asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, having regard to the verdict of the jury at the inquest on the death of the late Sergeant M'Carthy— namely, that his death was hastened by the treatment he received in Chatham Gaol, and the importance of not losing any of the evidence pertaining to his case, he will order an immediate inquiry into the matter, or direct the Royal Commission to enter upon the investigation of the case without delay?

Sir, I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that an immediate inquiry ought to be made into this matter, and therefore, in order to take care that that shall be done, I have referred the depositions, a copy of which has boon furnished to me, to the Chief Magistrate at Bow Street, and requested him to make an inquiry forthwith.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the Papers just issued 011 the subject of the seizure of slaves on board British vessels in the Red Sea, Whether there was no reply from Safvet Pasha to Mr. Layard's letter of 25th June 1877?

Sir, we have heard nothing further from Mr. Layard on this subject since the letter alluded to.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government have asked the assent of the Greek and Turkish Governments to the publication of the Correspondence that has been exchanged with each such Government in reference to its attitude towards Turkey; and, whether such assent has been obtained; in the event of either Government having refused such assent, whether he would inform the House which Government has objected?

Sir, the Papers, I understand, are being prepared as rapidly as possible, and as soon as they are ready they will be sent to Her Majesty's Representatives, both at Constantinople and at Athens, in order to ascertain whether the Governments of Turkey and Greece assent to their being published.

Sir, I beg to give Notice that on Thursday next, on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that you leave the Chair for the House to consider, in Committee, the Vote of Credit, I shall move an Amendment, the exact terms of which I intend to put on the Notice Paper to-night.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any information had been received by the Colonial Office from the Cape?

Sir, a telegram has been received to-day at the Colonial Office from Sir Bartle Frere, which I will road, with the permission of the House—

"January 8.—Galekaland once more cleared by columns of Colonel Glyn, 24th Regiment, but Gaika rebellion spreading, and Fingoeland invaded from Sandilli's border. Communications with Komgha restored, after two brilliant affairs under Major Moore and Colonel Lambert, 88th Connaught Rangers. Colonial reinforcements arriving slowly. Rebellion cannot be effectually and speedily suppressed without larger force than we possess or have at present prospect of collecting hero. Commodore hero, returned from useful reconnaissance along coast."

I ought to add that at the time this telegram was despatched it was not known at the Cape that a, regiment of infantry and a battery of artffltery were about to be sent out, and that another regiment is now on the point of following.

who had given Notice of a Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into this subject, especially in connection with the Westmoreland and Cumberland Lakes, said that he would not proceed with his Motion that night; but on the second reading of the Manchester Corporation Water Bill he would move the rejection of the Bill, and if the House accepted that proposal he would, as soon as he had the opportunity, make a Motion of a similar character to that which now stood on the Paper in his name.

in moving—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the administration of the Dunkeld Bridge Tolls, and to ascertain, with items in detail, the real state of the account of moneys received and expended by the Dukes of Athole in connection with the said trust,"

said, the question that they wished to be determined was whether the tolls levied should or should not cease to be levied. To ascertain that point an account would have to be rendered of all moneys received, and if there wore still any dues owing to the proprietor, then they would have to be paid; but, on the other hand, if there was any balance due and overpaid, then that would have to be refunded. The short history of this affair was this—In 1803 the then Duke of Athole set about obtaining an Act of Parliament to authorize the raising of money for the construction of a bridge across the Tay at Dunkeld. Up to that time there were two dangerous ferries at that place, and in view of the public convenience, the private convenience of the Duke of Athole, and supported also by public: opinion, and the desire of Her Majesty's (Javernment to have a readier means of conveying the military forces to the Highlands at that time, there was not much difficulty about obtaining this Ac(, and under it authority was given to construct the bridge at Dunkeld for the sum of £18,000 at the outside. Previous to the passing of the Act a very careful survey had been made by the most eminent engineer of that time, Mr. Telford, and his estimate slightly exceeded £13,000. On further consideration, and taking some questions of approaches into account, it was considered that the estimate of Mr. Telford might be made more liberal. Accordingly under the Act £18,000 was authorized to be granted for the construction of the bridge, and the Duke of Athole and his heirs, being the proprietors, were entitled to levy tolls on the bridge until the full sum had been recouped. That amount of £18,000 became very considerably lessened when the Government granted £7,000 towards the expenses of the bridge; and when the profits arising from the rent of certain lands and various matters- of that kind were taken into account, it was very possible that the outside expenditure of the Duke on the bridge did not much exceed £10,000. Be that as it might, an Act was passed, authorizing the building of a bridge over the Tay, at a cost of £18,000 as he had said, and. under that Act it was provided that yearly exact accounts of the payments at the bridge should be lodged with the Commissioners of Supply. The most serious thing in connection with the question was that it was admitted that there had been an entire neglect on the part of the Athole family to lodge any accounts whatever with the Commissioners of Supply for no less than 43 years—from 1808 to 1851—from the passing of the Act. In this latter year local public opinion became very excited at the tolls continuing, at the neglect to furnish accounts, and at the interminable prospect of the tolls going on for ever; the consequence being that a legal and popular agitation commenced in Dunkeld, which had continued down to the present day. There had been actions in various Courts, but the attempts of the people to procure an inquiry had been again and again baffled by the large resources of the Athole family combined with the intricacies of Scotch Law. The result was that the tolls continued to be collected and the people to be dissatisfied until, in 1867, the Athole family were brought face to face with the Dunkeld complainants. In that year the Athole family, as proprietors of the bridge tolls, amazed the people of Dunkeld by stating roundly that after GO years' collection of the tolls on a bridgo which could only cost £18,000 to start with, and the tolls of which had been variously estimated at between £1,000 and £2,000 a-year, the Athole family statistician fixed the exact sum still due to the Dukes of Athole at no less than £59,401 6s. 9d. It was not unworthy of the attention of the House of Commons to mark the accuracy of the 6s. 9d., especially when they found that the first glance cast upon those accounts by the accountant of the Court of Session diminished that remarkably exact sum by the bagatelle of £43,000. That was the position at the end of 1867. Although the people of Dunkeld had obtained that remarkable victory, there still remained a sum of £10,000 or £11,000 due, which they believed should not only disappear from the account, but should give place to a very large sum on the other side of the account. The phrase—"people of Dunkeld" was no vague or rhetorical expression; for this matter was supported by Petitions from Dunkeld, Dundee, and the people of the neighbourhood, asking that that House would make the necessary provision for seeing how its own Act of Parliament had been carried out by the Dukes of Athole. The belief that not only should this sum be wiped away, but a very large credit appear on the other side, was supported by the fact that even according to the very imperfect Returns obtained recently in reply to the Motion of Mr. Parker, the tolls collected up to 1851 amounted to £34,569"; while between 1851 and 1867 they were £19,612, being a total of £54,181; while during the last 11 years they could not be estimated, at the very lowest, at less than £8,000 or £10,000, making in all £62,000. Considering what the Dukes of Athole were authorized to spend in the first instance, and what they had since obtained in tolls, it was very difficult to see how there could be a balance in favour of the Athole family. But there was another matter—the trustee under the Act for the construction of the bridge—namely, the Duke of Athole—was authorized to purchase sufficient land for approaches to it. Of course such land as was not wanted for the bridge ought to have been sold, and the profits carried, not to the private account of the Duke of Athole, but to the account of the bridge, and in diminution of its cost. A considerable piece of garden-land remained over after the purchase, and a number of houses, called Athole Street, had been erected on it; but not 1d, of profit from this source appeared in the accounts of the Duke of Athole, although the profits must have amounted to between£7,000 and £8,000'; so, upon the whole, the family of Athole had received from this source by pontage dues, and by the illegal reception of rents of trust lands, something like £75,000 or £76,000; and the people claimed that there should be some sufficient facilities given for obtaining exact information when there was such grave reason for discontent and suspicion. These were the broad and simple facts. Under the Act, not more than £18,000 was to be spent on the bridge, and no Act was passed authorizing any larger expenditure. There had been received, since the passing of the Act, a sum of £75,000 or £76,000, and instead of the bridge fund and the public being £45,000 or £50,000 to the good, the Dukes of Athole actually maintained that the public was in debt to the tune of £11,000. That statement was, after these figures, incredible, and it became still more incredible when they looked at the manner in which the accounts had first been withheld, and when filed had been at once subjected to a deduction of £43,000. It was not, however, so remarkable when they went into the facts and examined the accounts rendered by the Dukes of Athole. When they saw the items which were introduced for the purpose of giving some colour to this extraordinary claim, they found good reason for the suspicion with which this remarkable manufacture of the Athole family statistician was regarded in Dunkeld and the neighbourhood. He asked the House to remember that that account had been diminished by £43,000, and he asked them also to consider the financial exactitude of a family which did not render any account of its stewardship for half-a-century, and which, when it did, sentin an account claiming four-fold more than the debt now alleged as due to it by the public. In those accounts, even the whiskey supplied to the surveyors was charged. It might be argued that whiskey was necessary for the health of the men working in that damp atmosphere; but there were items in the bill more curious than these charges for mutchkins of "Mountain dew." Among the approaches charged for was an item for cutting a road through the Warren Park, which was about three and a-half miles up the river above the bridge; and he left it to the House to decide the reasonableness and probability of allowing that approach to be charged for under the Act. This was an instance of the way in which these accounts had been bolstered up, and when they heard that they would not be surprised that the accountant had struck off the amount he had named. Why, it would be just as reasonable to charge the construction of a road at Hammersmith as an approach to Westminster Bridge. It could be proved that under cover of making similar approaches, the best portions of the charming Athole "policy" in the neighbourhood of Dunkeld were improved and beautified. In fact, while the Athole family had practically beautified their demesne at the expense of the public, they had the sublime self-possession to state that after receiving £80,000 for what did not cost them £18,000, the public still owed them over £11,000. He thought the bare outline which he had given of this remarkable case would be sufficient to induce this House to grant some substantial tribunal which would go into the whole of this matter, and allow the truth to be brought out without putting a lot of poor people, as these Petitioners mostly were, to the trouble and hard work of fighting their way through Scotch Law Courts against Scotch advocates and writers who were not the least acute members of their acute profession, and against a rich and powerful family like the Athole family. He contended that that House ought to do something to mitigate this scandal and grave public inconvenience, and to stop this illegal levy of tolls on a bridge which he maintained had been paid for five times. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the Address.

seconded the Motion.

Sir, I shall endeavour to explain very shortly the grounds upon which the Government cannot assent to the Motion of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. It is quite true that at the beginning of the century the then Duke of Athole obtained an Act by which he gave up certain rights of ferry, and obtained power to build a bridge, and to apply the tolls in repayment of the cost of the erecting, maintaining, and repairing of the bridge; the further provision being that when that cost was fully repaid, the tolls should be reduced by a third, and £1,500 accumulated for the future needs of the bridge. The hon. Gentleman is in error in saying that by the Act the outlay on the bridge was limited to £18,000. That sum was the limit imposed, on the amount the Athole family were permitted to borrow from time to time during the existence of the trust on the security of the tolls; but, in point of fact, the erection of the bridge cost nearly double £18,000. I am not going into details about all this, because it would occupy a very long time, and because in the year 1868 a number of residents in the neighbourhood of Dunkeld instituted an action in the Court of Session directed against the present Duke of Athole, who had just then come into possession of his estates. The object of that action was to have an investigation of the whole of the accounts connected with the erection, maintenance, and repair of the bridge, and to have it declared by the Court that the whole debt due to the family had been paid off, and that the bridge was free, the Duke of Athole making good any sums received in excess of the expenditure. The litigation went on very actively for three years and a-half, both sides being represented by active agents and very able counsel, and it was brought to a termination by a final judgment of the First Division of the Court of Session, pronounced in January, 1872, which might have been appealed against; but as it was not appealed against within the period prescribed by Statute, has now become final. In that action almost every one of the points set up as grievances now were examined and disposed of by that Court. There was a very full inquiry before an accountant. There were detailed objections to his report by both parties interested. It was fought most vehemently both in the Outer House and in the Inner Court, and the proceedings finally ended in a judgment which no proceedings have been taken to challenge or set aside. It repelled a number of pleas, and found the balance due was £18,116. I am not aware, starting from that point, that there is any complaint as to the management of the bridge or as to the lodging of the accounts. I understand the object of this Motion is to rip up all the previous questions judicially settled, and to try again by Royal Commission the question of the liability of the Duke of Athole after that question has been decided by a competent Court, and after full discussion of the points involved. Since the date mentioned, the accounts have been regularly kept, and from the accounts lodged, it appears that the debt in April, 1877, was reduced to £11,721, the large reduction being due to the payment by the Highland Railway Company of £5,000 as compensation for their interference with the traffic, which they had agreed to pay, but refused to hand over until they knew who were the proper persons to get the money. Upon these grounds, I say, the question has been settled by competent Courts, and we should not attempt to upset in this House the judgment which should be regarded as final.

May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, if he will be good enough to say how many pounds were cut off by the Court from the claim of the Duke?

The claim made by his Grace gave rise to a good deal of suspicion, and naturally so, because the claim made was something like £56,000, and that was reduced to £18,000. I think it only fair to say that the Duke was unable to make a more satisfactory account in consequence of the state of the trust.

said, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate complained that the question ought not to be brought forward, because it was a claim already settled by the Court of Session; but he (Mr. Anderson) thought he could show that that ought not in this case to be any bar. He would like to make a few re- marks on the way in which it was brought before the House. It might be in the recollection of the House that for two Sessions he had had a Motion on the subject on the Paper. He had balloted for it, and on one or two occasions he had been fortunate enough to gain a time to bring it on; but on those occasions he was obliged to give way to Government Business, which he could not but admit was much more important. On the present occasion, the question had passed into other hands without any communication whatever being made to him, without any request, he was informed, from the inhabitants of the district; but at the request of some committee in London, of whom he knew nothing. He made no complaint of this nor of his having been treated in a manner different from that which usually prevailed in that House, simply because the Member who did it was a raw Member, and evidently knew nothing about the courtesies of the House. Beyond that he said nothing of the matter, except that he was glad to have assistance, and was particularly glad to see an Irish Member taking such interest in a Scotch grievance. He contended, in answer to the argument of the right hon. and learned Lord, that the question having been decided in a Law Court was no longer a case to be brought before this House, that that was not so. Although half-a-dozen actions had been settled in the Court of Session, it would be open for any man to raise a new action on the same ground. It was therefore equally open to any man, and therefore for the House, to raise the question in a public manner, especially in a case where public money was at stake. If it had been a legal question between one man and another, then the decision of the Court of Law would have been final; but it was different where the public was concerned. The Dukes of Athole had reason to know that not only the Scotch but the English public had wide privilege of raising such actions as these. As against the Dukes of Athole the case was very scandalous indeed. The hon. Member for Dungarvan had stated the facts correctly, but he did not state all. At the time the Duke John began the bridge he had it in contemplation to build a palace for himself at a cost of £400,000, and he had a great desire to get this bridge made as an approach to that palace. That palace was never finished to this day. It was now an unfinished ruin. But his wish was to build the palace himself and to get the bridge built by public money. He got himself by the Act made sole trustee, and the moment he got himself made trustee he began ignoring the position of trustee, and spending money in every way he pleased. He was his own contractor, supplied wood and lime out of his own grounds, and charged his own price for them, instead of having estimates and public tenders as a trustee should. He got grants of stone from a neighbouring proprietor for the bridge, and used them for other purposes. Then he bought land for the purpose, and used it for other purposes. More than that, he did not build the bridge across the river at all. He actually built it on dry land, and then diverted the course of the river to run under the bridge. There was no need to divert the river to meet the wants of the public. He put the bridgo in such a place that it might make an approach to his palace when it was built, and a great part of the expense was for making and cutting this alteration in the course of the river. He was his own contractor, he employed his own men, and paid them. There was no separate record kept of how the men were employed and how they were engaged. One of the worst of the charges, and one the House would admit the Court of Session acted very improperly in not going into, was that he borrowed money as a trustee. The words of the borrowing clauses of the Act were that he was entitled to borrow on behalf of the trust £18,000 at a rate not exceeding 5 per cent. But what did this Duke do? Part of the money he lent himself, and part he borrowed from other people at low rates of interest, and charged the trust for that 5 per cent. If that had been done by a Jew moneylender it would have been called swindling; but it was done by a great Duke, and it was overlooked. As a trustee, he took private pecuniary profit out of his trust. Scotland was a tolerably democratic country, but even there a great Duke had great power, and he was able in the Court of Session to have his case considered with a great leaning towards himself. For nearly 50 years he had not rendered accounts as required annually by the Act, and when he was asked by the Government to render them they did not exist. It was believed that the accounts were manufactured by one of his own agents, and thus could, not be otherwise than unfair to the public. These circumstances ought to have put him out of Court altogether, and so they would if he had not been a great Duke. Then the borrowing of money at a low rate and charging a high rate was going on for some 50 or 60 years, and the amount on that account that this bridge-trust had been unjustly charged woxid show now over £100,000. Each Duke of Athole had continued the practice till he had called attention to it, and then to get over the difficulty the present Duke paid up all the loans and lent the money himself, and still charged 5 per cent, without ever attempting to ascertain whether on the security of the pontages he could not obtain money at a lower rate than 5 per cent. As a trustee, he was bound in common honesty to try to find out if he could get money at a lower rate than 5 per cent. Each of the Dukes of Athole had acted wrongly in the trust, and, in his opinion, there was very good ground for the granting by the House of Commons of a Commission to inquire into the manner these accounts had been manufactured, and particularly as to the payment of the interest, for that was never properly gone into by the Court of Session; for both as regarded that, and as regarded the rents of certain houses, the accountant employed by the Court passed them over as not in his remit. These were strong points, and should be properly gone into. He considered the public interest was at stake, and that the House would be justified in granting this Commission.

May I be permitted to explain that in Scotland the public have the right to sue as individuals—that is to say, the individual member of the public may vindicate the rights of the public at large; but I entirely demur to the statement that an individual proprietor may be sued again and again as many times as there are members of the public. Fortunately there are limitations to that right. I will only add that it never occurred to me, and I do not think it would occur to anyone who reads the papers, of a trial which extended from May to December, 1872, to say that the pursuers of the action did not do the best they could on behalf of the public.

Sir, I cannot remain silent after the language applied to my hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), who, whatever might have been his method of introducing the question, will, I am sure, be prepared to justify it here or anywhere else. It appears to me that when the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) acknowledges that for two years he has failed to find any substantial or suitable opportunity for bringing the matter forward, he has to a certain extent justified the belief that he was not prepared to go on with this question, or deal with it, and for that reason my hon. Friend felt justified in taking the course he has. I certainly think the hon. Member for Glasgow did not show his courtesy when he said that my hon. Friend knew nothing of the courtesies of this House. This is not the first time I have heard language of this kind from the hon. Member directed to Irish Members, and I rise to tell him once for all that he occupies no position in this House which entitles him to lecture hon. Members about courtesy, and he is not likely to be selected as a model of courtesy here or anywhere else.

I only want to say a few words about the rather unprovoked attack made on me. So far from my thrusting myself into this business unsolicited, it is, on the contrary, true that I was requested by one who has suffered very much by the dispute between the people of Dunkeld and the Duke to take up this case, and the main reason why it was pressed on me was that it was believed that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) was not particularly anxious to press the matter. Of that I know nothing; and the reason I took it up was practically in fulfilment of statements I have made that, considering the obligations Irish Members are under to English and Scotch Members, where there was a good cause for my interference in English or Scotch affairs I should be happy to interfere. I do not care to say more of the hon. Member for Glasgow, than that I am sure he is as courteous as he is accustomed to be. One word in reply to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. I very carefully avoided impugning the good faith of the Court of Session. Such Courts, though not immaculate, are so perhaps in theory, and it is well in this House not to interfere with the rights of judicial personages. It is, at the same time, quite right to lay stress on the fact that a Court under certain pressure may or may not be able to give substantial justice where there is a powerful party on the one side and a party by no means rich or influential on the other. The right hon. and learned Gentleman bears out my theory of the case in stating that the litigation went on for so many years, and produced an amount of litigation that only one side was able to bear. An appeal to the House of Lords was not one that the other side could possibly prosecute. The House has passed. Acts defining the position of trustees, and there is overwhelming evidence that their provisions have been violated. For half-a-century it is admitted that the Dukes of Athole have violated this trust by not rendering any account. I hold, therefore, that there are overwhelming reasons why this House, as the guardian of the public interest and the public moneys, and the guardian of its own Acts of Parliament, should interfere on behalf of the poor people of Dunkeld.

said, there was one thing which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, in his clear and able address, had omitted to mention, and that was that there was a Parliamentary grant of £7,000 given in aid of the cost of this bridge. Whenever Parliament gave a grant of public money, Parliament had a right to know how it had been expended. One might well be tempted to use harsh names when one found a claim was made for about £60,000, and that the highest Court cut it down to £18,000. One need not use very soft words in describing such conduct when this fact was looked at. There was strong reason for inquiring as to whether the public had had the benefit of this Parliamentary grant. Another point which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate did not touch upon was, that allegation of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), that if the interest had been charged at the low rate at which the money was borrowed, instead of being charged 5 per cent, it would have made a difference of nearly £100,000 in the time over which it had extended. The accountant ap- pointed by the Court to report said it was not in his power to take this question up under the remit to him, and therefore that question still remained in abeyance. Taking into account, first, the Parliamentary grant; and, secondly, the allegation that the Duke had not only in past years but was now charging 5 per cent for money borrowed; whilst, with such undoubted security it could have been borrowed at a much lower rate—taking these things into consideration, he thought the House had a right to inquire into the whole circumstances.

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it would not be necessary to make any lengthened statement. The Bill was before the House the whole of last Session; but he had not the opportunity of bringing it forward for discussion, though he was aware from private sources that it was generally approved of, and had the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for the Home Department. The Government, it appeared, therefore, were conscious of the necessity of giving to the magistrates increased powers over certain racecourses. It had been stated that the Bill had been framed with the view of doing damage to a particular class of sport, and he believed those who opposed it opposed it chiefly on those grounds. But what were in reality the objections to the Bill? The racing papers had written very strongly about himself and about his Bill, and had described him as a "sour Sabbatarian Scotchman who had no sympathy with sport, and who knew nothing whatever about it." Nothing, however, could be more contrary to the fact than that. He had not only been all his time devoted to more than one sport, but he knew a great deal about most sports, and a good deal about the sport now under discussion. He should be very sorry to do anything which was calculated to injure so noble a sport as horse-racing; but these so-called racing meetings were unworthy of the name, and therefore the existing regulations required further supervision. There was no sport at all at these meetings—they were mostly what were called gate-money meetings, and were held for the purpose of selling tickets, of nefarious betting, and of swindling transactions in many shapes—very many of them far indeed from the spirit of genuine horse-racing. The Bill he introduced did not attempt to put down these meetings, but only to put them under magisterial control. It simply required that those who desired to hold these meetings within 10 miles of the metropolis should get the magistrates' licence for them. In that way the applicant would come before the magistrates, and they would have the opportunity of judging whether in former years a particular race meeting had been respectably conducted, or whether it was in hands which would ensure its respectable conduct in the future. If these licences were required, the managers would be much more likely to conduct their race-meetings respectably than if there were no such licences. The only strong objection raised against the Bill was that it applied only to the small district around the metropolis, and was not a general measure. That might be a defect, but although it applied only to the metropolitan district, that was, he believed, the district in which the greatest evils had arisen, and it was considered a sufficient argument in its favour that those evils ought to be checked at once. There could be little doubt that if the House declared that these racecourses ought to be put under wholesome restrictions, the moral effect of the passing of the Bill would be to make managers of racecourses in all parts of the country look more to the respectability and good conduct of those places; because they would feel that Parliament having once passed a Bill in this direction would be very likely to extend the provisions of that Bill, if racecourses continued to be conducted as many of them undoubtedly now were. He should not trespass further on the time of the House, but should simply move the second reading of the Bill, and hoped the House would support it, as the Government had signified their approval of it, and expressed thereby a belief that it would be productive of some good in the neighbourhood of the metropolis.

in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had told the House that he was a lover of sport, but he had carefully abstained from telling them what description of sport it was that he loved—whether rabbit-shooting, rat-catching, or dog-fighting. What the opponents of the Bill contended was that if licences for holding a race were considered necessary the power of granting them should be in the hands of the Jockey Club or the Committee of the Grand National Hunt. This Bill, however, professed to take it out of the hands of the Jockey Club and place it in the hands of the magistrates. He had listened with pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, because, in the first place, it was a very brief statement, and he was certain that if the House was satisfied with the hon. Member for Glasgow, the hon. Member for Glasgow ought to be satisfied with himself. The hon. Member had discharged a duty towards society, and he now appeared before the House as one of those great moral reformers who were so fashionable at the present day. During the Recess the hon. Member appeared to have accumulated mountains of immaterial facts. He had gone to some trouble in examining the political history of the hon. Member, and he found he described himself as an advanced Liberal. Now he (Mr. Power) had never been able to find out what an advanced Liberal was. It was a happy and a curious term, and he supposed that the hon. Member for Glasgow meant that he was more enlightened than the ordinary run of Liberals, and less advanced than the Radicals. In fact, it appeared to him that an advanced Liberal was a man who was neither fish, nor flesh, nor good salt herring. If the hon. Member could comprehend for a moment the many pleasures and advantages arising from the ancient pastime of horse-racing —if he could shake himself free from all the false ideas that he associated with horse-racing—then he was certain the hon. Member for Glasgow might become a warm patron of the sport, and a more advanced advocate of the free enjoyment of that noble pastime. Englishmen were naturally proud of the perfection to which they had brought horse-racing, and the hon. Member for Glasgow proposed that the London tradesmen and artizans must be prevented from witnessing any racing unless they went to the trouble or expense of travelling a long distance. What were the reasons, if reasons they might be called, for interfering with this national sport? He had expected to have heard something about riots, disturbances, or annoyances caused to the inhabitants of the district; but the hon. Member had carefully avoided alluding to rioting or disturbances, for he knew very well that he (Mr. R. Power) held in his hand a report from the police court that would immediately contradict such a charge; but even if the hon. Member had done so, he could not believe that the hon. Member had no compassion for people suffering similarly outside the radius of 10 miles from Charing Cross. Under this Bill races might be held just outside the enchanted circle of 10 miles, and he could not but believe that the tender heart of the hon. Member beat acutely for the whole human race; so that if he succeeded in carrying this Bill he would bring in another Bill next year extending the present scale to 15 miles. He knew that the hon. Member for Glasgow had an expansive mind, and no doubt he would go on expanding the circle until it included Punchestown and the Curragh. The hon. Member for Glasgow had told his constituents during the Recess that if he succeeded in carrying this Bill he would go on expanding the magic circle. Now, if the scenes alleged existed, and he did not believe they did, for he had attended one or. two of the meetings in question, there was the common law of the land amply sufficient to cope with any nuisance that might exist; and if the hon. Member for Glasgow doubted him upon that subject—and he knew that Scotchmen always required proof— he could quote the opinions of Lord Ten-derden and Lord Justice Campbell. He objected to the principle of the Bill, which was most dangerous and pernicious; for if once the principle was admitted then the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race, and all such aquatic contests must become things of the past, because a few people might suffer temporary annoyance. He had looked over the list of stewards who generally patronized the meeting, and he found the names of men highly and honourably connected with the Turf—the names, amongst others, of the Duke of Montrose, the Duke of Hamilton, and Lord Marcus Beresford. Would those Noblemen give their names if they thought that the gatherings in question tended to lower horse-racing in any respect? The stakes that were run for were by no means small. Was it because the man who paid his half-crown had as good a view of the racing as those in the betting-ring that this Bill was introduced to deprive the London tradesman and the artizan of his amusement? This Bill would do no harm to the rich man, who could go all over England and the Continent in search of amusement; but it was intended for the poor man, who was singled out as the victim of officious zeal. If this Bill was passed for London, it ought also to be put in force as regarded Manchester, Liverpool, Chester, and other large towns where the best races in the world were held. He called upon the House to reject this "advanced Liberal" idea of interfering with the rights of the people. That the meetings in question were an annoyance to some he did not deny; but there wore, indeed, few of the occupations or pleasures of life that did not disturb somebody's equanimity. Why, what an annoyance and what a nuisance a political demonstration must be to nervous people. What a nuisance a procession must be to some persons. Aye, even an organ grinder or an itinerant street preacher caused annoyance. Yet those annoyances existed, and were properly ranked as some of the evils that all mortals had to bear. He was sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow had his annoyance, but did he think of coming to Parliament for redress? Why, there was no greater annoyance than a bore, be he a Parliamentary or a social bore; and they all knew how difficult it was to find a remedy for a nuisance of that description, and they also knew that Parliamentary resignation was their only resource. Let those outside Parliament learn the same lesson, and instead of coming to this House for redress, let them go to their clergymen for consolation. Their best hope lay in the Millenium, and he would advise them to wait with all good patience for the arrival of that happy time. In every country there existed a class, and a most respectable class, who, although they might possess every pleasure, every comfort of life, were never satisfied—they must always have something to complain about, something to grumble about, always have a grievance; and he thought that class was represented in the House, and was ably represented, by the hon. Member for Glasgow. The most extraordinary part of the proceeding was that the supporters of the Bill should have to go to Scotland for an advocate of their grievances. He did not think they wore wrong in doing so, for the people of Scotland, not being lovers of horse-racing, were little adapted for the noble pastime. Nature had, unfortunately, bereft them of almost all sporting tastes. Their country was not suited to the sport. Their dispositions were too tame and their tempers too even, and they were a people better adapted for agricultural pursuits and statistical societies. In saying that he did not wish to cast any aspersion on the character of the Scotch people. They were, no doubt, a great people, not easily disturbed by the frivolities of life. They were accustomed to an air of melancholy, and their great productions were snuff, whiskey, and thistles. If anyone doubted the excessive patriotism of the hon. Member for Glasgow, let them be made aware of this fact, that when he left his own great country, fearing that he might forget the land of cakes and ale, he came to reside at 36, Thistle Grove, in London. He (Mr. P. Power) did not know if any of the other Scotch Members lived there, nor what might be the attractions of that romantic spot; but without being in any way personal, he might observe that they had all heard of a certain quadruped which preferred thistles to oats. If fantastical notions of this description became the law of the land, he should not be surprised that the hon. Member proposed on some future occasion to extend legislation of a similar description to the city he represented. He talked about the charac- ter of these meetings, but he (Mr. Power) had in his hand a letter describing a meeting at Glasgow, of which he would read a few lines. The writer said—

"I have attended a Magna Charta meeting in London; I have seen the Member for Stoke address his constituents; I once saw a prize-fight near Birmingham; hut the people were aristocrats compared with those I saw yesterday. I did not think such a horrible-looking crowd could be collected together. A Glasgow mob is par excellence the worst mob in the world. It did not talk much, but when it did it swore. Swearing in English is very bad, but in Scotch it is awful. Only one respectable man lived in Rutherglen, and he was hanged for murder."

If the object of the Bill was to deliver them from such people, there might be something in it; but everyone know that an English race-meeting or an English mob was proverbial for its good humour. If the Bill was to become the law of the land, let the Scotch try it themselves first. The object of the Bill was to take away from the people a popular sport which they had long enjoyed. It appeared some persons were so constituted that it annoyed them to see others amused, while conversely some people took pleasure in the annoyance of others. The Puritans hated bull-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bull, but because it gave pleasure to the spectator. Let them take the case of fox-hunting. Every Irish Member was a fox-hunter, or at least ought to be. Fox-hunting might annoy a few farmers whose fields were ridden over, but he should like to know what would be the case if the hon. Member for Glasgow proposed that nobody should hunt without a magistrate's licence. The philanthropic spirit of the hon. Member for Glasgow might find better occupation than in introducing Bills of this coercive character. He might turn his attention to some Scotch grievance, or framing some vexatious Question for Her Majesty's Government—an occupation which seemed to suit the hon. Member extremely well. The hon. Member had begun at the wrong end. There was ample scope for the clergymen and the philanthropists in this great city. Instead of putting down the poor man's amusement, let him be educated to refrain from vice, to learn self-restraint, and to enjoy rational amusement free from excess. He asked the House not to raise up a feeling of bitterness be- tween the aristocracy and democracy, but to show their liberality and sense of justice by voting against a Bill which was tyrannical in principle, vicious in its nature, and opposed to every doctrine of progress and good government.

said, he did not intend to follow the hon. Member who had just sat down through the observations which he had made in a manner that did credit to himself, and had been appreciated by the House; but he wished to direct his remarks to another branch of the subject. The hon. Member for Glasgow had included in this Bill a small area in the vicinity of the metropolis, and he thought the House had a right to ask why, if the principle of the measure was good, it should be adopted within this area, and not extended to Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, and to other large towns? He should be the last man to say a word against the "great unpaid." Justices' justice would compare favourably with stipendiary injustice, at least in some cases; but if the power proposed to be given were conferred upon magistrates in the neighbourhood of London, how could it be refused to the magistrates of other great cities? He must, moreover, remind the House that it was not only county magistrates—amongst whom they were occasionally told there existed clerical and other somewhat crotchetty elements— who were involved in this question; but that, in the case of the vast majority of racing fixtures, it would be the borough bench to whom application must be made, the result of which might be that the oldest and most popular gatherings in the Kingdom would be annually dependent upon a chance majority upon the local borough bench. The House would remember that during the last year very considerable alterations had taken place with regard to the rules of racing, and the powers of the Jockey Club with regard to the regulation of races had been materially increased. They could deal with abuses in regard to racing, and under the powers which they now possessed, they could virtually prohibit any racing against which reasonable objection could be taken. They had power to prohibit in the Official Calendar any meetings which they chose to place under their ban, and the effect of their doing so would be to prevent any horse or individual who took part in such a meeting from appearing on any racecourse where the rules of the Jockey Club were enforced; which, he need not say, amounted to an absolute prohibition. It might be urged against his view that the Jockey Club was an irresponsible body, self-elected, and not amenable to control; but in practice it left full authority in the hands of the stewards. The stewards of the Jockey Club at this moment were the hon. Baronet the Member for North Lincoln (Sir John Astloy), a noble Lord a Member of Her Majesty's Government (Lord Hardwicko), and the noble Lord who led Her Majesty's Opposition (the Marquess of Hartington). He thought that the conduct of racing affairs might be more satisfactorily allowed to remain in the hands of such a tribunal than transferred to a body of magistrates varying in different localities, of whom the House had no knowledge. It was right he should mention that the powers possessed under the rules of the Jockey Club had not been allowed to remain a dead letter; for, in the case of one of the very meetings comprehended within the present Bill— West Drayton—the Jockey Club had recently taken steps which had put a stop to the meeting in a summary manner, in consequence of irregularities which had been brought to their notice. He might be told that many of those meetings were not under the jurisdiction of the Jockey Club, because the sports were steeple chasing and hurdle-racing. Those races, however, were under the jurisdiction of an analogous body, the Grand National Hunt Committee, and they had rules in the same direction as the Jockey Club. The meetings at West Drayton, Streatham, and Enfield, referred to by the hon. Member, had been put down because the payment of the stakes had not been made in the manner proscribed by the rules. The magistrates already possessed considerable power in regard to racing. They could refuse to issue occasional licences for the supply of refreshments, and he thought that the hon. Member should get the magistrates to exercise the power they already possessed before he asked the House to confer new powers on them. He had not been to any of these meetings for years, and probably should never go again—not that that constituted any reason why such gatherings ought to be summarily abolished—but he did not think that this measure would be the best way of remedying the evil complained of. He should therefore oppose the second reading of the Bill.

said, he was not an ardent supporter of suburban race meetings. They were undoubtedly at times a considerable nuisance to their neighbours, and not conducive to the best interests of the Turf. At the same time, they could not forget that these meetings afforded considerable amusement to a large number of people, and that fact should not be disregarded. The Turf was an institution which, like all other institutions, was open to abuse, but it possessed many advantages, and he had its interests warmly at heart. Whatever abuses might exist, he did not think that the best way to remove them was to make the holding of those meetings depend upon the magistrates. The hon. Member proposed to limit the Bill to within 10 miles of London and to meetings established within the past 20 years; but it must be obvious that they could not impose any limits of mileage to such a principle, and if it were extended to 15 miles Epsom would be included. Did anyone think that Parliament or the country would place the Derby under the control of the magistrates of the county? The thing was preposterous; and he thought, therefore, that the subject should be left to the racing authorities.

said, his sympathies ran with the hon. Member for Glasgow. He thought the hon. Member had proved the Preamble of his Bill out of the mouths of his opponents. He believed the suburban meetings were looked upon with much disfavour by the Jockey Club. They had heard, however, that the attention of the racing authorities had been called to the evil, and he would suggest that the Bill should not be pressed to a division, in order that time might be given to the racing authorities to reform the abuses which existed.

said, there was no question that at these suburban meetings there had been scenes which the Jockey Club disapproved, and the Department with which he was connected had received incessant complaints of the disturbances created at the races and of the abuses which had occurred. It certainly had been a source of disquietude that these abuses should be allowed to continue. Not being so much mixed up with racing matters as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lowther), he was not aware of the powers which had been given to the racing authorities, and he was glad to hear that those authorities had at last woke up to the fact that they should put a stop to the abuses. He would rather leave the matter to the proper racing authorities than create a fresh authority for the purpose. He knew that these meetings tended immensely to degrade racing, and that they did an immense injury in the neighbourhood of the metropolis—an amount of injury which was almost incalculable. We could not be certain that the object aimed at could not be attained in a better way than that proposed by this Bill. He should therefore wish the hon. Member for Glasgow to allow his Bill to drop for the time, in order to see what the action of the existing authorities might be; and if that should prove insufficient, then something in the nature of this Bill would be necessary in order to protect the neighbourhood of the metropolis from scenes such as had very much disgraced them on the occasions under consideration.

said, as far as he could understand the matter, the Jockey Club really exercised no control whatever over these suburban meetings. The object of them was simply to get the gate-money. At other race-meetings that plan was not so extensively acted upon, and that was one of the reasons he presumed, why this Bill should be limited to the proposed area. The system of local meetings was not practised elsewhere as it was in the suburban area. These meetings, together with some persons fond of sport, brought together large crowds of others, who came distinctly with the intention of committing crime in the neighbourhood, and these persons interfered materially with the value of property in those neighbourhoods. When they found that as many as eight race-meetings were held close to the metropolis, they would see that it had grown into a nuisance that did not exist in other places. He knew that this Bill would be opposed by many of the supporters of legitimate sport; but he would ask them to reflect upon the fact that not one horse ever went to these meetings that could be sold for more than about £20, and that the meetings were principally promoted by publicans to serve their own interests. It was, therefore, idle to pretend that these meetings promoted the love of sport, or the improvement of the breed of horses. No one who wanted a good horse would dream of attending these meetings for the purpose of purchasing one. If these races were advocated on the score that they administered to the amusement of the poor, he would say that he doubted whether any poor man ever resorted to them in order to enjoy fair honest sport; but they were rather resorted to by the dregs of the population for a very different purpose from that of amusement. He feared the Jockey Club could do nothing in the matter, and he should therefore support the Bill, though he feared his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow would stand a poor chance of success.

in reply, said, that he had spoken briefly in making the Motion, because he could not anticipate what objections would be urged to it, so he would now enter a little into the proposals of the Bill and answer the objections. The hon. Member below him (Mr. R. Power) had made a very irrelevant speech, as the largest part of what he said had little to do with the Bill at all. He treated it as a Bill to put down and discourage horse - racing, whereas it merely sought to regulate it, and to put down abuses. It was in no sense a Bill to stop the amusements of the poorer class. The hon. Member had spoken in strong condemnation of the mobs that gathered in the neighbourhood of Glasgow; but he might tell the hon. Member that if there was a meeting at Glasgow at which there were large crowds of roughs, they were entirely composed of the Irish element. He had limited the area to which his Bill applied because the evils so far only extended over a limited area. He had been asked what facts he had laid before the Government to justify his Bill. It was entirely unnecessary to lay any facts before them, for they knew the facts perfectly well, and last year they cordially approved of this Bill, and the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department had told them that still he would approve of such a Bill if it was impossible for the Jockey Club to deal with these race-meetings. He believed he could show that the Jockey Club would be unable to deal with them, for these new rules had been in existence more than a year without effect. He was glad to hear that the Jockey Club, through his Bill of last year, had been driven into attempting to cheek the abuses which had become so notorious; but that Club had no real power in the matter. It was said they could take steps which would prevent horses which had run at the suburban race-meetings going to more respectable meetings; but the owners of such horses did not want them to go to more respect-ablemeetings, and plenty of jockeys could be found of the class that was wanted. There was a class of horses that never could go to respectable meetings. The winner at Eltham races was sold for £25, and that being so, he left the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies to conjecture what could have been the price of the losers. It was not regular racing men that attended these races, and nearly all the stops taken by the Jockey Club had been failures. The most recent races had been characterized by the same abuses as before. They were not fair races, because the winning horses and the losing ones were known beforehand. The horse that was to win was an arranged matter. They were a great nuisance in the neighbourhood. A detective officer from Scotland Yard had been engaged to attend four days' racing at Kingsbury, and his report was a melancholy picture of the kind of racing they had to deal with. He said that the roulette table was busy, and so were some 50 betting men in and about the ring; the betting for the most part was as unfair as the racing, and card-sharping was carried on with the greatest of ease. With all his —the officer's—experience he had never seen a greater number of scoundrels and blackguards collected together before in his life. The promoters of such meetings did not care a jot for the Jockey Club, and simply laughed at it. He, there- fore, claimed the vote of the Under Home Secretary, because the Jockey Club was utterly powerless to remedy the evil.

in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the Motion had accidentally come into his hands, as it should have been moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), or the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen). He supported the Bill, but had had no part in drawing it up. It had been framed under the auspices of the Provincial Newspaper Society, which represented about 600 newspapers published throughout the length and breadth of the land and of the most diverse political opinions. Those hon. Gentlemen who were connected with the Bill had not come forward on account of a special interest of their own; but because of their special knowledge and long familiarity with the defects of the existing system they were most qualified to give evidence on the subject. It was not for the first time that controversy had been raised on this subject in the House of Commons. In the Sessions of 1867, 1868, and 1869 proposals almost identical with those in many respects which he had the honour to submit passed the second reading, received the sanction of the Law Officers of the Crown, and were only prevented going further by sheer want of time, or other causes which he need not now particularly refer to. The declaration, therefore, in the Preamble of the Bill, "that it is expedient to amend the law of libel," rested on repeated Parliamentary decisions. He would, in the first instance, give a brief summary of the Bill. A public newspaper was defined to be a newspaper registered at the General Post Office, or entered at Stationers' Hall, and it was provided that any report of a public meeting published in such a paper should be exempt from any action for libel providing it was a true and fair report of a meeting of a representative character, and that the report was bond fide and without actual malice, and in the ordinary course of business. The House would observe that the language was very peculiar— the meeting must be of a "representative character." That phrase was introduced by the Attorney General (Sir John Rolt) who was in office in 1867, as he distrusted the ambiguity of the term "public meeting." By public meeting of a representative character was meant a meeting at which reporters were present, and at which the speakers were speaking under some degree of responsibility to public opinion; and although it might be exceedingly difficult to give a terse definition of something so complicated in its character, he thought there would be no difficulty in deciding what was a public meeting should the issue ever be raised. Thus, then, repeatedly as the House had affirmed that the reports of public proceedings should be held to be exempt from actions for libel, he trusted the House would not now reverse that decision. While the Bill took care of the newspaper, it was also mindful of the interests of any individual who might consider himself aggrieved. He could if he pleased claim to have an explanation or contradiction inserted in the newspaper, and that claim must be allowed. That was in accordance with the maxim that where there was a wrong there should be a remedy. The Bill went still further in the same equitable direction, for it provided that if any person should at such a meeting utter matter which came under the operation of the law of libel he should himself be as much responsible as though that matter had been written and printed by himself. On that point Lord Lyndhurst said, that a man who went to a public meeting knowing that the words he uttered would be taken down and sent through the length and breadth of the land, and uttered words which were libellous was morally, and ought to be legally, as liable as the man who printed them. Sir John Karslake, when Solicitor General, gave it as his opinion that a clause of that kind would work extremely well. He hoped that up to this point the proposals of the measure would command the sympathy of the House. He would not linger on Clause 4, which provided that the defendant in an action for libel might pay money into Court by way of amends. Clause 5 was what was known as the 40s. clause, and according to it a defendant should not be mulcted in damages or costs to a greater amount than 40s., except the Judge should certify that there had been malice. To this latter clause he proposed to add—"Except the jury shall find, and the Judge shall certify, that there was malice." That would make the clause more in accordance with the spirit of British law. He now came to the second part of the Bill, which related to criminal prosecutions. It was proposed that no proprietor of a public newspaper should be liable to a prosecution of that character unless he was himself either the author, the joint author, or the writer of the alleged libel; unless he had seen, or had had an opportunity of seeing it, prior to publication; or unless he omitted from any cause whatever, when required to do so in writing, to give the name of the author or writer. There were other conditions to which he need not advert; but the object of the clause was to make clear by Statute that with respect to which the Judges of the laud were at the present moment divided in opinion. There could be no question that in a matter of this importance, where such weighty public interests were involved, directly contrary interpretations of the law had been given by the highest functionaries appointed to administer it; and surely there was a necessity here for something, were it only in the nature of a declaratory enactment, which should reveal the true intent and meaning of the existing Statutes. If a journalist refused to comply with any of the conditions of the present Bill, he would thereby himself assume the responsibilities of authorship, and, under the measure, he would be justly loft to bear the consequences. The Bill likewise provided for securities against the setting-up of criminal prosecutions by men of straw, by demanding that the person who brought such an action should enter into his own recognizances to proceed, and should find securities for costs in case they should be awarded against him. It also provided for the same kind of security against what the late Sir Colman O'Loghlen had termed "pettifogging attorneys." Further, the Bill demanded, in order that a criminal prosecution might not be kept hanging perpetually over the head of the unfortunate journalist, that the prosecutor should within one year after pleading bring the matter to an issue. To that clause, also, Sir John Karslake in 1867 gave his unqualified approval. In short, while the Bill endeavoured to provide some security for the Press, it had also regard to the security of the individual, and while proceeding on the principle that the general welfare was the supremo consideration, it tried to bring that principle into harmony with private rights. There were many instances in which newspapers had suffered from the present state of the law. In 1876, The Manchester Courier, a highly respectable Conservative journal, was condemned in heavy costs for publishing the proceedings of a Board of Guardians, though the paper gave insertion to two letters of explanation.

proceeded. The Times newspaper was prosecuted for denouncing the concocters of a great commercial fraud—some eminent merchants subscribed a large sum of money and presented it to the proprietors of The Times; but they, instead of applying the money to their own purposes, founded therewith a scholarship in a great public school. On whatever side of the House hon. Gentlemen might sit, or in whatever part of the country one might live, it might be said of The Times, in language like that applied by the late Sir Robert Peel to Lord Palmerston—"We are all proud of it." The measure did not refer to Scotland but only to England and Ireland. Scotland was already in possession of the immunities which he desired to see extended to the rest of the United Kingdom. North of the Tweed there were no criminal prosecutions for libel. It was a remarkable fact that in Scotland offences against the libel law were almost unknown. There a journalist was put upon his honour, which weighed more heavily and constantly upon his conscience than pecuniary and all other penalties. Why should not there be an assimilation of the law all over the United Kingdom, especially when the tone of the Press was undoubtedly becoming more courteous, more generous and forbearing in proportion as the code by which it was regulated became milder? Putting Scotland out of the question, there remained the fact that in England, Ireland, and Wales there were 1,188 provincial newspapers, and that last year there were only a score of actions brought against them for libel. In some of these cases a verdict was given for the plaintiff; and in others, where the defendant was cast in damages, the public had stepped forward to indemnify him. He knew it might be said that a new form of journalism was springing up which demanded stringent and cogent regulations; but he would point out that the articles which appeared in such publications were not quoted in respectable newspapers. He regretted that journals of that new form should be bought and read by respectable people; but the absurdity of the thing was that the very classes who were most alarmed at what they called the "licence of journalism" were precisely the classes who supported these chiefs of sinners. Society, in short, created that which it affected to deplore, and desired new safeguards against an evil which was to be attributed only to its own shortcomings. In this country public opinion was the ultimate court of appeal. The wiser policy was to leave the newspapers largely to the influence of that potent public opinion. It was said that the Judge himself was condemned when a criminal man was acquitted, and so it might be true that the law itself had fallen into disrepute when the punishment exceeded the offence. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

said, it was well known that he was strongly in favour of the freedom of the Press, but it was also well known, he believed, that he was anxious for the accuracy of reporting. The pre-sent Bill attempted to reverse the principle of Lord Campbell's Act with regard to slanders and libels. The principle of Lord Campbell's Act was that whoever published a libel was liable to action or to indictment for that publication, and that law extended to the reports of speeches made—whether in that House, at public meetings, or in municipal assemblies—in fact, to all reports. Well, he held that that principle which Lord Campbell, who had himself been a reporter in the Gallery of that House, enacted when he became Lord Chancellor, was just and essential at once to the preservation of private character and to the restraint of the publication of matters defamatory or libellous. Now, the principle of this Bill was that the reporter should not be liable—he was not liable now—for what he reported as having been said by any speaker; and it went further, and said that the proprietor of a newspaper should not be liable for the report of anything contained in a newspaper, however defamatory or libellous. But the principle of the Bill was that the person who was reported to have spoken the words should be liable. Why, that rendered every speaker liable for the actions of persons who were not his agents, and over whose conduct he had no control. That was a manifest violation of the first principles of law and justice. He had seen in the Provincial Press reports of his own speeches which he could scarcely recognize, and even lately he saw in the papers five different versions of a speech which he made in that House that Session, and they all differed. Was he to be liable for what appeared in all those five different versions?