moved, that the Amendments made by the Lords in the Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Bill should be agreed to.

fell compelled, on the present occasion, to take a course which was very unusual in that House. It was necessary for him to call the attention of the House to a clause in this Bill which had been sent up to the House of Lords, and not altered or amended by them; and which, consequently, the House of Commons had now no power of remedying or altering. If the course which he was now taking was unusual, it was however justified by the unusual or rather the unprecedented manner in which this clause had passed the House of Commons. It was introduced in a manner which precluded the House from discussing it, or even knowing of its existence. It was not in the Bill as introduced by the Lord Advocate, but was allowed by him to be introduced by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire without any opposition, and without the Lord Advocate undertaking the responsibility of it. The learned Lord had on a former occasion stated, that all the Scotch Members were agreed as to the propriety of the clause; but he believed, on the contrary, that there was great difference of opinion amongst them on the subject. The learned Lord had also said, that a precisely similar clause was inserted in every Scotch Railway Bill, but this statement he believed to be equally erroneous; and be could not help complaining of the covert, and he must say surreptitious, manner in which the clause had been introduced. In order to make the object of the clause intelligible, he must premise that the mode of laying out turnpike roads in Scotland was very different from what it was in this country. There, the bank lent money on the security of the tolls; but also the gentry near whose property the road ran gave their personal security for the tolls of the road, and by doing so they got the money at a lower rate of interest, and facilitated the construction of the road. They were thus interested parties; and the object of the clause to which he referred was, if the tolls should fall off, to hold them harmless as to their guarantee. He admitted that a similar clause was inserted in some of the Scotch Railway Bills, but not to the unqualified extent to which it proceeded in this Bill; for it was proposed by the clause in question, that if a railway company and the proprietors of land could not agree as to the amount of compensation, the absolute decision of that point was to be left to the sheriff of the county. No jury, no appeal; but sums of enormous magnitude were to be left to the adjudication of this single officer, without check and without appeal. Now, it happened not unfrequently that sheriffs of counties were themselves proprietors of land in the counties in which they were sheriffs. He believed that in the practice lately adopted, no gentleman was appointed sheriff for a county in which he possessed land; but that was not the former practice, and some gentlemen still remained who held land in the counties for which they were sheriffs. The indecent consequence of this clause in such cases would be, that the sheriff would be awarding compensation in cases in which he was himself directly interested. He did not think that the House would have sanctioned such a clause if there had been an opportunity of considering it. It was difficult to say what course ought now to be pursued; but he had felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to the circumstances; and he was anxious to hear from the Lord Advocate some more satisfactory explanation, both as to the clause itself and the manner in which it had been introduced, than it had been his good fortune to obtain on a former occasion.

said, that the clause in question was proposed in the Committee on the Bill; and he saw no objection to it, as well because no objection was then made to it, as because, as he observed at the time, and which the right hon. Gentleman now confirmed, similar clauses had been introduced into some Scotch Railway Bills. In this case no sum was specified for compensation, nor were the parties declared to have a claim to compensation. They were enabled to apply to the sheriff; and if he conceived that they had a good case, he was empowered to award compensation; if otherwise, to refuse it. As to sheriffs possessing land in counties for which they were sheriffs, he knew that was decidedly opposed to the principle generally laid down and acted upon. The principle was, that they should possess no local interest in the county for which they were sheriffs. That being the case, he considered the sheriff the best arbitrator that could be selected for such questions, he being a lawyer, an independent and impartial person, and having no interest for or against any projected railroad. Under these circumstances, he saw no objection to the clause.

said, that, previous to proposing the clause, he had consulted several of his friends from Scotland and also several parliamentary agents, and all agreed that some such clause was indispensable; but as none were prepared to make any definite proposition, he had taken upon himself that duty, and introduced the clause on a principle which, as he considered, had already been established. He put it to the House whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not used too strong language in speaking of the mode in which the clause had been introduced?

said he agreed with his right hon. Friend, who had brought this clause under the notice of the House, that it was one involving most important principles. He acquitted his hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate of any intentional irregularity in its introduction, but certainly it was most unfortunate that such a clause should have been introduced without notice, and without having been printed. He thought that the hon. Member who spoke last had only made the case ten times worse. He had looked into the clause. His hon. and learned Friend was right in saying that the principle had been recognised in some previous Bills, but certainly not in all. In many Bills there was no provision at all for compensation for turnpike roads, while in others the principle was recognised to a certain limited extent. But here was a clause making compensation compulsory in every case. There was no safeguard nor exceptions; in fact, there was food for litigation in every line of the clause. He objected also to the provision which made the sheriff arbiter in disputed cases. What! a single individual to decide most important points. Why not give him the assistance of a jury? He repeated, he did not impute to his learned Friend any wish to prevent the discussion on the clause, but he certainly thought that he had been guilty of great incaution in allowing the clause to be introduced, as it had been, without notice, and without having been previously printed.

begged leave to observe that the objection to the clause seemed to be taken mainly upon the ground that the sheriffs, who were appointed to decide in the matter, might be interested as landed proprietors in the county. There was he believed, but one county, that of Inverness, in which the sheriff was so interested; and in that county no person was responsible for the tolls of the roads. Since the passing of the clause in question, he had received letters from the county which he represented, from parties interested in the promotion of railway projects, and all expressing their satisfaction that such a clause had received the sanction of the House. He would give his cordial assent to the clause.

wished to ask a question of the Lord Advocate, the reply to which might probably shorten the discussion. His question was, would the Lord Advocate engage, on the part of the Government, to introduce a short Bill in the course of the present Session, either to repeal or to amend the clause objected to? If no such engagement were made, he must move that the Bill be taken into further consideration that day six months.

condemned the clause. He thought that what was considered good for Scotland, should be introduced into England. The clause might be made of very extensive application. Were there not canals, as well as turnpikes, to be affected by railroads? He thought that the principle adopted by Her Majesty's Government, in reference to this matter—if any were adopted at all—should be one of general application. The Lord Advocate could not have been aware of the importance of the clause, otherwise he would not have allowed it to pass as it had passed through the House. He would submit that the Government should withdraw the present Bill, and bring in another. With the intent that they should do so, he would move that the Lords' Amendments be taken into consideration that day six months.

observed, that in matters of this kind Scotland seemed to be much better represented in the Government than was England. It appeared that Scottish trustees of turnpike roads received at the hands of the Lord Advocate a degree of consideration which was peremptorily refused by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to him (Lord Ebrington) when, some time since, he brought before the House the present plan of exempting mails from the payment of toll. He hoped the English Representatives would bear in mind the manner in which Scottish turnpikes were considered by Government.

thought that the object of railway legislation was, or should be, to establish a uniform system throughout the whole country. If they introduced a separate system with regard to Scotch railways, the greatest hardship would be inflicted upon all interested in turnpike roads in England. In the north of England the property of some of the trustees of such roads had been reduced by the introduction of railways by some 40 or 50 per cent. If this Bill were to pass, he hoped the Government would extend the same measure of justice to England. If they did not, he should feel called upon to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose. They could only secure a uniform system of railway legislation by having its provisions extended equally to all parts of the country, unless there were some very special reasons why one part of the kingdom should be placed in a better position than another.

observed, that the same state of things did not exist in England as existed in Scotland. The clause in question had reference to trustees personally bound.

said, that the cases of England and Scotland, as he viewed them, were precisely similar. The case of Scotland was this: the country gentlemen of Scotland advanced either their money or gave their personal security for the purpose of effecting improvements upon the roads. In the county with which he was connected, the country gentlemen came forward also to effect such improvement. The western line of road, through Wooler, communicating by Northumberland with Scotland, was defective, and the gentlemen of the county were anxious to improve it. It was greatly improved, the county gentlemen coming forward and lending their own money on the security of the turnpike trusts or tolls to be levied on the improved road from Morpeth through Wooler into Scotland. That money remained unpaid. Two railway projects were now before the House, for the purpose of establishing a railway communication from Newcastle to Berwick, and one or other of these would probably pass. If either of them passed, he doubted very much if the tolls levied upon that line of road, which traversed a very thinly inhabited district, would pay the expense of collection. The parties who had thus lent their money would then entirely lose it; but thinking that the principle was so settled that no compensation in such case should be granted to them, they had not even applied to the House for it. When these same gentlemen travelled into Scotland by railway, having thus lost the money which they had advanced to improve the roads in their own country, they would find that they had to pay for compensation to Scottish landlords, who were precisely in the same situation as they were themselves. Was this a thing to be thought of? Were clauses inflicting such injustice upon parties to be smuggled into a Bill? Would such clauses be permitted to become law? He trusted that they would not, and he thought that the only means of preventing such a result would be, that the House should agree to the Amendment. The noble Lord (Lord Ebrington) had alluded to a subject to which he had some time since called the attention of the Government, and which had not received the attention which it merited—he meant the exemption of mail coaches from toll. He thought that this exemption should be got rid of, both in England and Scotland. At all events, the House had no right to give to Scottish landlords the additional benefits which they now claimed, without good grounds for them, nor was he aware that any such grounds existed.

, jun., observed, that it was notorious that a sheriff of a county might be a landed proprietor in the county, and, having an interest in the question of compensation on a trust, might be called upon to judge in his own case. Not only might compensation be thus granted to road trustees, but a profit might be made out of the roads. This clause, he conceived, had been jobbed into the Bill, and it was a clause which should meet with the strenuous opposition of the House. It was one of the most material parts of the Bill. It was a Government Bill, and the Government should be responsible for so material a portion of it. He could not assent to another Bill being brought in as supplemental to this. He could not trust to such a Bill. He had no security how a supplemental Bill, repealing the clause in question, might be dealt with in another place. The only course left for them was to oppose the present Bill altogether, and trust to an entirely new one being brought in.

regretted that no Member of the Government had risen to express the sentiments of the Government upon the clause disputed. If the clause were part of a Private Bill, he could well understand why the Government should take no interest in it. This was one of their own Bills; and when a direct appeal was made to them upon one of its most important clauses, he thought that some Member of the Cabinet would have risen and expressed some opinion concerning it. The plan proposed by some of those who objected to the clause was, that the Bill should be stopped in the ordinary way, and a new Bill introduced, without the obnoxious clause, and to this proposal he would assent. The present Bill recognised an important principle, and he did not see why, if it were adopted as regards Scotland, it should not be made applicable also to both England and Ireland.

thought that the whole of this question had been much misapprehended by many hon. Gentlemen who addressed the House. The case of Scotland was different from the case either of England or Ireland. The roads in Scotland were constructed upon a principle altogether different from that on which the roads in the sister countries were formed.

observed, that the clause in question had been objected to on various grounds. It was objected to on principle, and he was asked to bring in a Bill to repeal or amend it. Another objection to it was grounded upon the manner in which it had been introduced. He had already explained how it had been introduced. The clause was not in the original Bill, and he had introduced it, considering that there was no objection to it on principle, and no objection had been taken to it when it was introduced in Committee. But as it was stated that the clause had been introduced into the Bill in a manner unsatisfactory to the House, and as he was not desirous to have it carried without proper discussion, he certainly did not wish to press it at that moment. He was disposed to take the course which was considered least inconvenient with regard to the progress of the Bill, and which would afford the best opportunity for a fair discussion of the principle involved in the clause, should it be brought before the House in a somewhat modified form. The best course, therefore, he thought, would be to reintroduce the Bill, with all the other Amendments, such as they now were, when the House would have an opportunity of dealing with this clause as, upon due consideration, might appear most desirable.

wished to call the attention of the House to a Notice placed upon the Paper by his noble Friend the Member for Monmouth (Lord G. Somerset), regarding the Standing Orders he proposed with respect to those Bills which had been for some time under the consideration of the House. The object was to embody in one Act all those provisions which the House, after full consideration, was of opinion ought generally to be introduced into Bills connected with railways, or for giving compulsory power to companies to take lands, or for the regulation of public companies. The right hon. Gentleman moved—

"That every Committee on a Railway Bill shall, with the Report on the Bill, state whether the provisions of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Bill, the Railway Clauses Consolidation Bill, and the Lands Clauses Consolidation Bill, have been complied with; and if they shall not have been complied with, state in what respects they have not been complied with, and the reasons for such non-compliance.

"That the Committee on every Bill, other than a Railway Bill, to which the provisions of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Bill, or the Lands Clauses Consolidation Bill, are applicable, shall report to the House any noncompliance with such provisions, and shall state their reasons for permitting such noncompliance."

thought it very desirable that the House should have the means of knowing whether these Consolidation Clauses Bills were followed in the different Private Bills; but it would be absolutely impossible for Committees on the Bills, with their other engagements, satisfactorily to discharge this duty. It would be much better that the Gentleman who prepared the breviates of Bills should make a return to the House, on which they might rely, of the cases of non-compliance.

thought the Resolutions would involve a difficulty, and that the better mode was the plan suggested by his hon. Friend.

observed, that the attention of the Committee would be directed by the gentleman who drew the breviates where deviations occurred. The Committees could then report to the House.

objected to additional labour being imposed on committees.

Replied that without making an Order of the House, Mr. Booth, the gentleman who prepared the breviates, might point out the deviations in the Bills as they came before Committees. He would not press the Resolutions.

rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill to regulate admission to the lay or secular chairs of the Universities of Scotland. The hon. Member said, that although his Motion was very similar to one which had been rejected last year, he hoped that Her Majesty's Ministers would, on account of circumstances which did not then exist, but which had since occurred, allow him to introduce the Bill. The two Acts of the Scottish Parliament regulating the admission to the chairs of the Universities were passed in 1609 and 1707 respectively. The one enacted that all the office-bearers of the Scotch Universities should sign the Confession of Faith; the other required subscription to the Oath of Allegiance as well as the Confession of Faith of 1609. Now, in no one of the Scotch Universities had these Acts been enforced in terms as to all the office-bearers. In the University of Edinburgh they had been entirely in abeyance and disuse. He proposed in the Bill he had framed to provide, that hereafter it should not be necessary for any teacher or professor in any lay or secular chair in any Scotch University to make the declarations required by those Acts of Parliament. He proposed to leave untouched all chairs which were connected with the teaching of the candidates for orders, or with the theological faculty. The chairs from the admission to which he desired to remove the existing restrictions, were those connected with literature and science. The theological chairs he did not seek to interfere with at all. To a large portion of his countrymen, particularly those who, in consequence of the late differences in the Church of Scotland, were now placed in the position of dissenters from that Church, those restrictions would be felt as a great grievance and an insult. The opinions of the professors of the Universities themselves, too, were generally opposed to the continuance of the restrictions. The Senatus Academicus of Edinburgh had met, and all professors and teachers of the University, of the metropolis of Scotland, were, with one exception only, favourable to the removal of those restrictions; and in Aberdeen, King's College, which was the most exclusive of all the Scotch Universities, and the most reluctant to admit any reform in the collegiate institutions of Scotland—the question having come under discussion, and the numbers being equal on both sides, a casting vote against their continuance had been given. In Marischal College, Aberdeen, there was a decided majority against them; and in St. Andrew's, two-thirds of the whole body were opposed to them. In Glasgow, opinion was divided in about the same proportion; while in Edinburgh, as he had said, the opinion was all but unanimous. Therefore he had the authority of all the colleges in favour of the proposition he was about to submit. There was another point to which he would especially direct the attention of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, as forming an additional ground for the change he proposed to effect. Last year the right hon. Baronet, in the course of a conversation that occurred in reference to the late discussion in the Church, referred to some transactions that had taken place at Dundee, as evincing symptoms of a reaction in a prospect of a speedy return of the Free-Church party to the Church from which they had seceded. He had stated at the time that he thought the right hon. Baronet had formed the opinion on fallacious grounds; and he was now prepared to say that the Free-Church party, instead of showing any symptoms of reaction, or evincing any desire or disposition to return, had become firmer than ever in their secession, and had constituted themselves into a body in dissent from the Church. And on a recent occasion, the importance of having a college in connexion with the Free Church having been discussed and admitted, the question arose whether it might not be possible, without calling upon the poorer members to subscribe, or entrenching upon their already limited means for such an object, to carry it out by the subscriptions of the more wealthy of that body; which question was decided in the course of three weeks by twenty of the leading members of the Free Church coming forward with subscriptions to the amount of 20,000l., or 1,000l. each. If, therefore, the existing restrictions were continued, there could be no doubt that the consequence would be the establishment of a rival college, and instead of a common education, with all its beneficial influence on society, they would have a sectarian education, with all its evils spreading from one end of Scotland to the other. If they refused the measure he proposed, they would have a sectarian college established, and the dissenting youth would be taught apart from the rest of the youth of Scotland, and they would destroy that charitable and humanizing feeling which resulted from a common education. And what was it that he was asking the House to do? He was asking them to remit restrictions that, as the law now stood, might be enforced for political, mischievous, and improper purposes. In point of fact, he was asking them to do nothing that had not been done by the Scotch Universities for many years past, and for the last sixty years by the University of Edinburgh. In the University of Edinburgh at this time, the nonconforming members included the Lord Rector, and eleven professors. In the University of Glasgow, there were the chancellors and five professors; in St. Andrew's there was the Principal; in King's College, Aberdeen, there were three professors, one lecturer, the Lord Rector, and four assessors; in Marischal College, there were the Lord Rector and two of his assessors, two professors, and two lecturers, who did not conform to the Established Church. There were thirteen Presbyterian Dissenters who, notwithstanding those statutory restrictions, held office in the Universities; they were not originally admitted as Presbyterian Dissenters, he owned, but had become so in consequence of their having joined the Free Church; but, excepting this thirteen, there were also twenty-seven (that, he believed, was the number) persons who belonged to the Episcopal Church, and had been admitted to hold positions in the Colleges of the several Universities of Scotland, notwithstanding the provision of the Statutes to which he had alluded. The only parties against whom the law was intended to apply were Episcopalians; and yet they found that from the time almost immediately subsequent to the Union, Episcopalians had held offices in the Scotch Universities, from which the rigid enforcement of the Statutes must have excluded them. If those Statutes had been strictly enforced, the two right hon. Baronets opposite (Sir R. Peel and Sir J. Graham), who had preceded him (Mr. Rutherfurd) in the office he had now the honour to hold (Lord Rector of Glasgow University) never could have filled that appointment; and yet when his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Fox Maule) was about to be inducted into the same situation, he had to enter the office under a protest unless he produced those certificates which had not been demanded on similar occasions for sixty years before. This proved that the institution might be revived for political or interested purposes. The case of Dr. Brewster afforded a more recent and a still stronger instance of the injustice of leaving the law in its present state. Dr. Brewster, as was well known, had long filled the Principal's chair at St. Andrew's, and having joined the seceding party, the University proposed to enforce the law against him, and to eject him from his office. He mentioned this to show that if the law remained as it was, no man who was presented to the chair of mathematics or philosophy in any Scotch University had any security that some person might not afterwards come forward and call upon him to conform to the Statutes, for the purpose of excluding him. And who were the persons they would thus exclude? Within the last fortnight a gentleman had been carried to his grave who had commanded more private affection and more public regard than, perhaps, any other man who had recently expired—a gentleman who had taken a high and prominent position in the great movement that had separated the Church of Scotland—a gentleman firm and determined in his line of action, but at the same time, of all the men concerned in the great movement, the most moderate in counsel and the most temperate in language—a man who had never uttered a word or did a deed intended to give offence. That man (Dr. Walsh) filled a professor's chair in the University of Edinburgh, and he also held the appointment of Secretary to the Bible Board. Acting upon his own conviction of what was right, having separated from the Church, he at once resigned the theological chair at the University; but at the suggestion of his friends, with whom he agreed in the opinion that there was nothing in the constitution of the Bible Board that required his removal from it, he did not think it necessary at the same time to resign his office as its secretary. That appointment was taken from him—he would not say from vindictive motives; but he must say that the act that deprived that gentleman of the appointment was a harsh use of authority, and it was an act which had given to the Free-Church party in Scotland a more just ground of offence, had tended more to widen the breach between the two parties, and to render reconciliation impossible, than anything else that had occurred. With such facts as those before them, they could not think that the Free Dissenters would trust that these laws might not hereafter be enforced against them, although in the past circumstances of the country it had not been done; and his object, therefore, was to take away the paltry and vindictive power of doing that mischief in future. He contended, and he believed, no bearded man would at this period contend that it was necessary to have certain religious tests applied to professors other than those of theology. The professorial chairs had been filled by men of various creeds, and no one had ever surmised danger either to the Universities or the Church from the selections that had been made. Professors belonging to the Dissenting body, and to the Free Church, had been elected to the different chairs, and they had discharged their various duties so as to impair neither the honour nor the efficiency of the Establishment. So far as he could judge, the present question was entirely Scottish in its character, and had nothing whatever to do with the English Universities. The English Universities stood on their own endowments—they were maintained on a system utterly unknown in Scotland. The youth in the English Universities formed part of a large family in which religious teaching and secular instruction went hand in hand. But it was different in the Scottish Colleges; the students there experienced none of that college life which was part of the university system in England. He would say it, for it was to the honour of his country, that not only education was open to all creeds in one University, but all the honours which the University had to bestow were given without reference to religious belief. And why should not professors, teaching only literature or science, be selected from men of talent of all creeds? They had been told before, and they might be told again, that the Act of Union interposed difficulties—and persons might go back to that when their object was to defeat a change; but, according to his reading of the true history of his country, it was a deviation from the Act of Union, it was a Statute inconsistent with it, that first brought out the principle of dissent. It was the Statute of 1711, recalling the Statute of 1690, that had produced a change in the patronage, and had first led to dissent; but no allusion was made to the Act of Union when they passed Lord Aberdeen's Act last year. But was it not a grief when a large party—the majority of his countrymen—were precluded by law from obtaining the academical honour of becoming teachers and professors? Was it no indignity to literature and science—to those who had devoted their lives to it, to find such a state of things? Now was a fair opportunity to interpose. Never was the grievance so strong as it was now, in consequence of the existing dissent, which involved the exclusion of more than one-half of those who were formerly within the pale of the Church. He asked for leave, then, to bring in this Bill in the name of that majority, armed too with the approbation and sanction of all the Universities in Scotland, and supported by the long-continued usage of the country; and he trusted they would see that the exceptions to that usage had been bigoted and illiberal exceptions, which, if continued, would be at the expense of destroying the advantages of common and general education in Scotland, and of inflicting a deep and serious wound on all the Universities in that country by the establishment of a Dissenting College, which he should not like to see established if these disabilities could be removed, but which he should not be sorry to see established if they were continued against the feeling of the country, which had been so strongly manifested. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in his Bill.

wished to explain that the Report of the University Commissioners which he had signed, and which had been referred to as an authority against the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend opposite, had been drawn up nearly twenty years ago. Many changes in laws and politics had since taken place, and circumstances were now materially different. There was then no complaint against the Statute, and no grievance before the Commissioners. No one proposed to repeal it, and that question was not discussed. It was a natural thing to say, "Here is a regulation enforced in some places, and not in others; why should not the practice be uniform." Circumstances were now entirely changed. There was an important new feature in the case. The Universities themselves now asked for an alteration of the law as a measure for their own protection. There was now a grievance to redress, and he hoped his right hon. Friends would not find it so difficult to deal with the question as formerly. The late secession from the Church had occasioned the complaints; but his hon and learned Friend was too able an advocate to rest his case on such narrow grounds. He had argued for the change as a measure of liberal policy, and enlightened administration; and it was on this ground he (Mr. Drummond) wished to support it. He had voted repeatedly against Motions for interfering with the English Universities, and he had seen no cause to change his opinion. "The case of the Scotch colleges is quite different, as my hon. and learned Friend has explained. There is no analogy between them. Every Scotchman knows that the Scotch colleges are not intended for the education of persons of any particular religious denomination, but are open to all: and that religious opinions are never interfered with by any professor out of the theological department. No doubt this state of things, together with the fact that the Statute has been in a great measure in non-observance with regard to the professors, is an argument against the extent of the grievance; but no one can say that, practically, the regulation has, for a long time, served any useful purpose; and, if it be felt as a grievance, why should it be retained? If the patronage of the professorships be considered, there would be little ground for alarm. In all the colleges but Edinburgh, it is vested almost entirely either in the professors themselves, or in the Crown. And, at Edinburgh, however doubtful in theory the election of professors by the town council may appear, there is no doubt that the patronage has always been excellently administered by persons of the most opposite political opinions, who have at different times composed the council; and we have no reason to fear that they will not continue, in future as in time past, to select the best professors they can find, without regard to the religious denomination to which they may belong. There may be other considerations to which the Government are bound to attend, but I hope there are none that would ultimately stand in the way of the desired improvement."

would be glad if Government would consent to the first reading of the Bill, and thus give time to hon. Members to consider the whole scope and tendency of the Act. He would not reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rutherfurd) further than to say that he could not find words strong enough to express the intensity of his difference from the hon and learned Gentleman, with respect to his declaration, that in 1845 no bearded man could maintain the opinion that religious creeds ought to have anything to do with professorial chairs for literature and science. He would not discuss the point; but he begged to say he could not state his objections too strongly to such a doctrine. If it were so that in Scotland all revealed religion was distinctly repudiated, and science and literature were to rest on their own bases as human attainments, and if it were to be understood that the chairs of science and literature would be best furnished without such tests—if it were also established that for a long time this had been the recognised practice, and that it carried with it the general mind, he still thought they ought to pause before they applied principles they held dear in the case of their own country to Scotland. He thought no one could have observed what had taken place during the last ten years in Scotland without seeing that much of the life blood in the Church in Scotland had gone forth from it. This had much weight with him in deciding this question, and he, therefore, hoped the Bill would not be rejected on the first reading.

said: I cannot commence the observations I am about to address to the House, without complimenting the hon. Gentleman on the tone of his speech, and the great ability and fairness with which he stated the question. But there are several omissions which he made, which I think it right to call to the recollection of the House. First of all, I think it is our imperative duty to regard this question distinctly as a Scottish question. There are great distinctions to be made in so considering it. There are the peculiarities of the Scottish law—the peculiarity of the relation of the Scotch Universities and the Church of Scotland, and the discipline of those Universities; and I think the hon. Gentleman most fairly put it to the House, that, bearing in mind those distinctions, we must not confound the question of the Scotch Universities with that of the English Universities. At the same time, I am bound to say that this question cannot be regarded with reference only to the Scotch Universities. There is another party—an important party—a party which, for a long time, was undivided and dominant in Scotland, and which, although recently divided, is still a powerful body, to be regarded with great consideration by the Ministers of the Crown—I mean, the Church of Scotland. Let me call to the attention of the House the peculiarity of the obligation on the part of the Legislature to the Church of Scotland, and also to the intimate connexion which has always existed since that relation was established between the Scotch Universities and the Established Church. Before the Union in 1690, within two years of the great revolution in this country, William III. wisely, but reluctantly, consented to the establishment of the Presbyterian religion in Scotland. Almost simultaneously with the Act which established the Presbyterian religion as the religion of Scotland—it was within six weeks—an Act was passed by the Scotch Parliament connecting the Universities with that Church, and, for the first time, that Act introduced the test which has subsisted since that time to this day. It is said that it was levelled against the Episcopalian body—it was introduced avowedly for the purpose of strengthening the Establishment, and guarding it against its enemies, who, by obtaining an ascendancy in the Universities, might materially injure that Church. That was the Act of the Scottish Parliament, and it remained in force from 1690 until the period of the Union with England. Now, be it observed that, simultaneously with the Act of Union—upon the very day that Act received the Royal Assent—the Act of Security was passed, receiving the Royal Assent at the same time with the former, which involved all the provisions of the Act of 1690, with reference to the test imposed upon professors and office-bearers in the Scotch Universities. It was made one of the fundamental conditions of the Union with England, and there is a very remarkable expression embodied in the Act of Union itself. It is this—that although the British Parliament should be at perfect liberty to take within the bounds of England what security it might think fit for the maintenance of the Established Church of England, yet it debarred the British Parliament from taking any step with reference to the Established Church of Scotland which should have the effect of derogating from this security. Amongst other securities is the one which we are now discussing, and it is prominently and signally specified. It must be remembered, however, that although a great majority of the advisers of the Crown are Episcopalians, and though in this House the Presbyterian Members are a small minority, we are dealing with a fundamental Article of the Union, to which the people of Scotland, from the earliest times, have attached the greatest importance; and at the time of the Union, when the terms of the fundamental settlement were adjusted, they did not press for hard conditions, but were satisfied by carrying two great objects — their national judicature and their national Church; and having carried these two, they have raised a lasting monument of national independence and great public virtue. At the same time I must say that, if any alteration is to be made in this matter, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is the moment for making it; for I feel that the hon. Gentleman has in the most, fair manner—not urging it as a threat, but stating it as well worthy of the consideration of a deliberative assembly—he has brought under our notice the fact, that there is about to be established in Scotland a University of a decidedly Dissenting character—the funds are provided, and the college is about to be established. If the instruction is confined to theological teaching, there is no danger; but if, from any refusal on the part of the Legislature to reconsider this question of a religious test, as applied to instruction in literature and science, the statement of the hon. Gentleman be correct, that the dissatisfaction on the part of those who are not members of the Church at such a refusal will be so strong, that the great body of the youth of Dissenters in Scotland will be drawn from the national establishments of education, and will flock to the new College—then, indeed, the danger is not imaginary, but the practical evil will be seriously great. I endeavour to look at this matter candidly, in the advice I shall tender to the Crown; and I am bound to ask myself, if that event should take place, will it be conducive or otherwise to the maintenance of the Church as now established? Amongst the many singular advantages enjoyed by the people of Scotland, which have advanced the prosperity of that country in the last century to a degree of preeminence of which Scotchmen may well be proud, I know none that has been practically so conducive to their greatness and prosperity as the absence of sectarian education in that country. Their differences have been not about doctrine, but about discipline. There has been, therefore, in that country one undivided system of national education, extending from the Universities to the parish schools, and harmony and concord on that subject have subsisted for more than a century. I again, therefore, ask the question whether, if it be proved that there is danger with reference to the establishment of a Dissenting College and school of education, will it be conducive to the concord of that country that such a system of education should for the first time be established? I cannot say it would be at all safe on the part of the Government to commit itself to the abrogation of a test which has existed for more than a century and a half, and which has, practically, been enforced since the Union; but the question now is, shall a test framed a hundred years ago, against a danger that has practically vanished, but which, if enforced, would embitter religious controversies, and probably have the effect of dividing the system of education in Scotland, be, in present circumstances, abrogated or continued? That is a matter so materially affecting the Church of Scotland, and the feelings and interests of the people of that country, that I think the British Legislature are bound deeply to weigh and consider it; and it would be imprudent on the part of the Government to give any distinct pledge as to the course they may feel it their duty ultimately to follow. But there is one circumstance that has occurred since this matter was discussed last Session, to which I will refer. My right hon. Friend has this morning received a deputation from the Universities of Scotland; and certainly the fact appears to be, that, amidst the numerous professors of Edinburgh, I believe with one solitary exception, there is a concurrent desire that this test should be abolished. In the University more especially connected with the Church of Scotland—I mean St. Andrew's—if I mistake not, two-thirds of the professors are in favour of the abrogation; and at Glasgow also the professors in favour of it are in the same proportion. I stated on a former occasion, what I sincerely think, that there may be difficulty in drawing distinctly a line of demarcation between theological teachers and general teachers in science; and I cannot but think that there is a certain risk, in lectures not connected with religion, of some opinions adverse to the Church being introduced; but my opinion inclines to the belief that the danger is less from the intermixture of dissenting opinions with literature and science, than from the certain and inevitable evil of a distinct Dissenting College. This fear weighs with me so much, that I do not think that at this moment, which I admit to be critical, it would be wise to refuse the hon. Gentleman leave to bring in his Bill; but I hope he will not press on the second read- ing until the people of Scotland have had ample time to express their opinion. That opinion ought to have the greatest weight with the British Parliament—the feelings and wishes of the people of Scotland ought to be dominant on this question. At the same time, the opinion I so strongly expressed last year, I to a certain extent still entertain. I am bound to state that this test, which it is now proposed to remove, and which was framed against other dangers, was nevertheless framed for all time as a safeguard against the admission to power of teachers in the Scotch Universities who might seek, either directly or indirectly, to injure or subvert the Church of Scotland. There has been a lamented schism in that Church; and I must say, that many of the most eminent divines who have seceded, when members of it, would have been found very reluctant to part with the security we are now discussing. I believe that that most distinguished individual, Dr. Chalmers, had he remained a member of the Established Church, would have been found amongst the most strenuous opponents to the abrogation of the test. That is a very important consideration. I feel all the delicacy of the question; but my earnest and sincere wish is, seeing all the difficulties and dangers, to give such advice as shall be most conducive, under the circumstances of the recent schism, to the happiness and concord of the people pf Scotland, and to the maintenance of the Church as by law established.

felt satisfied that the conduct which Her Majesty's Government were pursuing upon this occasion would have the effect of healing many of the differences which unhappily prevailed in Scotland on the subject of the proposed Bill, and to allay much of the strong feeling which had been excited with reference to it. He regarded the conduct of the Government as the forerunner of great good to his native country. He confessed he should contemplate with great alarm the establishment in Scotland of a college of such a nature as that, coupled with the circumstances of the times, which might cause the education of youth to assume a sectarian character. He wished further to say, that the conduct of the Government was not only satisfactory in the view of its having a tendency to heal the wounded feelings which existed, but he also considered their conduct judicious as regarded the question itself. He repeated that he fully approved of the policy of the Government, for he considered that the right hon. Gentleman was not to blame for the caution that he thought it necessary to exercise. No one could doubt this, that the more the question was looked into the more evident it would appear that there were serious difficulties to be overcome; at the same time, it must be admitted that some of the difficulties were represented rather more strongly than they really existed; and it was not to be forgotten that the strong grounds for those tests had long since vanished; and he felt bound to state, with every possible respect for the Established Church of Scotland, that he thought measures might be devised on the subject of tests, which were likely to prove satisfactory to all classes of the community in that part of the United Kingdom, and which he trusted would have the effect of saving Scotland from the commencement of a sectarian controversy; and which would also secure to the youth of that country all the benefits of an education derived from those old, venerable, and useful institutions which had long been so advantageous to the country.

said: I rise for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a Bill to facilitate the Enclosure of Commons and Waste Lands in England and Wales. The House will observe, that in consequence of a general expectation that the debate which has just concluded would occupy the whole evening, several Members who take an interest in the question of enclosures are absent; and I shall therefore not feel it necessary to trouble the House at as great length as the importance of the subject might under other circumstances require. For the same reason I am by no means so well prepared, as I otherwise might have been, to bring this subject under the notice and consideration of the House; as I have not with me those papers which would enable me to develop the details of the subject as fully as I could have wished. It therefore becomes necessary that I should limit myself to the briefest possible statement which will enable hon. Members to understand the nature of the measure which I am asking permission to introduce. It will not be for- gotten that a Bill on this subject was brought in last Session by the noble Member for Lincolnshire; but, after some ineffectual attempts to pass it through its stages in this House, in consequence of the difficulties which attend any legislation upon subjects of this nature by a private individual, it was referred to a Committee upstairs. In order to render the few remarks which I have to make as short as possible, I will take for granted that every Gentleman who hears me is already aware of the provisions of that Bill, and of the recommendations of the Committee, which, after having called a great number of witnesses from all parts of the country, reported strongly in favour of a general measure for facilitating enclosures, and the appointment of a Commission for that purpose. I will also take for granted that every one admits the extreme difficulty which attends private legislation, and the frequent injustice which it occasions. Part of those objects which the intended measure may be expected to effect will be to neutralize, if not altogether to prevent, the recurrence of those evils. I may now state, before I proceed further, that one of the means which I propose to adopt for facilitating the Enclosure of Commons and Waste Lands, will be the appointment of a Public Commission, instead of continuing the practice of private legislation to the extent that it has hitherto been carried. This principle, it will be recollected, was fully recognised in the Bill of last year; and in the year preceding a proposition of a similar kind had been favourably received by the House. Now, if the principle is recognised, it is important to landowners that some such Bill as that which I now propose to introduce should pass during the present Session; for, in consequence of a strong expectation that some General Enclosure Bill would be brought forward, all private legislation, which is attended with a heavy expense, has been almost entirely suspended during the two last years. As the subject of General Enclosure Bills has been very frequently discussed, it is the less necessary that I should now occupy the time of the House by going into it at any length. I shall merely, therefore, confine myself to saying that the general experience of private legislation has proved that some such measure as that which I am now about to propose has become, if not absolutely indispensable, at least highly desirable. I will not go into any minute details, be- cause upon the second reading of the Bill its provisions can be examined as carefully as the circumstances of the case may at all seem to require. Assuming, then, that the provisions of last year's Bill are familiar to the House, I shall proceed to state the alterations which I propose to introduce, and the points in which my Bill will differ from the measure of my noble Friend; and I venture to think that the changes which I intend to propose will obviate a great many objections, not merely existing in the House, but which I have reason to believe prevail out of the House. It has been contended by several persons who have given much attention to this subject, that the effect of a General Enclosure Bill would be to withdraw the control of such measures from the hands of Parliament, and that it will also have the effect of producing a very dangerous infraction of the rights of the poor. I believe that this objection is founded in error, even as regards the Bill introduced last year by my, noble Friend. In the present Bill, however, I propose to introduce an additional security to that taken by my noble Friend. It appears to me that the Commission which I intend should form a feature of this measure, will be better calculated to protect the rights of the poor, than any practice of private legislation, and examination before Committees of this House. It is often impossible for the poor man to defend his own rights as effectively as I think the Commissioners would. This, I know, that in nineteen cases out of twenty, Committees of this House, sitting on Private Bills, neglected the rights of the poor. I do not say that they wilfully neglected those rights: far from it; but this I affirm, that they were neglected in consequence of the Committees being permitted to remain in ignorance of the claims of the poor man, because by reason of his very poverty he is unable to come up to London to fee counsel, to produce witnesses, and to urge his claims before a Committee of this House. A Commission, I think, may, therefore, be so constituted as to afford to the poor man, by examination on the spot and at his own door, more certain security than any system of private legislation; and, certainly, better calculated to afford that security than I think the provisions were of the Bill which my noble Friend introduced. The first point in which I propose to depart from the measure of my noble Friend consists in the constitution of the Commission, and in the power proposed to be given to the Commissioners. I do not propose, as my noble Friend did, to invest the Commission with the power to enclose commons without the sanction of Parliament. But I think the Commission which I propose to constitute will be decidedly preferable to the Tithe Commission as an instrument for carrying out this improvement. It appeared to the Government last year, and it was so stated to my noble Friend, that there are insuperable objections to the employment of the Tithe Commission. Powers were given to them for a specific and temporary purpose. They will probably not continue to exercise those powers for more than two or three years to come; but the Commission which I contemplate would, of course, continue its operation so long as a necessity for it continued to exist; though in the first instance I propose to limit its duration to five years. To devolve, therefore, upon the Tithe Commissioners duties which would be very onerous for two or three years, the very period during which their own proper functions continue in force, but which would afterwards gradually diminish, would be highly objectionable. The Government has also thought it desirable that the responsibility to Parliament should be more effectually secured by the constitution of the Commission, than it could be if the execution of the Act were to devolve upon the Tithe Commissioners. I propose that the Secretary of State should appoint three Commissioners, two of them being unpaid, and one a paid Commissioner. I then propose to divide the lands with which they shall have to deal into three classes. The first of these will relate to open lands held in severalty, where no rights of common, or rights of an undefined nature, exist; giving them authority to enclose these without the intervention of Parliament. These lands already come under the operation of the 7th of William IV., but there is great difficulty as to titles where those titles depend upon private agreements. I propose that the Commissioners should have authority to deal with these without the intervention of Parliament, if parties prefer coming to the Commissioners, instead of availing themselves of the Act of 7 Will. IV. The second class will include all commons and wastes of manors and lands where the soil belongs to one or more proprietors; but rights of pasture undefined by what are called stints, or by number, exist over the surface. I pro- pose that the Commissioners should not in these cases have power to carry out the intentions of the Bill without the intervention of Parliament—that is, that they should not exercise this power till their recommendations have been sanctioned by the Legislature. In such a case I should propose that the Commissioners should institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the case; that the results of the inquiry should be embodied in a Report presented to the Secretary of State; that he should lay that Report before Parliament; and that in conformity with the decision of the Legislature upon that subject the Commissioners should act. Whatever recommendations the Commissioners might make in the course of any given year, I propose should be embodied in one annual public Bill, and then the several objections to that Bill could be taken by the Legislature seriatim. This would obviate, I think, all the objections to private legislation. If, for example, the Commissioners recommend any given Enclosure, the parties interested may procure a discussion of it by appealing to those Members who represent them in this House; and that, not as Private Bills are now discussed, with no general attention to their objects, but with all the consideration which attaches to public measures. The Report from the Secretary of State would then be before Parliament, and upon that a satisfactory and equitable decision would be made. The third class with which I have to deal, are those lands which lie within a certain radius from towns containing a certain amount of population. At first I thought it might be best to make an exception in favour of such lands altogether; but subsequent considerations induced me to come to a different conclusion. In legislating, however, on this point, I certainly do intend to impose such additional restrictions as may be necessary for thoroughly protecting the rights of the poor, and for securing to the working classes in great towns open spaces for recreation and amusement. Of course, hon. Members will see the necesisty for keeping the radius within a due proportion to the population. Thus, the smaller the population, the less the radius should be; and in all such cases as those to which I am now adverting, the Commissioners will be expected to make a special Report. If this Bill should pass, I propose that a Standing Order should be made, requiring that enclosures relating to this class of lands should be embodied in a separate Bill from those relating to the other classes which I have mentioned. I feel that I ought to apologize to the House for my imperfect explanation of the details of this measure; for I bring this matter under the notice of the House under circumstances which place it at great disadvantage, for I have not a note, paper, or memorandum upon the subject, if I except a few short particulars which I set down on this paper in the lobby when I found that I was so near being called on to bring forward my Motion. Another subject to which it becomes necessary that I should call attention is, that of village greens. I propose to exclude village greens altogether from the operation of this Bill; but the Commissioners, I think, should be enabled to take measures for the preservation of those village greens by fencing and other means. These village greens are objects of interest and importance, and ought to be taken care of. I regret to say, that in several places they are little better than so many swamps; and they are permitted to remain so in consequence of want of power on the part of those concerned to make them available for the purposes to which they were originally devoted. I propose that the Commissioners should have power to do all that is necessary for making these places of healthful and harmless recreation available to the uses of the poor. I propose also, that, in all enclosures, the Commissioners shall have power to set out allotments for the purpose of recreation and exercise in proportion to the amount of the population in the neighbourhood. I propose, next, with reference to allotments, to adopt to a certain extent some of the provisions of the Bill of the hon. Member for Hertford, with the view of granting field gardens within a limited amount of space. Hon. Gentlemen now present must be perfectly aware of the great merit of the field-garden system; but this will be readily admitted, that whatever merits the system has, must depend very materially upon the propinquity of the gardens to the residences of the poor. If these gardens be at a distance of three or four miles from the residences of the poor, such a possession withdraws them from their homes, and has a demoralizing effect, rather than any other, upon the character of those to whom they are granted. With this view, I propose to give the Commissioners power to exchange lands to be enclosed for portions of land in the neighbourhood of the residences of the poor. Of course, I need scarcely assure the House that I have no intention of making any provision which would grant these field gardens otherwise than on the payment of a sufficient rent; and care must necessarily be taken that this rent be neither too high nor too low. I propose that the rent should be regulated pretty nearly upon the same principle as in the case of the Tithe Act; and this rent may be allotted to any person entitled to allotment out of the lands to be enclosed. I have now stated, as shortly as I could, the provisions of the measure which I intend to introduce; and I hope the House will consider that the alterations I propose to make from the Bill of last year are in themselves improvements. I am sure I may say, that if the Bill should pass in the spirit in which it is drawn, it will be found of great advantage to the landowners, and of still greater advantage to the poor in their neighbourhoods; and not only of immediate, but of permanent advantage. It will be of great advantage to the poor by making specific provisions for them, which under other circumstances they could not attain; but it will be of still greater advantage by increasing the powers of production of the soil, and greatly extending the means of profitable employment. It will probably be recollected that the Bill of last year gave powers for completing former inclosures which had been commenced and had not been fully carried into effect before the powers of the Private Act ceased. These I propose to retain. I give powers to the Commissioners to correct faulty awards under old enclosures. I also give them power to exchange lands under certain restrictions. I do not propose that they should possess any power to interfere with old entailed estates, but I propose to limit their operations to those exchanges which will be calculated to promote the profitable cultivation of the soil. I shall not now enter into any details as to the clauses respecting the definition of ownership, and the protection of mineral properties; but, with regard to the carrying out the instructions of the provisional order of the Commissioners, I propose that the valuer shall perform this duty instead of the Assistant Commissioners, as in the measure of the noble Lord to which I have before referred. I see an hon. Gentleman opposite expresses his dissent from this provision, which I shall not further enlarge upon now, as it will form a very fit subject of discussion at a future stage of the Bill, when I think I shall be able to persuade the House that both economy and efficiency are promoted by the alteration. I shall not now trespass further on the time of the House. I have endeavoured, as far as I could, to provide an adequate protection for the rights of all parties, more particularly for the rights of the poor; and my principal object, after the accomplishment of those views which I have stated to have determined me to introduce this measure, has been to secure to the poorer classes throughout this country a more extensive and effectual protection in their rights to common lands than they have heretofore enjoyed. The noble Lord concluded by submitting his Motion to the House.

begged to ask the noble Lord whether his Bill contemplated any interference with the lands held by corporate bodies, or those lands termed Lammas and Michaelmas lands.

said, that there was no exception contemplated to be made in respect of common lands, of whatever description they might be throughout the country. At the same time he would observe, that great facilities would be afforded in dealing with lands of the description referred to by the hon. Member, as they would all be placed in the third class of lands embraced within the provisions of the Bill, and any measure affecting them could not consequently pass the Legislature without receiving far more ample consideration than it would have obtained had the lands in question been touched by any private legislation.

had always taken a lively interest in the subject of the noble Earl's Bill, and had long entertained a wish that some effectual measure should be introduced for the purpose of bringing waste lands into cultivation. He was very desirous of asking a question which the right hon. Gentleman opposite would probably take some future opportunity of answering—namely, whether it was the intention of Government to introduce any measure for the purpose of assimilating the tenures of lands throughout the country, and of rendering it compulsory on lords of the manor to enfranchise copyholds. The present law only went to the extent of rendering the enfranchisement voluntary; but it was highly desirable that some law should pass, by which copyholds might be compulsorily redeemed upon payment of an equivalent.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to facilitate the drainage of lands in England and Wales, said that he was reminded by the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth of an omission of which he had been involuntarily guilty, which was the neglect of paying that high compliment which was so fairly due to the noble Lord who had brought the measure respecting enclosures before the House during the last Session. That noble Lord's only anxiety was to have a good and serviceable measure carried into effect. He had in the most generous manner avowed such to be his sole desire, and he had disclaimed all party or political views in dealing with the subject. The noble Lord (Lord Worsley) had accordingly handed his measure over to the care of the Government, without the slightest expression of jealousy; and he (the Earl of Lincoln) must candidly acknowledge that he felt the principal credit which might be awarded to the measure under consideration was fairly due to the noble Lord. With respect to the particular Bill which he had now to request permission to introduce, he should merely feel it necessary to observe that it was a consequent measure upon the Enclosure Act, and that the Government having determined upon introducing the first, was no less bound to follow it up by proposing a measure for the purpose of more effectually draining waste and unenclosed lands. The Bill was confined to the object of ena bing parties desirous of draining their own lands to carry their drains through othe lands adjacent to their own, upon compensating the proprietors for the damage thereby done. The Bill also would give facilities for the acquisition of plots of land necessary for the erection of steam-engines for the purposes of draining. The present Bill, he was ready to admit, was limited in these objects. In the course of a Session or two he hoped to be able to introduce a more extensive scheme of legislation in this respect, and in the meantime he trusted some good would be effected by the Bill which he then begged permission to introduce.