asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been given to a telegram from Lahore, published in the "Daily News" of Saturday last, and since repeated in the other daily papers, setting forth certain conditions as those of the British Government for the settlement of affairs in Afghanistan; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have received any official communication which will justify the statement sent by telegraph from Lahore on Saturday?

No, Sir; the statement is purely imaginary.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, seeing that there is an appeal to the Chemical Staff of the Somerset House Laboratory in cases where the analysis made by public analysts is disputed, If he will explain why there is not a similar reference to that laboratory in the case of a merchant who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Customs officers?

Sir, it is not quite correct to say that there is an appeal from the verdict of public analysts to the laboratory at Somerset House. What the Act of 1875 says is that upon the request of either party in a case, the justices, or Court of Appeal, may in their discretion cause any article of food to be sent to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for analysis. And I understand the object of this clause to have been to provide the Courts with the means of obtaining an independent scientific opinion, rather than that they should give a verdict against the opinion of a public analyst. At any rate, it gives no absolute right of appeal. In respect of tea, the Act puts the Commissioners of Customs in the position of a Court of Law. Their discretion is absolute and final; and as it is important that they should exercise that discretion promptly and without delay, it was probably thought right to keep the machinery by which they arrive at their decisions as simple as possible. So far as I am aware, exception has very rarely been taken to the decisions of the Board, and the present arrangements seem to me to work satisfactorily.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is true that part of the instruction formerly given at the Royal School of Mines in Jermyn Street has been transferred to South Kensington; whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to move the remainder of the school to South Kensington; and, if so, when; and, whether it was not declared by the Eight honourable W. E. Forster, on June 29th 1871, that no such removal as that referred to should be effected without previously submitting the question to the judgment of the House of Commons?

Sir, as much misconception seems to exist about what has been done to the Royal School of Mines in Jermyn Street, it would, perhaps, be as well if I were to state what has been done. Some years back the greater part of the instruction given at the School of Mines in Jermyn Street was transferred to South Kensington, where it was supplemented by laboratory and practical instruction, which could not be provided for in Jermyn Street. This removal was strongly advocated by the Commission upon Scientific Instruction, presided over by the Duke of Devonshire, and was also in accordance with the wishes of the Professors whose classes were so transferred. The only courses now remaining in Jermyn Street are those in metallurgy, mineralogy, and mining; and even with the addition of a hired house, and the location of the metallurgical laboratory outside the Museum, the space now occupied by the Museum and School of Mines in Jermyn Street is inadequate, and the arrangements in consequence far from convenient. We were last year informed by the Office of Woods and Forests that it was impossible, under any circumstances, to retain this house on the site upon which the metallurgical laboratory is beyond 1884; and as the immediate removal of the metallurgical class would give the additional space required inside the Museum, arrangements were made at once for this transfer. At present it is not our intention to move the remaining classes in Jermyn Street. I cannot find any answer by Mr. Forster in Hansard to the effect that the question of removal should be submitted to the House; but it seems to me clear that whatever answer was made in 1871 it referred only to the arrangements then in contemplation, and which were shortly afterwards carried out.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Report of the Indian Famine Commission is now in course of preparation in England or in India; and, if in England, how many of the Commissioners are now in this Country, particularly how many Native Members of the Commission; and, when it is probable that the Report will be presented?

in reply, said, the Report was in course of preparation in England. Five of the Commissioners were in England. No Native Members were here, as they excused themselves on account of the climate; but before any of the Members left India the Commission discussed and agreed upon the principal points to be reported on. The first part of the Report, dealing with measures for famine relief, will probably be presented this month, and the second and last part before Midsummer.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Government intend to bring in a Bill for carrying out the recommendation of the Select Committee which reported last Session in reference to consolidating and amending the Acts relating to the hall-marking of gold and silver manufactures?

Sir, the recommendation referred to in the Question of the hon. and learned Baronet has not been lost sight of at the Board of Trade; but, looking to the amount of Business which the Government have already undertaken during the present Session, they do not consider that it would be practicable to introduce a measure upon this rather complicated question with any hope of bringing it to a successful issue.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, How soon it is probable that the hoarding on the south side of Knightsbridge Barracks will be removed, so as to give the public the use of that part of the roadway which it now incloses?

in reply, said, that the Knightsbridge Barracks were not under the Office of Works, but under the War Department. He was, however, informed that the barracks would be completed by the end of April, when, of course, the hoarding would be removed, so as to give the public the benefit of that part of the roadway referred to.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can give any information to the House in reference to the reported suspension of negotiations between the Porte and Greece for a rectification of frontiers; and, if he will state when the promised Papers relating to this matter will be in the hands of Members?

in reply, said, that the Foreign Office had not heard that the negotiations in question had been broken off. They had heard that fresh proposals had been made by the Turkish Government to the Greek Government, but did not know what the details were. He hoped the Papers would be in the hands of hon. Members in a very few days.

asked the Lord Advocate, If he will arrange that the vacant office of Sheriff Substitute of Kinross shall not be filled up till there is an opportunity of considering whether the jurisdictions in Fife and Kinross cannot be re-arranged, so as to provide better for places more important than Kinross?

Sir, it is not intended to fill up the vacant office, because there will be no difficulty in making arrangements by which the whole judicial work of the county, which is a small one, may be efficiently performed. At present, what will be the best arrangement is a matter engaging the consideration of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and myself. I may say the office has been vacant upwards of a month, and a great many parties interested, or who conceive themselves to be so, have made representations on the subject; and I would suggest to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy whether he would not better attain the object he seems to have in view by asking those bodies he has referred to in the Question to make similar representations, instead of by putting a Question in so vague a form as he has done. Whilst an arrangement cannot be indefinitely delayed, I shall be very glad to receive any recommendations they have to suggest on the subject.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Why it is proposed to take Classes II. and III. of the Civil Service Estimates before Class I?

in reply, said, his hon. Friend must know very well that No. I. was very seldom taken first. Perhaps he might even say that it was the invariable mode to proceed in the order in which he had placed the Votes on the Paper.

said, he wished to put a Question to the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury with reference to a statement he made yesterday respecting the Post Office (Money Orders) Bill. He understood the hon. Baronet to say that he had postponed the Bill for a fortnight. When he brought the measure forward, would he object to move that it should be read a second time pro formâ, in order to give an opportunity of re-printing the Bill with the proposed Amendments, so that it might be made intelligible to the public? In its present state, he would defy anyone to understand it.

in reply, said, he was afraid he could not comply with the request of his hon. Friend. Last night he placed on the Table the Amendments which he intended to propose, and which would be printed and circulated as a separate Paper. After the Bill had passed the second reading, he would move that it should be re-committed pro formâ, with a view to its being re-printed with the Amendments.

Sir, I hold in my hand a Petition from Mr. Charles Edmund Grissell, and I desire to explain the circumstances under which I undertook to present it to the House. Two days before the commencement of the Session I received a letter from Mr. Grissell, in which he asked me whether I would agree to present a Petition for him relating to his case. My answer was that I thought it would be better that someone who was not a Member of the Committee to which the question had been referred should present the Petition; but, inasmuch as I understood him to say that in his Petition he would express great regret for what had happened and would submit himself completely to the House, I said I would so far take charge of the Petition as to present it. At the same time, I gave him no advice relative to the Petition, as to which he must consult his own friends. The day before Parliament assembled I received from Mr. Grissell a Petition which, it was clear to my mind, would not be considered by the House as satisfactory to them, and I accordingly wrote to Mr. Grissell, stating that the offence was so grave a one—much more than a mere fault as he had designated it—that my belief was that the House would not pass by the matter so easily as he seemed to imagine, and I was perfectly confident the House would expect him to make a much more complete submission than the language he had used in the Petition appeared to me to convey. From that day till yesterday I heard nothing from Mr. Grissell. Yesterday afternoon, in consequence, I suppose, of a Notice appearing upon the Paper referring to the subject, together with the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I received a letter from Mr. Grissell, asking whether I would grant him an interview. My answer was that it appeared to me that any interview would be useless, inasmuch as I could say no more to him than I had already told him in writing, and that, therefore, I must decline to see him. Since yesterday, and in the afternoon of this day, I have received a Petition which I think is fully respectful to the House, and, as I read it, completely submissive; and I, therefore, feel no hesitation whatever in presenting it to the House for their consideration. I will now move that the Clerk at the Table shall read the Petition.

Sir, there one or two observations which naturally occur to one in hearing the Petition which has just been read. In the first place, it would certainly have been more satisfactory if that Petition had been presented by Mr. Grissell on the first re-assembling of Parliament. He might then have seen the gravity of the offence which he committed last Session; and it would have been more satisfactory if he had, on his own motion, submitted himself and apologized to the House. Of course, another observation that might be made on the Petition itself is, Mr. Grissell scarcely sets out in full the nature or extent of the offence which he committed in disregarding the authority of the House. He speaks of a summons having been sent to him in August last; but, in point of fact, it was on the 22nd of July that Mr. Grissell was ordered to attend the House on the following day, the 23rd. On the 23rd of July, however, the Serjeant at Arms reported that Mr. Grissell was not in attendance, and he read a telegraphic message, from which it appeared that Mr. Grissell was at Boulogne. Mr. Speaker thereupon issued a Warrant for his apprehension, and on the 13th of August the Serjeant at Arms reported that he had taken Mr. Grissell into custody. On the 14th of August the House committed Mr. Grissell to Newgate for evading the execution of Mr. Speaker's Warrant, and on the following day Parliament was prorogued and he was discharged. The Petition, in setting forth the nature of the case, does not show really what the full circumstances were. I do not believe the House will feel any desire to be vindictive in such a matter; but, at the same time, I think it right that notice should be taken of this grave Breach of the Privileges of the House, and I will move the following Resolution:—

"That Charles Edmund Grissell, having evaded punishment for his offences against the Privileges of this House until the close of the last Session, he sent for in the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant accordingly; and that he be reprimanded, at the Bar, by Mr. Speaker, for his contempt of this House."

Sir, I do not think the House will desire now to discuss what further steps should be taken with regard to Mr. Grissell; but it seems to me that the course proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, at all events, the first step which should be taken, and, therefore, I beg to second the Motion.

said, it was very difficult for a private Member to offer an opinion of his own on such a delicate question as this after the Leader of the House had spoken; but as two points were combined in the same Resolution, he must say he ex- pected that Mr. Grissell would have made his appearance at the Bar of the House before any Resolution was come to as to what should be done to him. Although he cordially agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no hon. Member of the House would wish to appear vindictive in such a case, yet he could not help remembering that another gentleman, Mr. John Sandilands Ward, remained in custody for the space of 10 days; and it was not until he had made ample submission that he was, upon a medical certificate, released. He had pointed out at the time that there was a great danger of the lesser offender meeting with the severer punishment; and he feared that that would be the result of the adoption of the Resolution. He should have been glad, therefore, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Resolution had confined itself to commanding Mr. Grissell's presence at the Bar of the House.

said, it appeared to him that the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a proposal which, if it meant anything, meant that Mr. Grissell, if he would now allow himself to be taken into the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, and brought to the Bar of the House, would be let off with a reprimand by Mr. Speaker. He (Mr. Rylands) could not think that was by any means a course which it was desirable to pursue. He ventured to remind the Leader of the House that Mr. Grissell treated the House last Session with the greatest contempt, and that he had added to the offence by keeping out of the way, only delivering himself up at the very end of the Session. Indeed, he turned the whole proceedings into a farce. Under these circumstances, the proper course would be to pass a Resolution that Mr. Speaker issue his Warrant for Mr. Grissell's apprehension, and when he was in their custody—the House not having made any terms with him—they could then decide what should be done with him. [Cheers, and cries of "Move!"] He had not wished to move an Amendment; but as it seemed the feeling of the House, he would move that there be omitted from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Resolution the following words:—"And that he be reprimanded, at the Bar, by Mr. Speaker, for his contempt of this House."

I second the Amendment. The way the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to deal with Grissell seems to me altogether inadequate. I would remind the House that both Grissell and Ward have committed so serious a Breach of the Privileges of the House as can be conceived. They stated that they could influence a Committee of this House by corruption. The Select Committee that inquired into the matter, under the presidency of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Spencer Walpole), reported that they had been guilty not only of a Breach of the Privileges of the House, but also of perjury. One of the delinquents has been punished by the House; the other evaded the Warrant by going abroad, making no valid excuse as to his health, but remaining abroad till the evening of the day before the House was prorogued. He then gave himself up, and had received the nominal punishment of one night in Newgate. I understood from the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the end of the last Session that Grissell was sent to Newgate for evading the Warrant; and that that punishment did not purge him of the contempt of which he had been guilty. This is not a case of vindictiveness, but of just punishment: if ever a case called for punishment it is this. I know nothing about these men, and pray I never may. Considering them as A and B, they merited punishment. Grissell would not feel a reprimand, but would leave the House saying "You could not punish me; or you dared not." To bring a man of that sort to the Bar of the House to be reprimanded was virtually to inflict on him no punishment at all.

hoped the Amendment would be carried, as it was a very great improvement on the original proposal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford must, he (Mr. Evans) believed, think so too, for he had used the words that the course proposed to be taken by the Chancellor of the Exche- quer would the proper course to take "in the first instance." But if the Motion were carried as it at present stood, the House would feel itself bound in honour to go no further, when Mr. Grissell appeared at the Bar, than to reprimand him. He (Mr. Evans) very much questioned whether that was a sufficient punishment. He hoped no one would believe him likely to be actuated by vindictive feeling; but Mr. Grissell had set the authority of the House completely at defiance, and had acted in such a manner as to make the action of the House ridiculous to the outside world. That deserved more than a reprimand. They should bring him to the Bar, hear what he had to say, and then, after proper deliberation, they could decide upon what punishment they should inflict.

sincerely trusted the House would adopt the Amendment. How should they stand if the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his goodness and kindness of heart proposed, were to pass as it stood? The lesser offender, Mr. J. Sandilands Ward, had been substantially punished—atleast, so it was said; though he (Mr. Beresford Hope) did not think the punishment had been severe enough—for the House, in a very indulgent mood, making allowance for the ticking of the clock, let him off sooner than it perhaps ought. The greater offender was now before them, the person named in the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What was his offence? In the first place, as the Committee presided over by his right hon. Colleague had found, he had been guilty of what amounted to perjury as well as contempt of the House. In the next place, abiit, evasit, erupit, and went to Boulogne. When the Serjeant at Arms sent a messenger after him, he found this gentleman, who had to seek the sea air under a doctor's certificate, seemingly in good health. Anything more flagrantly insolent could not be imagined. This gentleman—or, rather, this person—having committed the grave offence of perjury, in the most impudent manner, ran off to Boulogne, laughing at the House, and because he was a clever adventurer, and there was undoubtedly such very grotesque elements in the case, they had laughed with him, and perhaps laughed a little too much—and so were now expected to leave out of account how he had exposed the Privileges and Prerogatives of this House to the contempt of all the world, and particularly of that class of society to which he himself belonged. Then, at the end of the Session, he came back in order to undergo the farce of a few hours in Newgate. Let them consider, besides, the history of the Petition sent in at the very last minute, and the higgling over it. The whole thing was impudent and offensive; one step aggravated another; one thing made the offender less worthy of their compassion than another. If they let him off with a reprimand, to which he would listen with his tongue in his cheek, they would expose the House to the ridicule and petty persecution of all other men whose views of business morality and getting on in the world were like those of Mr. Grissell.

said, that as a Member of the Committee the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done him the honour of communicating to him the proposal which it was intended to submit to the House; and he expressed, so far as he was concerned, his willingness to support that Motion. At the same time, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the feeling which had been strongly manifested on both sides, he would not consent to modify his proposition in the manner suggested?

I have not the smallest objection to take the course which has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson). What I feel on these questions is that it is, above all things, undesirable to outrun the sense of the House; and I therefore certainly made a proposal which I considered to be a mild one, but which I thought might, at all events, have received the assent of the House. I did so after communication with the right hon. Gentleman opposite and other hon. Gentlemen whom I thought it right to communicate with. It was a question of great doubt with them all whether the proposal I made would be sufficient to meet the circumstances of the case. It is perfectly evident, from the feeling of the House, that it would not be sufficient; and, therefore, I have no objection to consent to the omission of the words in the latter part of the Motion.

, in rising to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the existing Game Law Code, maintained for the purpose of preserving certain wild animals for sport, is unjust to the farmer, demoralizing to the labourer, and injurious to the whole community, and should therefore be abolished,"

said: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will acquit me of having unduly pressed the question of the Game Laws upon their attention, considering the immense importance which, in my opinion, attaches to them. I observe, somewhat to my surprise, that it is as much as nine years since I last introduced the question of their abolition. Finding on that occasion that I met with but small, and that not increasing support, while there also appeared but little desire to discuss the question at all, I felt that I should be doing less good by wearying the House by an annual Motion on the subject than by endeavouring to act on public opinion in the country, and I accordingly at once assisted in the formation of the Anti-Game Law League. I cannot claim full credit for not bringing on the question during the present Parliament, seeing that for the last two or three Sessions I have only been prevented from doing so by ill-fortune at the ballot. I am particularly glad, however, in having the opportunity of doing so now—first, because it is extremely desirable that in this last Session of an expiring Parliament the farmers, as well as other classes interested in the question, should have the opportunity, previously to the General Election, of seeing by the Division List what course is taken by their Representatives, and especially by the farmers' friends in this House—real or assumed. There is another reason why it is especially important that the question should now be discussed, seeing that for the last two or three years the shadow of agricultural distress has again come upon all parts of the country. We hear on every side of bankrupt farmers, of lowered production, and of unsatisfactory prices. We have heard recently, Sir, of numerous farms being to let, of diminished production, and increased prices; and it seems to me that it would be desirable that we should have an opportunity of discussing in this House whether this question which I have to introduce to your notice to-night, that of the Game Laws, is or is not an important element to be considered in the question of agricultural distress. I am not going to discuss agricultural distress this evening; I am only going, at present, to discuss the question of whether the Game Laws are one element in agricultural prosperity, and whether they are a potential element in the question of agricultural distress. I will afterwards proceed to discuss other questions to which this inquiry may lead. Now, I am quite aware, so far as I have learned the views of the farmers throughout the country, and so far as they must be disposed to speak their views through the various agricultural associations, that they do not seem to make a very strong point of the Game Laws in respect of agricultural distress. Perhaps that may partly proceed from what my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) thought so important in the position of these agricultural associations, that it was quite unnecessary for farmers to form themselves into independent bodies and farmers' alliances—namely, that in this agricultural discussion they had the enormous advantage of being under the presidency and influence of the local landed proprietor. I have certainly observed that where the farmers appear to be more free from these shackles of that partizan interest, they have spoken out with considerably more force, both with regard to the Land Laws and the Game Laws. I will, however, first proceed, with the permission of the House, to give a few reasons why I believe the Game Laws are a very active element in the question of agricultural distress. I will first call into the witness-box my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, who, on opposing my Motion on this subject in the year 1871, declared that—

"The landlord might let a farm at a high rent eat the tenant up with ground game, and ruin him, and yet he sure of every sixpence of his rent."—[3 Hansard, ccv. 1372.]

I take it there is a potentiality in that statement very serious for the farmers' interests. Another rather distinguished tenant farmer, Mr. J. Shephard, who gave evidence before the Committee in 1873, declared that "landlords have it in their power to ruin a tenant simply by a little negligence in respect to game." Happy farmers! If they have a malicious landlord they can easily be ruined, and if they have a negligent one they are pretty sure to be. Again, the hon. Member for South Norfolk says—

"In a great number of cases of insolvent farmers in Norfolk, their ultimate ruin is attributable to the over preservation of game."

It is surely hardly necessary for me to read any more extracts to show that there is a potentiality of danger to the farmers in this question of the Game Laws. Since this question of the distress of the farmers has been raised, many organs of popular opinion throughout the country have sent Special Commissioners down to inquire into the subject; and I will read two or three lines from a letter of the Special Commissioner of The Daily News, who was sent to the county in which I now live, Sussex. He says—

"It is principally of hares and rabbits that the greatest complaint is made, and by many farmers these latter are classed as vermin, the damage which they commit being, where they are allowed to accumulate, almost beyond measure, and their presence being altogether incompatible with even decent cultivation. But it is not the rabbits and hares alone which are so annoying, for if the winged game do not of themselves commit any serious injury, the keeping of them harbours rats, and wherever pheasants are fed, there, or else in the very near neighbourhood, will be found an accumulation of rats. The destruction of these pests is made the more difficult by the thickness and frequency of the cover afforded by the hedgerows, and this again is a cause of further complaint, besides the fact that the sporting landlord does not deem the damage committed by rats to be worthy of acknowledgment or compensation. The indifferent cultivation of the farms in this neighbourhood I have heard generally attributed to the preservation of game."

Again, a land agent, writing to The Land Agents' Record, which is, I believe, a valuable organ to all persons connected with the purchase or transfer of land, says—

"The relations of landlord and tenant at the present time are peculiarly interesting. Never within living memory have such a number of notices to quit been given by tenant farmers. Many landlords would prefer making largo reductions in rent to giving up the game; but if they are wise they will not retain such a source of annoyance and heart-burning in their midst. No one but those who have suffered from game and rabbits know the mischief and loss they inflict, or the angry feelings they daily arouse."

There is, perhaps, some hope of this matter interesting even landowners now, because the depression among the tenants seems to have spread even to the landlords; and we hear that they have many farms which they cannot let, or for which, in order to secure tenants, they are, at any rate, obliged to accept lower rents. One great landlord, says the Commissioner of The Norfolk News, has now 5,000 acres on his hands, and in every case game is the cause. An estate of 6,500 acres, of which 4,000 are on the landlord's hands, was lately put up for sale without finding a purchaser. Its prime element of value was that "21,000 head of game had been killed on it during the year." It is now come to this—"that the country will be uncultivated, or the head of game must be greatly diminished." I take it, Sir, that I have now made my first point that the Game Laws are potentially, at any rate, a question of enormous importance in the discussion of agricultural distress. But now, what are these Game Laws that we are met to discuss? A number of Gentlemen in this House speak of them as though they are very rational and reasonable laws, and say that if they did not exist now, we should have to do our best to create them at the earliest possible opportunity. That is not my view, and I will venture to give the House my explanation of what I understand them to be. They are laws which give a sanction to the old feudal principle of class privilege in regard to wild animals, permitting them to be used for the sport of one class. Of course, their effect is not in any way altered because the feudal is not the only principle now, and because the plutocracy has come in to share the privilege of the landed interest. I am not aware that the new landlords are likely to be any more careful of the interests of the farmers, or of the labourers, than the previous landlords were in old times. Blackstone says, and I cannot do better than quote his words—

"From this root (the Forest Laws) is sprung a bastard habit, known by the name of the Game Law; both alike were founded upon the same unreasonable notions of property in wild creatures, and both were productive of the same tyranny to the commons."

But the matter is worse than this; these wild animals belong to the community, they belong to the people of the country. Blackstone again upon this point says—

"It is indisputable that the wild denizens of the field marsh and forest, known to lawyers under the name of Ferœ naturœ, are the common property of men, be their degree what it may."

The wild land of the country, and the wild animals of the country, belong alike to the whole of the community, and if legislated for, can only be legislated for in the interests of the whole of the community. The peasant has just as much right as the Duke to hunt and kill and eat the wild animals of the country, always provided he does no damage to the land on which they are killed. But, then, this leads me to a more serious charge; and I declare that, in my opinion, I do not in the least exaggerate when I say that the Game Laws are a permanent statutory violation of the Common Law of the land, of common justice, and of common honesty. They enable the landlord to say to the farmer—"There is land which I let you at a certain rent under certain covenants; but between the lines you must read this—that when you have your stock, your cattle, your bullocks, and your sheep, or whatever else you may choose, on the land—that then another stock is to come upon it in indefinite quantities at my pleasure, and the hares and rabbits, vermin to the farmers, shall be placed on the land as I choose; and that there shall be only this peculiarity in this kind of property—that you shall pay for them while they remain mine." The landlord says to the labourer—much as other game preservers said 800 years ago when they made the New Forest—"Our pleasure is sport, cost what it may to the country; and we will retain our amusement by the power we have in the Legislature." What some landlords think of these laws I will show by a very few words from a landowner who is not ashamed to care for his peasantry—a statesman who is not ashamed to denounce abuses. The Marquess of Ailesbury, speaking at the Savernake rent audit recently, said—

"The peasant comes home to his cottage, and there is hardly enough to make a dinner for his wife and children; over the next hedge are a lot of half-tamed pheasants, and the temptation is too much for the hungry man, and he commits an offence which those wicked laws constitute a crime, for which he is to be sent to prison. How can any just man attempt to defend such laws? He did not often sit on a bench of magistrates; but whenever he had done so, and poaching cases had come before him, he had always treated them with the utmost leniency possible, because he felt the glaring injustice of the laws he was compelled to administer."

But this is approaching a word which is very dreadful under ordinary circumstances, and which, when it comes of the people, and is used of the property of the rich, goes under the ugly name of confiscation. You may say, how can it be confiscation when it is according to law? But there may be such a thing as legal confiscation. Let me give an illustration. There are land reformers going about the country, one of whose proposals, and one which is approved by large numbers of the population, is that the people should resume the land—that there should be no absolute fee-simple property in land. I say, if that measure were carried into effect without compensation to the landowners, that such an act of injustice and confiscation would be committed as was scarcely ever before known in the history of the world. But I will not admit that it is better when the property of the poor is taken for the benefit of the rich. It is then Socialism turned topsy-turvy, and not improved by the process. What is the difference? The Socialist would, by artificial legislation, take from the rich for the supposed benefit of the poor. Your Game Law system, under equally artificial legislation, takes from the poor for the pleasure and amusement of the rich. These Game Laws that we maintain so snugly have, indeed, nothing like them in the civilized world. France and Germany have equalled, if not surpassed, us, in the infamy of their Game Laws; but the Revolution of 1789 put a stop to them in France, and the Revolution of 1848 ended them in Germany. I know it is said that there are Game Laws all over the world, and the Reports of certain Consuls and Envoys have been published, in order to show that to be the fact; but I maintain that anyone who reads those Reports fairly will see that there is none of them to compare in severity or atrocity with the Game Laws in existence in this country. Recollect that many elements must be taken into consideration; and I say, taking all those things into account, there is not a country in the world disgraced by a Game Law system such as ours. I shall be told there is a Game Law in America. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), have come back from that country, with a wondrous story that Republican America has a Game Law system. I have heard my hon. Friends spoken of for this assertion as "the Innocents Abroad." I do not think this is quite a true joke, and I think they rely too much on our innocence at home. I suppose my hon. Friends have got a catalogue raisonné of the dreadful deeds done there in America. But have they found there such a thing as farmers imprisoned and subjected to hard labour for snaring a rabbit outside their own hedges, or a list of criminals to compare with the 10,659 criminals made in one year by our Game Laws here? It is not a very easy thing to speak of a Game Law system in America, where every State makes its own laws; but, nevertheless, bold as it seems, I will challenge my hon. Friends, and I will assert that there is no Game Law from one end of the United States to another, in the sense in which we use the term, or in which it has any meaning at all. It is quite true that the Americans preserve all the wild animals of the country as we do, quite apart from our Game Laws; that they have laws and systems by which they protect the whole ferœ naturœ of the country; and that they are patriotic enough to care for picturesqueness. and for scientific discovery. But that is not a Game Law. It is true they preserve blackbirds, sparrows, and other birds; but that is not a Game Law either. When the late lamented Mr. Motley was here from America as their Minister he took great interest in this question; and I got a letter from him, four lines of which I will read, with the permission of the House. After describing their laws with regard to wild animals, he says—

"Practically, however, this legislation is in the interest, not of an aristocratic class—for there is none in the United States—but of the farmers and labourers, who own the land, and who do not object to its being shot over, except when the trespasser, by so doing, damages growing or standing crops. Our Game Laws are not aristocratic, but democratic or scientific."

I can tell my hon. Friend and hon. Gentlemen opposite that amongst the things which astonish educated Americans when they come here—for many of them have told me so themselves—is the theory and practice of our Game Laws. They cannot understand that there should be a class in England that seeks to maintain them, and, worse still, a population that will endure them. That to them is one of the most astounding things they meet anywhere. As regards the question of the extent of the traffic in game, I had a curious illustration in a circular sent me the other day. It appears that large profits are made by the letting of land for game, and this circular comes from a shooting agency in Fleet Street. I am told that there are others, and that this gentleman is by no means one of the largest, yet he has for patrons two Dukes, six Earls, four Lords, ten Baronets, plenty of esquires—and all Scotch proprietors. The shooting he offers—and he is by no means the largest agent—amounts to nearly 1,000,000 square acres sacrificed to game. Some of the conditions of which he speaks in regard to the various properties are instructive and amusing. Mr. So and so

"will send his list post free to a carefully-selected list of gentlemen, numbering several thousands, and embracing most of the aristocracy, the Members of the House of Commons, and the leading professional and mercantile men over the Kingdom."

These are the notes in which he describes the various properties he has to let:—

(No. 1) "Securely fenced off from sheep." (No. 2) "Facilities would be afforded by the proprietor for gradually removing the present sheep stock." (No. 3) "Episcopal church on the property, where a clergyman generally officiates—during the sporting months." (No. 4) "The forest is amply stocked with deer, having been cleared of sheep for 40 years. It is stipulated that no sheep shall be kept on the ground by the lessee. The proprietor reserves power to destroy hares and rabbits for the protection of his young plantations."

[Laughter.] Yes, of course, he would destroy the hares and rabbits to protect his young plantations. If he were as ready to destroy them to protect the crops of his farmers, hon. Gentlemen opposite would have more right to cheer.

(No. 5) "The lands, as a whole, would form an excellent deer forest, being in the immediate neighbourhood of lower cleared land."

Oh, happy farmers! who enjoy the lower cleared lands where this deer forest is to be created.

(No. 6) "No keepers required, as estate is surrounded by carefully preserved lands."

Does it not strike hon. Members that this is one of the most remarkable illustrations that could possibly be made by the statement that in politics, as in other things, extremes meet? Here we have, in this little island of ours, from the effects of what you may call over-civilization, from the enormous accumulation of wealth, from our manufactures, from the monopoly of land, and from various other things, precisely those evils re-produced that hitherto have only been supposed to exist in the wildest and most desolate regions, and amongst the most savage barbarians. When we see accounts of the Red Indian driven back by the Anglo-Saxon in America—back from the lands that his forefathers owned, back and still farther back—we pity him, for it is all that we can do. We recognize, as a fatality of history, that the savage must pass away before the Anglo-Saxon and civilization. Agriculture has to be spread; cities have to be founded; arts and sciences follow in their wake; and how can the Red Indian live with them? He requires thousands and tens of thousands of acres of prairie for his buffaloes to roam; he needs a trackless forest for the wild animals on which he lives, and by whose skin he is clothed; he requires for his own wants what would provide for 10,000 men, and so he must pass from the world. But what shall we say, when we come to our own little island swarming with humanity as ants swarm in an ant hill, and find that here we have a system which is incompatible with the existence of the Red Indian in America actually growing up on our own shores? Estates, parishes, divisions—yes, even counties in Scotland—are being sacrificed to this passion. These game-preserving magnates are as much out of their place—nay, far more out of it—than the Red Indian in the back woods of America. They are in a false position, and, for the sake of themselves and their country, the sooner they come out of it the better, for the people will not long permit such an anomaly—such an injustice—even though wooed by the siren strain of that well-known couplet, which I will venture slightly to paraphrase, and say—

"Let wealth and learning, laws and commerce, die,

But leave us still our game monopoly."

Now, Sir, as to the question, of the damage done to the farmers, it is not, of course, for me to say what it may be, for I am no agriculturist; but I have obtained from agricultural authorities what they think it to be, and it appears from their statement that the damage is so enormous as to be positively incalculable. Mr. Wright, a valuer in the county of which I have the honour to represent the chief town—Leicestershire—says that he allowed between £800 and £900 to one tenant, and that on some parts of the land the allowance was £12 to £13 an acre. Mr. Hewitt, at the Sussex Chamber of Agriculture, said, as regards rabbits, that—

"Last year he made a valuation of a certain farm of the damage done by rabbits. He put it down, and was confirmed in his opinion by others, at £25 per day. These rabbits entirely destroyed the crops, and the farmer had to plough up his fields."

With regard to the damage done to agriculture by hares, the Agricultural Commissioner of The Daily News in Lincolnshire says—

"Game depredation means that anywhere in the neighbourhood of coverts you get three quarters of barley per acre instead of five. Your wheats are damaged by hares and rabbits in a way which makes the estimation of damage rather difficult. Hiding past a crop you might think it level and upstanding; but go into it, and you find innumerable tracks leading to plots which are oaten down and thus cleared as playgrounds. Rabbits nibble the roots and stems of young quick, and destroy scores of yards together of good hedgerows, in addition to which the keepers ruin the hedges in innumerable places in digging after the ferrets when catching rabbits."

Now, my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk and South Leicestershire must be able to correct me if I am wrong in all this; and if I am not, I want to know what alternative they have to propose? The Agricultural Commissioner of The Daily News says, again—

"I heard of one case in which a field of turnips, lying far away from any other roots, was wholly consumed by flocks of hares, insomuch that the tenant, in an ironical mood, wrote this note to the landlord:—'Please send a load of turnips or the hares will starve.'"

At a lecture given in Sussex, at the Botley Farmers' Club, on "Hindrances to Agricultural Progress," one gentleman said—

"There can be no doubt that the loss by game of agricultural produce, irrespective of impediments to the cultivation, is enormous. It is not disputed by practical men that at present only one farm in five can be rented free of the game, and, probably, this freedom applies only to one-eighth of the leased land in the Kingdom."

But people say that, so far as the farmer is concerned, he has compensation if he can prove damage. Well, in the first place, I must premise that this is not simply a question between the landlord and the farmer. Even supposing that the farmer can be satisfied with the compensation which he receives, the country and the labourer would still remain to be reckoned with. But everybody who has ever studied the matter knows for a fact that compensation to the farmer for loss by game is simply a sham. Mr. Gray, of Dilston, declared that he never knew a farmer get half what he was entitled to; and a farmer must be a very prosperous man if he can boar to venture into the Law Courts against his landlord. Here is what happened to one of them.

"The owner of the estate lived far away, and the shooting got into the hands of a lot of lawyers, who soon had it filled with ground game. In one case a tenant was noted for his trim, well-kept hedges—they were like garden fences. These were all pulled up by the game preservers, and stuck into the ground to prevent poaching by nets. Sheep grazing in the field got the thorns fast in their wool, and they became almost wild with the annoyance. The farmer, too, was almost wild with the damage done to his growing crops. He got the damage valued, and sued the parties, getting a satisfactory verdict; but the lawyers took the case to a higher and more expensive Court, and there the original verdict was reversed. The farmer was condemned in all costs, and he was financially ruined, finishing all up by taking poison."

[Laughter.] I am very sorry that the fact of a farmer being driven to suicide by these Game Laws should be a matter for laughter amongst hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Benches, who, I thought, always prided themselves on being the farmers' friends. But then we are told that this can be dealt with by freedom of contract. I have already pointed out that even if the farmers were satisfied it does not follow that the country should be; but I may also say that there are various kinds of freedom of contract, and there are various ways of acquiescence in a particular course. The freedom of contract allowed to the farmer is of much the same kind as the freedom allowed to the convict when the hangman taps him on the shoulder and points the way to the gallows. He does not resist; he says not a word, and he goes quietly because he knows his case is settled. Be it remembered there is no class in the country whose position is more hopeless than that of the farmer. A trader can take his capital and invest it in some other business; but the farmer knows no other trade than that to which he has been brought up, and he must put up with any injustice or be turned out of his land, and left to his only other remedy—that of emigration. A most amusing illustration of the idea that farmers are free to contract is shown by the condition of the Scotch and the English Game Laws. Here, if a lease is silent respecting game, the property in it resides in the occupier; in Scotland, if there is no clause in the lease, it resides in the landlord, and nobody cares twopence whether it is the one or the other, because the landlord has only to nod or wink, and that is just as good as a clause in the lease. If the law gives him the game he keeps it, and if it does not he takes it. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), from the line of examination which he pursued before the Committee, is evidently of opinion that the landlord should get all he can for his property, and that if he can get more money by growing deer than by growing corn or sheep he is perfectly free to do so. That is a novel way of asking a question often asked before—"Am I not entitled to do what I like with my own?" It is scarcely worth while asking that question now. But the question may be answered in one of two ways. First, you may not do what you like with your own; or, secondly, you may do what you like with your own; but your land is not the sort of property with which you can do as you like. Then we are told continually that we are interfering with the sentimental relation between landlord and tenant, and disturbing that blessed harmony which is supposed to exist between the two. Those who talk in that sort of way must be rather surprised at the number of cases in which there have been meetings of farmers to express sympathy and to give testimonials to evicted farmers. I take it that the case of Mr. Hope, of Fenton Barns, is not forgotten in the farming world; and I may add to that two little illustrations which I have in my notes. Mr. Claydon, an Essex farmer, holding 1,000 acres, whose family had been 70 years on the farm, was evicted because he would not submit to a clause preventing him from shooting rabbits, or catching rats in banks. Mr. Clark, a tenant farmer in Norfolk, said at his auction—

"My fathers have resided here nearly 100 years. I leave "because, in my landlord's own words, I have been disposed to discuss the question of game. I trust that the time is fast approaching when the tenant farmers will support each other in this matter."

Now, I call upon my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk and South Leicestershire to stand forward as the champions of that cause. I have now dealt with the way in which these laws affect the farmers—next let me say a few words as to the labourers. I have endeavoured to divide what I have to say into various portions, so as to show how these laws affect various classes in the community; but I am quite aware that it is very difficult to make that division a perfect one, because these divisions must necessarily run into each other. That which is injurious to the farmer cannot be beneficial to the community or to the labourer. Still, I make this division for convenience, and I will repeat myself as little as possible. Now, with regard to the labourer, what strikes one first, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) said some time ago, is that these Game Laws confine his right in his native land to the highways. He and his family and his children can no longer walk by the woods, or pick the wild flowers, or find birds' nests. If a man goes on the land he is accused of poaching, and if women or children venture there they disturb the game. As Mr. Joseph Arch, that eloquent defender of his class, has said—

"These laws destroy the produce of the labourers' gardens, and make the very existence of small freeholds an impossibility to the labourer, because these little oases are disgusting to the landlord. No more is it open to the labourer or his family to wander by the brook or in the glen in search of flowers, blackberries, or birds' nests—the man himself is charged with poaching, and his family, at least, disturb the game."

But, above all, the damage done to the labourer is that these laws are wholesale manufacturers of crime. Upwards of 10,000 criminals suffered last year under the laws. Nothing more disastrous can be done to the community or to humanity than to make people disrespect the law, by setting the law to punish, as a crime, that which their conscience does not tell them is a sin. They may, indeed, go innocently into the gaol the first time; but facilis descensus averni, and having been there once they are pretty sure to go there again. "Oh," I have heard gentlemen say, "poachers, scoundrels, thieves; if they don't take our game, they would take our poultry or something still more valuable." ["Hear, hear!"] I am very sorry to hear that cheer, because the assertion is one utterly without foundation. There is no class in the country at the present time which regards poaching as a crime, any more than smugglers in the old days of the Revenue Laws regarded smuggling as a crime. How could it be regarded as a crime? It would be a disgrace to the country gentlemen if it were, because it is an offence which they are continually committing themselves. Mr. Young, the Secretary to the Board of Excise, said in his testimony before the Committee—"A great many gentlemen shoot all the year without taking out a licence." I had also a list sent me of gentlemen who had shot without a licence. What does a country gentleman do if he wishes to have an enormous number of pheasants? He obtains them from somebody—I will not say he steals them, because that would be to accuse him of a crime—but I will say he procures them. Lord Stradbroke, writing to The Times two or three years ago, said—

"Only yesterday a box containing pheasants' eggs was sent from a station in East Suffolk addressed to the gamekeeper of a noble Earl in Scotland, and I can prove that such boxes are continually sent by a notorious receiver to different places in England."

Now, I say it would be a libel on the country gentlemen of England who are addicted to this practice if I did not maintain that they themselves do not think poaching a crime. The other day a chairman of a bench of magistrates was fined for a breach of the Game Laws for killing pheasants three weeks before they were in season. It may be asked, was there not a great outcry of public opinion? There was. But the public opinion was not against him for violating the Game Laws which he was there to administer—and, I am told, was wont to administer with something more than usual severity—his neighbours were angry that he should do so mean a thing as to shoot before the time pheasants, which had not been turned into a preserve and slightly tinged with wildness. The Chairman of the Board of Conservators, in Wales, writes—

"My experience is that everyone, from the highest to the lowest, has a sympathy with the poacher, and willingly purchases without asking questions. I could tell you of clergymen, medical men, leading solicitors, in a large way of business, trades people, and others who all supply themselves from this source."

Is it not rather mean, with evidence such as that before us, to brand the lowest class of poachers with being criminals and thieves? I think it is hardly worthy of gentlemen. The next thing to which I wish to call your attention is the astonishing violence with which these laws are maintained. Shakespeare tells us that "things bad begun make strong themselves by ill." The wonder is the country should endure the brutal violence with which these laws are carried out. I will give one or two instances. At Bridlington Petty Sessions two poachers were charged with night poaching; and Green, a game watcher, was charged with shooting one of them. Stanion, a keeper, called to Appleby, a poacher, to stop, or he would warm him. He then ordered Green to fire, and Green took deliberate aim at Appleby, who dropped down. He was examined by Dr. Alison, who found that he had 48 gunshots lodged in his thigh, back, and the right side of his head. That is hardly the way in which the law should be administered in a civilized country—to say nothing of a Christian country. Again, a head-keeper was watching with his under-keeper and two other men in a wood. A couple of mock pheasants had been placed in a tree, and the keepers were near the spot. About half-past in the morning they saw several men coming up the ride, who went towards the tree where the mock pheasants had been placed, and directly afterwards shots were fired. Now, a great deal has been said against England as a nation of shopkeepers; but this is surely much worse than mere shopkeeping. If a tradesman hung up pewter spoons made to imitate silver ones, and, when a thief came to steal them, he fired at him, he would surely be hung if the man so shot died of his injuries. Here is a case from Mildenhall, in Suffolk. On the men seeing the keeper they ran off. He then let loose an immense mastiff, 22 inches high, partially muzzled, which succeeded in catching Mutum, and pulled him down. Whilst Mutum was defending himself from the attack of this dog, which Wharfe, the keeper, admitted was a ferocious one, he was struck on the head, stunned, and secured. Prisoners said they had both been bitten by the dog, and Mutum complained of being severely struck by Wharfe whilst trying to keep the dog off. The Bench, in consideration of the severe punishment they had received from the keepers, mitigated the punishment to two months' imprisonment, and sureties for 12 months. We have all heard, I suppose, of the cases in Wales last year, which really, in some parts of the country, almost amounted to civil war on a small scale. There was a fight between the keepers and the poachers, and the latter barricaded themselves in a stable and were besieged. A Correspondent of The Times sends an interesting incident of what occurred in Barbadoes during the administration of Mr. Pope Hennessey. In speaking of that gentleman I should like, in passing, to say how much individually I respect him, because, wherever he may be, he seems to carry equal justice and humanity to the people over whom he is placed. The Times Correspondent writes—

"I have heard but of one complaint against the troops. It was that of a planter who declared that the soldiers had misbehaved themselves, because, though his rabbits and pigeons had been stolen, they had not shot a single nigger."

That unfortunate planter was in a wrong position. He should not have been a planter in Barbadoes, but a landlord in England. God knows we show little respect in shooting our niggers when after rabbits or pheasants—so little, indeed, that Canon Kingsley, no hater of the aristocracy or true sport, was stung into writing, in his well-known ballad of the "Poacher's Widow," what hon. Gentlemen opposite may, perhaps, deem a severe condemnation—

"There's blood on your new foreign shrubs, squire;

There's blood on your pointer's feet.

There's blood on the game you sell, squire,

And there's blood on the game you oat."

I say, again, that there is nothing like the Game Laws in any country in the world for severity or atrocity. I will go further, and say there is no other portion of our criminal jurisdiction equalled in the partiality, harshness, and absolute illegality with which they are administered. At the South Eastern Circuit, at Lewes, before the Lord Chief Justice, it appeared that when the keepers went out to watch they took with them a large dog to hunt poachers, which ran after them, and attempted to bite one of them. It has always been thought that the use of dogs for hunting men was confined to the interior of Jamaica; but we now find that we have improved on all these things. The Lord Chief Justice then observed that the use of a dog for such a purpose was most improper, and if keepers were proved to have allowed a savage dog to worry a man, although he might be a poacher, they would get themselves into serious trouble. Only, unhappily, it appears that these keepers never do get themselves into serious trouble. Later on it appeared that after a scuffle between the keepers and three men who were trespassing in search of game, the latter ran off, followed by the keepers, and one of the latter knocked a poacher down who was running away. The Lord Chief Justice again interfered, and told the keeper he had no right whatever to do that. He had no doubt that the stick used was not a light one, and he might have killed the man. If he had, his offence would at least have been manslaughter, and possibly something even more serious. He advised the keepers to be careful in future, and not to repeat such acts of violence. ["Hear, hear!"] Why this squeamishness on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite? Surely their expression of feeling is out of place. Do they deny that they send out bands of armed watchers to arrest and fight the poachers, and if they do, that they admit all that has here been said? Here is another case, tried only last month at Liverpool, before Lord Coleridge. The poacher ran away. He usually does run away; and, indeed, if he can get off, he of course prefers to do so. The gamekeeper fired at him, and hit him in the back; another shot was then fired, but he could not say whether it hit him or not. He went into the wood and became insensible, and lay there until he was found some time after by the keepers. After he recovered he was brought up, and imprisoned for 14 days for poaching. All honour to Lord Justice Coleridge, who, in sentencing the gamekeeper who thus wounded the poacher, said that although poachers were engaged in a pursuit that was a violation of the law their lives must be protected, and sentenced the gamekeeper to 12 months' hard labour. That surely was not a great punishment for a deliberate attempt to murder. If that poacher had died, I know no reason why that man should not have been put in the dock and tried for murder, and why his employer should not have stood by his side as an accessory to the murder before the fact. In truth, one great advantage of the abolition of the Game Laws would be that the door which opens on the gallows would no longer be slammed in the face of such unquestionable deserts. The Marquess of Ailesbury, speaking of this sort of dealing with poachers, said that through these iniquitous laws four persons had lost their lives in that neighbourhood—two policemen murdered, and two men were hanged for the murder. He said to his brother—

"Thank God it was not on our estate; how could we ever have justified ourselves in our own eyes again had our game preserving-brought about such a horrible catastrophe?"

Next, as to my second charge against the Game Laws—the enormous and prodigious penalties by which they are enforced. I will not trouble the House with many illustrations; but I will just quote this case. An old man named Harrison was charged at the Evesham Petty Sessions with having shot at a rabbit near his allotment ground. That was surely not a very severe offence, and the defendant was strongly recommended to mercy by the complainant, on the ground that he had served his country as a soldier with credit. For this offence the poor old man was sentenced to pay 40s. and costs, and, in default of payment, was sentenced to two months' hard labour in Worcester Gaol. I may mention, for the comfort of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the fine was afterwards paid, and the man released. In another case, reported by The Scotsman, where the defendant, a farm servant, was convicted of what the Sheriff termed merely a "technical offence," he was fined Is. and ordered to pay £5 expenses. In another, at Epsom, a defendant who pleaded guilty to having been on land in search of rabbits, was sentenced to three weeks' hard labour, personal security for £10, two sureties £5 each, or in default six months' imprisonment. Now, I may appeal to the House whether there is any portion of our criminal jurisdiction whatever where offences are punished with such tremendous severity? I have charged that the Game Laws are administered with great partiality. That needs no proof. Of course they are partially administered, because they are administered by the very class who have an interest in the laws they maintain. I have not a word to say against the country gentlemen. They are Englishmen, no better and no worse than their fellows, put in a thoroughly false position; and probably do no worse and no better than any other class in an equally false position would do. Who would consent, in an issue between employer and workmen, to allow the jury to be composed altogether of masters or of tradesmen? The thing is ridiculous. The point is, indeed, very well put by The Saturday Review, when it says—

"The magistrate who convicts a thief acts in the interest of every man in the court. The magistrate who convicts a poacher commonly acts in the interest of nobody but those on the bench. The number of magistrates who would consciously pervert the law to convict a poacher is probably very small; but the number of magistrates who unconsciously carry to the bench the passions of the preserve is very large."

Now, with respect to the question of general damage, I do not know what specific evidence I can bring. I should say that the curse of sterility is on these laws. If he is blessed who makes two blades of corn grow where only only one grew before, then he who only allows two to grow where there were previously three, is ^**—well, he is the other thing. I will not attempt to calculate the damage. I have hoard it put at £10,000,000. I have heard it put at £50,000,000, and at a great deal more. It is, in fact, simply incalculable, varying greatly with the season, the locality, and above all, with the caprice of the landlord. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), in writing to a gentleman on another subject, said—

"I look upon an augmentation of the supply of animal food, in whatever way it can best be effected, as the most important, perhaps, of all the questions of purely material interest which now press themselves on public attention."

In view of that statement, I venture to ask my right hon. Friend whether the abolition of the Game Laws has not now become one of the most important of all the questions of purely material interest that now press themselves on public attention? But when we are told by Mr. Caird that we consume annually £107,000,000 of imported agricultural produce every year, what possible excuse can there be for turning loose these hares and rabbits which consume such enormous quantities of its food? My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) declared some years ago that 40,000 more sheep could be easily kept in Norfolk if hares and rabbits were only kept within reasonable bounds. Another reason which I would quote beside the positive injury done to the farmer, and the injury to every class of the community, is the fact that the Game Law system is utterly incompatible with high farming. It is obvious it must be so, and the larger the crop the greater the power of vermin to damage it. I say there can be no doubt that enter-prizing farmers will hardly care to invest much in a farm where a large head of game is preserved. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, if hon. Gentlemen want my authority I will mention that Mr. Pusey said before the Committee of 1846—

"I have seldom had less on my hands than 2,000 acres, and I have inclosed 4,000 acres of waste. I found the two occupations of a game preserver and an improver of land by planting and farming perfectly incompatible."

Again, he says, as a sort of illustration of the damage done by game—

"I allowed my gamekeeper to have four acres of land near the covers rent free; but he was obliged to give it up, the game injured him so much."

Actually a little spot of land round these covers, given to a man rent free, was absolutely valueless. Now my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) said, on the last occasion when this matter was debated in this House, that all this talk was very well before the Corn Laws were repealed, but that now they were repealed, and we had the power of getting free corn from all parts of the world, it was ridiculous to talk about the damage to the community by this loss. That is so bad an argument that I hardly know how to answer it; but I will try to do so by venturing on an illustration. You tie a man's two arms behind his back and turn him out. He rebels, protests, objects, and, as a matter of great favour, you cut one arm free. Growing bolder by this concession, he asks to have the other freed, and then you say—"Ungrateful scoundrel, did not I free one arm, and here you have the impudence to ask for the other?" Please God we will free both arms before long! There is one other point to which I should wish briefly to allude—the utter disturbance of all the usual processes of nature by your system of Game Laws. In order to keep up your game, you destroy all kinds of predatory birds and animals; and you not only so lose great pictures queness in the country, and destroy scientific interest, but you do positive injury to the farmer through the increase of things which these creatures would naturally prey upon. While you destroy hawks, weasels, and owls, the farmer is eaten up by pigeons, rats, &c. No one knows more about this matter than the Rev. F. O. Morris, and he writes—

"Six stacks of corn were thrashed out on one day and one the following, and no less than six stone of mice were destroyed on the occasion, besides the number killed by dogs—in all some 2,000 killed in two days or less, on a portion only of the stacks at one farmstead. The rats feed in the winter on the corn put down in the woods for the pheasants, and increase and multiply to a ruinous extent. Their natural enemies—the weasels, stoats, owls, kestrels, and other hawks—are most cruelly destroyed by pole traps, and others set on the ground. As for the damage done by hares and rabbits to growing-crops in fields adjoining woods, it is most grievous."

Why, the fact is, in any other country than ours, did such a nuisance affecting the life and property of the nation exist, we should put a price upon the head of these vermin and destroy them. In the next paragraph will hon. Members please read for "tigers" the word "hares." Dr. Hunter, the Director General of Statistics to the Government of India, states that the ravages of tigers form one of the obstacles to the extension of civilization. Already the Indian Government offers large premiums for the destruction of wild animals; and those Nawabs and Rajahs who still pride themselves upon retaining preserves of savage beasts for hunting purposes ought to subordinate the gratification of their tastes to the public welfare. In Australia they are nearly devoured by rabbits, and accordingly the Legislature has interfered and passed a Rabbit Suppression Bill. They have authorized the common "Shire Councils" to levy a rate of 1d. per acre to defray the expense of killing them. All brushwood fences in a rabbit district are to be burnt down, at the option of the Inspectors; and anyone turning rabbits loose is liable to a fine of £10 for each offence. Now, Sir, I may be asked why I go in for so extreme a measure?—why I do not attempt something moderate, which I should have a chance of carrying? My answer in the first place is, that no modification of the Game Laws can effect any good purpose, for this precise reason—that all the evils that I have described arise from the prodigious head of "game," and nothing but a destruction of a large part of this enormous amount of game can effect the purposes desired. My Motion is also moderate in the sense that it would destroy two extremes—it would put down the battue system, and would take away all employment from the poacher. Now, I am not alone in this opinion. Lord Hatherley stated—

"I do not believe that the great grievance arising from the Game Laws can be relieved by any palliations, and therefore they must be entirely got rid of."

And my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Greene)—to whose genial criticism I should have been very happy to be subject this even- ing—said on the last occasion I brought this subject forward—

"That there was no step between the maintenance of the Game Laws and the proposals on the subject by the hon. Member for Leicester. Either it was right that game should be preserved or it was wrong. If it was wrong, the system should be attacked."

Now I know it is the fashion to attempt to frighten farmers by talking about the dangers of trespass; but the dangers of trespass have nothing to do with the matter. I am not now discussing the trespass laws—they may or they may not be sufficiently stringent—but this I know—that if the Acts which I propose to abolish were done away with there would be less temptation to trespass than there is now—as the farmers will very quickly see when they have no landlords to preside over their deliberations. For instance, Mr. Hewitt said at the Sussex Chamber of Agriculture—

"Lord Malmesbury said if the Game Laws were abolished, the fact would necessitate a severe trespass law, and increase the rural constabulary by some 10,000 or 15,000 men. ["Oh, oh!"] He was glad to hear that significant cry, for he believed there was not a tenant farmer in the hall who was so insane as to put any credence in the reckless statement of Lord Malmesbury. As farmers they knew that if the temptations to poach were removed that crime would gradually decrease."

I will also quote on this point the testimony of another gentleman, who, with the exception of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) has done more than anyone against these atrocious laws—the late Mr. Welford. He said—

"No trespasses other than game trespasses are ever committed in England which the law does not effectually prevent or punish. But a trespass law for the purpose of protecting game—or making privileged certain kinds of wild creatures—is a demand to which no tolerance should be given. There is nothing that would do more to sweeten the breath of rural society, and pave the way for goodwill and right feeling amongst all classes in our agricultural districts, than the repeal of the Game Laws."

Now, the impossibility of dealing in a small way with these Game Laws is also fully illustrated by the fact that, after all the inquiries and Committees that we have had, nothing has been done. The fact that I have alluded to, of the impossibility of really diminishing the evils of the Game Laws by so-called moderate reforms of them, perhaps accounts for the fact that so little has been done to carry out the recommendations adopted in the Reports of either of the Committees of 1846 and 1873, and that little has been practically useless. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. M'Lagan) is to be complimented upon the zeal and energy with which he carried through his Game Laws Amendment (Scotland) Act. I am sure he will agree with me that, useful as, no doubt, his Act will be, he only touched the fringe of the subject, for it really only tended to give a little compensation to farmers and to tenants, and transferred the tribunal from the justices to the sheriffs. In regard to the recommendations of the Committees to which I have alluded I will just mention the abolition of cumulative penalties. This was recommended in both Reports, but remains untouched. Regarding rabbits as vermin, as recommended in the Report of 1873, nothing has been done. The abominable system under which the informer gets half the penalty—a gross injustice to the accused, and a terrible temptation to the gamekeeper—this, too, was recommended to be altered by both Committees, but remains untouched. But finally, if the House will allow me, I will give it the most extraordinary illustration of the impossibility of obtaining any reform of the Game Laws that can possibly be imagined. The House is already aware that the punishment for night poaching is of the most severe and atrocious character. For poaching at night without threatening violence a man may be sentenced to 14 years' penal servitude; and for just taking a rabbit at night, with no intention of violence at all, the penalty is seven years' penal servitude. The first Committee, in 1846, recommended that that atrocious punishment should be modified. In the Report of the Committee of 1873, drawn up by a late Colleague of the Government (Mr. Ward Hunt), a similar recommendation was passed. No notice was taken of it in this House. There was a curious little incident showing the feeling in regard to the Game Laws which took place last year. A Scotch farmer was subjected to an atrocious punishment for trying to snare a hare just outside his own hedge. A Scotch Member brought up a question on the subject; and the Secretary of State for the Home Department said he was prepared to bring in a Bill to modify that law. He did bring in a Bill, declaring that when there was no evidence whatever that violence was committed or was intended, that the punishment for night poaching should be reduced to what it would have been if the offence had been committed in the day time. I at once rose and suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that, however desirable it might be thus to assist the Scotch farmers, the English farmers had every right to the same privilege, and that he surely would not dream of passing a Bill for Scotland which did not extend to England. After some consultation, the Lord Advocate frankly accepted that alteration, and promised if I would withdraw my opposition to the second reading that he would pledge himself to bring in a Bill extending the change to Great Britain. I was, unfortunately, ill at that period, and had no opportunity of watching exactly how the matter went; but I know, in the first place, that this fairly moderate piece of legislation was altered down to absolute nothingness and meaninglessness. It was provided, in the first place, that the poacher must be alone, and. that he must have no nets with him; so that it amounted to this—that if he proved he was not a poacher he should only be punished as if he had been caught in the day time. But that change was too strong for the Government Bench, and the Bill was officially burked at 7 o'clock in the morning one day in August. No doubt it may be said when the Government saw it had been reduced by their Friends to so simple a matter they resolved to put it on one side, and to deal with the matter in the Criminal Code Bill. But on examining that Bill I find in it the same atrocious clause, and it is still proposed that a man should be liable to seven years' transportation for taking a rabbit. "While that clause remains in that Bill I promise it my most unmitigated opposition; and I will stop short of nothing but that never-to-be-mentioned horror of having my humble name mentioned by you, Sir. In fact, the only alteration in the law of late years has been an alteration of the most aggravating severity; and that is the Act of 1862, called the Poaching Prevention Act. This Act did a great deal towards making game property, not so far as it turned policemen into game preservers, and actually disregarded a vital principle in our Constitution that a man shall be deemed innocent until he is proved guilty. At present any poor labourer wandering along the road with a hag on his back may be stopped by any scoundrel gamekeeper, who can claim the right to search him in order to see whether he has or has not game upon him. The Commissioner of The Norfolk News said—

"As I have seen and heard much of the evil of game preserving, I will add one or two facts of which I was reminded by my informant in Suffolk, who has had large experience in game districts. He ascribed much evil to the Poaching Prevention Act, by which policemen were turned into gamekeepers, paid by the county and the State. This Act has so operated that while game preserving is as rampant as ever gamekeepers are less and less in request, their places being supplied by policemen. He assured me that a little while ago in The Field newspaper he observed 60 advertisements by gamekeepers out of situations, and only two by gentlemen requiring gamekeepers."

Probably the audacity of class legislation was never manifested in a more distinct manner than in this case, when, having first confiscated the property of the people in the wild animals of the country, the country gentlemen then forced the people to pay for the preservation of the stolen property. Two propositions have been made under which the present Game Laws might be abolished, to make game property, or to pass a stringent Trespass Law. To pass a Trespass Bill is simply to re-produce the Game Laws in another form; while to make game property is to increase the evil, and to make it more flagrant by making the confiscation of the property of the people absolute and certain. A stringent trespass law—why, the Night Poaching Act is a stringent Trespass Law. If you want to reduce the evil, you must reduce the head of game. If you pass a stringent Trespass Law which does not allow the head, of game to be destroyed, you will simply have made a nominal change. A much more valuable change suggested is to remove ground game from the protection of the Act, and to leave only winged game under its protection. I cannot accept the principle that ground game is the only one which does damage; immense harm is done by winged game also. The Bishop of Manchester writes:—"Ground game does more hurt to the farmer; winged game does more hurt to the peasantry." I apprehend also that of the 10,000 men convicted annually, far more are victims to pheasants than to hares. Mr. Hammerton, of the Warwickshire Farmers' Club, declared that he had heard farmers say they had had gamekeepers hatching and increasing game for months on their farms; and when they began to peck their food, and were not able to fly, they were taken in baskets and set down in the middle of the fields to eat corn. Mr. Fisher, a Scotch farmer, said before the Committee that "a man in the Highlands had his entire crop destroyed by grouse." My objection to this change is a fatal one—that it is impossible to separate these two heads of game. If you substitute for the Game Laws a Trespass Law, as regards ground game, who is to tell which a man is trespassing in search of? The landlord will be sure to say that the man is after winged game, the trespasser will declare he is after ground game; and while there is a great head of game left on the land, not only will the evil to the farmer be undiminished, but the evil of poaching and of trespassing will be neither diminished nor done away with. We say simply to abolish the Game Laws is the only way to mitigate the evil. Now, this is my indictment against the Game Law system. It is a strong one I believe. It is a true and unexaggerated one. I have carried the House through the various classes affected by the law up to the whole of the community. I cannot hope that I have converted the House to my views. The House will, perhaps, excuse me for saying that if there be any subject in this House on which I could not expect it to exhibit absolute impartiality, it would be on the question of supporting these Game Laws. But if I have not converted them, and if we cannot get rid of these laws from within, we must ask assistance from without. I find an historical parallel which encourages me in what I do. We are told that many hundred years ago the fields of the Balearic Islanders were overrun and eaten up by rabbits, which could not be slain by the natives because they were sacred animals. It is interesting to the philosophic observer to notice the continuity of certain religious ideas. The rabbit is as sacred now as it was before the Christian era. Well, the Balearic Islanders found they must get rid of the rabbits, because rabbits and religion together would have been their ruin. But as they were unable to do it themselves, they sent to Rome for soldiers to do their business, who had no religious scruples on the subject. It is what I propose to do. But the Home to which we shall have to send is not farther removed than our agricultural districts, and the soldiers who will do our business will be the enfranchised agricultural labourers. In conclusion, I beg leave to move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.

in rising to second the Motion, said, he had not been in the habit of taking part in the debates on the subject; but he was of opinion that the Game Laws were radically wrong, and must be swept away, and if he had not been of that opinion, he would have been convinced by the eloquent and impressive speech of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor). He did not know whether the remedy proposed by the hon. Member was the best that could be discovered; but, at any rate, they would clear the ground. He was in a position to take a somewhat impartial view of the subject, as for the last 35 years—indeed, from the time he was able to hold a gun—he never missed an opportunity of doing his duty in the way of shooting, although with somewhat indifferent success. He quite admitted that, to a certain extent, man was a hunting animal; and that being his nature, he thought it was well that hardworking men—such as the Legislators of that House—should, after they had terminated their labours, return to their savage state, and the pursuit of wild animals. As it was a good thing to turn a horse out to grass, so it was a good thing that a man should be turned to his savage state at times. But this might be carried too far in the interests of the rich. As a consequence of the preservation of game, it was a fact that, at the present time, a Highlander had become almost an extinct animal in his own country, which had been converted into a ground of enjoyment for the rich. In the view of our requirements as a great Empire, it was, he believed, an irreparable error to have caused the wholesale emigration of Highlanders to take place. The result of such a depopulation was that we had not now the men for our Armies that we formerly had. In the Highlands, men had to give way to sheep, and sheep to grouse, and thereby a great national loss had been sustained. His opinion, however, was that, although the Game Laws might, in many respects, operate for the benefit of the rich, and in some sense, when used moderately and fairly, be from their point of view not undesirable, still that the House should take a wider range and consider what was most beneficial to the whole community. The conclusion from the arguments of the hon. Member for Leicester was, he thought, irresistible—namely, that great and grave evils arose to the community from the existence of those laws, and that, therefore, those evils must be remedied by some very radical change. He would not go into the case of the farmers. They were, no doubt, able, to a certain extent, to preserve their interests by contract; but they could not always take sufficient care of themselves, for it was notorious that contracts were frequently found to be insufficient for the purpose intended, and great losses resulted to them from the action of the Game Laws. But his chief interest was in the general community, who might be said to be represented by the poacher. Now, the poacher was an unpopular person, although, he believed, Shakespeare, Robin Hood, and other distinguished persons, who had come down to us as great men and great heroes, were poachers. However that might be, it was certainly the case that there existed in the general community a justifiable feeling against the Game Laws. As he understood the state of things, it was this—The Common Law of England and Scotland was in favour of the poacher. Trespass upon land was not a criminal offence; its utmost penalty was payment for the damage done to fences or crops. Neither was the killing of game an offence at Common Law. But Parliament had, by statute, created a concrete offence, and trespass in pursuit of game became a crime. It was made a criminal offence by landlord enactments and Land Laws, against which the feelings of the people rebelled. What, then, was the remedy the hon. Member proposed? It was simply the abolition of the Game Laws; and he was not sure that, upon the whole, admitting that it would be an evil as regarded the recreation of the rich, it would not, if it were possible, be a good thing to have the Game Laws wholly abolished, and with the Game Laws the game also. But he feared in the present state of things that was not possible. He thoroughly agreed with the hon. Member for Leicester that they could not cure the evil by any mere modification of the present Game Laws. There was one remedy which had been proposed, and which the hon. Member for Leicester stigmatized as idiotic. That remedy would make game property on certain conditions. Unless they abolished the Game Laws and game altogether, he thought the only alternative was to make game property. But he would not do that without compensation. The rights of the people as to free access to land had been greatly abridged in recent times. Not many centuries ago two-thirds of the land of England was common or commonable land. There was free passage over it, and there was the right to the game. Gradually these rights had been taken away, and the greater part of the land inclosed; and the people were absolutely confined to the high roads. The result was great inconvenience, and it would be an additional grievance if the right of the people to the game was swept away without any compensation. The view of the case he had to suggest was that this question of the Game Laws should be treated, not by itself, but in connection with the whole of the Land Question, which was coming rapidly upon us. Unless the Game Laws were to be abolished altogether, the only alternative was to make the game property, as sheep were, under certain conditions; and in that event the people ought to have a quid pro quo in their restoration to some of the other rights in the land of which they had been deprived. The kind of quid pro quo he would suggest would be to give the people an absolute right of way over the land, with fair compensation to the landlord, whenever it was really necessary, and to make that necessary, subject to the decision of a public tribunal, and to establish the liability of the proprietors to the expropriation of portions of the land for purposes of general benefit—for garden grounds, small properties, and other requirements of the people—with, again, fair compensation to the landlord, as had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich. The hon. Member concluded by seconding the Motion.

in rising to move, as an Amendment, "That it is not now expedient to deal with the question of the Game Laws," said, the hon. Member who had just sat down (Sir George Campbell) had given many reasons why the Game Laws should not be abolished, and yet he was going to support the Resolution of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor). The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy told them he had amused himself by shooting; but in the hon. Member for Leicester they had a man who had never, perhaps, indulged in the pastime of shooting or hunting since the day he was born. What did the hon. Member know of the feelings of those who indulged in English sports? He must know very little, if he supposed that by one fell swoop he could, by a Resolution in that House, abolish the Game Laws. He had read a great number of extracts from newspapers; but he had not verified one of them. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) did not rise to defend the over-preservation of game; in fact, he disliked it as much as anyone. He believed over-preservation had been fatal in some counties, and that had it not been for it, this outcry against the Game Laws would never have been raised. No one was more fond of good shooting than the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt); he enjoyed it, and would be sorry to see it abolished; he would be the last man to go and live or even stay in the country unless he could enjoy this sport. It did not at all follow that he liked to indulge in it to the detriment of anyone else; and it was not necessary that he need do so. They did not require the abolition of the Game Laws in order to get rid of the evils connected with them. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy did not think they ought to be abolished, but would make game property providing trespass were abolished. Suppose the hon. Member had an estate near a largo town; how would he like a few thousand people trampling over the crops? That could be satisfactory neither to him nor to the neighbourhood; and such a proposal might be dismissed as one which, if it were tried, would certainly have to be repealed. The hon. Member for Leicester had alluded to one of the most mischievous of practices, the buying of eggs. No gentleman ought to buy eggs; it was a temptation to the poorer classes to take them in order to sell them at the highest prices they could obtain; it made them poachers from their youth; and it was an excessively mischievous thing. But that was no reason why the Game Laws should be abolished. No doubt, there were anomalies connected with the Game Laws, and some poachers had been dealt with too severely; but if the hon. Member for Leicester would look at all the cases that came before the magistrates, he would find that they did act with discrimination, and that they made a difference between trumpery cases and those in which violence had been used. He did not deny that an excessive amount of ground game had in former days done a great, he might say an immense amount of mischief; but in his (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) own county, at least, that complaint had been got rid of as regarded hares and rabbits, by letting tenants come there and have power to kill rabbits. Landlords felt that it was, indeed, to the best interest of both that they should be on good terms with their tenants; they often went out shooting together, and the tenant enjoyed sporting over the property he rented. Did tenants wish to have the Game Laws abolished? If the game on a farm were given up to the tenant he always proved to be the best gamekeeper: no one enjoyed shooting more; and whether the tenants had the game, provided they had the power to keep down the rabbits, they would be the last to say the Game Laws ought to be abolished. If they did not give gentlemen some amusement to attract them to the country and to keep them there, they would have absenteeism, which was so much complained of in Ireland. What an amount of writing there was in the newspapers about the 12th of August, the 1st of September, and the 1st of October! Would it not be a disappointment to the people in the towns if there was no game in the country? In France they could not find a blackbird or a sparrow, and now legislation was necessary to preserve even the small birds. The hon. Member for Leicester had called to his aid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), who never had a good word to say for country gentlemen; but if the Game Laws were abolished then salmon rivers ought not to be preserved; and the hon. Member for Leicester, to be consistent, should include them in his Motion. The right hon. Gentleman was only amiable when he was catching a salmon; but otherwise he described country gentlemen as stupid, good for nothing, and who were only interested in punishing and avenging themselves on poachers. If the Game Laws were fairly administered and over-preservation was stopped, they might be maintained with less mischief than would attend their abolition, and it was for that reason he moved that it was not expedient to deal with them at the present time.

in seconding the Amendment, said, that in mentioning Robin Hood as a poacher it had been overlooked that he was also a highwayman, and that it was as good a defence for highway robbery as for poaching to say that it was a temptation to the poor man that the rich man should have something the poor man wanted. The speech of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) was a great display of strong feeling and hard words against the Game Laws and their administration; but his strength of feeling was a good deal wasted, because no one would deny that as regarded such administration there were some evils connected with the system of game preserving which all would be glad to see removed. But when the hon. Member said they were an element in the agricultural distress of the country he did not adduce any evidence of a conclusive character. Nothing which the hon. Member for Leicester said, from the beginning to the end of his speech, as proving damage, referred to anything but hares and rabbits. Besides, the instances he quoted related to only one or two districts of the country. Speaking with, perhaps, almost equal authority, he (Earl Percy) might say he knew parts of England where no such cases, nor anything approaching to them, could be brought forward against either landlords or magistrates. Then, the hon. Member for Leicester compared the state of things in Prance under the old régime to what now existed in England. But no such comparison could be instituted. He did not need to follow the hon. Member in all the accusations he had brought against the working of the Game Laws. Without defending the stringency of those laws, he must observe that many of the cases brought forward were cases in which the law had been stretched in a manner in which those who wished the Game Laws preserved disapproved. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had shown most conclusively, as his hon. and gallant Friend the Mover of the Amendment (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) said, what was the real value of the Game Laws in a national point of view. The hon. Member for Leicester said a poor man had now no right to go anywhere but along the highway; but that certainly was not the fact. In no country that he (Earl Percy) was acquainted with was there greater freedom enjoyed by the public to traverse the lands of proprietors than in England, and for this simple reason—that the Game Laws enabled them to put a stop to any abuse of the right. He heard with some alarm the proposal of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy that there should be right of way over every man's property; but if, in the absence of Game Laws, they were to preserve their property from mischief by trespass, it would be necessary to have a strict Law of Trespass. They had been told that if country gentlemen were deprived of the right they had to enjoy sport, they would most likely leave their homes and live elsewhere. There was a great deal of truth in that; but he put the question on higher ground. That which distinguished this country was what was called our country life, under which a body of gentlemen possessed of property, and having the interests of the people at heart, took part in the sports and directed the local affairs of their district, thus showing that they were of use and influence in the world. Of this influence the hon. Member for Leicester sought to deprive them. This was a question which concerned the whole nation. If, as he (Earl Percy) believed, country gentlemen were the most respected and respectable class in the country, if they did good work and maintained a position which gave to the country character and weight, he said it would be an evil day for the country when those were driven from it who formed so essential an element in its direction and in its power. He hoped that day was far distant; and though he should be sorry to base his objection to the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester solely on this ground, yet, seeing in it an element of great danger, and taking other objections also into consideration, he begged to second the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I move that Charles Edmund Grissell do stand committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms; and that you, Sir, do issue your Warrant accordingly; and that the Serjeant at Arms do bring him in custody to the Bar of the House to-morrow at 12 o'clock.

Sir, in the course of the discussion which took place in August last on the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), I gave Notice that the whole question would be taken into consideration by the Government during the Recess, with the view of seeing whether the supply of water to the Metropolis and other adjoining places could not be greatly improved for the benefit of the inhabitants; whether that could be done without seriously increasing the cost of the supply to the consumer, and whether the mode of supply could, not also be improved. The result of that consideration on the part of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board and myself has been the framing of the Bill which I shall ask the leave of the House to introduce. Again, the result of the investigation we have been able to make, and of the advice we have obtained, has induced the belief that there is only one remedy for the confusion which exists in the present state of things, and that that remedy is the unification of all the existing Companies. Let hon. Members consider that there are eight Companies supplying the Metropolis, or, rather, the Metropolitan area, with water. I do not mean the Metropolitan area within the limit usually understood, but all the surrounding districts for some little way beyond. Of these eight Companies, five draw their water from the Thames, and three of them have what may be called a supply of their own. We have five of these Companies North of the Thames and three of them South of the Thames, all of which overlap and interlace each other; they have their reservoirs, their boards of directors, and establishments of that kind, and, as far as I know, there is no natural boundary for any one of these Companies, and there is no natural division of the water supply. If anyone were disposed to erect a system more expensive than that which now exists I think he would find himself much puzzled. Now, if we consider that to be the principal fact we have to deal with, of course it is necessary to ascertain whether these matters cannot be simplified in such a manner as to bring about a reduction of expense, labour, and waste of material. First of all, there would follow from unification a great reduction of expense for all new works and water apparatus. I desire to make my statement as short as possible; but I may say, in passing, that in the present Session the Southwark and Vauxhall Company proposed to carry out new works at a cost of £500,000, which would be absolutely useless if this Bill becomes law. Again, there are the proposed works of the Grand Junction and the West Middlesex Companies, which, if carried out—as, no doubt, they would be, for a long series of years would vastly increase the expenditure necessary for the proper supply of water to London. Beyond that, you have the reduction which will be made in the course of time by the consolidation of the officers and staff, and you will have a proper provision for the supply of water in those districts where it is required, and, what will be a point of much more importance, a division of London according to the levels, and, consequently, a proper pressure at different heights in various parts. If anyone will look at the map of London showing the different sources from which these different Companies draw their water supply, he will be amazed at the waste of power in the machinery by which this supply is produced. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion, on the part of the Government, that unification is the great object to be attained if you are eventually to supply London with water at the least cost and in the best possible manner. Then comes the question whether this result can be obtained in any other manner, and I am bound to say that I do not think it can. This unification cannot be obtained by any mere arrangement among the Companies themselves. As there is no corporate body which can undertake this duty in London, is it possible to obtain unification by means of the several Metropolitan boroughs? It seems to me that if each Metropolitan borough were to supply itself with water, you will have probably greater confusion and greater cost than already exist. I hope the House will be of opinion that the best way of arriving at a conclusion is that the existing Companies should surrender the powers which they possess under their several Acts of Parliament to some central body which shall have absolute power over the supply of water to London. If we are to approach the subject in that way, and come to the conclusion that unification is the primary object to be gained, and that that can only be effected by the surrender of the powers of all the existing Companies to one central body, the question arises, how is that unification to be brought about? I ventured to say in August last upon this point—

"Whether it would be necessary for the purpose that the whole of the Water Companies should—of course by agreement—surrender their powers to some body which should be practically appointed by the Government.…He would not like to express any opinion upon that point."—[3 Hansard, ccxlix. 946.]

Now, if you are to get from the existing Companies a surrender of their powers, there are only two ways by which this result can be arrived at—you must either take them by compulsion or by agreement. So far as compulsion is concerned, I am bound to say this would be a very strong step for the House to take. Parliament has willingly conferred enormous powers upon these Companies; and, on the faith of these powers, a very large amount of capital has been subscribed, a great portion being held upon trust. Again, after many of these Companies had spent the money so subscribed, that Parliament should step in and say—"Nolens volens, we will take this money away from you, and pay you a certain sum in compensation," is, at all events, a step which Parliament is not accustomed to take. There are certainly very few precedents for such a course, which I do not myself think a wise one. I am, at all events, certain of one thing—it would meet with the most violent opposition from every one of these Companies; and if Parliament attempted to carry it out I do not believe the measure would pass. Of course, a Bill might be brought in providing for the purchase of the Companies by certain bodies; but that would leave us to all the danger and uncertainty of arbitration afterwards. We have had some experience of arbitrations in matters of this kind, which, I believe, is not likely to lead us to follow the same course again. If we put the matter entirely in the hands of an arbitration, Parliament will be acting very much in the dark, and might find herself let in for a very much greater expense than was originally expected. The only other course, then, is to take these Companies by agreement; but that is not a very easy thing, because, when the Government approached them by way of agreement, they were met by the most positive refusal from every one of them. Again, if you are to take them by agreement, it is necessary that both parties should agree; it is of no use offering terms which they will not accept and which you cannot force upon them. If this difficulty is likely to present itself in dealing with one Company, much more would it do so when it becomes necessary to agree with eight separate Companies; for it is of no use treating for three or four; you must take them all. There is one advantage in dealing by agreement—namely, that whatever the outlay maybe which you are about to submit to, in order to get possession of these Companies, you, at all events, know exactly the extent of your liability; there is no- thing behind, there are no afterthoughts, and when the price is once settled the whole interest of the Company is made over. If the House will allow me, I will read a part of one of the clauses of the Bill, which will enable hon. Members to see what we propose to take over. By that clause the Company will have to surrender—

"All rents and other properties, including cash balances and investments, and all such property as may be in the possession of the Companies at any time "between January 1st, 1880, and June the 30th, 1880.

So that everything which they possessed on January 1st of this year, and everything that may come into their possession during the next six months, will pass into our hands, with the exception of the dividends payable to June the 30th. We should have to consider what price should be paid to the New River Company, which is possessed of a considerable quantity of land in the county of Herts and elsewhere, which has nothing to do with the water supply of London. The House will, therefore, see that there can be no possible afterthought, and that we know exactly the extent of the outlay to be made. The next question which presents itself is, how the purchase-money for this purpose is to be obtained? There is no doubt that this is an Imperial question, and, that being so, it may be said, and suggestions have been made from many quarters, that the Imperial Funds should be called upon to subscribe in some form or other for the purchase of these Companies. We have, however, thought it right to lay down the principle that the State should not pay one farthing towards it. We do not think it fair to the other towns in the country that it should do so, and we have accordingly arranged to accept only the preliminary expenses if the Bill should fail; these, of course, must be paid by someone, and if the Bill passes will be eventually paid by the Water Trust. So that, beyond possibly these preliminary expenses, we think it right that the Imperial Exchequer should not be called upon, either by way of guarantee or loan, to subscribe one single sixpence. In dealing with this question, we are met with the difficulty that there existed no corporate body, which, in the opinion of the Government, ought to take this task into its own hands. Neither the City, nor the Metropolitan Board of Works, are in a position to deal with the different Companies; and, moreover, they have no money wherewith to buy them out. Again, another difficulty presented itself to us—that of raising so large a sum by the issue of Stock or otherwise, for the purchase of these Companies would have been attended with a certain amount of hazard and disturbance to the Money Market. We had, therefore, recourse to another mode of dealing with this subject; and we have persuaded the Companies to consent to the Water Trust issuing a certain amount of Water Stock, and also that the Company should take this Stock by way of payment. Practically, then, it comes to this—that the Companies will create the Stock, and then, taking it when created, would so provide for their own extinction. This plan will get rid of the whole difficulty. The whole of the Companies have agreed to that arrangement through their directors, and they will take this 3½ per cent Water Stock as the purchase money; so far, therefore, no money is required from anybody. It will be seen that this arrangement very much simplifies the matter, and can lead to no possible disturbance of the Money Market for the time being. Of course, this Stock must have something at the back of it to make it sound; and the first thing we have put behind it will be, of course, the water rates receivable by the Companies at the present moment, and which will be payable to the Water Trust. But there must, of course, be some other guarantee, and we have placed behind this the Metropolitan rates; not that I think they will be called upon to contribute a single sixpence, but it is, of course, necessary to include them in the security. Therefore, the Stock proposed to be issued is charged with the water rates first of all, and then there will be the further guarantee of the rates of the Metropolis and the City of London. The next question is probably the most important of all, and that is the question of price; and here what I said before equally applies—namely, that if this is to be done by agreement the price must also be a matter of agreement on both sides. Now, the Government find themselves in this rather peculiar position—that they are standing, as it were, between the water consumers on the one hand, and the Water Companies on the other. They have made the best bargain they can with these Companies, and they present that bargain to Parliament to consider—not, of course, on the floor of this House—but, as I shall presently explain, by means of a Committee upstairs, to say whether this bargain is one which ought to be sanctioned. We come before Parliament, having done our best to provide a solution of this question, and lay before it the best bargain which we have been able to make with the several Companies. Of course, the questions of Debenture Stocks, Preferential Shares, and mortgages remain precisely as they were, and all we have to deal with is the available net surplus after the payment of all necessary working expenses. That is the real matter with which we have to deal. I am afraid that one or two words uttered by me in August last have been somewhat misinterpreted. What I appear to have said on that occasion was that the Government would take the Stocks as they found them on such a day—the last day of the half-year—and that no speculative change in the value of the Stocks would have the smallest weight with the Government. Now, these words must be taken with the context, and bearing in mind the fact that we have to proceed by agreement. What I really meant, and hon. Members will see this by the context, was that there should be no speculation on the Stock Exchange; but that if there were it would not be taken into consideration at all; nor, on the other hand, if there were any action on the part of the Companies for the enhancement of prices, would that be taken into consideration. All I can say, bearing this in mind, is, that that idea has been strictly adhered to in all the negotiations from beginning to end. The only idea which the gentleman who has been advising me on this matter has ever had before him has been to find out what was the intrinsic value of the Companies at the time of purchase. In coming to a conclusion as to that, hon. Members will see at once that the value of each Company must depend on various circumstances—in the first place, on the powers which each Company had under its own Act of Parliament; and, in the next place, on its present financial and commercial position. For instance, some of these Companies possess powers different to those conferred upon others, Some of them can only receive 7 per cent dividend, while others can receive 10 per cent; and some, if they have not received 10 per cent from their foundation, can make it up not only for the future, but going back also for the past. In the case of the New River Company, for instance, there is no limit at all; and they are entitled to recoup themselves up to 10 per cent for a period of 150 years or so. The Company has this power; and, as a matter of fact, they have, to a certain extent, begun to avail themselves of it. On the other hand, some Companies have no such power; some are limited, and some are not. Then, again, they differ very much as to their commercial and financial position. You will find some Companies with a practically assured dividend of 10 per cent, which will probably never be less, and may be increased. With some Companies it will be a matter of absolute certainty that they will be able to recoup themselves for their outlay in a certain number of years. Again, you will find that some Companies which have expended a very large amount of capital have not reaped the fruit of their outlay, and whose property is undeveloped, although gradually becoming more developed, who have gone through a series of expenditure, such as for the laying of mains, and whose profits have vastly increased from year to year. There are other Companies which are possessed of large areas of land that will be rapidly built upon, and which, of course, will produce to them in a short time a large harvest. The average increase of the net incomes of the several Companies for many years past has amounted to about £35,000 a-year. This is not to be wondered at when we consider the increase of population, and that there were built last year 19,000 houses; while, according to the last Return I have, there have been constructed during that time 60 miles of new streets. All this shows that these Companies have before them a large and promising future. In the negotiations which have been carried on with them, the Government have had the advantage not only of the assistance of two very able persons who have been for a long time connected with these Companies—the Auditor and Water Examiner—but also of Mr. E. Smith, who has been for so many years connected with the Ecclesiastical Commis- sion. I may add that, in commencing the negotiations with these Companies, two things require our consideration—the present dividend to which the shareholders were entitled, or to which, rather, they would be entitled when the property is taken over on the 1st of July, 1880, and the increment which might be expected to have arisen had the property remained in their possession. This fact has always been recognized when dealing with other Companies situated in like manner, and the claim is one which it has been found impossible to resist. There is another matter to be considered—namely, that it was absolutely impossible, under the scheme of purchase which we have undertaken, to find the money at once to pay for this increment, which at the present moment does not exist, because the only funds which we can resort to are the water rates. It is not, therefore, proposed to pay any income to the Company in respect of the unearned increment to which I have referred until the money has been earned which the Companies would have earned for themselves. Therefore, the course which we have taken is to spread this assured increment over periods varying from four to 12 years; and it is quite certain that there will be ample funds to pay when the interest becomes due on these deferred Stocks. On the 30th of June, 1880, the Companies will receive a certain amount of ordinary Stock which would represent the dividends they themselves would have received. For the year 1881–2 they will get a certain amount of Preference Stock which will bear no interest at all for the first 12 months, while at the end of 18 months after that they will receive a half-year's dividend in the same way as the rest of the deferred Stock. Under this arrangement, the Water Trust would not be called upon to pay interest until they have received the income from the water rates to enable them to do so. There is no present charge, therefore, on the water consumers. I hope, on the second reading of this Bill, the House will not desire me to go into the circumstances relating to each Company; it would be better considered by the Committee upstairs why a certain Company gets so much, and another so much less; but the House will be interested in knowing what is to be the aggregate sum payable in 1881. That sum amounts, in round numbers, to £22,000,000; and, of course, there is besides, the interest at 3½ per cent. With regard to the other increments, these will be spread over a number of years, and in the case of one Company—that is, the New River Company—a period of 12 years. It is, of course, much more convenient to spread these payments over long periods than over a short series of years; and the New River Company will, in consequence, receive a certain amount of additional Stock. Other Companies, like the West Middlesex, get four years; while, in other cases, the periods will be varied. The capital for each particular Company has been arranged, in order that the funds of the Company may not be called upon for the payment of a larger sum than we are quite assured they will receive from the interest accruing to them. Taking the average of 12 years the amount would be about £750,000 per annum, and, on a rough calculation, would reach to between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000. [Mr. COURTNEY: What will be the ultimate gross maximum?] Putting the whole of the sums together, they will amount to something like £31,000,000. It would apparently strike one that this mode of proceeding would be more favourable to some of the poorer Companies than to others, and for this reason—that the New River Company is an absolutely assured estate, and that its value has risen very much, while some of the lower Companies have not risen to the same height; although, in their case, their future position is as absolutely certain as that of the New River Company at the present moment. Therefore, something more than the fair market price is apparently given to the lower Company. But when the matter comes to be investigated it will be found that they have got no better bargain than the New River Company. Some few years ago it was found by the Auditor that one of the Companies had paid the sum of £30,000 out of capital which ought to have been paid out of income, and, to recoup that, they had to make up the annual amount of £8,000, the payment of which was a great drawback to their dividends. That sum, however, has been entirely repaid, and it is my impression that the Company will spring up in a short time to its natural height. The result of the financial operation for the year would be that they would have a saving of £50,000; and, besides that, there will be all the savings from the consolidation of the staff and engineering operations. No doubt, so far as the staff is concerned, the saving will not come into full play until some of the officers, who are to be pensioned, cease to exist; but still, in the first year, there will be a saving, I am almost certain, irrespective of this, of £50,000—I hope more. There is one point which I must mention to the credit of the Companies, and that is that, after the matter of the price had been arranged, there was one question pressed strongly, and pressed so strongly, indeed, that I believe many of the directors would have broken off the bargain if the point had not been conceded. I refer to the question of the superannuation of the officers of the Companies. I believe the negotiations would have been broken off if we had not given favourable terms to the officers, and for which the directors stood out. They insisted on the matter being put in the Bill, and they were very strong on the point, and I could not resist. Well, all I have to say as to the price is this—that I do not believe better terms could be made with the Companies. As to the question of buying them by compulsion, as years would go on the price would increase. If you had bought them 10 years ago you would have saved enormously. If you defer buying them for five or 10 years you will have to pay more than now, and you must take that into consideration, when you consider the sum for which they have agreed to sell them. I believe that the Committee, when they come to investigate the sum, will find that the price is fair and reasonable; at all events, they will find that the Bill, which we place before the country, is one which forms an honest endeavour to settle this question, and which will, in the long run, tend greatly to benefit the Metropolis. But now I come to another matter, about which the House will be anxious to know something—I mean the composition of the Water Trust itself. We had no Corporation before, as I stated, ready to take. I do not think—the House, I believe, does not think—that it ought to be in the hands of the Government, that it should be a Department of the State. Therefore, we proposed that the trust shall be placed in the hands of a Water Trust; and I think everyone will agree, as a starting point, that it is essential that the "Water Trust should command the confidence of the Metropolis. I propose that there should be three paid members—namely, first, the chairman, who would receive a salary of £2,000 a-year, and the vice-chairmen—one for works, and the other for finance—each receiving a salary of £1,800 a-year. The first chairman and one vice-chairman would be appointed by the Government, and the names will be placed in the Bill. I think that would be satisfactory to the House, and all I can say is, in a matter of this kind, that no Party considerations will enter into the question. The three appointments—the chairman and the two vice-chairmen—should be appointed during the pleasure of the Crown; and upon any vacancy we hope that the Trust will be so consolidated that the election of the vice-chairmen would be left to the Trust itself. As to the composition of the Board itself, we have, of course, placed the Lord Mayor and the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works upon it as ex-officio members of the Board. There will be two of these ex-officio members, one to be nominated by the Local Government Board, one by the Chief Commissioner of Works. There will be two others nominated by the Commissioners of Sewers, and one by the Metropolitan Board of Works. Water consumers are, of course, very much interested, and I do not think that the House would be willing to leave this Trust in the hands of a small nominated body; and therefore we propose, having got nine members in that way—in the way I have described—that there shall be 12 elected members. Now, the question comes as to the election, who are to elect, and what are to be the constituents. I do not think that the House would like, on the whole, that if there is an election, that it should be an indirect election. I do not think it would be satisfactory that they should be elected simply by the vestrymen. I think we had better go to first principles, and, if there is to be an election, let it be direct. The question, then is, who are to elect? If you take the vestries themselves—that is, the District Boards—the number would be so large that they would be a Board perfectly unmanageable. You might group them together. We think we had better follow the example of the School Boards, and take one representative each from the different Metropolitan Boards—one for the City of London, one for Chelsea, one for Finsbury, one for Hackney, one for Marylebone, one for Lambeth, one for Southwark, one for Tower Hamlets,one for Westminster, and so on, making 10.

I thought that the right hon. Gentleman said there would be 12 elected members.

But there are other persons who take water besides the inhabitants of the Metropolis, and they would join in the guarantee. There is a large population outside the Metropolitan area proper, and it is quite right they should be represented on this Board; and, therefore, we propose, as water consumers, there should be one member representing the inhabitants referred to North of the Thames, and one for the South of the Thames—that is, for the out-districts. Now, I think the hon. Member has got his 12 members.

What is the population?

I have not got it here. Then we propose that all these elected members should hold their seats for five years, when, of course, there would be a fresh election.

The nominated members—how long?

They will hold their seats at the pleasure of those who nominate them. Having thus made clear what is the Water Trust, I should like to read a passage as to the powers and object of the Trust. The objects of the Trust are to supply pure and wholesome water for drinking and other purposes-—other domestic purposes; for watering of the streets, for extinguishing of fires, and other public purposes; also, for manufacturing and other general purposes; and the maintenance, as far as is possible, of a constant supply in the mains, under such pressure as would effectually provide for high services. The price of the water will be reduced as circumstances permit. As to the date of the purchase, I think it necessary to say a word or two. We propose that the sale should be the 1st of July next; but, as I have said before, practically ever since the 1st of January the Water Companies will be acting as our Trustees. We have the power of a continuous Audit, and they are simply the Trustees, who are to pay themselves a certain amount of dividend on the 30th of July, and keep the supply in proper working order. It is provided that, as the Trust would not come into operation the moment the Bill passed, the Companies should continue to carry on, free of any extraordinary expense, the business until the 1st October, by which time we hope that the Water Trust will be able to perform their duties, and then the Water Companies will be practically extinct. There is a clause in the Bill providing that there shall be a Sinking Fund for the extinction of the debt. I do not believe I need go into details. We propose that a certain sum should be laid aside by Parliament. Now, I think I have explained, as far as possible, and as fully as necessary for present purposes, the objects of this Bill. As I said at the beginning, it is the best bargain possible for us to make. I do not see that we could make a better. It is, at all events, as good a bargain as we could make; and I must bear testimony to the way in which Mr. Smith has carried forward the negotiations. I believe he has done everything in his power to induce the Companies to take as little as possible. I now ask leave of the House to introduce the Bill, and to take the first reading. If there is any question, that can be answered on the second reading. I shall propose to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Committee, and the question they will have to ask themselves is it such a bargain as they can approve. You cannot say to the Companies you agreed to take this, and we will force you to take this. I believe we have made the best bargain possible, or that can be made. I believe it will prove beneficial to the Metropolis; and I can say this—it is an honest endeavour, on the part of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) and myself, to present to Parliament a measure which will benefit the Metropolis of the Kingdom.

said, he was anxious to take that opportunity of acknowledging the promptitude with which the Home Secretary had redeemed his promise given last August with regard to this question; but while he was anxious to do this he felt he would be doing a great injustice to the Home Secretary, and, still more, a great injustice to the extremely important question which he had brought forward to the notice of the House that evening, if he said a single word expressing a premature opinion on the Bill which had been sketched out. He had learned from experience that nothing led them into a more unfortunate position than to express an opinion upon a Bill which they had not seen—than to express an opinion on a Bill which had merely been introduced. And he thought that in this case it would be particularly unfortunate for the House to express any opinion whatever on the proposal until it had seen this Bill, because there were great pecuniary interests at stake; and if, tomorrow, it were reported that this Bill had been favourably received by the House, it might be supposed that the House would pass it, and speculative transactions might take place. It was perfectly obvious, from what had been said by the Home Secretary, that very important questions would have to be taken into account. There was one important question with regard to the dividends to the shareholders. The greatness of the issues involved in the Bill ought to warn hon. Members from expressing any premature opinion with regard to it. For himself, he should simply thank the right hon. Gentleman for the prompt manner in which he had redeemed his promise of last Session; and whatever might be the ultimate view taken of the Bill, whether in its favour or against it, there would be but one opinion on one point—namely, that the object of the Home Secretary was to promote the interests of the people of the Metropolis.

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Hackney that it was not advisable to pass any opinion on the Bill. He thought the House would acknowledge that a very careful measure had been introduced by the Home Secretary, and that the course adopted by the Government fully justified the action taken by the Metropolitan Board in dealing with this question in 1878. He was sure it was the desire of the Government to promote a wise settlement of this question. All he could say for himself and his Colleagues was that they would give their careful consideration to this Bill.

said, he agreed with the Member for Hackney, and in the few words he intended saying he should not go into any details. He had always been strongly in favour of the purchase of the water undertakings of the Metropolis. Beyond that, he would not go reserving for the future the expression of his opinions on the Bill.

said, that was a matter which, no doubt, most interested the Metropolitan Members, and he himself was somewhat of an outsider; but that was a subject in which he took a deep interest. He had some practical experience already in this matter, having been concerned in the transfer of a water undertaking in the Provinces. It was a considerable satisfaction to him that the principles laid down by the Home Secretary were precisely identical with those which guided the Corporation of Birmingham in the transfer to which he had referred. So far, he found himself in perfect accord with the Home Secretary. In a matter of this kind everything depended on the application of those principles. The cost to the Metropolis was necessarily exceptional, and the undertaking differed from any Provincial undertaking. After listening to the very interesting speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he could see that the Metropolis would have to pay dearly for its water. He did not know whether the people of London were not paying very dearly now. They would have to pay more for their water undertaking than Birmingham had to pay. He found that the sum paid by agreement for the purchase of the whole water supply for Birmingham was something considerably less than £3 per head of the population. Now, if the whole value of this property should amount to something like £30,000,000, the amount on the population would come to something like £6 per head of the population. ["No!"] Now, he took the population at something less than 6,000,000; but, putting it beyond that, the cost would be £5 per head as compared with £3 in Birmingham. In Birmingham they entered upon a great undertaking in perfect working order. The supply of water was admirable in quality and sufficient in quantity. They had a constant supply, and no considerable increase had proved to be necessary. The reason for undertaking this great matter in London was that the supply was inferior in both quality and quantity; and the first thing the Trust would turn its attention to would be to give a continuous supply at high pressure. It appeared five of the Companies drew their water from the Thames, and new sources of supply must be sought at a very large increase of outlay. This would, be a gigantic undertaking, and the result would be that the Metropolis would have to pay much more for its water than they in the country were obliged to pay for it. On the other hand, he saw the immense advantage which might be derived from the unification of these various undertakings, and he did not doubt that a great saving would be made. He wished every success to the scheme, and he trusted it would prove a success.

said, that his impression was that the population of the Metropolis in 1871 numbered 3,200,000, and that it was at this time more than 4,000,000. He hoped that a Return upon this subject would be laid upon the Table of the House.

I am ready to admit that it is unwise, as, indeed, it would be impossible, to discuss the scheme at the present moment. I desire to remind the hon. Member for Birmingham, however, that the inhabitants of that town were wiser in their generation than the inhabitants of the Metropolis, because they restricted their dividends to 8 and 9 per cent, which rendered the future purchase more easy. I have no doubt as to the purity of the water, and that it was obtained at a comparatively small cost. Although the population of Birmingham has enormously increased during the last five or six years, the inhabitants, at the present moment, are not using as much water as they used before they had a constant supply. I have only to add that the Bill will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow morning, and to ask leave to introduce it.

Will this Stock be a Trustee Stock?

Yes.