said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Poor Law Board, When he hopes to lay the Return of Poor Relief Assessments, ordered on the 18th of February, upon the Table of the House?

said, in reply, that 1,500 notices had been sent out, and that only 1,012 persons had forwarded replies, so that up to the present time the Returns were incomplete.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When he will be able to lay upon the Table of the House, the Correspondence between the Treasury, the Irish Government, and Dr. Robert McDonnell, late medical officer of the Mountjoy Convict Prison, relative to the change in the medical management of that prison, by which he was deprived of the office of medical superintendent?

said, in reply, that the only reason why the Correspondence between the Treasury, the Irish Government, and Dr. McDonnell, relative to the change in the medical management of the prison, had not been laid upon the table, was that it was not finished. He would take the earliest opportunity of producing it; but he was afraid it would not be complete for some days.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any replies have been received from the Australian Colonies to the Despatches stated by the Postmaster General to have been sent out in the month of October last, on the subject of postal communication with Australia under present arrangements; and, if he has any objection to lay the Paper on the Table?

replied that answers had been received from several of the Australian Colonies on the subject, and there would be no objection to lay them on the table of the House.

said, he would beg to a fit the Secretary of State for India, Whether any information has reached him from the Government of India as to dissatisfaction having been manifested by some of Her Majesty's Protestant soldiers at being marched to Divine Service in churches where Ritualistic ceremonies had recently been introduced; and, if so, whether he has any objection to communicate the Papers to the House?

, in reply, said, some Correspondence had taken place on the subject of an occurrence of this kind, and he could not doubt from the hon. Member's description of it that it was the same case. It appeared there were two churches, one at Fort William and the other at Dumdum, where Divine Service was performed in a manner objected to by some of the officers, and, as was stated, also by some of the men of the 60th Rifles. The hon. Member asked if Ritualistic Service had recently been introduced there? It was not a place where any service of that kind had been introduced the service was performed in the same way as in the time of Bishop Cotton and his successor. The chief objection taken was in reference to the celebration of the Communion, and two of the officers requested permission to attend the Presbyterian Service and take several of the men there, as preferring the Presbyterian Service to that of the Church of England. Some Correspondence took place between the chaplain and the officers, and the matter was referred to the Government of India. The remark made on it by the Commander-in-Chief (Sir William Mansfield) was that the Correspondence was very military on the side of the chaplain, and very theological on the side of the officers. An arrangement had been come to by the Government, and an Order issued that all officers and soldiers should have full liberty to attend at whatever place of worship agreed best with their private convictions. He thought the matter was now entirely at an end, and it was not desirable that the Correspondence should be produced.

wished to ask his right hon. Friend, If he was aware that since the date of those despatches another chaplain had been appointed to the Fort William Chapel, and that none of the so-called Ritualistic practices existed there?

said, he was not aware of that fact.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Poor Law Board, Whether his attention has been called to the frequency of men belonging to the Militia leaving their wives and families un provided for during the time of training, and thus becoming chargeable to their respective parishes; and if so, whether there is any means by which a portion of their pay could not be drawn for the maintenance of their wives and families?

said, in reply, that unfortunately the bounty and allowances were often squandered by the men who received them; but it was difficult to see how they could be prevented from doing so if they chose. It could not be denied that there was room for improvement in the present arrangements for drawing the pay; but it was rather for the War Office than for the Poor Law Board to provide a remedy.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Why the Annual Report of the Postmaster General for the year 1866, presented to the House on the 12th of August, 1867, has not yet been printed; why the Annual Report from the same Department for the year 1867 has not yet been presented; and, why the assurance given several weeks since by the Secretary to the Treasury, that those Reports should be speedily circulated, has not yet been fulfilled?

, in reply, said, the Report for 1866 had been delayed in order that it might be presented along with that for 1867, the events of the year 1866 not being of a very important character. Both Reports would certainly be in the hands of Members within the present month. The reason for the delay that had taken place in the last few weeks was the great extra pressure of business and the increase of correspondence relative to the Electric Telegraphs Bill.

said, he wished to inquire, If the Report would be laid on the Table before the Vote for the Post Office Service was taken?

said, that the Report, would, he believed, be laid on the table before the Post Office and Steam Packet Estimates were taken.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether, as a section of Plymouth Breakwater Fort was going to be experimented upon at Shoeburyness on Tuesday, he would give hon. Members interested in shields and fortifications an opportunity of inspecting the section on Monday, in order to satisfy themselves what difference there was between that section and the original design?

said, he was; sorry his hon. and gallant Friend had not given Notice of the Question, since it would have enabled him to make inquiry. He sincerely wished the experiments to be carried on with due publicity and fairness, and would be glad to confer privately with his hon. and gallant Friend on the subject. As preparations would be going on on Monday, it might, he apprehended, be inconvenient if an unlimited number of visitors were admitted.

said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the causes of the dismissal of Police Sergeant Stone from the Metropolitan Police Force. In the year 1864 Sergeant Stone was stationed at Ealing. He had been a police officer for twenty years, and had been at Ealing eight years. Owing to ill health, resulting from a hurt received in the discharge of his duty, he was temporarily incapacitated from the discharge of his duty, and a man named Monsell was employed for the time as his substitute. Subsequently to this Stone received a summons at twelve o'clock one night to appear the next day before the Chief Commissioner of Police in London to answer two charges preferred against him by Monsell. One was that he had clapped his hands in the presence of the police magistrates in a case at Brentford; and the other was that he had written an anonymous letter. With respect to the first, the magistrates themselves, on being appealed to, declared their belief in his innocence; so that the only point requiring consideration was that of the anonymous letter. Captain Labalmondiere, before whom Stone appeared, told him that he had written an anonymous letter, and on that ground suspended him from his office of sergeant, and shortly afterwards dismissed him altogether from the force. He was dismissed without having any opportunity given him of seeing the letter, or of disproving the charge by comparing it with his own handwriting; and for two years he remained under the stigma of having written that letter, no inquiry or investigation meanwhile being made into his case in order fairly to decide the truth of the accusation for which he was suffering. During those two years numerous letters upon the subject were written by Stone to the Home Office, public meetings were held at Ealing, and petitions were presented on his behalf from the clergy, churchwardens, and overseers; and at last, in October, 1866, he was informed that if he would go before Sir Richard Mayne with an "expert" he might see the anonymous letter, and compare it with his own handwriting. Stone complied with the request, and was accompanied by Mr. Netherclift, who examined the anonymous letter, and also some letters written by the sergeant, and gave Stone a certificate that there was no possibility of the communications having been written by the same person. One would have thought that the first thing Sir Richard Mayne would have done would he to express his regret, and then to have either re-instated him or given him the pension to which he was entitled. Stone made continuous applications to the authorities, and after a further interval of seven months he received from Lord Belmore, then Under Secretary for the Home Department, a letter, stating that a pension could not legally be granted to him; but that, having regard to his good conduct and twenty years' service, Mr. Secretary Hardy had awarded him a gratuity of £106 3s. 4d. (being at the rate of one month's pay for each year's service), but that this was not to be considered as affecting any decision in his case. Sergeant Stone replied, accepting the gratuity, but saying it was not to be held as affecting the statutory declaration of his innocence of the charge on which he was dismissed. At the end of fifteen years a police sergeant was entitled to a pension of £34 per annum, and the sum to which Sergeant Stone claimed to be entitled was based upon the capitalization of that £34 per year, and amounted to £340. The pension was not merely the result of his services; but was also partly the accumulation of something like 4d. or 6d. a week which was paid by the sergeants of the force to a general fund; so that the case was a very hard one. Mr. Stone was now broken in health, and injured by the charge brought against him, although he had disproved it. All that he now asked was to have the same amount of pension, or the capitalization of it, as he would have been entitled to had he not been dismissed the service, and lain under the stigma of having written the anonymous letter. He (Mr. Labouchere) hoped that justice would be done to the man.

seconded the Amendment.

said, that the case of Police Sergeant Stone arose in the year 1864. Sergeant Stone was called upon to resign by the Chief Commissioner of Police on the 9th of September in that year. The Commissioner of Police, he might mention, had the absolute power of dismissing constables, and there is no appeal from his decision. But the case from the beginning seemed to have excited some interest in the neighbourhood where Stone lived; and from the time when it first arose—when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) was Home Secretary—up to the present time, there had been continual threats that the matter would be brought before Parliament. It was hoped that this would have been prevented by the arrangement which had been made, because he believed the man was amply satisfied so far as the pecuniary part of the matter was concerned. Stone was undoubtedly charged with having written an anonymous letter very prejudicial to one of his comrades. Stone had been invalided, and in the year 1864 was not able to discharge his duties. Another sergeant was sent to the district in his place. An anonymous letter having been sent in, containing grave charges against Stone's successor, it was deemed important to ascertain whether it had been written by any member of the force. By a comparison of that document with the undoubted writing of Stone in the police books, and by the aid of an expert from the Post Office, the conclusion was arrived at that the anonymous letter was written by Stone. Afterwards another expert, without knowing what had occurred before in the matter, came to the same conclusion; and therefore the Commissioner was confirmed in his opinion after the second investigation consequent upon the petition of Stone. The hon. Member said that Stone had not seen the letter. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: I said he was shown the letter, but not allowed to have it in his hand.] Stone had certainly seen the letter, and might have read it if so disposed. The most careful attention had been given to the case by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) when Home Secretary, and that right hon. Gentleman did not think it called for his interference. As to the opinion of Mr. Netherclift with re- gard to the handwriting of the letter, experts, after all, were only guides to certain similarities in handwriting upon which other persons must judge; and it should be remembered that in one of the greatest cases ever tried—namely, that of Mrs. Ryves—Mr, Netherclift spoke to the authenticity of a mass of documents which were universally discredited, and in respect to which the jury came to the conclusion that he was entirely wrong, and the Judge agreed with them. Stone's case had also been pressed on his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), when his right hon. Friend was at the head of the Home Office; and his right hon. Friend, after very carefully investigating it with Lord Belmore, thought there was n certain amount of doubt about it, and that the anonymous letter might possibly have been an imitation of Stone's handwriting. Under those circumstances, and considering that he had been twenty years in the force before his dismissal, his right hon. Friend thought a gratuity or a small pension, if that were legal, might be given to him for his past services and good conduct; but the law would not allow of a pension being awarded him. A pension could not be given unless a man was sixty years of age, and had been invalided for certain reasons; or if he were below sixty there should be a certificate from the Commissioner of Police that he was incapacitated for certain causes, and that the Commissioner of Police could approve in all respects of his conduct But the Commissioner of Police still retained the opinion he had at the first with reference to Stone's case. When he himself (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) succeeded to the Home Office his right hon. Friend had just made his decision, and he (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) had acted upon it, granting the man the sum of £106 3s. 4d., being at the rate of a month's pay for every year of his past service. Stone wrote expressing his gratitude and thanks for the gratuity granted him so "kindly, considerately, and justly," to use his own words, guarding himself at the same time by saying—"According to my understanding, my acceptance of the gratuity does not affect the statutory declaration which I made of my innocence. I tender my most humble and sincere thanks for the gratuity." He said, "The money will be a great boon to me;" but be added that as the gratuity was not enough to compensate him for the future, he hoped that if an opportunity offered of making a messenger of him that would be done. Stone was, however, too old for anything of that kind. In conclusion, in his (Mr. Gathorne Hardy's) opinion, ample justice had been done in the case. It was by no means so clear a case of hardship as the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Labouchere) thought. The man had received enough in the shape of gratuity; and he (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) believed that if others had let him alone he would have been satisfied.

said, the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Labouchere) deserved the thanks of his constituents for the trouble he had taken in that matter, which, though small in itself, had, it was satisfactory to find, received great care and attention from the Home Office. It would be still more gratifying if the right hon. Gentleman opposite could say that he contemplated giving Stone some slight additional gratuity or a small situation. Unless the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) intervened in the debate and told the House that there was a stronger case in favour of this man than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford thought, he would recommend his hon. Friend not to press his Motion to a division.

said, he could confirm what had fallen from his right hon. hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Greater pains could not be taken than had been bestowed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir George Grey) in examining all the particulars bearing on that case. He (Mr. Walpole) had examined the whole of the Papers in the case, and his opinion was that under the circumstances ample justice had been done to Stone by the pecuniary acknowledgment which he had received. The only thing that had weighed with him was that Stone had never had an opportunity of seeing the anonymous letter and comparing it with his own handwriting. No more could legally have been given him, and it would, he thought, be very unadvisable to grant a Committee to inquire into a subject which had already been so fully investigated.

said, that he did not see that any advantage could accrue from further investigation of the subject. He remembered the circumstances of the case perfectly. The evidence was very strong as to Stone being the author of the letter, and he was glad to find that some doubt had been thrown on it. The course which had been taken by both the right hon. Gentlemen opposite in the case was not only just but generous towards Stone.

said, that after these expressions of opinion he would not press his Motion to a division.

said, he thought it was worthy of the consideration of the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was just that a member of the police force who had conducted himself well for twenty years, and earned the esteem of all persons in the neighbourhood where he performed his duty, should be discharged or called upon to resign upon a charge being made against him, without that charge being fully and fairly investigated?

said, that there was a double inquiry before the subject came under the notice of the Home Office.

observed that there was power in the head of the Police to dismiss on his own opinion of a case.

said, it is, perhaps, necessary I that should explain in a few words the reason I have in calling the attention of the House to this subject, and the causes from which, as I think, a necessity may seem to exist. It cannot, I think, but be observed by those who have followed up the business of this Session, that of all other questions, those connected with rates have been oftenest brought before the House. First we had the Committee on the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, which I hoped might have saved me the necessity of the present appeal by comprehending in the scope of its inquiry the whole bearing of these Acts. Then came the Motion of the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) on the Metropolitan Rates, in which he disclosed some most significant and valuable facts. The Mines Assessment Bill followed next, and a very little later the discussion upon the burdens of land, so ably introduced by the hon. Member for Wiltshire. In each instance local taxation lay at the root of the question advanced. At present both the Turnpike and Highway Bills, as well as that upon Education, have reference to this. Perhaps it may be thought that under such repeated inquiry, so often renewed, the matter must be fully winnowed out. It may seem strange to say that the contrary is the case, and the frequency of these occasions, as well as their great variety, establishes, I think, a necessity not otherwise so great. I must deprecate such partial treatment as this. If change is required of such a kind, this, I think, will be obvious to most—that, starting from a false point, if we attempt to legislate partially we shall but increase the difficulties which exist, and multiply those obstacles of which we now complain. Hence the necessity of inquiry, beginning from the root. Is this necessity justified by fact? With the scope of my present address I shall not go into detail upon this, for I think that even general considerations will suffice. The office of the Committee for which move will be to investigate facts. Am I entitled to this? Now, if I show that at their very origin the scope and intention of these Rating Acts were imperfectly defined; if I am able to show that that intention has not been clearly laid down since; and that, confused by judgment and complicated by events, it has become a mass of incoherent legislation, incapable of just application or legal interpretation, perhaps it may be thought that there is good ground for this. If I can show that, starting from such a point, other taxes have been successively imposed upon such a base, either simply a matter of convenience, or accident, or custom alone, it may be thought that there is some ground for this. If I can show that by the incidence of such taxation a great injury is done to productive industry, and that it falls with severity upon needy and dependent classes, then, deeming such things of no small importance and not unnecessary to consider, I shall with some confidence appeal to this House. And now to the proof. Upon the terms and provisions of the Act of 43 Elizabeth, I need enter at no length. They are well-known to most. Nevertheless, in starting upon our present inquiry, there are some distinctive features which we may note. What was, or rather were, the leading principles upon which this Act was based? Contributions generally levied within a local area upon property and persons alike. What limitation to this? That the property shall be visible, within the place, and that the ability of the person to pay shall be the subject of this tax. Now, to untechnical and unlearned minds no doubt this was simple enough, and of this, perhaps, we can have no more convincing proof than the fact that fur 200 years it seems to have suffered no material change, and no important Amendment was either required or introduced. It was, no doubt, both in intention and scope a property tax, and this property of no exclusive class. It required the perverse ingenuity of legal minds to make the problem complex. Well, but what took place? The natural desire to escape taxation did not remain asleep. Subsequently much property became invisible, and, not being local, could not he taxed. The machinery was imperfect, and many kinds of property could not be reached. The customary carelessness of owners of property did the rest; and the easy inheritors of settled estates came into them, accustomed to the hereditary burdens and the parochial rate. Why, what proof of it is this, that previous to the Poor Law Bill of 1833, the whole property had become well-nigh submerged beneath the parish rate ! They were in some instances £1 5s. in the pound as levied upon an assumed and fictitious base. One after another subjects of taxation fell out, while nothing was added, but new taxes upon the old base. With the increase of these taxes the desire to escape increased, and the ingenious supply of legal means has never failed to keep pace with the demand in such a case. Soon we have of these exemptions a goodly list. Mines, other than coal mines, woods, stock-in-trade, funded property, and securities, were invisible of course. Personal property, though visible, could not be reached. Ships and merchandize had no local place; and the area of taxation became thus comfortably circumscribed, and fell upon only persons or property which could not be overlooked. It was not until 1840 that stock-in-trade was exempted from the incidence of those taxes. The Act of Elizabeth being thus amicably perverted, what follows? Just as it would seem in the proportion to the diminished liability did the amount and number of their taxes increase, and every day new burdens were added, just as they would now be added in default of vigilance, in a manner most unjust. Let us just glance at the list—namely—

seconded the Amendment.

admitted the importance of the subject referred to by the hon. Member, but reminded him that it had already occupied the attention of the House during the present Session, and had given rise to an interesting debate. As to the Motion for a Committee, the hon. Member had himself given the best answer to it when he stated the various points which their inquiry should embrace. At this period of the Session such an inquiry would be impossible. In another month or six weeks the Session must close, and it would be impossible to consider one of the points alluded to by the hon. Member during this limited time. The speech of the hon. Member might be divided under two heads—first, how property should be rated; secondly, what kind of property should he subject to rates. Now, a Committee last Session instituted an inquiry of considerable importance into the valuation of property; but the Bill introduced on the subject was not proceeded with, and the question, therefore, was not determined by the House. There had been another question also as to how rates should be collected, whether from the owner or occupier, and a Committee on the subject bad been moved for by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton). Then Bills had been introduced on two or three occasions on the subject of the rating of mines by the hon. Member for Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham), and the hon. Gentleman who had introduced this subject did not appear sanguine that that matter could be success fully dealt with by the House. As to the rating of railways, that was a question which might fully occupy a Committee for more than one whole Session. He had mentioned these things to show the variety of questions which must be considered before the House could come to a conclusion. A debate had been held in the early part of the Session as to the great increase of rates paid by occupiers of land, and the burden? upon house property in the metropolis. That was a great and important question, upon which it would be quite impossible to initiate any satisfactory inquiry during the present Session; but he thought there was a necessity for some alleviation. The county rate, for instance, had considerably increased, a Committee on the question of county finance was at present sitting, and he believed it would be proved before that Committee that the greater part of the increase in the county rates had arisen in consequence of the maintenance of the police, which was contributed to by the Consolidated Fund. Then there was a great demand for increased expenditure in the treatment of the poor, especially of the sick poor. Now, it was a question whether further aid might not be granted by the State in matters of that kind. At present aid was granted towards the payment of salaries; but it might be well to consider whether more of those charges might not be borne by the State. As to the rating of personal property, it might be said that when the Act of Elizabeth was passed there was little or no personal property compared with that which existed at the present time. But there was a difficulty and almost an impossibility in bringing such property under rates. That had been proved by the legislation which had been effected for the exemption of stock-in-trade. He trusted that the hon. Member would not see fit to press the Motion, which he had introduced in a speech of considerable ability. The matter was one of very great importance, and well worthy the attention of the House, but it could not be dealt with at this period of the Session. But if a Committee were to be appointed at an early period of the new Parliament it was quite possible that some satisfactory conclusion might be arrived at.

said, he thought that sufficient grounds had been shown for further inquiry whenever there might be an opportunity. The best tax we had was the house tax, though the hon. Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) had taken exception to it, and had cited extreme instances in favour of his view. There was no better test of the ability of the tax payer than the house which he occupied. After a careful consideration of the subject, he had arrived at the conclusion that upon an average of classes the expenditure of an occupier in respect of house rent was in the ratio of one-tenth of his whole means of expenditure, and that, whether in the case of the man who paid 2s. a week rent or £2,000 a year, the test was equally good. But at present the house was taxed three times; it was taxed for the house tax. it was taxed again for the income tax, and, thirdly, for the fire insurance duty, and that duty was equal to 4d. in the pound on the rent. These were points which should be taken into consideration by the Committee. It had been asked why stock-in-trade should be exempt, as it was now so important an item even when compared with real property. But the true principle to proceed upon was this—we should never attempt to carry our taxation beyond the means we had of ascertaining property and reaching it. In the case of stock-in-trade, they could never ascertain what it was. Real property was local, they could find it, assess it, and tax it; but personal property was not local, it might be anywhere in the world, and, therefore, it was clearly beyond the power of the local authorities to roach it for purposes of taxation, although it was reached by self assessment through the income tax. The contrast between the two kinds of property indicated that there were many matters the provision for which by local taxation might be fairly assisted out of the general taxation of the country. It should he remembered, too, that some local matters were of general interest. He hoped the hon. Member would be able to renew his Motion in the early part of next Session.

said, he rose to protest against the eulogy pronounced by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard) on the house tax, which amounted to 9d. in the pound on private houses, and 6d. in the pound on houses in which goods were displayed in the ground floor windows, It was a tax which was not levied according to the ability to pay vent; for large manufactories which were separate from the residence of the proprietor or manager escaped the tax, whereas the artist who had a studio, the solicitor who had an office, or the medical man who had a surgery attached to his house was taxed to the full value of the premises. The hon. Member was also in error with respect to the ratio between rent and the means of expenditure. In the metropolis the ratio was not one-tenth, but one-sixth; and this held good with the artizan and with those in the receipt of incomes up to £1,000 a year: above that amount the ratio diminished; and persons receiving less than 20s. per week paid one-fifth, and some even one-fourth, of their earnings for rent. The house tax was merely the old window tax under another name, and houses that would formerly have escaped the old duty, having only seven windows, were now brought into charge at the rate of 9d. in the pound, if the houses with their gardens were rated at £20 per annum. The house tax was, in his opinion, by no means so fair or equitable as some hon. Members supposed, and he thought that there was no tax that more required revision. It was levied on the amount of rent at which a house either did or was presumed to let; but many noblemen's seats and large mansions in the country escaped from their proper amount of taxation in consequence of their being so large and so costly to inhabit that they could not possibly be presumed to let at any equivalent rent, and consequently they were rated at a nominal amount. From a Return issued, it appeared that in the county of Northumberland there was only one house assessed at so large a sum as £1,000 a year, and paying 9d. in the pound. This house must necessarily be Alnwick Castle, the seat of the Duke of Northumberland, which is rated at only £1,000 a year, about equal to a house in Belgrave or Grosvenor Squares, or to three houses in many of the squares in London.

said, that while thanking his hon. Friend (Mr. Corrance) for having so ably introduced the subject, he did not think it would be desirable to refer it to a Select Committee at so late a period of the Session. The incidence of local taxation was a subject having so many ramifications that it was not desirable to inquire into it at all unless it could be done thoroughly and carefully. He was, therefore, glad to understand that his hon. Friend did not intend to press his Motion. Without traversing the same ground as that which he went over a short time ago, he might be allowed to notice a few of the objections which had been urged to the arguments which he then advanced. Local taxation had, it was admitted, vastly increased; but the rateable value of property, it was insisted, had proportionately increased. He did not see how the fact of taxation was altered by its being spread over a larger area. That increased value, moreover, had resulted from the investment of capital by both owner and occupier, and if such investment ceased there would be a diminution instead of an increase. The increase, moreover, had only taken place in some of the manufacturing districts, and the extent of it was not so great as was generally supposed. Another cause of that nominal increase had been the Union Assessment Act of 1862; for the uniform valuation which was the object of that Act had been attained by raising the assessments, there being scarcely a parish in the kingdom where the rateable value had not been raised up to the highest standard that could be found in it. Indeed, the Act ought to have been designated an Act for the increased assessment of the income tax on real property; for that had been its effect, though he would not presume to say that such was its object. It had been alleged that owners of real property were very much favoured with regard to the income tax; but the fact was, that the tax was levied upon the gross and not on the net income, no allowance being made for repairs, insurance, agency, or bad debts; find he maintained that the tax was paid on a much larger sum than the owners ever received. He would give an illustration with which he was himself only too familiar. On a farm of £100 a year the buildings were so dilapidated that it could not be relet unless they were rebuilt, and this could not be done for less than £500 or £600; be that for five or six years no rent was received, and yet during that period the landlord continued paying income tax on the £100 rental. The occupier, again, it had been said, was favoured, since he paid on but half the rental; but it must be remembered that he paid in years of loss as well as of profit. Even if he lost the whole of his capital by cattle plague or by bad seasons, the same arbitrary rule was enforced. Now, he knew of no occupation in which the profits were so precarious as the cultivation of the soil, find no business in which the return for capital was so small as that of the agriculturist. An hon. Member (Mr. M'Laren) stated on a former occasion that the commutation of the land tax had been a great advantage to the owners of real property, the valuation upon which the commutation was made being now very inadequate, and he went back to history to show that that tax was levied at 4s. in the pound. Was that tax, however, originally levied on real property alone? Why, on referring to the Act of 1692, which was passed for a year in order to prosecute vigorously a war with Prance, he found that the tax was imposed on personal as well as real property, but there was afterwards a remission in favour of the former, and by an Act of William IV. a certain quota was assigned to every borough and parish. Was it just that the amount formerly levied on personal property should now be thrown on real property? He thought that in 1846 a golden opportunity was lost, for both Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell, while affirming that the adoption of Free Trade was a question of policy, stated that in the event of its adoption the question of relief to the agricultural interest was a question of justice. Now, the policy had been adopted, but the justice had not yet been conceded. Owners and occupiers of real property did not come to the House with an appeal ad misericordiam; they did not sue in formâ pauperis; but they urged that they had a grievance, and they asked for a full and impartial inquiry. If, in such an inquiry, they failed to establish their case, they would be content to bear with patience and resignation burdens which they now regarded as anomalous, arbitrary, impolitic and unjust.

said, that, as no practical result would follow the appointment of a Select Committee during the present Session, he hoped that his hon. Friend would withdraw his Motion. At the same time he attached great value to the discussions that had arisen on this subject during the present Session, because the country must now be convinced that the question was not one which affected the rural districts alone. The great force of the argument in favour of a revision of local taxation arose from the fact that the pressure was felt not so much in the country as in the towns, and not even in the favoured districts of the towns. It was not in Belgravia, but in Bethnal Green, that the pressure of local taxation was chiefly felt. He hoped that during the Recess they would obtain extraneous aid to their efforts to secure a careful and impartial examination of the whole question of the incidence of local taxation. No inconsiderable addition to these burdens had been caused by the action of Parliament, and it would therefore be the duty of the House carefully to pass in review all the cases of exempted property, so as to see that one class of the community was not favoured at the expense of another. The whole matter was now divested of its class appearance, and it was seen that the interests of the poorer ratepayers were more concerned than even those of the owners and occupiers of land. He trusted that Parliament would at the earliest opportunity during the coming Session turn its attention to the incidence of local taxation.

said, that great interest was taken in this matter in agricultural districts, but it was too late to appoint a Committee this Session. A Committee of the House of Lords, in 1850, inquired into the matter, and collected a great deal of most valuable evidence. Their Report, however, was now out of print, and he hoped that the Government would allow it to be re-printed. It would very much facilitate an intelligent discussion of the subject out-of-doors.

said, that he would endeavour to comply with the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman.

said, that he should not withdraw his Motion, but would leave it in the hands of the House.

said, he rose to call attention to the Report of the Select Committee on Mines (1867), and to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they propose to give effect to the recommendations of such Committee? Considering the circumstances of the present Session, he did not blame the Government for not bringing in a Bill to embody those recommendations; but he was anxious to recall attention to them, because he felt that on their adoption materially depended the safety of an important part of the population. A great many serious accidents occurred in mines; but the attention of the public was attracted almost solely to those which were of an appalling nature, and which were caused by explosions. The average number of deaths from accidents in mines during the last ten years was 1,000 deaths a year, and it was remarkable that during that time only 100 per annum of that number, or one-tenth, were deaths from explosion; while the far most prolific cause of injury—namely, the fall of the roof, to which nearly 40 per cent of the loss of life was due, was almost wholly overlooked. The question of accidents in mines had recently been considered by a Committee of that House, who had conducted a very laborious inquiry, extending over the greater part of two years. The Committee was originally presided over by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton); but, as he had been prevented from attending, he was succeeded in the Chair by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate), whose zeal and energy in conducting the inquiry could not be surpassed, and merited the warmest acknowledgments of the House. The present moment was favourable to the consideration of the subject, for both masters and men had shown a desire for useful legislation. The Committee began by recommending that an alteration should be made in the last Act of Parliament, which allowed children of ten years of age to be employed. They proposed that no child under twelve years of age should be allowed to be employed, and with this recommendation he entirely concurred. Not a month passed without death from accident occuring among children of tender age, who were exposed to risks and unable to take care of themselves. There was another reason in withdrawing these children from the mines, because at this age they ought to be enjoying the benefits of education. It was impossible to apply the principle of the Factory Acts to children so employed, and it would be better that no children under twelve should be employed in mines, without imposing any farther condition as to education in the thirteenth year. Another recommendation was that youths under sixteen should not be employed for more than twelve hours continuously. A valuable suggestion, made by the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian), was that whenever more than 100 men were employed in any mine it should be sub-divided into compartments, each having its own complete means of ventilation. The result would be that only a portion of the people employed would be endangered by on accident. If such a regulation had been in force two-thirds of the lives lost at Ferndala and other places might have been saved. Another source of accidents in mines was the falling in of the roofs, the annual average of deaths resulting from which cause was no less than 400. During the last ten years upwards of 3,900 deaths had been produced in that way. Those accidents were usually guarded against by advancing a roof of timber as the miner pushed on his work in the coal seam. That was often done, when left to the collier himself, in a very reckless manner. Mr. Wynne, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors, had induced the coalowners of his district to appoint men whose special business it was to see that the workmen did their duty in that matter; and after an experience of five years the number of accidents from that cause had diminished by 40 per cent. In the North of England that work was always intrusted to men told off for it; and it was the recommendation of the Committee that in no case should the workmen discharge that duty, but that it should be undertaken by the colliery owners and their agents. Another cause of accidents had been attributed to the inefficiency of the Government system of inspection. Much difference of opinion existed on that subject. The majority of the inspectors were of opinion that their number was sufficient for the purpose originally contemplated by their appointment—it never having been intended that, on the part of the Government, every colliery throughout the country should be inspected by a Government Inspector. In some colliery districts there were sixty or seventy miles of subterranean roads, and it was utterly impossible, except by the most gigantic system of inspection, for the inspectors to acquaint themselves so completely with the underground working as to preclude the chance of such accidents happening. He had lately presented a petition from the miners of the Monmouth and South Wales district, in which they proposed that, in addition to the existing inspectors, a great number of sub-inspectors of an inferior class should be appointed to visit every colliery in every district once in every three weeks or a month, and report every three months to the inspector, and that the inspectors should every year send to the Secretary of State a complete account of the collieries of every district throughout the country. If the Government were to act upon that proposition, the result would be that they would be held re- sponsible for every accident that occurred. After all, the safety of every colliery must depend not only on the wise liberality of the employers, the skill and knowledge of the agents and viewers, but also on the unceasing watchfulness and vigilance of the men themselves and of those who were set over them. He concurred in the recommendation of the Committee, and thought there should he a limited increase in the number of inspectors. The inspector should have a general acquaintance with the character of every colliery throughout his district, and where, either from information given him or from his general knowledge of a particular colliery, he suspected the existence of any mismanagement, he ought to make a proper inquiry. Though the number of inspectors had been doubled since they were first appointed he did not think it was yet sufficient. There were, he believed, very serious objections to the employment for that responsible duty of men in the position of sub-inspectors. It would be very difficult to get a sufficient number of persons who would be able to perform such a duty. In the next place the smallness of the payment which it would be possible to give them would expose them to the temptation of bribes, and in a short time there would be a want of confidence in the Reports of the sub-inspectors. The next subject to which the Committee called attention was the employment of stipendiary magistrates in the colliery districts. The safety of collieries was provided for by certain general rules which under Act of Parliament must be adopted in every colliery, and also by special rules applicable to the circumstances of each particular colliery, and which were approved by the Secretary of State. The enforcement of those rules of course depended on the local magistracy; and it so happened that throughout the colliery districts the Bench was not so strong as it usually was in other parts of the country. It was of the highest importance that these delicate duties should be discharged by magistrates whose authority was respected and whose impartiality was above suspicion. One of the inspectors stated that in Monmouthshire he always failed in his prosecutions, while in another county his appeals to the stipendiary justice always succeeded. That subject was certainly a very difficult one. At present when stipendiary magistrates were appointed it was upon the application of the district. His own suggestion would be that where a statement was made to the Home Office that a dis- trict required the services of a stipendiary magistrate an inquiry should be instituted analogous to that preliminary to the adoption of the Public Health Act in towns; and if, after consideration of the Report of their Inspector, the Government thought the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate was necessary for that district it should appoint one, define the limits of his district, and also decide what should be his salary. He believed the appointment of these stipendiary magistrates would give satisfaction throughout the colliery districts. Another of the Committee's recommendations was that the Acts relating to collieries should not only be amended but consolidated; it being a great impediment to justice when Acts were partially repealed and different portions of the same subject were dealt with in separate Acts of Parliament. Over and above the recommendations of the Committee, it had been suggested that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into other matters, which might not be supposed to come fairly within the scope of a Committee of that House, the Members of which wore not sufficiently versed in the details of mining to give an authoritative opinion upon them. No doubt there were some important questions connected with the safety of collieries and also with the economical working of coal seams still to be solved. There existed the most different systems for that purpose, with the most startling difference in the results. He was informed that there existed in England and Wales differences to this extent—that under one system all but 17 per cent of coal could ha extracted, while in other and very wide districts, under a different system, the quantity of coal lost to the public was 30 or 40 per cent. Of course, the House could not insist on the adoption of a particular mode of working coal; but he was informed that the mode which was most economical was also that by which the most perfect ventilation of the mine could be secured, and the safety of the colliers was a matter on which Parliament had the right to legislate. Another question connected with ventilation, and likewise with the economical working of a coal mine, was well known in the North of England as the double-shift system, which existed universally in the North. Under it in every colliery the men worked eight hours instead of twelve, and were succeeded by another shift, which also worked eight hours; and as a consequence of that their labours could be carried on in a much smaller area than where the single-shift system prevailed. Ventilation was the great safeguard against accidents by explosion; and a great economy of human life could be effected by the introduction of the double-shift system. It was, however, greatly opposed by the colliers themselves where it had not taken root. He would suggest the appointment of a skilled Commission to inquire into this subject, and to report upon its results in security, economy, and safety. The recommendations of the Committee were marked by moderation, and he had only, in conclusion, to express a hope that the whole subject would receive the attention of the Government during the approaching Recess.

said, he had so recently addressed the House on the subject that he need do little more than briefly to repeat what he had then stated. The subject was one which had not been lost sight of by the Government; and his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Home Department had had several interviews, at which he himself had not time to be present, with persons who took an active interest in it. He had, however, carefully considered the Report to which his right hon. Friend opposite had drawn his attention, and he must add that no one was better qualified to deal with the question than the right hon. Gentleman, or possessed a more thorough acquaintance with it. He felt—having, as he said, carefully considered the Report—that it was impossible to introduce any measure on the subject during the present Session; but he could assure the House that it had been and was occupying the attention of the Ministry. Whether it might or might not be desirable to make some inquiry also into the case of the ventilation of tin and copper mines, he did not exactly know; but he did not think there was such a lack of information on the point as to render such an inquiry necessary. If, however, there were any particular matters with respect to which sufficient information had not already been procured, the country would not, he felt satisfied, grudge any expense which might be incurred in obtaining it, even to the fullest extent. The question of the stipendiary magistrates was a somewhat difficult one to deal with, because hitherto no justice had been appointed without a requisition from persons interested in the subject. What he understood his right hon. Friend to recommend was a sort of local inquiry, by means of which it was supposed that both the feel- ings and wants of any particular district might be ascertained, and the services of magistrates secured who were acquainted with its business and would be likely to be disinterested in deciding the questions which might be brought before them. He must add that he thought the multiplication of sub-inspectors to any considerable extent would tend to take away the responsibility for the proper working of our collieries from those to whom that responsibility now attached. He was not at all sure, however, that it might not be found expedient to increase the number of inspectors, so that a fuller knowledge of the mode in which different mines were worked might be obtained, although that knowledge was already pretty extensive. Probably all the information necessary might be obtained from the inspectors, and there would be no occasion for the appointment of a Commission for the purpose.

thanked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Bruce) for having brought the subject before the House. He thought it would be very unfortunate if Parliament should separate without some expression of opinion on it. He hoped that the Home Secretary would make public any additional information which might be lying in his office, so that it might be diffused throughout the country for the information and satisfaction of the public mind during the Recess.

said, that whatever opinion the working miners might entertain as to the value of the labours of the Committee which sat on the subject, every one who had presented himself before it must feel that their cases had been listened to with the greatest care and attention. He must add that he was not altogether satisfied with the speech which had just been made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department as to the need of legislation. At the same time, there was no doubt that the circumstances of the present Session were somewhat extraordinary, and as the Government had waited so long before introducing any measure on the subject, he thought they would do well to avail themselves of the recommendations of the Commission which had been appointed to inquire into the supply of coal, so that provision might, if possible, be made for the more effectual and economical working of our coal fields. He thought, however, that they might at once increase the number of inspectors, and he did not see how a measure of that kind would re- move any responsibility from the coal-owners. To show the value of inspection, he might observe that he was told by a great authority—Mr. Dickinson—a few days ago, that he had gone into a mine, and that his attention was attracted by what he believed to be a great accumulation of gas in part of it. He satisfied himself that such was the case by applying his lamp to it; and he had some difficulty in impressing upon the manager the danger of such accumulations and the necessity of attending to the matter. That furnished, he thought, ft good illustration of the good which inspectors might do by entering mines. He could not reconcile the limited view which the Government inspectors took of their duty with the 22 &c 24 Vict., which empowered them to visit mines at all times of the day and night; and the point was one with which, in his opinion, the Government might deal at once. Another point to which he would invite their attention was the expediency of subjecting the managers of mines to the necessity of obtaining certificates, as was the case, for instance, with the captains of ships; and neglect of duty should be punished by the suspension of the certificate. Since 1832, Parliament had done great things in improving conditions of labour, especially in the case of young persons, and he thought it was well worthy of consideration whether there might not be a Board formed to have, under the control of the Hume Department, charge of all the different organizations for regulating the conditions of labour. To such a Board the inspectors might make all their Reports, and the head of the Board might communicate these Reports, in a condensed form to the Home Office.

said, he was glad of the discussion of this evening, because it would show the public that there was not in the House of Commons such apathy on this subject as might have been supposed in consequence of what occurred when the dangers of coal mines was brought under the notice of the House on a recent occasion. He thought the question was one which ought to occupy the attention of the House from time to time. From an observation made by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) on a former occasion, it would appear that the hon. and learned Gentleman thought that he had been guilty of some presumption in calling attention to accidents in coal mines. [Mr. AYRTON said the hon. Gentleman was mistaken.] If he were to read the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks, he thought the House would agree with him that they had that interpretation. As the hon. and learned Gentleman so frequently occupied the attention of the House, he did not see why even so humble a Member as himself might not be permitted to bring forward a question of such importance. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Bruce) had mentioned to the House that the largest portion of the accidents in coal mines occurred from the falling in of the roof. He (Mr. Greene) believed that the arrangements for the prevention of such accidents were not at all what they ought to be. Then, as to the inspectors, twelve were not enough for the work to be done. He hoped that, if not in this Session, there would be legislation on the whole subject before the end of next year.

said, he hoped that if there was to be an addition to the staff for inspection, it would be in the appointment of additional inspectors, and not in that of sub-inspectors.

said, he regretted that circumstances had interfered to prevent legislation on the subject; but after the statement of the Secretary of State for the Home Department he was persuaded that some attempt to alter the law for the better would be mode next Session. He believed a Commission would hardly be able to develop any facts of importance in addition to those which had been already elicited by three Committees of this House and by the Committee of the House of Lords, which had ably inquired into the question. He believed that all the substantial facts relating to the subject were already fully known; but at the same time these accidents were of so dreadful a character that if it appeared to be the opinion of the working colliers that a Royal Commission might be able to make valuable suggestions which had not been made hitherto for the greater security of their lives, he should be glad to support the appointment of such a Commission. With regard to the Commission on the future coal supply he hoped it would make its Report before, next Session; but the inquiry was extensive, and he could not say when it would conclude. There was, however, no connection between that question and the subject now under discussion; and he saw no reason for the postponement of legislation with respect to acci- dents in mines pending the inquiry of the Commission. He believed there would be no difficulty in the way of passing a really good measure upon the subject. A very valuable suggestion had been made by a well-known colliery inspector and viewer (Mr. Buddie), that mines should be separated into districts, each district having separate means of ventilation. If that suggestion were carried out he believed we should not again have such enormous sacrifices of life by colliery accidents as we had had recently at the Oaks and Ferndale collieries. The plan was somewhat similar to that adopted with regard to buildings for the manufacture of gunpowder, which were so arranged that the explosion of one building could not cause the explosion of another. Another valuable suggestion, made by Mr. Nixon, an extensive coalowner in his district, was for the general introduction of the double shift system, which would also tend to lessen the sacrifice of life when any colliery accident should happen. With regard to the inspection of mines, he thought the general feeling of the country would be against the introduction of a lower class of inspectors, and that anything which tended to lower the standard of the inspectors and the confidence placed in them would tend to diminish the advantages of the system of inspection. With reference to the mode of dealing with cases of offences arising in coal mines, he would observe that in many mineral counties there were already stipendiary magistrates, and he would suggest the expediency of requiring that offences under the Mines Act should be tried before a stipendiary magistrate instead of the ordinary bench of justices. As it was, the coalowner was placed in an awkward position. He was compelled to carry out the strictest discipline; and if any of the rules were transgressed his only remedy was to summon the offender before the bench of magistrates, and then he was often unable to obtain a conviction. Magistrates at petty sessions did not sufficiently appreciate the seriousness of breaches of regulation in coalmines. It should be remembered that some things, such as smoking or the possession of lucifer matches, which were no offence at all above ground, were most serious offences underground, and might lead to the most fatal results. Punishment for such offences would be much more certain if a stipendiary magistrate heard the case. With regard to the officers who had charge of the mines he could not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) who had conducted the inquiry before the Committee in the most able manner. He did not think any good result would follow from a system of certificates. He should prefer to see them not men deeply versed in mathematics or history, but sound practical men upon whose practical knowledge the safety of the men employed might be allowed to rest with security. He thought that the coalowners themselves must be the best judges of the men to put in charge of the mines. He again expressed an earnest hope that the subject would be legislated upon in the course of nest Session.

I rise, Sir, merely to say a word to strengthen the hands of the Government (in the absence of further legislation) in the appointment of a larger number of inspectors. I am quite aware that it is very important not to shift the responsibility from the owners of mines to the inspectors; but I am of opinion that if the inspectors are to be of substantial use their number must be largely increased. I believe there are now twelve inspectors of mines. If I may venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary the amount of their increase, I should say that they ought to be at once doubled. I have my own opinion respecting some of the causes of accidents in coal mines. I happen to live where there are coal measures, within eight miles of the Oaks colliery, where there was recently a most fearful accident, to which allusion has frequently been made in this House and elsewhere. I have nothing to do, directly or indirectly, with coal mines, and I have no scientific knowledge of the working of them; but I am of opinion that where a fiery seam of coal exists, as is the case in some parts of Yorkshire, that the present system of ventilation is on a wrong principle; that the use of large fires at the bottom of one of the shafts of the mine, to produce a draft and ventilate the mine, is a most dangerous method, because, if any of the return-air of the pit happens to pass over that furnace, the dangers of explosion are great. I do not pretend to suggest a more efficient mode of ventilation; but it has often struck me that pumping fresh air down into the pit so as to drive the return-air up another shaft would effect this purpose. Again, the size of the pit has often much to do with the chances of explosion. I am aware that the law now requires two shafts in every pit; but some of the pits are extended to such a size that four or five shafts are really required for the safety of the pit. I merely throw these out as suggestions, to those who are more capable of looking into the subject, and in the absence of further legislation on this interesting subject, I beg again, respectfully, to ask the Government not to delay in the appointment of a considerable number of fresh inspectors of mines.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the state of the Law regarding registration and security in respect of certain publications. He regretted to be obliged to bring thin matter again before the House, as he had hoped, from the tone of the discussion last year, that it would not have been necessary to revive the consideration of it in the present Session, but that some measure would have been brought in to give effect to the general feeling of the House on the subject. Some years ago, when he asked the House to repeal this remnant of laws which were most oppressive to a particular class of publications in this country, the Bill which he introduced was passed, and sent up to the other House, where it was rejected; and upon a second occasion his Bill passed the Commons, and was again rejected by the Lords. The laws upon this subject were such as could never have been placed upon the statute book, except in the most evil times—that was to say, in the reign of George III.—when the old Tory party was engaged in desperate struggles to repress the expression of public opinion, and to maintain its hold of political power. Measures of relief had been from time to time granted by the Legislature; but, although many of the severer penalties had been removed, the process had been always accompanied by some stringent regulation on the subject of registration or security. No one could publish a periodical of less dimensions than 714 square inches, and with intervals of less than twenty-six days between each successive publication; and at a less price than 6d., without giving security that they would not publish seditious and blasphemous libels. There could be no doubt that this was aimed at a class of periodicals likely to inform the mind of the people; find the extravagance of the law was shown by the fact that it was not merely directed against newspapers, but against essays upon the moral, political, or religious condition of the country, or upon the phases of public affairs. It would be seen at once that a law of this kind was totally ineffective, because a man might print any amount of sedition or blasphemy, provided he only wrote enough of it to fill a book of larger dimensions than 714 square inches, and sold at a higher price than 6d. Great penalties were formerly imposed for an infraction of this law, and for the second offence the penalty was banishment. That extreme punishment was modified a few years ago; but at the same time the securities were increased in London from £300 to £400, and in the country from £200 to £300 Moreover, the publisher was compelled to find two persons to be answerable in the sum of £400 to answer in any action at law. Now, there was no reason whatever, as far as he could see, why publishers of periodicals any more than any other traders, should be subject to that restriction in the conduct of their business; they were engaged in a useful and a necessary work, and how could it be maintained that a man who published libel or sedition in n few pages ought to be liable to penalties which a man who published libel or sedition on a larger scale escaped? When the tax on newspapers was repealed, there was a general impression that the declaration which publishers were previously required to make at the Stamp Office would fall into abeyance. And for a long time it did so. But some injudicious persons thought it right to set the Stamp Office in motion; and, accordingly, instead of having a free and unloaded Press in this country, it once again began to be tampered with. Last year his right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Milner Gibson) brought the subject under the notice of the House; the Attorney General did not then contend that it was desirable to maintain the declaration, and nobody rose to suggest that the existing law should be continued; accordingly, he had expected that the right hon. Gentleman would have introduced a short Bill early this Session to put an end to the state of things complained of; but, instead of that, the Stamp Office had been seized with another fit of injudicious activity, and had instituted proceedings against two or three journals. These proceedings were taken ostensibly in the name of the Attorney General, and it was highly desirable that if persisted in they should be carried on upon his responsibility. But, according to the present system, matters were either allowed to sleep altogether, or were only stirred to action when some individual object was to be attained by giving private information, and inciting the department to commence a prosecution. He submitted the Attorney General should not permit persons to make use of his name, as the prosecutor under the Act referred, to in cases where their object was simply to gratify personal malignity; the Attorney General was also bound to see that the law was uniformly administered; that all or none were prosecuted. He found that proprietors of newspapers of the most innocent character were proceeded against; among them he noticed the National Reformer and the Parochial Critic. The latter was a paper which ministered to the wants of persons having what might be described as a parochial mind, by contributing to their knowledge of the public business of their locality. He trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would prevent this abuse of power, and see that the spirit of the law was carried out. He would submit to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the time had come for effecting some amendment in the existing law on this subject.

said, the hon. Member had assumed in that case a state of things of which he (the Attorney General) could not admit the existence. The hon. Member had assumed that the law was put in force against newspaper publishers capriciously and for the gratification of private malice. But so far as he (the Attorney General) was aware that was a totally incorrect statement. He had been informed that it was only when due notice had been given, and the parties had refused to obey the law that proceedings were taken. A circular was issued after the Act of 1855 was passed, pointing out what it was necessary to do for the purpose of having newspapers registered, and as it was found that several newspapers were published which were not registered the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was taken as to whether it was incumbent upon the Board of Inland Revenue to enforce registration. An affirmative reply was obtained. Some alteration was at that time made in the law with respect to the particular kind of papers which were to come within the category of newspapers, but nothing was done in the shape of any alteration of the penalties which it was thought proper to inflict. The Board of Revenue had on all occasions, as far as possible, been guided by the Law Officers in ascertaining what particular publications were or were not newspapers. In cases where the law was infringed by the proprietors of newspapers refusing to give the requisite securities proceedings were taken; but these were in no case influenced by personal motives, or by any considerations as to the particular political party which the newspaper represented. He did not propose to suggest any alteration of the law as it at present stood. Particular instructions specifying which newspapers were to be prosecuted were never issued, but the Board of Revenue proceeded generally against newspapers whose proprietors refused to give the proper securities. Proceedings were never taken against anyone until it was made clear that a violation of the statute was taking place, and in no case were these proceedings of a malicious character. As to whether the law should be altered or repealed, that was another matter, but so long as it existed it was the duty of the Board of Revenue to enforce it. He could not comply with the request of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets and propose any alteration of the law.

said, he was inclined to agree with the observations of the Attorney General as to the manner in which the Board of Inland Revenue had exercised its functions. He believed the real mischief arose from the law itself more than from the mode in which it had been administered. It was only that day that he had been asked to present a petition from one of the victims of this law (Mr. George Hill), who believed, and had no doubt been advised that his paper was not a newspaper within the meaning of the Act, and who was compelled either to contest the point at considerable expense or to give up his paper, as he either would not or could not enter into the requisite securities. He was willing to acknowledge that the Board of Inland Revenue had exhibited every desire to give to the cases which came under its notice a fair and attentive consideration, but he believed also that there had been an evident desire on the part of the Board to be relieved from what was a disagreeable duty. If it was necessary to require securities for the prevention of sedition, blasphemy, and libel, it was absurd to vest the power in the Board of Inland Revenue, which was exclusively intended for the collection of taxes. Such a power, if exercised at all, as it was of a moral nature, ought to be vested in the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, or some such authority. It was, moreover, impossible for the Board of Inland Revenue to enforce the provisions of the Act impartially. The Board knew nothing of newspapers, and could only act upon private information, which was invariably afforded from personal or party motives. Although, therefore, no vindictiveness was displayed by the Department, still the prosecutions often originated in some petty jealousy, or a desire to injure, it might be, a proprietor, who had started a rival paper. He wished to call the attention of the Attorney General to the fact that there appeared to be a constant desire to class under the name of newspapers certain publications which had not hitherto been regarded in that light. He remembered that during the existence of the stamp duty it was attempted to make Charles Dickens's Household Words and Household Narrative liable to the stamp and to securities. The Government was defeated; but it was generally understood that by the law Household Words and the Household Narrative were liable. The necessity for again trying the question, however, was done away with by the passing of a small Act by which the meaning of the word "newspapers" was so altered as beyond doubt to exempt from liability all such publications. He charged the Government of this country, speaking generally and not referring to any particular Government, with retaining on the statute book a law which could not be enforced, which they had not the good grace to repeal, and which they, nevertheless, did not entirely allow to remain in abeyance. They did not enforce it, because the law did not relate exclusively to newspapers, inasmuch as it referred to all pamphlets or papers dealing with the affairs of Church and State, which were sold for less than 6d., and were of a less size than 714 square inches. The provisions of the Act, too, were enforced in the case of newspapers which were not liable, while others that wore liable were exempted. The Saturday Review was a case in point, for, though these securities were compelled, it was not published for less than 6d., and was not of a less size than 714 square inches. He was also advised that there was a large number of newspapers upon which these provisions were illegally imposed, while it was equally notorious that others which ought to be liable escaped without these securities being exacted. In his opinion it was incumbent upon the Government of the day to bring in some measure which would put an end to this unsatisfactory state of things. For his own part he believed it was desirable there should be a registration of periodical publications, which he did not think the Press at large would object to; but he thought the obnoxious system of giving security should be done away with, as it was an insult to any person to require him to give security that he would not be guilty of an indictable offence. If the Government could not introduce such a measure as he had indicated this Session, he hoped that in the course of the next Session they would bring in a Bill to repeal the Acts in question, which were not in accordance with the policy which Parliament had recently adopted on this subject, which was to liberate the Press from ail those fiscal fetters by which it was formerly restrained.

said, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to impress upon the Government the propriety of putting an end to all the difficulties to which reference had been made, by repealing the Acts in question, which inflicted a punishment upon the whole body of the Press because some of its members might possibly be guilty of a violation of the law. What would be said if every physician were bound to give security that he would not poison his patients? Surely it was sufficient to punish him if he did poisen them. His purpose in rising was to express a hope that if the Government could not bring in a measure of the kind proposed this Session, they would at least suspend fill prosecutions under these Acts, which were generally condemned by public opinion, which it had been found impossible to enforce impartially, and which, therefore, operated most unjustly upon those who were prosecuted under them; often by: individuals without the concurrence of the Attorney General and of the Board of Inland Revenue.

said, the real principle upon which these Acts of Parliament were passed was for the general protection of the State against attacks which might be made by persons who were not in a position to pay the penalties imposed upon those guilty of violating the law. It was found that when persons started publications attacking the State or private individuals there was considerable difficulty in tracing the owners of those publications, and in recovering the penalties when the owners were discovered and prosecuted. Under these circumstances he desired to maintain the law as far as it was useful and proper, by compelling the owners of publications to register them selves, and to give security for the payment of penalties which might be inflicted upon them in the event of their violating the law. He thought that the preventive element was a valuable ingredient in any code. There might, of course, be some ground for altering the law as it now stood, but he did not think these Acts should be altogether abolished, by which all safeguards against libels injurious to the State or ruinous to the private character of individuals would be done away with. The principle was, that where a violation of the law was committed there should be a solvent party to proceed against. But if any different law, or administration of the law, could be introduced which might protect private character from slander and libel, at the same time that it protected the Press, by all means let that be carried into effect. It did not, however, follow that because the present law could not be fully enforced it was a bad law. It was said that the law was a limited law, and that if the paper was of a certain size, or was sold at 6d., it was not within the range of the law. But the fact of its ex tent and price gave it a certain amount of respectability, and was a kind of guarantee that if an action should be brought there would be the means of recovery against the proprietor. His desire was to keep up the respectability as well as the liberty of the Press—to have a good, sound, strong Press, against which, if the law were violated, they could proceed; so that, while protecting the Press, they should protect themselves.

said, he was rather amused at his hon. and learned Friend's notions of respectability. It used to be said that a man was respectable when he kept a horse and gig; but he (Mr. Craufurd) thought it was quite impossible to define the respectability of the Press by a mere reference to price. If a man published a newspaper in which there was blasphemy, was it to be said that the conductors of that newspaper were respectable because they sold the blasphemy for 6d. instead of 3d.? He did not see why the publication of newspapers should be put upon a different footing from any licenced trade. Why was the man who published a newspaper not only to be registered and to give his address, in order that he might be found out, but to give securities that he would not commit an indictable offence? The whole thing was perfectly absurd and ridiculous. The imprint, which gave the name and address of the publisher, was a sufficient protection, and it was unjust to demand any further security. The fact was that the restrictions upon the liberty of the Press arose entirely from political causes, and dated from the time when everything likely to enlighten the people was tabooed. They were told that the fact of the law not being enforced was no proof that it was a bad one; but if the law was good it ought to be fairly and impartially administered against all persons, and he asked how many pamphlets, written by noble Lords and others, were registered? In point of fact, it was left to informers to put the law in motion, and then, especially in political cases, or in cases in which the matter complained of affected the Law Officers of the Crown, the whole force of the law was brought down to crush the unfortunate newspaper proprietors. The interest of the public would be sufficiently protected by a simple system of registration which would enable individuals to punish libellers, instead of which the law was surrounded by such, intricate legal meshes that nobody could understand it. If it was good it ought to be administered. Let everybody be dealt with in a fair and straightforward manner, and let them no longer leave in the hands of the Law Officers the arbitrary and unconstitutional power which they now possessed.

, in moving that this Bill be now read a second time, said, that when he asked leave to introduce it in February, he had stated that it was not his intention to proceed with the measure until it had received the consideration of the different legal bodies in Scotland who were interested in it. The measure had accordingly received the careful consideration of these legal bodies. In the first place, the Bill was submitted to a committee of the Faculty of Advocates, consisting of twenty Members—men who were engaged in practice—and the Committee were unanimously of opinion that the Bill contained many valuable provisions for amending the procedure, and the judicial arrangements now existing, of the Court, and they added that, although further and early legislation might be thought necessary and expedient, they hoped a strong effort would be made to carry the measure. A committee of the Writers to the Signet expressed their satisfaction at finding that the main provisions of the Bill were to abolish unnecessary forms involving expenses and delay, and to render procedure more simple, economical, and expeditious than at present. To these objects they gave their ready approval, although they could not assent to all the provisions of the measure. The solicitors practising before the Supreme Court had expressed an opinion that a measure cm bracing so many details could not be expected to be acceptable in all its provisions, or to meet all the evils of the system with which it dealt; but they regarded it as a step in the right direction, and many of its provisions would be beneficial. Having regard to the necessity of obtaining a measure dealing with the present state of things, the Council were of opinion that the Bill should be proceeded with, although many of its provisions might not be exactly all that they could wish. It was of course, in such a measure, impossible to expect unanimity in all matters of detail, but such were the views of those much interested in the matters with which the measure was meant to deal. Another body of legal gentlemen in Scotland had given the measure a good deal of consideration—the solicitors who conducted business before the Sheriffs' Courts, and the whole body of country practitioners, who did not practise before the Supreme Court, bin felt an interest in the judicial system; and the view taken by the Council of country practitioners was that they were unwilling that this Bill should pass, and the reason they assigned was that its provisions, so far as they went, were so good that they entertained an apprehension that, if it passed, there would he no further investigation or reform in the Courts of Justice in Scotland. He was not inclined to adopt that view; for he agreed with the opinion of the practitioners before the Supreme Court, that it was of great importance that they should have some improvement in the general system, and that such improvement ought to be introduced as soon as possible. But this Bill should not stand in the way of the fullest investigation into the jurisdiction and constitution of all the Courts—not only of the Court of Session, but of all the Courts throughout Scotland. It was, therefore, the intention of the Government to issue a Commission somewhat similar to the Judicature Commission issued last year in this country, and at present sitting and applying itself to the constitution of the English Courts; and he was assured that very valuable results were likely to attend the labours of that Commission. As representing to some extent the legal body of Scotland, along with his light hon. Friend opposite, who was at the head of the Bar, he felt that it was for the interest of the Bar, and for the interest of all connected with (be Courts, that, if there existed a desire on the part of any considerable body of their countrymen for investigation into the constitution of all the Courts, and into the judicial arrangements of the country, it was only reasonable, and for the interest of the Bar and the Courts, to have such an investigation as might bring about a better system of the administration of justice. He wished it to be distinctly understood that while he considered, along with the practitioners interested in the business of the Supreme Court, that it was desirable the Bill should pass into law—he did not menu to say as originally introduced; for it would be his duty to give effect, as far as he possibly could, to the conflicting opinions expressed, so as to bring the whole system into harmonious action—it was nut his wish to stifle the fullest investigation into the constitution of the Courts. It was the wish of all who wished well to the country that the judicial system should command its confidence and respect; and therefore it v, as that he proposed such an investigation should take place. He sincerely hoped that he might be able to modify this Bill, which had given him a great deal of trouble, in such a manner that it would meet with the unanimous assent and approbation of the profession, and pass the House this Session. There would then be this advan- tage, that the Commissioners would be able to observe its effect, and would see whether the changes which it made were improvements or not. If they found that it was a step in the right direction, they could continue it; and if it were not successful, they could try some other plan. He therefore proposed that the Bill be read a second time, pass through Committee pro formâ, and then the suggestions of the various legal bodies having been received, should be re-committed, and such alterations should be made in it as were deemed advisable after consideration of these suggestions.

said, he would not go into the details of the Bill, but while supporting the second reading, he felt no hesitation in saying that the Bill did not go far enough. He had long been of opinion that the forms of their judicial procedure in Scotland had been framed at a time when the operations of commerce were much slower than they were at present, and that those forms were not adapted for the scale of commercial relations which now existed. He could have wished, therefore, that his hon. and learned Friend had dealt with the matter with a bolder hand. He recollected that not very long ago the Common Law Courts at Westminster Hall were almost deserted in consequence of the dilatory forms of procedure. The result was that the legal profession inquired into the matter, and a Bill was brought in which passed—namely, the Common Law Procedure Bill—which abolished a great many old obstructions and useless legal forms, and in a couple of years afterwards Westminster Hall was as full of business as ever. Now, that was an example which he thought ought to be followed in Scotland, and which legal reformers there need not be ashamed to follow. He was, therefore, prepared to support the proposition of the Government. He thought that the Bill would be an improvement, and, at all events, a step in the right direction; and there was no reason whatever why it should not go further, and put an end to a great deal of unnecessary delay. He was very glad to find that his right hon. Friend was going to recommend the issuing of a Committee of Inquiry. There was nothing on the part of those who were connected with the judicial system of Scotland which need make them fear the results of that inquiry. On the contrary, such investigation was very desirable, with a view to put an end to some of the ignorant, and he might say absurd, misrepresentation that had been put forward from time to time in the public prints on the subject of the business of the Court of Session. If that inquiry were made, ns he bad no doubt it would be, by competent persons, it would, he believed, produce the greatest possible benefit, and put a stop to many abuses which had been caused by the exaggerated misrepresentations to which he referred.

said, he would not oppose the second reading, because the Bill contained many valuable provisions; but he thought the House would have been very glad to have had a little more satisfactory assurance from the Lord Advocate as to the extent of the inquiry to be made by the proposed Commission which was to follow the Bill. The learned Lord had stated that it was to inquire into the jurisdiction and constitution of the Courts, and he mentioned some minor details with respect to the number of the Judges and of the Courts; but he did not think that the country would be satisfied unless there was also a full inquiry into the procedure of those Courts, and the best means of preventing their present dilatory mode of conducting business. The state of the law required great amendment both with regard to the internal administration of the Court of Session and in its relation to the subordinate Courts. He hoped that the inquiry which they had been promised would have special relation to the procedure in the Courts, and expressly injury trials; for on all these points there was great room for improvement. The people of Scotland had an example before their eyes in the cheap and rapid justice of the Sheriffs' Courts, and they could not fail to contrast it with the cumbrous forms that were followed when their suits went before the Court of Session. He thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given too high a colour to the reception which his Bill had met with from the profession; he thought he had seen some opinions expressed of a contrary character. The country practitioners, and even some persons who practised in Edinburgh, objected to the details, and indeed to some of the fundamental principles of the measure. He put it to his right hon. and learned Friend whether, looking at the state of the Session and the scanty opportunity that would be afforded for discussing the details, the best course would not be to refer the question to a Select Committee, with a view of separating those parts which were strongly objected to from those parts to which no objection was entertained? He did not think that any reform of the Court of Session, as it now stood, would give satisfaction to the country which did not proceed more upon the principle of the Bill introduced four years ago by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Moncreiff). He was not so sanguine as the learned Lord in anticipating that small measures of this kind would stave off more comprehensive legislation; and there was an inconvenience in requiring people to become acquainted with new modes of procedure which were likely to be superseded by more radical changes. He had no wish to stand in the way of some moderate reform; but he thought that something far more searching and comprehensive was necessary to give satisfaction to the people of Scotland.

said, he had no objection to allow the Bill to be advanced this stage, on the understanding that, in assenting to the Preamble, they were only assenting to what every Scotchman would concur in—that some alteration for the better ought to be made in the Court of Session. He was inclined to think that the Commission should precede legislation. He hoped that, when the Commission was issued, some care would be taken that it did not consist too exclusively of Edinburgh lawyers—because, whether rightly or wrongly, throughout Scotland there was great distrust of Edinburgh lawyers. Of course, the legal profession must be represented on the Commission; yet country lawyers, and gentlemen who were in the interests of the clients, should also be represented.

said, he hoped the Lord Advocate would not take the advice given to send the Bill to a Select Committee. Of all things that could be done, that would be the worst, for it would prevent the possibility of any legislation taking place this year; and the Bill contained so many good provisions, that it would be a great pity to lose the benefit of them even for one year. Reference had been made to the opinions of the legal bodies on the question: and, in fact, it seemed to be assumed that Courts were made solely for the benefit of legal practitioners, but he maintained that the public were those who had the main interest. Among all the parties who hat! given their approval to this measure, the Lord Advocate had omitted one which was of more importance than any other—namely, the Chamber of Commerce of Edinburgh, That body contained about 500 members; it included every person of importance connected wish commerce or trade in the county or city of Edinburgh and the burghs surrounding it; and the Chamber bad sent a petition to the House of Commons in favour of the Bill, expressing general approval of its provisions, and praying that it might pass with the least possible delay. He thought this was the highest possible testimony in favour of the Bill; for at least four-fifths, and probably a larger proportion, of all the cases that came before the Court were cases connected with mercantile affairs. The mercantile community, therefore, had a deep interest in promoting the cheap, rapid, and just administration of justice by means of improved legislation, such as the present Bill. As regarded the Royal Commission, he rejoiced at the prospect of its appointment; but he agreed with what had been said by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Carnegie), that it should not consist wholly of Edinburgh lawyers; for he knew that there was a certain measure of distrust—though, perhaps, not so great as had been indicated—but still there was a certain measure of mistrust or prejudice which would operate against any Royal Commission composed exclusively of that class. There were some other questions which had not been referred to; one was the number of Judges. In 1852 a Committee of the House of Commons upon Public Salaries reported that the number of Judges was too largo, and ought to be reduced by two. He thought that was a very important point. The salaries of persons connected with most public offices had been considerably increased; but the salaries of the puisne Judges in Scotland remained as they were—at £3,000 a-year. He would suggest that the number of the Judges be reduced by two, and that the salaries saved should be added to the salaries of the remaining nine Judges, so that each would get £3,666. The salaries of the two presiding Judges he thought were large enough. Then there were in all parts of Scotland a number of local Judges called sheriff-substitutes, whose functions resembled very much those of the County Court Judges in England, only they were, in addition, charged with the administration of criminal justice in potty cases. But the judgments of these gentlemen, who heard the case and examined the witnesses, and know the character of the persons on the spot, might be reversed by the principal sheriff resident in Edinburgh, who had never seen the witnesses, and knew nothing about the case except what he learned by reading the evidence laid before him. On appeal to the Higher Courts it was often held, as might be expected, that the judgment of the principal sheriff was wrong, and that of the local sheriff right. Many parties in Scotland thought these non-resident sheriffs ought to be abolished altogether, and that the position of the local sheriffs should be somewhat improved, and put on a more permanent and respectable footing than at present. He admitted there was a difference of opinion on this subject, and that there were some advantages in the system of non-resident sheriffs; but, in his mind, the disadvantages greatly outweighed the advantages. Another great anomaly was that although these local sheriffs were all paid by the Crown by annual Votes, the Crown did not appoint them. The Edinburgh non-resident sheriff appointed his sheriff-substitute at one place with a salary of £1,000, at another with a salary of £800, and at another with £600 a-year. All these sheriff-substitutes, he thought, should be appointed directly by the Secretary of State, at a salary to be fixed by Act of Parliament. Though he would have liked a larger measure, he thought it would be mistaken policy to let this Bill drop, in order that they might wait for a more comprehensive measure, such as that introduced four or five years ago by the Lord Advocate then in Office. It would be better to seize the opportunity of passing this Bill, which contained a great deal of good. When the Royal Commission had reported, he hoped that an additional good measure would be passed, based on its Report.

said, there were very many anomalies and clauses in the existing law, and it was essentially important to get some of them removed as Boon as possible. If they waited till they got a complete and in every way satisfactory Bill, they might wait a very long time; and he was therefore in favour of taking the present Bill as a step in the right direction. He hoped the Lord Advocate would carry out his suggestion of a Royal Commission, and he trusted this inquiry would not be confined to one part, but would include the whole system, particularly as to the double sheriffships—a system that principally existed for the purpose of finding employment for the Edinburgh lawyers. He trusted the Commission would be issued immediately.

said, he would earnestly ask the Lord Advocate not to pass a Bill which they had no opportunity of discussing or examining. He contended that if there was to be a Royal Commission, it should be issued before, and not after legislation. He hoped the Bill would be delayed until after the fullest and most searching inquiry. The opinion of those who know the business of the Court thoroughly, and whose interests would be most affected, should be taken upon the subject. They should strive to get a Bill not to satisfy the Edinburgh lawyers, but to be beneficial to the country. He should like to hear the Lord Advocate defend that most monstrous institution, the system of double sheriffs.

wished to impress upon the learned Lord Advocate the importance of appointing upon the Commission he proposed some gentlemen who would look into the matter from an economical point of view. By this he meant gentlemen who were not connected with that House, and who were not only interested in legal procedure in Scotland, but were conversant with the finances of this country, and would consider the question accordingly. Some years ago the extravagance connected with the Irish Courts was brought under the notice of the Government; a Committee was appointed by the Treasury, and it recommended considerable economical reforms; nothing, however, was done, and the Irish Courts constituted one of the greatest scandals that could be imagined, their cost exceeding the fees by £30,000, while the English Courts paid their way. Last year Acts were passed stereotyping some of the worst abuses of the Courts, and for the time even increasing their cost. He hoped that in this case the principle of economy would be recognized in the Commission.

said, he had already explained that the Commission was to inquire into all questions connected with the constitution and jurisdiction of the Courts and the number of the Judges; and his purpose was that the investigation should be as full and searching as it was possible for it to be. He would recom- mend that it should not consist entirely of either Edinburgh or Scotch lawyers, but that it should embrace English lawyers, although the English Commission included no Scotch lawyer, notwithstanding which it was likely to recommend some assimilation of the English to the Scotch system. He was most anxious that the Bill should proceed, because it proposed amendments of the system in a direction in regard to which there was no difference of opinion, while it also proposed experiments which it would be advantageous to have tried to a certain extent before the Commission concluded its labours. He would remark that the hon. Member for the Ayr burghs (Mr. Craufurd) was an ardent reformer when he took the initiative, but was rather an obstructive when others did so. It did not rest with him to name the members of the Commission, but he was quite of opinion that it should embrace some one connected with the Treasury.

inquired what was the intention of the Government with regard to the recommendation, respecting the Lord Clerk Register, of the Select Committee which sat two years ago, on the subject of this Bill? The Committee stated in their Report that large powers were vested in the Lord Clerk Register, and that a considerable amount of labour had actually been performed by the present occupant of the post. All of it had been, and promised to be, of indisputable public advantage. It was inexpedient, they said, that powers so extensive should be vested in an unpaid officer. They, therefore, suggested the propriety of providing an adequate salary for the responsible head of this important office. The post of Lord Clerk Register, which had for many years been held as a sinecure, was deprived by the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 81, of a salary of £ 1,200 a year. By the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 53, a salary of not less that £2,500 a year was assigned to the Chief Registrar of the Land Registry of England. The Lord Clerk Register was one of the officers of State of Scotland, and the head of an office of which the revenue largely exceeded the expenditure. The Committee were unanimous in their Report—and he should like the House to remember that by the Bill now under their consideration, very large and increased duties would devolve upon the whole staff of the Register House in Edinburgh. He trusted that the Government would do their duty, and give a proper salary to the very efficient Lord Clerk Register, and also increased pay to the clerks and officers in the Department. He would remind the House that the present Lord Clerk Register, Sir William Craig, had resigned his post of Referee to the House of Commons, of the value of £1,000 a year, in order to attend to his duties at the Register House.

said, that in the course of the discussion on Supply a few nights ago the Secretary to the Treasury, in reply to a Question, intimated that the Government had it under their consideration to give effect to the recommendation of the Select Committee on that subject, and he could now add nothing to that statement.

complained of the way in which gentlemen who did nothing were paid high salaries at the expense of the public.

said, it had been assumed that the duties of the Lord Clerk Register had been increased, but he had seen no evidence that that was the fact, and he did not believe it. No new duties had been imposed by any Act of Parliament on that officer, whose work, such as it was, was done by a deputy, even for whom there was not enough to do. His own opinion on that matter was shared by nine-tenths of the people of Edinburgh; and he hoped that the Government, after they had concluded their consideration of the subject, would see that the right course to take was to provide no salary whatever for that office.

said, the hon. Member who had just spoken reminded him of the adage that none were so blind as those who would not see. Having sat on the Select Committee himself, he could state that the evidence adduced, was so irresistible that the general body of the Committee, feeling astounded at the work performed by the present Lord Clerk Register, who took the office under the impression that it would be merely honorary, spontaneously came to the conclusion that they ought to recommend that he should receive a salary. Whatever step might be proper in regard to sinecurists, there was no reason why a gentleman who really performed useful public labour should not be remunerated.

said, that, as he was Lord Advocate when the salary was taken away from the Lord Clerk Register, he thought it right to say a few words on this subject. The office was one of great responsibility and important duties. It was an entire mistake on the part of his hon. Colleague to suppose that there were no duties to be performed, or that the Register of Land Writs was not within the department of the Lord Clerk Register. So little was this the case, that the ancient statute which was the basis of the system of registration named the Lord Clerk Register as the high officer of State under whom the system was to be administered. Although the actual recording of the Writs was intrusted to the Keeper of the Sasines, the whole searching Department was under the direct superintendence of the Lord Clerk Register, who had besides a general control over the system. The office ought never to have been a sinecure. Unfortunately, when the late Earl of Dalhonsie was appointed Governor General of India, he retained the office, while he surrendered the salary; and although he (Mr. Moncreiff) was very averse, on that nobleman's death, to deprive the office of its salary, having in view the improvements which it is the object of this Bill to carry out, it was impossible at that time to insist on its not being abolished. But his right hon. Friend, the present holder of the office, has discharged its duties for the last ten years with such labour, fidelity, and ability that the Committee which was appointed two years ago unanimously recommended that the salary should be restored. He entirely concurred in that opinion. Some allusion had been made by his hon. Colleague to the opinion of the people of Edinburgh. He was quite satisfied that the Government could do no more popular act, as far as its citizens were concerned, than to give effect to the recommendation of the Com- mittee. Some observations had been made in regard to the Keeper of the Sasines. There was no foundation whatever for the assertion that this gentleman had no duties to discharge. His duties were important and essential, and they were most thoroughly discharged, and he was, as was well known, a most able and valuable public servant.

said, the real question was whether there should be an increase in the expenditure of the country or not. If one person was sufficient to discharge the duties of the office, why should two be paid for their performance?

said, he could bear testimony to the efficiency with which Sir W. Gibson Craig had performed the duties of the office. There might be a question whether the office was over-manned; but there could be no question that there were important duties to be performed, and he thought there could be no doubt as to the propriety of paying persons who discharged important duties for performing them efficiently.

said, that the compensation payable to the suppressed keepers of the local Registers of Sasines under this Bill represented a capital sum of about £200,000. Some of the officers who would be compensated under the Bill as it stood had taken their office on a commission in which a clause was inserted, stating that they took the appointment subject to its being abolished, or a change made in it, and providing that no claim for compensation, in either event, should be competent. He moved, as an Amendment, the insertion of the words, "Having regard to the terms of his commission," in order to limit the claims for compensation.

said, he hoped that the Committee would agree to the Amendment of his hon. Friend. Since 1858 a clause to the effect stated by his hon. Friend had been inserted in the commission of persons taking the appointments, for which it was now proposed to compensate them. The clause was not in all cases framed in precisely the same words. In some cases, the condition was based on the event of the office being abolished; in others, on that of alterations being made in it. What would less well-paid civil servants in other parts of the country say if it should be attempted to enforce in their case conditions of this kind, suppos- ing they were now given up in the case of the influential officers proposed to be compensated under this Bill?

said, he thought it would be more judicious to leave the clause as it stood, as these gentlemen had held their offices for ten years, and had discharged their duties most efficiently.

said, he was of opinion that considering the terms upon which these officers were appointed, it was impossible to resist the proposition of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren).

said, he would not object to the introduction of the words proposed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, if it was understood that it should be left to the Treasury to deal with all the claims for compensation, as all the appointments were not made in the same terms, and also to have regard to the recommendation in the Report of the Select Committee as to those appointed since 1858.

said, that it was non-ten years since these officers were appointed, with the expectation that their offices would be speedily abolished; but since their appointment their whole time had been devoted to the discharge of their duties, and it seemed hard to turn them adrift without compensation.

thought that a bargain was a bargain, and ought to be adhered to.

said, that the Bill was one paving the way for the confiscation of the property both of the English and Irish branches of the Established Church. It was a violation of the rights of property, of the Act of Union, and of the Oath of the Sovereign. Upon the present occasion he did not intend to oppose the Bill itself, but wished to draw attention to a clause which had been hastily and inadvertently introduced the other evening. The clause professed to deal in a tender manner with private rights, but seemed to treat corporate rights in a rough way. The misfortune of the intended measure of the right hon. Gentleman was that it was a Bill of confiscation, without having any object of public utility. It proposed to confiscate three-fifths of the property of the Irish Church, without providing any equivalent fund for the support of that Church. It was a great defect in many of our Acts of Parliament that they showed too great a respect fur private rights, and too great a disregard for corporate rights. One of the greatest anomalies in the Irish Church was caused by certain clauses which had crept into an Act of Parliament. There would have been but little complaint of the want of provision for religious purposes in certain parishes in Ireland had it not been for the enactments which had crept into the Church Temporalities Act. The misfortune was that whilst that Act enacted that, where there was no church in any parish or where service had not been performed in a parish for a certain length of time, the revenues of such parish should be forfeited to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but it contained a saving clause, which enacted that where a benefice in such parish was in the gift of a private individual there was to be no sequestration, and thus such parish frequently remained without any religious supervision while its revenues were received by an absentee clergyman. The tight hon. Gentleman carried that tenderness for private rights through the whole of the measure he shadowed forth—while confiscating, according to his own admission, three-fifths of the property of the Irish Church, without offering any counterbalancing public advantage. The clause in the Bill to which he wished on the present occasion to draw special attention was one which appeared to have crept into it, through haste and inadvertence. It provided that—

"Every person who shall be appointed to any office in the College of Maynooth after the passing of this Act shall hold the said office subject to the pleasure of Parliament, and likewise every Presbyterian minister hereafter to be appointed to receive any shave of the Reguim Donum."

The first, part of that clause was an absolute injustice, while the last part of it was an absolute absurdity. The Bill proposed to enact that the presentation to all benefices in the Irish Church which should become vacant should be immediately suspended, and it was understood that the presentation to the offices in the College of Maynooth were to be suspended also. So far from that being done by this clause, however, it permitted all vacancies which might occur in that institution to be filled up, merely directing that the whole grant should be subject to the pleasure of Parliament. But what was the effect of that provision? Had not the grant to Maynooth always been subject to the pleasure of Parliament, which had at any time power to abolish it either in part or altogether. The part of the clause which referred to the Regium Donum was very vague. The Regium Donum was commonly understood to be a provision for the Presbyterian and Nonconformist clergy in Ireland; but, in fact, technically, it might be a Royal giant for any other purposes. There was no public recognition by any Act of Parliament of the Regium Donum. It was mere surplusage to say that that grant was to be at the disposal of Parliament, when it was voted in the Estimates year by year, and might at any time be abolished, either wholly or in part. The clause if agreed to would be utterly inoperative, and therefore he begged to move that that part of it which referred to the Regium Donum should be omitted.

said, he thought the hon. Member had been rather severe upon this clause, and it was a great pity that he had not been present when it was agreed to in Committee. All he could say was that he was in no way responsible for the clause, which had been introduced in order to meet the views of those who sympathized with the hon. Member with respect to this measure, and which was not necessary either to carry out the objects of the authors of the Bill, or to meet the views of the Government as expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. The hon. Member said that the first part of the clause—that which related to Maynooth—was unjust, and that the second part of it—that which related to the Regium Donum—was absurd. He appeared, however, to be more scandalized by the absurdity than by the injustice, for he proposed to omit the absurd part of the clause and to retain the unjust part of it. The course that the House should take upon the subject was quite plain. These private rights were recognized in the 4th Resolution. In his opinion there could be no doubt that with respect to this clause they had gone beyond all usage; and if the matter were viewed in a strict and fastidious sense, possibly beyond propriety, in taking notice in a statute of rights which depended entirely on the pleasure of Parliament. But if the grant to Maynooth were to be referred to in the statute, it was only just that the Regium Donum should be placed upon the same footing, and that the legislation with regard to both grants should be equal, which would be the case if the clause were passed. The fact was that the provision with respect to the Regium Donum grew out of the 4th Resolution which had been adopted by the House. That Resolution distinctly recognized the existence of a personal interest on the part of those who received the Regium Donum. It was not a legal interest, but it was an interest of a kind with which the House had always shown its readiness to deal generously; and if they were to make any distinction between the College of Maynooth and the Regium Donum they would be committing a manifest practical injustice. The hon. Gentleman appeared to forget that the Bill contained provisions for the discharge of the duties of the minister during the continuance of the Act, and that the only object was to prevent the creation of freeholds until Parliament could deal with the whole subject of the Irish Church.

said, he must reiterate his objection to the Bill; and he presumed his arguments had some weight, because the Roman Catholic Members were so desirous to refute them. He had voted with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Aytoun) on the ground that it was unjust to pass au Act designed to injure the Anglican clergy, while the professors of Maynooth were allowed to be free from its operations. The right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) apparently thought such a course just, and had voted the other way; but now, by sanctioning the clause, he had endeavoured to cover an injustice by an absurdity. The position of those who derive benefit from the Regium Donum was totally different from the professors at Maynooth, because the latter were appointed under an Act of Parliament. It was perfectly true that the Regium Donum in the aggregate was sanctioned under the Appropriation Act, but the appoint- ments were not specified in any Act of Parliament. On the other hand there was a clause in the Maynooth Act specifying the appointments. The position of persons receiving a share of the Regium Donum was therefore totally different from that of persons appointed under the Maynooth Act of 1845.

said, that he was glad to afford the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of which he knew that his right hon. Friend was anxious to avail himself, to explain to the House the circumstances under which Her Majesty's Government had deemed it consistent with their duty not to be present in their places at the hour at which the Speaker usually takes the Chair on Wednesday last, when he had the honour to move the second reading of this important Bill. He was sure that hon. Members who were present on that occasion would bear him out in the remark that he was extremely reluctant to snatch what was deemed by some to be a supposed advantage, but which he desired most distinctly and deliberately to state was not an unforeseen success, through the absence of all Her Majesty's Ministers. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House half-an-hour after the usual hour of meeting, but when he (Mr. Monk) rose to address the House there was only one hon. Member present on the five Ministerial Benches above the Gangway. It would have been absurd for him to address mere empty Benches. He believed he was acting discreetly in moving the second reading and in reserving his arguments in favour of the measure for a reply. The reasons which had induced him, as an humble find independent Member, to introduce another Franchise Bill to the House at a time when two most important Government measures for the Reform of the representation of the people in Scotland and Ireland were occupying the greater part of the time and attention of Parliament, were briefly these. It would be in the recollection of the House that when the English Reform Bill was in Committee last year, the hon. Baronet the Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney), proposed a clause by which the right of voting at Parliamentary elections would be conferred upon officers employed in the Revenue Departments, who were otherwise entitled to the franchise. That clause was negatived almost without discussion by the advice and recommendation of the present Prime Minister, and of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire, partly on the ground that by conferring the franchise on Revenue officers new influences would be introduced into public life, which might not be of a beneficial character, and partly because my right hon. Friend thought that, although there was a fair primâ facie case in their favour, preliminary inquiry was desirable; but chiefly because the House was anxious that no delay should take place in sending the Bill to the House of Lords, and that it should become law as speedily as possible. My hon. Friend allowed his clause to be negatived without a division, and for a time the hopes of the Revenue officers were doomed to disappointment. The object of this Bill was to relieve the public servants employed in the management and collection of Her Majesty's Revenues from certain disabilities imposed by an Act of the Legislature in the last century. In 1782, shortly after the formation of the Rockingham Ministry, a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons for the purpose of bettor securing the freedom of election of Members to serve in Parliament by disabling them from voting at such elections. That Bill was warmly contested in all its stages, but it was passed by considerable majorities, though in no one division were more than 110 Members present. At that time it was computed that the Revenue officers formed nearly 20 per cent of the whole number of electors throughout the country. On the third reading of the Bill the Marquess of Rockingham stated that in no less than seventy boroughs the elections depended chiefly upon the votes of the Revenue officers, so that in point of fact they could influence 140 votes in the then House of Commons. At present, they would, if these disabilities were removed, form a very insignificant proportion of the whole number of electors. Shortly after the union of Gnat Britain and Ireland the Act of 43 Geo. III., c. 25, was passed, creating similar disabilities for the sister country, and by the 7 &c 8 Geo. IV., c. 53, s. 9, the provisions of the former Acts were amended and still further extended by increasing the penalty to be inflicted upon a Revenue officer for voting whilst in Her Majesty's service and for two months subsequently, from £100 to £500. Those were the enactments which the Bill sought to repeal. It was simply and solely a Franchise Bill, and was confined to the relief of the officers in the Revenue Departments from a fine of £500 and the further penalty of being for ever disabled and incapable of holding or executing any office of trust under Her Majesty, her heirs, and successors, to which they are liable for voting at elections. The Bill had been for some weeks in the hands of Members and of the public. There had been no undue haste, no surprise. The petitions which had been presented were unanimously in favour of the Bill. It was worthy of note that those Acts affected one branch only of the Civil Service. The Treasury, Home Office, Foreign Office, War Office, and Admiralty were wholly unaffected by them. The employés in those Departments could exercise the franchise freely without let or hindrance, and with respect to the officers in the Customs, Post Office, and Inland Revenue, whatever might have been the apprehensions of Parliament in 1782 as to the special influence of the Crown in directing their votes, it was preposterous to suppose that any such apprehensions could reasonably be entertained in 1868; indeed, if there were any grounds for apprehending any undue influence from that, or from any other quarter, an excellent opportunity would have been found for making trial of the ballot in taking the votes of the civil servants of the Crown. The chief argument used in favour of the Disabilities Bill in 1782 was that the Revenue officers themselves desired to be relieved from the franchise. One of the Members for Kent (Mr. Honywood) said that the Bill gave universal satisfaction in the ports in that county, as the officers were liable to be dismissed from their employment if they dared to have an opinion of their own in matters of election. That argument no longer held good. The Revenue officers, as might be seen by their petitions, considered their continued disfranchisement as a stigma and as a disgrace, and as indicating a belief that they were under the control of the Government of the day, and unfit to be entrusted with, the franchise. The Revenue officers themselves were a highly educated class, possessing political capacity equal to, if not above, their fellows. They were eminently fit to be entrusted with the franchise, and fully capable of exercising it with intelligence and independence. They had been selected by competitive examinations to fill offices of trust in the public service. Those offices they filled with credit to them-elves and with advantage and satisfaction to the country. He would ask the House whether it was not a glaring anomaly that these men should be deprived of their electoral rights upon entering Her Majesty's service, and that they should be restored to them only on being dismissed on account of incompetency or some grave and serious offence? In the face, too, of the wide enfranchisement by the Act of last year, their position would be more galling and intolerable than it had hitherto been. He would appeal to the House whether this was not a necessary corollary of the Reform Act of last year; he would appeal to the Scotch and Irish Members whether this was not a necessary adjunct to the Reform Bills for Scotland and Ireland? Nothing but the good of the State could justify the continuance of those restrictions, and he did not believe that they were necessary for the good government of the country or for the well-being of the public service. At that hour of the night it would be impossible for him to do more than to allude to the Report of the Commissioners of Customs and Inland Revenue just delivered to Members. Some of the arguments were inapplicable to the Bill, others might easily be refuted. But he must call the attention of the House to the remarkable absence of any Report from the Post Office. [" Move, move !"] In deference to the wishes of the House, he would at once move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.

said, he thought it was utterly impossible at that hour of the night to discuss a measure of so serious a character. He wished to explain and apologize to the House for his absence when the Bill stood for a second reading the other day. It came on at an earlier hour than was usual for the first Order of the Day, and he was not prepared for its coming on so soon. He was on his way to the House, but was unexpectedly detained, and readied very soon after twelve o'clock, but found the second reading had been agreed to without any discussion. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had on that occasion an ample opportunity for detailing the reasons for reading the Bill a second time—indeed, the Bill might have occupied the whole day; and if he had gone on with his speech he would have had the advantage of the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, who came into the House a few minutes after he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did. A few minutes ago he had received a message from that right hon. Gentleman to the effect that he understood from the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway), whose name was on the back of the Bill, that it would not be proceeded with to-night, and the right hon. Gentleman had left the House on that understanding. On the same understanding he had told a number of his Friends who intended to support him in opposing the Bill that they were at liberty to leave. He therefore hoped the hon. Gentleman would have no hesitation in acceding to the adjournment of the debate.

explained that he had a short conversation with the right hon. Member for South Lancashire, who informed him that, being very much tired, he could not wait for a long discussion, upon which he said he would ask the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) not to proceed with the Bill; but the right hon. Gentleman left the House before he had the opportunity of learning the result of that communication, which was that his hon. Friend intended to persevere in his Motion. He thought it would be impossible now to persist in going into Committee when the Government declined to discuss the principle of the Bill.

said, he thought his hon. Friend could not, in Parliamentary courtesy, resist the adjournment of the debate, but he hoped a Morning Sitting would be appointed for the Bill, which excited considerable interest among the huge class whom it concerned.

said, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought, after what had happened, he (Mr. Monk) had a claim upon the Government, he should be happy to allow the debate to be now adjourned, and he would put the Motion down for Monday.

said, he thought the question very worthy of discussion, and he should be glad to hear it fully discussed. He had no objection to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman.