, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that a practice had grown up in the counties of Perth and Renfrew, where the properties were very large, for the landlords to appoint persons to protect the game, who were sworn in as special constables, and as such had all the rights and duties which police constables had. This was done Tinder an Act of 1617. The custom had, however, fallen into desuetude until the passing of the Act for the better protection of game in 1862. These gamekeeper constables were not under the control of the chief constables, and the Committee of the House of Commons, which sat upon the Game Laws, reported, amongst other things, that it was expedient that the power of appointing such constables should cease to exist. In that view the Government concurred, and this Bill—which had come up from the Commons—had been introduced for the purpose of putting an end to the anomaly.

, in moving that the Bill be read a second time this day three months, contended that it was altogether unnecessary, and that it was expedient for the protection of property and prevention of outrages that there should exist such a power of appointment of special constables as existed under the Act of 1617. The present Bill really did not deserve a place on the Statute Book; it was exceptional as to the persons to whom it referred, and applied only to Scotland. The Act for the prevention of Poaching, passed in 1862, made it lawful for any constable or peace officer in any county in Great Britain and Ireland in any highway or public place to search any person whom he might have good cause to suspect of coming from any land where he had been poaching, and to seize and detain game, guns, nets, &c., found upon him, and to cite him before two justices of the peace in England and Ireland and the Sheriff in Scotland. The effect of the present Bill would be to leave the Act of 1862 intact with respect to England and Ireland, but would militate against it in Scotland. "Any constable or peace officer" would not be able to enforce the Act, because the men made constables under the Act of 1617 were to be precluded from so doing, although they would continue to deal with vagrants, thieves, murderers, and criminals generally; and the one thing they would not be able to do under this Act, if it passed, was to search poachers on the highway. In some parts of Scotland—Renfrewshire and Perthshire more particularly, where the highways were very numerous, and there were very few regular police—it had been found very useful to make a few local constables. In Renfrewshire 25 had been made since 1863, of which number eight remained at present. One chief constable had for the last 12 years been in favour of this practice, which had been productive of a great deal of good. Her Majesty's Government apparently wished to gain popularity with those who were opposed to the Game Laws, but did so without offering them any substantial benefit. Whatever tenant farmers might think about the game, they objected strongly to poachers. Poachers were trespassers, and the farmers liked their stock and crops to be undisturbed. On his own outlying property, where the game was not preserved, he had been asked by the tenants to let the game to some one person, who would have the whole interest of keeping off poachers, who made no end of mischief on their farms.

supported the Amendment. He considered the existing Act, which it was proposed to repeal, a most useful one, and he could not understand the object of the Bill, unless it had been drawn up by the agent of some professional poacher. It was well known that the men who had been appointed hitherto had been useful in apprehending criminals, and in the preservation of the peace generally, and he saw no reason whatever for depriving them of the power which they now possessed by virtue of their being appointed constables. In his view of the matter, it would have been much better if this Bill had not been brought in at all. It had been brought in at the fag end of the Session, when there was no time for its consideration, and when they were burdened with other business, the progress of which was naturally interfered with.

hoped the House would not be asked to divide on the Bill, which had passed the other House. Some persons might ask why the Act of 1617 should not be repealed; but that was a much wider question.

observed that the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch) had said that this Bill was brought in at the fag end of the Session, and therefore ought not to pass; but it would be absurd to suppose that their Lordships had not sufficient strength left to pass, through all its stages, a Bill consisting of one clause. The real question was, whether there should be any class of constables not under the control of the chief constable. His noble Friend (the Duke of Buccleuch) said that the Bill appeared to have been drawn up by a professional poacher. Had his noble Friend ever seen the Lord Advocate, and did the learned Gentleman look like a professional poacher? His noble Friend appeared to ignore the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Game Laws. His noble Friend had said that the Act of 1617 was a most useful one with reference to the preservation of game. If it was most useful in that respect, why was it that only two counties in Scotland availed themselves of its provisions? He (the Duke of Richmond) was of opinion that, with reference to the preservation of game, these constables should be under the superintendence of the chief constable of the county, and therefore he hoped their Lordships would give a second reading to the Bill.

was of opinion that the Bill did not go far enough, and would not effect the object in view. The real question was, whether ordinary policemen should be employed to protect game in Scotland. The Act of 1617 enabled constables to be appointed for a variety of purposes; whilst the present Bill said that no constable should in future be appointed to assist the ordinary constables in the protection of game or for other purposes. He thought that this was a most imperfect way of enacting that constables should not be gamekeepers.

said, that was not the time to discuss the question whether the Game Laws were good or bad, but as long as those laws were in existence power ought to be freely given to enforce them. Nothing could be more mischievous than to keep a law in force, and yet allow it to be broken with impunity. He could easily understand that it might not be desirable to appoint constables with the special view of protecting game; but if persons employed to protect game were also sworn in as constables, the powers so conferred upon them would assist in the preservation of the peace. It was not to be tolerated that the contests between gamekeepers and poachers should be decided by the mere exercise of physical force. He did not understand on what principle constables should be appointed as heretofore, but should be deprived of one particular power.

observed that it would be quite competent for those noble Lords who objected that the Bill did not go far enough, to propose Amendments in Committee for the purpose of making it go further. The Bill, in its present form, pursued the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee of the other House, which disapproved of giving the powers of constables to persons who were really employed to protect game.

moved an Amendment, after ("society") insert—("as audited"); in line 36, leave out ("and") to ("audited") and insert—

("And such annual return shall state whether the audit has been conducted by a public auditor appointed as in this Act provided, and by whom; and, if by any person or persons other than a public auditor, shall state the name, address, and calling or profession of each of such persons, and the manner in which and the authority under which they were respectively appointed.

"If it shall appear to the registrar that the annual return so audited is imperfect or unsatisfactory, he may, if he thinks fit, submit the account of the society for audit to a public auditor appointed as in this Act provided.")

said, he could not accept the Amendment, for the reason that it would have the effect of throwing upon the auditor the whole responsibility of the audit and management of the Friendly Societies' accounts. All the Government could do was, to take care that the utmost publicity should be given to the affairs of a Society, but it could not interfere in a matter which properly belonged to the working members in each case. It would also create great dissatisfaction if there were a Government audit in some cases and not in others.

moved, in page 31, line 1, after ("parent") to insert—

("Preference being given to a grandparent, uncle, aunt, or other relative, who has stood in 'loco parentis' to the child.")

objected to the Amendment on the ground that it would tend to introduce confusion into the law.

asked whether it is intended, on each successive re-valuation of the Metropolis for parochial purposes, to confer upon the Metropolitan Water Companies additional rating powers without reference to the water supply; and, if not, also how it is proposed to prevent such powers accruing to the water companies under the re-valuation which will come into force in April, 1876? The noble Earl said, this was a question of great importance in relation to the supply of water to the metropolis. Under the provisions of the Act of 1869—commonly called Mr. Goschen's Act—there was every five years a re-valuation of the property of the metropolis for local and Imperial purposes. The first valuation under the Act came into force in April, 1871, and the next, which was now undergoing revision and arrangement, would come into operation on the 5th April, 1876. Now, in so far as the parochial and Imperial taxation were concerned, if all owners and occupiers in the metropolis were placed on the same basis respectively, it could make no difference to anyone in particular; but as regarded the question of the Water Companies, it was entirely different, as their rates were not contemplated by the Act of 1869. The Water Companies based their system of rating upon the "annual value" of the houses—and these words they sought to construe—whether legally or not he did not know—as the "gross annual value;" whereas the rating of the vestries was the annual value after deductions, or "the annual rateable value." The practical consequence was that the householders of the metropolis were rated for their water supply on a different basis from that on which they were rated for local and Imperial purposes, and the Water Companies obtained a much larger sum as rates, than, on the other supposition, they were entitled to. In consequence of the great increase in the gross annual value under the re-valuation of 1871, the basis of the water rates was very largely increased, though the companies supplied the same article and the same quantity, and if nothing should be done before next year the water rates would be again increased, and by those means the profits of the companies would be largely augmented. He therefore desired to know whether the Government intended to take any steps to prevent the Water Companies from increasing their charges, merely on the ground of an increased valuation of property.

The rating powers which the Metropolitan Water Companies possess are conferred by their private or local Acts, and generally speaking they are limited to a rate not exceeding 10 per cent on the annual value of the property supplied by them with water. The question as to what constitutes annual value is one for determination by the Justices. The Acts do not define whether it is "gross rental" or "rateable value." In a very recent case before the Common Pleas the New River Company claimed to base their rate upon the annual value as determined by the valuation lists; but the Court declined to express any opinion upon that point, and decided against the Company on another ground. It is not intended by the Government to confer any additional powers of rating on the Metropolitan Water Companies; and even supposing that the water rates could be held to be regulated by the valuation lists, it is impossible to say, before those lists are finally approved and come into force, whether the value of the house property in the metropolis will be generally raised or not so as to affect the water rates.

submitted that the power to make the additional rating, as he had pointed out, would accrue to Water Companies unless something should be done by Parliament, and it would be too late to wait until next year.

said, that so far as the re-valuation of property raised all persons alike for parochial and Imperial purposes, none were placed in a worse position than others; but the Water Companies increased their rates and charges according to the increased valuation, although they supplied neither more nor better water. All persons knew that property in London was increasing in value, and no sooner did the reassessment show that to be the case than up went the water rates. Some limit ought to be put upon the Companies.

said, that this was a matter of very great importance to occupiers, and that, unless something should be done, great injustice would be inflicted by the Water Companies upon those whom they supplied with water. He contended that the supply of water should be taken out of the hands of the Companies and transferred to some public authorities.

pointed out that rents and rates increased as other things increased, and that in all probability the outlay of the Companies being greater, the additional income they received was not an unmixed advantage to them. At the same time, it might, no doubt, be necessary for Parliament to interfere if it appeared that the rates were raised in a manner which had not been contemplated. As to taking the supply out of the hands of the Companies, such a policy at the present day would be Utopian; but it was to be regretted that our forefathers had not shown more wisdom in the matter.

observed that the object of the Metropolis Valuation Act had been to make the valuations fairer and not to increase there rates.