except that of Armies, when one-half the | it. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. R. world is prepared to slaughter the other half in the name of civilization. The hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire has told us that this Motion has been sanctioned since 1847 by Lord Palmerston, Lord Beaconsfield, the right hon. Member for Greenwich, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and good, indeed, must be the cause to unite so many elements of warfare. But hon. Members around me are super-excellent; they are anxious for a little more talka little more debate. We have already had too much talk. We can have talk any day of the year; we can have the Derby only once. In conclusion, I would remind the House that horseracing was sanctioned-in fact, to some degree established-by James I.; and so far back as the reign of Charles II. races were held in Hyde Park, and I think they created more amusement and caused less annoyance than the "peace meetings and the "war" meetings which have been lately held there. In the midst of great social changes, let us be left at least something manly. This is an effeminate age; we are becoming too ladylike. There are men of the present day-strait-laced, tight-buttoned, eyeglassed, gingerbread sort of creatureswho would frighten our ancestors, if they could only see them. The origin of horse-racing is ancient, and by no means inglorious; it has grown up among us and become a great institution; we have carried it to a state of perfection hitherto unknown; and I hope the day is far distant when the House will refuse to sanction a pastime so manly and so noble. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, at the rising of the House this day, adjourn till Thursday next.”—(Mr. Chaplin.) MR. ASSHETON opposed the Motion. The hon. Member who had moved the adjournment, and the hon. Member who had spoken in support of the Motion, had put the cart before the horse. The hon. Member for Mid- Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had done so, when he advanced the preposterous proposition that the onus probandi rested, not on the Mover of the Resolution, but of the Amendment. He had always understood that the onus probandi rested on the person who made a Motion, not on the man who opposed Power) also put his cart before his horse, because he regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) on the ground that the opposition to the Motion would not be introduced with originality or humour. How could the hon. Member possibly tell how he (Mr. Assheton) was going to introduce his opposition? He would leave the hon. Member's humour to the hon. Member himself, because the matter was far too serious to be made a mere matter of jest; and he would, also, leave his originality to the hon. Member, because he had told the House that "All work and no play made Jack a dull boy." He thought he had heard that before. Members who believed it beneath the dignity of the House to adjourn for so trifling a cause might congratulate themselves that this Motion was no longer brought before them by the Prime Minister as an Imperial concern and essential to the welfare of the country; but that it was left to a private Member because it was a private Member's day. If hon. Members wanted a holiday, there were many more appropriate days on which they could adjourn. He had never heard a weaker case than that which was made for the Motion; and he thought they should at least have some better reason before giving up a working day. He could not admit that a thing which had been going on for 100 years was a timehonoured custom. The race itself was not of that age, and the custom of adjournment not half so long. It might be true, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) had said, that many of the horses were now owned by Members of but the general run of racing was not that and the other House of Parliament; what it was 40 years ago, nor was the Business of the House, for there was more to be done now; and a question of a day more or less was a matter of far more serious import now than it was at that time. When the other House of Parliament, some time ago, found that important Business was coming on upon the Derby Day, it agreed to postpone the Derby, in fact to postpone its pleasure to its Business, and so ought the House of Commons to do now. one grudged a holiday less than he did; but they were going to take their holidays very soon. Those who kept the officials of that House, not from 12 to 6 No he thought it was better that the Motion should be made by some independent Member, and then all could vote for it on grounds of perfect equality. For himself, he would vote for the adjournment as a custom which, whatever might be said against it in the abstract, had prevailed very long, and which there was no good reason for setting aside. As far as the unfortunate Members of the Government were concerned, as it was a day always selected for a Cabinet Council, an adjournment was of no advantage to them. o'clock on a Wednesday afternoon, but | usually devoted to Government Business, up all night, to discuss at what time Irishmen should drink whisky, were the persons who might fairly incur the charge of infringing on the holidays of those gentlemen. And as for the Members themselves, did anyone imagine that one the less would go to the Derby whether they adjourned or not? The Derby Day was one of the most disgusting days in the year, unless you went to the Derby, for you could do no business on it; and if you went to any place of amusement, it was so crowded as to be disagreeable. He would sooner see a holiday given on the day of the Oxford and Cambridge cricket match or the Queen's ball than on that of the Derby. He should protest, if no one else did, when the Question was put, and divide the House. MR. SULLIVAN said, he should very much enjoy a Derby Day or a holiday; but he should be sorry that a vote of the House should compel the Business of the country to wait upon the horseracing Members of the Assembly. To THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he had no intention of de-morrow was the day for his Bill, and taining the House for more than a moment before going to a division, if they were to go to one. He only wished to explain that in abstaining from making the Motion which, as usual for a good many years past, had been made by the Leader of the House for the adjournment over the Derby Day, he was not actuated by any desire or intention to oppose the adjournment. On the contrary, he had every intention of voting for it. But it seemed to him that the old practice of the Motion being made by some one unconnected with the Government-a practice which was superseded for a certain number of years from 1860, or, at all events, at a time when the House was unanimous on the subjectwas, upon the whole, a better practice to revert to than that which had been he was quite aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before the end of the Session, would make this excuse for the fact that a number of measures had to be abandoned-that there was no time to pass them. A good deal of time had been taken up by this discussion, and thus the consideration of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill would be interfered with. He was ready, however, to withdraw his Bill in favour of the Bill of his Scotch Friends and in order to facilitate Public Business. If the House adjourned for the sake of seeing horseracing to-morrow, he wanted to know whether his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would not have some answer to the accusations that would be hurled against him? Within the last 24 hours he had heard a Mini adopted of late years. His hon. Friendster of the Crown say that he could not (Mr. Chaplin) was not quite correct in referring to the case when Lord Palmerston moved the adjournment for the Derby Day in 1852. It was perfectly true that Lord Palmerston moved the adjournment in 1852, but he was not then in Office-Lord Derby's Government were in Office at the time-and Lord Palmerston moved it as a private Member. But in 1860, when there was a general feeling on the subject, he believed it was the best course that the Leader of the House should make the Motion. Anyone, however, who referred to what had occurred of late years must have seen that there was more opposition; and as the day was not one go on with a most important measure because he had not time. Those who wanted to go to the Derby might go there; but let those who wished to transact the Business of the country be allowed to do so. He knew he was speaking against the proclivities of many in the House; but he also knew he was speaking what was right in the face of the country and of Europe. He would not say that they were going to fiddle while Rome was burning; but he would say they were going to trifle while Europe was on the verge of the most critical events. Would the Government make this Motion if it were a Government day? He protested against the adjournment as a waste of time. He | It does not tend to the honour, and could not endorse what the hon. Mem- dignity, and credit of the House, that ber for Waterford (Mr. Richard Power) this should be done. In 1872, the had said, that the Representatives of minority against adjournment over the the people ought to go where the people Derby Day amounted to 58. In 1874, went that they ought to go to horse- it was 69. In 1875, it was 81. In races, man-fights, and dog-fights. 1876, it increased to 118. I trust, Sir, that the House will to-day still further increase this minority, or, better still, convert it into a majority. MR. RICHARD POWER explained that he had never said any such thing. MR. SULLIVAN said, that no one could be more startled than the hon. Member at the extension of his own logic. picnic. Question put. The House divided :-Ayes 225; Noes 95: Majority 130.—(Div. List, No. 163.) ORDERS OF THE DAY. ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) (The Lord Advocate, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.) (In the Committee.) Clause 12 (Appointment of county road trustees). MR. BIGGAR considered it his duty to vote for the adjournment. If it had been simply a question of horse-racing MR. BLAKE: Mr. Speaker, I con- he would not have voted for it; but gratulate Her Majesty's Government on gambling had decreased to a very great having resolved to discontinue the prac-extent, and the Derby was now a mere tice of themselves moving the adjournment of the House over the Derby Day. This is a hoyeful sign. If the Motion is a good Motion, the Government should still move it. If it is not a good Motion, the House should reject it. The Government evidently regard it as a doubtful matter. Some of us regard it as positively mischievous. It is a sad waste of time. It sacrifices a private Member's day, one of the Wednesdays, of which only about eight remain. This is in itself no small objection. The chief objection to it is that it gives the sanction of this Assembly, whose high character we are all so jealous to maintain, to an amusement which, though it may be innocent in itself, is the cause of enormous evil in almost every town throughout the country. It is impossible to estimate the distress and misery caused by the speculation and gambling which attend all horse races, especially those on the Derby Day. A series of celebrated pictures in the Royal Academy, entitled "The Road to Ruin," are now attracting much notice. I fear, Sir, it is a fact beyond all dispute, that the road which has led thousands of our countrymen to ruin has run to a very great extent, if not mainly, along the race courses of the country. This, with us, is a matter of conscience. I hope the House will abandon a custom which is grievous to many of its Members, and to a very large number of the people of this country. Those hon. Members who wish to attend the race can readily obtain the leave of the House to absent themselves. Or they can do, what they not unfrequently do, absent themselves and go without leave. But do not let them stop the legislative Business of the House. To this we very strongly object. MR. ANDERSON, in moving as an Amendment, in page 8, after line 38, to insert the following section:-" Every tenant of land of the yearly value of one hundred pounds or upwards," said, his object in moving this Amendment was to bring tenants to take a more complete and thorough part in the management of roads. As the Bill at present stood, the management was left far too much in the hands of the Commissioners of Supply, who consisted entirely of the proprietary class. He wished to make tenants of £100 and upwards road trustees; whereas the Bill ignored tenants altogether, unless, perhaps, Corporations who paid £800 and upwards, which was going too far, and was a proposition to which he hoped the Committee would never consent. He wanted to see the Road Boards popularized, and it was high time that something in that direction were done. There was no reason, that he could see, why their counties should not be exactly like the municipalities in their great towns, and until they were so they would not be perfect. In the meantime, when a Bill was being introduced for creating one system of management for the whole of the roads, he thought it was a pity not to recognize the popular element a little more, and with that object he proposed the Amendment. there were many local Acts, the terms of which were practically settled by the tenants, which were so far from being representative, that they were very much less liberal than the proposals of the Government. Amendment negatived. SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER moved, as an Amendment, the omission of the word "incorporated" in line 40. By the clause as it stood Companies not incorporated could not vote, although they were possessed of property of the annual value of £800 and upwards. The result was, that the Clyde Coal Company and Dixon's Company (Limited) would vote, while the Coltness Iron Company and William Baird and Company could not. On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments were made: MR. MARK STEWART said, he-In page 8, line 39, leave out "and," effect of this Amendment in the county and insert "any writing;" in page 8, next to that in which he resided would line 39, after "seal," insert "under the be simply disastrous, for it would give hand of the secretary or other officer;" an overwhelming majority to a par- and in line 40, leave out "every," and ticular class of persons who would, prac-insert "any." tically, swamp the Board. There would be, he calculated, 1,585 persons on the Road Board instead of 290. These persons would be made up as follows:The Commissioners of Supply for that county, at present, were 187; the factors, 10; persons appointed by each Corporation or incorporated Company, 4; two persons out of each parish elected by the ratepayers from their own number, 86; one person for every police burgh in the county, 3; total 290. Under the hon. Member for Glasgow's Amendment the Commissioners of Supply would remain at 187, the number of tenants on the valuation roll, paying a rent of £100 or upwards yearly, would be 1,128. Six persons out of each of the 43 parishes elected by the ratepayers from their own number 258, and 4 persons elected by the Commission of the Police of each police burgh, 12; total, 1,585. He need not point out the absurdity of such an arrangement, and he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. MR. J. W. BARCLAY said, he did not at all approve of the principle that persons should be on the Road Board not as representing any body, but simply because they occupied property of a certain amount. The Amendment, too, instead of making the Boards more popular and representative, would operate in the adverse direction. MR. ORR-EWING hoped the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) would not press his Amendment, and if he did that the Government would not assent to it. He thought the Amendment was dictated rather by opposition to the Commissioners of Supply than by a desire to give the tenants representation. It was a fact, also, that Mr. Anderson THE LORD ADVOCATE said, he had had very little time to consider the Amendment, as it had not been put down on the Paper. He doubted whether it would have the effect desired by the hon. Baronet, even if carried. An unincorporated Company could not hold land except through trustees. MR. J. W. BARCLAY said, the trustees could not vote for Commissioners of Supply. ANSTRUTHER SIR WINDHAM said, he would not press the matter now, but would bring up the Amendment on the Report. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. MR. ANDERSON said, he did not understand why £800 was chosen as the limit in the Bill, and why it was not £700 or £600, or any other sum. In his opinion, £800 was too much; but as the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) intended to move to reduce it to £200, he should not move the Amendment of which he had given Notice. MR. M'LAREN said, the professed object of the Bill was to place corporations who held land in the position of landed proprietors, yet while an ordi nary proprietor would have a vote for comparatively small rental, a corporation would not unless it came within the £800 class. Now, a corporation was regarded by the law as exactly similar to a private individual, and why should they not be treated as other individuals? He considered that every corporation whose landed estates were worth £200 a-year should have the right to vote in these matters; and therefore he moved to substitute the word "two" for the word "eight," in page 8, line 42. MR. J. W. BARCLAY also thought that the valuation of £800, required by this clause of the Bill, in order to enable a corporation or a corporate Company to appoint trustees, was too high. He was in favour of reducing the amount as proposed, while, at the same time, restricting the title of the Company to ownership qualification. MR. RAMSAY said, as the Bill now stood any Company assessed at £800 for taxes of any kind during the year could appoint a representative. He thought it would be desirable to define the right of Companies more clearly. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh ought not to be accepted. The question raised here was really as to what parties might be represented by proxy. In the case of incorporated Companies, their position was the same as that of Commissioners of Supply, who could be represented by the factors of their landed estates if the rentals were £800 a-year. If the Amendment passed, the Companies would be entitled to vote for any part of their rental, whether received from houses or other sources. MR. M'LAREN replied, that a rental of £200 a-year from landed estates should be sufficient. Every corporation had an official-their treasurer, who represented the trust-who was altogether different from an ordinary factor. If the Lord Advocate thought that £200 ayear was too small, he was willing to take a larger sum; but he thought £800 ayear perfectly preposterous. There might as well be a clause to the effect that no corporation with a landed estate should have any representative, as pass the clause as it at present stood. Amendment negatived. VOL. CCXL. [THIRD SERIES.] MR. J. W. BARCLAY, in page 8, line 42, proposed, in order to make it clear that Companies must be owners of land and not tenants only, to insert after the word "assessed" the words as owners." THE LORD ADVOCATE said, he did not in the least object to the addition of the words proposed by the hon. Member for Forfarshire. Amendment agreed to; words inserted. SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER said, with reference to the 3rd subsection in the clause relating to the appointment of county road trustees, there should be only one person instead of two elected by the ratepayers in each parish situated wholly or partly in the county. He therefore moved, as an Amendment, in page 9, line 1, sub-section 3, to leave out the words "two persons,' " and insert the words "one person, not being a Commissioner of Supply, or otherwise a trustee." reason for moving the Amendment was, that he regarded the persons constituted His as trustees under the Bill as so numerous that the Boards would be unwieldy, and he thought it would be almost impossible to get the Bill fairly worked under them. He therefore proposed to substitute one trustee for the two provided for by the Bill. MR. ANDERSON said, he had refrained from moving his Amendment to increase the number of trustees to be elected by each parish, because he was informed that in some counties where the number of parishes was very large, any increase of the representation would make the number of elected members cumbersome and unworkable. But he hoped the Government would not consent to reduce the number of trustees appointed by the Bill. He would have preferred that three members should be elected by the ratepayers of each parish in the place of two; but he should certainly oppose the appointment of any smaller number. MR. MARK STEWART pointed out that in several counties within his knowledge the election of two members by each parish would completely swamp the other representatives. In some counties which had private Acts, it was found that they could not even give one elected member to each parish, because it would. 2 Q |