch affairs similar to that which was annually presented for England. The Commissioners of Supply, however, did not confine themselves to financial matters, but held a meeting every April, at which, after transacting their ordinary business, they took into consideration all pending legislation affecting Scotland, and many Bills relating to Imperial matters. They were very much given to sending up Petitions; but it generally happened that the Members for the Scotch counties voted directly contrary to the views expressed therein; and by so petitioning the Commissioners caused much irritation, and their conduct tended to widen the existing breach between landlords and tenants. Within a month an hon. Member, after presenting a number of Petitions, sent up by the Commissioners of Supply, in the name of the county he represented, was obliged to add, in a stage whisper—"From the prayer of all which I entirely disagree;" and another hon. Member assured him that, in any case of doubt, he found it a safe rule always to vote against the Commissioners. While on this matter he wished to point out to the Lord Advocate that as regarded his Game Bill, there was an ill-omened unanimity of opinion in its favour on the part of the Commissioners, which was an indication of the unfortunate feeling that existed in reference to that subject. Last Session, again, there was a Bill before Parliament relating to Education in Scotland; there was a great race to get it through, yet, at an early stage in the House of Lords, its progress was delayed in order that these county meetings might pronounce an opinion upon it. He now came to the case of the Lords Lieutenant. In England, as well as in Scotland, the Lord Lieutenant was the highest officer in every county. Lords Lieutenant were not appointed until the reign of Henry VIII., they being—according to Blackstone—representatives of the Crown, "to keep the counties in military order." It was their duty to preserve the peace; but practically that duty was intrusted to much humbler functionaries—the heads of the police in each district, who had, in that respect, usurped the Lord Lieutenant's functions. That was, so far, a change in the right direction; but he (Mr. Campbell) contended that the officer in charge of the local constabulary ought to be held even more directly responsible to the householders and ratepayers. All that was left to the Lords Lieutenant was patronage. Their functions were purely nominative. They recommended persons to Her Majesty for the commission of the peace. He could not conceive a more unfortunate channel for the appointment of magistrates, for whatever else a Lord Lieutenant might be, he was always either a Whig or a Tory. He was, no doubt, always an estimable and honourable gentleman; but he was selected for the appointment not merely on account of his character, but also on account either of his family interest, or his property, or his party services, or the rigidity and primeval derivation, of his family politics. There could be no worse reason for the appointment of magistrates than political influence. It was known that in many cases the Lord Lieutenant exercised his functions with impartiality; but the system was unsound and unconstitutional. The Lords Lieutenant also appointed to commissions in the Militia and Volunteers, and three-fourths of Army reformers were anxious that that power should be taken out of their hands; for they were of opinion that the Militia should not be made a plaything of local magnates, but should be an integral part of the Army, and the first line of an Army Reserve. No one would accuse Members on the Benches near him of being advocates of an increase of the military force of the country; but they thought that if there were to exist an Army and Militia, they ought to be formed into an efficient machine, so that all the parts should properly fit into each other. This could not be the case so long as local jealousies affected the appointments to commissions in the Militia, and so long as those appointments were made on other grounds than fitness. But the Lord Lieutenant had so much to do that he had to appoint deputies to assist him. The Lord Lieutenant's duties being practically confined to the exercise of patronage, it became a question what was the raison d'étre of the Deputy Lieutenant? He (Mr. Campbell) had no objection to an honourable local rank being assigned as a reward for public service; but he protested against its being granted by an irresponsible authority, not amenable to public opinion. He must apologize for having trespassed so long on the time of the House. The only ground upon which the changes he advocated could be opposed was that of expediency, and upon it he would address two considerations to the House. The first was connected with what he would call the educational effect it would have upon the people. He was one of those who hoped that the time was not far distant when, by the equalization of the borough and county franchise, and the establishment of electoral districts—changes to which he was glad to hear the First Minister of the Crown say not long since that he entertained no insuperable aversion—the whole nation would be reduced to one homogeneous electoral body. In Scotland the people were ready for tie change, but the same was not the ease in England, and what was the reason of the difference in the two countries? He admitted that the superior system of education in Scotland for the whole of the people had something to do with the matter, but there was another influence silently at work. In Scotland there was a certain system of Church government established—he did not mean established legally, but established in the hearts of the people—which evoked in every man a pertain amount of public spirit by investing him with public duties, and treating him as a man to do and not to be done for, and this system undoubtedly had diffused a large amount of intelligence among the people of the Scotch counties. If such was the result of the small influence derived from the source he had just indicated, he left the House to judge what would be the effect of giving the inhabitants of counties a voice in the management of all their local affairs, and he asked whether it would not be wise to prepare them by such means for a participation in Imperial concerns? In regard to this point he referred to the high authority of M. de Tocqueville, who, speaking of the townships of America, said—

"Communal institutions are to liberty what primary schools are to learning; they bring it within the reach of the people."

To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the principle of representation ought to be applied to the government and financial administration of Counties,"—(Mr. Campbell,)

said, that the hon. Member's(Mr. Campbell's) speech had covered a greater extent of ground than was comprehended within the terms of his Motion; but it must be admitted that he had brought forward with great ability many topics deserving the deepest attention. The hon. Gentleman, in the opening parts of his speech, had suggested that his Motion might be met by a dilatory plea, on the ground that a Committee upstairs were considering questions connected with the subject-matter of his proposal. But he was bound to say he would not meet the Motion in that way, being opposed to the main scope of the hon. Gentleman's speech. For his speech did not go simply to recommend some alterations such as had been heretofore suggested with a view to introducing the principle of representation into county affairs in Scotland; it went to a complete alteration of the whole system of administration where municipal government was not in force. It proposed to parcel out the whole country into municipal districts; it proposed to substitute the chief constable of police for the Lord Lieutenant. There was hardly one of the local institutions which had not been attacked by his hon. Friend. Now, he was far from saying that his hon. Friend did not adduce many strong reasons for some of the changes which he recommended. Those who believed in the principle of representation and the good effect it had on the character and intelligence of all who took part in representative government—certainly, the House of Commons—should be the last to deny that the giving a wider scope to that principle would have a happy effect on the national character. So far he agreed with the hon. Gentleman. But if they assented to this Motion they must be prepared to give effect to all those large schemes of local reform which the hon. Gentleman had sketched out in his speech. The hon. Member pointed out what had been done in new countries unencumbered by our long-established institutions; he pointed out what had been done by the great French Revolution, which swept away the old institutions and substituted others which lasted but a short time: and he tendered to the House a somewhat similar system which should be the object of the; policy of that House. So far he (Mr. Bruce) was not prepared to go. The Government had admitted in the gracious Speech of Her Majesty last Session that the admission of the representative principle into the local administration of counties was desirable; and he believed that principle had been assented to on both sides of the House, although there might be some difference of opinion as to the manner in which effect was to be given to it. If Her Majesty's Government had been unable to give effect to their wishes, the House was well aware of the reasons which had interfered to prevent them. The Bill presented last year had been subjected to some criticism by his hon. Friend, and one special ground of objection deserved a passing notice. He said the effect of that Bill was in substance to introduce the representative element to the extent of no more than one-sixth of the whole body charged with the financial administration of the county; but, in point of fact, the popular representatives introduced would, in most instances, through their more regular attendance, exceed rather than fall short of the number of magistrates present, and it was on a full consideration of that point that the scheme of the Government was proposed. This Session no measure was brought forward. Why? Not simply for want of time, but because the whole subject of local taxation—its incidence and the manner in which it should be levied—was to be brought under consideration by his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board, who had introduced a measure which had been referred to a Select Committee; and on the decision of that Committee must, in a great degree, depend the constitution of County Financial Boards. He understood that evidence which covered the whole subject had been gone into by the Committee. The question how far the rate should be levied from owners and occupiers was one on which the Committee must give their decision; and surely on that decision it must very largely depend what should be the constitution of the future body, and where the electoral power should be vested. That was a sufficient reason for delay on the part of the Government in dealing with that part of the question. He was bound to say, with respect to the other and larger question, Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to propose any large or sweeping changes. The hon. Member said truly that no dis- satisfaction had been expressed with the conduct of local affairs by the magistracy in England, or the Commissioners of Supply in Scotland. Undoubtedly, it was a very marked feature of the evidence adduced before the Committee on the subject, that those who were most anxious for change admitted at the same time that the county finance had been economically and skilfully administered by the local magistracy. But the hon. Member called for changes such as would give effect to a great principle. That House, admitting the justice of the principle that large occupiers should have a voice in the expenditure of public money, had cheerfully assented to it; but while the Government were perfectly prepared to re-consider this subject, with whatever light might be cast upon it by the Report of the Committee—while they felt by no means bound to adhere to all the provisions of their former Bill, he could not hold out to the hon. Gentleman that they were prepared to assent to that large scheme which he had developed, and the great changes he proposed to introduce into the local government of the country. It was for that reason that, while declaring their desire to give the fullest effect to the policy held out in the Speech from the Throne last year, and to consider this question, with the fullest desire to increase as far as possible the representative principle in local government, they were not prepared to adopt the Motion of his hon. Friend, and he, therefore, must, with regret, but without hesitation, meet it with a decided negative.

said, he entirely agreed with what had been said as to the position of the large occupier in Scotland as regarded his share, or want of share, in the management of county affairs. The occupier in Scotland would compare favourably with his equal in any part of the world. He was generally a man of industry and skill—frequently of scientific acquirement; directly or indirectly he contributed largely to the public expenditure of the county, and yet he had no control in its financial administration. It was true that in some cases the rate was laid wholly on the owner; but in many cases it was laid equally on the owner and occupier, especially in the matter of poor rate, and unless the occupier was placed on the parochial Board by the £20 occupants, he would have no voice in the administration of county finance. He thought it would be a great advantage if occupiers were associated with the Commissioners of Supply. Without derogating from the manner in which the Commissioners of Supply, as a rule, discharged their duties, he must say he thought the large occupiers—men who had occupied the same farms from generation to generation—had a claim, for their own sakes and the good administration of county affairs, to a seat among the Commissioners of Supply. Admitting that claim, as the right hon. Gentleman had done, he hoped the Government would take the whole of this subject into their early consideration.

said, the Secretary of State for the Home Department had hardly done justice to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell), which was in entire unison with the principle laid down in the Speech from the Throne; and no good reason could be advanced why this principle should not now be affirmed. It might be true that some arguments used by his hon. Friend might not be considered very logical; but what they should look to was the Motion itself. As his hon. Friend had explained already, there was not a vestige of representation existing in Scotch counties—although there was a little in England. The Commissioners of Supply were a body a couple of centuries old, dating back to a time when for some special purpose—a war with England, for example—Commissioners were appointed to see that the Supply already voted by Parliament was properly assessed in the county, and paid into the national Exchequer, and to this their name, Commissioners of Supply, was attributable. In the present day, however, no supplies were voted; and therefore they had no duties of this class to perform, beyond laying on the fixed proportion of land tax agreed upon by the Treaty of Union—that was to say, £48,000 for all Scotland. By a mere chapter of accidents it had fallen into the hands of this body of gentlemen to meet together and to regulate all county business. One would suppose from the phrase, "meeting of the county," invariably used with regard to their gatherings, that the inhabitants met in a body, or, at all events, that the meetings were open; but the whole thing was a perfect farce. He had attended some of their meetings in Edinburgh, and found, perhaps, 25 highly respectable gentlemen, who could all be trusted to manage their own affairs honestly and well; but, as representatives of a county which, including towns, contained about 300,000 inhabitants, the thing, he repeated, was a perfect farce. The whole community of occupiers were excluded from any share in the representation, and so were owners of all property less in value than £100 in land and £200 in houses. It was, perhaps, natural under these circumstances that the property of landowners was always found to be assessed upon very low rentals, comparatively speaking. In the Edinburgh journals he found the subject discussed at a meeting of the Town Council a few days ago, and in that discussion it was stated that the paper manufactory of a gentleman, formerly a Member of this House, was assessed at £1,200 a year, while the palace of the Duke of Buccleuch, in which Royalty had been received, was only assessed at £250 a year, and the castle of the Earl of Stair at £150. However just these things might be, they did not look well. Two or three years ago he obtained a Return of the amount derived from the tax upon the inhabited houses; and in the county of Sutherland, although that county included the palatial residence of the Duke of Sutherland, the whole amount of house duty levied was the veriest trifle—less than £50 a year. Facts like these, which were well and widely known, showed that a change in the present system was imperatively required. There had been no improvements in legislation which had not been opposed by these so-called "county meetings," nor would any progress take place in that direction that would not be strenuously resisted by them until their constitution was entirely changed. Reference had been made to the Game Law Bill. Well, the Bill of the Lord Advocate was supported by nearly all these meetings, on the ground that if it were not accepted they would get a worse one. Her Majesty's Government, he thought, could hardly vote against a principle which they had specially recommended to the House in the Speech from the Throne—namely, financial reform in the counties.

said, his vote should be given in support of the view taken by his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Bruce). He recognized to the fullest extent the claims of the county ratepayers to County Board representation; but before the Committee on the subject of Local Rates, over which he had presided, very considerable difference of opinion existed as to the nature of any change which ought to be introduced; and he thought it was not expedient to raise the question in Parliament, when a Committee of Inquiry into the whole matter was sitting. His vote, therefore, would not be given against the proposition submitted to the House, but in favour of going into Committee of Supply. He was not prepared to speak of finances in Scotland, but as regarded the finances of English counties it was distinctly proved before the Select Committee that little or no complaint was made of the economical way in which county affairs had been administered. Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to expect that great economy would result from introducing the principle of representation into the management of county affairs; but if the question were gone into it would be found, he thought, that the administration of finances in the counties would bear comparison very favourably with the way in which such matters were managed by public bodies in any of the boroughs. There could be no doubt that affairs in counties were more economically administered than in boroughs. He was convinced that wherever the ratepayers as a body demanded the right of immediate representation, no one would be found willing or able to resist the demand; but the whole difficulty of the case was involved in the settlement of the details, towards the consideration of which this Motion would contribute nothing. Without, therefore, going any farther into the question he should give his support to Her Majesty's Government.

said, he thought that the House, before effecting such a change as that now proposed, should pause and ascertain what would, be the probable results. The statements made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) were sufficient to excite a doubt as to whether the change would be welcome to the ratepayers for whose benefit it was proposed, and whe- ther they would approve the expenditure which his hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell) advocated. He could not help thinking, however, that it would be wise on the part of the Commissioners not to enter into discussions on general matters, but to confine themselves to the duties for which they were particularly appointed. He would remind the House that, inasmuch as in Scotland taxation for county purposes was placed entirely upon the proprietors, the representation should rest entirely with them; otherwise they would be violating the principle that taxation and representation should go hand in hand.

said, that while everyone complimented his hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell) upon the speech he had made, everyone was going to vote against him. He (Mr. Kinnaird) should, however, be an exception. He hoped his hon. Friend would push his Motion to a Division, and thus lay the foundation for a reform the necessity of which was generally admitted.

said, he thought the Motion was unseasonable, but he felt compelled to say that while he did not place the slightest confidence in Her Majesty's Government in relation to this question, he placed, if possible, less confidence in the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department than he did in the collective body of the Ministry. The question had been most thoroughly discussed by the House when brought forward by Mr. Milner Gibson many years ago, and nothing would now be gained by the investigations of a Select Committee. Some three years ago a Bill was introduced on the subject, when hon. Gentlemen on the other side were sitting on the Opposition Benches, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. Forster) smothered it with civil words and sent it upstairs to a Committee, where it was delayed for the Session. If it had been considered in a Committee of the House it would now have been the law of the land. A Bill was brought forward the following year; but it was treated with something like contempt, having been committed to the charge of an Under Secretary, while measures of not half the importance were taken in hand by Cabinet Ministers, and it was soon found that it was impossible to pass the Bill. It was the general opinion that that Bill was a perfect sham. He would give one word of advice to Chambers of Agriculture, and it was that they should impress on their county Members the necessity of sinking party differences when questions affecting their interests were at stake. He regretted that the hon. Member (Mr. Campbell) should have introduced extraneous matter in his speech, but if he went to a Division he would support him. He wished to know from the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake early next Session to introduce a Bill to settle this question of Financial Boards.

I rise, Sir, in accordance with the Notice I have given, to call attention to the removal of Admiral Cooper Key from the office of Superintendent of Portsmouth Dockyard. I had hoped, before bringing on the subject, to have seen some Papers to explain it placed in the hands of hon. Members: I moved for them before the Whitsuntide Recess; but the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty was unable to produce them. I shall, therefore, with the kind indulgence of the House, state the case as I have been able to obtain it from information I believe to be accurate, leaving to the First Lord of the Admiralty the opportunity of denying my statement or of admitting it, if he thinks he can show to the House that Admiral Key's removal is a just and proper act. At any rate, I feel sure that the case of Admiral Key deserves the consideration of the House. I think it will be right, before alluding to the treatment of Admiral Key, that I should remind the House what manner of man Admiral Cooper Key is. For though Admiral Key is probably known by name and reputation to most hon. Members, he may not be personally known to many, as he has never taken any active part in political affairs. He is not what is called an officer of great political interest; but by dint of hard work, great scientific acquirements, and considerable professional knowledge, Admiral Key attained, at a very early age, to a high position in the Royal Navy. I wish, before stating the hardships and unmerited treatment which Admiral Key has received at the hands of the present Government, to allude very briefly to some of his distinguished services. Having served very creditably in the junior ranks of his profession, he went to the Royal Naval College, and obtained his commission as a lieutenant, when a lieutenant's commission was to be obtained by hard study, combined with great mathematical acquirements. Admiral Key was one of the first officers to obtain a commission by that honourable method; and I have been assured, by those competent to form an opinion, that Admiral Key's mathematical proficiency was so considerable that he might easily have obtained the position of a Wrangler at Cambridge. As a lieutenant he served with credit, and as a commander, when in command of the Bulldog during the Revolution in 1848, he was employed on the Coast of Italy, and received the thanks of Her Majesty's Government for his prudent conduct, as well as those of the Ambassador Extraordinary—Lord Minto—who was for a time embarked in his ship. Again, as a captain, he has always obtained great credit from his superior officers; and in the Baltic, during the Russian War, he performed distinguished service, especially in the Roads of Revel, for which he obtained the decoration of the Bath. He was afterwards employed in China, under Sir Michael Seymour and Lord Elgin, and at the capture of Canton, after displaying great gallantry in the storming of the town, he, by his adroitness, personally succeeded in seizing Commissioner Yeh, which greatly assisted our diplomatic arrangements in China. At the conclusion of these services he had not only obtained honours from the Crown, but had received many recognitions and marks of distinction from the learned Societies on account of his great scientific reputation. Soon after this Admiral Key was selected by the Duke of Somerset to fill the onerous post of captain of the Excellent, and head of the Royal Naval College, and was thus placed at the head of the scientific gunnery of the Navy, a post which he held for five years, with great credit to himself and great advantage to the country. Soon after Lord Derby took Office in 1866 my right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) found it necessary to create the office of Director General of Naval Ordnance during a time of great transition in the armament of the Navy. He selected Admiral Key for that post, and the appointment was received with acclamation by the whole profession; for at a time of great change in the art of naval gunnery no man was more capable of giving good advice. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) continued Admiral Key in the office of Director General of Naval Ordnance, and on quitting Office he left him in that post, and no doubt supposed that Admiral Key's services would have been of great advantage to the present Board, for he is not only a man of great ability, but a gentleman of admirable temper and engaging disposition. He was shortly after, however, dismissed from the post of Director General of Naval Ordnance, and it is very difficult to fathom the reasons which may have led to that dismissal. For want of any better, reason, perhaps it may be found in the unintelligible desire of the present Board of Admiralty to put the country to the cost of a new trial of the Whit-worth ordnance. As the House knows, and the Estimates show, the First Lord of the Admiralty is anxious, for reasons best known to himself, to re-open the Whitworth controversy, and I find, in a Paper in the hands of hon. Members, that Admiral Key's opinions on that subject were well known to the Board. Admiral Key was their responsible adviser on gunnery matters, and he thought this fresh trial unnecessary. He had reported that—

"The service system satisfies every requirement of the service; and it would therefore be most impolitic to incur the enormous expense of introducing any other, until some defect is discovered in that now adopted, for which a permanent remedy cannot be found."

said, he would reply, as clearly as he could, to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay); and the state of the case as to this question was simple. Somewhere about a fortnight ago the hon and gallant Baronet put a Notice on the Paper, of his intention to call attention to the removal of Admiral Key from Portsmouth Dockyard, and to move for Papers, and on the last day before the Recess he did, at a few hours' Notice, ask for Papers and coupled with the request a Motion for information as to any goods delivered under contract at Portsmouth Dockyard which had been objected to by the officer superintending there, clearly intending, as his speech that evening showed, to connect in some way the rejection of certain goods at Portsmouth Dockyard with the change made in the appointment of Admiral Key. There was no objection to the production of the Papers relating to Admiral Key, and as there had been no correspondence with the Admiralty on the subject, the Paper now placed on the Table was simply the ordinary service appointment of Admiral Key to be second in command of the Mediterranean Fleet. With regard to the second part of the Motion, in reference to goods objected to, he was anxious not to set a precedent of giving information of that kind relating to a large number of contractors in a Parliamentary Paper; but, at the same time, he was desirous that the hon. and gallant Baronet should have the fullest information on the subject, and he authorized the officer in the Contract department to show the hon. Baronet in detail information of any article he might inquire about, and which had been delivered since the beginning of last year. The statement of all the articles objected to on any grounds during the last 15 months covered many pages, and out of many hundreds of articles only five or six of the objections had been maintained. He found that altogether 46 different contractors had, since the beginning of last year, or since the present system of purchase and contract had come into operation, had their goods objected to. Of these 46 only six were firms supplying the Admiralty within the time of the present system of contract and purchase. All the rest were firms who supplied goods under the former system, and the only new firms were two or three in Birmingham and the centre of England. He would state in general terms what were the cases of objection which the hon. and gallant Officer had connected with this matter. One referred to some paper, and that was explained the other day by the Secretary to the Admiralty. A certain quantity of brown paper, delivered under contract according to the former state of things, was objected to as not being according to pattern. The manufacturer thereupon applied to the Admiralty for a revision of the objection, and the article was found according to pattern in four particulars; but it was objected to on one account—namely, on the ground that it was not of proper weight. Inquiry was then made as to the way in which the weight was ascertained, and it was explained that a single sheet was weighed, and its weight multiplied by the whole number of sheets in the ream. That, on consideration, was not thought the proper mode of proceeding, and on a ream of paper being sent for and weighed, it was found to be up to the proper weight according to the contract, and it was therefore ordered to be received. The next case referred to certain wash-stand tops, of which 26 were objected to. It was stated that they were a little warped; but they were quite available for service, and up to pattern, and they were consequently ordered to be accepted, and no complaint had been made about them at Portsmouth. Then there was a case relating to some china articles, which were, on inquiry, found good for service; but some bowls and common jugs were under weight. This china was sent to Devonport, and a new set was sent to Portsmouth and accepted. Then came the case of a certain leather contract, which had, on a former occasion, been fully explained by the Secretary to the Admiralty. It was found necessary to put an end to a leather con- tract in existence before a new contract was made, it being thought advisable to revise the contracts, because at different dockyards the same pattern was not maintained. While this was occurring there was a sudden requisition at Portsmouth for some leather. Accordingly, a quantity of leather was purchased from a firm of the highest position, he believed, in the leather trade; but when it went down to Portsmouth it was not used, and several weeks afterwards complaints were made that the leather was of inferior character. The leather was then sent to town and examined most carefully by an officer of the highest standing. It was subjected to test, and stood the test three times, and the result was that the Government, having purchased it on a great emergency, saw no reason to reject it. The fifth case was that in which certain contractors, who had supplied the Admiralty for three generations, had certain bunting rejected at Portsmouth. That was also a contract under the former arrangement. The contractors applied to the Admiralty for a revision of the decision, and a very careful inquiry was made. The result was, that after not only the officers of the dockyard, boat also of different ships, had reported independently, the white bunting was declared perfectly good, and with respect to the blue and red, which to a certain extent was inferior, a reduction of 15 per cent was made, which the contractors acceded to, and which was perfectly satisfactory to the officers at Portsmouth. There was no difference of opinion whatever between the Admiralty and the local officers on the subject. It was, in his opinion, essentially for the protection of traders that the appeal should exist, and that the manufacturers should not be left entirely at the mercy of the local officers. These were all the eases, which he had explained fully to the House, and on which the gallant Officer had founded the presumption that it had been found necessary to take steps by which Admiral Cooper Key might be placed in what was called a humiliating position. He hoped that on the subject of these contracts he had been very plain with the House. But the hon. and gallant Member had alluded to another article, as to which he was entirely under a misapprehension. He stated that a local officer at Portsmouth had rejected some coal. Now, the hon. and gallant Member had been to the Admiralty, and he was shown that there had been no case of rejection of coal at Portsmouth. He (Mr. Childers) had also made inquiry himself, and he found the fact was so. Having now gone through one by one the cases of rejection at Portsmouth which were supposed to have some connection with the arrangement, he would now explain why Admiral Cooper Key was no longer Admiral Superintendent at Portsmouth. So far as regarded the character, abilities, and position of that naval officer, he endorsed very freely and heartily all that had been said by the hon. and gallant Baronet. Admiral Cooper Key had from the first distinguished himself in his profession as lieutenant, commander, and in the higher positions he had since filled. He believed Admiral Cooper Key to be one of the ablest and most distinguished officers in Her Majesty's Navy, and he would repeat the language he had used a fortnight ago in the course of a casual debate upon the Navy Estimates—namely, that he knew no officer whose future career might be looked forward to with more confidence. But the hon. and gallant Officer had entirely misread or misunderstood—he did not impute to him that he had wilfully mis-described—what had occurred with respect to the transfer of the services of Admiral Cooper Key from the offices which he had held during the last two years; he stated that he was obliged to rely, to a certain extent, upon rumours, and in depending on rumours he might be mistaken. It was perfectly true that Admiral Cooper Key, when captain, was selected by the Duke of Somerset for the command of the Excellent; it was true that he had been selected by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington) to be Director 'General of Naval Ordnance; but it was also true that he had not been confirmed in that office till the present Board of Admiralty came in, and he himself (Mr. Childers) had moved the Treasury to make the office a permanent one. Till then, the office was a mere temporary acting appointment, and he had placed it on the Estimates at a salary of £1,000 a year. The hon. and gallant Officer had given a very mistaken apocryphal account of what he called Admiral Key's dismissal or discharge from Portsmouth, and his appointment to an inferior office, because he had run counter to the views of the Admiralty in regard to the Whitworth guns, there being, in fact, no correspondence then on the subject. There was not a word of truth in that. He was simply selected after his cruise in command of the Coastguard Fleet at last Whitsuntide, under the eye of several members of the Admiralty, for the superior office of Superintendent of Portsmouth Dockyard, which had then become vacant by the appointment of Vice Admiral Wellesley as Commander-in-Chief to the North American Station. Instead of being a discharge, or dismissal, it was exactly the reverse; the appointment was given him—as it was believed he would be anxious for it—as one of great honour and advantage to him. At the time that appointment was made, there was some difference of opinion among his advisers as to whether it would be wiser to send Admiral Key to sea in command of the fleet, or to Portsmouth Dockyard; and he must take on himself the responsibility or blame, if it should be so considered, of not giving him a foreign command. He now came to the second change of his appointment. The other day the office of Superintendent of Malta Dockyard became vacant. The hon. and gallant Officer said that office was connected with the second in command of the Mediterranean Fleet. That was the case, no doubt, some years ago; but, as the hon. and gallant Baronet knew, for some years past it had not been so.

said, it was no mistake on his part. He entirely differed from the right hon. Gentleman as to the duty of the dockyard admiral at Malta.

said, he wished the hon. and gallant Baronet to understand that he did not impute any wilful misstatement to him, but only that his memory was at fault. The practice used to be for the two to go together; but for some years past there had been no second in command of the Mediterranean Fleet, and the officer who held the appointment of Superintendent of Malta Dockyard, instead of hoisting his flag in the Mediterranean, had hoisted it in a nominal ship in the harbour, and did not go outside. Admiral Fanshawe never went with the Malta Fleet during the time of his appointment. The present Board of Admiralty determined a short time since, that when the first vacancy occurred it would be desirable to revive the appointment of second in command of the Mediterranean Fleet. He would not go into the reason for that change; but they were connected with the policy of keeping our fleets at sea as much as possible, and therefore it was thought, on public grounds, that the office should be revived, and that the second in command of the fleet should be connected with Malta Dockyard. That being decided, when Admiral Fanshawe was promoted they came to the conclusion, having regard to the public advantage, that the office should be conferred on Admiral Key. He accordingly saw him, and stated to him that his appointment was made by the unanimous advice of the Board. He hoisted his flag a day or two ago, and would proceed to the Mediterranean in a few days. He (Mr. Childers) had stated that the Board of Admiralty considered it for the public advantage that this officer, of whom he had spoken in fitting terms, should be appointed to that office; and he hoped the House would not take on itself the responsibility of revising the acts of the Executive Government in respect to the appointment of individual officers, when those who were responsible said they considered their appointment for the public advantage. On that ground he hoped that on this, as on other matters, the House would continue to place confidence in Her Majesty's Government.

said, the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite had stated that Admiral Cooper Key was removed from the office of Dockyard Superintendent because he quarrelled with peculation. That was a statement of a very serious nature, involving, as it seemed to him, the character of the First Lord of the Admiralty; who must, if this accusation were true, be an aider and abetter of peculation. It devolved, therefore, upon the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite to bring the charge in some definite and responsible shape before the House.

said, he, no doubt, had intended to imply that it was the duty of the dockyard admiral to prevent peculation; but that the discouragement he received for endeavouring to prevent it was calculated to encourage rather than prevent peculation.

said, the identical words the hon. and gallant Baronet had used, were that Admiral Key was "removed because he had quarrelled with peculation." That was a statement of so grave a character that the hon. and gallant Baronet owed it to himself to substantiate it.

said, he never used the words "quarrelled with peculation."

said, he had taken down the words at the time. But of course, if the hon. and gallant Baronet now declared that he did not attach to those words the meaning which they would ordinarily bear, or that they did not express his actual meaning; or wished now to withdraw the words themselves, then, of course, all his charges against the Admiralty fell to the ground, and the purpose for which he (Mr. Candlish) had risen would be accomplished.

said, the hon. Gentleman had persisted in stating that he intended to say what he did not mean to say. He did not say what the hon. Gentleman had attributed to him; but he had no objection to the interpretation of the hon. Member—namely, that the Admiralty had removed a most efficient officer, because he challenged the stores sent in for the public service, and that by removing him for so doing they had encouraged peculation.

said, he had described exactly the nature of the objections made.

said, he did not think the statement of the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite had materially altered the facts as he (Mr. Candlish) put them before the House. The hon. Baronet's statement now was, that the Admiralty, by the course which they had taken, had encouraged, or in some way had connived at, peculation, [Sir JOHN HAY: Hear, hear!] Well, if that were so, the imputation was a very grave one, and ought to rest upon unquestionable facts. But no facts whatever had heen adduced by the hon. and gallant Baronet, who was now plainly called upon to bring the matter forward in some distinct and specific shape in which the House could deal with it.

said, that if the hon. Gentleman would move for a Committee he would second it. He was sorry the Government, for its own credit, did not do it.

said, the responsi- bility did not rest with him, but with the hon. and gallant Baronet himself.

said, he thought the question which had been raised by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) was sufficiently grave in itself, without having new and foreign matter imported into it by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Candlish). The hon. Gentleman opposite might wish to give to the Motion a party character, and to stop discussion, but they would not stop him from saying what truth required. The character of Admiral Cooper Key was the property of the country, and if he had not received proper and worthy treatment at the hands of Her Majesty's Government there could be no more fitting subject of Parliamentary inquiry and discussion. Admiral Key was known to the whole country; at the present day there was no man who was a greater honour to the profession which he belonged to; and the issue raised by his hon. and gallant Friend was simply this—whether Admiral Key had received at the hands of the Admiralty treatment such as he was entitled to by his high character and deserts. Two questions plainly grew out of the Motion, and, after listening attentively to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he must say that neither of those questions had been answered satisfactorily. His hon. and gallant Friend had used plain words. He stated that Admiral Cooper Key was dismissed, or sent away from the office of Naval Director of Ordnance—to which he himself (Sir John Pakington) had the honour of appointing him—because he considered there would be a waste of public funds and extravagance on the part of the Government in undertaking fresh experiments with what was called the Whitworth ordnance, when we were already in possession of guns performing the duty satisfactorily and approved both by the profession and the public. Such a statement as this at once raised the question, why was Admiral Cooper Key deprived of the post of Naval Director of Ordnance, which he held very greatly to the advantage of the country? The right hon. Gentleman opposite gave no satisfactory answer to that question. Then came the second question. Admiral Key was made Naval Superintendent of Portsmouth Dockyard, and there had to fulfil functions of great importance to the public service in judging as to the stores supplied. If he discharged his duty ably and honestly, he was bound to report to the Board of Admiralty any objections which he might discover as to the character and quality of the stores sent in. He understood that this duty was performed by Admiral Key. Why, then, was he sent away from Portsmouth? Speaking with perfect candour, he was bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman opposite gave no answer whatever to this question. According to the usual practice of the profession, an officer appointed to be naval superintendent of a dockyard retained that appointment for five years. Admiral Key had not been there more than one year when he was sent away. Now Admiral Key was known to be not only one of the most distinguished men in the service, but, it was no disparagement to say, also a very poor man; and such a removal from such an appointment was accordingly a cruel hardship upon him, unless the Government were in a position to show that good and valid reasons existed for the removal. He submitted that the fact of his rejecting stores afforded no ground whatever for his removal. The gallant admiral might have been mistaken as to the quality of particular stores; but, in objecting to those which he considered faulty or unsuitable, he was only honestly discharging his duty, and should have been thanked and encouraged, not dismissed by the Government. If Admiral Key was not at liberty to reject stores, why was he sent to the Dockyard at all? He wanted answers from the Government to these difficult questions, for as yet no answer whatever had been given. The case stood thus—a personal hardship, professional discredit, and pecuniary loss had been inflicted on one of the most distinguished men in this country, and down to that moment no explanation whatever had been given by the Government of the motives which influenced them in taking this extraordinary course.

said, that the House would perhaps permit him to say a word in explanation. Admiral Cooper Key had been removed to an office the salary of which, he believed, was not only not smaller, but was absolutely larger than that which he had formerly received. If Admiral Cooper Key could show that by the removal he had suffered any pe- cuniary loss the Admiralty would be willing to reimburse him.

said, that Admiral Cooper Key had, in common with the best officers of the British Navy, expressed his opinion with respect to the policy of the change made in the purchase system. The Paper containing these opinions was not on the Table, and as Admiral Cooper Key from the time that he joined in this controversy was doomed, the House could not properly discuss this question until that document was produced. The real offence of this distinguished officer was, that he had dissented from the course the Admiralty had taken in altering the practice of buying stores through open tender to what was called the purchase system. It was not now the time to go into the question of the purchase system, though, when the time for the discussion of that question arrived, he should be perfectly prepared to grapple with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers), to show that the words which he (Sir James Elphinstone) had used on a previous occasion were fully warranted by the facts, and to prove that the system was a vicious one leading to all kinds of peculation and jobbery. What they wanted to know was this—why was Admiral Cooper Key dismissed?—for his retirement was certainly not voluntary; and the post which he now occupied was inferior to the one from which he was dismissed. For his part he believed that Admiral Cooper Key had been twice removed because he was too honest for the present Administration.

, in rising to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House it is expedient that an inquiry into the operation and effect of the Laws relating to Game, especially as regards Scotland, be undertaken by a Committee of this House,"

said, the hon. Member could not refer to a previous debate.

said, any information that might lead to misapprehensions or exaggerations would be supplied by such an inquiry as he now suggested. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.

Sir, at this late hour of the night I think I shall best consult the convenience of the House if I make my remarks very few indeed. I have a strong conviction, founded upon observation of the general feeling that appears to exist on this subject throughout the kingdom, that it is most desirable that there should be an investigation not only with regard to the Game Laws and their operation, but also into the effects of game preserving generally. I trust that what has been laid before you on a subject which so gravely interests the northern part of the kingdom in particular, will not be without effect. We have so many Game Law Bills before the House that it would be quite impossible for them to be taken up in this Session of Parliament, therefore no time would probably be lost in at once referring the subject to a Select Committee, or, if Her Majesty's Government prefer it, to a Royal Commission. It seems to me that there are various aspects to this question. There is one with reference to the rights of tenants in connection with, and in reference to, those of their landlords; there is another with regard to the effect which game preserving and the Game Laws have upon the morals of the people; there is another connected with the legitimate enjoyment of field sports: but beyond all these there is another aspect of the question of much greater importance—that is, the consideration how far the present system of legislation and the present practice in reference to the preservation of game affect the main purpose for which land is, by Providence, and according to the laws of the country, entrusted to the management and charge of individuals. The object with which land has been allowed in this and other countries to be held by private individuals is for the public good, and not the good of the landlords themselves. A landlord is not permitted to hold land that he may receive large rents, but in order that there may be raised up on his estate a virtuous and healthy population, which in times of war or danger to the State will come with sinewy arms to its protection; and who, in time of peace, shall employ themselves in the pursuit of those industrial occupations which are so beneficial to the country, and in rearing up families characterized by moral, religious, and industrial habits. Well-founded fear is growing up among us that the actual system of game preserving on agricultural land is most unprofitably consumptive and destructive of human food, and tends, also, in many instances, to prevent its production on land which is quite capable of producing it. I wish particularly to direct the attention of the House to the vast amount of land which has been devoted to deer forests. On this point I may be permitted to refer to the most recently published book upon sheep farming—published, indeed, during the present year. It tells us that the land which has been appropriated in Scotland to so large an extent to deer forests is quite of the same quality as that which is devoted to the rearing of sheep. It is difficult to ascertain the exact extent to which afforesting for deer has gone. But here is an estimate of nine counties in Scotland, which shows that in them not less than 1,320,000 acres of land have been so appropriated—I should rather say misappropriated. No doubt, it must be admitted that, owing to the high prices that gentlemen are now disposed to give for permission to sport over these lands, a higher rent is obtained by the proprietors than can be obtained for it for grazing purposes. An estimate contained in this book shows that, while the profits to the landlords by the exclusion of sheep from this extent of acreage is £16,500, the loss to the nation is no less than £343,380 a year—because there is such a small quantity of food produced on the land compared with what would be produced on it if it were devoted to the breeding and rearing of sheep. I have a communication from a gentleman well acquainted with this subject. I will read an extract—

"In four counties flocks, to the extent of 400,000 sheep, have been displaced for deer, and there is in consequence a diminution to the value of £250,000 a year in food and wool. The population of the four counties in which this system of afforesting so extensively prevails has, since 1851, been reduced by 41,000. The sheep farmers on these forest lands suffer great loss in their stock."

"How are we to replace this £250,000 worth of food and clothing, and what will be the population of the Highlands in a few years? They will, in fact, be reduced to a desolate waste."

"Woe to that land, of gathering ills the prey,

Where wealth accumulates and men decay."

said, he rose not so much to support the Motion as to enforce on the attention of the Government and the House the present state of the game question in Scotland. To use an old joke, it seemed to require something like a surgical operation to introduce into the minds of that House and the nation that the people of Scotland were in earnest about the Game Laws. At present the demands of the Scotch tenant-farmers were moderate; but he could not undertake that they would long remain so, if they continued to be treated Session after Session on this question as they had been. Proposals were made to that House, somewhat crude in their nature, but, no doubt, well meant, for the total abolition of the Game Laws. Now, that was not the view taken amongst his constituents. They did not desire total abolition at present. They had nothing whatever to say against the winged game; all they desired was not to sweep away, but to limit the number of ground game, and any measure which would practically effect that object would meet their views. Whether that was done by leaving them out of the game list, or whether by limiting the power of contract between landlord and tenant, or by any other means, mattered little. No tenant, either in England or in Scotland, would willingly enter into litigation with his landlord on the damage done to his farm. The tenants were anxious that the damage should not take place, and the question was, whether they could find—and it ought not to be beyond the reach of human ingenuity to find—a means by which they could extend to all tenants that privilege which at present was extended by the liberality of landlords to some. The hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. D. Robertson) said he had no difficulty with his tenants—that he allowed them to kill as many hares and rabbits as they liked, and they were content. No doubt the same would be the case if that were granted by landlords generally; and if they would do it of their own accord, there would not be the slightest need for legislation. But that was not so; and many of the landlords constituted themselves joint-stock poulterers, or they let their land to strangers, and got two rents out of it—one from the farmer, and one from the shooter of game. Last year the general feeling was, that this question was one which the Government ought to take in hand, and he was thankful for the attempt they had made; but the people of Scotland did not look upon this as a favour which the Government could give or withhold—they considered it a quid, pro quo for the warm support they had given them to enable them to redress grievances elsewhere. It was not a very usual thing that the agricultural interest should be found supporting a Liberal Government. The Scotch people had made the experiment, but the result had not been so satisfactory as it might have been; and he thought that unless the Government stood up more firmly for the Scotch tenants on this question of the Game Laws than they had hitherto done, the results of the next election, so far as the agricultural constituencies were concerned, might be very different. He hoped that justice was not to be limited geographically to one island at the expense of another. The Prime Minister had showered forth abundantly justice to Ireland. Let him now do justice to Scotland.

said, the fact that there were five Bills before the House on the subject of the Game Laws showed that hon. Members took a certain amount of interest in the question. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Taylor) had lately signalized himself by his speech on the subject; but he had received an answer which ought to be satisfactory to the House. The hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Parker) had made his appeal to the Government on this question on the strength of his return for Perthshire, and he intimated that if Government did not do something he (Mr. Parker) would not be returned a second time. The question of game appeared to him (Viscount Royston) to be a question of property, and he felt sure that no Government would venture to interfere with that question of property. The hon. Member who introduced this Motion (Mr. Loch) ought to know a good deal about the matter, for he managed an extensive property for a distinguished nobleman, the greater part of which was let out for the purposes of game. If a gentleman could let his land at a higher price per acre for game than for other purposes he had a perfect right to do so, though the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Macfie) seemed to think that this was contrary to the purposes of philanthropy, or that it was wrong to displace sheep for deer. That was neither here nor there; he contended that a landlord had a right to use his property in the way that was most advantageous to his pocket. He believed that the moderate preservation of game was not unpopular in Scotland; he was sure it was not in England. There was no reason whatever why game should not be treated as property, and its preservation be made the subject of covenants in leases, with a provision that the farmer should be compensated by the landlord for any injury done to his crops by the game thus preserved. If the Committee proposed by the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Loch) were likely to settle the matter, he would give his support to the Motion; but, as it was, he must oppose it, because he did not think any good would result from such an inquiry as that which was asked for.

said, that he could assure the noble Lord who had just spoken (Viscount Royston) that he was mistaken if he supposed that discussions upon the Game Laws would not arise in Parliament so long as those laws remained in. their present state. There had been very great dissatisfaction expressed in Scotland, and there was a wide-spread feeling in England in opposition to the Game Laws. Had his hon. Friend the Member for Wick (Mr. Loch) not been prevented by the forms of the House from making his Motion in the terms on the Notice Paper, it was his (Mr. Rylands') intention to have proposed that the inquiries of the Committee should extend to England as well as Scotland. He thought there were sufficient grounds for the appointment of a Select Committee upon this subject. It was now 25 years since the last Committee was appointed. At that time the Government consented to the appointment of a Committee, mainly in consequence of the amount of crime shown to exist in connection with the Game Laws. But if that were a reason in 1845, there was still greater reason at the present time, because the crimes produced by, or connected with, the Game Laws were now much more numerous than they were a few years ago. In 1857 they numbered 5,534; in 1861 they had risen, to 8,563; and in 1868 they were 10,445; exclusive of the offences under the Poaching Act of 1862. No doubt it would be urged that the existence of convictions under an Act of Parliament was no reason for its repeal, and that he did not dispute might be fairly stated in the case of most laws; but the Game Laws occupied an exceptional position—they had not the support of public opinion, but were regarded by many people as opposed to right and justice. The offences against the Game Laws were frequently committed by persons who, in the first instance, would, shrink from an ordinary act of dishonesty, but who from being thrown into gaol were often led into a criminal course of life. In 1863 the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) brought forward a Motion for a Select Committee upon the Game Laws, which had the support of the right hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), whose authority was so great in that House; but the Motion was defeated by an Amendment, to the effect that it was undesirable to have a Committee until it was seen what would be the operation of the Poaching Act, passed the previous year. The country had now had several years' experience of the Poaching Act of 1862, and that experience was not by any means satisfactory. The number of convictions under the Poaching Act during the year 1868 was 953, and he believed that many cases had occurred in which considerable injustice had been committed under the Act. At all events, he considered that the operation of the Poaching Act furnished an additional reason for the appointment of a Select Committee on the Game Laws.

said, he thought too much sentiment had been introduced into the matter. He believed that if Scottish landowners did not find that game paid better than sheep, they would not preserve it. In this country all tenants had a right to destroy ground game, and he would recommend that for imitation in Scotland. In his opinion, the abolition of the Game Laws, accompanied with a stringent law of trespass, would settle the whole question. He was astonished at the observation of the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Parker) that the Scotch agricultural Members had been returned solely with the view of effecting a change in the Game Laws of the country. After all the professions of high principles that had been uttered from the opposite Benches, he felt bound to think more highly of the agricultural constituencies of Scotland than the hon. Member appeared to do.

explained that he said that there were other great questions; but what he contended was that the question of the Game Laws was the small balance which settled the Scotch elections in favour of the present Government.

said, he was glad to hear his noble Friend opposite (Viscount Royston) contend openly that, as regarded game, landlords had a right to do as they liked. The hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Parker) had spoken of the feeling which existed in Scotland on this question, and he could bear testimony to the fact. In England, tenancies were from year to year, and there were understandings between the landlord and the tenant. In Scotland, however, from long usage, leases of 19 years were entered into, and it was a hardship upon the tenants that, in addition to paying their rents, they should have the additional impost upon them of nursing and rearing game, which were shot and sent up to the London market to be sold at large prices. As long as the landlord reared and paid for these things himself, and the tenant did not object to have the impost put upon himself, he (Mr. Kinnaird) had no complaint. The people of Scotland, being an intelligent and well-educated people, did not like these things. He represented a burgh, and therefore was not under agricultural influence; but he should be perfectly ashamed, of himself if he did not say that he sympathized entirely with his hon. Friend, who so worthily represented Perthshire, when he said that in Scotland there was a very strong feeling on this subject; and if the First Minister of the Crown did not pay attention to it, he would not have so many supporters at the next Election as he had at the last.

said, that Her Majesty's Government, recognizing the strong feeling which existed in Scotland on this subject, had endeavoured to deal with it in a Bill which had been for some time upon the Table of the House. That Bill dealt with the general subject of the preservation of game. It was as strong as it could be without infringing the rights of property; and he believed he would, at the proper time, be able to show that it was sufficient for the purpose for which it was designed—namely, of affording protection to the tenant, and ultimately of greatly reducing the quantity of ground game. He appreciated the difficulty in which the House was placed by the proposals respecting this question; but he did not think any further information was required in order to enable them to legislate upon the subject, and therefore he objected to the appointment of a Select Committee. He hoped that the House would have patience until a day could be found for a full discussion of the subject; and when that day arrived, he did not despair of convincing even his hon. Friend (Mr. Loch) that the measure introduced by the Government would, when fairly put into operation, afford adequate protection against the evil of which the Scotch farmers complained.