begged to call the attention of the House to a violation of its Standing Orders by the manner in which this Bill had been introduced and was now proceeded with. By those Girders no Bill imposing any charge upon the people could be introduced until the House, in a Committee of the Whole House, had passed a Resolution, on which the Bill, imposing the tax was founded. That was a very salutary regulation and was designed for the protection of Her Majesty's subjects: but in the case of this Bill it had not been observed. The Bill was introduced on the 9th of February—or rather at one o'clock on the morning of the 10th—without the preliminary formality of a Committee of the Whole House: and from the Reports of the proceedings in the ordinary channels, there did not appear to have been any observations made, and, therefore, it came upon the House by surprise. The clauses of the Bill were remarkably extensive. They affected all owners of real property in England, and he was not sure whether they would not extend to Ireland. These clauses provided that church rates in respect of occupation should cease, and that all real property should be subject to an annual charge of 2d in the pound. The income arising from the change would, he understood, amount to £934,022 per annum, which at thirty years purchase would represent a capital sum, which the hon. Member for Warwickshire had sought to raise, of £28,020,660. The 15th clause of the Bill proposed that the charge, which now fell upon occupiers, should be transferred to the owners of real property, who would thus be subjected to a new impost. It had been ruled in reference to the Irish Church Temporalities Bill, which affected benefices in Ireland, that the Bill should have been founded on a Resolution, and the Bill was ordered to be withdrawn accordingly. As the Bill had been introduced without the proper formalities, he submitted that the Order for the Second Reading should be discharged, and that the Bill should be withdrawn.

The rule of the House is this — that Bills which directly impose-a State charge upon the people must originate in a Committee of the Whole House But the rule has been held not to apply to Bills authorizing the levy of rates or charges for local purposes by local authorities. The question is under which head should this Bill for the commutation of church rates be classed. In my opinion it would be most in accordance with the spirit of the general rule of the House, and with the course of precedents, that it should be placed in the second class. The hon. Member urges that by the 15th clause a new tax is imposed on the owners of property to which they have not been: hitherto liable. But so in the Tithe Commutation Act, the 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 71, the tithe payable by the occupier was made a charge upon the land. The Bill was brought in without having been first considered in a Committee. Then came the Metropolis Police Act, the 10 Geo. IV c. 44, which shows that a Bill enacting that local rates are to be imposed by local authority does not require a preliminary Committee. That Act empowered over seers in every parish within the metropolitan district to levy a police rate not to exceed 8d in the pound, and it was brought in without a Committee. In 1839, the Prisons (Scotland) Bill provided for the erection of a general prison, the cost of which was to be defrayed by the several counties according to the number of prisoners, and the amount was to be levied by assessment. That Bill was brought in without a preliminary Committee. In my opinion there has been nothing irregular in the introduction of the present Bill, and I think the House may properly proceed to consider it on it,-merits.

Mr. Speaker—Before proceeding to move the second reading of this Bill, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words with regard to the point of order which has been raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield. I beg; to state, that I have acted entirely in deference to your authority, Sir, in reference to the mode in which the Bill has been introduced. For two successive Sessions I have sought and obtained the advice which you are ever ready to offer to every Member of the House. For two successive Sessions you informed me, that I ought not to move for a Committee of the whole House, in order to introduce this Bill, because my doing so would give the Bill a character which would be inconsistent with its purport, since it does not impose a general charge or tax. The hon. Member for Sheffield will, I trust, allow me to assure him that, so far from having avoided giving due notice of the introduction of this Bill, I last Session gave notice of my intention to re-introduce it this Session; that I repeated that notice in the present Session, and that it was only the accident of my being called on to move the first leading late at night, that I was prevented from stating the objects of the Bill to the House at that time, and was compelled to defer doing so until the second reading. With respect to the amount of property affected and the amount of charge to be created, which has been adverted to by the hon. Member for Sheffield in enforcing his objections on the point of order, I will only say at present, that the amount of the charge actually imposed will not he much more than one-third of the sum which he has stated. Having made these observations, I will mm move the second reading of the Bill. I postponed this Motion from the day for which it was first appointed, because I found that on that day His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales was to hold a Levee for the first time on behalf of Her Majesty. I have given notice of Amendments, which propose that the period should be extended for one year; and, if the Bill goes into Committee, I shall propose to amend it in this respect, as also in the amount of purchase-money for commutation of the charge to be substituted for church rates, which should be calculated at twenty-seven years instead of thirty years' purchase. I expected to have seen a notice of these Amendments mi the paper this morning; but I conclude that those who have charge of the printing of the House thought that the printing of these Amendments should be postponed until a subsequent stage. I wish now to state the reasons for my having retained this Bill very much in the form in which I introduced it last Session, notwithstanding the decision of the House, that the Bill would not then be proceeded with. My reason is, that for several years I proceeded by Resolution, and I found that throughout the country and in this House the impression widely prevailed, that these Resolutions were merely a form of opposition to the Church Rate Abolition Bill, and that they did not contain the germs of practical legislation; I was also told that the scheme of commutation which they suggested was totally unworkable. Now I should have been very glad had some hon. Member, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire, introduced this Bill, for it is consistent with the views which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed; it is also in accordance with the Bill which was introduced on behalf of the Government of Lord Derby, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge; but it differs from that Bill in this respect—that Bill contemplated not only the commutation of church rates in the manner which the Bill before the House suggests, but it also contemplated a system of exemptions to be claimed by individuals, which seemed to me inconsistent with the general principle of the measure, and to which the objections are so grave, that they have been held to be fatal by both sides of the House. I hope the House will not think me presumptuous, because I persevere with this measure. I do not think it would have been respectful to the House had I laid upon the table a curt proposal, stating the bare object without proof, that I have sought from others more competent than myself, the means of giving effect to that proposal by law in a manner consistent with the local organization of parishes and of counties, consistent with the practice which prevails in the collection of the poor and county rates, and consistent with the character of the Church of England, but avoiding the interference of the Ecclesiastical authorities in the collection of the charge which I would substitute for church rate — an interference which has been condemned by Dr. Lushington and by all the authorities, whose experience is the most extensive on this subject, and condemned also by the Committee of the House of Lords which sat upon the question of church rates in the year 1861. Sir, I wish the House to understand that I am not presumptuous enough to hope that it will accept this Bill unaltered at my hands, or without examination. The Bill is not of my framing. It has been framed by far abler men than myself; but my object now is to ask the House to allow the Bill to be read a second time, in order that it may be referred to a Select Committee. Thus far my proposal is in the sense of the hon. Member for Sheffield. My desire is that a Committee should examine the provisions of the Bill, for the purpose of ascertaining how far they are, as they stand, in accordance with the purposes and the wishes of the House, and for deciding which of these provisions should be retained and which of them should be rejected. If the House should be of opinion, as was expressed in the debate of last Session, that the machinery of the Bill is cumbrous and intricate, the measure is so framed as to admit of ready curl ailment or alteration; not that I believe that a Select Committee of this House would have much difficulty in dissecting the most intricate composition that over assumed the form of a Bill; but this Bill has been so drawn that, if any of its proposals with reference to the creation of the Depository which the Bill would form in the bands of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, for the safe keeping of the charge or of the surplus arising from the charge which the measure would create, were unnecessary. If the Committee were of opinion that the appeal to the Lords Justices proposed by the Bill would be superfluous, such provisions might be expunged without interfering with the principle of the Bill; that principle being, that whereas church rate has been for centuries a charge upon the occupiers of land and of real property in respect of their occupancy, a charge which is anterior to rent, which appropriates a portion of the gross proceeds of property, to this the inhabitants of every parish are entitled, as absolutely, if not more absolutely than the owner of the property is entitled to his rent. That the parishioners have been entitled from Saxon times to this portion of the gross value for the purpose of maintaining the fabric and services of their Church, is a fact attested by the highest authority. The Bill proposes, that this fact should be acknowledged, and that the law, so far as the average of the church rate, that is 2d. in the pound of the annual value, should declare that amount to be a charge directly binding upon property, and that the occupiers of such property should have the power of deducting this amount from their rent, a power similar to that which they possess, and for twenty years have exercised, under the provisions of the Income and Property Tax Acts. Thus the object of the Bill is to secure the right of the inhabitants to that portion of the gross value of property to which they have ever been entitled for the purposes of church rate: I say "ever," for their right extends beyond legal memory. The object of the Bill is to secure to them this right and this property, and at the same time to relieve the whole community, to relieve all the Nonconformists, to relieve the whole occupying class from that personal liability which has given rise to the objections against church rates, that have created so much division in this country now for more than thirty years, [Mr. HADFIELD: Hear, hear!] Let me appeal to the hon. Member for Sheffield. My object, I repeat, is to meet the conscientious scruples, to meet the legitimate objections, which are raised by the Nonconformist body against their being expected to contribute personally one penny towards the maintenance of the Established Church. Sir, the process which I propose is the same as has been adopted with respect to tithes in England and in Ireland; the consequence of the change in the case of tithes being that, whereas the collection of tithes used to be the occasion of disgraceful scenes in many parts of either country, of religious feuds and political differences, the provision for the maintenance of the clergy is now collected from the owners of real property without a murmur and with the deepest satisfaction. And I ask the House is it not, after thirty years of strife, an object worthy of their consideration, whether by sending this Bill to a Select Committee provisions may not be framed, which may afford the same elements of peace between fellow Christians and Protestants in the case of this matter of church rates, as in the case of tithes, in the respect of the collection of which a happy peace has been secured that has existed now for more than thirty years? That, Sir, is the object of this Bill. I know that there are opponents to it. In the first place I am opposed by the ultra advocates of extreme nonconformity. But why? Because if this Bill were to pass into a law, they would be deprived of all fair excuse for enlisting other Protestant Dissenters in whole sale attacks upon the Church of England; attacks which, but for this pressure, large bodies of Nonconformists to the discipline of the Church of Eng- land would never engage in. But I am opposed also in another quarter. I am opposed by the extreme high Churchman, who is unwilling that the Church should relax one tittle of that dominant right, which she possesses as he thinks, of taxing through church rate, personally and individually, every inhabitant of this country for the maintenance of the fabric of the Church. Sir, I am opposed to the extreme spirit of Nonconformity, which, after having troubled Queen Elizabeth during her reign, the period of the accomplishment of the Reformation, was equally unruly under James I., and struggled under Cromwell in the Long Parliament, which it drove into excesses. That spirit of Nonconformity I cannot hope to reconcile. I am opposed also to those who would, as Churchmen, ignore the fact that one-fourth of the population at least no longer accepts the doctrines and; the discipline of the Church of England; who would ignore the fact that in this very diocese, us has been stated by the Bishop of London but the other day, that there are a million of people, certainly more than 900,000, for whom, neither by the Church, nor by Nonconformity, nor by Roman Catholicism, has any spiritual provision whatever been made; nearly a million of persons for whom there is no pastoral care; for whom there is no space in any places of worship within reasonable distance from their residences. And I would say to my brother Churchmen, do not hold out or cling to the vain hope that the Church will over again be able to inflict such an injustice as that of levying church rates upon that million of people so long as her ministrations are inaccessible to them, that is, until spiritual necessities have been supplied; for to attempt this would be contrary to the very essence and principle of the law of church rate from the beginning; because church; rate ever was a local charge, which entitled the ratepayer to a direct return in the means of divine worship, in spiritual advice, and in church accommodation. As one of the representatives of Birmingham, I am in a position to assure the House, that it was from the total deficiency of church accommodation within that town, that the sense of injustice sprang up in former years which led to those contests against church rates, which: have ultimately extended so far as to have exempted the property in many large towns for several years past from all contributions for the purposes of church rate. The intention of the law was that the owners of property should provide church accommodation, and that then the inhabitants should aid them by church rates in maintaining that accommodation; but the fact that large populations are left without church accommodation condemns the application of the law of church rate in localities where such a sad deficiency of church accommodation and of spiritual ministration exists, as is the case in the diocese of which the great metropolis forms a part, according to the showing of the respected bishop of this diocese. Then, if there is this sad deficiency of spiritual provision, if there is this amount of spiritual destitution, if there are nearly a million of people within the diocese for whom no accommodation in church or chapel is provided, for whom no spiritual provision is made either by the National Church or by the Nonconformists; if it is true that the estimate which has been submitted to the Bishop of London is correct, that no less than £6,000,000 would be required to supply the deficiency in this one diocese alone, I do appeal to the representatives of the Nonconformists in this House—I appeal to the hon. Members who are particularly attached to the Church of England in this House, whether the House has not done wisely in refusing to deprive the parishioners of this country generally of the amount of church rates which remain; since it is a known fact that if the cost of the maintenance of the churches throughout England and of their services, hitherto provided by church rates, were to be cast upon voluntary contributions, the sum so required and obtained will be deducted from the fund to which the Bishop of London and other Bishops look, in order to provide a remedy for this enormous amount of spiritual destitution, an evil that I must say has with truth been lately represented at Rome by one who has left the Church of England to become a Roman priest, as a disgrace to this Christian and highly civilised country. Sir, I cannot believe that the House will be induced to withdraw from the parishioners of this country this right to this portion of the real value of its property. I am confident that Parliament would not yield, that the House of Commons would not be induced to do so great an injustice, to be guilty of so gross an act of impolicy—an injustice, remember, not to the clergy, but to the inhabit- ants of every parish in England. For church rate is a lay property. It belongs to the laity; it does not belong to the clergy. The whole organization by which it is administered proves that fact; for church rate cannot be collected or expended unless by the direct authority and sanction of the laity, convened in vestry through their representatives the churchwardens. It is a property belonging to the laity of the Church of England, then, that I seek to commute and to establish in a form that shall be inoffensive to the consciences of those who object to contribute personally to the support of any form of religion but their own. I really am unwilling to detain the House, but I have been asked by some hon. Members who are attached to the Church of England, "Why do you persevere? The Church Rate Abolition Bill has ceased to be proposed, and we, the representatives of the Church, are therefore in a better position; why persevere? "Sir, my answer to that is a very simple one, and I think I cannot give it better than in the words of one, whom I believe every Member on this side of the House respects. Just thirty years ago the Government of Lord Grey proposed a measure for the appropriation of a certain amount of direct taxation, some £250,000 from the land tax and certain Church property, in lieu of church rates. A debate ensued, and in the course of that debate, the late Sir Robert Inglis used language something like that of those who say to me, "There is no Church Rate Abolition Bill in the agitation: why do you proceed with this Bill?" What was the answer given by Lord Stanley, then Chief Secretary for Ireland, the organ of the Government, who were attempting to improve the law? Lord Stanley said—

"But his hon. Friend had not stated in how many instances opposition had been put down for a time in order to be renewed at a future opportunity, should no proposition be brought forward by the executive and submitted to Parliament for the relief of Dissenters, and all parties upon whom that burden might unjustly press. His hon. Friend forgot to tell them how many hundred parishes there were waiting to follow the example of those which had successfully resisted, should the decision of the Legislature give them no hope of relief."

I appeal, Sir, to those who have been for a lengthened period Members of this House, whether the expectation thus expressed by Lord Derby has not been amply fulfilled; whether the last thirty years have not been marked by religious agitation, by a slumbering discontent, or by open attacks upon church rates? Ami I ask those who would have me desist, "Do you desire to see another thirty years of strife among fellow Christians and Protestants upon the subject of church rates, when, as I humbly believe, and as men far better informed than I am—men most fully competent to understand the question, are confident that the means of securing peace are ready to your hand?" Why, Sir, the same statesman who gave the advice which I have quoted thirty years ago, repeated it but three years since. In the Committee of the House of Lords upon Church Rates, which sat in 1861, Lord Derby proposed and carried this Resolution—

"That the principle of assessing the owner instead of the occupier to the church rate, is well deserving the serious consideration of Parliament in any future legislation on this subject."

Sir, it is in accordance with that wise opinion enunciated by Lord Derby that this Bill has been framed; for in that Resolution is embodied the very principle of the Bill, except that the Resolution contemplates continuing the charge in the form of a rate. The example of Scotland has warned me that the personal liability which a rate imposes must be abandoned, if peace is ever to be secured in this matter. For, in Scotland, the charge which provides for the fabrics of the Kirk, and for the support of her Ministers, and I believe for Schools, is almost, without exception, levied through the heritors upon real property. It is not a personal charge: it is a charge upon property. Now, in England, we have no persons in the position of heritors. Had there been such persons, representing property in this country, such as the heritors in Scotland, I should have been willing to leave the assessment to them as the representatives of property. That, however, is not the case in this country. In many parishes there is only one owner; in some there may be two, and in others three. In many cases the owners are not resident; and in others again they are not Members of the Church of England. It would not be wise or safe, therefore, that the House should commit to the hands of these individuals the assessment for maintaining the fabric and the services of the Church. Indeed, it would be unjust to the inhabitants to do so; because by this process you would annul the functions of the vestry; you would annul the voice of the congregation and inhabitants of the parish with regard to the arrangements of their own Church; you would inflict upon the congregations of the Church of England an incapacity to which no other denomination of Christians is willing to submit. It would be unjust to allow the occupiers alone to tax the owners. I therefore wish to substitute a poundage of fixed amount, the collection of which should be made with the poor and county rates; and further, that the sum collected should be transferred through the Clerks of the Peace to a depository, to be drawn thence by the inhabitants in vestry assembled, for the purpose of being applied at their discretion within the limits prescribed by the law for the purposes of church rates. My proposal is, that the collection should be entirely by a civil process. And the Bill will attain this great object, which is recommended by the Committee of the House of Lords; so that whilst the collection and he means of recovery will he by purely civil process, the whole administration of the charge for the purposes of church rate will be Ecclesiastical in the sense of the Church of England, which has ever recognised the ecclesiastical rights and functions of the laity in all matters contemplated or provided for by the law of church rate. Thus, although the Bill proposes a change, it does not propose a novelty. Throughout, the framers of the measure have sought to create no new machinery, but to effect a gradual change through existing agencies, so that within a reasonable period we may hope for that peace upon the question of church rates which has been so effectually achieved in the matter of tithe, both in England and Ireland. We, English Protestants and Members of the Church, desire to have the privileges secured to us similar to those which are secured to the Members and Laity of the Church of Scotland, and which have been so for some hundreds of years. These, Sir, are the objects of the Bill. But let not the House imagine that I have any coxcombical attachment to its provisions. I am not so presumptuous; but I may mention that I have transmitted copies of this Bill, or a statement of its object, to a great number of the clergy of the Church of England, to every Clerk of the Peace in England and Wales, to every Board of Guardians and to all the principal Denominations of Dissenters. The result of this labour, which I thought was due to the House before I presumed to lay upon the table this measure for their consideration, is, that I find a general concurrence of opinion among moderate men in favour of the principle of the Bill though I admit fully that I have received statements of objections to several parts of its machinery; objections some of them based no doubt upon valid grounds, whilst some were contradictory to each other, and therefore claim a solution at the hands of a Committee of this House. I hope the House will allow me very shortly to refer to some authorities in confirmation of the position that church rate in its average amount is a charge upon property. I will simply cite by name the authorities which I have quoted in former years. These include the names of the late Sir Robert Inglis and Mr. Whittle Harvey, who in the debate of 1834 asserted that church rate is a charge upon property. I have quoted the Poor Law Commissioners in their Report of 1843 in support of this fact; I have quoted the authority of the late Sir Robert Peel; I might have quoted the authority of the late Sir James Graham; I have quoted the authority of Mr. Goulbourne, and that of Earl Russell; and I might refer to the evidence which was given before the Select Committee of the House of Lords in 1861, by Mr. Coode, who of all the public officers now living is perhaps the person best qualified to give information to Parliament upon this subject: nothing can be more conclusive than the proofs which he adduced that church rate in its average amount ever has been and still is a charge upon the real property of each parish. Let me also for one moment advert to that which has fallen from the hon. Member for Sheffield. The hon. Member stated that the amount of this charge levied under this Bill would be not less than £900,000 annually; during the debate of last year another hon. Member stated the amount at £700,000 annually. Well, Sir, I have felt bound to obtain an estimate of the amount, and I find that, instead of £900,000 a year, or even of £700,000 a year, the amount that would be directly levied by this Bill, as far as I was able to calculate two years ago (and I had the kind assistance of Sir George Lewis, when he filled the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department) would amount to £318,000 a year. The fact is that considerable misapprehension prevails upon the subject; and let me give this explanation to the hon. Member for Sheffield. In a note appended by the Home Office to a Return for which I moved (No. 7, 1859) he will find this statement—

"Remarks preliminary to the Return of church rates," ordered to be printed February 3, 1859:— "The question under the head of 'amount rated to the relief of the poor' has in very many cases been incorrectly answered, the amount of the rating or poundage being given instead of the rateable value of property upon which assessment is made. From a Return made to Parliament in 1852 (No. 539) it appears that the total amount rated to the poor rates in England and Wales was £67,700,153 13s. 7d.; but this includes the glebe and tithe land, which, though liable to the poor rate is exempt from church rate, and the difference in amount is considerable, varying from 7 to 27 per cent, and even higher."

As much as 20 per cent of real property is thus exempt either as tithe or glebe land, and this the hon. Member for Sheffield has overlooked. But the exemptions under this Bill are not limited to that extent. The Bill proposes that no property, upon which church rate has not been levied within seven years, shall be affected by the charge created by the Bill; that no property in any parish where a church rate has been rejected on three successive polls, or where no church rate has been levied for seven years, shall be touched by the charge, unless two-thirds of the inhabitants shall sign a Memorial to the Quarter Sessions, reclaiming for themselves their inalienable right to the portion of that real property which has, from time immemorial, by the Common Law as declared by the Judges, been treated as liable to a charge for the maintenance of the fabric and the services of the Church. I hope the House will forgive me for having made this explanation in order to show that the proposal I make is not of the exaggerated character that the hon. Member for Sheffield supposes, for the amount levied in the first instance will not much, if at all, exceed the amount levied up to this day for the purposes of church rate; because, though it appears by the Returns that this amount is £260,000, the Returns of church rate are avowedly imperfect, and the nearest amount at which I have been able to arrive, and I have made careful inquiries on the subject, is, that church rate is worth to the parishioners in the aggregate for England and Wales about £300,000 a year. This Bill, therefore, if the House sanctioned it, would create a charge equivalent to the amount which the parishes now actually receive and possess in the form of church rate. I was unwilling to detain the House, but, as the hon. Member for Sheffield complains that when I introduced this Bill I did not fully explain its provisions, perhaps the House will allow me to lay before them a rapid summary of those provisions; and, in so doing, I beg the House to consider that I ask no hon. Member to pledge himself to the details of the Bill, or to the Bill itself, except as it may be approved by a Select Committee. The objects of the Bill, then, are—

thought that the reasons which he should give in favour of reading the Bill that day six months would receive the support of a large majority of the House. With the highest respect for the ability and honesty of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, he believed that the opinion of the majority was that the best course to be taken at present was to decline dealing with the question in the present Parliament. Those who supported the abolition of church rates might regret the position in which the question had been placed, but they were prepared to accept the situation. For his own part, he deeply regretted that position, for it was certain to be warmly discussed with the violence of party spirit upon the hustings in the country at the next general election, and it would be far better if it could have been settled before that election took place. Giving the hon. Member for North Warwickshire all credit for consistency, and an earnest desire to carry out what he believed to be a measure of relief, it was to be regretted that it was not in the power of the Members on that side of the House to accept any such measure as that now proposed. He believed it was the wish of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire—as it certainly was his own—that perfect freedom should be given to Dissenters; and it was manifest that so long as the question was discussed without the introduction of party feeling, and while reason alone was brought to bear upon it, the chance of a settlement was becoming more and more probable, as the majorities in favour of the abolition of church rates were continually increasing; and it was only when the influence of party was brought to bear on the opposite side, which could not on this, that those majorities ceased. The leader of the party opposite had stated that if the House could be brought to rescind the Resolution in favour of abolition, he hoped to find the means of obtaining a final and satisfactory settlement of the question. Unfortunately it had not been possible to form a Government which was united upon the question of church rates; and while it was made a party question on the other side of the House, there was a want of that combined action on the Ministerial side which was required to bring the matter to a final conclusion. The Bill, or one similar in its principles, which was brought forward last year, did not obtain the support of the right hon. Gentleman's own friends; and the absence upon the present occasion of the right hon. Gentleman the leader on that side, and of his friends, was a proof that they did not incline favourably to this measure as a solution of the vexed question. In his opinion, if the great party who had defeated the measure for the abolition of church rates were unable or unwilling to settle the question, the course for the advocates of abolition to support was not to attempt in this Parliament any legislation on the subject. They accepted the situation, and would go to the hustings on this question at the end of the present Parliament. He hoped that the Government which should be in power when the new Parliament was sitting would then take up the subject, as he thought it was one which properly belonged to the Government to deal with. In his opinion, however, the question of church rates could be settled in no other way than total abolition, and, therefore, without attempting to discuss the nature of the Bill, he should simply move that it be read a second time on that day six months.

seconded the Amendment.

said, he would vote for the second reading of the Bill, because he was favourable to any reasonable attempt to settle this difficult question; but was not prepared to say that he should support the Bill in its future stages. The Bill proposed to introduce two material alterations in the law respecting church rates. In the first place, it proposed to remove the liability from the parishioners to the landowners. Whatever difficulties might exist, still from time immemorial the general character of the law was that of a law to compel parishioners to perform their duty of repairing the Church, and he should feel some hesitation in supporting any prin- ciple that would limit that duty. The second alteration proposed in the Bill was one of more importance. The character of the rate was essentially local; it was a matter of local privilege, of local duty, and of local action in every respect. He could not help thinking that the provisions of the Bill which had reference to the operation of Queen Anne's Bounty were very unnecessary, cumbrous, and inconvenient. Still he-admitted the urgent necessity for legislation. Some of the difficulties of the question might be removed; but there were others which in his opinion were insuperable. Church rates had their origin centuries ago, in times when society and manners were very different to what they are now. It was a very rude piece of legislation, and required to be polished and suited to the habits and opinions of modern times. He therefore desired to see some prudent and well-considered legislation on the subject. But whenever any proposition for legislation had been made, it had been rejected by the representatives of the Dissenters in the House almost with scorn. A more particular difficulty was that of calling on Dissenters to pay church rates. He had considered this question carefully, and he had always come to the conclusion that justice and argument were against the Dissenters; but still he had always felt some dissatisfaction at such a conclusion. Then there was another point of great importance, which he had never heard brought, forward in the House, and seldom mentioned out of doors. He must confess he could not see the justice of calling on parishioners to pay a rate for the maintenance of a building, which was public properly and for general use, but from which they themselves were excluded, and in which there was not room for the performance of the sacred functions for which the building existed. Where the poor were not admitted, or where the parishioners could not get seats, it was hardly fair that church rates should be levied at all. That was a question which had never been prominently before the House, That was a question which must be dealt with after more experience and at a future time. In legislating upon this subject the great point to keep in view was, that it was purely a local question, and that it had gained an importance hat was not essential to it, and which really did not belong-to it. It was a matter of local difficulty and of local amendment; but from the peculiar circumstances attending it and the position of the parties, it had become the battle-ground of party in that House and an Imperial question. Were they, however, to bring the question back to its natural limits and position, he thought it would not be a hard task to find remedies for most of the evils which were at present complained of. He reminded the House that the question must be considered purely in its local character, and in a local point of view there were four matters greatly requiring attention, namely; the present system of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; the position of district churches; the especial purposes for which a church race might be levied; and another point still more important, that a new rate could not, as the law now stands, be levied unless the whole of the previous rate had been levied from every inhabitant liable to the rate. He thought that if that rule was to be done away with it would enable parishes to relieve Dissenters and others from the impost. If, therefore, these four propositions could be carried out, and the question dealt with in a local rather than in an Imperial point of view, it would set the matter at rest, for the present at least. Taking a more general view of the subject he would remark, that appeals had often been made in that House for concession to certain parties; but he thought "concession" was a wrong term; concession must be mutual, or if made wholly by one party must be regarded as admissions of defeat. Now, he did not see that either party was prepared to own itself vanquished, and there was no chance of their mutually agreeing upon the subject; therefore he wished that the term used had been, not "concession," but "conciliation." Men might be conciliatory in tone, in manner, in expression, even in thought; and he believed that many men, sitting on different sides of the House, and holding different opinions, yet started honestly and sincerely from the same basis and with the same object, namely, the promotion of the moral and religious welfare of the people. There was another side of the question. It had been said that there was a Church party growing up in that House and the country; but if that was so, it must have been created not by its own action or have grown up by its own merit, but from the action and the policy of the opponents of church rates. What, therefore, he asked, must be the policy and position of such a party? They had been year by year, Session after Session, forced back into a position which he believed to be almost unassailable and almost impregnable. They had become the advocates of a moderate reform, as opposed to a measure which had been described by a high authority to be almost revolutionary. They had become the advocates of nearly every landed proprietor in the country. They appeared as the protectors of the local rights and privileges of between 6,000 and 8,000 parishes. They had become the professed defenders of the English Church — a church which, with all its faults, with its sad want of the power of expansion and of adaptation, was yet the noblest, the purest, the most effective church system which ever existed in any country in the world, and which was most closely bound up with the liberties and the institutions of the country. That, he believed, was a policy and a position of which no party need be ashamed, and to such a party no man need be ashamed to attach himself.

said, that if he had entertained any doubt as to the vote he ought to give upon the present occasion, it would have been removed by the speech of the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment (Sir Charles Douglas). The hon. Baronet had told them that he and his friends were content to let this question remain as it was during the continuance of the present Parliament, which had determined to maintain church rates, but that they intended to resort to a general agitation at the hustings at the next General election. He (Mr. Alderman Rose) would, therefore, vote for the second reading, in order that this question might, if possible, be settled before the threatened agitation could arise. The policy of those Gentlemen was quite intelligible. It was a policy whereby a minority, by a system of complete organization, could exercise a terrorism, over the country in order to coerce the majority to accept their views. He was not quite sure that the agitation would result according to the expectations of those who promoted it, but he deprecated it as injurious alike to the Church and to Dissenters. He should support the second reading of the Bill, and thought it would be very unwise to reject a settlement of this question when an opportunity presented itself.

said, he could see nothing in the Bill which would give him the smallest hope of any compromise being come to upon fair and reasonable terms, and, therefore, he could not support the second reading, even with the view of sending the Bill to a Select Committee. So far as he understood the Bill, he thought it would make bad worse. The hon. Gentleman simply proposed to remove the payment from the occupier to the landlord.

From the person to the property.

That was the same thing in other words, and the result was, the landlord would put the charge on the tenant in the shape of rent, and the tenant would still have to pay to support a Church in which he did not believe. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire said it was a lay question—then let them settle it on the principle of lay justice, and not refuse to let the members of the Established Church bear the onus of supporting their own Church. There was no principle of reason or of justice on which they could call on a man to support a religion which he did not believe; and if the members of the Established Church were in the majority, why did they fear to leave them to support their own church? He believed that, under the voluntary principle, the Church would be better supported, and he moreover believed that those were its enemies who endeavoured to force on Dissenters these church rates. There had been no compromise proposed by the other side. The fact that there was but one solution to the difficulty, and that was by abolishing church rates altogether and relying upon the voluntary system, by which already so many new churches had been built and endowed. This was the only step that would allay agitation in the country, and would make people better friends and better neighbours, and establish the Church on a more solid and a safer foundation.

said, he was astonished to hear the noble Lord say that no compromise had been offered on this question. Did the noble Lord forget that, when Lord Derby was in office, the right hon. Member for Cambridge University proposed a Bill that was a compromise? He did not say a word as to the merits of that Bill, but he ventured to remind the noble Lord that that measure was brought forward as a compromise by the right hon. Gentleman, who in that Government occupied a position which was much more creditably filled their than it was at this moment in the present Government; for when a question of so much importance as this was under discussion, they had a right to expect to find the Secretary for the Home Department in his place. He would also remind the noble Lord that the right hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt), when in office, also introduced a measure which was a compromise; and they had now before them the Bill of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, the object of which was to allay the animosities which had existed on this subject for thirty years. All those propositions were honest attempts to meet the objections of the Dissenters; but the present Government had not the courage to bring forward any measure of its own, nor even to father the proposition of the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny), although a continued delay in the settlement of this question was a positive disgrace to the House. He was content to accept this Bill as the basis of a settlement, and as such would give it his support.

said, the hon. Member asked why did not the Government come forward with a Bill? Well, why not? There was only one way of settling that matter; and the country had come to the conclusion to which the House must also come, that that only way was by the abolition of church rates. Some Members of the Government might have a misgiving as to the desirability of that course, and therefore as a Government they did not bring forward a measure for the purpose. But the matter had been discussed over and over again, all compromises had been met by a negative, and there was but one solution of the difficulty. If the hon. Gentleman who had introduced this Bill did not represent North Warwickshire he should have thought that he had framed his Bill on an Irish Bill introduced the other day with reference to the Game Laws, which transferred the privilege—or the burden, whichever it was—of prosecuting poachers, from the tenant to the landowner. The present Bill amounted to this, that instead of the occupier paying church rates, the landlord should pay them, without reference to whether he belonged to the Church of England or was a Dissenter, and the landlord would of course put the church rate on to the rent of the occupier. Then what the better would he be for the compromise? He said he did not like to pay a rate for the sup- port of a church to which he did not belong; but he would be obliged to pay if this Bill were passed. He really believed that in North Warwickshire there might be found a landowner who was a Dissenter, and in what position would the hon. Member place this constituent if he passed this Bill? The hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny) had given up the church rate question in despair. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Long) asked the Government to bring in a Bill to settle the question; but when such a measure was brought forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock, the hon. Member opposite and his party had always opposed it. Next year there would be a new Parliament, the opinion of the country would be taken on the question of church rates, and then would be the time to re-introduce the Bill of the hon. Baronet. It was useless to bring in the Bill till the sense of the people had been taken with respect to it. Why, then, did the hon. Member for North Warwickshire on the present occasion bring in this wretched measure. It was a farce. It was not a compromise. The Bill of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge was a compromise, but it was opposed on his own side of the House, and it fell to the ground. That Bill was a compromise. The present measure merely made this alteration—that a man who had previously paid his church rates in half-crowns should in future pay it in shillings. He would like to ask the Speaker whether, looking at the title and preamble of the Bill, it was competent to the House to pass one clause only—that was the 38th. The clause proposed to enact that after a particular clay all church rates should be abolished, but he supposed it would not be in accordance with the preamble to omit all the other clauses, and then pass the Bill containing that clause only. He certainly coincided with the Bill to that extent, and he would give the second reading his support, on the understanding that they might exercise that power in Committee.

said, he was sure that the House could not but be sensible of the pains and unwearied assiduity bestowed on the Bill by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire: but it seemed to him that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to be a kind of Parliamentary Rip Van Winkle, who had been in a state of coma on the church rate question for the last two years. The hon. and learned Member said that nothing short of total abolition of church rates would satisfy the House. The hon. and learned Member must either have absented himself from the church rate debates during that period, or his memory failed him. The Bill of the hon. Member for Tavistoek (Sir John Trelawny) which had formerly been passed by large majorities, had been defeated on the last two occasions, and for two years the House had refused to vote the abolition of church rates. [Mr. LOCKE: I know that.] Then he had the greater difficulty in reconciling the hon. Member's opinion to his knowledge. The hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Charles Douglas) was of opinion that the House having given its assent to the principle of total abolition, and then said that the abolition ought not to take place, was incapable in this the fifth year of its existence to settle this church rate question, and that the public discussion of this intricate and difficult question ought to be remitted to the hustings and to another Parliament; and the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Alderman Rose) appeared to be so alarmed at that prospect, that he was prepared to vote for this measure. But he (Lord John Manners) had no fear of the question being discussed at a general election; for he believed that the change in the votes of the House of Commons was in accordance with a change which had come over the country at large. It was clear this Bill did not satisfy the opponents of church rates; but were the supporters of church rates in its favour? Never since he had had the honour of a seat in that House had a more desirable period existed for the discussion of the church rate question. The great synod of the Church was sitting. There was not only this great Church Congress, there was every rural deanery in the country assembled; the churchwardens were brought together, and their opinions pretty nearly represented the laity of the country. But had any of these bodies pronounced in favour of this measure? He asked his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, had he any hope that this measure would really satisfy the Church feelings of the country? He (Lord John Manners) did not believe it would. While he recognized in much of what his hon. Friend had said sentiments in which he fully agreed, and gave him credit for the pains he had taken and the assiduity he had displayed, he could not think that the measure was one really calculated or in the least degree likely to settle the question. Therefore he would counsel his hon. Friend to rest satisfied with having, in the course of a full and exhaustive speech, directed the attention of the country to his scheme, and to withdraw the Bill.

said, that his right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey) was engaged in an important Committee which was sitting upstairs on a question which concerned the constitution of the House, and therefore there was no dereliction of public duty on his part in not being present in the House on the present occasion. He entirely concurred in every encomium that had been bestowed upon the trouble which the hon. Member who had brought in the Bill had taken in reference to the question of church rates; but with regard to the Bill itself he could not agree with it. He believed it to be open to the objection which was urged against a similar measure last Session by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department — namely, that it would be ineffectual in attaining a settlement of the question. He was fully persuaded that it would be better if they did not pursue the discussion on the subject during the present Parliament, or, at all events, during the present Session. It was a subject which the country ought fully to consider, and it would, no doubt, as the hon. Gentleman had said, be dwelt upon at the hustings. He thought the wisest course was to avoid the use of irritating language on the subject, and that the hon. Gentleman would do well to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord.

said, that the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Wood) held out little prospect of the solution of a question which had occasioned the most violent contests on a matter which ought not to be made the arena of party contest. The right hon. Baronet suggested that it would be better to allow the question to rest for the present. That course might suit those who wished to have a fertile field for discussion on the hustings kept open. But this was a question which entered so closely into the comprehension and daily life of every parish, that it was most unfortunate that the question of attachment to the national Church should be canvassed and agitated in support of what was after all but a miserably small question. If a plan could be devised which would intrust the maintenance of the national Church to the property of the country, he should consider it a most wholesome settlement of the question. He had watched the working of a similar system in Scotland. In that country the ecclesiastical difficulties were greater than in England, and the gentry to a great extent did not belong to she national Church. Under such circumstances, it might naturally be imagined that difficulties would arise in the erection and repair of churches; but such was not the case; and he did not recollect an instance in which it had been found necessary to put the law in force to carry those objects into effect. This was a proof of the good working of the system which his hon. Friend wanted to introduce; and unless the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) or the Government were prepared to propose a better scheme, he trusted the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time, in order that its provisions might be fully considered.

in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, he would not delay the House long in explaining its object, which was a very simple one. The House was aware that by the Bank Act of 1844–5 the Scotch banks then existing (twenty-three in number) were permitted to resort to a fixed issue as against their credit; and, in addition to the issue of notes so granted against their credit, they were further allowed to issue notes as against the amount of gold which they might have from time to time in their coffers. This issue was totally independent of the fixed issue, and could not be changed save by the action of the Legislature. Since that time, several of those banks had either joined together or had completely passed away. The Western Bank of Scotland, for instance, had completely disappeared from public business. But the issue of notes by the Scotch banks had not consequently diminished, because the gold having increased, and the issue of notes being dependent on the amount of bullion in the bank coffers, the issue has not diminished to any very great extent. This Bill did not in any way apply for a fixed issue as against credit for new banks which might in future he established. The commercial necessities of Scotland required, however, an extension of the banking system, which had been curtailed, while the commercial transactions of the country had considerably increased. The simple proposal of the Bill was that any person or persons carrying on the business of banking in Scotland should have power at any time to issue notes as against the gold they might have in their coffers. His sole reason for proposing this measure to the House was the fact that it was all but impossible for any banking house in Scotland to carry on business with advantage to the commercial interests of the country if they had not the power of issuing notes. All business persons in Scotland preferred as a rule to receive the £1 note to the sovereign, and all commercial business was, in fact, carried on through the medium of notes of that description. It might be said that any bank establishing itself in Scotland could avail itself of the notes of the existing banks. But the gold must be in the cellars of the particular bank accommodating, and this would be equivalent to refusing to any new bank the custody of their customers' money. He did not at all interfere with the right of the fixed issue; what he desired was, that any bank should have the power to issue notes against gold.

Sir, this Bill is certainly rather remarkable. For two reasons it is remarkable—first, for what it says; and secondly, for what it does not say. By this measure we are told that the Act of the 8 & 9 Vict, was passed with the view of regulating the monetary system of the United Kingdom. The Bill then says that by that Act provisions were made for limiting the amount of issue of bank notes in Scotland; as if it were only in Scotland that the issue of these notes was limited. The Bill further says, that the population, trade, and banking requirements have considerably increased of late years in Scotland. This is equivalent to saying that all these things have taken place in Scotland while they have not done so elsewhere. Now we may, I think, reasonably suppose that population and commerce have increased in England, at all events, as much as in Scotland. The whole object of this Bill may be said to be contained in its third clause, which in effect says: "It shall be lawful for any company carrying on banking business to make an addition to their own bank notes in Scotland." The real meaning of the clause is this: that means must be taken to procure a greater issue of paper money in Scotland. Sir, the monetary system for the United Kingdom was settled in a wise and intelligible manner in 1844–5, and under that general system the trade and commerce of the whole kingdom have greatly increased. We enjoy the very greatest prosperity under that system. But this Bill proposes that any seven men may join together for banking purposes, and may manufacture and issue bank notes. Doubtless, it is stated that those persons must have bullion to meet these notes; but have we not had ample experience that a number of unprincipled men, in spite of all precautions in the way of cheeks and regulations, have before now conspired together to commit frauds which they may do on a gigantic scale, under the pretence of banking or other commercial pursuits? Now, what I will this Bill lead to if we pass it? I am convinced it will inevitably lead to greater frauds and failures than we have as yet experienced. But that is not the main point. The main question is whether you are really willing to alter or in any way to interfere with the monetary system of the kingdom? whether you desire to alter the law as regards only one particular section, or as it relates to the whole? I appeal to the House, is it right to alter the law for Scotland in this respect, and not for the other parts of the United Kingdom? I should like to know whether the people of Scotland have so managed or mismanaged the business of their banks as to reduce the value of the currency; or have they injuriously affected the f general prosperity of the kingdom by the improper manner in which they have conducted their business? But if, as I believe it will be admitted, there is not the slightest reason for casting a doubt upon the security or solvency of their commercial establishments generally, or for finding fault with the manner in which they as a rule conduct their business, does the House think it would be wise to interfere with their banking system? Sir, I consider that this frequent meddling with the commercial institutions of Scotland is not only undesirable, but is absolutely injurious to the general interest of the country. If we are at all dissatisfied with the working of the statute passed by Parliament in 1844–5—a statute the provisions of which, I think, were so admirably constructed as to be of great benefit to the public at large—if, notwithstanding, we are still displeased with the machinery of that statute, and if we deem that some modification of it would be desirable, let us, instead of the fragmentary interference that is now proposed, apply our legislation to the whole kingdom, and not to any particular part of it. Since 1845, thirty-six banks in England have failed to meet their engagements, and caused fearful misery in the districts in which they were established; but, I am proud to say, that not one pound has been lost by the public out of all the millions they have intrusted to the different banks of Scotland, and every one of their notes have been paid as regularly as presented. It is quite true that two banks did fail; but the public did not suffer. The sufferers were the proprietors of the banks themselves. It is now stated that we ought to have free trade in banking. Now, what does free trade in banking mean? The proposition involved in this Bill is that there ought to be free trade in banking, and issuing paper money in Scotland, because certain parties in that part of the kingdom are empowered to issue bank notes. But if you limit the power to three millions of the population, I ask if you can call that free trade? You have in England 20,000,000 of people, and 6,000,000 in Ireland, and I therefore ask if it would be free trade to limit the powers now sought to be obtained to 3,000,000 in Scotland. If your object is free trade, it is necessary that you should apply it to the whole of the United Kingdom. The population of London is about as large as that of the whole of Scotland; while it possesses a much larger amount of property. Then why should you not introduce the same system into London? The banks of London ought to have free trade as well as those in Scotland; and, if that is to be the principle, I contend that its adoption would subvert the whole system which was settled some years ago. What is the cause of all this agitation? We are told that poor old Scotland has lost no less than £300,000 in lapsed capital—as if a box containing 300,000 sovereigns had slipped overboard into the deep sea—and that there has been such a contraction of the currency in consequence that legislation upon the subject is now absolutely necessary. Now the fact is, that the whole thing is moonshine. There has not been one single sovereign lost, and there has not been the contraction of one single shilling of currency in consequence of this lapse. When people come here and relate this lamentable story with regard to our unhappy country, it is quite clear that there is something behind which does not appear above-board. I am uncharitable enough to suspect so, at any rate. In my opi- nion this is merely an attempt to accomplish by a side-wind, by a public Bill, that which never would have been obtained by private legislation. With regard to free trade in banking we have the lessons of experience. Free trade in banking did once exist in this country. Before the year 1800 there were 280 country banks in existence; but they increased so rapidly that in 1813 they amounted to 900. During the years 1814–15–16 no less than 240 of these banks stopped payment, spreading ruin around them; and during the time of these excessive issues the depreciation of bank paper was rapid and unbroken, sinking from 2½ to 25 per cent. I do not think it would be desirable to return to those glorious days of banking. Some people tell us that the existing banks of issue possess a monopoly. This is a favourite expression; but I must be permitted to say that free trade in banking is at present complete. Any man might commence the business of banking to-morrow if he chose. But what they really want is, free trade in coining — that is, of coining paper into money. It appears to me that that would be a most dangerous licence, because if free trade in that sense were established, the consequences would be disastrous. It is alleged that certain Scotch banks have a monopoly. Now, I am quite prepared to admit that if a monopoly existed it would be a very bad thing; but I contend that there is abundance of competition at the present moment. I have in my hands a Return showing the number of banks in Scotland, England, and Ireland, with the different populations and value of property, and I can show the House how many individuals there are to a bank in each of the three countries. The number of banking offices in England is 1,406, in Scotland, 635, and in Ireland 220. The population of England is 20,066,224, the number of the banks 1,406, and that gives one bank to every 14,271 of the population. In Ireland, the population is 5,764,543, the number of banks is 220, giving a bank to every 26,202 of the population. In Scotland, the population is 3,062,294, and yet it has no less than 635 banks, giving one bank to every 4,822 of the population. In whatever mode you apply a test, the result is the same. Take the income tax. The amount assessed to that tax in England is £282,000,000, and with 1,406 banks we have a bank for every £200,000. In Scot- land, the amount assessed to income tax is £30,000,000, which gives one bank for every £47,244. In Ireland the amount assessed to the income tax is £23,000,000, and this gives one bank for every £104,545. The principal hanks in Scotland have branches all through the country, so that even in small parishes with a thousand inhabitants you will find a banking establishment. A few years ago I happened to be in Buxton, and although possessing a population of upwards of 2,000, when I enquired for a bank I was unable to find one. In Scotland, the circumstances are very different. In Inverary, with scarcely 1,000 inhabitants, there are two banks. I cannot help thinking, therefore, that the outcry about the want of banks and of circulation in Scotland is altogether moonshine. I say there is no want of circulation. If any man who complains of our banks will give us good security, I will engage that he shall have as much paper money as he likes. We will supply him with the money if he will give us the security; but if he wants a large loan upon a doubtful security, and wishes to keep the money lent to him a great deal longer than is consistent with good banking principles, then I must confess that the transaction is one of which we do not approve, and I am afraid he will not be accommodated. No doubt if abundant accommodation could be procured by the manufacture of an old shirt-sleeve into thousands of pounds, it might be very convenient for the speculator, but disastrous to the country. I maintain that the people of Scotland are perfectly satisfied with their banks; so much so, indeed, that they prefer the Scotch bank note to the gold; and, at the same time, the country is continually prospering under this system. If you are going to change it, I contend that you cannot with propriety accomplish your object unless you are prepared to deal with the whole monetary system of the kingdom. I want to know why Scotland should be always held up as if there were something rotten in that state; whereas I believe that our banking establishments especially are thoroughly sound, and I believe I should be able to show that not only are our operations simple and advantageous, but that they are better than those carried on in any other part of the kingdom. I beg to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time this day six mouths.

seconded the Amendment.

As my name appears on the back of this Bill, perhaps I may be allowed to state my reasons for supporting the second reading. I do not approve of all the details of the Bill; I merely approve of its principle, which I consider is the establishment of free competition in banking. In Scotland the existing banks have an exclusive privilege of issue. I do not say that those banks have used that exclusive privilege oppressively. They did not ask for that privilege — it was forced upon them—and, upon the whole, they have used it fairly. But still it is found by experience that exclusive privileges of any kind are contrary to the interests of the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black) states that there is plenty of free trade in banking. But let me remind him that, until all banks are placed on an equal footing, there can be no such thing as free competition. If one bank has a privilege over another it necessarily has an advantage over that bank to the extent of that privilege. If he desires to place the whole of them on the same level he must give to all the right of issuing notes, or else enact that none of them shall have that right. In either case the result is the same, they would be on the same footing. If Parliament gives to none of them the privilege of issuing notes, then they must return to a metallic currency, or have notes issued by the State. There are insuperable objections, as every practical man knows, to a return to a metallic currency, not only on account of the expense, but also on account of the impossibility of at all times procuring the necessary coin to meet the exigencies of trade. It is hardly necessary, therefore, to say anything upon that subject, because I imagine no one in this House will advocate the adoption of a system of pure metallic currency. I am aware that the plan of having notes issued by the State is popular with some persons; but the more one considers the subject, the more insuperable do the obstacles to the working out of that principle appear. I should, in the first place, like to ask the supporters of that proposal who are to issue these notes and to keep them in circulation? The State, it is evident, cannot do it. It can only be done by those who have to make frequent payments to a large amount. If this circulation is to be kept up by the banks, who are to guarantee the notes? If the State guarantee the payment of the notes, then the State undertakes the duty of a trader without a trader's profit. But if the banks are to be responsible for the payment of the notes, then the public are in the same state as they were before, and have no additional security. Besides, there are constitutional objections to such a measure. At present it is not necessary that I should go at length into that part of the question; but I am anxious to quote a statement of Lord Monteagle's, which is contained in the Appendix to the Report of the Commission of 1858. He says—

"Let us not deceive ourselves into a belief that our free Government would afford us any protection whatever about the probable abuse of such a power.… I venture to suggest that a free Government might furnish the most active and dangerous agency for forcing on the Treasury to rash and fatal resolves if it should unadvisedly undertake the functions of a bank of issue. I believe a Government in such a position would be driven onward to the very measure which wisdom and experience would most strongly deprecate and condemn."

Sir Robert Peel himself was in favour of free trade in banking. In 1844, he said—

"The principle of competition, though unsafe in our opinion when applied to issue, ought, we think, to govern the business of banking."

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh stated that free banking in England had been attended with very bad results. He said that about 200 banks had failed in the course of three years. But free banking was not the cause of that lamentable overthrow of English banks. What was the position of English banks at that time? Six partners only were allowed to each bank. It was, in point of fact, a system which necessarily created, weak banks, for it enabled persons with very little capital to issue notes to a great extent, and prevented the formation of powerful banks with large paid up capitals. You cannot call such a system a system of free banking. I should prefer taking a better example—one which we fully understand in Scotland. Let us go back to the old banking system in Scotland before it was destroyed by Sir Robert Peel's Act of 1845. What was the Report of the Committee appointed to investigate the working of that system in 1826? I would beg to remind the House that the Committee was one hostile to the Scotch system of banking. I will read an extract from their Report. They say—

"The Committee are unwilling, without stronger proof of necessity, to incur the risk of deranging from any cause whatever a system admirably calculated in their opinion to economise the use of capital, to create and cherish a spirit of useful enterprise, and even to promote the moral habits of the people by the direct inducements which it holds out to the maintenance of a character for industry, integrity, and prudence."

Such was the old Scotch system of banking before Sir Robert Peel interfered with it by the Act of 1845. They go on to say—

"During the civil commotion of the last century, in the rebellion of 1715 and 1745, the confidence in paper securities in Scotland was not shaken. The Scotch banks maintained their stability, and were not called upon for any extraordinary issue of gold in exchange for their notes during the shocks to which mercantile credit was exposed in this country in the years 1793, 1797, and, more recently, in 1825. It cannot be assumed, therefore, that a circulation of specie is necessary in Scotland for the purpose of guarding against the effects of sudden panic.…So far as the interests of the Bank of England are concerned, it will be seen that the directors of that Bank, who were examined before your Committee, urge no objection to the continuance of the present system in Scotland, provided that the paper circulation in Scotland can be effectually retained within the limits of that country."

Sir Robert Peel did not contradict that statement when he introduced the Bank Act in 1845, nor did he deny that the Scotch system was an admirable system. But what were his objections to that system? I think it is necessary that the House should know exactly what his remarks were; and, not to weaken this argument, I will read the remarks which he then made. He said—

"The security of the system which prevails in Scotland rests in the amount of gold in England, and it is this which enables Scotland to dispense with the amount of bullion in proportion to its circulation, which, and not the solvency of the banks, ought to be the foundation of the promissory notes. I am not surprised that Scotland should wish to be exempt from this—I am not surprised that Ireland should wish the same; and I do not say that it may not be possible, by taking the whole expense of maintaining a gold currency upon this part of the empire, that another system may not succeed in other parts; but I do say that it is just that the burden should be borne in equal proportions by all parts of the empire."— [3 Hansard, lxxxi. 147.]

I quite admit the force of his assertion, that the stability of the issue of the banks ought to depend upon the gold that the bank holds. But the question arises, who is to determine the amount of gold required? It seems to me that the bank directors should not only know, but should always be careful to provide that the bank under their charge should at all times be in a position to pay its own promissory notes in gold? We know, from the experience of a great many years, that Scotch banks founded on that principle never failed to meet their engagements. The reason that induced Sir Robert Peel to alter the Scotch system was simply this. He believed, and asserted, that the stability of the Scotch system depended upon the amount of bullion in England, and he thought it was unfair to put England to the whole expense of maintaining a gold currency for Scotland. That was the ground of his opposition to the old system of banking in Scotland, and at first sight it is a plausible objection; but when we subject it to a close examination, it does not appear deserving of much weight. I deny, in the first place, that the Scotch banks are responsible for the expense of maintaining the gold necessary to be kept in London. London is the centre of all the pecuniary operations not only of England, but of the whole world, and as it obtains all the emoluments incident to that position, it would be unfair for it to shirk the responsibilities. One of the responsibilities of a banker is to provide sufficient cash to pay his balances. The Scotch mercantile community hold large balances in London, and why should they not have the right of withdrawing those balances when it suits them? France and America withdraw their balances whenever they desire to do so; and if the Bank of England is sometimes called upon to pay gold at a moment when it may not be convenient, it is no fault of the Scotch system. The law which imposes that obligation on the Bank of England was not made by the Scotch people. On the contrary, the Bank of England undertook the duty voluntarily, and is it relieved in any way from that inconvenient obligation by the Bank Act of 1845? I believe quite the reverse. Since that Act passed, there can be no doubt that the demand upon the Bank of England for gold for the Scotch banks has greatly increased. The fact is, that the stability of the Scotch system does not depend on the gold in England at all. At least, it did not previous to the year 1845. It was maintained for 150 years without any support from the gold in the Bank of England. As a remarkable proof of that fact, I may mention what occurred on the suspension of cash payments in 1797. Cash payments were suspended in England for twenty-five years, and during that time the whole of the Scotch banks paid their notes in gold on demand. Cash payments were never suspended in Scotland, and how could they then depend on England for gold? England could not have supplied the gold if Scotland had required it. If we could find out the quantity of gold transmitted to Scotland previous to 1845 and since that year, we should discover that the amount has very much increased during the latter period. Sir Robert Peel, in order to get rid of an imaginary evil, introduced a much greater one, for there never had been any great demand for gold from the Scotch banks on the Bank of England previous to 1845. What was the evidence in reference to the interests of the Bank of England before the Committee of 1826? The Directors of the Bank, when examined before the Committee, urged no objection to the continuance of the then existing system in Scotland. Mr. Richards, the Governor of the Bank of England, was asked—

"Do you think the existence of a paper currency in Scotland at the time there was a gold currency in England might lead to any inconvenient demand upon the Bank of England for gold for Scotland."

His answer was—

"Scotland could not reach the gold of the Bank of England by getting possession of the paper of the Bank of England. She could only do that by discounting bills through her agents in London, or by the sale of stock or any public securities that she might hold; but, by her own paper, she could not touch us."

It is undoubtedly the fact that, if there were no bank notes in Scotland at all, and nothing but sovereigns, the Scotch people could withdraw their balances from London in gold quite as easily as they do now. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the issue of bank notes is the cause of the withdrawal of gold from the Bank of England; and that perfect freedom in the issue of promissory notes, such as existed in Scotland previous to 1845, can imperil the solvency of the Bank of Eng- land. I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will turn his powerful and logical mind to the question, and that having been instrumental in removing many restrictions to free trade, he will support freedom in banking. I hope he will feel it not inconsistent with his duty to consider the subject with that spirit of fairness, and with that ability, which characterize him; and, in that case, I have no doubt that before long we shall have a very great and beneficial reform in our monetary system.

Sir, in answer to the appeal which has been made to me by my hon. Friend (Mr. Finlay), I am bound to say that I cannot respond to it in a favourable manner, if it implies that I shall vote for the present reading of this Bill. On the contrary, I intend to support the Motion made by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Edinburgh. The grounds upon which I shall give that vote are not grounds connected with inveterate hostility to the principle upon which the measure rests; on the contrary, I think that the principle of the extension of issues against gold is one that, under favourable circumstances, I might fairly form the subject of consideration by Parliament. I think the hon. Baronet (Sir John Hay) who has brought in this Bill is entitled to claim certain admission at our hands. It is not primâ facie unreasonable or incredible that there may be a demand for an augmentation of issue in Scotland. At the same time, that demand for augmentation for issue may be founded not so much upon the proof that the issues of Scotland are deficient in quantity, as upon the connection which, owing to the habits and ideas of the people, is found to exist there between issue of notes and the business of banking. I do not believe that a sounder principle was ever enunciated by Sir Robert Peel than that which has been quoted to-night, when he said that in his judgment issue ought to be subject to strict regulation by the State; whereas the business of banking ought to be made as free as any other business, and ought to depend entirely upon the principle of competition. But in Scotland there appears undoubtedly to exist a feeling in regard to the nature of the circulating medium which they are accustomed to use, and which lies at the foundation of this Bill. It cannot be said that in principle there is anything dan- gerous or unsound in issue against gold. The question which would at first sight suggest itself to those who might be disposed to criticise the proposal would be, where could be the economy of a system of issuing paper against gold? It is well known that there is a very considerable economy in an issue of that description. But I will state to the House why, looking to all the circumstances of the case, I think it is impossible to accede to the demand for the second reading of this Bill. In the first place, I think that the parallel and analogy which the hon. Baronet drew between the law now existing in behalf of the old Scotch banks and the case of the new banks are fallacious. The existing provisions which authorize the old Scotch banks that existed before 1845 to issue notes against gold, are not to be considered as founded upon any permanent principle. They are part of a set of provisions adopted by Sir Robert Peel as being well calculated for the circumstances of the time, and suitable upon the whole to further the general principles of policy of which he desired to secure the introduction and the permanent and solid extension in the country. That being the case, it would be a most hasty and precipitate inference to select from among them provisions adopted upon grounds more or less of a transient and temporary character, and make them without further consideration the basis of any extended system. We are not justified in arguing that, because in the Act of 1845 we find power given to the existing Scotch banks to issue notes against gold, we may without consideration extend the exercise of that power to any other banks that may seek to do business in Scotland. The truth is that when we come to consider a permanent system with regard to the issue of notes against gold, it will not be enough to say, as is stated in this Bill, that any bank that is so minded may issue promissory notes to the extent to which it shall be proved to have gold in its possession; because, although it may have the gold, the question immedately arises—in what way is that gold appropriated so as to become a basis of security to the paper issue? It is impossible to avoid that question if we are to consider any permanent system of that kind. Here, of course, I might be met by an argumentum ad hominem. It may be argued that I have presented to the House a Bill which proposes to deal with a certain portion of what is called lapsed issue, and to authorize the resumption of that issue, without making any provision for its security. Undoubtedly, that so far is true; but this has been proposed with reference to a particular part of the old Scotch banking system, because we think we may truly rely on the general condition of the Scotch banking system as a sufficient security for a limited arrangement of that kind. And I am not sure that we are justified in arguing from that Bill as if it had been accepted by the House. For, on the one hand, it is a Bill which, if I may judge from the notices that have been given, is not likely to meet with unanimous acceptance; and, on the other hand, it is a Bill which, as I have stated from the first, aimed at nothing but an arrangement for temporary convenience. It does not attempt to lay down any new principle to govern banking in Scotland. It is not a Bill of that character; and it is a measure which I would not think it right to press forward in the face of any considerable difference of opinion. But it stands widely distinct from such a measure as that which we are now discussing, which enters into a much deeper question, and which we can evidently see is permanent in its application, and is capable of wide and general extension; and I would therefore suggest to the hon. Baronet, that if the time has really come when we can fairly deal with the subject of banking in Scotland, and authorize the extension of issues of promissory notes against gold, it would be necessary for us to devise, in addition to the provisions that he has inserted in his Bill, a set of very important collateral provisions. It is quite evident that gold itself will not form directly a security for the notes. It is also quite evident that the gold could not be held on general grounds to form indirectly a guarantee for the solvency of the banks. If that be so—if we could not make sure by those provisions, either directly or indirectly, that those of which we are authorizing the issue would be worthy of the confidence of the public—I think it is quite plain that we must resort to other provisions, and that those other provisions would require to be made the subject of careful consideration. It is not possible, in point of fact, to avoid seeing that the Bill of the hon. Baronet, although it appears to be comparatively limited in the direct scope of its clauses, entails and draws after it the consideration of a very extensive question—because, as I have just said, if you authorize the issue of notes against gold in Scotland, we must have a carefully constructed system of collateral provisions; but if we proceed to establish such a system of provisions, it is clear that we must take into our consideration the position of the old banks. When the time comes to establish such provisions for authorizing the issue of notes against gold, that will evidently be the time for considering the provisions of the present law, which authorizes the issue by the old banks of notes against gold. I take it that the legislation of 1844–5 proceeded on the general principle of the confidence which the Legislature reposed in the old banks of Scotland—a degree of confidence which it would not be safe to assume with respect to new banks; but I do not consider it possible for Parliament to construct this new system for the issue of notes against gold in respect of new banks, without considering the question whether the provisions of the law regarding the issue of notes against gold by the old banks do not also require consideration and revision. If that be so, it is plain that the Bill of the hon. Baronet entails and necessitates a full consideration of the entire banking system of Scotland. I am speaking with no adverse prepossession. I should be very sorry, upon merely selfish grounds, to take any step which would arouse the angry shade of Malachi Malagrowther. I should be sorry if any man occupying the position which I have the honour to hold should, within any period to which we can reasonably look forward, feel disposed to raise the question in an adverse sense of the small note currency of Scotland. If that system be effectually limited and guarded, I think it may be made as safe as any other; but I should be misunderstood if it were supposed that I intended to imply that rules which are good for this country are without modification or alteration equally good for Scotland. On the contrary, I hold that the circumstances of Scotland, and the customs and usages of that country, are to be taken into our view, as well as the state of the Scotch law, before we can argue that what we do for England the same should be done for Scotland. Having thus guarded myself against being supposed to contemplate the application of a new system of uniformity with respect to the currency of the three king- doms, I must nevertheless say, that I do not think the House could, with wisdom or safety, proceed to the consideration of the general subject of banking and currency for Scotland until it has fully considered the state of the law on this subject in respect to this country. It is quite clear that London—which is the centre of the monetary operations of the world—and being at the head of the whole monetary system of England, we must regard England as à fortiori the centre of the whole monetary and banking system of the United Kingdom. I consider it essential, before we proceed to consider any new proposal involving that principle with respect to Scotland, that we inquire whether our legislation for England has been brought into a state which expresses and corresponds with the permanent view of Parliament. My answer to that question is, that our legislation for England has not yet been brought to that state. However, it is far from my desire to say one word that can be construed into a disparagement of the legislation of 1844. Whether it be approved of or disapproved of, I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion essential service has been conferred upon the country by that legislation so far as all fundamental principles are concerned. But the Act of 1844, besides its permanent and fundamental principles, contained many provisions that were partial, temporary, and provincial. It left the right of issue, other than those of the Bank of England, in such a state as to require re-consideration at the hands of Parliament at some future period. That being the case, the question arises and offers itself to the minds of all who have considered the subject of this measure, whether we can be ripe for legislation founded on this new principle for Scotland before we have considered and arrived at a definite conclusion with respect to the state of currency legislation in England. I do not hesitate to say, from various circumstances, that I think I the time is approaching when the attention of Parliament ought to be given to several matters connected with the provisions of the Act of 1844; and on this account, I would venture to express a hope for the assent of the hon. Baronet to my main proposition, that we are not yet ripe for entertaining his view. If he asks when there will be a commencement of the general legislation which I have indicated, I can only say that I make the ad- mission that circumstances have ripened in a considerable degree for such, legislation, and that when we see a fitting opportunity for introducing the question to the notice of Parliament, we shall feel it our bounden duty to lose no time in doing so. But if the Government were to introduce a general measure, their first proceeding must be to endeavour to ascertain the opinion of Parliament with respect to the banking system of England; and it is quite clear that it could not be possible to adopt such a process as that, and likewise approach the consideration of the important conclusions that might be arrived at in the course of the present Session. I therefore feel obliged to vote against the present Bill; but I hope the House will not think that that vote implies an intention to proceed to immediate legislation on the subject, because it could not be possible for us to do justice to it under present circumstances. I have not professed any indiscriminate hostility to the principle of the Bill of the hon. Baronet, which, so far as I can gather, appears to be a correct one, and I cannot say that the status quo should be permanently maintained. On the contrary, my opinion is that from the state of the law of issue in England and the restrictions upon banking which the present law imposes in consequence of the possession of exclusive privileges by certain banking establishments, the time must come when it will be necessary for the Government to propose the adoption of some well-considered scheme for the further development and advancement of several of the provisions of the Acts of 1844 and 1845.

said, he had heard with much gratification the disavowal by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any feeling of general hostility to the principle of the Bill, as well as his admission that Scotland stands in a peculiar position in consequence of the peculiar prejudices which in Scotland make the right of issuing notes essential to the establishment of a bank. When his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black) talked of 800 banks, he ought to have said 800 offices, for the number of banks did not exceed thirteen in the whole country; and so long as the right of issue is confined to those banks, there must be a practical prohibition upon the establishment of any new bank. It was, in fact, a monopoly enjoyed by the bank of which the hon. Member was a governor, and a dozen others, of so regulating the terms upon which they will make advances to the community as to make the largest possible profit for themselves. It was to give the right of issue against gold to any new bank that might be established, and so to put an end to the present monopoly, that this Bill was supported. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the provisions of the Acts of 1844–5 were temporary, and had reference to the peculiar circumstances of the then existing banks; but these banks had a privilege of issue which went far beyond what was asked for by this Bill. They had a right of issue to the extent of the average of their issue in 1845 without any security whatever. They also had a right to issue against gold over and above the amount of the issue under the statute. So far from the issues of banks established under this Bill being placed in a weaker position than the old banks, they would rest on a much stronger foundation, inasmuch as the old banks had a large issue that was altogether unsecured, whilst the new banks would provide ample security for all their issue, whatever the amount might be. The Bill did not propose to interfere with the monetary system at all. It simply allowed the extension of a privilege which was now enjoyed by the existing banks, but on a more permanent footing, because it required that the new banks should have gold to the full extent of the issue of their notes, whilst the existing banks were only required to possess gold for their issue over and above the amounts which they were authorized to issue by the Act. This Bill could in no respect prevent the introduction of a general measure on the subject of banking.

said, he admitted that this Bill proposed legislation of a somewhat exceptional character; but, after the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no doubt can be entertained as to the justice of the principle on which it was founded. The right hon. Gentleman had not said one word in defence of the monopoly of the present banks; on the contrary, he confessed that there existed a practical evil, because the present system rendered it impossible for a new bank to be established in Scotland without the power of issue. The principle of the Bill was strictly in accordance with the Act of 1845, by which the Scotch banks had a power of issue con- ferred upon them which no bank in England was allowed to enjoy. They were permitted to exercise that privilege so far as their issues had extended; but if they exceeded that, it was provided that gold should be deposited against any further issue. The question is, why should that privilege be confined to a small number of banks? He contended with the hon. Baronet (Sir John Hay) that a privilege of that kind ought to be common to all banks, without restriction. He had no desire to reverse the legislation of 1844–5—so far from it, he desired to support it. But when that Act was applied to Scotland it was upon a different principle from that which was applied to England. The Acts applicable to England were consistent in themselves, and there was an absolute restriction upon all new issues on the part of the country banks. That legislation provided for the extension of the banking and currency of the country, and the principle upon which it was applied by Sir Robert Peel was justly quoted by the hon. Member for Argyleshire (Mr. Finlay) that, while drawing a distinction between the power of issue and of banking, he wished to make banking free. Sir Robert Peel said—

"Our general rule is to draw a distinction between the privilege of Issue and the conduct of ordinary banking business. We think they stand on an entirely different footing. We think that the privilege of Issue is one which may be fairly and justly controlled by the State; and that the banking business, as distinguished from Issue, is a matter in respect to which there cannot be too unlimited and unrestricted a competition. The principle of competition, though unsafe in our opinion when applied to issue, ought, we think, to govern the business of banking."—[3 Hansard, lxxiv. 743.]

In Scotland, however, the Act of 1845 had operated as a positive bar to the establishment of new banks, and when banks had failed, their business and the profits arising therefrom had been divided amongst the old banks, which were now reduced to thirteen. Of course, concurrently with this, these establishments had considerably extended their branches and operations, and enjoy very great advantages. In a paper on the laws of currency in Scotland, by Mr. Gilbart, whose opinions on the subject were entitled to the greatest weight, and which was read before the British Association at Glasgow in the year 1856, ten years after Sir Robert Peel's measure had been in operation, there was this passage—

"The Act of 1845 has produced several practical effects in the management of the banks of Scotland. Had not the Act of 1845 been passed, it is probable that new banks of Issue would have been framed in Scotland during the speculations of the year 1846, and there might have been great competition between the old and the new banks. There is now among the banks a less spirit of competition than formerly. There are fewer attempts to attract customers by the offer of increased accommodation. There is a less disposition to grant cash credits, and less anxiety to obtain those accounts that put into circulation a large amount of notes. Some advances too have been made upon banking charges. The banks have attempted to reimburse themselves for the increased expense of keeping gold by charging a commission upon the amount of the cash credits, and upon payments made in London, thus confirming the doctrine that statesmen are slow to learn that restrictions on banks are a tax on the public."

He protested against leaving the question for an indefinite period in its present state, or until it should please the English Members of this House to agree to a change in respect of their own system. He looked upon the system in Scotland as an exceptional system, to which a special remedy can be applied if the Government and the House thought proper, without prejudice to the consideration of the entire subject of banking as it affected the United Kingdom. If, however, the general question must be entered upon in the first instance, he trusted that it would be done with the least possible delay.

said, that the principles of the Act of 1844 were correct, and ought to be made permanent. It had effected all that it was intended to effect—the convertibility of the bank note; and if it had not averted panics it was not intended for that purpose, which, indeed, was beyond the reach of legislation. The time was not fur distant when the restrictions and privileges conferred by the Acts of 1844–5 would have to be re-considered; and when the time did come, he was of opinion that the English question ought, following the precedent of 1844, to precede the Scotch question. As to the Bill now before the House, if the hon. Baronet the Member for Wakefield persisted in his Motion, he should feel obliged to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh; but he hoped the hon. Baronet would consent to withdraw his Motion, and that the hon. Member for Edinburgh would also withdraw his Amendment, upon the understanding that the consideration of the question is only deferred for consideration and settlement, and that the Government will be shortly prepared to introduce a measure upon, the subject.

addressed the House, but the hon. Member was very imperfectly heard.

Sir, as I represent a large commercial constituency, I must say that I have heard with some pleasure the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the effect that he is prepared, on a future occasion, to take the whole question into consideration. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the opinions entertained by very many persons of the operation of the Act of 1844 are very different from those expressed by hon. Members who have addressed the House this evening. Sir Robert Peel when he introduced his Bill said, that his purpose was to give something like stability and certainty to the value of money; and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether that has been the result produced? Are we not at the present time exposed to perpetual vacillations in the value of money? I will not, however, enter into that question. Various and conflicting opinions as to how any Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman might introduce, would work, would no doubt be entertained. I am anxious to learn whether there would be a probability of our having a Report from any Committee to whom that Bill might be referred in a moderate space of time, and also whether that Report would likely be of such a nature as to satisfy the House. I cannot, for my part, see why we should defer legislation upon this question for an indefinite period, and I wish to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the main grievance of which we complain has not yet been brought forward. Issue and deposit banks are mixed up together, not only in the minds of the Scotch people, but as a consequence of existing legislation. The evil is, that there is no competition in banks of deposit, and that the trade of banking is unnecessarily narrowed. I think I could from papers in my hand supply the House with information which it is hardly prepared to receive. Is the House aware of the change which has taken place since the Act of 1845 was passed? We had twenty-four banks in Scotland in 1844. At present they are reduced to thirteen. We had shareholders in these banks holding £12,000,000 stock in 1844, and now we have only £9,000,000 of banking capital. And, in point of fact, although we have at present thirteen banks, only eight of them are of any consequence or extent. If any hon. Member will look at the schedule of the Bill introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will see that the authorized issue of five out of the thirteen banks is so small as to be scarcely worth consideration. One of them is limited to £33,000, another to £42,000, while the average of the authorized issue of the five is £55,000. The remaining eight banks have an authorized issue of £2,476,000. Therefore, there are only eight real banks in Scotland for the purpose of bank accommodation, which, in my opinion, is quite inadequate. Nor is that the worst of it, for I am prepared to show that nearly all those banks are in Edinburgh. I do not object to their being located there, any more than I should to their being in Glasgow, except in so far as it gives them facilities for acquiring a monopoly which they would not otherwise have. Of these eight banks five are essentially Edinburgh establishments—one belongs partly to Edinburgh and partly to Glasgow, only one is a Glasgow establishment, and one belongs to the north of Scotland. There are thus five banks which are exclusively to Edinburgh, and you can easily see how they could work together if they felt so disposed. One or two will rule the rest; and as the managers are constantly meeting together, it is easy to see how small a number would pull the strings of this large banking machine. But that is not the worst of it. The Act of 1845 seems to contemplate the amalgamation of banks. So far from there being anything to prevent it, there is a clause inserted in the Act of 1845 facilitating such arrangements; so that, instead of there being eight banks, it is possible that there may soon be only half that number, and that we shall find a monopoly so far completed that one or two banks may control the whole banking and monetary system of Scotland. It appears to me that it is no argument to the objection as to the small number of banks of issue to say that there are numerous branches in different parts of Scotland. No doubt great practical conveniences and advantages have arisen from the establishment of those branches—no one can deny that; but, on the other hand, the machinery of those branch banks has tended to establish a monopoly. These bank agencies have worked so successfully that whereas, in 1843, £30,000,000 repre- sented the amount of deposits in Scotland, there are now £60,000,000 of deposits. All this immense sum is under the control of one or two men in Edinburgh. I do not think that that is a position of I affairs which we should be desirous of continuing. We have cast off the trammels of monopoly in other respects, and I think if the question were fairly put to the House, there are few who would say that the whole banking business of Scotland should be under the control of one or two men in the capital. The evil is so great that it ought not to be allowed longer to exist, and I shall be happy to hear when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to deal with the subject. I am not prepared to say that this Bill is one which in all its provisions I would be willing to adopt; but its main feature; is to extend a principle which has already been introduced. Against gold there may be any extent of issue, and I cannot see what objection there can be made to the extension of that principle. As there may be much discussion of doubtful principles, and long delay, before we can arrive at a conclusion upon any Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think we are justified in dividing in favour of the second reading of this Bill.

said, he thought it would be wise on the part of the hon. Baronet opposite not to press his Bill at the present moment, and that it would be better that they should first dispose of the measure introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As a Member for Scotland, he must express his surprise at the attack which had been made on the Scotch system of banking—though he thought that the speech of the hon. Member had, in a great measure, answered itself; for he had admitted that the amount of deposits in the Scotch banks had increased from £30,000,000 to £60,000,000 since the passing of the Act of 1845. In point of fact, at that moment, there was hardly a Highland village that had not adequate banking accommodation. It could hardly be called a monopoly when all these banking agencies were in competition with each other. In his opinion the existing system gave ample banking accommodation to the people of Scotland; and he believed that the Scotch people themselves were exceedingly attached to the system as it at present existed. He greatly doubted the policy of the present Bill, and should certainly vote against the second reading. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given great satisfaction to the people of Scotland; at all events, it showed that he had no objection to the introduction of improvements, though before introducing changes having that object in view, he was desirous that they should be well and carefully sifted.

said, that the value of money could not be fixed by Act of Parliament, any more than the value of any other commodity. The Act of 1844 had conferred great benefits on the country, and the occasions on which it was supposed by some persons to have broken down were scarcely cases in point. It was not at the instance of the Bank of England that the Act had been suspended, but at the instance of the public, who demanded greater accommodation than the law allowed the Bank to give. He hoped that in any legislative alteration the great principle of the Act of 1844 would be upheld.

Sir I agree with the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird), that it would be an absurdity to call the banking system of Scotland a monopoly, for although banks for issuing paper are restricted, all of them have large establishments with branches in almost every village in Scotland. There is scarcely a village in Scotland with a thousand inhabitants that has not a branch bank. At present there was no limitation to the establishment of banks in Scotland, except this—that it must be on the express understanding that they have no permission to issue paper. The Bill of my hon. Friend, if I rightly understand it, proposes to repeal the Bank Act of 1845, and establish virtually an unlimited paper currency in Scotland. It is true that the banks to be established could only issue paper upon retaining the same amount of gold in their coffers; but this is not affording to the public any security for the value of the notes. Suppose a bank is established which issues notes to the value of £100,000, and that it retains 100,000 sovereigns as reserve — that I take to be the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend — but the 100,000 sovereigns would be no security for the notes, because the bank might have £1,000,000 of deposits, and if there should be a run on the bank the depositors would get possession of the gold, and the burden of the notes would be left without security. That would be the natural operation of allowing an unlimited amount of paper issue if you were obliged to retain gold to meet it. On the whole, I do not think that the House is likely to agree to a proposition for repealing the Bank Act of 1844. I believe it to have been perfectly successful, and I should be sorry to give my support to any Bill which in my opinion is calculated to impair it.

Sir, I wish to say that, after the discussion which has now taken place, in the event of the hon. Member opposite (Sir John Hay) being desirous of withdrawing his proposal, I shall not press the Amendment which I have moved.

I wish to say a few words in explanation. After what has fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think it would be wrong on my part to intercept the course of policy which he has indicated. I trust that at an early period he will endeavour to amend those parts of the Act of 1844 which press unduly on commerce. I do not accept the interpretation which the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. H. Baillie), has placed upon the Bill; but throughout the debate, it seems to me that a fallacy has prevailed in the minds of some of the hon. Members who have addressed the House. They seem to think that a Bank of England note is a legal tender in Scotland. Such is not the case. It is there deprived of the character of a legal tender, which in England is a guarantee of its value. On the understanding that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends soon to legislate upon this subject, gathering from his statement that his views concide very much with mine, feeling that on this occasion I have obtained from him everything but his vote, and on the understanding also that the hon. Member for Edinburgh will withdraw his Amendment, I am prepared to withdraw the Bill.

The understanding of the hon. Baronet is rather large. That I will very soon introduce a Bill is more than I can undertake; and I do not think that the remarks I made justify the hon. Gentleman in placing that construction upon my language. What I said was that the whole question requires careful consideration with a view of introducing Amendments into the present system, and that at some subsequent period I shall be prepared to enter on the subject.

said, he had to bring under the notice of the Committee what appeared to him to be a breach of privilege. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members that during the discussion on the second reading of this Bill he stated that in Ireland the Sub-Inspector of police was sometimes a poacher. That statement had given great offence to the Irish police, and a violent and abusive article directed against him had appeared in a Dublin newspaper. The editor of that newspaper had also admitted into its columns a letter signed "Sub-Inspector," in which it was stated he (Captain Archdall) had sheltered himself under his privileges as a Member of Parliament, and stated what was a gross calumny and an unfounded slander, and what he would not have dared to utter out of that House. The Irish Members generally were included in the charge made by "Sub-Inspector;" for the letter stated that there was not one of them who would get up and defend the constabulary against the calumny. Now, when he made his former statement he did so on circumstances which were within his own personal knowledge, and also with the conviction that he could be corroborated by other hon. Members. A Sub-Inspector, quartered in a village on his own property, had made raids on his shooting ground. He was annoyed at this conduct, and remonstrated with the gentleman; but he neither summoned him before the magistrates nor reported him to the Inspector General, fearing that his dismissal from the force would be the result if he adopted the latter course. He, however, found that he had been mistaken in that supposition; for by the code of instructions issued to the police by Sir Henry Brownrigg, the Inspector General, he perceived that the Sub-Inspectors were allowed to shoot, fish, and hunt. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) some time ago invited a party of friends to shoot over his property; but an Inspector of police was beforehand with him, and when the hon. Member and his friends arrived there was nothing for them to shoot at. In the county of Donegal, Inspector Hill and Sub-Inspector Scully were warned off from fishing without permission in a river belonging to the Earl of Leitrim. Last year, at the Mohill Petty Sessions, a Sub-Inspector was fined in four instances in the mitigated penalty of £5 for using guns and dogs without a licence. The resident magistrate, Mr. Triston, who was on the bench, seemed to have acted as counsel for the Sub-Inspector, and threw every difficulty in the way of a conviction. It was not until after reference had been made for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, the Revenue Department was able to carry out the punishment. He did not wish in the slightest degree to detract from the accomplishments of the Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of the Irish constabulary. In light literature, the dead languages, and metaphysics they were not inferior to any hon. Gentleman in that House; and to see them in full dress reminded one of the 10th Hussars in the early days of George IV.; but he did not approve the manner in which they were organized; and he looked upon the appointment of Sir Henry Brownrigg as an unfortunate one.

said, he could not have expected that his hon. and gallant Friend would have made this attack upon the Irish constabulary without giving him notice of the particular cases to which he intended to refer. Had he done so he (Sir Robert Peel) would have been prepared to meet him; but though the topic which he has introduced has nothing to do with the subject which we are in Committee to consider, I cannot allow his reference to the Inspector General to pass without observing that the Irish constabulary is in a high state of efficiency, and that Sir Henry Brownrigg, who was appointed by Lord Eglinton, has received the thanks of successive Governments in Ireland. I believe the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to the estate of my hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) in connection with some little partridge shooting. I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether that was a very grave offence in that wild part of the country? Why, have we not all been accustomed, when the fancy took us, to sport, perhaps, a little unlawfully? I have no hesitation in saying that when I was a boy at school I frequently poached. We all recollect hearing of the famous statesman who, when at Eton, poached on the manor of George III. And, Sir, are we not at this instant celebrating the tercentenary festival of Shakespeare, who was himself a poacher? I protest against those general charges being made on the Irish constabulary because a constable or sub-constable who has nothing else to do kills a snipe or a partridge. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would bring forward this matter as a substantive Motion, he had no doubt he should be able to encounter him on the merits.

said, he hoped the House would not sanction any extension of the Game Laws in Ireland, and that was the object of this Bill. He was quite sure an attempt to do such a thing in England at the fag end of a Wednesday sitting would cause a revolution. ["Hear!"] It was all very well for hon. Members to laugh, but less things had caused a revolution. He was opposed to the Bill, and so convinced was he that it was radically wrong, that he moved that the Chairman leave the chair.

said, that the Bill did not deserve the sweeping reprobation of the hon. Member for Clonmel. It proposed to do nothing more in Ireland than what had been done for the last forty years in this country. The simple object of the Bill was to enable the landlord in whom the property in the game on his estate was vested to prosecute in case of trespass, instead of throwing that duty on the occupying tenant.

contended that the hon. and learned Gentleman was misleading the Committee by stating that that was the sole object of the Bill. The fact was that it was nothing more nor less than a proposal to introduce into Ireland the English Game Law.

said, the Game Law in Ireland was more oppressive than the Game Law in England. At present fines for poaching were inflicted to the extent of £10; this Bill would make the maximum penalty £2 only. The measure, so far as the purpose to which it was directed was concerned, would make the law less oppressive and more effective.

said, he could see no reason why the law in Ireland should be changed in the manner proposed by this Bill. Reading daily in the papers the mischief that arose in England from the Game Laws, he was by no means anxious to see those laws introduced into Ireland.

said, game could not be preserved by legislation, but only by a good feeling between landlord and tenant. He supported the Bill.

said, it was impossible to conceive a Bill framed in a more oppressive spirit than the measure now under consideration. Whilst in England the magistrates had the power of mitigating the penalty, in Ireland the magistrates would be obliged to impose a penalty of £1, and if the penalty should not be paid the offender must be committed for two months.

said, he was prepared to make the penalty the same as that in the English Bill.

objected to the Bill, which not only introduced a new class of offences, but imposed a high and excessive standard of penalties. It was his intention to oppose the Bill at every stage.