said, he would beg to move that this Bill be read a Second Time.

* Mr. Speaker, the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) has moved the Second Reading of this Bill, without one single word of argument, or even of explanation. Yet this Bill has undergone no previous discussion; and the present stage is the most important in its progress; since the success of the Motion before us decides the principle upon which our legislation on the subject is to be constructed. Yet the measure thus thrown on the table, without ceremony, is one of the most important in itself and in its consequences which this House has ever decided. it is national and imperial in its extent; and it involves the highest interests, not merely of the Established Church of Scotland, but of our common Christianity: and to not only affects these highest interests, which many other measures might impair or hazard, but in its direct operation it dissolves a solemn contract made between two independent nations, by which the security these very interests was intended to be for ever maintained. Am I not justified in this language by the express words of the preamble? Does not the preamble recite the Statute of the Scottish Parliament on which I rely? Does not that Statute provide that in all time to come no Principal or Professor shall be capable of bearing any office, in any University within the kingdom of Scotland, but such as shall profess the faith of the Church of Scotland, and shall conform to its worship, and shall submit to its discipline? Does not the Bill in your hands admit all this? and does it not, then, proceed to repeal it? The noble Lord will not deny it: he glories in the fact. The preamble proceeds to give the reasons on which my noble Friend has thus far been silent. They are briefly two: one, that the contract is not suited to the present condition of Scotland; the other, that it tends to the injury of Education in that country. These may be very good reasons for the dissolution of a partnership by mutual consent, but are no reasons at all for its dissolution at the will of one of the parties. Who are the parties in the actual case; and what is the origin of the contract? After the admission of the statutory right of the Church of Scotland—an admission distinctly set forth in the preamble—it is hardly necessary to reply, except very summarily, to these two questions. The parties are the Church of Scotland represented by the Parliament of Scotland on the one hand; and the Parliament of England on the other hand. The origin of the contract was the apprehension that the Church of Scotland, the Church of the weaker kingdom, would suffer by the union of that kingdom with England. When in the early years of the last century the people of both countries were considering the proposals for a legislative union, there was a strong excitement in Scotland on the probable danger to which the Church there established might be exposed by that measure. This excitement is found in the pamphlets of the day; but the apprehension in which it rose is embodied in the formal proceedings of the Parliament of Scotland. I hold in my hand one of those pamphlets, The Insecurity of a printed Overture for an Act for the Church's Security. It infers, that the Church of Scotland is in danger by the union; while, on the contrary, there is "a sufficient security provided for the Church of England and her Hierarchy, which as manifestly had no need thereof." The celebrated speech of Lord Belhaven, often reprinted at the time, is another exposition of the state of public feeling. To every literary man it is known by its own merits; to all it is known by the first Lord Melville's parody of it on the occasion of the onion with Ireland: but it defies a parody in respect to the dangers which threatened the Church of Scotland. He says—

"I think I see a National Church founded upon a rock, secured by a claim of right, hedged and fenced about by the strictest and pointedest legal Sanction that Sovereignty could contrive, voluntarily descending into a plain upon an equal level with Jews, Papists, Socinians, Arminians, Anabaptists, and other Sectaries."

And again, at the close, he added—

"And above all, my Lord, the security of our National Church and of all that is dear unto us must be previously established to us, if practicable, before we conclude the first article."

These, if you please, are the apprehensions of individuals; and may prove their own sincerity—their foresight, or their folly. But what did the Church itself, and what did the Parliament? Let it always be remembered that the Church of Scotland was not only recognised and established by the State, but its formulary of doctrine was incorporated in an Act of Parliament. Yet it was nevertheless contended, that the Claim of Right and the Act of 1690 placed the Church of Scotland on an insufficient foundation; since they placed it on the ground of the "inclinations of the people," or, rather, "on the inclinations of the generality of the people;" as if it were a mere question of expediency to be decided by a numerical majority, in other words, "by the generality of the people:" and therefore, and for this cause, a compact was made as between two corporations, without reference to merits, without reference to third parties, and without reference to anything but the competence of the two contracting parties to bind each other in the matter. Parliament, therefore, was not content in such a crisis with its own Acts, which, after all, constituted no more than an internal security: it was necessary to protect the Church against hazard from without—against an infringement of its rights from the influence of a too powerful neighbour—about to be its mate, or its mistress: and, therefore, before the Parliament of Scotland would send Commissioners to meet the Commissioners of England, for the purpose of considering the terms of any union, it specifically limited the powers of the Commissioners of Scotland, and restrained them from even treating of any thing connected with the state, condition, and doctrine of the Church. The Parliament—having adopted the Church of Scotland—as a corporation, if you will, taking it in its lowest sense—consented to negotiate with England about a union between the two nations; on the preliminary condition that the supremacy of the Church of Scotland within its own kingdom—its rights and its duties—might be for ever secured: and England, on the other hand, took Scotland, with its liabilities—if you like so to call them—its burthen or its blessing. There were not wanting then, and there have not been wanting since, on the south side of the Tweed, those who regarded the recognition of a Presbyterian establishment founded on the subversion of an episcopal form of worship and discipline as the legal adoption of error, and as checking the progress of the truths of the Church of England: there were not wanting those in Scotland who felt that the power and wealth and rank of the country would all pass over to the cause of episcopacy, whatever statutable rights might remain—provided and secured to the National Church. But the two contracting parties, the two nations, were competent to make the contract: they made it: and I contend that it is not a question of discretion with us now whether the bargain were right or wrong; it was signed and sealed with all the solemnity which can ever attach to treaties between two kingdoms; and we have no other duty but to observe its obligations. "Cannot, then, this compact be ever broken, or its conditions altered or qualified?" "Yes," said my noble Friend not now present (Lord J. Russell), on another occasion; "yes, if it be for the advantage of both parties." Agreed: if both parties be consentient to the alteration, as they were to the original enactment. But can they ever be replaced in their first estate? Each has necessarily lost its own independent existence, and can no longer treat for the dissolution of a compact—in other words, for the abandonment of a condition which one of them specifically required before it would hear of any other proposal. Least of all, can the one party, which happens to be the strongest, say, that her strength is sufficient reason for the abrogation. That which would be unjust between individuals is unjust between nations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, the parent of the Bill, of which the noble Lord is the guardian, said that a national compact might be broken if it were for the advantage of both parties. But I would ask the learned Lord, if happily he were present, can any compact, public or private, be altered at the pleasure of one of the parties? He must answer, no: because if otherwise, there never was any compact in the world, in the only useful sense of the word and thing. A bargain must bind both parties, or neither. The Great Western Railway Company and the North Western may distribute (as they please, between themselves) all England to the west of the meridian of St. Paul's; and having united in the bargain may unite to dissolve it: but no one can contend that either at his own caprice, and still less on a view of his own interest, or what be might call the interest of the other, is at liberty to impose his own will on the rights of the other. It is said, however, that, practically, if not formally and technically, both parties, the Scottish nation and the English, are united in a desire to abrogate the present and exclusive distinctions of the Established Church of Scotland; and it is said, secondly, that if the present measure be a violation of the Act of Union, that Act has been repeatedly violated before. I will at once notice this last argument, as, for courtesy's sake, I call it. Independently of the moral objection to the argument, I deny the fact on which it is founded: that is, I deny that there is any analogy between the infractions or alterations of fiscal and commercial regulations, or the proportions of Parliamentary representation, as made by the Act of Union, on the one head, and this great and solemn provision for the security of the Church which the Parliament of Scotland required and insisted on, before it would take any other and minor matter into consideration. I am aware, that the authority of the Act of Union was invoked in the Parliament of Great Britain on the Church-Presentation-in-Scotland Bill. in 1712, when the House was moved, that the two Acts passed in the Parliament of Scotland, 1690 and 1695, be read, as in verecundiam; but I have yet to learn that, at all events, either of those Acts affected the rights of the Church of Scotland in its relation to the national education of the people, or to the maintenance of its doctrine and worship in the Universities of the land;—objects secured, as both Legislatures thought, from all doubt or hazard in 1706–7, and objects as distinctly affected, hazarded, destroyed by the proposed legislation of 1853. But if the case were otherwise; if the Act of Union have been previously infringed, does such infringement justify any other? Do two wrongs make one right? I believe that there are few societies in England—I trust that the House of Commons is not an exception—in which such a proposition would not meet with an indignant negative. In fact, it is, in more polished and less familiar language, maintaining that a man having picked another's pocket yesterday, is therefore entitled to pick his pocket to-day. To speak more seriously; the proof, if proof there were, of any former violation of the Act of Union, strengthens, rather than impairs, obligation of honour to maintain what is still left in our own power as trustees, to preserve for those whose interests were confided to the care of our forefathers, and whose claims are now solemnly urged upon ourselves. But, said the learned Lord—and I now revert to his first assumption—"the people of Scotland are in favour of my measure;" and I cannot conceal from myself, that many of those representatives of the people of Scotland, who in this House, on former occasions, have strenuously resisted measures founded on the same destructive principle which is embodied in the present Bill, have now so far withdrawn their opposition—I might too truly say, have now so far given their support to the learned Lord, as greatly to justify his statement. Yet the onus probandi is upon himself; and notwithstanding the admission which I have just made, I contend that the Lord Advocate has as yet failed to prove that the great body of the people of Scotland, above all, of the Church, and of the Universities, whose connexion with the Church was, by the Act of Union, declared to be perpetual and inviolable, are in favour of the mighty change which is involved in the present measure. No, Sir, I believe that the mind of the Church of Scotland is as strong and determined now, as it was one hundred and fifty years ago; and that the mind of the Universities is as united with the Church in principle and in affection as it was when their connexion was first formed. I do not deny, that those who call themselves the patrons and founders of one of those Universities are in favour of the dissolution of that connexion. I do not deny that some eminent men in other Universities would rejoice in severing them from the Church as an establishment. But the principle of the present Bill goes much farther, and separates the general teaching of the Universities of Scotland, not only from its Church, but alike from every and any form of religious belief. But what is the legal and recognised exponent of the Church of Scotland? Is it not the General Assembly in its formal Session? Is it not the Presbyteries and the Synods throughout the land? Does the General Assembly waver in the maintenance of the claim of the Church to be the authorised instructress of the people? Do the Presbyteries palter with their obligation to maintain the claim of the National Church to be the national teacher of the people? The General Assembly in their petition presented by my hon. Friend the Member for the county of Lanark (Mr. Lockhart), states, that the Bill not only destroys the close connexion between the Church and the Universities (which the Legislature intended to secure for ever) but makes no provision for a profession of religion in any form, by lay instructors of youth; and that this close and ancient connexion—

"and its continuance for ever without alteration, was guaranteed by the Act of Security which was passed by the Scottish Parliament, as a preliminary to even treating of an union with England, which was inserted in the Treaty of Union thereafter formed, and which thus became part of an international compact between two independent kingdoms."

And the General Assembly adds—

"That the same treaty provided, that the successive Sovereigns of the United Kingdom should, each at his or her accession, solemnly swear to maintain the provisions of that Act in all their integrity."

And are the different Presbyteries of Scotland lukewarm in the defence of the common rights of the Church? Can the learned Lord point to any variation of opinion among the different Presbyteries of the Established Church? and here, since it has been insinuated to me—though privately and with all courtesy—that, when the Members from Scotland now sitting around me are in favour of the Bill, I ought not, as an English Member, to be the first to oppose it. I feel bound to reply, first, that I regard this as an imperial measure, and no local and private Bill with which an English Member may have little concern; and, secondly, that I have had for many years the honour of receiving the confidence of great bodies of the people of Scotland; that I presented, many years ago, the largest petition which, up to that time, had ever been signed in Edinburgh—it was against the fatal Bill of 1829—and that I have on the present occasion been entrusted with more petitions against the Bill than perhaps any other Member, whether representing an English or a Scottish constituency; and I feel bound, accordingly, to give such prominence as I can, not only to my own views, but to those of the different bodies who have entrusted their interests to my advocacy. The petition from the Presbytery of Haddington, after reciting their rights under the Act of Queen Anne, cap. 6, 1707, proceeds to state that—

"They cannot consider the said Act to stand on the same footing with Acts passed after the union of the two kingdoms. That it was especially provided, before the Estates of Scotland agreed to proceed with the Treaty of Union, that it should be held and observed in all time coming as a fundamental and essential condition of any treaty or union to be concluded between the two kingdoms, without any alteration thereof or any derogation thereto in any sort for ever."

The petitioners state that the connexion between the Church and the Universities of Scotland is as firmly secured by a long succession of Acts of the Scottish Parliament as is that between the Church of England and our English Universities; and without stopping to inquire whether there be any and what difference in the cases, I admit at once, that, so far as the arguments of the learned Lord are concerned, they might be applied by others to the dissolution of the connexion which is still firmly and strictly maintained in England. The petition from the Presbytery of Weem, after reciting the legal position of the Universities and of the Church of Scotland, states—

"That the Universities were placed in this position not only for the security of the Church, but also and more especially for the security of Education—that the education of youth might be entrusted to men of sound principles."

And they add—

"That the Church of Scotland little deserves to be deprived of the superintendence of the education which she was the first to establish, and has ever been so zealous to promote—a result, also, which" [as they emphatically impress upon the House] "cannot be reached at but through the violating of national faith, and of rights which the Sovereign is solemnly sworn to uphold."

For many reasons, but especially because the different Presbyteries express their own views better than I could—I have wished the House to receive their own words. I will add only one other extract from their petitions. It is taken from that addressed to us on the 12th day of April last by the Moderator of the Presbytery of Dunoon. The petitioners state, as is not only patent in the Bill but admitted by its authors, that the

"measure avowedly infringes the Act of Security by which an independent nation, in making a voluntary treaty with another nation for their joint interests, had expressed and absolutely reserved indefeasibly a right of its own"—

Namely, the maintenance of the integrity and the rights of its Church. The Presbytery further state that the superintendence exercised by the Church over the education of the youth of Scotland, "has not in time ages past been unproductive of the fruit of godliness and sound learning;" while the present Bill will leave "in most instances wholly defenceless"—"the religious opinions and principles of those who attend the Universities of Scotland." They complain of the utter insufficiency of the proposed declaration, which requires little, and forbids nothing but the exercise of the functions of a Professor "to the prejudice or subversion of the Church of Scotland as by law established;" and the petitioners proceed most conclusively to urge—

"That by the terms of that declaration a wide scope is left to Professors who may be inimical to the Church of Scotland for undermining its interests and stability, without their exercising directly and openly the functions of their office to its prejudice or subversion; and that even in the cases in which such exercise of those functions might appear, the necessity, in order to check it, of a process at law before the Court of Session on the complaint or information to the Lord Advocate, of the Patrons of the Universities who may have no attachments to that Church, or of the Senatus Academicus, the great majority of the members of which would themselves be freed from having any connexion with it, or of students, least of all parties likely to promote such serious proceedings against their instructors, must render practically of no avail the only protection proposed by the Bill to the Church of Scotland in that most important particular—namely, the academical instruction of the people of which it is the Established National Church."

And they close the petition with their prayer that the House will refuse its assent to any part of that Bill now before us. In that prayer I cordially concur; in the statement and in the reasonings which justify that prayer, I equally concur. The existing law of the land, founded and guaranteed more solemnly than any other statute on the books, requires, in relation to the Church and the Universities of Scotland that for securing the worship and discipline of that Church in all time coming, no Professor in St. Andrew's, Glasgow, Aberdeen, or Edinburgh, shall be allowed to exercise his functions without acknowledging, first, the principle of the civil government of the land, that is, the Protestant succession; and, secondly, the integrity of the established Church of the land, in its doctrine, worship, and discipline. These objects the Church of Scotland still values: these objects its General Assembly and its Presbyteries still pray the House to maintain; these objects the Bill violates, as its authors avow. Yet this is the Bill which the silent eloquence of the noble Lord is to be sufficient to carry through the House! Have the friends of the Bill proved the assent of the people of Scotland to their measure? or is it an axiom on which they rest, and which requires our assent as by instinct—"that whatever is, is wrong?" There are, I fear, some in this House who would hardly shrink from the adoption even of such an avowal; but my learned Friend the Lord Advocate cannot subscribe his honoured name to such a doctrine. The fact of an Establishment does not necessarily imply an abuse; and before he injures an establishment, or hazards it, he is bound to prove not only that it has no rights, but that it has no merits. And here let me pause to remark, that the whole subject of the connexion of the Universities of Scotland with its Church was formally examined a few years ago by a Royal Commission; and that the continuance of this connexion is recommended as much by the judgment of those Commissioners, comparatively disinterested as they were, as it is asked and urged by the great body chiefly and immediately affected by the present measure, the Established Church of Scotland. The words of the Royal Commission are these: "Considering the importance of preserving the connexion which has hitherto subsisted between the Universities and the Church of Scotland;" and proceeding specially to refer to the theological chairs, they resolve, that further legislative provisions are necessary in order to give more stringent powers to the Established Church over such chairs; and they resolve, accordingly, that a law ought to be brought in for that purpose; though—

"Without compromising or abridging the powers, whatever they may be, of the Church to exer- cise superintendence over all Professors in any of the Universities under the existing laws of Scotland, in regard to the religious opinions which they may disseminate."

I have now shown you, Sir, how the measure placed in your hands dissatisfies the Church of Scotland. I have shown you how it must dissatisfy the eminent men—the Earl of Aberdeen among the number—who, a few years ago, devoted their time, under the authority of the Crown, to investigate the rights of that Church, the duties of the Universities, and the interests of both, and of the whole people of Scotland in the question. I ask my noble Friend opposite, who has adopted the charge of the present Bill, whether it satisfies any one else? Does it satisfy the Synod of United Original Seceders? I hold in my hand their petition, addressed to us on the 29th April, 1853, as presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Hon. A. Kinnaird). Now, while, as might naturally be expected from their the and their origin, they, as seceders from the Church, consider as "highly objectionable" that clause of the Bill which forbids professors " to use their influence in any way to the prejudice or subversion of the Established Church;" and while with equal consistency, they pray that the existing law, which requires subscription to the formula of that Church ought, so far as the Bill goes, "to be rescinded;" they not less

"earnestly deprecate the repeal of that part of the law which makes subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith imperative, more especially as said Confession is still the acknowledged subordinate standard of all the Presbyterian denominations in this country."

And, above all—

"that all who are entrusted with the responsible office of conducting our educational institutions, more especially Professors in our Universities, ought to be men not only of unblemished moral character, but of sound religious principles."

They regret the present measure, even though it goes no further than the non-theological professors, because—

"besides being a still further departure from the system established at the Reformation, it would have the effect of dissociating religion entirely from secular education, and of admitting parties to chairs in Universities, avowedly hostile to all religion, and whose influence on the morals of those under their tuition could not but be deeply injurious."

I will not stop to ask whether the Bill satisfies the Free Church. It might perhaps desire that the Established Church should not retain its exclusive privileges as secured to it by the existing law. It never can desire to separate religion from education. Does the Bill satisfy the lay liberals in Scotland? When they were assembled in Edinburgh in August last year, it was for the purpose of effecting the abolition of all tests on admission to the Universities of Scotland. When they were assembled in March this year, they were summoned by a call specifically to support the learned Lord's measure:—"All favourable to this object are invited to attend." An account of their proceedings is in my hand. Mr. Greig, after contrasting their limited views now with the broad expanse before them in August, 1852, said, "he looked on the Bill, to say the least of it, as objectionable." What more could be said against it by one of its enemies I know not; I am content with this account of it, given by, one of those who came to a public meeting invited to support it. Yes, something more I can be said against the Bill, and it was said by the same gentleman. I find these words in Mr. Greig's speech in reference to the Declaration—which, after all, the Bill contains—that "it would be a snare to some men, and a stumbling-block to others." Mr. Peddie was less hostile: he had contrived to satisfy himself that the Declaration was no test: "at the same time he regarded it as a blot in the Bill, which he would far rather have seen away." [Mr. COWAN: Hear, hear!] I will soon reach the hon. Member for Edinburgh, who cheers me. It will be his turn very soon. Professor Fleming "earnestly hoped that the Bill would be passed, though he, too, admitted that it was not in all respects as he would have liked." And then at this meeting of the "friends of the Bill," rose the hon. Member for Edinburgh, and "confesssed that he was much of the opinion expressed by Mr. Peddie, that the Bill would have been better had the Declaration been omitted." He added, what I trust those hon. Gentlemen, who have felt themselves at liberty to withdraw their opposition to the principle of the Bill, will henceforth at least remember; they will see from it, that they lose the safeguard of centuries, without securing the continuance, even for a day, of the poor substitute which they have been content to accept. They abandon the national pledge which their ancestors required and obtained at the Union, and receive a piece of paper from the Lord Advocate, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh will tear in pieces to-morrow. I find by this same record before me, that Mr. Cowan is reported to have said, that he hoped "the Declaration would be omitted as the Bill went through Committee." What do you gain then, by conceding the principle? by refraining from opposing, as you have always hitherto done, measures of this kind? When you have descended from your own inexpugnable height, are you safe in your new position on the plain? But what had Dr. Lees already said? He had told his meeting, that, in his judgment, "the Bill now proposed did away with the test completely." Dr. Candlish, on the other hand, it is true, instructed his hearers—in reference to the conduct of professors when the Bill should be passed" that no honest man would use the functions of an office constituted for a different purpose altogether for another object different from that for which that office was constituted." But Dr. Lees had already said, that he understood the Declaration "to apply to a Professor when in his chair merely; but that under other circumstances, by this Bill he would have perfect freedom of speech." Thus the non-theological chairs at all events would have perfect freedom, not merely to attack the Church, not merely to undermine it as an Establishment, but to assail our common Christianity. Before entering his chair in the morning, and on leaving in the afternoon, Professor A. or Professor B. may—if Dr. Lees be right, one of the main supporters of the present Bill—engage in any and every measure hostile to the Church, and may carry the prestige of his name and office into any assembly convened for the overthrow of that Church, or may teach or print, with all the sanctions which his station in the University conveys, any doctrine at variance with the Gospel of our salvation. "But these are unpremeditated expressions of individual opinion, even though delivered in a public meeting: they bind no one, not even the speakers." Well, but what are the opinions in respect to this Bill, as they are solemnly and deliberately pronounced and sealed by those who are pleased to call themselves not merely patrons but founders of the University of Edinburgh—the Lord Provost, Magistrates and Council of that city? How far do they approve of the Bill of the Lord Advocate? They, say, that, while they "cordially approve" of the repeal of that security which the existing law gives to the Church of Scotland, they con- sider that the Declaration which is to be substituted for it (and on the faith of which my honourable Friends have given in their adhesion to the learned Lord's Bill), is "not only unnecessary, but very objectionable;" and they observe incidentally, that it would "be very unjust to honourable and distinguished men, many of whom have held office nearly a lifetime"—they must have been admitted very young—to require existing Professors to make this declaration. Be this as it may, I am entitled to ask my honourable Friends near me, whether they feel quite satisfied in the compromise which they have made with my noble Friend opposite? But then they tell me—and the Lord Advocate himself intimated the same a short time ago—that, whereas, his first draft of a Declaration was, and is, rejected by the friends of his Bill in Scotland, be will, nevertheless, impose a far stronger Declaration upon them; and since I came into the House this day, the courtesy of my noble Friend opposite has placed in my hands a copy of the Bill as its author would desire it to appear when it shall leave the Committee, if, unhappily, the second reading shall be carried. It is true, that the Declaration to be proposed, is far more stringent in the new Bill, than in that before us, however objectionable the Bill itself may, after all, remain; and it is also true, that there is not in the Preamble that needless recital of the law and the fact which the learned Lord instantly proceeds to repeal and annul by the Bill as it stands. But the law and fact remain, whether the learned Lord quotes them, or ignores them. He may hide his head, and may say, that he does not see the Claim of Right, the Act of Security, and the Act of Union; but they remain, nevertheless, visible to all other men. And let me remind the House, that we are dealing, not with a Bill, as it may hereafter come forth from a Committee, but with the actual Bill, as printed, and as in our hands; and which we are required to pass thus hastily. [Lord DRUMLANRIG: Hastily?] I withdraw the word if the noble Lord objects to it; and substitute the words, without discussion: since, though the Bill has been four months before the House, it has hitherto undergone no discussion; and is now brought forward on this its important stage without a single word in its favour on the part of my noble Friend (Lord Elcho), as if he thought that it might be at once and easily decided. Now, the Bill, as it stands, and even as it may be amended by the Lord Advocate, distinctly separates the teaching in the Universities of Scotland, from all necessary connexion with any religion, those chairs only which are directly and exclusively devoted to theology, being of course and necessarily excepted. I have taken my present part in the matter, not because I am individually a member of the Established Church of Scotland. It is unnecessary for my argument to state, how much or how little I differ or agree with that Church: but I should be ashamed of myself, if I could so far compromise my sense of the blessings of our common Protestantism, as to be a party to any measure for weakening that bulwark of Protestantism which the Establishment in Scotland presents. I believe, further, that, whatever be its form of government, the Church of Scotland holds the great fundamental truths of our common Christianity: and I believe this the more confidently since the Free Church has not varied a hair's breadth from the doctrines of the Establishment. Irrespectively, however, of any such consideration, I oppose the present Bill, because it violates rights secured by the most solemn treaty between two nations: it does more:—it repeals by the mere might of the stronger, a compact made with a weaker power. These considerations, powerful and irresistible as I regard them, are, however, as nothing compared with the principle on which the present Bill is founded, namely, that the general education of a nation may be conducted without any reference to God, or His Word, or His Will. I believe that it is the duty of a nation to provide where it can, but, above all, to continue where it finds, some security for the religions education of the people. The object of those who oppose the Bill is not merely to secure the Church of Scotland in all its rights, but to provide some security that teaching generally should not be hostile to religion generally. I do not enter into the question of tests for the pupil; but this I say, that where there is no test for the pupil, it is still more important that there should be a test for the teacher: and it is not sufficient that there should be merely a negative test as provided by the present Bill, even in the proposed Amendment. That negative test is limited to not destroying: it says nothing about supporting; it is further limited only to the use to be made of the Professor's chair. Why, David Hume might have made such a declaration. Tory as he was, he might not have cared to destroy any establishment. And have we not had experience enough since the year 1829, to enable us to measure the value of a test about "not weakening or destroying," &c.? Does any one suppose that infidelity would be taught systematically and avowedly ex cathedrâ in the Universities of Scotland? It has been said that articles on direct religion are not always bad even in the French Encyclopædia: and unbelievers in the present day, if unhappily sincere, know their work too well to begin by any direct attacks on our faith. No: they will first discard what they call "Sectarian opinions," that is, any form of religion which refers all things to God and His word. Their pupils will be taught the power and the omnipotence of man's reason: they will be idolaters of talent: instead of being humble disciples of God's truth, and patient inquirers after knowledge—looking to Him as its source, and to His glory as the end—they will be materialists in fact if not in profession. Instead of raising science to the level of religion, they will lower religion to the level of science. I hold, that secular science ought to be taught with a direct reference to religious truth. There are few things which a man cannot do better in exact proportion to his acting on religious principle: there is nothing which he cannot teach better. Would any father send his child to be taught any thing by a sceptic rather than by a Christian? Would he have him learn astronomy from Laplace rather than from Newton? May not the Professor of Moral Philosophy teach that conscience is a fiction? May not Materialism be taught from the chair of Anatomy? May not the Professor of Geology deny the Mosaic account of the deluge? or maintain the eternity of matter—never beginning, never ending? But it is said—admitting all this—what security against it do you provide by any test or any declaration? A very imperfect security, I admit: but far better than none. You do not abolish oaths because an infidel may take them and break them. Afrer all, they are the best securities for civil government: and no nation has ever existed without them. And I say that the Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism and the Shorter Catechism, as assumed to be adopted by every Professor in Scotland, even if he do not ex animo subscribe them, cannot but have a powerful influence upon his mind. If he do not conform his teaching to them, he cannot speak against the truths which they embody. For very shame's sake, he must be withheld from making his chair a pulpit of infidelity; and, if he be no more than a man of honour, he cannot make his office the means of inculcating doctrines the reverse of those which he has pledged himself to support. But the Preamble states that the provision for the perpetual connexion of the Universities with the Established Church of Scotland, "is not suited to the present condition of Scotland; and tends to the injury of education in that country." If either were true, is there no other remedy than the violation of the most solemn of all compacts? Yes, there is. The learned Lord may establish another University for those who cannot conform to the principles of those already existing. Is this a new suggestion? Is it made by the supporters of the old institutions? On the contrary, I find it as the closing paragraph of a statement drawn up by the deputation appointed at a general meeting held in Edinburgh, April 3rd, 1845, to obtain the repeal of the actual law which connects the Universities of Scotland with its Church; and the second name subscribed to that statement, is that of one whom I feel an honour to be allowed to call my friend, Sir David Brewster, and whose wishes I most reluctantly oppose on the present occasion. After reviewing the case, into which I need not enter, inasmuch as the first sentence admits the full force of the present law, the memorialists add—

"This state of things cannot much longer continue. If the existing restrictions are not removed, the various religious bodies who are aggrieved by the present system, will feel constrained, however reluctantly, to unite in the erection, on a broad and liberal basis, of a Scientific and Literary University, in which they shall be able to place unlimited confidence. We deprecate such a result. We are most anxious to strengthen and extend our National Seminaries of Education—not to impair their efficiency. We are fully alive to the great and manifold evils of sectarian instruction; and we therefore most earnestly desire that our Universities and Colleges should be adapted to the present state of Scotland, so that all sects may continue, as heretofore, to unite cordially in their support."

It is enough for me to contend that it is a less evil to establish a new University than to impair the Universities now in force by destroying their connexion with the Established Church, and by hazarding their connexion with our common Christianity. Once more, let me remind the House, that the greater security of the Church of Scotland was the object of the Claim of Right: that the Claim of Right was incorporated in an Act of the Parliament of Scotland: that the Parliament of Scotland would not open a conference for an Union with England, except on the condition that the Commissioners should not have power even to treat of any other measure relating to the Church of Scotland: and that the two Parliaments are united in confirming the rights of that Church. Has not the Church of Scotland another security which I have not yet mentioned? Even before the proclamation of the Accession of a Sovereign to the Throne of these realms, that Sovereign, as the first obligation of Royalty, takes an oath prescribed by the Act of Union, and subscribes a declaration for the security of the Church of Scotland. I find in the Gazette of the 20th June, 1837, that—

"Her Majesty at Her first coming into the Council, was this day pleased to declare, that, understanding that the law requires that She should at Her accession to the Crown, take and subscribe the oath relating to the security of the Church of Scotland, She was now ready to do it at this first opportunity, which Her Majesty was graciously pleased to do according to the forms used by the law of Scotland."

Among the Members of the Privy Council recorded as present on that occasion, are the Earl of Aberdeen, Lord John Russell, and Lord Palmerston. Every year at the appointment by the Sign Manual of a Lord High Commissioner to represent the Queen at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Her Majesty renews, through the great officer of State, the solemn guarantee of Security to the Church of Scotland. I appeal to the sworn advisers of the Crown: I appeal to the learned Lord who has introduced this Bill: I appeal to every one who has read it, whether it be calculated to maintain the rights of the Church as secured by the Union, and confirmed by the oath of the Queen. On this issue I stand: and believing that the position is impregnable, I will not abandon it, and I will not despair. I move that the Bill be read a Second Time this day three months.

seconded the Motion.

said, he wished to ask the noble Lord opposite (Lord Elcho), for the satisfaction of several Scotch Members on his (Colonel Blair's) side of the House, whether the Bill, which had now been on the table of the House for the last three months, was only to be read a second time pro formâ, in order that an amended Bill might be brought forward before the House went into the Committee, as he expected that certain alterations were to have appeared in this Bill?

said, that there were some alterations in the present measure which had been laid fully before the House by his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, and had been circulated throughout Scotland, where he believed they were perfectly known. He much regretted that it should have fallen to him, in the absence of his right hon. and learned Friend, to defend the principle of the measure before the House, and to oppose the Amendment of the hon. Baronet opposite. But that regret was much diminished when he reflected that the measure was in itself reasonable and just, and, he hoped he might be excused for saying it, that he considered the opposition of the hon. Baronet was both unreasonable and unjust. There was one circumstance, however, that gave him considerable pleasure, and that was, that there was one point on which he agreed with the hon. Baronet—he meant, in his desire to promote the interests of the Church of Scotland. From that desire it arose that he wished to see the present anomalous and unsatisfactory state of the law as regarded the tests in the Universities of Scotland altered. It was his opinion that the present state of the law with reference to tests, so far from being a security, was a snare and a danger to the Church, rather than that bulwark which the hon. Baronet would have the House to believe. It was a snare, inasmuch as it led the Church to look to legislative enactments for security rather than to its hold upon the feelings and affections of the people. It was a source of danger, inasmuch as it embittered sectarian differences, and united all not in its communion in hostility against it. That such was the case, every one conversant with the state of the law would readily admit. The subject was one which had often been discussed in that House. He would not, therefore, occupy any time by entering into an explanation of the law; but he might mention that the law, as laid down by the hon. Baronet, was, in substance, correct. It was undoubtedly true that the law of tests was originally passed in the year 1690, and by it Professors, readers, and schoolmasters, were compelled to sign the Confession of Faith, and to conform to the ceremonial of the Church of Scotland. The hon. Baronet had quoted history in support of his position; but history might be read in different lights according to the feelings of the person who read it; and he thought that the history of those times clearly proved that the law of tests was established as a security for the Presbyterian against the Episcopalian Church. The danger that was dreaded by the University at that time was an invasion of Episcopalian doctrines, and it was feared that at the time of the Union the Episcopalian form of worship might be imposed upon the people of Scotland; and it was to prevent that, and that alone, that the present system of tests was established. Such being the intention of the law on the subject, he would now look to what had been its actual practice. It was a notorious fact that the law had proved practically inoperative. Episcopalians, the very people whom the law especially intended to exclude, had been admitted to the professorial chairs of the Universities; and when the hon. Baronet spoke of the distinguished men who had been professors at Universities in Scotland, he would like to ask him how many of those men had signed the Confession of Faith? He believed he was correct in saying that when his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate brought in his Bill last year, he stated that fully one fourth had never signed the Confession of Faith. Such being the anomalous state of the law with reference to the admission of professors to Scotch Universities, the Lord Advocate had brought in this Bill to place them on a better and more satisfactory footing. The Bill proposed to do away with the tests for lay chairs, the theological chairs being excepted, and substituted a declaration, which he would now read to the House:—

"I, A. B., do solemnly and severally, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that, as Professor of, and in the discharge of the said office, I will not endeavour, directly or indirectly, to teach or inculcate anything opposed to the authority of Holy Scripture, or the decisions of the Westminster Assembly, or ratified by law in 1690, and that I will not exercise such office to the prejudice or subversion of the Church of Scotland as by law established, or the doctrines or privileges thereof."

That was the amended declaration which his right hon. and learned Friend stated it was his intention to introduce into the Bill. There would also be a power in the Lord Advocate to investigate complaints of the conduct of any of the professors, and, upon inquiry, to obtain the issue of a commission by the Crown, for the purpose of removing him from his chair. Such were the alterations proposed in the Bill, and it appeared to him to be a most reasonable measure—a reasonable solution of a very difficult question, which it was for the interests of all parties to adopt. The hon. Baronet opposed the measure as being opposed to the Act of Security, and contrary to the oath taken by the Sovereign. As far as the measure being opposed to the Act of Security went, it appeared to him that such was not the case, and he could refer hon. Members to a history, by Mr. Burton, of the period between 1688 and 1745, which had recently appeared; and he felt convinced that after perusing that work, few people would deny that the existing law, as regarded tests in the Scotch Universities, was originally passed solely to prevent the induction of Episcopalians into the professorial chair. The words of the Act itself clearly proved that such was its purport:—

"That none of the subjects of this kingdom shall be liable to make any oath, test, or subscription whatever, contrary to, or inconsistent with, the Protestant religion of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland as by law established, and the same shall never be imposed or required of them."

Those words tended to show that the danger anticipated was that an Episcopalian majority should extend the Tests and Corporations Act to Scotland, and that to occupy the ground with counter-tests, those tests were introduced into the Act of Security. With regard to the argument of the hon. Baronet, that the proposed measure was contrary to the oath taken at the coronation by the Sovereign, he could not arrive at any such conclusion. The hon. Baronet had treated the question as if the Universities had been originally instituted as appendages to the Church, but such was not by any means the case. It was a doctrine to which he could not assent, and he would refer to the Report of the Commission of 1829 to confirm his impression?—

"These Universities are not now of an ecclesiastical character, or, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, ecclesiastical bodies. They are intended for the general education of the country, and, in truth, possess scarcely any ecclesiastical feature except that they have a certain number of- professors for the purpose of teaching theology in the same manner as other sciences are taught. Neither their constitutions, endowments, nor provisions for public instruction are founded on the principle that the Universities are appendages of the Church of Scotland."

That showed the opinion of the Commission as to the connexion between the Universities and the Church. There could, he thought, be no doubt that the operation of the existing law was not in accordance with the views of the framers of it, and if in addition to that it was also manifest that a change would be for the general interest of the people of Scotland, it was, he submitted, only consistent with sound policy that a measure like the present should have been introduced. He could appeal with confidence to any hon. Members who were well acquainted with the feelings of the people of Scotland on this subject to confirm him in the statement that the proposed measure was looked upon with favour by the majority of the people of that country, and that they were impressed with the necessity of some such change. When he used the expression "the majority of the people" of Scotland, he believed that, in reality, even time majority of churchmen of that country were in favour of some such measure, and they were, he would say, without intending any offence to the hon. Baronet, as sincere friends to the Church as he was. He would read to the House a declaration to which Lord Belhaven the Lord High Commissioner had assented, and which was subscribed to by some of the best friends of the Church of Scotland. It was a declaration couched in expressive language. It set forth that—

"Being of opinion that the present operation of the law in regard to the tests exigible from persons appointed to professorships in the Universities of Scotland is calculated to prove injurious to the interests, not only of the Universities, but of the Established Church, we, as members of that Church, feel called upon to record our desire that some measure may be speedily adopted."

From that declaration, it was manifest that the members of the Church of Scotland themselves were desirous of a change; and if that were so, it could not, surely, be urged that change would be detrimental to the interests of that Church. He had endeavoured to show that the existing laws had been enacted originally with the view of preventing the induction of Episcopalians to the professorial chairs in the Scotch Universities; but there was another danger in the existence of the tests as at present prescribed, which was, that although, when it was considered expedient, persons had been placed in the professorial chair with out taking the tests; yet there had been occasions when, after admission attempt had been made to bring the law of test into operation. There was one case in point to which he would refer, where gentleman, whose name was well known who, in fact, had acquired a world-wide reputation, was concerned. When Sir David Brewster was Principal of the University of St. Andrews, an attempt was made to turn him out, and a libel and charge were preferred against him, calling upon

"the Senatus to remove him, censure and banish him, quam primum, for the glory of God, the safety of the Church, and the prosperity of the University."

Whether the banishment would be for safety of the Church, or to gratify setarian hostility, he would not say; but how it could, be for the advantage of the University to banish a man like Sir David Brewster, he certainly was not able to understand. There was another point to which he would call the attention of the House, and that was that the Church of Scotland had not the slightest control over the Universities. He would, in support of that position, refer the House to the opinion of counsel in the case of Mr. M'Dougall, who had been appointed by the Town Council Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh, and in consequence of a dispute which had taken place on the subject of his appointment, and which now was awaiting the judgmeot of the House of Peers, the opinion of leading counsel had been taken, and he would read that opinion to the House:—

"That the Church has no title, either through the Presbytery of the bounds, the General Assembly, or its commission, to enforce the provisions of the Acts of 1690 and 1707 as regards subscription to the Confession of Faith, and the formula, by the party said to have been recently admitted as Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh."

From that opinion it was evident that the Universities were not, as he had already stated, appendages of the Church. He had endeavoured to answer the arguments which the hon. Baronet had urged against this Bill; and if he required a still stronger reason for accepting the present measure, it would be derived from the fact that the opposition to it had not proceeded from a Scotch Member, but from the hon. Baronet. The principle of the measure which was now before the House had been on previous occasions opposed by Scotch Members; but this was the first time—and he would appeal to his right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir G. Grey) to confirm the statement—that an Amendment of the nature of the one now before the House had been proposed by an English Member. He would frankly state to the House the reason. The fact was, that the present measure was a compromise, and while it was opposed by the hon. Baronet, who held extreme opinions on the one side, it was not entirely acceptable to those hon. Gentlemen who were desirous of a complete separation between Church and State, and who were opposed to the adoption of any test whatever. The proposed measure was, in fact, as he had already stated, a compromise; but it was, in his opinion, a reasonable compromise, and he must say that although he, and he had no doubt other Scotch Members, felt grateful to the hon. Baronet for the interest which he took in the affairs of Scotland, they would have felt more grateful if he had not offered any opposition to the measure of his right hon. and learned Friend. He could not but think, judging from some passages of ominous import in the Report of the Oxford Commission, that the hon. Baronet might some day have enough on his hands in endeavouring to keep some such measure from being passed with regard to the University of Oxford, which he represented. He had stated the grounds upon which he was anxious that the House should assent to the second reading of this Bill, which was conceived, as he thought, in the true spirit of the age, its object being to promote the spread of education by extending the field from which professors might be chosen, and to remove a disqualification to the appointment of able men to fill the office of Professor in the Scotch Universities. It was framed in a spirit which he thought was conspicuous in the Report of the Cambridge University Commission. There was a passage in that Report which bore so strongly on the question they were discussing, and which was so conspicuous for that spirit, that he should, with the permission of the House, read it to them. It stated that—

"The University is a great national institution; it exercises a most extensive influence on the education of the higher and middle classes of the community, and consequently on the intellectual, moral, and social character of the nation. But its capacity of exercising this high prerogative, fully and completely, must depend on its keeping pace with the progress of enlightened opinion, and moving in sympathy and unison with the spirit of the age. It is one of the noblest characteristics of our times that the barriers which long excluded so many of our fellow-subjects from the equal enjoyment of civil rights on account of differences in religious opinions, have happily been removed by the prevalence of a generous and wise policy."

Such, he repeated, was the spirit in which the present measure was conceived, and he trusted that the House would withstand the opposition to it. He had himself no doubt that the measure would, at no distant period, pass into law. He had always looked upon the repeal of the Test and Corporations Act as one of the political achievements of the noble Lord the Member for London, upon which that noble Lord must look back with the greatest self-satisfaction; and that he had connected himself with a measure like the present, which would, he believed, advance the spread of education, and give increased stability to the Established Church, by removing the disqualification under which at present Dissenters laboured, would, in his opinion, prove to him an equal source of satisfaction. The Act of 1690, imposing tests, set forth in the preamble that tests were necessary for the advancement of learning, the good of the Church, and the peace and good government of the country; but the time had, he believed, arrived when to attain the three great ends therein mentioned, it had become necessary to make an alteration in the system then established. He trusted that the House would not assent to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, but would allow the Bill to be read a second time.

said, he would not oppose the second reading of the Bill; not because they had confidence in its spirit as regarded the Church of Scotland, but lest the Ministerial majority might force it through in its present obnoxious state. As a compromise had been offered, they would not oppose the second reading therefore; but he held himself free to propose in Committee such amendments as should secure religion in the teaching of the Universities. He, for one, as a Scotch Member, thanked the hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis) for the support he had always given to religion, on this as on all other occasions.

said, that in almost a single sentence he could express his feelings as regarded the Bill of the Lord Advocate. In the abstract he agreed to some of the objections which had been taken to the Bill; and if the House of Com- mons had been called upon to found for the first time a system for Scotch Universities, he, having no faith in the efficacy of tests, could have entered more fully into those objections. But the House of Commons was not convened for any such purpose. Their real object, taking into consideration the divided and somewhat difficult position in which Scotland found herself so far as ecclesiastical government was concerned, was to bring forward some Bill, the provisions of which, while they afforded no triumph to the enemies of the Established Kirk, would at the same time remedy existing grievances justly complained of both by the United Presbyterians and by the Free Churchmen of Scotland, who, although as good and as true Presbyterians as their neighbours, found themselves liable to a petty and irritating species of persecution, which our ancestors, when they framed the Act of Security, had never contemplated. Their sole object and desire, in fact, was to provide that Presbyterian Scotland should settle her own affairs without episcopalian interference. Now the Bill before the House, if not a perfect Bill, had this one great merit—that it offered an amicable settlement of a most vexatious and irritating controversy, and one which had been disturbing Scotland for years past. Every person who had the interests of Scotland at heart must wish to see some compromise effected which would encourage peace and harmony between rival sections of Presbyterians, who, after all, differed from one another on no vital doctrine, and whose united action was greatly needed in a common cause. The Scotch Universities were not ecclesiastical institutions: they were the common, the public property of the people of Scotland; and, since the people of Scotland were no longer in a body members of the Established Kirk, it was idle, it was puerile, it was perfectly suicidal for that Kirk to claim such exclusive privileges, which showed rather a Popish than a Presbyterian spirit. This Bill provided that no professor should exercise the functions of his office to the detriment of the Church of Scotland as by law established; and as a member of that Church he (Lord Drumlanrig) had no right to ask more. Entertaining these feelings, he should give his hearty support to the Bill, which, while it could not be looked upon as a triumph over the Kirk by the Dissenters, at the same time it put down impossible pretensions, and offered justice to all denominations of Presbyterians.

said, he would not oppose the second reading of the Bill, in consequence of the compromise that had been offered; but he considered that even after the proposed alterations in it should be made, it would still be disadvantageous to the Church of Scotland. He did not coincide with the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) in his interpretation of the intentions of the framers of the Act of Security—or in his views of history as regarded the proceedings of the Commissioners. The Scottish Universities, with the exception of the University of Edinburgh, were subservient to the Church from their foundation to the Reformation, and the Book of Discipline, drawn up by John Knox, substantially established the same connexion. In 1567 an Act was passed by the Parliament of Scotland confirming this relation, which Act was confirmed by subsequent Acts, passed in 1589 and 1592. One of the strongest clauses of the Act of Security was that proposed to be repealed by this Bill; and it should be remembered that this Act immediately followed the Claim of Right, upon which it was in reality founded. In fact, through all the vicissitudes described in the religious and political history of Scotland, the Universities had, as such, sunk and swum with the Church, whatever form of faith was for the time in the ascendant. But, under all the circumstances, he had no other course open to him than to vote in favour of the second reading of the Bill; and this course, he felt, was justified by the fact that a measure of this nature had been already four times before Parliament, on each of which occasions it had been rejected by very narrow majorities—in one case a majority of only one—and among these majorities were many members of the present Government, the opposition being conducted by the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir J. Graham). It might be in the spirit of the age, but he was afraid, also, it was in the spirit of destruction. If the tests could be modified in the spirit of the Act of Security, he should not object to the change, but he was opposed to any violation of the compact that had been entered into with the Church and Parliament of Scotland. The Act was directed against the enemies of the Church of Scotland at the time it was passed; it now behoved Parliament to ascertain who were the enemies of that Church at the present period. These he believed to be Papists and latitudinarians, and in passing the Bill, the House was, therefore, bound to take the greatest care that the Church of Scotland should not be placed in jeopardy with either, and that the connexion with the Church should be maintained with the Universities of Scotland.

said, that as an English Member, he must complain that the intentions of the Government with respect to the Bill, had, without notice, been altered since its first introduction to the House. The question to be decided was not fairly represented by the Bill. He understood that some other Bill had been privately circulated among a few Members of the House by the Government. He had, since he reached the House, seen the frame of this other, which he was told was to be the real Bill, and yet the House was asked to pass the second reading of the Bill which was on the table. The question to be decided was assuredly not that contained in the Bill; and he contended that English Members had a right to know what they were voting on. The noble Lord (Lord Elcho) said the Bill was one for Scottish Universities, as if English Members had nothing to do but walk out of the House when any Bill relating to Scotland was under discussion; yet the noble Lord concluded by stating that the principle of this Bill would eventually be applied to the English Universities.

had only said, that the principle of the Bill was in accordance with the spirit of the age which dictated the inquiry into the English Universities.

The noble Lord quoted a portion of the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the University of Cambridge; and he then argued that this Bill was based upon the principle embodied in that Report, and that the principle would be extended to the English Universities.

I said nothing of the kind.

Then the noble Lord's observations were wholly irrelevant. He (Mr. Newdegate) objected to the abolition of religious tests, especially required of the teachers of a University connected with the Church of Scotland; and he now called the attention of the House to the alterations proposed in the Bill to that effect by the Lord Advocate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the declarations were to be proposed for Professors—not of theology—and were to the effect that the individual should not teach anything contrary to the authority of the Holy Scriptures or the Westminster Confession of Faith, nor exercise the power he might possess to injure the Church of Scotland. No one could read that declaration, without at once perceiving from whence it was copied. That declaration was copied from the declaration which was contained in the Act of 1829, which was required from members of the Roman Catholic religion when they were sworn at the table before taking their seats in that House. Now, he wished to know whether there was anything connected with the observance of that declaration to encourage the Protestant people of Scotland to believe that any negative test of the sort would give them better security for the religious and Protestant teaching of their children, than had been afforded to the Protestants of England by the negative test contained in the Act of 1829, by which all Roman Catholic Members swore that they would not use the powers committed to them, their position, or their influence, to weaken or disturb the Established Churches or the Protestant Government of this realm? Look at the assumption upon which the proposal of this test was founded. When a Roman Catholic made it, it was known that he was a member of a Church connected with a foreign head, holding peculiar and exclusive tenets, in antagonism to all other religions, and especially the Protestant religion of this country. It was under such circumstances that he declared he would not attack the Established Church. Following this analogy, by this Bill, the Government proposed expressly to provide, by the declaration, for the admission of Roman Catholics and infidels into the professorial chairs of the Scottish Universities: for none but avowed adversaries of Protestantism and Christianity could it be necessary to require such a test. It would be far better to abolish all tests than to propose a declaration which, by its nature, inferred that they were enacting that infidels and Roman Catholics should occupy the chairs of the Protestant Universities of Scotland, on conditions which had proved ineffectual to prevent Roman Catholics from attacking Protestant institutions in cases where they were under far more sense of publicity, and therefore, of responsibility. The noble Lord was seeking to support the policy which had broken down from one end to the other. There was as little reason for the people of Scotland to trust the declaration in this case, as the people of England had to trust to the analogous test in the case of the Roman Catholic Members.

The declaration only applies to lay chairs.

could scarely believe that the noble Lord himself had much confidence in the argument embodied in his observation. If the future Professors have the power of teaching, they will be able to instil their opinions into the minds of their pupils. The Roman Catholic priesthood knew this so well that they will not permit Protestants to teach history for instance, or several of the sciences in their universities. Infidelity could be taught from lay chairs as well as from theological chairs. The experiment of severing religion from instruction had been tried in Germany, and it had proved a notorious failure; for the infidel principles of their lay Professors had infected the whole body of their pupils, and had resulted in the revolutions of 1848, and the Socialist excesses of that period. [The hon. Member quoted the work of the Rev. Mr. Wright, just published by Messrs. Seeley, who had travelled much in Germany, and had many opportunities of knowing the mode of education in that country. Mr. Wright cited an instance of the irreligious character of the Prussian Professors, a large number of whom at a public dinner of over 100 teachers refused to allow grace to be said before the commencement of the meal, declaring that they were not children who prayed before they eat.] Mr. Wright quoted the confessions of M. Curtman, one of the ablest and most powerful supporters of the German irreligious system of education, who had had the courage and the honesty to avow the failure of his long-cherished system and opinions. M. Curtman wrote—

"My former enthusiasm for schools and public instruction has now, through a thousand experiences, been sadly reduced; the revolution of 1848 has revealed to me and to others the ideal nature and imperfection of the medium through which we were wont to contemplate the school-world in Germany. This disenchantment exerted such a depressing influence on me that I was for a time inclined to consider my calling suicidal and vain."

And again, in the introduction to his work on the Reforw of the School, he says—

"Indeed the year 1848 and 1849, these providential and annihilating judgments on many a well-built human scheme, have removed the veil of imagined glory with which the German school was self-bedecked in mine eyes, and have left nothing but a withered apparition in its place.

"It must be confessed, however painful, that the German school-system has had its day of visitation, and has been found wanting; to say the least, the expectations of its friends have been sadly disappointed. What is there that the advocates of the school have not promised on its behalf? Go to! it was said, you will empty the prison house, you will produce a moral and intelligent population, the teacher of the school will have the future in his hands, he will give refinement to humanity; and in these acclamations the author (M. Curtman) coincided. But alas! these paroxysms of admiration have been dispelled by the storm; the deformed reality is now before us, it betrays the errors of other days. With our hand upon our hearts, what, it may be asked, what has this much-praised and highly-nurtured school system, in these thirty years, worked out for Germany? Is the rising generation more prudent, less under the influence of passion, more virtuous than their uninstructed predccesors? Is a better spirit observable in the city than in the hamlets of the land less efficiently provided with public instruction? Have Baden, Wurtemberg, and Saxony, rich in schools, developed a more discreet, loyal and faithful people than Pomerania, Hanover, or even Tyrol? Has intellectual improvement contributed to make men more observant of the law, less disposed to crime? Has it it done away with the immorality of a portion of the press, or improved upon the inflammatory tone of the addresses in popular debating clubs? No; the conclusive result is in disfavour of the great cities and the well-peopled, well-schooled provincial towns. The murderers of Auerswald and Licknowsky were educated men—a teacher of a school known in public conferences was amongst them. The cannoneers who ruthlessly sent the brand of fire into Ludwigshafen were no 'proletariers,' but, comparatively speaking, educated men. And what shall we say of the schoolmasters in particular—not that they were more completely carried away by the excitement of the times than other men; they partook of the intoxicating influence of the times in common with all youthful and excitable natures. But to their reproach it must be said that they were not able to extricate themselves from the ideal whirlwind—that they chimed in with the guilty doctrines of Socialism—that they became the tools of a selfish and tyrannical party. These are reproaches from which a large section of the order cannot exculpate themselves."

Yet that was the system sought to be established in Scotland by the Bill before the House. He (Mr. Newdegate) lamented that those Scottish Members who could not assent to the Bill had become parties to a compromise which was, in point of fact, no compromise at all, for the original intention of the Bill was carried out, and the apparent concession was a delusion. All reference was struck out in the preamble to the Act of Union; every approach was avoided to the great question of the oath of the Sovereign; and a declaration was framed which clearly implied the contemplation of admitting Infidels and Papists to the chairs in the Protestant Universities of Scotland; cloaked by a form of words, proved by long experience in this country to be ineffectual for restraining Roman Catholics, and in Germany incapable of excluding infidelity from the teaching of lay professors. For these reasons he was ready to divide with his hon. Friend (Sir R. H. Inglis); but he thought they had a right to have the Bill reprinted before the second reading, in order that it might be circulated, not among a few selected Members of that House, but among the whole people of Scotland, that they might see what was the intended compromise. If the Government meant to deal fairly with the House of Commons and the people of Scotland, why had they not printed the Amendments they intended to propose, instead of bringing Members down to announce some private arrangement or intrigue, which was to defeat the proceedings of the House? This was a strong type of the mode of dealing which was characteristic of the school to which the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) belonged. Intrigue out of the House, and arbitrary conduct in it, were the characteristics of that school of politicians—a school from which he (Mr. Newdegate) had separated; as an independent Member of the House he protested against these underhand proceedings; as a Tory he condemned these illustrations of the vices which had brought the once great Tory party into disgrace.

said, he had, upon more than one occasion, expressed his approbation of the principles upon which this Bill was founded, and which he believed would be generally assented to by the people of Scotland. But he must say that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had paid but a bad compliment to the representatives of the people of Scotland—a people the roost religious upon the face of the earth—when he said they were now combined to force upon that country a system, the inevitable result of which would be the promotion of infidelity—

said, he must beg to explain: what he said was, that hon. Members who had left the House were no parties to it.

said, that so far as he was aware, the hon. Members who had left the House, had left it with a declaration that they were prepared to withhold any opposition to the principle of the Bill. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: No, no!] If the hon. Gentleman said "no," he could only appeal to the House. Two hon. Members not now in their places had stated—one of them having formerly opposed the Bill on principle, and the other, a new Member, being still opposed to it—that they were now prepared to withhold any opposition to the second reading. If, therefore, it was just to charge his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) and the other Members of the Government, with endeavouring to force upon Scotland a system, the inevitable result of which must be the promotion of infidelity, those Members for Scotland who assented to the principles of the Bill, must be held to partake in the charge. But he (Sir G. Grey) had mainly risen to notice an objection to the Bill, which appeared to him totally groundless. The hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate) said, they must altogether disregard the notice of any Amendments which had been given by the Lord Advocate. Taking the Bill as it was, he said he was opposed to it upon principle; but that by some low intrigue or private arrangement, Members had been induced not to oppose the Bill; just as if he, in common with every other Member, had not had the opportunity of ascertaining what the proposed Amendments were. He (Sir G. Grey) was prepared to support the Bill as it was originally, and with the declaration in it. But what was the secret intrigue or private arrangement which had settled the changes that had been made in the Bill? Why, his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, some weeks ago, in moving that the Order of the Day for the second reading he postponed, stated distinctly the precise nature of the Amendments he was prepared to introduce in it; and those Amendments having been thus publicly stated, were published in the newspapers. Now, did those Amendments interfere with the principle of the Bill? Clearly not. They merely went to this—that whereas there was now a declaration in the Bill proposed to be applied to every lay Professor in the Universities, that they would not, by virtue of their office, do anything to undermine the Established Church, it was now proposed to add, that they would not teach anything contrary to the authority of the Holy Scriptures or the Westminster Confession of Faith. He (Sir G. Grey) took it, that the effect of this measure would be to admit men of the highest intellect, of the highest scientific attainment, and who were the greatest ornaments of their country, to this office, because they would readily undertake to say that they would teach nothing contrary to the doctrine of the Established Church, or prejudicial to its interests. The tests proposed to be abolished, where they had been brought into operation, had proved most mischievous, and, to his own knowledge, they had been taken by Episcopalians who were not members of the Established Church. Under these circumstances, he thought that they were removing a reproach from the Universities of Scotland by adopting the principles of this Bill; and he hoped, after the assent which had been given to it by the Scotch Members generally, that the House would by a large majority affirm that principle, and once for all set at rest the question in a manner which would prove satisfactory to the Church and the people of Scotland in general.

said, he felt called upon to justify his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate); for the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had almost with a sneer intimated that the English Members had no right to interfere in the matter, though this country was equally a party to the Act of Union as Scotland. Carrying that principle out, how far would the doctrine apply to those Irish Members who would desire to get rid of that part of the Act of Union which affirmed the existence of the Established Church in that country? Straws showed the way in which the wind blew, and he was therefore bound to take notice of the observations of the noble Lord. When it was seen that the word "discipline," which was used in the Act of Security was omitted, and "doctrines" only retained, he considered it was going very close to the wind, and he could only conclude that the Bill was a violation of the compact which had been entered into. It might be denied that the University was not an appendage of the Church of Scotland, but no one could deny that the Bill affected the interest of that Church. English Members could only be guided on this point by the acts of the constituted body of the Scottish Church, and that body was against the measure. He, therefore, could not agree to the Bill; and if his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford divided the House on the subject, he would divide with him. He had strong feelings that all these measures were steps in the direction of separating religion from education; and he was satisfied their promoters would find themselves in a difficult and dangerous position when it would be too late.

said, he wished to point out that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had misunderstood him. The right hon. Gentleman had argued as if he (Lord Elcho) had said that, as the people of Scotland were favourable to the measure, the English Members ought not to resist it. That was not the meaning which he intended to convey. The fact was, that in arguing as to the opinion of the people of Scotland in reference to the change, he pointed out the striking fact that, whereas all previous measures had been opposed by Scotch Members, on this occasion they all assented to it as a reasonable compromise; and the duty of leading the opposition rested on the hon. Member opposite (Sir R. H. Inglis).

said, he must deny that the Scotch Members assented to the second reading of the Bill. He had himself presented a petition from the General Assembly against it. He had disunited himself from any compromise which he saw was proceeding with regard to this Bill, and felt bound to oppose it in its amended form as strongly as he should have done had it been brought forward in its original shape. The measure was calculated to uproot that admirable system of education which had raised Scotland to the position it held among the nations of the earth, and he could on no account assent to any measure which would separate the Universities from the Church, and which would thus place the Church of Scotland in a position dissimilar to that occupied by any other Church. If he could have any doubts whatever on the question, they would be at once settled by looking to the Act of Union and Act of Security, the terms of which were unmistakeable. It was certainly desirable that the question should be settled; but if the hon. Baronet went to a division, he should go out with him. The Bill was not, perhaps, addressed against the Church of Scotland, but it was addressed against the Protestantism of that country. He saw no reason, therefore, but the contrary, why Protestant tests should not be established. At no former period of Scottish history did the Universities of Scotland stand higher than at present; and, consequently, at no period was there less need of any change in the system under which they were governed.

said, he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London to the fact, that in this the eighth month of the Session, there were on the paper for to-night, notices for six new Bills to be brought in by the Government. He presumed these were to be brought in at two or three o'clock in the morning, and, as usual, were to be carried through the various stages at the same hour, with a crowded list of Orders of the Day. He wished to ask the noble Lord if he could give the House any information as to how many more Bills he intended to bring in at this late period of the Session?

said, if the hon. Member had given him notice of his question, he should probably have been better able to answer him. It was usual at this period of the Session to bring in Bills, the object of which was simply to continue existing Acts of Parliament, and that was the nature of the Bills to which the hon. Member referred.

said, he understood that some of these Bills were not of that nature, but were new measures altogether. At a certain period of the Session it had been usual to perform a certain process of elimination, generally called "the Massacre of the Innocents," or some such title as that, when Bills were withdrawn which were really not intended to be proceeded with. It would be greatly for the convenience of the House if the noble Lord would state what measures it was really intended to proceed with. There was among others, the Registration of Assurances Bill, for instance, with regard to which he was perpetually receiving letters from the country, wishing to know when it would come on.

said, it was generally the case that there were on the paper at this time of the year, a number of Bills which it was found totally impossible to carry through before the end of the Session; but he trusted that there were very few Bills of that nature before the House at the present time. He had purposely objected to the introduction of Bills by many hon. Members, on the ground that before the end of the Session there would probably not be time enough to proceed with them. At some future period he would certainly state what measures would, and what would not, be proceeded with; but he could not make any general statement of that kind at the present moment.

wished to know what course was to be taken with respect to the Education Bill?

said, the noble Lord had already stated that, though he did not intend to ask the House to pass that Bill this Session, he should still ask them to consent to a second reading of it. Such a course, he thought, would be extremely inconvenient; and he would ask the noble Lord at once, whether he would not consent to spare the House the annoyance of discussing at this period of the year the principle of a Bill which it was not intended to pass?

said, in asking the House to discuss the second reading of the Education Bill, his object had been to hear the various objections which might be made against the several clauses, with a view to introducing the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, after a full consideration of those objections. He must, however, reserve to himself the consideration whether or no he would proceed to that stage, with this view of hearing the objections, and of introducing the Bill next Session with a full knowledge of them.

said, he would beg to inquire what course the Government intended to take with respect to the Registration of Assurances Bill?

said, that as the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee, it was impossible for him to answer the hon. Member's question, without communicating with some of the Members of that Committee.

said, he thought that the progress of business would be very much facilitated if private Members who had Bills on the paper for Wednesdays, of little importance, or of too great importance to be discussed this Session, would give way to the Government Bills. With this view he begged to ask the noble Lord the Member for Colchester whether it was intended to proceed with the Factory Children's Bill, on the back of which he saw the noble Lord's name in conjuncton with that of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Cobbett), and which, he might observe, had been introduced early in July.

said, he thought the question would have been much more conveniently put to the hon. Member for Oldham, in whose hands the Bill more immediately was placed. Having had no communication with that hon. Member, he could not answer the question.

Sir, it may be in the recollection of the House, that a few days since I put a question to the noble Lord the Member for London, relative to a circular despatch signed by Count Nesselrode, which had then just reached the metropolis. To that question I now wish to refer. I think I mentioned that the despatch stated that the occupation of the Turkish waters by the combined fleets of England and France, was deemed by Russia a naval occupation analogous in its character to the military occupation of the principalities by the Russian armies. I also mentioned that in that despatch it was further stated that, when that complete satisfaction should be granted by the Porte to Russia, which was the due of the latter Power, and when the pressure alleged to have been exercised by the two maritime Powers in the port alluded to should have ceased, then the Emperor of Russia would withdraw his forces into his own limits. The noble Lord on that occasion very properly felt it his duty to question the truth of the first allegation to which I directed his attention, namely, that the presence of the combined fleets in the Turkish waters was a naval occupation of the Turkish dominions, and said, with respect to the second point., his impression was that I was not warranted in the interpretation I put upon the words of the despatch having reference to it. It has since been stated in another place by a Colleague of the noble Lord, that the latter observation of the noble Lord was made inadvertently—a circumstance which can readily be pardoned, since the document had been only just received, and I had had no opportunity until I entered the House of calling the noble Lord's attention to it. It is not, however, for the purpose of adverting to that slight mistake that I have now risen. But the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs took the opportunity of publicly declaring the determination of Her Majesty's Ministers not to accede to the conditions which were expressed in so peremptory a manner by the Court of St. Petersburgh in the circular despatch, and not for a moment in their management of these important proceedings admit, as a primary condition, that the combined fleets of England and France should leave the port at which they are anchored. The question I wish to address to the noble Lord is this: assuming, as I do, that these negotiations are now only formally and not virtually pursued, and that they have arrived at what is called a dead lock, and believing that it would be of great advantage to the public interests that a discussion should take place on this important question in both Houses of Parliament, I wish to know whether the noble Lord has any objection to fix a day when the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) can bring this subject under the consideration of the House of Commons?

I must, Sir, in the first instance, refer to the answer which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman on a former day. The right hon. Gentleman's question on that occasion referred to a circular despatch of the Russian Government, which had then only recently reached this country. I had only had the opportunity of reading it in a newspaper in a very cursory manner, and I certainly had not made myself completely master of its contents. I, therefore, answered that, in my opinion, the right hon. Gentleman had not put a correct interpretation on that part of the document which said that the Russian troops would be removed from the principalities when the pressure caused by the presence of the combined fleets in the Turkish waters should be taken off. I said, I could not believe that Russia intended to make that the condition of the evacuation of the principalities. I did so not only because I did not perceive that the proposition was quite distinctly laid down in the document, but also because I did not think it possible that two things so totally unlike and dissimilar in character could be compared with each other, or that the Russian Government could conceive itself justified in demanding that the English and French fleets should leave the Turkish waters before its troops should evacuate the principalities. I entertained this opinion because, in the one case, the English and French fleets were in the waters of an allied Power—were there not for the purpose of putting any pressure on that Power—not for the purpose of injuring it any way, but only in order that they might be ready in case of need—in case that Power should feel obliged to call for their assistance, and in case of the invasion of its territories. In the other case, the actual occupation of the principalities by the Russian troops, is an act which bears no similarity or comparison to the action of the combined fleets, and therefore I naturally supposed that a person of the experience and sagacity of Count Nesselrode would not have affixed his signature to a document declaring to all the world that the Russian Government made the removal of the combined fleets the condition of its evacuation of the principalities. That is my explanation of the answer which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman; but at the same time I must now admit that the words of the circular despatch bear on the face of them the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman put on them. With respect to the question which the right hon. Gentleman has just asked me, I have to state that he is mistaken in supposing the negotiations on this subject have come to a dead lock. On the contrary, both the English and the French Governments have considered that there are propositions which might be acceded to both by Russia and Turkey, and which would be the means of obtaining a pacific termination of these unfortunate differences. Whether or not these hopes will be justified, we cannot know immediately. Some time must elapse before we can learn from St. Petersburgh what is the view taken by the Russian Government of any mode of settlement which either England, or France, or Austria may arrive at; and while matters are in this state of negotiation, I think it is not desirable that discussion on the subject should take place.

said, he wished to propose an Amendment, the object of which was to put money secured on land in Scotland on the same footing, by making it liable to the same amount of duty, as money secured on land in England and Ireland. He proposed in Clause 1, after the word "Ireland," to insert the words, "except money secured upon heritable property in Scotland."

said, he could not comprehend why Scotland should be relieved from this tax, and would therefore second the Amendment.

said, the reason why the clause was framed in the manner in which it now stood with respect to heritable bonds, was this: the law of Scotland at this moment regarded them as real property and, incidentally to that, heritable bonds in Scotland, being real property, paid no legacy duty; and further, they were liable to be charged for the purpose of rating to the poor. The third point was not so important in its bearing as might at first appear, because, although it was true that heritable bonds were liable to be rated to the poor, they were under that liability in common with other property—the law of Scotland being that of means and substance, under which every man was liable to be rated in respect of the property in his possession. Although that was the ancient law of Scotland, it was now dying out. There was a great deal to be said in favour of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman, and he had no objection to accede to it.

said, he must protest against the Amendment.

said, that the Motion of which he had given notice, was an Amendment by way of addition to Clause 2, which was an interpretation clause. His object was to declare the principle of the tax, and by express words to render that declaration operative in governing the construction of the Act, and leaving, therefore, as little as possible—indeed he hoped to leave nothing—open to doubt and misconstruction. The Bill was necessarily complicated, because the purposes were numerous. He made no complaint of the terms in which those purposes were expressed; on the contrary, he tendered to the framer a respectful expression of his approval of the meritorious accuracy evinced in clothing provisions so various, in the language of art; but he believed that the professional individual, scientific as he was, would have found his labour lessened, and his task more easy, if, in carrying out the instructions of the law officers of the Crown, and the suggestions of acute persons connected with the Inland. Revenue, he had possessed the advantage of such a test as he (Mr. Freshfield) sought to establish by the Amendment he proposed. It was not his intention to trouble the House with any extensive criticism in proof of that opinion; but he might say, in passing that hon. Members would find in Clause 17 an exemption of post obits given for a pecuniary consideration; but that exemption was qualified so as to raise an inquiry whether the money might not be subject to the Succession Tax under some other provisions of the Bill. Again, in another clause, a party liable to the Succession Tax was declared not to be liable to the Legacy Duty in respect to the same principal sum. No such cautions would be necessary if a simple but controlling definition of the principle of the tax was established; and such a definition was material in order to exclude, as far as possible, the conflicts which did so frequently arise upon the true construction of Acts of Parliament—conflicts sometimes to be found in the decisions of courts of competent jurisdiction upon matters of construction; and in that House he was entitled to say, that no graver subject could be offered for consideration than the consequences connected with the task so impartially, and generally so satisfactorily, performed by Judges in the construction of imperfect legislation; and the subject was important in proportion as it was doubtful how far, consistently with the constitutional law of Parliament, the exercise of the power should be permitted; and, on the other hand, how the necessity for such a power was to be avoided. It never could be contended that Judges should not read an Act of Parliament according to its plain import; and it was difficult to say that they should not declare that import according to their understanding of it. And then, where was to be found the rule to define the amount of doubt which should require them to stop and abstain from enunciating a meaning more or less obvious, in proportion as the mind of the individual was more or less critical? It was agreed that the preamble cannot control the enacting words of an Act of Parliament. It had been said by way of explanation, but rather fancifully, that the Legislature might, in the first instance, have contemplated less than when it proceeded to determine by its enacting powers, which were, therefore, more ample, and must have full effect. In like manner, an extensive expression of intention in the preamble would not carry the powers of the Act further than was distinctly conferred; but it was held that if the Act was "obscure," it might receive might from the preamble. Still it must be remembered that those very rules of construction were not their rules, but the opinions of Judges and courts as to what they consider might or might not be done; and the great Parliamentary doctrine remained, that no power but that of the Legislature could alter the authority given by Parliament. Its intentions were unknown to any other body—it had a right to work out its own intentions—when it acted in the form of a Statute it exhausted the subject with which it dealt, and it could not, by construction, be made to say more than it had said. He (Mr. Freshfield) said, that a very direct illustration of this principle, and of the danger of allowing a latitude of construction, occurred in the early part of the reign of George IV. The Court of King's Bench, not a single Judge, but the whole Court, unanimously decided that the Statute for the Registration of Annuity Deeds required that the memorial should set forth not only the names but the description and addition of the witnesses to the deed; and for the want of those particulars, the Assurance objected to was invalid, and ordered to be set aside. The form of the proceedings admitted of no appeal; but the construction put by the Court, inferred what the Statute had not in terms required, and by an Act of Parliament, which commenced in the House of Lords, Parliament, without repealing the Act, so construed by the Court, declared that the Legislature in and by such a Statute reciting it, had not required the particulars which the Court of King's Bench had implied as the foundation of its judgment. From that authority he (Mr. Freshfield) said he maintained not only the desirableness of using the utmost care to render Acts of Parliament clear and free from the risk of erroneous construction, but also the importance of declaring the principle to be carried out; and while the preamble would not control the different parts of a Statute, he urged that words should be used to give to the declaration of principle a governing power over every provision of the Act. And if his view was generally right, it was especially so in a measure involving so many points of detail as were necessary to be dealt with under the Bill of his right hon. Friend; and he hoped that the form of his Amendment would secure the advantage for which he had framed it. He contended not for the form of words, which were open to any improvement—his aim was to secure the object; and, in conclusion, he would assure his right hon. Friend, that he had no intention to impede the measure or interfere with its productiveness. On the contrary, by the test he proposed, he meant to give efficiency to the Bill; and he conceded, in fact, more than some of the friends of the measure were prepared to admit—namely, that whatever came to a man, not by purchase, but fortuitously, should be deemed a Succession, and be subject to the tax, as if it had been a legacy. With this explanation he moved the following addition to the second clause.

said, he had no difficulty in subscribing to the principle of the Amendment of his hon. Friend, that Acts of Parliament ought to be clear and plain to construe; but beyond that he could not go. He willingly gave his hon. Friend credit for having no desire to repeal or narrow the obligations of the Act; but he could not help thinking that such would be the effect of the Amendment he had now proposed. The object of the Amendment, if he understood it aright, was to affirm a principle, which principle was to be adopted as a general guide in the construction of the Act. Now, it would be impossible to take a more dangerous course than to legislate on such broad and general terms, without having in their view all the cases to which those terms would apply, or to adopt any words that tended to override the specific provisions which the House had made on these difficult questions. If he had considered aright the scope and tendency of the Amendment, that would be its effect, though he was sure his hon. Friend did not intend to carry it that length. Surely, it would be better to use plain words applicable to particular cases, than to employ language, the particular application of which it would be impossible for any one to know, and the effect of which would be to throw darkness and ambiguity over the whole operation of the Act. Coming to particulars it appeared to him that in the first application of these words they would cut quite across the intentions of the House in some very important particulars. The hon. Gentleman would make the Legislature declare in these words that this tax was to be imposed on property only to which any persons should succeed "without pecuniary considerations under any settlement or disposition." But the House had at various times considered whether they would confine the Act to cases in which successions were taken without pecuniary considerations, and they had decided that the Act should not be so confined. Then, again, these words would provide that the Succession Duty should be imposed only on property "in such and like manner as if the same property or interest had been acquired by will or by way of disposition in cases of intestacy." Here it was quite obvious his hon. Friend led them into a most dangerous course by enunciating in large and broad terms a rule different from that which had been adopted by the Committee. They had made a provision of quite a different character with regard, for example, to post obits. Both on the general ground, therefore, that it was an unsafe course to enunciate these large propositions, which no one could foresee the effect of, and on the ground that in particular cases the Amendment would cut right across the intentions of the Statute, he hoped the House would reject the proposal of his hon. Friend, and abide by the decision of the Committee.

said, he would propose in Clause 20, to leave out the words "or of any lease falling within the operation of the 24th Section of this Act." The object of the proviso was, that no charge should be made on an owner of property held subjected to leases at rackrent for any additional value from the falling in of those leases. It was obvious the principle did not apply to other leases than those of rackrent, and he wished, therefore, to omit the words referred to.

said, he thought the references to the 24th clause an error, and would therefore suggest that the reference should be altered to the 25th clause.

said, he felt disposed to accede to the Amendment. If the words had any legitimate place in the Bill, it could only be to prevent the possibility of a double tax on the determination of certain leases. It certainly was not intended that the tax should be paid twice over. If the words were mere surplusage, he should not accede to the Motion for striking them out; but as they were likely in certain cases to produce a mischievous effect, and one not intend by the hon. Gentleman who had procured their insertion, he should consent to their omission.

said, he begged to propose an Amendment, which, if carried would so alter the scale on which the rates of duty were to be calculated, as to tend make the amount of duty considerably less than under the schedules in the present Bill. With reference to the 21st clause, providing that the interest of a successor in real property should be considered as an annuity, he would move that in the paragraph, "every such annuity, for the purposes of this Act, shall be valued according to the tables in the schedule annexed this Act," the words "this Act" should be left out, for the purpose of inserting the words, "the Act of the 36th year of the reign of King George III., chap. 52, The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had computed that this tax altogether would amount to on 2,000,000l.; but after the most careful calculation he could make, he found, beyond all doubt, that the total amount would be 3,000,000l., and perhaps some 200,000l. to 400,000l. He was inclined to think the House would agree with his Amendment, because the effect of the Bill would undoubtedly be to increase the legacy duty, which was already sufficiently oppressive in amount. The only reason stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for altering the tables from those contained in the Legacy Duties Act was, that the duration of life was now much longer than it was at the time the Legacy Duties Act was framed; but it was quite clear that the rate of interest had had quite as much, if not more, to do with the raising of the scale than the duration of life. The truth was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his calculations upon a 3 per cent table instead of a 5 per cent table. So it appeared from the schedules in the Bill. Three per cent was about thirty-three years' purchase; 4 per cent would be twenty-five years' purchase; 5 per cent twenty years' purchase; and 6 per cent sixteen and two-thirds. Now, in the third table of the Bill, he found that a lease for thirty-three years was worth 1,814l., while it appeared from Table 1 that a life at birth which they had a right to assume would be the commencement of the lease for thirty- three years, was worth about the same amount. That, he thought, was a conclusive proof that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had founded his calculations upon a 3 per cent table. Under these circumstances, therefore, he asked the House whether he did wrong in seeking to modify and mitigate some of the harsh features of the Bill? But there was another point to which he desired to advert. They had made leasehold property real estate, and declared it should pay succession duty in the same manner as freehold property. What were they going to do with leases for a term of years? According to the schedule in the Bill a person entitled to a lease for twenty years, supposing him to be sixty years of age, would be worth 1,359l., while a life of fifty years of age would be worth 1,242l. Now what he desired to know was, whether they meant to charge that property under the leasehold schedule for a term of years, or whether they intended to charge it with reference to the life interest? He begged to call the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite to this point. What would their constituents say when charged at the rate of some twenty-four years' purchase for leasehold property which probably might not be worth seven years' purchase? He knew that independent Members got little credit for any suggestions they might make; but nevertheless he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to offend the country by altering the schedules of the Legacy Duties Act, and would earnestly recommend him to apply them in their integrity to the Succession Duty.

said, be hoped the hon. Gentleman did not think there had been any want of consideration or respect for the various suggestions which had been made during the discussion on this difficult and important subject. He did not hesitate to repeat what he had previously stated, that he felt greatly indebted to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House for the way in which they had applied their minds to master the difficulties of this question; and to none did that remark apply more strongly than it did to the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Mullings). Now the hon. Member assured the House in the first place, that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would obtain from the Succession Tax double the amount which he had anticipated. The present legacy duty, including the probate duty, yielded 2,500,000l., and he anticipated an increase of 2,000,000l., making in all 4,500,000l. Surely the hon. Gentleman did not mean to tell him that he should get 9,000,000l.? To take, however, the most moderate interpretation which his words would admit of, the hon. Gentleman thought he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get 4,000,000l, from the Succession Duty. He heartily wished he could go along with him in that anticipation; but he was confident the hon. Gentleman was inaccurate in his calculations. It was true, the wealth of the country was increasing, and a good deal would no doubt depend upon the working of the law; but there were various elements of uncertainty in the matter; and, unless he was greatly mistaken, he thought he heard the hon. Gentleman state on a former occasion that the Succession Tax would not produce more than 3,000,000l. Now, he admitted a net benefit of 2,000,000l., and he proceeded upon the assumption that so soon as the state of the revenue would admit of it, the House would reform the probate duty, which it could not do without losing a considerable sum. It was after deducting that loss that he calculated upon obtaining 2,000,000l. from the Succession Tax; and therefore, after all, he did not think there was much difference between the hon. Gentleman and himself. Since the Bill had been introduced he had instituted an investigation into the actual history of successions in the case of the peerage, where it was tested by actual record, and the result gave a rate of succession more nearly approaching his estimate than that of the hon. Gentleman. He could most truly say that he had endeavoured to give the House an estimate which should be at once both safe and bonâ fide. He had not understated what he expected from the tax. He did not say that it would not yield something more, but that was a matter of perfect uncertainty, and he did not think the House would act wisely in taking any step upon the assumption that the tax would produce more than 2,000,000l. The hon. Gentleman had referred to a supposed increase in the Legacy Duty. Some increase they might get from that source, but it would be extremely little. Tables had nothing to do with the chief portion of the Legacy Duty—that duty fell principally upon capital; and when they took a percentage upon capital, they had nothing to do with tables. It was simply in cases of life or terminable interests that tables came into operation, and therefore any increase derived from the Legacy Duty in consequence of an alteration of the tables, would affect only a small portion of the receipts under the Legacy Duty, and would have an insignificant result. Moreover, that result would be balanced by a change about to be made in the law with reference to leaseholds, taking them out of the Legacy Duty Act, and putting them on the footing of real property in deference to what the Government considered a principle of justice. The hon. Gentleman had asked what they intended to do with respect to leaseholds. They should compare the value of the lease with the value of the life of the person who succeeded to it, and if the value of the lease were a lesser interest than the value of the life, then of course the man would pay upon the entire value of his lease; but if, on the other hand, the value of the lease amounted to a greater number of years' purchase than the value of the life, the successor would then have to pay upon his life interest. The hon. Gentleman said that the effect of what they proposed would be to increase the value of life interests. Very true; and the reason why they increased the value of life interests was because the value of lives was increased. The hon. Gentleman was decidedly wrong in saying that the calculations of the Bill were founded upon a 3 per cent table. The truth was, they were founded upon a 4 per cent table, the same as that contained in the Act 36 Geo. III. After all, the question came to this, would they adopt antiquated tables, which had reference to an entirely different state of things; or would they avail themselves of recent experience, showing the actual value of human life at the present time, and lay their tax accordingly? He hoped the House would reject the proposition of the hon. Gentleman.

said, he would now move, in Clause 21, line 30, to leave out the words "by eight equal half-yearly instalments, the first of such instalments to be paid." The amount of this tax upon land in the first degree of consanguinity was only 5l. in every 1,000l., and it was ridiculous to suppose that any gentleman on coming into possession of an estate would require four years and a half to pay that paltry sum. He could not understand why such a time should be allowed in the case of real property, while with regard to personalty payment must be made within a period of twenty-one days. There was a great inequality between the mode in which the tax on real property was to be payable, and the mode in which the tax on personal property was paid. He did not see how the duty could well be so greatly subdivided in the case of those very small properties which belonged to the shareholders in building societies and similar bodies. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had displayed more talent in defence of that Bill than he (Mr. Williams) had ever seen displayed by any other Finance Minister; but he believed that even the great ability of the right hon. Gentleman would not enable him to justify a measure which would allow the owners of land four years and a half to pay half the amount of the tax which the owners of personal property had to pay in twenty-one days.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat had spoken of him in a way which he did not deserve. But he was at the same time bound to acknowledge the fairness and openness with which the hon. Gentleman had invariably stated his view on this question, the perseverance with which which he followed his object, and the justice of the general principle upon which he founded his propositions. He must, however, feel that he had great reason to be satisfied with the emphatic recognition which the justice of the principle had received during the discussion of this Bill from very large majorities in that House. But, concurring in the justice of the principle, and thinking that the hon. Gentleman deserved the acknowledgments of those in office for his efficient labours in procuring its general recognition, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had never at all from the first moment of the introduction of the Bill attempted to keep back the anxious desire of the Government that their recognition of the principle should be so adjusted to the existing state of things, and so qualified by mitigating its provisions, that they should not be obtaining, under the form of a mere fiscal and taxing Act, an engine which would go to displace and alter extensively the possession of property in this country, and thereby produce effects upon the social system which they did not desire to see. The Amendment now under discussion, as the hon. Member well knew, went very much to the root of this question. It was an Amendment of an importance far beyond the apparent force of the terms in which it was conveyed. He regretted that, as he understood it, it did not purport to touch the broad distinction in the Bill as to the character and weight of the tax that was to be laid upon real property, on the one hand, and personalty upon the other; for the hon. Member was content with asking the House to cut off the particular provision which made an allowance of three years and a half out of the four years and a half which it allowed for the payment of the tax upon landed property. But he thought the hon. Member was not quite accurate in his reading of the powers of the Bill relating to personalty. It was not the fact that the tax on personalty would have to be paid in twenty-one days. The specified term of twenty-one days to which be referred had reference to the obligation to send in the account; and the liability to send in the account only accrued, not within twenty-one days after the succession had fallen in, but at the time of the first payment. There was the same time allowed for the payment of the duty upon personalty as upon realty. This was admitted upon all hands, and he was ready to defend it, though he did not think it required any apology, because it was a reasonable, just, and necessary part of the Bill. The effect of the Amendment would be obviously, in one important particular, highly unsatisfactory—even without discussing the fundamental principle—and he ventured to anticipate the assent of the hon. Mover to what he was going to say. In the case of life interests, he apprehended the hon. Gentleman would not propose to cut off the system of payment by instalments, because the party might have nothing else in the world but what he took as tenant for life. He had, therefore, no power of charging the property, or of alienating any part of it, yet a tax would be laid upon him, which might amount to so considerable a sum that he could not pay it out of income. How would that work? How did they stand in reference to life interests in land as compared with proprietors of fee simple? This was a question which must not be considered apart from the system and tenure of landed property in this country. We had large estates, as a general rule, held by tenants for life; and small estates, as a general rule, held in fee. The operation of the present proposal, if he was right in assuming that the hon. Gentleman would give to life interests in land the same benefit that he would to the party who succeeded to a life interest in personalty, of paying by instalments, would be to establish a system under which the great proprietors of entailed estates would enjoy a privilege that in effect would amount to a reduction of the tax, while that tax would fall without mitigation upon the small proprietors. He was sure the hon. Gentleman would admit that this was a great objection to the proposal. He admitted, however, that this was a subject which might deserve consideration when the Executive came to the practical arrangements for the working of the tax—that was, the mode of levying it for very small properties. It was quite true that fractions of the tax would fall in such cases in sums so insignificant that the division of such sums into eight several payments might be found very inconvenient to all parties, and that the cost of collection might swallow up the proceeds. This was a matter, however, on which he had not thought it necessary at this moment to make any proposal to Parliament, for it was obviously a question of very small importance, compared with the great purposes which this tax contemplated. His belief was that the discretion which the Commissioners of the Treasury had, he should say, constitutionally enjoyed from time immemorial, exercised in the relaxation, upon cause being shown, of minor provisions of this kind under fiscal Acts, would be sufficient to enable them to make some such arrangements as would enable this Act to work beneficially and conveniently to all parties. He did not hesitate to say that the system of paying by instalments lay near the root of the principle of the Bill. He fully admitted, it would not be possible, nor just, to maintain the present exemptions for any length of time; and, therefore, it became a most important question upon what principle they were to lay taxes upon property of this kind. He thought the hon. Member's Amendment, if adopted, would introduce an invidious and unjust distinction between the large and small proprietors, to the prejudice of the latter, and to the benefit of the former. It was plain it was unadvisable to compel men to charge their estates with debt. It was contrary to policy to force them to do that by law. He would not say it was contrary to policy exactly in the same sense, but it was contrary to feeling, and not according to sound policy, to force them to cut up their estates and sell portions for the purpose of paying duty. Rather let them take a natural course. He was delighted to see industrious Englishmen of the lower ranks investing their earnings in land—every man must contemplate that process with satisfaction; but it would be impolitic to compel men to charge their estates with mortgages, and it would be inexpedient to compel them to cut off morsels and bring them to sale. If these two principles were admitted, then it followed that a tax of this kind ought to be paid out of income. Such was the object of this clause; the Legislature had recognised it in the case of personalty, where there was only a life interest. In order that the successor might not destroy part of the personalty, he was allowed to pay the duty by yearly instalments. On the same principle, of not distressing parties, of not complicating proprietary arrangements, of not forcing changes in the ownership of land, he had been anxious to adjust the details of the Bill in such a way that the tax should be paid, not out of capital, but out of income. He admitted that, in many cases, the Bill would entail the necessity of effort to pay the tax out of income; but he must say frankly that there had been great exaggeration on the other side of the House as to the burden of the tax. In the case of direct succession, the tax would be one which no man ought to consider as a burdensome addition to his charges; but in the case of indirect succession, it would amount to a sum which would require some effort and foresight to enable it to be paid out of income. Such were his objections to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. But there were two views of it. If the hon. Gentleman said the system of payment by instalments really meant so much deduction from the tax, he granted it; the deduction in fact would be equivalent to 10 or 12 per cent. This might be corrected by saying that interest should be charged upon the instalments. He, however, made no such proposal. But if the hon. Gentleman did not mean that this system was not a deduction from the tax, then it was an adjustment and distribution in such a form as that it might be paid out of annual income. As the Bill stood, it could be paid out of annual income. Under all these circumstances he must object to the Amendment.

said, he had heard with much satisfaction the very powerful speech of the right hon. Gentleman against the whole Bill. He wished to disabuse the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) of the notion that a legacy of 20l. paid a probate of 2½ per cent, and 1 per cent for legacy duty. Probate duty had nothing to do with legacies. As to legacy duty being payable in twenty-one days, that was never the case, for an executor had six months to prove the will; and, in fact, a year was the ordinary period for paying legacy duty. He had heard with satisfaction the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was not desirable to force parties to raise money upon their estates, or to sell small portions for the purpose of enabling them to pay the succession tax.

said, he could not refrain from expressing his surprise at the assertion of the hon. Member for Lambeth, as to legacies paying probate duty; and he hoped if the hon. Gentleman had acted as an executor and had charged that duty, that he would ease his conscience by refunding it.

said, he would now move to add to Clause 23 the proviso of which he had given notice.

said, that although he did not think it necessary, he would accede to the proviso.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had held out a hope that in this clause he would insert some minimum; would he state whether he intended to do so?

said, it did not appear to him advisable to accept this proviso. The Bill provided for all necessary outgoings in the case of land; and "all necessary outgoings" of course included repairs. Any reasonable expense in repairs would, therefore, be allowed. But the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mullings) proposed that in the event of any wood being cut down to effect repairs, an allowance should be made in respect to that wood. This would be allowing a second time for the same repairs. But the point to which he more particularly wished to call attention was this—the hon. Gentleman said, "If a certain amount of timber was cut, and then exchanged for other timber, a certain allowance was to be made;" but how? Suppose any person cut down 500 feet of timber of a worthless character, and exchanged it for foreign timber of a good quality—the foreign timber might cost just twice as much as the timber sold, and the allowance would be increased; but, to be fair, the deduction should be not upon the wood purchased, but on the wood sold.

said, that there were two considerations in the Amendment which he proposed: the one related to the exchange, and the other to the purchase of timber. In both cases he thought it fair that an allowance should be made.

said, he was of opinion that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman would lead to great confusion in the collection of the tax.

said, that his anxiety to save the time of the House had led him to give a rather hasty assent to the Amendment of the hon. Member; but, on more careful examination, he felt obliged to qualify his former opinion of it. It was proposed that no timber should be paid for which should be used for building or repairs. But if a proprietor should think fit to build new houses, and so increase the value of the land, there was no reason why timber employed for such a purpose should be exempt. Repairs were most justly exempted on the ground that they were necessary for the maintenance of the estate; but timber used far building went to increase the value of the property, and, therefore, stood on a totally different footing. He must, consequently, object to the words "rebuildings or" in the Amendment. Then, again, he thought that the words "or for the protection thereof" were not sufficiently clear. It would be better not to attempt such a specification, but rely on the words "necessary outgoings." The latter part of the Amendment, which provided that allowance and deductions should be made for all timber or wood purchased for building or repairs, would, in his opinion, be unfavourable to the successor, for whom it would be better that he should be allowed to form a full estimate of what he laid out in repairs, than that he should make a set-off of this kind. This proviso would also introduce great complexity into the operation of the Bill.

said, he thought that they were going on a vicious principle in taxing timber at all, which had as much claim to exemption as growing crops.

said, he saw no reason for the introduction of the first part of the proviso. With regard to the second part, it would be impossible to keep the account and to follow the timber into use and consumption. The only effect of the Amendment would be to introduce a doubt as to the meaning of the words "necessary outgoings." He recommended the withdrawal of the Amendment. With regard to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), he proposed to move that no duty should be payable on the net moneys received for the sale of timber in any one year, unless such net moneys should exceed the sum of 10l.

said, be thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met the wishes of hon. Members on his side of the House with great fairness. He would suggest, however, that words should be inserted in the clause to make it more clear that "necessary outgoings" included all necessary repairs on the estate throughout the whole of the occupation. If those words were inserted, he thought the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Mailings) would be unnecessary.

wished to know, in cases of woodland tracts, where timber was occasionally felled, if it was intended to levy the tax on each timber tree as felled, in addition to the original succession duty originally paid?

said, in reply, that they had nothing to do with the original value; the successor would be taxed on the annual value of the timber only.

should say that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman did not at all meet the question of his noble Friend, the object of which was to ascertain if a proprietor was to be taxed once or twice.

would suggest that the limit to the duty payable on the net moneys received from the sale of timber in any one year should be 20l., instead of 10l., as suggested by the hon. and learned Solicitor General.

said, the more he had heard of this discussion the more he regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have thought it necessary to make timber a special object of enactment at all. He would admit that the owners of timber had not succeeded in making out a case for special exemption; but, on the other hand, neither did he think that the right hon. Gentleman had succeeded in showing that there was any necessity for a special enactment. He thought it would have been far better to leave timber to take its chance as a portion of the general produce of the estate. If timber were not productive, it ought not to be taxed; but, if it were productive, the right hon. Gentleman had abundant means of getting his duty under the general provisions of the Bill. If it had been in order he should have moved at once that the clause, as regarded timber, be altogether omitted; but, as he believed a Motion of that nature would not be in order at present, he begged to give notice of his intention to move that Amendment at a future stage of the Bill.

said, he thought that the question put by the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) had not been sufficiently answered. In order, therefore, to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity to reply more fully, he would move the adjournment of the House.

intimated to the hon. Member that such a course, by permitting a Member to address the House several times upon the same question tended seriously to render the debate irregular.

said, he thought the first part of the Amendment was unobjectionable; but he certainly could not approve of the latter portion of it.

then moved the insertion of the following proviso at the end of the 23rd clause:—

"That no duty shall be payable on the net moneys received from the sale of timber, trees, or wood in any one year, unless such moneys shall exceed the sum of 10l."

said, he would now beg to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. His reasons for so doing were, that the modes of assessment under Clause 26 were wholly inapplicable to Cornish mines. No time, in the first place, was specified for averages; and he could not see how any time could be fixed with propriety, and no principle was, or could be, laid down as regarded the prospective value of so fluctuating a property as this, with regard to the averages for deep and shallow mines. To approximate anything like a just calculation, a variation in the averages must be made; and, if once a variation was admitted, then confusion would follow. Therefore he felt the necessity of proposing the Amendment. The proviso was equally essential, as, unless there was some definition of what was a mine in succession, the most ruinous litigation would be the result, especially with so very determined a race as Cornishmen.

said, he regretted that the hon. Member had been prevented bringing his Amendment under the notice of the House at an earlier period, which had necessarily prevented him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) giving it that full and deliberate consideration which he should at all times be glad to bestow out of respect to every hon. Member who brought forward an Amendment, but more especially on this occasion, considering the practical knowledge possessed by the hon. Member on this particular subject. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had to answer the hon. Gentleman under the disadvantage of unpreparedness. The reason why he did not feel disposed to accede to the Amendment was, not that he had the least doubt that, as the enactment stood, it was an imperfect enactment, but because it had not been shown that, as the Bill was now worded, any person would unduly suffer. They had before them a choice of difficulties; and, for his part, he was content that those difficulties should be solved to the prejudice of the Crown. Had the Government sought to exact the tax with severity, it could not have been done without provisions which would have operated vexatiously, and have exposed persons, in some instances, to overcharges. But the Bill had been prepared in a different spirit, and he doubted whether any one could show that, under its provisions, any person could suffer wrong. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in saying that in respect to mines recently opened, the Crown, under the provisions of the Bill, would obtain a very inadequate amount of the tax. But, notwithstanding that, he was not willing to make his calculations in regard to the amount of the annual receipts, unless some strong necessity existed. So far as regarded the interests of the Crown, he was content to abide by the Bill as it stood; and, so far as regarded Her Majesty's subjects, he saw no cause for believing that it would work in any way injuriously to them. The first successor had a choice of two modes by which to estimate the charge to which he would be subjected. He might either take the average of the proceeds of the mine for a certain number of years, preceding the succession; or he might take an estimate of the value of the property, and then calculate the annual value at the rate of 3l. per cent per annum. Either of those modes would defend the successor from any undue taxation, except under one single contingency, and that contingency did not apply to any mines in the whole country in the same degree as to the mines in Cornwall; he meant the contingency of a total and absolute failure of ore. Of course, in the case of all mines, whether of coal or of iron, there was the liability to loss in the amount of product, when the lessee or the proprietor, must suffer; but still a total cessation of produce was confined to Cornish mines only. He granted that that contingency required a special provision; but then they had go that special provision already in the Bill for it was provided that it should be lawful (and they all knew that those words imposed an obligation) for the Commissioners in the event of any circumstances which should tend to show that the succession duty was levied to the prejudice of the individual, and without due and sufficient grounds, to repay such duty to the parties He must, therefore, say that, as the Bill now stood, no hardship could by possibility be inflicted on any party. With respect to the latter part of the Amendment, the nothing should be considered a mine which should not have been worked within twelve months, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) happened to know a case where a mine within four months had yielded produce to the value of 9,000l., but which had been shut up for the preceding two years. Now, if the succession to such property had taken place during those two years, and had been regulated according to the proposed Amendment, it would have been almost a fraud upon the revenue, for the party would not have paid anything as a tax. Not to provide for such a case therefore, would be a great failure in the operation of the law.

then proposed, in page 15, line 5, after "property," to inset "within three calendar months after the happening of the Succession." The object of the Amendment was to make the meaning of the clause more defined, and its working less arbitrary.

said, that the system contemplate by the hon. Gentleman was much less favourable to parties attaining to succession than that embodied in the Bill. He proposed to insert a particular defined period prior to which the inheritor could not be liable to pay the duty. Well, there could be no doubt, as far as the revenue is concerned, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would have no reason to complain if the liability were to accrue at the end of such a period. But the Government proceeded upon a different principle; they did not define any precise period, but they said that the liability to render an account in respect of the accession would accrue not until the period when the accession, or at least the first portion of it, should be realised, and the advantage of that arrangement was, that the liability to pay accrued when the means to pay accrued; whereas, on the other hand, a long period might elapse before any portion of it was realised. That surely was a principle, if not so convenient to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, yet decidedly more favourable to the party inheriting than the one maintained in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

then proposed as an Amendment on Clause 49, page 16, line 32, to leave out after "them" the words "or their officers," and in line 39, after "Commissioners," to leave out the words "or their officers." He had already stated in the discussion on this clause that it had never entered into the mind of the Government to subject the parties liable to the payment of this tax to have their deeds or documents inspected by local officers, who were generally persons of a subordinate position, and therefore he was willing, as, indeed, it had been always his intention, that any such examination should be reserved for persons who were competent from their rank for the discharge of such functions. Anxious, therefore, to go as far as possible to meet the very natural sensitiveness of hon. Gentlemen opposite upon this subject—a sensitiveness which he could neither wonder at nor blame, he had entered into communication with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who had evinced every disposition to meet the feeling exhibited by the House. In point of fact, the administration of the legacy duty did not form at present any part of the business of the Commissioners of Revenue. It was an important part of their office, for which they were responsible; but practically the duty was discharged by the officers of the legacy duty department, and by a very able public servant who was at the head of that branch. But the Commissioners were quite willing to undertake the duty of the examination of the documents by themselves alone. He wished it to be understood that, so far as the Government was concerned, they had no desire to exercise any arbitrary or discretionary power at all, but were perfectly willing to meet the views of hon. Members in order to adjust the assessment of the tax. He therefore proposed to strike out the words "or their officers" altogether, and to limit the power of inspection to the Commissioners themselves.

said, there would be extreme difficulty, or at least inconvenience, to gentlemen resident in remote counties, such as Devon and Cornwall, having to send up their deeds to London.

said, he must confess that, looking at matters practically, his view was that in ninety-nine out of every hundred cases the parties would be found making no objection to the inspection of their documents. In fact, it was quite obvious that the deeds need never pass out of the custody of the parties themselves or their solicitors.

said, he must assert that there was considerable force in the objection of his hon. Friend the Member for South Devonshire (Sir J. Buller)—namely, the great inconvenience to all persons nonresident in London of having to forward their deeds from a remote distance to the capital. And if the right hon. Gentleman would but consider the great expense that small proprietors would be put to—their great disinclination and unwillingness to part with their deeds, he did hope that he would consent to make an exception in favour of muniments of title. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to assume that all transactions under the Act would be confined to London. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would yield to his suggestion; but the tenacity of Government on these points was really extraordinary.

said, that nothing could induce him to consent to any such Amendment as that just now suggested; he would far millet drop the clause altogether. He believe that the operation of the law, in case; where parties were unwilling to product their title deeds, would be very much aggravated by dropping the clause, or by so qualifying it as to render all investigation impossible. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that "muniments of title" were far too important words to be left out of the clause. Why, the muniments of title often affected the title itself, and he was advised that even the rental might be included among the muniments. He would beg to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that it was personalty that must pay the bulk of the tax, and that, therefore, it would be perfectly impossible to assess the tax upon property f that description if the exception asked for as conceded.

said, if the right hon. gentleman meant only that the tax should refer to settled property, Gentlemen on his (the Opposition) side of the House would rest perfectly content. And, doubtless, with regard to that kind of property, it would be quite necessary that all deeds and documents should be produced, otherwise here would be nothing visible or tangible. The words "muniments of title" could only refer to land, and the possession of land was better proof for the purposes of the tax than my settlement could be. The right hon. Gentleman had fallen into an error in supposing the trustees had possession of the Settlements relating to the land. This was the first attempt that had been made to upset the doctrine that the owner of deeds had a right to maintain possession of them against the world. There had not been the smallest reason adduced for the demand. Neither the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, nor the hon. and learned Solicitor General, with all their astuteness, had been able to give a single reason for the production of those "muniments of title." The party with whom he (Mr. Malins) had the honour to act, had no objection to the insertion of the words "title deeds relating to real estates." He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would see the necessity of giving up this extraordinary and unconstitutional power without a tittle of necessity for it.

said, he fully concurred in the observations made by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins) the Member for Wallingford. He was afraid that the House was getting careless of the preservation of a principle which ought to be held sacred. He would strongly urge upon the hon. and learned Solicitor General the propriety of taking into his consideration the suggestions just made by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, that unless this clause was adopted, there would be almost in every case where a dispute arose the necessity on the part of the Crown of applying to a Court of Law to compel the production of those papers, which would be attended with great inconvenience, expense, and delay to the individuals concerned. The clause was worded in a manner to produce the least possible inconvenience. As to the production of title deeds properly so called, the clause would not have the slightest effect. The only documents that would be required were those documents illustrating the relation in which the successor stood to the man making the settlement, and they only compelled the production of the instrument under which the successor came to the estate. In many cases it would be absolutely necessary, in order to enable the Commissioners to decide, that they should see the documents or attested copies.

then moved the insertion of the following proviso, which was agreed to:—

"Provided, that where the sum payable for duty on such assessment does not exceed fifty pounds, the accountable party may, having given notice of appeal, and delivered a statement of the grounds thereof as hereinbefore directed, appeal to the Judge of the County Court in England, the Sheriff Court in Scotland, or the Assistant Barrister's Court in Ireland, for the district, county, or division in which the appellant shall be resident, or the property be situate, and every such Judge shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter of such last-mentioned appeal, with the like power and authority as are by this section given to a Judge of Her Majesty's Court of Exchequer."

said, that he understood the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control to say that this Bill would not be proceeded with that night.

said, he proposed to go on with the next four or five clauses, in respect to which no Amendments were to be moved. He did not intend to go further to-night.

said, that this clause could not come under the category of unopposed clauses, as the noble Lord the Member for Lynn (Lord Jocelyn) had given notice of an Amendment to allow covenanted servants on the retired list, and persons who had been in office under the Crown in India, to vote at elections of Directors.

said, he understood that the noble Lord intended to propose his Amendment in the shape of a separate clause.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control whether he had any objection to alter this clause, so that persons who had been in India as merchants or as professional men might be included in it? The hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton (Sir J. Hogg), who was so great an authority on Indian affairs, was himself in the legal profession while in India, and might have had no connexion with the service of the Crown or of the Company, and yet no one would say that he was less proper on that account to be placed in the Court. The clause which had passed with regard to the six nominees of the Crown provided that they should be persons who had been ten years in the service either of the Crown or of the Company; and this clause proposed that at least six persons of the selected Directors should be of the same class. It appeared to him advisable, however, to extend the qualification to persons who had resided in India for that period, although not in the service of the Crown or of the Company. Many of the India merchants were men of great knowledge and experience—take the case, for instace, of Mr. Craufurd, who had been in Parliament a short time as Member for Harwich, or of the present Member, Mr. Bagshw, although he did not know how long the latter Gentleman had been in India. There were many merchants in this country who had resided in India, and who had as much information with regard to Indian matters as the great bulk of those who had been there in the service of the Crown and of the Company. It was contrary to all the principles of good policy to confine the office to persons who had been in India in either service, and to exclude all who had been there as merchants, or in the different professions; and he wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman had any objection so to alter either the clause or the Bill as to admit persons of this class among the nominated or elected Directors. It would give greater scope for the choice of good men for the office, and good men were not so numerous that we could afford to exclude them; and the alteration, so far from injuring the Bill, would without doubt improve it greatly.

said, that the clause did not exclude such persons as had been referred to by the hon. Gentleman. The Board was to consist of eighteen members, six nominated and twelve elected, and of the twelve elected six were to be persons who had served ten years in India, so that they were six seats open to all the world. There was, therefore, no exclusion of that class of persons who had not been connected either by the service of the Company or of the Crown; but it had been thought desirable that the selection of six of the twelve elected Directors should be persons who had served in either one service or the other. Still, he repeated, there were six seats open to all the world, and there was no exclusion of men who had bad experience of India, either in a mercantile or professional capacity.

said, he thought that the very fact of such a restriction having been proposed, was a conclusive proof of the truth of his proposition. There were many persons engaged in mercantile pursuits in Manchester, Liverpool, and, of course, in London, who had resided much longer than ten years in India, without having served either the Crown or the Company, and it was not desirable to preclude the proprietors from electing Directors from that class. Under the proposed arrangement, the proprietors would be at full liberty to choose six persons who had not been in India at all; and in all probability the selection would be made from the great houses in the City. What he complained of was the restriction of twelve of the Directors to persons who had been in the service of the Government or the Company. Unless the right hon. Gentleman undertook to alter the clause by the time when the Bill was again before the House, he should move that the Chairman do report progress.

said, he could see no solid objection to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Manchester; indeed, the hon. Member did not appear to have put his case so strongly as he might have done, for if he (Mr. V. Smith) were a proprietor of East India Stock, he should not only feel himself at liberty, but bound, to choose Directors from the class of persons mentioned by the hon. Member.

said, he would suggest that the clause should be so modified as to meet to some extent the objection of the hon. Member for Manchester, or omitted altogether. For his part, he should desire on principle that the selection of the Crown should be wholly unrestricted; but if that selection were not restricted to men who had been in India for a certain period, a direct latitude would be given to the Minister of the day to nominate persons merely on political grounds.

said, he would rather have the clause altered than postponed. He would propose to amend the clause so that it should provide that, instead of the six Directors not appointed by the Crown being persons who should have been for ten years at the least in the service of the Crown or the Company in India, they should simply be persons who should have resided there for ten years at the least. Thus they would leave the Court of Proprietors at liberty to elect persons who had been in the service of the Crown or of the Company, or who had been engaged in mercantile or other occupations, or in no occupations at all.

said, he not only agreed with the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, but he could not understand why the choice of the Crown should be limited to the civil and military service, which might operate to the exclusion of gentlemen who, like the hon. Member for Honiton, had devoted themselves to a profession in India, and who might not choose to enter on a canvass for the other seats in the Direction.

said, he entirely agreed with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), for it was manifest that when the subject was considered, persons in the legal or other professions had better opportunities of becoming acquainted with the feelings and habits of the natives of India, than persons in the service of the Crown or the Company; and that sort of knowledge was what it was very desirable to obtain.

said, he thought that with regard to the Directors appointed by the Crown, the case was different to that of those elected by the proprietors, and he could not give a decided answer on that point then. With regard to the other Directors, he was quite ready to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Manchester; and as it involved only a slight, alteration in the clause, it could be done at once. As respected the Directors ap- pointed by the Crown, the object was to avoid all temptation for naming persons from a political bias.

said, he thought that it would be extremely inconvenient if persons who were engaged in carrying on mercantile operations in India, although they had returned to this country, should be appointed Directors while they were so engaged. He thought provision ought to be made that no person engaged in mercantile transactions connected with India for the time should be eligible.

said, he was glad the suggestion of the hon. Member for Manchester had been acceded to, but he thought it would be necessary to guard against the clause covering cases to which it was not intended to apply—as, for instance, the case of a child born in India, and not sent to this country until after the age of ten years. There was no limitation by the clause of the time of life at which a person was qualified to be elected.

thought there should not be too large an infusion of Indian experience, to the exclusion of the English element in the administration of Indian affairs.

said, he had an Amendment hereafter to propose, the object of which was to limit the sphere of selection by the Crown, so as to prevent the nominations being used for political purposes. With regard to the other Directors, he had no objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Manchester, At the same time he thought it not desirable that the government of the affairs of India, should be engrossed by mercantile men; and he would prefer that of the eighteen members two-thirds of them should be men who had been employed in India. He did not agree that legal and mercantile men had a greater knowledge of the natives of India than those who were in the service of the Company.

said, that there was at present a by-law that precluded any person engaged in trade in India from being a Director; but that there was no law whatever excluding persons who were engaged in trade in England.

said, he was in favour of the entire abolition of the limitation, and of giving to the electors and the Government the power of choosing any person who had resided ten years in India.

said, he did not think that any case had been made out for an increase of salary to the Assistant Judge. He said this out of no personal feeling in regard to the gentleman who now held that position. When an increase of salary was proposed, the Government was bound to make out a strong case for it, and to show not only that there was an increase of work, but also that the office could not be properly filled at a lower rate of payment. The object of the Bill was to increase the salary of the Assistant Judge from 1,200l. to 1,500l.; but he thought the first-named sum quite sufficient, especially when it was considered that he had an assistant who was paid 7l. a day. He should therefore move that the Bill be committed that day three months.

said, the question of increasing the salary of the Assistant Judge of the Middlesex Sessions was brought under his notice when he was at the Home Office, and from all he then learnt he thought it reasonable that additional salary should be given. The business of the Middlesex Sessions had been enormously increased by the transference of a particular species of business from the Central Criminal Court to the Sessions—so much so, that the Chairman could not get the ordinary vacation that all other Judges enjoyed. In these circumstances, application was made to him to give him occasional assistance, and that assistance was directed to be given, though not permanently. In the case of the Country Court Judges, the House had decided last Session that they should have a salary of not less 1,200l., and not more than 1,500l. a year. Now, the duties which the Chairman of the Middlesex Sessions had to discharge were as great, if not greater, than those of the County Court Judges, and therefore it was reasonable that the same addition should be made to his salary. He would, therefore, support the Bill before the House. He wished to make an observation, however, with reference to the second clause. By that clause it was proposed to give a retiring salary. He was not aware that they had done that in the case of any of the Judges of the inferior courts; and, without giving a positive opinion on it, he would call the attention of the Government to the subject, as he considered that it was establishing a dangerous precedent. If they gave a retiring pension to the Chairman of the Middlesex Quarter Sessions, he did not see why they should not give the same to the Judges of all the inferior courts.

would also say a few words in explanation, as the Bill for lessening the cost of prosecutions in certain cases was brought in while he was in office. That Bill threw a large portion of the criminal business upon the Middlesex Sessions which had formerly been conducted in the Central Criminal Court. Mr. Serjeant Adams, immediately upon the Bill passing, applied for an increase of salary, on the ground that the business would be greatly increased. He (Sir G. Grey), however, considered that it would be premature to propose any greater amount of salary until it was seen to what extent this increase of business took place. From the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) it appeared clear that such an increase had occurred, and hence he could not see any ground for opposing this Bill. He was opposed, however, to the clause relative to a retiring pension.

said, he wished to correct an error into which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) had fallen in regard to the retiring pensions. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that no inferior Judge received retiring pensions. This was an error; several of the Judges of inferior courts were entitled to retiring allowances, and County Court Judges might have retiring pensions in certain cases.

said, that after the explanations given on both sides of the House, he did not feel justified in persevering with his Motion.

said, he should move that the clause be struck out of the Bill. He certainly did think the pay of this gentleman was amply sufficient, while no reason whatever had been shown why he should have a retiring allowance.

said, he must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland not to proceed with a measure of so much importance at that late hour of the evening [half-past twelve o'clock]. He had no wish to obstruct the progress of business, and if the right hon. Gentleman would fix an early day for this Bill, he (Mr. Whiteside) would be perfectly willing to shorten the matter by discussing a Bill which he had on the paper, the Sale of Lands (Ireland) Bill, and the one now before the House both at the same time—[Laughter]—at least one after the other.

said, he thought that the Bill ought to be read a second time that evening. He (Sir J. Young) had a few days ago assented to the Bill, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded, being read a second time, on the understanding that it was not to be further proceeded with; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman now placed that as a rival to the present Bill, he thought it was but fair that the latter should also receive a second reading. This Bill had been maturely considered in the other House, and he therefore proposed now to take the second reading, on the understanding that ample opportunity should be given for discussing it either on going into Committee or in Committee.

said, he must deny that he had ever had any communication with the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of the Bill to which he had alluded, or that he had ever given any pledge that it should not be proceeded with beyond the second reading. It was a Bill to which he had never heard any objection, and which had the sanction of the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He had no desire to obstruct the progress of law reform; but if a Government which had never introduced a single original measure on this subject—[Loud cries of "Order!" amidst which the hon. and learned Gentleman resumed his seat].

said, that without going into any angry discussion, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman must see that the Government were entitled to ask him to allow this Bill to be now read a second time. The hon. and learned Gentleman had offered to discuss his Bill and the Bill of his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Young's) together; but how could that be done if the two Bills did not stand on the same footing? As the one Bill had been read a second time, he thought the other should be allowed to pass the same stage.

said, that he should have no objection to accede to the noble Lord's suggestion, if he was understood not to be precluded thereby from pressing at a future stage the strong objections which he entertained to the principle of this Bill, which was in many respects different from the former Encumbered Estates Act.

said, that of course the hon. and learned Gentleman would not be precluded from offering any opposition to the Bill at a future stage.

said, that the measure was one of the most unjust and unprecedented ever introduced into that House. He objected to the principle of the Bill, and hoped the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) would persist in his opposition. It was not fair to Ireland to press this Bill at so late an hour. He would observe also that the time when Irish Members were at the assizes was the time always chosen for bringing in or pushing forward obnoxious Bills. He should certainly move that the debate be adjourned.

hoped the hon. and gallant Colonel would not persist in his opposition. The measure, with that of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, would, he hoped, be discussed on an early day.

said, he would accede to this suggestion, but he warned the Government that the subject must be fully discussed.

was about to move the insertion of some new clauses, when

expressed a hope that they would be postponed; as they had only been printed that day, and he had not had time to look at them. Besides, clauses more likely to carry out the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman had just been introduced into a Bill in another place.

said, he wished the House to understand that this was a measure of law reform, and that Her Majesty's Attorney General was now objecting to clauses which had been unanimously approved of by the profession.

said, it was all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to assume a tone of indignation mixed with that asperity which he always introduced on every subject. He did not think the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman, high as it undoubtedly was in point of talent, authorised him in assuming that tone towards those who, if not his equals in point of ability, were at least his equals in the manner in which they conducted the business of that House. He did not wish to throw any obstacles in the way of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but if he supposed these clauses had received the universal assent of the profession he was greatly mistaken. Those who had seen his clauses, and the clauses introduced into the Bill in the other House, were of opinion that the latter clauses went much further, and would be more effectual, than those of the hon. and learned Gentleman. All he wanted was an opportunity of considering them.

said, several of the clauses of his hon. and learned Friend had been discussed in Committee.

said, that the clauses which he wished to consider were the equity clauses.

said, there was not an equity clause on the paper.

suggested that the better course would be to postpone the clauses till to-morrow.

said, that some statement ought to be made to the House as to the probable cost of the works, and the parties under whose superintendence they were to be executed.

said, this was a continuance of a scheme which had been several years in contemplation, and it was to be conducted under the direction of the Board of Works.

said, the House had not been put into possession of a single estimate as to the probable cost, or as to any points of detail. The same remark applied to other public works, and particularly to Westminster-bridge. When private works were brought before Parliament, the promoters were required to produce estimates of the cost, and he did not see why a similar course should not be taken with reference to Bills of this description. He thought it was incumbent on the House to press for the estimate before they consented to vote away the public money. He should, therefore, move that the Committee be postponed for three months.

said, he was aware of very improper practices with relation to the proceedings of the Board of Health, the engineers being often the contractors. He should, therefore, beg to move an Amendment, which he hoped would rectify such anomalous proceedings.

said, the object of the Bill was simply to confirm provisional orders of the Board of Health, more particularly in the application of the Health of Towns Act to certain towns. He objected to this clause because it did not come within the title and intention of the Bill. Nevertheless he agreed in the general principle of the clause. The inspectors were not salaried officers of the Board, but were employed, as it were, by the job, and they were, therefore, at liberty to get employment elsewhere. It appeared to him that they should be salaried officers, and not be at liberty to take employment elsewhere. The matter had been under consideration, and when the general subject of the Board of Health was brought forward next year, it was the intention of Government to make a change similar to that proposed by the hon. Gentleman.

said, he should support the clause. These inspectors went to towns, and a tenth of the inhabitants having declared themselves in favour of introducing the Health of Towns Act, the inspectors made work for themselves. He thought the Board of Health ought to be reconstituted.

said, the proceedings of the Board of Health were antagonistic to the municipal feeling of the country. Whether the clause was brought up or not, he trusted there would be an alteration in the Health of Towns Act.

said, he would now move the Proviso of which he had given notice, Section 2.

said, the corporation o Hertford were engaged in negotiation which might have the effect of securing the object contemplated in the proviso. As the representative of Hertford, he felt bound to oppose the Amendment.

said, he wished to move a Proviso relating to the Provisional Orders of the Board of Health

said, he regretted that such a Bill should have been introduced at so late an hour, and that the Government should have postponed the amendment of the Board of Health until next Session He apprehended that the right hon. Baronet had sufficient influence with the Board virtually to carry out the object.

said he had before stated that he was oppose to the application of the powers of the Board of Health to any town where it was objected to by the majority of the inhabitants; but he must oppose the clause as not coming within the stop of the Bill.

in moving the Second Reading of this Bill said that the stamp duties upon newspaper were regulated by the Act 6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 76. This Statute contained two sections, one of which defined newspaper as publications containing news, intelligence, and information; and the other defined a newspaper to be a publication containing news, intelligence, or information, provided it were published at intervals within twenty-six days, that it did not exceed certain dimensions, an that it was sold for a price not exceeding 6d. It was always supposed, until the recent decision of the Court of Exche- quer, that these provisions embraced every species of paper, at whatever period they might be issued, and at whatever price. The Court of Exchequer, however, put a construction upon the Statute which had somewhat surprised the profession. They held that the second section, which was known to be intended to make the meshes of the net still narrower, and to embrace every newspaper not contemplated in the first, was restrictive of the first section. The decision of the Court arose upon the question of a publication published at intervals exceeding twenty-six days, as to whether it came within the meaning of the Act. The opinion of the law officers of the Crown was taken on this decision as to the propriety of an appeal; and if it had been thought expedient, there would no doubt have been an appeal against that decision. But Her Majesty's Government had thought it not desirable to go against the decision of the Court of Exchequer, or to attempt to enforce stamps upon newspapers not published within periods of twenty-six days. From the words of the two conditions embraced in the second section of the Act, there arose this difficulty—if that section was intended to be restrictive upon the more general section, then, any newspaper, not of he dimensions referred to in the Act, that as, exceeding the dimensions stated, which was sold at a price exceeding sixpence, would become exempt. Therefore the larger newspapers which were sold at a larger price, would be exempt from duty under this state of things, while a smaller newspaper which was sold at a lower price would remain liable to it. This would have been a great injustice to the smaller-priced newspapers. For instance, such papers as the Examiner and the Observer, which were sold at 6d., would pay the duty, while the Spectator,the price of which was 9d., would be exempt. The object, then, of this Bill was to establish the law, and to make it uniform with regard to all classes of newspapers whether large or small. Without going into the question of the stamp on newspapers, it was quite clear that so long as the stamp was maintained, they should all be put on equal principles. Under these circumstances he begged to move the second reading of this Bill.

said, there were two Bills before the House relating to this one subject of newspaper stamps —one, the Bill to which the hon. and learned Attorney General had just called attention, which defined what was a newspaper chargeable to duty; but in order to ascertain what the duty was to be, they had to go to the other Bill, which was called the Stamp Duties Bill. Now, be submitted that the definition of what was held to be a newspaper chargeable to a duty, should be found in the same Bill that contained the duty. Formerly they took the trouble to consolidate the law in reference to newspaper stamps; clauses defining what should be considered a newspaper were inserted either in or at the end of the Act. But the House was now undoing altogether what the Legislature had done some years ago, and they were redistributing the law in reference to newspapers into different Acts of Parliament. Inconveniences arose from this practice, and he suggested to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney General that they should put their proposal relative to the duty upon supplements to newspapers into this Bill, by an instruction if it should not come within the title, in order that there should be, in one and the same measure, a definition of what a newspaper was, as well as the duties applicable to it. Although the Government had not been asked or induced to pay attention to this proposal, they ought to attend to it. He was only sorry it had not been thought of before parties had been put to considerable expense in defending themselves before courts of justice against the imposition of the stamp. This Bill was, in fact, a Bill for the protection of the Household Narrative; but Mr. Dickens had already protected himself through the Court of Exchequer. But after he had got his verdict, and the Judges said he was not liable, then the Government came down with a measure to exempt monthly publications from the stamp. It was very well to do so, but he did not think proprietors of monthly publications had to thank the Government for any favours, for they fought their own battles in the courts of justice; they had paid their own expenses, and, now they had established their position, the Government came forward and told them that they were to be exempted by Act of Parliament. He would now ask the right hon. Chancellor of the Excheqeer whether the costs to which the parties had been put in defending themselves against this prosecution would be paid to them, because it was but fair that they should not bear them?

said his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had stated that, in the view of the Government, there was great reason to question the decision at which the Court of Exchequer had arrived. It would have been quite open, if it had been considered a matter tending to settle the public mind upon the question, to have that decision questioned. Under these circumstances the right hon. Gentleman would see that it would be a very anomalous course, on the part of the Government, to propose to pay the costs of the parties. At the same time, he might say that the question with regard to costs had never been put before him with the arguments which the parties might think they had. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, that the definition of a newspaper should be in the same Bill as the charge of the duty, there might be convenience in it; at any rate it should be considered; but if it were to be done at all the better way would be to import this enactment into the Stamp Duties Bill than to take any enactment out of the Stamp Duties Bill into this.

said, all be wanted was to have a clear, distinct, and well-defined description of the law.