, in moving that the Bill be now ead the second time, said, that since he had introduced the measure a great many petitions had been presented in its favour, and there was a very general desire that it should pass into law. The Bill proposed to assess to local rates all mines and plantations in the same manner that coal mines were now rated. The Courts of Law having held that mines other than coal mines were not liable to be rated, a vast amount of mining property escaped assessment, though they were worked by shafts and drivings in precisely similar manner. The annual value of mining property not subject to rates in 1853 was £4,744,000, and during the last eleven years the value had increased in a greater ratio than that of land, iron works, or fisheries, though in a less ratio than three other descriptions of property—namely, railways, quarries, and gas works. In 1864 the annual value of mining property had increased by £1,934,000 over the value in 1853. The exemption from rating enjoyed by mines other than coal mines tended to throw great burdens on persons neither directly nor indirectly interested in mining property. For instance, in Ulverstone the annual value of mining property that escaped rating was £50,000, and was all in the hands of rich proprietors. The mines which created the greatest burdens by the number of disabled miners they made, and the roads they cut up with their heavy traffic, were wholly exempt either from poor or highway rate. Thus in the parish of Alston, which in 1865 yielded lead to the value of £65,000, the mines paid nothing towards the poor rates, although out of 328 paupers 278 were from the mines, and only fifty-six were agricultural labourers. When he asked leave to introduce the Bill the President of the Poor Law Board said that many cases of a similar nature were about to be brought before the superior Courts of Law, with a view to a reversal of former decisions in reference to the rating of mining property. But the judgments which had confirmed the exemption were very specific. In order to show what was the present state of the law, he would quote a passage from the work of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Sir Robert Collier), in which it was stated—

"The Statute 43rd of Elizabeth, chap. 2, sec. 1, in which poor rates originated, having declared all occupiers of 'coal mines,' among other things, rateable to the poor, it was early decided that the express mention of coal mines excluded all others, and such at present is the law. The only question that can arise now upon this is whether the workings for ore or other substances are or are not mines; for, if quarries only, they are rateable."

He therefore did not think that it was likely that the Judges would reverse former decisions, and shut their eyes to all the concurrent circumstances throwing light on the intention of the Legislature in passing that Act. In deciding a case in reference to a lead mine, Lord Mansfield said—

"We have no ground, authority, or pretence for giving it that extensive construction, nor is there any foundation for imagining that the Legislature meant so. Nothing can be clearer than that these (lead) mines are not within the letter of the statute, for the Legislature could never intend by the word 'coal mines' to comprehend other species of mines. If they had meant to include them they would either have enumerated them or used the general word 'mines'. So that the expression 'coal mines' expressly excludes mines of any other sort, as much as if they had been exempted."

In Cornwall, where the tin mines were unsuccessfully struggling against foreign competition the exemption from rating acted as a protection, inducing people in some cases to keep their capital in what would otherwise be unprofitable concerns; while in his (Mr. Percy Wyndham's) part of the country the exemption operated to relieve from assessment the richest portion of the community, and to throw the burden on the poorer portion. With respect to the mode of rating, if they looked to coal mines it would be found that it varied in different localities, being sometimes on the actual and sometimes on the estimated royalty, and in Staffordshire upon the acreage. There were complaints against this uncertainty; but he feared that if the agitation attempted to establish a uniform system neither lords nor occupiers would pay what they ought to do. Mines differed from lands in this—that whilst the land remained, in the case of mines the corpus of the estate gradually became extinct: but this fact, if used as an argument against rating mines, would not hold water. £12,000 worth of coal would have the same rate as £12,000 worth of land, as when it ceased to exist the rate could no longer be levied. It was upon this principle his Bill was based. The Bill contained a provision allowing, after the passing of the measure, the holders of existing leases, whereby a rent in money, royalty, toll, or due other than in kind was reserved, to deduct from the rent one-half of the rate which would become chargeable upon them; and another clause provided that where any lord or owner of a mine was assessed to local rates in respect of such mine, nothing in the present Bill should be held to disturb such assessment during the continuance of existing setts. With regard to woods and plantations, there was some doubt as to the state of the law in reference to their liability to be rated; but he believed that it was generally held that saleable under-woods were rateable, though it seemed that a great variety of practice existed in this respect. When he drew up the clause providing that woods and plantations should be liable to be rated upon the rate- able value of the land on which they were grown, he was not aware how the Scotch Act upon the same subject was worded; but he had since ascertained that it was provided by that Act that where lands and heritages consisted of woods, copse, or underwood, the yearly value of the same was to be taken to be the rent at which they might in their natural state be reasonably expected to let from year to year as pasture or grazing lands. It was objected against the Bill that it only applied to mines and woods, whereas there were other descriptions of property which was not rated and which ought not to escape assessment, and there were petitions before the House praying every species of unrated property—including game preserves and shootings—should be made liable to rates. He did not, however, see why the Bill should be objected to on that ground. It was impossible to pass a comprehensive measure at once; and it should be remembered that in proportion as the number of exemptions was diminished the stronger would become the argument against the continuance of other exemptions, and, whatever might be the defects of the Bill, they were as nothing compared with the anomalies and inconsistencies of the present system.

, in rising to move an Amendment that the Bill be referred to a Select Comitteee, said, he could assure the hon. Member that he was not actuated by any hostility to the principle of the Bill; but he regarded the details as so complicated that it would be impossible to deal with them satisfactorily in a Committee of the whole House. The most conflicting opinions prevailed as to the principles on which mines should be rated. He was connected with the mineral district in the High Peak of Derbyshire. The mines there had been worked from time immemorial, and the customs dated as far back as the time of Edward III. By these customs every subject of the Crown was permitted to dig and delve for minerals. The minerals belonged to the Duchy of Lancaster; but they had been leased to lords, who received a royalty nominally of one-thirteenth, but actually in most instances of one-twentieth. On these royalties they had paid rates for very many years. The system worked harmoniously, but if it were meddled with great dissatisfaction and litigation would be occasioned. There was evidence to show that if they attempted to rate the mine or throw the rate on the occupier they would at once shut up a great portion of the mines, nineteen-twentieths of which were held by poor men. A question had been started as to the getting of ores. There was an old saying—"There is ore of all kinds, but," alluding to the difficulty of getting it, "not for all men." It had been suggested by one witness examined before the Committee that the royalty should be taken as the principle on which mines should be assessed; but the whole question was one of such complicated detail that it would be impossible to deal with it satisfactorily in a Committee of the whole House. Therefore, in the most friendly spirit to the principle of the Bill, his recommendation would be that it be referred to a Select Committee.

quite agreed that all mines should be rated; but he did not think it would be possible to apply this Bill to mines in the West of England. The Bill declared that mines and minerals in England and Wales should be liable to local rates in the same manner and to the same extent as coal mines are liable to local rates; but on what principle were coal mines rated? He never could learn. In some places they were rated on the ton, in others on the profits; but the yield and the profits differed largely. The Bill was totally inapplicable to Cornish mines. In the rich district of Redruth there were only two or three mines paying a profit. How were such mines to be assessed? In one mine £400,000 had been expended, and the whole money was lost. In another instance £90,000 had been expended without the return of a single shilling. If there was no realized profits how could they assess them? At present mining property was in a most depressed state. There was great danger of driving capital away from Cornwall, owing to the large imports of tin from Chile, America, and Australia, and perhaps also to the monetary panic. He did not mean to say that mines should not be assessed to the relief of the poor; but the question was, who should be assessed? They must virtually assess the proprietor of the soil. If any profit was received he was sure to get it, and therefore he was the proper party to be assessed. This was undoubtedly a very difficult question, and regard must be had to many different localities. He should be very glad to see plantations assessed. The best thing that could be done was to be refer this Bill to a Select Committee, as the noble Lord proposed.

said, this proposition was not a new one. It was exactly fifty years since the first Bill for the rating of mines was laid on the table. The Legislature at that time appeared to be excessively keen on the subject, for the years 1817, 1818, and 1819 produced Bills for this purpose; but, like the material with which they proposed to deal, these Bills met with a "down-set." However, some twelve years afterwards the question again "cropped" up, and Bills were produced in 1856 and 1857. Since that period the subject has been allowed to rest until it was now brought forward by the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham). The only novelty in this Bill was the proposition to rate mines on the same principle as coal mines. Now, he should very much have liked that the hon. Mover had explained a little more fully on what principle coal mines were rated. No one could very well tell on what principle coal mines were rated. The principle, to borrow a popular phrase, was one "that no fellah can understand." The hon. Member said, they must be rated on their net annual value; but how was that possible? A mine was worth thousands a year one day, and next day nothing at all. Unless they had, as in Scotland, an annual valuation it would be impossible to carry out that principle. He did not wish to shrink from the responsibility of having mines rated; he did not know why any hereditament should be exempted from local taxation; but he strongly objected to the mode of carrying out that object as proposed by this Bill. It was impossible to attempt to rate little mining undertakings worked by two or three men. The Small Tenements Act would have to be extended to mines, and compounding lords established. The only principle he could assent to was to rate the lords on their dues, as was now practised in Derbyshire; but the subject was much too wide to be considered by the House. The range of the inquiry should be extended. The hon. Member had taken one leaf from the Scotch Lands Valuation Act, and proposed to rate woods; he would take another, and move that game, let at a rental, should be included, and the Bill referred to a Select Committee. If that was not agreed to be hoped the Bill would be placed on that shelf which had received so many of its predecessors.

hoped, if this Bill were referred to a Select Committee, they would be able to arrive at a more satisfactory conclusion than the last committee, Which had only been enabled at the conclusion of their investigation to suggest their own re-appointment. Coal mines were at present the only mines which came under the statue of the 43rd of Elizabeth; but that was no valid reason why other mines should be exempted if any satisfactory mode of assessment could be arrived at. When it was considered that a farmer was assessed on his rent, and had to pay whether he made any profit or not, he did not see why there should be any arbitrary exemption of mines because they did not happen to pay. As to assessing plantations and woods, it would be impossible to assess them on the rateable value of the land on which the trees were grown. To do so would be contrary to the principle of parochial assessment, which was made upon reasonable value from year to year. Considering the deterioration in land, that property which had not game upon it paid in a higher ratio than that which possessed game; but seeing the fluctuating value of it, it would be difficult to establish an uniform rate, as had been suggested by some. He trusted that the Select Committee might be allowed to include the question of game preserves and shootings within the scope of their inquiries.

said, the anomalies that excited in reference to the rating of mines were very extraordinary. When mines were worked from the quarries in open drifts they were subject to local taxation; but as soon as the mineworker extended his operations and made a shaft they became exempt. Again, according to the old system of letting, when the rate was paid in kind there was local taxation; but when it became a money charge the liability disappeared; and, however large the "put out" might be, they did not pay a farthing to the local burdens. The evil was chiefly felt in those districts where the ironstone was the chief source of the wealth of the country. The district about Cleveland, in Yorkshire, was a few years ago entirely of an agricultural character, but by the wand, as it were, of the enchanter, immense quantities of ironstone were found and an enormous population was collected; but the ironstone did not pay a single farthing to the local burdens which were thrown upon places in the immediate neighbourhood. But coal mines, which required so much more capital, and incurred so much more risk in working them, were assessed. Why should the present anomalous exemptions be retained? While he admitted that all minerals should be assessed, he could not agree that they should be rated on the same footing with real property, land or houses. They had all heard of such dreadful explosions as took place at the Oaks and the Hartley Collieries. In the former case, the entire capital invested in the mine was annihilated in a moment, and the colliery could only be restored by the expenditure of new capital to a large amount. In the latter case, the capital expended, which exceeded £100,000, was almost entirely rendered worthless. And there were cases of collieries upon which £300,000 or £400,000 had been expended that had never paid a farthing dividend. It was plain, therefore, that this class of property could not be dealt with in the same way as lands and houses. The whole subject was surrounded with difficulties which the House itself could not well deal with; in his opinion the only satisfactory way of solving this question was to refer it to a Select Committee.

said, that it seemed from the discussion that every hon. Member admitted the anomalies that existed in the law of rating. These anomalies were by no means confined to mines; and indeed if the whole question were considered there would be raised many more important issues than those which had reference to mining property and plantations. He could agree that, in reference to rating, coal mines were distinct from all other mines; because no man when he commenced sinking a shaft knew whether he should find coal or not. It was within his experience that many persons in seeking for coal went very deep into the earth without finding it. This reminded him of the story of a landowner in the North who had spent a great deal of time and money in boring on his property, and passing a farmyard he heard a loud noise proceeding from the pigs. He asked the cause of the uproar, and was told they were "ringing" the pigs to prevent them boring; on which he exclaimed, "I wish my father had done the same to me when I was young." There were, undoubtedly, many anomalies in the present system. Two individuals might be working on different sides of a hill; the one in open quarry, he paid enormous rates; the other underground, and he paid no rates at all. In the county of Cornwall the parish of St. Just was rated at £13,000, and at one time there were in that parish six mines which were rated because the owners of the land had reserved a royalty, and which paid upon an assessment of £2,828. They found, however, that if they took their rent in money the mines would be free from rates; they therefore made this change, and all their property was immediately freed from contributions to the poor rate, except so much of it as belonged to one person who thought it a duty to be rated. The hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) had said that his predecessor the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) intimated last year that the question of the rateability of metallic mines was to come before a Court of Law again. But since then the decision of the House of Lords in the case of the Mersey Docks had caused a different view to be taken of the matter—that decision had, indeed, raised questions that were believed to have been set at rest many years ago. Now, however, this particular question was about to be raised upon a special case, and if the Court of Queen's Bench should not decide in favour of the parish it was intended to take the matter into a Court of Error, in order to see whether the House of Lords' decision had varied the law or established a new law upon this matter. The case was that of "Crawshay v. Morgan and Another." The defendants were overseers of a parish in Gloucestershire, and they proposed to assess Mr. Crawshay for an iron mine upon a rating of £2,483. It seemed to him (Mr. G. Hardy) very desirable that they should get out of this difficulty, if possible, through the Law Courts: but, in the meantime, he thought that the Committee would be very well occupied in inquiring into the question as to mines, woodlands, and plantations: and he would suggest that as this Bill was confined to mines, woodlands, and plantations, the noble Lord the Member for North Derbyshire (Lord George Cavendish) should defer his Motion until the time came for going into Committee; and that, in the meantime, Instructions should be framed to refer to the Committee other questions which were equally important to those which were dealt with in the Bill. Some of the exemptions which had arisen under the Mersey Docks case were peculiarly unfair. That decision had rendered pure charities liable to be rated; and yet there were exemptions in favour of scientific and literary institutions which, although they did good, were not established for the benefit of the poor. He thought it was unnecessary that the debate should be further proceeded with then, because it was embracing within it details which could not be properly discussed on this Bill; and he would propose that the Bill should be read a second time, and that the Committee should be fixed for after Easter, so as to give time to any hon. Member to frame an Instruction to the Committee in order that the inquiry should not be limited to mines, woodlands, and plantations as it now would be from the title of the Bill. He thought that in this way they would advance the objects they had in view, so as to get at a solution of the very difficult question of exemptions. He believed that if the various kinds of property which had been referred to were rated, the Courts of Law would find principles upon which to rate them, as they had done in reference to railways and other property of a difficult kind.

agreed in the propriety of referring the subject to a Select Committee; but he hoped any Committee that might be appointed would carefully consider the question of the immense risk which was run by the adventurers, and also have regard to the fact that from 80 to 90 per cent of the whole value of the minerals represented pure labour. He trusted the Committee would be able to take a comprehensive view of the whole subject.

held that the principle of the law of rating was that the occupier of the land—the person who employed the labour that produced the pauperism—should pay the rates which was the provision for the incapacitated pauper. But this Bill contained strange infringements of that principle. It provided that metalliferous mines should be rated upon the same principle as coal mines; but though coal mines had been rateable since the 43rd Elizabeth the principle of rating them was not yet settled. He took it that the worker of the mine should be the person rated, as he was the employer of the labour that produced the pauper; but this Bill proposed that the owner of the land should pay one moiety of the rate; and on this he should like to ask what was the value of the mineral when brought to the surface as compared with the royalty paid for raising it? He agreed that the person who took the royalty should contribute; but to compel him to contribute one-half was inconsistent with all principle. Many leases of metalliferous mines contained clauses that the person who worked the mines should pay all rates; and it would not be right, in his opinion, to interfere with these private arrangements. The Bill could not possibly pass in the shape in which it was at present; and therefore he thought that the whole question should be referred to a Select Committee, and that the Bill should stand over in the meantime.

thought it impossible that this Bill would work in the county of Cornwall. There was great difference between coal and metalliferous mines. They knew with probable certainty where coal was to be found, and when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Hardy) said that this was not so, he referred to former times; but now the state of scientific knowledge was such that there were very few attempts to procure coal which were not successful. On the other hand, sometimes many thousands of pounds were spent in searching for metals without success. This was well known, and therefore the Legislature had very properly made a distinction between the two cases in regard to rating. It was only fair that those lords who were deriving large sums from mines should be taxed for the support of the poor of the neighbourhood; but it was a very different matter to tax those who were spending large sums of money for an uncertain profit, and who were really the benefactors of a district. The effect of this Bill would be to shut up a number of mines in Cornwall, and to throw many people out of employment.

, referring to evidence taken before a Committee, said, that it disclosed such a total absence of principle in reference to rating that the system could be best described as rating by rule of thumb. He hoped the Bill would be allowed to go to a Select Committee, where the details could be properly considered, and though the measure was retrograde as compared with the measure of last year, some simple and satisfactory principle of assessment might result from it.

thought that this discussion could end in nothing but the matter going to a Select Committee; and that it would be well that it should be discontinued until after the Committee had made its Report.

said, that the House seemed generally agreed that it was desirable that the question of mines should be considered, with the view to bring them under charge to the poor rate; and he had nothing to say against this. The President of the Poor Law Board had told them with great truth that the decision in the Mersey Docks case had rendered property not beneficially occupied liable to be rated to the poor. It seemed plain that this Bill would go to a Select Committee, and it was equally clear that other matters not mentioned in the Bill should also go to the Committee. He thought that the Instruction to the Committee ought to be as wide as possible, for otherwise justice would not be done. It was not many years since, on account of some supposed difficulty in rating particular species of property, the House exempted it; but it seemed now to be quite clear that with our improved knowledge and skill means could be found to rate every kind of property. Why was not stock-in-trade to be rated? Personal property of that kind was liable under the old law of Elizabeth, and it only ceased to be rated in consequence of the supposed difficulty in rating it. But if this Committee was going to solve all the difficulties about things underground, he did not see why they should not also try their hands at solving the difficulties in reference to things above ground; and therefore he hoped that the reference to the Committee would be as wide as possible, and include things in the earth, under the earth, and above the earth, so that they might obtain the means of taxing property according to the annual interest derived from it. When it was proposed to tax so uncertain a property as game there could be no difficulty in taxing stock-in trade; and it might be a question whether persons should not be rated under the Scotch term of "means and subsistence." At all events, the Committee should consider it if the reference were wide enough.

regarded this as an attempt to revive an inquiry into a matter which had been settled over and over again. As far as this Bill was concerned there was nothing to be referred to a Select Committee that had not been long ago decided upon. The law authorizing the exemption of the, mines in question from rating had been settled three centuries ago and was based on a wise principle, the object of the exemption being to hold out an induce- ment to persons to develop the mineral resources of the country, and it had proved satisfactory in operation.

said, that the Select Committee, if appointed to inquire into the question, ought to be instructed to inquire into all exemptions, and that its investigations should be extended to the subject of game and the inequality of the law respecting it. If the owner of an estate kept the game in his own hands, or let it to another party, it was not rateable; but if he let it to a tenant occupying the land it was rateable. He thought it was quite impossible to rate game upon any equitable system, as it was a thing that might be here to-day and gone to-morrow. But in cases where land was so overstocked with game as to depreciate its rateable value he thought that, notwithstanding the abundance of game on it, the land ought to be rated at its agricultural value. That was the effect of an Amendment of which he had given notice.

said, that the more the question was discussed the more would the House be convinced of the propriety of referring it to a Select Committee, with an Instruction somewhat similar to that suggested by the President of the Poor Law Board.

, in supporting the Bill, said, he desired to remind the House that one of the great grievances existing in relation to the question was this: that while coal mines, which were worked to a great extent (sometimes the workings ran several miles under the sea) and were formed at a great expense, and employed a vast quantity of labour, and sometimes returned little or no profit, were subject to a rating—whilst the coal owners were taxed in every direction—iron and other minerals were exempted. It appeared to him that such a system was opposed to the principles of common sense. He was acquainted with the case of a slate quarry in Wales which was at one side worked upon the open ground and at the other worked under ground, and where the open ground part was assessed whilst the underground part escaped liability. That was an anomalous state of things which ought not to be allowed to exist. He was not surprised at the unanimity of opinion in favour of the principle of this Bill, and of the measure itself being referred to a select committee. That was the best mode of dealing with the matter, inasmuch as it could be thoroughly investigated by that tribunal; all the evidence respecting it could be heard, and the whole question could be considered in the most satisfactory manner. Although it might be said that this question had been before Committees some years ago, it should be recollected that the aspects of the mining interest had very much changed since then. For example, there was a discovery recently made of hæmatite iron upon the west coast of Cumberland by which fortunes were being made, yet while the coal mines were assessed, the iron mines escaped. He was much afraid, if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Read) that the question of game should form part of the inquiry of the Select Committee were adopted, that the Bill would never come out of the hands of the Committee in time to pass into a law. He should advise his hon. Friend who had charge of the Bill to take counsel before he acted upon the advice thus offered him, and to consider what would be the best plan to adopt with a view of having the measure passed this Session.

remarked, that under the powers of the Union Assessment Act very satisfactory progress had been made in revising those assessments, and the experience of the ablest men had been brought to bear upon the subject. A large number of fresh valuations had been recently made, and twenty, thirty, or forty coal mines had been rated to the satisfaction not only of the parochial authorities, but also of the ratepayers. He thought that they ought to avail themselves in the proposed inquiry of the experience gained in those new valuations. He had ventured to predict that the moment they passed the law extending the area of chargeability from the parish to the union a large amount of hostility would arise in quarters from which it was least expected. It appeared to him that now that places were called upon to maintain poor from whose labour they had derived no benefit, the House was bound to consider the whole question of the law of rating, and the spirit of the Act of Elizabeth, which evidently contemplated the assessment of all property for the relief of the poor. He hoped that the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board would be followed, and that this Committee would not be confined in its inquiries to the mere question of certain classes of mines.

said, he had never heard any argument in favour of those exemptions except such as obviously answered itself. When it was urged that the Act of Elizabeth did not mention mines in respect to rating, he would remind those who relied upon such an argument that neither did the Act of Elizabeth mention railways or telegraphic communications. He was of opinion that the reference of the question to a Select Committee could not but result in the great improvement of our assessment system.

assented to the proposition as to the question being referred to a Select Committee.

said, he rose to move,

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the provisions of the Bill to the University of Cambridge."

It was scarcely necessary for him to occupy the House by any observations in support of the proposition. He would not enter into a discussion of the principle involved, because it appeared to him that it had been fully discussed upon the second reading of the Bill; but what he wished to submit to the House was this—if the measure be considered by Parliament a desirable one to enact, there was no reason whatever why its principle should not be extended to the University of Cambridge. There was precisely the same feeling in the University of Cambridge in favour of the abolition of these tests as there was in the University of Oxford. If therefore the Bill were passed without including the University of Cambridge in its provisions, that University would immediately come to that House for the purpose of demanding a similar measure for itself; and thus considerable time would be wasted, for the discussion on the one Bill must necessarily be repeated on the other. The same principle and precisely the same questions were involved as regarded the University of Cambridge as were involved in the discussions relating to the University of Oxford. It might, however, be urged that the University of Cambridge was not in the same position as Oxford as regarded these tests. At Oxford a man who was not a member of the Church of England was allowed to take the degree of "B.A.," but not that of "M.A." In Cambridge, however, a kind of compromise had been come to, by which such a person was allowed to take a barren "M.A." which did not carry with it the privileges which attached to an "M.A." degree in the case of Churchmen. He believed that this so-called Cambridge compromise gave very little satisfaction, and that there was the same necessity for the abolition of tests in the University of Cambridge as there was at Oxford.

said, it was somewhat inconvenient to be called on to discuss a question relative to the University of Cambridge upon the consideration of a Bill which in its title, its principle, and in all its clauses related exclusively to the University of Oxford. But as most things had their bright side as well as their contrary aspect, he thought that the unusual course now taken by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had still this advantage—that it would free them from all doubts and obscurities respecting the real objects of the promoters of the Bill. The actual question now at issue was this—whether, in an institution, of which it was admitted that distinctive religious teaching formed an essential part, there should be admitted into the governing body persons of different religious persuasions. When the second reading of the Bill was moved by his hon. Friend it was suggested by the Member for Oxford University that, with a view to a compromise, certain clauses should be introduced into the Bill which would have placed Oxford in the same position as Cambridge, and the second reading, therefore, passed without discussion. But as by the present Resolution it was sought to apply the Bill to the University of Cambridge, he asked the House to negative the proposition which was in substance one for admitting Dissenters to the governing body of that University. The hon. Member for Brighton said that if the present Bill was made applicable to Oxford only, Cambridge would come forward and ask for a similar measure; but he (Mr. Selwyn) had to inform the House, that in a full meeting of the Senate, numbering 250 persons, and in which there was a division on another subject, a petition was unanimously adopted objecting to the extension of this Bill to Cambridge. That petition stated that a very short time had elapsed since the government and religious condition of the University had been carefully considered and revised by a Royal Commission, acting under the authority of the Act of 1856; but that Act, although allowing persons who were not members of the Church to avail themselves of an University education, had specially provided that they shall not become members of the Senate. The University of Cambridge had fully acted up to what was required of it by that Act; Dissenters had been admitted to all the educational advantages of the University, irrespective of religious creeds—the colleges, halls, the scholarships, had been thrown freely open to Nonconformists. The University had not only admitted Roman Catholics and Dissenters to University honours, but they had gone beyond the pale of Christianity, and had received Jews. With regard to the local examinations, they had given certificates of qualification to ladies, which, in the view of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill), might render those "persons" more fitted to sustain that benefit and position which the hon. Gentleman proposed to confer on them in the shape of the elective franchise. The same principle of unity of religious opinion in the governing bodies had been accepted by Parliament in the case of the endowed schools, for which by the Act of 1860 provision was made for admitting to the schools the children of parents not in communion with the Church of England; it was provided that Dissenters should not interfere with the governing body of these schools; and, although attempts were made in 1860 and 1861 to upset that settlement, they were so signally defeated that they had not been renewed. He might also appeal to the universal practice of Roman Catholic and Dissenting communities to preserve the unity of belief in the governing body wherever distinctive religious teaching is an essential part of the institution. It remained to consider what grievances there were that should induce the House to depart, in the case of our Universities, from principles which had been so deliberately established and so long acted on? The principal grievance stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) was that at Oxford persons who were allowed to take the B.A. were not allowed to take the M.A. degree; but that did not apply to Cambridge, because at the latter University, Dissenters might take the M.A.; and Oxford had repeatedly offered to make such a change in that respect, and also with respect to tests, as would put Oxford on a footing with Cambridge. Another alleged grievance was the tests. Now in Oxford, tests were still required on taking the M.A. degree; but at Cambridge they were not required, and members of the governing body were only asked to make the simple declaration that they were members of the Church of England. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Exeter (Mr. Coleridge) had adopted a statement of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) that humiliating distinctions were imposed on the sons of Dissenters; but how could that be maintained when at both Universities Dissenters were allowed to go through the whole academic course, and were admitted to every scholarship and to all the honours of the University examinations without any reference to religious differences. It was not until long after they had taken their B.A. degree and left the University that any distinction arose, and then when they returned at the end of three years they were not allowed to become members of the governing body unless they declared that they were members of the Church of England. Now surely there was nothing humiliating in that, and that grievance had no real existence whatever. The arguments attempted to be drawn from the fact that these Universities were lay corporations was effectually disposed of last year, and as it was dead and buried, he had no wish to revive it. But another point was now constantly harped on, and was the battle-horse of his hon. and learned Friend—namely, that these Universities were national institutions. But a few moments' consideration would show that there was no wore sub- stance in that argument than there was in the one lastly alluded to. No doubt they were national institutions in the same sense that the Church of England was a national institution, founded for the benefit of all the subjects of the realm, and in the sense that Parliament might in case of necessity step in and regulate them and control them; but if by national institutions was meant national institutions without reference to their original foundation and the purpose for which they existed, and that Parliament was at liberty, when no difficulty or danger called for interference, to alter the intentions and divert the purposes of the foundations, he denied that they were so. If everything national was to be dealt with at any time without reference to its original purpose and constitution, and the usages by which it was governed, to what extent would they carry it? If a gallery of pictures—the Turner Gallery, for example—were bequeathed to the nation on certain trusts, it became a national institution for the benefit of all; but would any one say that, because it was a national institution, it was competent to the Government or that House to disregard the conditions of the trust, sell the pictures, and apply the money towards the construction of iron-clads. The oft-repeated statement, therefore, that these Universities were national institutions, did not advance the case one step further. Another line of argument was that a considerable portion of the endowments of the Universities were given before the Reformation, and when the Church of England was in union with the Church of Rome; but his hon. and learned friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Coleridge) was too much of a scholar and a lawyer to rest anything on such an argument, because if three centuries of possession and numerous Acts of Parliament were not sufficient to secure a title he did not know what was. The natural result of such an argument was simply that the property, not only of the Universities, but also of the Church of England and of a large number of individuals in this country ought to be handed over to the Church of Rome. Besides this, and since the Reformation, the Universities had been enriched by many benefactions, which had been given solely on the ground that the Universities were Church of England institutions. In addition to that, could it be said that because the Universities had been so liberal as to extend the benefits originally intended for one class to all classes and creeds, they were now to be placed in a worse position than if they had confined the Universities strictly to their original purposes? He would again appeal to the practice of the Dissenting communities, and would ask hon. Members who were interested in their endowments to consider what would be the effect of one of the arguments used in favour of this Bill upon Nonconformists as well as upon the members of the Established Church—namely, the argument that because so large a portion of the population had severed from the Church of England the members of the governing body should no longer be exclusively members of that Church. The Dissenting communities would not adopt that principle in their own case; for, as he ventured to remind the House, it was contrary to what they had repeatedly contended for in our Courts of Justice. Our law books were full of cases in which Baptists, Presbyterians, and other bodies who had been the subject of such dissensions, had successfully established the principle that persons choosing to leave their communion forfeited the right they before possessed of being members of the governing body. Were they, then, to apply a different rule to the Universities? and if so, must it not also apply to the different Dissenting communities? Lord Brougham was of that opinion with regard to pecuniary endowments; and the same principle applied with greater force to the powers of the governing body, and if they had no right to enjoy any portion of a pecuniary endowment under such circumstances, much less ought they to have any control over the whole of the institution. If, however, that principle was established in these days of toleration, they must have in the Senate and the Convocation representatives of all the varying shades of opinions, and he need hardly ask hon. Members what the effect of that must necessarily be. The effect would be either to destroy the religious teaching of those Universities or make the Senate House and Convocation the arena of religious controversy. The experiment had been repeatedly tried in America, Ireland, England, and other countries, but it had failed. It was also said that the few who would be admitted to the governing body would be a small minority, and that no practical injury would result to the Universities; but a small minority had many ways of making itself felt, such as by watching the opportunity, when two parties were equally balanced, of swaying the decision. They would also be able to raise such constant discussion on any given subject so that for the sake of peace almost anything would be yielded to obtain that repose which was so desirable, and which might not otherwise be obtained. Those controversies had hitherto been avoided with great advantage to the Universities, and he was surprised that his hon. and learned Friend should advocate their introduction into such a place. He would rest the opposition to the Bill on the firm and deliberate decisions of Parliament, on the practice of the Universities and of the Dissenting communities, and on the fact that the proposed alteration in the constitution of the Universities was not founded on any real or substantial grievance.

said, that the only question was whether they ought to have separate legislation for Cambridge and Oxford. In his opinion, whatever might be the disadvantages or advantages attending the measure, both the Universities ought to be placed in the same position. He appealed to Members of the University opposite whether they would insist upon Oxford University being isolated solely on account of its connection with the Church of England.

said, he desired to explain the vote he was about to give in favour of the Instruction. He acknowledged that his position was one of some difficulty and peculiarity on this subject. Whilst he thought that considerable changes might be made in the Universities as to the admission of Dissenters and on matters of endowment, he could not question that securities should be taken to preserve the present system of religious education, which was obtained both at Oxford and Cambridge. There was another principle that he held by very strongly—namely, that this was a question that should not be dealt with by partial legislation. These objects can be obtained only by some general compromise, and no such compromise has yet been suggested likely to meet the approval of the House. Then he thought that it was impossible to draw any broad line of distinction between the Universities and the colleges; that the religious questions arising out of their constitutions should be considered as a whole, and that the two Universities should be dealt with in common. So that, although he could not support the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend, the Instruction moved by the hon. Member for Brighton declared a principle which he was well able to indorse. He had the greatest possible objection to varieties of legislation in matters of this kind, which should be dealt with upon principles common to the whole country. It was easy to understand how it was that the Universities were not now on the same footing. When the Oxford University Bill was introduced into Parliament it contained no provisions whatever relating to religious disabilities; and the House inserted certain provisions of that nature against the will of the Administration. When, two years afterwards, the University of Cambridge came to be dealt with by a general Act, the opinion of Parliament had still further advanced; and more extended provisions than those in the Oxford Bill were introduced in the Bill for Cambridge. Hence the present variation, which he did not think should be maintained, much less extended. Whatever were the claims of the Dissenters, they were the same on the one University on the other; and he did not despair of seeing the time when, by some abatement of extreme views, both the colleges and the Universities might be dealt with by a comprehensive measure.

was glad the Instruction had been moved, so far as it simplified the question. The Bill was now proposed as one which should deal with both the Universities, and he therefore opposed that Instruction as a Cambridge man. He was quite willing—nay, anxious—to see Oxford placed on the same footing as that which Cambridge occupied at present, and not only so, but he would not refuse the Parliamentary franchise to the graduates of either University, but that was not what the Instruction of the hon. Member for Brighton asked for. The Instruction called on the House to place Cambridge by anticipation on a less desirable footing, the footing of the future Oxford, the nature of which was to be decided on hereafter, and that he objected to. He had already protested on a farmer evening against the process of dry nursing the Universities; and he was afraid he could not now acquit his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Exeter of having put on the mob-cap and attempted to dandle the infant. With reference to the whole question, he regarded the grievance of the Dissenters, for the most part, as a sentimental one. Nonconformists, it was said, were placed in a humiliating position; but to what ex- tent was this charge true? The Nonconformist undergraduate was treated the same as his fellows in respect to degrees; the social life of the University was the same for all. He himself had the honour of being the friend and contemporary at Trinity College, Cambridge, under the old exclusive system, of the noble Lord the Member for Arundel (Lord E. Howard), and of the hon. Member for Hythe (Baron M. Rothschild), and since that time the Oxford and Cambridge University Reform Bills had been passed. That Nonconformists should be able to reach all the honours and distinguished positions to which a man of intellect was able to attain in the course of his educational career was surely not a condition of humiliation. It was well that the degrees were open to Nonconformists, but it was not well that the concessions now asked for should be made; indeed, it was impossible to grant them without undermining the basis of the collegiate system. In this was to be found the fallacy of the arguments of his hon. and learned Friend every time he spoke upon the subject, and argued that he would throw open the University and keep the Colleges closed up. Without a revolution and upsetting the whole existing system, they could not separate the Universities from the Colleges. They could not deal with one without affecting the other, and they could not throw open the government in the University to Dissenters without giving them a share in the fellowships of the Colleges. He did not, of course, deny the greater antiquity and independent origin of the University. But in the course of centuries the University and the Colleges had interpenetrated until it was impossible to disentangle the complication. He admitted that, in a certain sense, the Universities were lay corporations and national institutions; but they were pre-eminently the seminaries for the education of the clergy, so educated in company with the elite of the lay members of the Established Church. Did they desire to sacrifice this peculiar advantage? They must recollect that one distinguishing characteristic of the English clergy was their social position—that they were on a level in education with the laity, moved socially among them, and had an influence as intelligent leaders of public opinion that was not enjoyed by the clergy of any other Christian community. The clergy of the Church of Rome separated from their childhood for that profession, and refused social ties, were educated together in ecclesiastical seminaries; the ministers, on the other hand, of Protestant communities abroad were not conceded equal social equality with the gentry and nobility of the land. The happy and exceptional position of the clergy of the Church of England was, he believed, in great measure due to the fact of those Universities and Colleges in which they received their education being, at the same time, the place of the highest secular instruction. Was the House, he asked, prepared to abandon this tried advantage for an uncertain good? Were they prepared to make the clergy of the Church of England mere seminarists; or would they attempt the other solution and produce a happy family, by maintaining a national religious establishment in connection with the Universities, but forbidding it to possess any distinctive creed till it became what the noble Lord the Member for Nottingham had suggested in the Fortnightly Review—that an established Church ought to be—a body which would include the unbeliever as well as the believer of the creed, and in which the clergyman need no more be assumed to believe in the prayers which he read than the town crier is assumed to do in the truth of the announcements to which he gives currency. The hon. and learned Gentleman pressed them with the demand, why were they afraid of those small results which, as he contended, would alone flow from the Bill? He asked over and over again, was it worth while to oppose so harmless a proposal so strongly? But he (Mr. Beresford Hope), saw that the efforts which had been made to push the Bill were so ostentatiously great that it was obvious that its supporters did not consider it an unimportant matter; but that they believed that if it were agreed to, the result would be to force a large proportion of the Dissenting element into the government of the University. He defied them to admit the Nonconformists to the Senate and the Convocation, and to insure that the Colleges would five years hence be as they are at present. On these accounts he felt bound to oppose the Instruction; he did not do so because he wished to prevent Dissenters from enjoying all honours and distinctions attainable in a University, but because he believed that a liberal and tolerant Church of England, supported by its Universities, was a national safeguard; a safeguard, not only to its own members, but also to all ortho- dox Christians, Nonconformists as well as Churchmen, who valued the truths of Christ's religion preserved and taught by the Church of Christ.

said, he must respectfully decline to be drawn into a discussion of the general question. The principle of the Bill had been twice discussed and twice accepted by the House—once last year, by a large majority, and again this year without a division. There was a great inconvenience in hon. Gentlemen taking more than a year to prepare their replies, and then answering speeches delivered by him (Mr. Coleridge) a long while ago. The speech they had just heard was a speech against the principle of the Bill; and, with the greatest respect for his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Selwyn), he must say that it ought to have been delivered, if at all, on some former occasion. The present issue was extremely short and definite—namely, whether the two Universities should be placed on the same footing; and he thought it inexpedient to continue a discussion on the general principles of the Bill which hon. Members had raised in their endeavours to combat arguments which had fallen from himself in the course of two speeches—one delivered thirteen months and the other four or five weeks ago, and which they might have heard and answered at the proper time if they had chose to do so. The principles of the Bill had been already accepted by the House by a decision with which he, for one, was perfectly content, and he trusted the House would confine itself to the question before it.

remarked that he had a Notice on the Paper which proposed to place Oxford on the same footing as Cambridge was now; and he wished to point out that to pass the Instruction would imply legislation with respect to Cambridge, whereas, the object of his Amendment was to restrain legislation for Oxford within the limits of the Acts relating to Cambridge.

thought it hardly fair for the hon. and learned Member for Exeter(Mr. Coleridge) to complain of discussion on the general principles of the Bill, since it was impossible to ascertain the probable effect of the proposed Instruction without doing so. He agreed that the two Universities should be identical in position; but the Instruction did not go precisely in that direction. They had before them a Bill in which there were many things they did not like, and they were asked to say that they would apply those things to both Universities. He objected to the Instruction because it invited them to take a leap in the dark; they were asked to pledge themselves to do a certain harm to Cambridge which they had not made up their minds to inflict upon Oxford. However much the House desired to put the Universities on the same footing, it surely did not desire to put them on an evil footing. He, for one, did not, and therefore should vote against the Instruction and in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir William Heathcote). He believed the two Universities would then be placed in precisely the same position; but he would not vote for applying a Bill to Cambridge till he knew how they were going to affect Oxford. He recommended the hon. Member for Brighton to withdraw his Motion, and when in Committee to move the addition of a clause extending the Bill to Cambridge.

said, that the line of argument adopted by the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Coleridge), that because he had made a speech upon the Bill on moving the second reading no further discussion ought to take place now when he proposed to extend the principle to Cambridge, was, to say the least of it, a little singular. He (Mr. Newdegate) was perfectly willing to admit to the full benefit of membership, without any degrading and dishonourable distinctions, all the subjects of the Queen who might choose to resort there, without reference to the religious communion to which they might belong or to the religious opinions which they might hold. No man should consider himself degraded because he was not admitted to the government of an institution to which he belonged; and he could not help remarking upon the arrogant temper of modern Liberalism, in claiming a sort of exclusive knowledge of what was required by the educated classes. He was of opinion that the Universities ought to be preserved as the nurseries of the clergy of the Church of England. That opinion might be right or wrong; but he could not understand the arrogant and arbitrary tone of these who attempted to force this measure upon the House. He hoped, however, that they would continue to preserve that tone, being convinced that it would tend to produce considerable re-action in the minds of the intelligent classes, and open their eyes to the real character of such liberalism.

was about to address the House, in reply, when—

The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to reply. The Amendment is simply that it be an Instruction to the Committee to include Cambridge in the scope of the Bill.

urged that the University of Cambridge and its representatives had had no opportunity of considering the principle of the Bill, since at the second reading its operation was proposed to be confined to Oxford. He thought they were entitled to such an opportunity before the measure proceeded further, and to put himself in order he would move that the Chairman report Progress.

expressed surprise at such an objection being taken, for his hon. and learned Friend, as also the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Beresford Hope), had on previous occasions taken part in the discussion of this measure. The Bill was very short. It proposed to admit Dissenters to the Convocation of Oxford, and if extended to Cambridge, would, of course, admit them to the Senate of that University. He hoped the Motion would not be pressed.

, in explanation, remarked that on the second reading the Bill was confined to Oxford, and the hon. Member for that University (Sir William Heathcote) intimated his intention to propose Amendments which would he hoped be accepted. It would therefore have appeared a waste of time for the friends of Cambridge to take part in the discussion; but by the Instruction the Bill altered the position in which Cambridge was at present placed, and they ought to have an opportunity of considering it.

said, that until five minutes ago this was an Oxford Bill, and Cambridge now found itself in the position of a measure having been read a second time, by which its internal constitution was vitally affected. Under these circumstances, it was only fair that the Senate of Cambridge should have an opportunity of considering it.

asked, whether the hon. Members in charge of the Bill had considered the form of the Amendments which would be necessary in order to carry out the Instruction. The term Convocation was not applicable to Cambridge.

said, it would be sufficient in most cases to add the words "and Cambridge."

said, he had given notice of two Amendments, the object of which was to bring the University of Oxford to the position in which Cambridge now stood; but, after the division which lied taken place, he felt that it would be useless to go to a division, though he wished to place his Amendments on record.

said, that he must oppose the Amendments, for he considered that the only hope of effecting any good by the Bill was to pass it in its integrity. At the same time, in reference to the colleges, he wished to say that he had no desire to touch them, and he believed that they were wholly unaffected by the operation of the Bill; but if any hon. Member could point to any words that could be construed into any interference with the present condition of the colleges, he should be prepared to amend them.

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, explained, that in proposing this measure he had no intention of impugning the recent judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, which if questioned at all ought to be appealed against in the House of Lords; but simply wished to restore to trade societies that right of summary process before a magistrate against a defaulting treasurer which prior to that judgment they practically enjoyed. The recent decision in the Court of Queen's Bench had virtually taken away this power from trades union societies, and had placed them almost out of the pale of the law. Another effect of that judgment was, that the duty was thrown upon the magistrate of deciding upon the nature of any particular society that might appear before him, as to whether it was or was not of a political character—a duty which he believed that they were unwilling, and might in some cases be incompetent, to discharge. The right of combination for the purpose of reducing the hours of work or of raising the price of labour, was conferred upon workmen as far back as the year 1818; but the effect of the recent judgment would be, that any arrangement of this sort, however expressly it might exclude anything like the exercise of violence, might come within the principle laid down by the learned Judge, and thus drive the society from its legal status. He therefore felt that the Legislature was called upon to interfere for the purpose of remedying the inconveniences that attended the present position of these societies. The question was not whether trades unions were societies which deserved special encouragement, but whether they were of so pernicious a character that they ought to be excluded from advantages extended to harmless societies. With the economical character of trades unions the House had nothing to do; and if they were political bodies they were only slightly so. But were they not of use in preventing violence and the destruction of property? Some time ago a glowing account was published of the excellent relations existing between the Belgian workmen and their employers; but soon after that we heard of a very formidable outbreak on the part of some of those workmen. Even if there were no trades unions we could not prevent differences from arising between employers and the employed; and if the workmen had not an opportunity of constantly conferring together, their feelings might become aroused to a dangerous degree, and in case of a strike, having no funds to fall back upon, some of them might be tempted to have recourse to plunder and the destruction of property. He trusted the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time as an admission of the difficulty which existed, and that Government would introduce a measure on the subject.

said, it was quite impossible for the Government to assent to the second reading of the Bill, and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press it. The objections he had to the Bill were founded on no reflections, upon trades unions, nor upon any considerations of a political nature; nor was it because he thought these societies were contrary to public policy:—he objected to the Bill because it proceeded on the unprecedented principle of asking the sanction of the Legislature to an existing and continuing violation of the law. This was not a case in which the hon. Member having charge of the Bill said the law was wrong, and asked to have it repealed. Neither did the hon. and learned Gentleman ask for a mere indemnity for past and completed errors. These would be two intelligible propositions. But admitting as he did, that the law had been violated—that the Courts of Law had declared the constitution of these societies to be illegal—the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed that, without an alteration of the law which had been so violated, legislative sanction and encouragement should be given to all societies continuing in a like course of illegality. Such a proposition was so inconsistent with every idea of legislation that he was surprised it should have been brought before the House. By the Friendly Societies Act of 1854 it was enacted that certain facilities should be given to societies of that kind, provided certain rules were complied with, and provided those societies were established for purposes not illegal. It appeared that the treasurer of a certain trades union was in default; proceedings against him were taken before the magistrates, when the objection was taken that the society was illegal, and that therefore the magistrate could not exercise any jurisdiction. Ultimately the case was brought to the Queen's Bench, which Court decided that it could not give the society relief in any way against its defaulting treasurer. That decision was based, not on the fact that the society in question was a trades union, but on the fact that its rules were illegal, and consequently, that the society could not claim the benefit of the provision in the Friendly Societies Act. If this hon. and learned Friend objected to that decision, he could advise the society to go to the Court of Error. But, as he understood him, he did not object to it; neither did he ask House to repeal the law; but he said, "Let the law continue as it is; let those societies continue to be illegal; I ask no alteration of the law respecting them; I ask that they may continue in their violation of the law, but that while so continuing they may have all the privileges to which they would be entitled if they were acting in conformity to the law" Now, he submitted that such a preposition was self-contradictory. He could understand an application from his hon. and learned Friend to have the benefits of the Friendly Societies Act extended to such trades unions as altered their rules so as to make them legal, and to have the Bill granting such extension retrospective so far as to include the liability of treasurers of such unions for money paid into their hands before the rules had been altered; but the preposition now before the House was one to which the Government could not give their consent, and he had to repeat the expression of his hope that his hon. and learned Friend would not press it.

said, the remedy suggested by the hon. and learned Attorney General was quite impracticable. One of the objects of these societies was to assist their brethren when out of work, and to ask them to repeal the rules to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred was simply asking them to extinguish themselves. He did not want to go into the question as to whether trades unions were good or whether they were bad. Those societies were in existence, and acting, as they believed, in such a manner as to give them the benefit of the 44th section of the Friendly Societies Act. The members had for the last thirteen years been paying in sums of money to their treasurers, which sums, in consequence of the decision of Queen's Bench, were completely jeopardized. He knew a good deal of the circumstances connected with the framing of that 44th section. At the time it was under consideration persons interested in trades unions got the highest opinion that their rules were legal. No doubt, the very eminent gentleman who gave the opinion meant that the rules were not illegal in a sense which would render the members of the unions liable to a criminal prosecution; but the persons who consulted him understood the opinion to be that the rules were legal in the sense that would entitle the unions to the benefits of the provision in the 44th clause of the Friendly Societies Act, and, accordingly, they deposited their rules with the Registrar of the Friendly Societies in order that their unions might be brought under the Act. In point of fact, these societies thought that their rules had been sanctioned by a Government officer; and he might remark that three years ago the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone), after careful consideration of the subject, allowed societies registered under the 44th clause to deposit their surplus funds in the Government savings banks. The number of these societies was forty-four. One of them had upwards of 33,000 members and a spare capital of £150,000; and branches of it were established not only in the large towns of the United Kingdom, but also in the United States and the colonies. Then there was the Society of Amalgamated Carpenters and Joiners, with upwards of 200 branches and a fund of between £14,000 and £15,000. The funds of these societies were in the hands of their officers in every part of the country, who, unless some such measure as the present were carried, might pocket the money with impunity, as it had been decided that, as the law now stood, the societies had no remedy whatever. Now, what would be the effect produced on the minds of the members of these societies if they were left entirely without remedy—if they had no means of protecting their funds against frauds on the part of their officers? The effect of throwing out the Bill would be the exciting a sense of injustice in the minds of all the members of these societies, and which would make them very discontented, whereas at present they were all loyal and well-affected citizens.

thought that while the Commission was pursuing its inquiries the House ought to preserve a strict silence on the subject of these societies. There had been nothing in the action of Parliament during the last fifteen years which could be regarded as a recognition of those societies, and the House could not be held responsible for any misconstruction of the law under which they had acted. If the wide question of illegality were dealt with on the ground of restraint of trade their legislation would have to embrace not only trades unions but also masters. But though he had objections to the Bill, he did not wish it to be inferred that he was averse to some alteration of the law. Considering the number of men and the amount of capital in these societies he thought that their case ought to be considered by Parliament in a fair and friendly spirit. He thought it would be better if the present Bill were withdrawn and a special measure brought in.

said, that if he were a party man he should be enchanted at the course taken by the Government on this subject; since what they were now doing took away all the grace from the concession they had made in granting an inquiry into the subject of trades unions. As far as mere words went, nothing could sound fairer than to say to the unions—Set yourselves right before the law, and we will then see what can be done for you. But, what was the fact? The law which they were said to have violated was a mine sprung under them. No one dreamt of it until the recent decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. Under the power which our law allowed the Judges to assume, of declaring that whatever was in restraint of trade was illegal, anything might be made law; but when a law was made in this way, it was to all intents and purposes a new law. As the law which these societies were said to have violated was a law of which they and everybody else had been entirely ignorant, the only rational course was to preserve the status quo until the whole subject had been reconsidered, which would only be done by legalizing provisionally the course which the societies had pursued, and allowing them to continue in that course until a final settlement was come to. It was a highly demoralizing practice to attempt to prevent people from doing what it was desired they should not do, not by punishing them, but by enabling any scoundrel to plunder them—by granting him complete immunity for acts which in any other case would be severely punished. The Legislature should not employ the vices of mankind, but their virtues, to carry out its intentions. It would have been infinitely better for these societies to have punished their officers criminally, than to put the societies themselves out of the protection of the law.

said, that trades unions had been sailing under false colours, and had called themselves friendly societies, when, in fact, they were political associations. The Judges had declared that their rules were contrary to law; and now the House was asked to restore rights which never existed; for the object of the Bill was to enable societies to recover from their officers monies levied for illegal purposes. It would be better, in his opinion, that the Bill should be withdrawn.