said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If it is intended to proceed with the manufacture of the Henry-Martini rifle otherwise than for trial; and, if he is aware that very grave doubts are entertained by competent parties as to the durability of the mechanism of the presumed improvement?

said, he wished to ask if any test were to be used for the cartridge as well as for the rifle?

said, that it was intended to apply further tests to the efficiency of the cartridge, so as to obtain the best possible cartridge for the rifle.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he could state the grounds upon which the Customs' License to land and store goods at Dagenham has been refused to the Dagenham (Thames) Dock Company, three Acts of Parliament having passed for the construction of these works, and the sum of £170,000 having been expended on the faith of these Acts; whether the late Commissioners of the Treasury did not decide to grant the Company's application, and why that decision has been reversed by the present Board of Treasury; and why the correspondence between the Company and the Commissioners of the Treasury and the Board of Trade respectively, ordered by the House to be printed on the 10th of June 1869, has been produced in an incomplete state, and why those omissions in the Correspondence have not hitherto been supplied?

said, in reply, that the reasons why the Customs' License to land and store goods at Dagenham was refused were—1st, the remoteness of the locality, it being ten miles by railroad and more by water from the Custom House; 2dly, the want of adequate accommodation there for the trade; 3dly, the increased expense of sending officers to exercise supervision in such a place; 4thly, the risk to the revenue likely to arise on account of the lonely and retired nature of the place; 5thly, the necessity which would infallibly arise from a precedent established in this case of offering to other places the same advantage, and the absence of any additional accommodation to that offered by the existing dock companies. The right hon. Gentleman here read the following extract from the Customs' Report for this year relative to the contemplated dock:—

"The frontage of the platform to the river is very limited, too much so to be fairly called a wharf. It is uncovered and completely exposed to the weather, affording no shelter for men or goods. On the line of the railway, not far from its junction with the Tilbury line, are two large sheds erected, as I was informed, about two years ago. On the left of the railway as it approaches the jetty, and in the midst of the land belonging to the Dagenham Dock Company, is a long piece of water known as Dagenham Lake. It is this lake which it is proposed to convert into a dock, but no works for that purpose have been commenced. On the river side of the barrier bank— which separates the river from the lake—some excavation has some time ago been made to form an entrance basin, but the action of the river has now nearly filled it up, and no further progress has been made on the bank of the river in the construction of wall, wharf, or entrance."

In respect to one part of the Question of the noble Lord, he must state that the late Government never positively acceded to the application of the company, but they made a Minute, and the matter was then referred to the Customs' Department for further inquiry, with a suggestion that the traders themselves should be left to judge whether or not the trade was likely to justify the grant of the concession of the privilege. From that view the present Treasury Board emphatically dissented, not thinking it right that the trade should decide whether the expense of sending Custom House Officers to places like that in question should be incurred. With regard to the last part of the Question, he was not aware of anything being incomplete in the Correspondence, but if the noble Lord would point out any omission it should be remedied.

said, that the Papers he had already laid on the table, contained the whole of the Correspondence with the exception of one letter.

said, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has been able to lay upon the Table of the House the replies, he promised, from the different Railway Companies to his Circular; and if not, whether he will lay them upon the Table of the House before the end of the Session?

Sir, the replies to the Circular which has been sent out by the Board of Trade are not all received, and are consequently at present imperfect. In the case of one of the most important railways, the London and North-Western Company, the Board of Trade has, with the consent of the company, directed an. inquiry into a modification of the block system which they have proposed, and which, if it be approved of, they propose also to extend. Under these circumstances, as the Report will be so incorrect and incomplete if presented at the present time, it is thought better to delay laying the answers on the table of the House until the opening of next Session.

said, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Sir George Jenkinson), he would beg to ask the Question which stood in the name of the hon. Baronet on the Notice Paper— namely, Whether the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department has been called to the great inequality of sentences frequently passed at Assizes on various criminals; for instance, the five following cases are reported in "The Times" of the 5th instant, under the head of "Assize Intelligence ":—Case 1. Home Circuit, Crown Court, August 4, by Mr. Justice Mellor, a man named Simmons, convicted for feloniously killing his wife at Redhill. Details very revolting and brutal; guilty, but recommended to mercy; not concurred in by the Judge; sentence, five years' penal servitude. Case 2. Same Court, a man named Fyfield, convicted for feloniously cutting and wounding his wife with intent to murder her; details very bad; guilty; a bad case of unlawfully wounding; sentence, eighteen months' imprisonment. Case 3. Same Court, a man named Gore, for feloniously inflicting grievous bodily injury with intent to do so; he beat a man severely with his fists; sentence, fifteen years' penal servitude. Case 4. Midland Circuit, York, August 2nd, Crown Court, Mr. Justice Brett, three men, named John Brown, Henry Lock, and William Johnson, breaking into a bacon-house and stealing eight hams and two shoulders of bacon; sentence on Brown, seven years', and on Lock and Johnson, five years' penal servitude. Case 5. Western Circuit, Bodmin, August 2nd, Mr. Justice Keating, a man named William Rapson Oates, a "herbalist," obtaining £2 5s. by false pretences; guilty, recommended to mercy; sentence, five years' penal servitude. And, whether Her Majesty's Government contemplates taking any legislative steps to obtain greater uniformity in the sentences passed on criminals in the various Assize Courts? He thought it right to add that he had been unable to verify the cases cited by his hon. Friend.

said, that he, like the hon. Gentleman, had also been unable to verify the cases cited by the hon. Baronet; but he had no doubt that at the recent Assizes, as at previous Assizes, inequalities might be observed in the sentences. They might be accounted for partly by the fact that all the circumstances which dictated to the Judges the decisions to which they came were not reported, and partly by the different constitutions of the minds of the Judges. With regard to the substantial part of the Question—whether the Government intended to take any legislative steps to obtain greater uniformity in the sentences passed upon criminals? he was not prepared to answer the Question affirmatively.

moved that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.

I cannot allow this Motion to pass in silence. I think it the duty of every Member of this House at this period of the Session to give every possible support to the Government—consistently of course with their individual opinions — to wind up the business, and carry those measures which are thought, on the whole, necessary for the public good. But I must say that I am surprised at the position in which much of the Public Business is now placed—especially with reference to this particular measure of the Scotch Parochial Schools, which has had a very injurious effect upon the conduct of other Public Business. This is really a matter of importance, because I need not remind the Committee that it has been brought under the consideration of the House by a notice in Her Majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne; and no measure is ever noticed by a Minister in the Speech from the Throne unless it is decided by the Cabinet to be one of importance, and unless it is matured with the utmost study and judgment on the part of the Government. Under these circumstances, it seems to me much to be regretted that we should be called upon to discuss a Bill of considerable complication, on a subject of such importance, and introduced in the Speech from the Throne, at a moment when the Appropriation Bill is on the Table. And I cannot think that we ought to pass over without notice a combination of circumstances so unfortunate. Is it the fault of this House? Is it the fault of those who have felt it their duty to give some opposition to this measure? I cannot find that there is any fault to be fairly imputed to this House for this unfortunate state of affairs, or that it can for one moment be alleged that it arises from any vexatious opposition on on the part of Gentlemen on this side of the House. Some time ago this Bill came from the House of Lords with considerable Amendments, some of those Amendments being moved by one of Her Majesty's Ministers. On that occasion the Lord Advocate took a course which I observed with regret. It is possible it might be technically defensible; but I appeal to the candour of the Committee whether, when a Gentleman moves that we should go into a Committee pro formâ on a Bill in order that it may be re-printed, anyone could suppose that it was the object of the learned Lord to make the enormous changes which he on that occasion so successfully accomplished.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I stated the changes I proposed., and gave the reasons for moving to go into Committee on the Bill pro formâ.

That may be so; but is it not a fact that no Gentleman in the House was aware of what was going on? ["No."] Well, I hope for the credit of the House that it is so, because I cannot conceive that a proposition of that kind could be made; and. I should have thought that the hon. Gentlemen opposite me would have thought it decorous, by way of precedent, that notice should have been given by Government of the changes they intended to propose.

I must again rise to explain that I made a statement of considerable length, giving not only the changes we meant to introduce, but the reasons for so doing. I think the right hon. Gentleman, before he makes charges of this kind, should inform himself as to the facts.

It is quite unnecessary for the learned Lord to interrupt me, because I was not going to insist upon the circumstance. It was disapproved by the House and regretted, but it was condoned; and consequently I declined to notice it — and the best defence for it is this—that it was a matter of exigency. The Government believed that this was a measure of primary importance, and that the course they took was the only way in which they could put their complete and matured views before the House and the Committee. And although I regretted that the practice should pass unnoticed, still I thought there was some defence and vindication for the course that had been pursued. But having placed their views before the House, have the Government adhered to them? Having struck out all these Amendments, and having deprived the House of the opportunity of considering the Amendments made in "another place," have the Government adhered to the views which they adopted, and their adherence to which could only have justified this summary proceeding? Nothing of the kind. To say that the conduct of the Government has been inconsistent would be an inadequate phrase. It has been incoherent. It has been not only capricious and vacillating, but diametrically opposed on most important points from night to night. I say, Sir, that this is not a proper way— at least, it is not a desirable way at any time of settling questions of importance; but if the Government change their opinions on matters of importance in the middle of a Session, there is an opportunity of discussing and considering their propositions, and of coming to a mature decision upon them. But it is highly undesirable that such a course should be taken by the Government at the fag-end of the Session. We have five prints of this Bill in our possession, and in many of their provisions they are diametrically opposed. We are now asked, with the Appropriation Bill on the table, to proceed with this legislation. Now, Sir, I will not enter into any of the details of the clauses which have been so changed, and some of which are opposed to each other. The Scotch Members have a particular process of conducting their legislation through this House. They are satisfied with it; and, I think very unwisely on the part of this House, that system has not been challenged. I think it is not a desirable system, because one of the practical results is that the Scotch business is settled in a hole-and-corner, and the Scotch Members degrade themselves to the position of a select vestry. There is thus necessarily a deficiency of knowledge and sympathy with the Scotch Members which is not at all desirable. I know the influence of Scotch Members, and that if they are resolved upon a particular way of conducting their business, it will be impossible for us to resist it. But what I maintain is this— that anything connected with Scotch education is not merely a Scotch question, but one of national interest, and one on which the House ought to be fully acquainted with the proposals of the Government, and the motives which influence them. I heard during the course of these proceedings that when a difficulty arose, a compromise had been arrived at between the Government and the opponents of the Bill. You cannot carry on the affairs of the world without compromise, and I was not sorry to hear that the difficulty had been overcome. I know that Gentlemen who had opposed the Bill ceased to oppose it, and some even ceased to attend the House any longer. I was afterwards surprised when the Government informed us they did not intend to adhere to that compromise, but had made another arrangement contrary to it — an arrangement which was not made in the House, or in consequence of any debate in this House. That is a course of affairs to be deprecated. We must remember the circumstances under which the question was first brought before us. It was noticed by the Government in the Queen's Speech. It engaged the attention of their predecessors. It was a subject of magnitude—a question, in fact, of improved national education for Scotland. Well, Sir, we cannot legislate on a subject of that kind without sanctioning some principles and agreeing to some conditions which hereafter may be appealed to in vindication of a mea- sure of English national education. It is a subject of general and universal interest, and one to which we ought to give our attention, in a manner becoming the question, and without the haste and precipitation which distinguish the present course of proceeding. I know it is said—and indeed it is the only argument in favour of the present course which I have heard—that if we do not pass a measure of this kind, a considerable proportion of the population of Scotland will be deprived of the advantages of education—some 90,000 children, as we were told the other night; but do you mean to say that because 90,000 children may be deprived of the advantages of education you are to pass an improper Bill at an improper time? There are more children proportionately in England who are deprived of these advantages than in Scotland, but no one will pretend that we ought to discuss and pass a Bill for national education in England when the Appropriation Bill is on the table. Now, Sir, I wish to assure the House and the Government that in making these observations I am only speaking what I think is for the interest of the country and of the House, and that I am merely maintaining those views which I have always supported. I will not quote anything that I have myself said, but I will refer to the course recommended by the present Prime Minister in 1856, and in which I supported him. What I am about to read is not a long paragraph, but it is characterized by all that ability and happiness of expression which might be expected from such a quarter. In his unfortunate absence it is a very great advantage that we should be guided by his experience and judgment. The right hon. Gentleman was alluding to the state of Public Business at the end of 1856, and he was also referring to the Bishops of London and Durham Retirement Bill. He said—

"Now, Sir, as regards this measure, I do not hesitate to say that, quite independently of its particular provisions, I think we ought not, under any circumstances, to be called upon to pass such a measure at such a time. It is impossible at this period of the Session to give to a subject of this grave importance and of this extreme difficulty the consideration which it requires. Why, Sir, it is even impossible at this time fairly to collect the sense of the House upon such a question. It is only a fortnight ago since this House virtually rejected the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill. Within that fortnight the business of the country has been almost entirely wound up. We have passed the Appropriation Bill—that which we look upon as the natural termination of the important business of the Session; our functions in Committee of Supply have ended. It is not merely the date of the 23rd of July which we have to consider, though I must say that if Government continue the practice of introducing these most difficult Bills, these measures of such vast importance, when the Session is expiring, it will be necessary for this House, in self-defence, to resort to a measure which has been adopted in the other House, and to pass rules fixing positive dates after which they will not consent to entertain such measures. I am quite sure that the noble Lord at the head of the Government must feel that in expressing these opinions I am expressing the opinions generally entertained by the Members of this House. We have, in fact, come to a state of things in which some forty or forty-five persons holding Office under the Government virtually decide every question before the House. It is hardly possible that any combination of Members, or the union of any body of persons, whatever their position or views may be, can face so formidable an official phalanx."—[3 Hansard, cxliii. 1327.]

The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) has asked me for the book, and he will no doubt give us his version of the situation, although I believe he did not speak on that occasion. What I press upon the Committee is that the view which the Leader of the House took in 1856 was a sound and temperate one, and I do not understand why the Government should persist in pressing on this Bill when the Appropriation Bill is on the table, when the Committee of Supply is closed, and when there is no possibility that, either in this House or in "another place," there can be any of that matured discussion by which a right decision can alone be arrived at upon national education—a subject on which, of all subjects in the world, a right decision is surely the most desirable.

Unquestionably I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this matter of Scotch education is a matter of interest, not only to that "select vestry" of Scotch Members which he has been kind enough to allude to, but to the House of Commons generally; and I am sure I only express the views and feelings of the Scotch Members when I say that it is with pleasure we see so distinguished a Member of this House taking an interest in the question, and that we should have been very glad if that interest had been developed a little earlier in the Session. It seems to me that if he had taken that course, he would not have fallen into the multiplicity of mistakes which has characterized the speech he has just made; and I cannot but regret that the right hon. Gentleman's interference in this interesting matter should have been confined to taking up a portion of that short time during which we might have made progress with this Bill. In regard to the history of the Bill, it is needless for me to go back upon it in detail, although the right hon. Gentleman has not heard it. Those hon. Members who have taken an interest in and attended to this matter as to a public duty are familiar with the facts. The Bill was introduced as the fruit of the Report of the Royal Commission, and it was introduced in "another place" early in the Session. That there were conflicting views upon the subject of the Bill we are perfectly well aware. Even before the Bill was introduced into the House of Lords the Commissioners had recommended a compromise. The House of Lords threw over the compromise, at least in one important particular, which is not without analogy or importance in the present discussion. The question in dispute related to the management of the parochial schools and the new schools. The compromise recommended by the Commissioners was to leave the parochial schools under the old management, and to place the new schools under the new Board about to be constituted. The Lords threw over the new management, and adhered to the management of the old parochial schools; and in a great many particulars the Bill was altered in their Lordships' House. When it came down here, the question was how to deal with the Amendments of the Lords, and I endeavoured at once to show to the House and to the country the real propositions of the Government, and the principles upon which they wished to take the opinion of this House. I know that, even as matters stand, in Scotland the real proposition of the Government has hardly yet been understood, not from want of information, but because the print with the Lords' Amendments sent down to Scotland has been up to this time believed in many quarters to be the Bill of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman has accused me of an offence which he says has been condoned. I was not aware that I had committed any offence, or that I stood in need of any pardon. I was at a loss to know how to deal with the Bill as it came from the Lords, and I consulted the best authorities I had access to. I allude to the clerks who sit at this table, and whose advice is generally resorted to; and I was advised, and I believe soundly advised, that there was nothing improper or out of Order—nothing but what was perfectly regular—in committing the Bill pro formâ for the purpose of introducing Amendments. I made a statement on the second reading which the right hon. Gentleman did not do me the honour to attend and listen to, and I then stated fully what the Government intended to take and what they intended to reject, and I terminated my speech purposely by saying that the Government would go into Committee pro formâ, for the purpose of re-printing the Bill with the Amendments the Government proposed. The House were at no loss to understand my statement, and it is unreasonable that I should now be told that I have followed a most unprecedented and improper course. So much for the history of the Bill. Now, it is said that this was a compromise. But there was no compromise in that sense of the word. The real matter is this— It has been a debated question from first to last whether parochial schools should be left under their present exclusive management, or whether the management should be rendered more liberal. That question was discussed in "another place;" and the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr Ewing) has had on the Paper in regard to this Bill a Resolution for the purpose of altering the constitution of the parochial schools ever since the Bill first came down here, but in the speech I made I unquestionably stated that, on the whole, the Government thought it better to adhere to the compromises suggested by the Commissioners. But that was a matter entirely open to debate; and, if the Government had been defeated on that point, it would have been quite open to accept the Amendments of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire. We divided on the question whether the parish schools should remain as they were or not. We resolved to accept the Amendment, and I think my hon. Friends the Members of the "select vestry," who sat upon that side of the House, entirely concurred with me also. They thought it was rather late to call upon them to consider the matter. I am perfectly certain they do not sympathize with the Motion made by my noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho); and now what are we told? We are told that it is outrageous to go into Committee on a large Bill at this time of the Session. Sir, this is not the first time the House has done such a thing. I remember we sat one Session up to the 28th August—the year in which the Divorce Bill was introduced. I say there is no more urgent subject than a subject of this nature, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman, having relieved his own mind by the expression of his opinion, will neither create nor encourage any delay.

said, that anyone who had been unfortunate enough to have been in this House during the last ten days as many hours as he had could not fail to have been struck with two remarkable things. One was that they were now setting an extraordinary precedent for future legislation in the way in which measures had been got through during the last few days. He thought they were going a pretty good pace to bring legislation into contempt, and if legislation was brought into contempt, he did not know that contempt of law would not follow. The other point was this—he gave no opinion as to the changes which were about to take place in the measure which had stopped the way for so many days, but there were 200 Amendments to the Bill, and they were told this morning that the Lord Advocate had assented to seventy of them. That was a pretty good sweep, and he supposed it would make a pretty considerable alteration in the Bill, so that when the measure went back to "another place" it was very likely to give rise to considerable discussion. He gave no opinion on the matter. He did not understand whether the change was right or wrong; but he had a very strong opinion that if the Government thought it right to make such extensive changes, those changes ought to have been made ten days ago, when all the time which had been wasted in fruitless discussion would have been saved, and then it would have been possible for the alterations to have received that amount of consideration when they went back to "another place" which they were entitled to. These were points which had struck him very forcibly. He confessed he should be very sorry to see the course which had been pursued with regard to this Bill set up as a precedent for the future mode of doing business in that House. He thought it inconvenient, and as he said before, he believed it would tend to bring legislation into contempt; and he could not conceive any inconvenience in a measure or two standing over for another year, which would be greater than the giving rise to a belief that at the end of a Session a mass of legislation was got through without receiving the consideration which it deserved, and without giving time to the '' other place'' to which all Bills must go, for dealing properly with them, instead of shuffling them over in the way in which a good many Bills had been shuffled over during the last few days.

said, he must protest against the course which had been adopted with regard to this Bill. This House had never seen the Bill as it left the Lords at all, for it was committed pro formâ, and when it came on for discussion it was virtually a new Bill. The whole explanation made upon it on going in Committee pro formâ did not last three minutes, and it consisted of a sotto voce conversation between the Speaker and the Lord Advocate, and—he did not know whether the reporters had "struck'' at that period or not—not a line of it appeared in the newspapers. The going into Committee on that occasion took place between two and three o'clock in the morning, and the people of Scotland, unable to obtain any information of it through the daily journals must have been in a state of complete mystification about it. He objected to the Bill going forward now, lest it might be made into a precedent for England. The Bill sought to alter the whole taxation of Scotland, and the whole mode of regulating the schools; and they did not even know yet whether the clause for denominational schools might not be struck out by the Liberal Members for Scotland. He trusted the Bill would not be allowed to proceed further this Session.

said, it seemed to him that if hon. Members had only discussed the Bill instead of wasting time over preliminary questions, the measure would have left the House long since; but the policy of the Opposition had been to discuss over and over again whether they should proceed with it or not. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks objected to proceed with the Bill on the ground that at such a time of the year it would be supported by the votes of thirty or forty Members of the Government. But a night or two ago, in a House of something like 150 Members, upwards of 100 voted in favour of proceeding with it. The question was, was Scotland in favour of the measure? Well, interpreting the will of Scotland by the representatives of Scotland in that House, he thought it clear that it was the desire of the people of Scotland that the Bill should pass. The present Session had not been a long one compared with some recent Sessions. In 1867, the House sat until the 23rd of August, and long before the 23rd of August this year this Bill could be fairly considered by both Houses of Parliament.

remarked that a large number of Scotch Members were absent from the House at the present period, and he presumed that it might, therefore, be concluded that they were not very anxious on the score of this Bill. He was supplied by the Lord Advocate with a good argument for voting in favour of the Motion that the Chairman leave the Chair, for the right hon. and learned Lord had made the admission that the Bill was not understood by the people of Scotland. He trusted that the Government would see fit to withdraw the measure.

Sir, I could conceive circumstances in which the objection which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) should be held to be valid; that is, if the question was one of great difficulty, and if its principle was contested. But judging from what has taken place on this side of the House, and from what we have seen on several occasions on the other side, there is really no considerable difference of opinion in regard to the Bill itself. If we were a month earlier in the Session, nearly all the arguments which are now used against the Bill could not be used, and the Bill would stand generally supported by the great majority of Members on both sides of the House. I have heard it said from this Bench that hon. Members opposite have opposed the Bill as if they did not believe that it was a bad Bill, or as if they believed that a Bill of this kind should not be opposed. If we are agreed on that, what reason is there that a Bill of this kind should not be passed now? If you believed that the Bill was bad and embraced principles which, if carried out in Scotland, might be held to be wrong for the rest of the Kingdom, then you might vote against the Bill and decide to reject it. But the fact is quite contrary; and no one can doubt the importance of the Bill itself and the question it is intended to settle. Everyone knows that we have had during the whole Session a succession of deputations from Scotland to represent to the Government the importance of this question. I believe there is no Member of the Government—no Member of the Cabinet, certainly—who has not had interviews with several deputations from Scotland in connection with this Bill; and we have had them constantly in the Lobby. It shows that there is a very great interest in the question, and the object of the Government has been to meet, as far as it was possible in one Bill, the general views of the people of Scotland in regard to this question. Now, the right hon. Gentleman says the Lord Advocate has not adhered to the general principles of this Bill. But he is the last man that should say that, for he, of all Ministers that I have ever seen, was the most pliant in regard to the great measure of which he had the conduct some time ago. And it was only because he was pliant, and because he acted on the theory—which he has promulgated to-day, not for the first time, that compromise was necessary, that he was enabled to pass one of the most important measures that is now on the statute-book of this country. The Government, doing the best they could under the circumstances, have conducted the plan and brought the Bill to its present position. And now, if it was left to the Scotch Members on this side of the House, you might count on the fingers of one hand the number of Scotch Members who would oppose this Scotch Bill. It would be carried all but unanimously by the Scotch Members—and more than that, it would be carried unanimously by the English Members on this side of the House—and if hon. Members opposite would only act on their opinions, they also would pass the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) says we are bringing legislation into contempt. The fact is, that this House is so numerous, that unless three-fourths of the Members went away at the end of the Session we should not pass any measures—because there are so many Members, all representing earnest constituents, and there is so much to be debated, that it is only when the House is thin that measures of this nature and the general run of legislation can pass through. What has taken place this Session is what has happened in previous Sessions. I know it depends very much on the character of the Administration what measures shall pass at this period of the Session; but my own opinion is that this is one of the Bills in passing which at this period of the Session the country will say the Government has done its duty. Look at the difficulty of passing any Bill at all. See what difficulties there have been this Session. See what difficulties there will be next Session, with a number of important Bills, as we hope, coming forward; and would it not be beneficial that the House should clear away, for a time at least, the great question of Scotch education.? The right hon. Gentlemen has referred to the 90,000 children in Scotland, and he says there are many more in England. That may be true. But surely if we delay this Bill now, and it is to come on again next Session, it will block the way of the measure which is to meet the wants and difficulties of the people of this country. I appeal then, to hon. Members to let this Bill pass. The Government is not interested in the Bill any more than other Members. Our object is to make the legislation of this Session as advantageous as possible, and I believe if this Bill were to pass it would make this Session much more valuable. The House of Lords understands this question thoroughly. They will not require to discuss it from beginning to end. There are Lords enough now to discuss it; and there can be no doubt that, seeing they have had it under consideration before, they will not object to the Bill going up now. We have done the best we could during one of the heaviest Sessions the House of Commons ever had, and I do appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to give it a vexatious and party opposition. [Lord ELCHO: Not party.] Well, I will withdraw "party," and will say opposition against a measure which, is supported by this side of the House, and which receives all but the unanimous support of the people of Scotland; and I believe, if they look at what the interests of the country require, they will allow the Bill to proceed and the clauses to be got through, which may be done within the next hour or hour and a-half.

said, he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would acquit him of having shown any hostility to the Bill. There was a great deal of good in it, but, at the same time, the course which had been followed by Government, though technically correct, was not the usual one. The right hon. Gentleman committed the Bill pro formâ, and then reprinted it. But surely it would have been better for him to have placed on the Paper the alterations which he proposed to make. Three or four weeks after the Bill was re-printed, the right hon. Gentleman, in consequence of the remonstrances from all sides of the House, as to the difficulty of understanding the position in which the Bill was, had his Amendments re-printed separately. He ought to have taken that course in the first instance. The result was that the people of Scotland had had no opportunity of seeing the Amendments on the Bill, and did not know in what position it now stood. As to the attempt that had been made to cast the blame of delay on his side of the House, to that he demurred entirely. The opposition to the Bill proceeded from the Government side of the House below the Gangway, and to cast the blame on this side was most unjust. He had listened attentively to this discussion, but he had failed to see that any hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House had taken up the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, who quoted the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown as to the procedure on the part of the Government in attempting to pass a Bill of this importance after the Appropriation Bill had been laid on the table, and no hon. Member had attempted to reply. If this Bill had been pushed with vigour, he believed it might have been passed through the House; but it could not be expected that they would allow a measure of this importance, affecting the whole of Scotland, to pass in this hurried manner.

said, that the President of the Board of Trade had admitted that if this Bill introduced any principle with respect to education for Scotland which would be objected to for England he should regard the opposition to this measure as entirely justifiable. Now, he (Mr. Lowther) would take his stand on the 59th clause, which authorized school committees to impose assessments upon lands and heritages to maintain new national schools. Now, he (Mr. Lowther) most decidedly and entirely objected to an educational rate for England, and therefore he strongly objected to such a precedent being established in a Bill brought into that House at the very end of the Session. The Prime Minister had pledged the Government not to propose or agree to any increase of local burdens until the entire question of local taxation had been brought before the House, and this was a question of local taxation. Many of the Members for Scotland were favourable to a compulsory rate, which was a first step towards compulsory education. Now, in England, with few exceptions, there was a strong repugnance to compulsory education on the part of the great mass of the people. As the Bill introduced a precedent for Scotland which many hon. Members would oppose for England, a case had been made out, on the right hon. Gentleman's own showing, why the House ought not to pass the Bill this Session.

was sorry to interfere between the Committee and the division, but having moved that the Chairman leave the Chair, he thought it right to explain his reasons. As the learned Lord Advocate well knew, no one had worked more heartily with him in the cause of education than he had done fourteen years ago. The Bill which his hon. and learned Friend attempted to pass in 1854 was a far better measure, much sounder in principle, more liberal and comprehensive, and founded upon a better system than the Bill before the House. The Bill of 1855 was a national measure. It embraced the old parochial schools, and established new schools for all Presbyterians. By the compromise which was made the other night, and which was a compromise between what the supporters of the Government wished and what the Government itself was pledged to, the parochial schools were taken entirely out of the Bill, and new schools were to be maintained out of the rates, practically for those who were not members of the Established Church, but belonged to the Presbyterian faith. They were to remain untouched, except that the management was liberalized to a certain extent. In addition to that, a provision was made, which he admitted was perfectly reasonable, for the education of Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, whose faith and feelings would not allow them to attend the parochial or district schools. He should be most inclined to take his stand on the question of the incidence of taxation proposed in this Bill. Let property be rated to the full amount necessary for the purposes of education, but let the taxation be just. Let it fall on all who were interested in education—and he maintained that the whole population were interested in the question — and not merely those who were the owners of heritable property. Personal property ought to be rated as much as heritable and. landed property for this purpose. This Bill did not do that. It extended the area of taxation, but it left the burden where it originally stood—on the owners of real property. He believed that one of the causes of the anxiety of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to get the measure passed was to get in the thin end of the wedge, and get Parliament to sanction by legislation the principle of rating real property and not personal property for the purpose of education. English Members had better look to this. He (Lord Elcho) had never taken a factious course in that House, and he had only moved to report Progress because he held that there was a large principle at stake in this matter, much more important than even the Education Bill itself. That question was the mode of conducting Public Business in this House. As a Scotch Member, he protested against the mode of conducting Scotch business adopted in this case—namely, that measures of the utmost importance should be chopped and changed about to suit the feelings and views of the thick-and-thin supporters of the Government; and he objected altogether to Scotch measures—measures of vital importance— being brought forward at a period of the Session when they had only a few hours to discuss them. He had simply done what he deemed to be his duty in the Motion he had made, for he did not think it right that measures of this kind, about which they were told the Scotch people knew nothing, should be hurried through the House as was now proposed. He entered his protest against such a course, and should press his Motion to a division.

said, that the word "secretary" occurred in line 30, and he wished to remind the Committee that the question arose the other day as to whether the secretary should or should not be a clergyman. Through a misunderstanding on his part, he was then unable to press that question, and the clause which enabled them to put it passed without their being able to elicit a definite answer on the subject. To speak plain upon this matter, he had to state that a rumour was in circulation that a certain rev. gentleman who had been extremely useful to the Government at the last election had a promise of this secretaryship. Considering that the Board was to be undenominational in its character, and that they were about to establish an undenominational system of education for Scotland, he did not think a greater mistake could be made than to appoint to the office of secretary the representative of any sect in Scotland. He hoped therefore that when his right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate came to give a definite answer as to the constitution of the Board, he would be able to give an equally definite answer in regard to the question whether or not the secretary was to be a clergyman.

said, this question had been more than once before the House, and he must enter his protest against the attempt to put in one man by knocking down the reputation and ability of another man. Such a rule laid down in that House would be an implied censure on every clergyman in Scotland; and he altogether objected to the principle of saying that 3,000 or 4,000 ministers should all be held to be disqualified from filling an office of this kind. He held that an office of this kind would be exceedingly well filled by a person who had received the special training of a clergyman. As to the particular minister, he was not aware that he had interfered in any election whatever. He maintained that the Government ought to find the best man they could for the office, irrespective of where he was or what he was.

said, he agreed with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire. He (Mr. Dalrymple) spoke in the interest of no man; but he distinctly said that it would be a most unfortunate circumstance if any but a layman should be appointed to this office.

said, he could not hear any allusion made implying a stigma on the ministers of Scotland, and remain silent. This was a revival off the cry made the other day casually, and afterwards disowned by the gentleman who made it, that all the ministers were, in fact, firebrands. He trusted the Government would not consent to give any pledge whereby ministers of religion would be shut out from appointments in connection with education.

said, that this and the subsequent clause opened up a question which was not confined to Scotland, although it referred to the superior kind of education which was intended to be conferred upon the people of Scotland. It opened up an examination to the nobleman's son if he chose to avail himself of it, as well as to the child of the humblest person. When they came to a later clause he should ask some Member of the Government to explain the estimated cost which the public might be called upon in two or three years to provide, and to tell the Committee what would be the relative cost of these examinations of masters by University Professors, as compared with the examination by the Inspectors of the Privy Council. The further question then arose whether the Government would undertake to hold out the same Liberal hand to the people of England and Ireland which the Bill held out to the people of Scotland. Would the same liberal scale of education paid for at the same rate be secured to the rest of the Kingdom? It would not be right that a very costly system of examination should be established in one part of the country, without a full understanding that the Government, assisted by the Scotch Members, would provide an equally liberal scale of education for the whole of the United Kingdom. It would, he imagined, require a grant of something like £200,000 a year to carry out this system of examination in London alone. He gave great credit to his Scotch friends for their shrewdness in these matters, remembering as he did that they had obtained for themselves, at the public expense, an ordnance map of six or seven inches to the square mile, which we had never yet been able to obtain in England. Before the Bill went out of Committee, some Cabinet Minister would, he hoped, give a public assurance that an equal measure of liberality should be dealt out to England and Ireland, when measures of national education were framed for those countries.

objected to the proposed establishment of four independent Boards of examiners, one for each University of Scotland. He apprehended that the effect of this competition would be to reduce the standard of qualification until it became almost nominal. He regretted that the Bill departed from the system of examination by the Inspectors of the Privy Council, which was almost perfect and cost nothing; whereas the system now proposed was unsatisfactory, and would cost a great deal.

wished to know whether the Committee were to understand that the right hon. Gentleman, on the part of the Government, stated that in no case should an education rate be adopted in England? He did not grudge the people of Scotland their educational advantages, but he protested against the inference of the right hon. Gentleman that because there was some difference between the education systems of England and Scotland, the people of England were not to have equal help.

said, he had not made any statement or conveyed any impression in regard to the intentions of the Government upon the English Bill, as to whether it would or would not include an education rate. It was equally beyond his power and his province to give any assurance upon the matter one way or the other, or to give ' any idea as to what the intentions of the Government might be when they came to consider the subject.

said, he intended to ask for some information as to the financial working of this Bill. He feared that the right hon. Gentleman's calculations were altogether un- sound, and that the effect of this examination, would be to make a larger demand upon the public purse than the right hon. Gentleman anticipated. The examination by Inspectors of mixed teachers was much superior to that by Professors, especially in the case of women teachers.

reminded the Committee that the training of the teachers in Scotland had hitherto been at the Universities—the training and normal schools being new to them—and expressed his belief that nothing could be more unpopular in Scotland than the taking away of the power which it was proposed to give by this Bill with respect to the examination of the teachers by University Examiners. The whole training of teachers in Scotland had been carried on in the Universities, training schools and normal schools being very modern contrivances; and nothing would be more unpopular in Scotland than to take away the power intended to be given by the Bill. He approved of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh.

suggested that the hon. Member for Edinburgh should bring up his question on the Report, when there would be in the hands of the Government fuller information in regard to the expense.

said, that in the year 1874 the transit of Venus would give the opportunity of carrying out one of the most remarkable investigations that could be made in connection with astronomy. The only method of ascertaining the distance between the sun and the earth, or, more correctly speaking, the horizontal parallax, was to observe the transit of Venus over the sun's disc, which would occur in 1874, for the first time after the transit observed by Captain Cook during the last century. The Admiralty had taken pains to ascertain the expense of observing this transit of Venus wherever it might be visible in various parts of the world, and they had come to the conclusion that it would be desirable to ask for a sum of £10,500, and to spread it over the next five years. The object of this Resolution was that the Admiralty might begin at once to take the necessary steps, and as this was a matter of prospective expenditure, the Government thought it desirable to obtain the leave of the House before undertaking outlay which would be spread over a considerable time. The amount was small, while the object was of great scientific value. He moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions for the carrying out of the arrangements necessary for observing the Transit of Venus which will take place in the year 1874; and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good any expense that may be incurred thereby.

said, that £2,200 would be spent next year, and the remainder of the sum of £10,500 would be spread over the rest of the five years.

Sir, I rise to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Marriage Law Commissioners, and to inquire whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, in the next Session of Parliament, to introduce a Bill for the purpose of establishing a Marriage Law as nearly as possible uniform for all parts of the United Kingdom, upon principles of equality as between all Churches and religious denominations. At an earlier period I have been unwilling to press on Her Majesty's Government the question of the marriage laws of the United Kingdom, because I was well aware that the business they had in hand was of so great magnitude as to make it unreasonable to expect that they should undertake another subject of great magnitude and importance in the present Session. But when I remember that among the subjects intimately connected with the Irish Church question now settled was this one, which was distinctly promised to be made the subject of legislation in the very next Session of Parliament— the relation borne by the Church now disestablished to the marriage law of that part of the United Kingdom—the effect of what has been done being to produce, as soon as that Act comes into operation, an absolute dead-lock with regard to the marriage law affecting a very large class of Her Majesty's subjects in that part of the United Kingdom, and not only affecting those belonging to the Church of England in Ireland, but also in a great measure the marriage law affecting all classes of Her Majesty's subjects in that part of the United Kingdom who were expected by law to take advantage of the arrangement made, with reference more especially to the position of the Established Church, it is impossible, in these circumstances, that legislation on the subject of the marriage laws can be deferred to a later period than the very next Session of Parliament, and I am most anxious in that state of things to take advantage of the opportunity so offered to impress on the Government the importance of at once dealing with the entire question, and now making a uniform and consistent marriage law on principles of religious equality for every part of the United Kingdom. The House will permit me to remind them both of the circumstances under which the Commission of 1865 was appointed on the subject and the nature of the Report made by the Commission. There had been several Bills introduced in order to mitigate the inequalities and inconveniences of the extraordinary state of law as to marriage now prevailing in Ire- land. There had also been brought very prominently before the attention of the public a succession of cases of a very singular description from Scotland, illustrating what are there called irregular marriages. One of these cases — the Yelverton case— attained very great notoriety, in which, first of all, a lady took advantage of an action by a tradesman against her alleged husband, to raise the question of her being married in Ireland. She had been married there by a Roman Catholic priest, but the husband was a Protestant. She persuaded an Irish jury that she was married. The question was afterwards raised in Scotland. There was a great difference of opinion on the Bench, and it was ultimately decided by the House of Lords that she was not married. That and other remarkable trials called attention to the singular law prevailing in Scotland, and to the great scandal of there being in this highly civilized United Kingdom such a great mass and variety of marriage laws which no Government had yet attempted to reduce to consistent and uniform principles. Under these circumstances a Royal Com- mission was appointed to inquire into the laws in force in different parts of the United Kingdom with respect to the constitution and proof of the contract of marriage and registration and other means of preserving evidence thereof, and also into the state and operation of the laws of the United Kingdom in | relation to the marriages of European British subjects in India and the colonies—a much less important, but not un- important subject. The Commission was composed of many persons of very considerable eminence in the law, and of representatives well selected, I think, from all parts of the United Kingdom. Its Report received the entire concurrence of three Noblemen, who now, or formerly filled the Office of Lord Chan-cellor—Lord Chelmsford, Lord Cairns, and Lord Hatherley; and the mention of those three names as entirely and without qualification concurring in the Report must go along way to recommend to the favourable consideration of the House the propositions which have their united sanction. Besides these eminent men there were on the Commission the Judge of the Divorce Court, Lord Penzance, who entirely concurred in their recommendation; the Queen's Ad- vocate, Sir Travers Twiss, who, with some trifling modifications, concurred in the Report; Mr. Walpole, the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge; Lord Lyveden; Mr. Monsell, the Under Secretary for the Colonies, and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland— both able and worthy representatives of of the Roman Catholic portion of the community. From Scotland, entirely concurring in the recommendation of the Report, were the Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. G. Young), and Mr. Murray Dunlop, formerly M.P. for Greenock, and who, I believe, I am not wrong in saying is connected with the Free Church. These gentlemen—entirely and without qualification, except in the case of one of their number, an immaterial qualification on a small point of detail, the rest without any qualification—concurred in the Report to which I shall now invite the attention of the House. There was one other Commissioner—the head of the Court of Session, Lord President Inglis—who did not concur in the recommendations affecting Scotland. With that exception we have the Scotch Commissioners representing the feeling of the Presbyterians; the Irish Commissioners representing the Roman Catholics; and the English Commissioners representing the legal science, as well as, to a great degree, the general intelligence of the country. The state of the law which the Commission had to examine and report upon exhibits probably as extraordinary a condition of the law as it is possible to imagine in a country so highly civilized as ours. I will take, in the first place, the marriage law of England, which, perhaps, of the three presents the smallest amount of anomaly. The law of England draws a very sharp line at the outset between members of the Established Church and all the other members of the community. As regards members of the Established Church, in its desire to guard against clandestine marriages the law recognizes two modes of doing so. One, the process of marriage by banns, appears by the evidence to be perfectly useless in the only cases in which, at first sight, it would appear to be of importance. Persons who are desirous of evading the law go to populous places where they are not known, and where the long bead-roll of names is called over in such a way as not only to constitute in itself a somewhat indecorous interruption of Divine service, but to defeat altogether the object of publicity. I really believe that if any hon. Member of this House had a member of his family desirous of being married without his knowledge the most effectual method of accomplishing this would be by having the banns published either in London or in Manchester in the very church attended by the other members of the family. The names would probably not be heard at all, or, if heard, would not be recognized; and, accordingly, the publication of banns has been found to be a useless formality. In some small rural parishes, it is true, the publication of banns may be useful, but then the same object would be accomplished by the mere personal knowledge of the clergyman. As to the license a very small sum—a sum small to us, at least, though, perhaps, not small to everybody—will procure what is practically a dispensation from all precautions whatever. A person may get the license and be married the same day. The inquiries made are purely formal, and if everything that is said in answer is absolutely false it will make no difference whatever in the ultimate results. In the Established Church marriages no civil registrar is required to be present, or to have any notice given to him. On the other hand with regard to all bodies of Nonconformists the presence of a civil registrar is required, and notice has to be given in his office. In many respects the particulars required are well conceived; but the difficulty is to explain why, whatever is good for one class as far as notice is concerned is not equally good for the other. The House, generally speaking, would probably be disposed to agree that if we could provide a uniform law applicable on the same principle to all it would be a great improvement. The Jews and the Quakers have also separate laws for themselves; I do not know that any great inconveniences arises from this, but it is possible that there may be questions of a theological character which would invalidate marriages. In all those forms of English marriages the law may be invalidated by a non-compliance with any of the requirements of the law, although these, in themselves, for the most part do not seem so important as that a marriage once solemnized should be voided on the mere ground of error or accident. For instance, if the place where the marriage is celebrated is not properly consecrated or set apart, or if the marriage is effected in some other locality than where the banns have been called, or if any other error affecting time or place is made by the parties, that entirely invalidates the marriage, although, upon other grounds, there may be no objection whatever to it. These are criticisms which, in Scotland, are thought to be solid and sound against the English marriage law. The Commissioners thought them well deserving of attention; and while it would be a great thing to get a uniform system for all parts of the United Kingdom, they considered that this was to be gained by applying principles of amendment to every part of the United Kingdom, and not by endeavouring to force the law of England upon Scotland or Ireland, or the law of either of these countries upon England. Then I come to Ireland, where the state of the law is very much worse. To reduce it to a minimum, there are at least five different methods of marriage. First of all, in the Established Church, or what was lately the Established Church, there is no material difference from the system prevailing in England, though there are some differences of detail — with which I will not trouble the House — which seem to exist only for the purpose of increasing the anomalies. Then we come to the Roman Catholics. As to them, there is absolutely no marriage law at all; it is left under the old canon law — and nothing but the presence of a priest is necessary in order to make a complete and good marriage between Roman Catholics in Ireland. But if a Roman Catholic priest should presume to celebrate a marriage between a Roman Catholic and Protestant, or even between a Roman Catholic and a person who had been a Protestant within a year of the marriage, till comparatively a recent time, that was a capital offence; and, even now, it is a criminal offence of a very high order, and the marriage is absolutely void. That has not been so in England. A Roman Catholic priest, in a place duly registered, might solemnize a marriage, even between two Protestants; and so might a Dissenting minister. But in Ireland, the marriage law is denominational to a most extraordinary degree. There is one law for the Episcopalian Anglicans; another —and the loosest of all, except that of Scotland—for the Roman Catholics; a third law for the Presbyterians, who have a special system of their own, rather like that of the lately Established Church, but not the same; and for all the other bodies a fourth system. Lastly, there is the system of civil registry. I do not fatigue the House by going into all the diversities of forms and ceremonies, differing in each case; it is enough to say that there has been a most ingenious system of inventing differences and distinctions, where the object ought to have been to get rid of them — these differences and distinctions turning almost entirely on sectarian and denominational grounds. Them, in Scotland, we have a state of things entirely different from both the other countries. Till 1834, this state of things existed; there were several laws in force, and there were also irregular marriages, subjecting the parties to fine. I do not know whether they were subject to imprisonment also; at all events, they were subject to punishment at the hands of the civil magistrate, but the marriages themselves were recognized as valid. The regular marriages were those in which banns were asked, and marriages celebrated by a minister of religion; but the regular marriages were only permitted to be celebrated by ministers of the Established Church. The consequence was that a very considerable proportion of the marriages in Scotland were solemnized irregularly, and parties used to go before the magistrates and get themselves convicted of the crime of an irregular marriage, and so procure — if not a marriage license in another form — at all events, some legal recognition of the fact. In 1834, Lord Russell, then in this House, introduced a measure to do away with these religious distinctions, enabling ministers of other religious denominations to solemnize marriages in all respects as lawful as those of the Established Church. He left—I do not know whether by accident or not—-one single remnant of the old system — namely, a requirement that the banns should be in all cases called in the Established Church; and a very odd operation that regulation is attended with. Strictly speaking, the banns should be called on three successive Sundays, so that a long time ought to elapse before the mar- riage can be effected; but, practically, on the payment of a fee, the session clerk will call over the three sets of banns altogether. That is a remnant of the old system, and I suppose the small fee has operated very mildly, for it has not been got rid of; but the effect of the change has been that irregular marriages have disappeared very largely from the general social system of the country. Irregular marriages still occur here and there; but all the witnesses from Scotland say that the enormously preponderating proportion of marriages in Scotland are solemnized in the presence of a minister of religion, and therefore the wants and habits of the people no longer oppose themselves, as they formerly did, to such an assimilation of the law of the countries as would get rid of irregular marriages altogether. I may mention that a material step towards that end was taken by Lord Brougham, fourteen or fifteen years ago, when he introduced an Act to abolish Gretna Green marriages — a system of irregular marriages, of which advantage was taken by people in England, for the most part living just over the Border. But that Act abolished these marriages by requiring fourteen days' residence in Scotland.' No public excitement followed. From that time Gretna Green marriages have ceased, and the time has now become ripe for dealing with the subject of the marriage law of Scotland in a manner consistent with preponderance of opinion not only of those who bring ecclesiastical minds to bear upon the question, but those who look at it from an Imperial point of view, of whom there are many in Scot- land as well as elsewhere. The system of irregular marriage in Scotland is a very startling thing to those whose minds are not thoroughly accustomed to it. Those marriages are contracted in two different ways. Suppose any Gentleman in this House visited a house in Scotland where a young lady happened to be staying, and that he and the young lady took a walk together, and in the course of the walk he took a piece of paper out of his pocket on which they wrote down a mutual promise to marry; though the piece of paper might be simply put back again into his pocket, though nothing might be said to anybody about the writing, and though nobody else might be there at the time, if the persons after- wards lived in a certain way together, that would be a valid marriage, although nobody might know of the fact of the marriage for years afterwards. No mere promise will constitute a marriage unless it be in writing, and unless subsequente copulâ. A promise so given and so followed constitutes a good marriage, however long it may be kept secret. There is another even more extraordinary mode, in which no writing at all is necessary, and that is where the promise is made not de futuro but de presenti— where the woman says—"I take you, John, for my husband," and where the man says—"I take you, Mary, for my wife," before witnesses. A promise of that kind being brought up at any future period, even although the people have never lived together, will hold good, and will be sufficient to overturn any perfectly honourable and reputable marriage that either of the parties may have subsequently entered into, and this actually occurred in the celebrated Dalrymple case. I think that, after all, it is only right that we should endeavour to have a just and uniform marriage law, founded upon unsectarian and reasonable principles. Having already overturned, a material portion of the marriage law of Ireland, I venture to suggest that the Report of the Commission to which I have referred is entitled to the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government. I do not ask them to pledge themselves to all the recommendations of that Report, some of which, referring to the preliminaries of marriages, and others to the notice to be given, may admit of a difference of opinion, and improvement; but most of them will, I think, be approved by the House generally. I will state the most important of the recommendations which I think may be adopted with advantage. The Commissioners think that our object should be to secure uniformity of the marriage laws, if possible, throughout the United Kingdom; to secure, as far as possible, without throwing needless impediments in the way of marriage, the authentication of the fact of the marriage having occurred, so that a man and woman may know with certainty whether they are married or not, and other people may have the same certainty on the point; and, while taking precautions against hasty and precipitate marriages, to endeavour to secure the greatest freedom in the matter of marriage. How do the Commissioners propose to effect those objects? Of course the Commissioners had to consider whether it was desirable to adopt the Continental system, under which the parties merely enter into a civil contract before civil officers. While admitting the simplicity of that system the Commissioners did not recommend its adoption for two reasons; the first being that it would be impossible to reconcile the public mind of these kingdoms to a purely secular system of marriage; and the second being that they could attain their object by making every religious minister, of whatever denomination, a civil officer, for the purpose of seeing that the requirements of the law are satisfied, and of reporting to the registrar that the marriage has been solemnized. This latter system they have embodied in their recommendations, under which all religious denominations are to be placed upon an equal footing—all ministers of religion of every Church and denomination, and the civil registrars also, being recognized as competent legal official witnesses of marriage in all parts of the United Kingdom; all persons to have the option of being married by either of these classes, while in each case substantially the same notice and preliminaries are to be adopted. Of course, they propose to sweep away all incapacity of persons on account of their religion to be married by a Roman Catholic or any other minister. The Commission was appointed in March, 1865, and they did not make their Report until July, 1868; and therefore it is evident that they have not drawn up these recommendations without having carefully considered the subject. I will not further occupy the time of the House, but will conclude by asking the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, in the next Session of Parliament, to introduce a Bill for the purpose of establishing a Marriage Law as nearly as possible uniform for all parts of the United Kingdom, upon principles of equality as between all Churches and religious denominations?

said, that both the House and the Government were alike deeply indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) for calling their attention, by his able, in- teresting, and exhaustive speech, to this subject, even on an occasion like the present, when it could not be discussed at the length its importance demanded. The Report of the Commissioners had now been in the hands of Members for eight or nine months, and he thought the Session should not be allowed to pass away without the opinion of the Government upon it being elicited. He must join the hon. and learned Member in expressing a hope that during the Recess Her Majesty's Government would feel it incumbent upon them to prepare a measure based upon the recommendations contained in the Report, which was signed by the present Lord Chancellor and by his two immediate predecessors. That Report recommended that the law of marriage in the three Kingdoms should be rendered uniform, and he believed that that proposal would be approved by all sects and religious communities in the country. He rose chiefly for the purpose of adverting to two of the recommendations of the Commissioners, the first of which related to the presence of the civil registrar at the solemnization of marriages in places of worship other than those belonging to the Church of England — a regulation that had occasioned painful feelings among those who were subject to it. He was glad to find that the Commissioners recommended that that cause of irritation should be removed, and he trusted that under any future measure which might be introduced on this subject, ministers of all denominations would be placed on an equal footing, and that they would be allowed to register marriages without the presence of a civil registrar. The other recommendation to which he wished to refer was that which related to the publication of the banns, which, by the Marriage Act of Lord Hardwicke, was directed to be made after the Second Lesson, whereas some clergymen, ignoring the statute law as running counter to one of the Rubrics, thought fit to publish them after reading the Nicene Creed, according to the law as it stood before the passing of Lord Hardwicke's Act. Upon this point he wished to remark that the proper time for the publication of the banns should be clearly fixed by law. The only other point to which he desired to call the attention of the Government was with reference to marriage licenses, and he would call attention to the suggestion made by the learned Queen's Advocate General, Sir Travers Twiss, that the license should not be granted by the same spiritual person who was subsequently to celebrate the marriage. By extending the power of granting marriage licenses to every incumbent of a parish—who would be the same person that had to solemnize the marriage—you would take away the greatest check against irregular marriages which the present system of licenses provided; you would abolish the power of entering a caveat, which has been the means of preventing many a clandestine and bigamous marriage, and you would bring back some of the worst evils of the old system of Fleet marriages, which were put a stop to by Lord Hardwicke's Act.

Sir, even at this advanced period of the Session, when exhausted nature finds it difficult to arouse itself to an interest in anything, I must express the pleasure and admiration with which I heard the statement of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) on this tangled subject. I think he has clearly made out that it is a great scandal to have our marriage laws in their present position, while he has also shown that the remedy for the evil is clear and simple, and based on the strictest principles of religious equality. My hon. and learned Friend has shown that by either of two different systems you might bring about the same result. One is the Continental system of having in the first instance a civil marriage in all cases, leaving it to the parties themselves to have a religious ceremony performed afterwards. The other is, that of having recourse in the first place to a religious ceremony, making it incumbent on the minister who performs the ceremony to register the marriage, or, at all events, in some way to furnish legal proof of it. I may say at once that this subject has not been overlooked by Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, it has engaged the especial attention of the Lord Chancellor, who sat on the same Commission with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond. During the present Session, however, we have not only not been able to bring forward a measure on the subject of the marriage laws, but even to mature our views as to the precise mode of dealing with the question. My hon. and learned Friend said it will be impossible for this or any other Government to avoid bringing forward next Session a measure to meet the change in the law created by the disestablishment, of the Irish. Church, and he very truly added that, as some legislation was necessary on the subject, there would manifestly be a great advantage in dealing with the question as a whole, and upon principles which would equally apply to the three Kingdoms. In those opinions it is impossible for any reasonable man not to concur; but I cannot absolutely undertake to pledge the Government, already deeply pledged, to the introduction of a general measure in the course of the next Session. In the course of the present Session we have found it necessary to postpone legislation on the three pressing questions of international law, —namely, the law of naturalization, the law of extradition, and the law of foreign enlistment. All these subjects—subjects of great difficulty—are awaiting legislative solution. Then the Government are pledged to bring in an Irish Land Bill and a Bill on the subject of Education, not to mention minor, but still important, subjects. It would, therefore, be impossible for me to give an absolute pledge that this question of the marriage laws will be dealt with in its entirety next Session; but I can honestly assure my hon. and learned Friend that it is the desire of the Government to deal with the question at the earliest possible moment, and deal with it once and for all, and to deal with it on the broad and liberal principles laid down in the Re-port of the Commissioners. Without binding myself as to details I may say that the measure will be not less broad and comprehensive than the scheme which my hon. and learned Friend, as the organ of the Commission, has recommended in his speech this evening. I hope that under the circumstances of the case my hon. and learned Friend will be satisfied with that assurance.

said, he hoped that when dealing with the marriage laws the Government would consider the subject of marriage with a deceased wife's sister, with the view of arriving at a settlement on that much disputed question.

said, he rose to all the attention of the House to the Report of the Master of the Mint on our Gold Coinage, and to inquire of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to an International Gold Coinage. It appeared that a very large portion of our gold coinage was now worn and dateriorated in value. There were upwards 31,000,000 of gold pieces in circulation, of which about the value of 25,000,000 were deteriorated, and were no longer legal coin of the value which they were supposed to represent. In fact they had become mere tokens. Under these circumstances, it would be necessary to re-coin them, and the question arose — a question which he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who was to bear the loss, which would be a very serious one? In this country the Mint made no charge for converting bullion into coin. In every other country a charge was made for coining. Was our Mint to be the only manufactory in the world which sold the manufactured article at the same price as the raw material? In our own possessions in Australia there was a charge of 1 per cent for coining gold. In India there was a charge of 1 per cent for gold and 2 per cent for silver, and in the United States of America there was a charge of 1 per cent for gold. In 1865, France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Italy entered into a Convention to establish international coinage in those dominions, and great convenience had arisen from that Convention. Gentlemen who had visited those countries since 1865 must know that to be the case. When, twenty-five years ago, he went to Italy through France and other countries he had to change his money fourteen times. Recently he went to Italy, and he had only to change it once. These countries had also an international system of weights and measures, which gave them a great advantage in trading with each other. In 1867 the French Government invited a Conference of nations to consider the question of international coinage. About twenty nations attended the Conference, which was held at Paris, and after several days' sitting they resolved on adopting —first, a single standard of gold; second, nine-tenths proportion of fine gold in the coin. Some other nations had since recognized the Convention; Greece, Austria, Home, and, he believed, Sweden had since coined 10 franc pieces. Our representatives at the Conference had made a Report, which was referred to a Royal Commission which sat last year. That Report was signed by the Master of the Mint and Mr. Wilson. The Royal Commission of last year said we entertain no doubt that a uniform system of coins as well as a uniform system of weights and measures would be productive of great general advantage, and also recommended another general international Conference, and that led him to the next Question he had to ask of the right hon. Gentleman, whether the Government proposed to recommend any measure extending to this country a system of international coinage, as recommended by the International Coinage Convention of December, 1865? The matter was of great importance to the United States as well as to England, being the two largest gold producing countries in the world; although America was saddled with an enormous debt, and had nobly resolved to pay it off, principal and interest, in gold, they would prefer the advantages of an international coinage, notwithstanding the temporary inconvenience that would result to themselves. To England it would be no inconvenience whatever, for it happened that by the mere alteration of the charge of about 1 per cent upon the mintage our coin would then be equivalent to a 25 franc gold piece; and the Master of the Mint had demonstrated in his Report that if we were to return to the old coinage of the time of Edward III., when 100 pence made a noble and ten. pence made a franc, we should then be in exact unison with France. What was wanted was a common identical unit of account known to all the world, in the same way as notes representing musical sound could be interpreted by any musician, no matter what his nationality. It was desirable that this country should take the lead in a matter of such great importance as that of international coinage, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to give an answer worthy of an enlightened country and the age in which we live.

said, it would perhaps be convenient if he interposed before the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied to the Questions put to him, and asked for some further explanation than had been given by the Secretary of the Treasury the other evening respecting the new appointment to the office of distributor of stamps for the county of Ayr, consequent on the resignation of Mr. Oswald. In former times it was the custom to appoint to the office of county distributor of stamps gentlemen of position, at salaries ranging between £1,500 and £3,000 a year, not so much because of their competence for the duties they had to discharge—for their office might be described as a sinecure—but because they were able to find adequate security for the proper discharge of those duties. But as in process of time postal communication became more easy and safe, and the Board of Inland Revenue extended its ramifications throughout the country, it was found unnecessary to fill those offices, and by a Treasury Minute following certain correspondence between the Board of Inland Revenue and the Treasury, it was determined some twelve or fourteen years ago that in future no fresh appointment should be made to them. This Minute had been acted on in the case of many vacancies which had since occurred — in point of fact, the vacancies had not been filled up. Independently of the saving which would result from the discharge of the duties of county distributor direct from Somerset House, the case of the new appointment he referred to demanded an explanation, because he believed it was not in accordance with modern practice to appoint persons not regularly in the Civil Service to offices under the Board of Inland Revenue. In answer to a Question of his noble Friend the Member for Wigtonshire (Lord Garlies), the House heard from the Secretary to the Treasury that the office of stamp distributor for the county of Ayr had become vacant, and that a re-appointment had been made, subject only to some revision in the matter of salary. No doubt Mr. Brown, to whom the post had been given, was a very respectable and proper person for the office, if it were necessary to maintain it; but he was not a civil servant of the Crown, and had no special qualifications beyond that he was resident in Ayrshire. Now he (Mr. Sclater-Booth), when at the Treasury last autumn, made inquiries in anticipation of a vacancy occurring, because of the late distributor having succeeded to a very large estate by the death of his brother, and he came to the conclusion that the circumstances of Ayrshire offered no sufficient reason for deviating from the rule set forth by the Treasury Minute to which he had referred. The office was unquestionably a sinecure office in Ayrshire, because the duties had for many years been discharged by deputy; and the appointment made, being that of a near relation of the gentleman who had resigned, whose resignation had been expected for more than a twelvemonth previously, had caused such a stir in the county as made it most desirable the right hon. Gentleman should give the explanation he was no doubt fully able to give for the course that had been taken in filling up the appointment. He proposed to move for the original Correspondence which occurred between the Board of Inland Revenue and the Treasury upon the subject, ending in the Treasury Minute stating that such appointments should not be filled up; for a Return of the vacancies which had occurred in the office of county distributor of stamps, showing what provision had been made for the discharge of the duties in each case; and for the Correspondence between the Board of Inland Revenue and the Treasury, showing the reasons which induced the appointment of a gentleman unconnected with the Civil Service to do duties which, in other cases, it was found quite easy to discharge by the ordinary machinery at the command of Somerset House without such an officer.

I believe the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) has stated the practice in these cases quite correctly—that is, that it is now the practice, whenever we get the opportunity, to amalgamate the two offices of distributor of stamps and collector of Excise, and, as we wish to amalgamate the two departments, I think the practice is a proper one. In this particular case Mr. Oswald was distributor of stamps in the town of Ayr, and he resigned the office in January last. There was not in the town of Ayr any collector of Excise to whom the office could be given; the nearest collector was too far off—namely at Greenock, where the same person discharged the duties of collector of Excise and distri- butor of stamps; and therefore, contrary to the ordinary practice, and, as it seems to me, under the pressure of clear necessity, the office of distributor of stamps was filled up without being given to a collector of Excise, just because there was no collector of Excise within reach. This is a simple explanation of the fact why the particular gentleman referred to was appointed; and whether there was anyone else whom the hon. Member would rather have had selected I really do not know. The Government seem to have taken every precaution in an exceptional case, and have done only that justified by the necessity of the case. They have entered into an agreement with this gentleman that his appointment shall be liable to revision both as to the amount of his salary and the transference of his duties, if necessary, at any time, so that he holds his office without any claim, even if it should be taken from him. The salary was reduced from £1,150 a year to £800 a year, and, besides that, we required him to give security for £5,000, so, as there was no person in the place connected with the Excise to whom the appointment could be given, as far as I can judge, the Government have taken every reasonable precaution. They have in no way fettered themselves, but they have left the matter so that at any future time, if it be thought desirable, the salary of this gentleman can be reduced, or he can be deprived of his appointment and it can be given to another person. With all these safeguards I really do not know what more could be required. There being no necessity that this appointment should be given to a person who was already in the Civil service, and it being impossible in this ease to combine the office with that of collector of Excise, it appears to me to be a perfectly defensible and reasonable appointment. I now turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith), who has introduced to us a very interesting subject, and one which might very well, at a time of less pressure, occupy the attention of the House —namely, the subject of our coinage. The coinage of this country is in a most unsatisfactory state; there is no doubt of that. The waste with which it is earned on is enormous. The possession of a gold and silver coinage I do not look upon myself as a necessity, but rather as a luxury, and as an indulgence to a popular taste—which, by the way, is a very expensive taste—but as it is the taste of the people of the country, I suppose it will continue to be gratified. It is quite necessary that the coinage of this country should correspond with gold and silver; but I am not aware there is any necessity it should actually consist of those metals. Since the year 1850, according to the calculations of Professor Jevons, who has looked deeply into the subject and has brought great ability to bear upon it, and whose conclusions are adopted by the Master of the Mint, Colonel Smith, and other authorities, we have coined 98,000,000 of sovereigns, and of these 98,000,000 about 44,000,000 have disappeared altogether. Either they have been exported from the country and have not returned to it, or they have been melted down. We have thus had the satisfaction of bestowing a great deal of labour and ingenuity and cost in the manufacture of an article of great merit and neatness in our gold coinage, which has formed a sort of quarry out of which other countries make gold coinage for their own use. The reason of this is not far to seek. As my hon. Friend has said, we, almost alone of the nations of the world who make coin, give to the person who brings us gold the same weight of gold in coin, upon which we have bestowed labour, as we receive from him in a rude un-wrought state. We give him our coinage at less than its cost; we give back weight for weight a manufactured article in exchange for the raw material out of which that article is made. It necessarily follows that, as we choose to circulate our coinage at less than its value, so, as coin, it commands less than its value, and is worth less than it really ought to be. It is impossible to make all sovereigns of the same weight; at least, if possible, it can only be done by a minuteness of machinery and a carefulness of labour which make it not a paying thing to do; the consequence is that, within certain limits, sovereigns are heavier one than the other. These sovereigns having no value given to them in respect of the manufacture, the material coin is so much bullion, and is treated as such; and persons take out the heaviest sovereigns and melt them down—a process by which they make a halfpenny for each. London was for many years the seat of this manufacture, which was carried on close to the Mint, where the sovereigns were made, so that the two establishments were side by side, one coining money, and the other melting it down. Then the manufacture went to Paris, where it flourished many years; and now it is carried on at Brussels. While this goes on upon the Continent, there is another cause for the sovereign being put into circulation at the price or value of so much bullion. From the fact that the State charges nothing for the labour expended in the manufacture of it, and that it has no more exchangeable value than the bullion out of which it is made, the sovereign is liable to be exported as bullion, and there are great inducements to export it, because it is bullion already assayed and the weight of which is ascertained. All persons know pretty nearly what the weight of the sovereign is, and therefore it is bullion in the most convenient form for export. The consequence is that, whenever the rate of exchange is against us, and there is an export of bullion from this country, it is very convenient, besides exporting bullion in the unmanufactured state, to export it in the manufactured state, in sovereigns, and by that means to cause a violent and sudden contraction of our currency, which would not otherwise occur. Those are some of the evils that arise from our present system, but they are not all the evils. Although we give our currency to the public for nothing, the Government undertaking the business of an unremunerative manufacture, we take not the slightest precaution, when we have issued that currency, that it shall maintain its value. The original weight of the sovereign ought to be about 123·274 grains of gold, and when the sovereign is so worn that it has lost three-fourths of a grain in value —when it has got below 122J grains in value, it ceases to be a legal tender. The legal life of a sovereign is about eighteen years, it having in that time, from wear and tear, fallen below its original value. We take no trouble to call in this coin, and do nothing to save the public from the accident of taking light coin; and the consequence is that, after all our expense and trouble, 31½ per cent of our sovereigns and 47 per cent of our half-sovereigns are not a legal tender, because they are light weight; and that, for a country which prides itself above all things upon beeping up its gold, standard, and upon having a circulation above all doubt and suspicion, is not only a very great and serious evil, but a great reproach and discredit. I must add that it is an evil which will assume a practical form, because, under these circumstances, a re-coinage will be speedily called for. Something must be done to call in this light coin, and it is assumed that somewhere about £400,000 will be required to re-coin the loss in the weight of our coinage. We are going upon the plan at present of giving out a sovereign, which passes from hand to hand until some unfortunate person finds that it is not a legal tender, and is obliged to sell it for what it is worth for bullion. While we are very liberal in respect of giving our labour for nothing, we seem to be very careless and remiss in taking steps to keep up the integrity and standard of our money. That is as nearly as I can state it the condition of things with regard to the currency of this country. Well, what is the remedy for this grievance '? It is perfectly obvious that it is to be remedied by a natural, simple, and ordinary proceeding; in short, that in manufacturing money we should do as other manufacturers do and take pay for our labour. In effect we sell money to those who bring us gold; for an ounce of gold we give in exchange £3 17s. 10½d., and that is the exact weight of an ounce of gold. It appears to me that, while as manufacturers we are absurdly liberal in this respect, we should be much more wise to follow the example of all other countries and impose a mintage, brassage, or seignorage, or whatever it might be called, so as to indemnify ourselves for the expense of maintaining our currency. The practice of this country has been the contrary ever since the reign of Charles H. The opinion that it is right there should be a mintage for the coining of money has been held by almost every considerable writer on political economy. And I will cite one or two instances. Sir Dudley North says—

"The free coinage is a perpetual motion found out, whereby to melt and coin without ceasing, and so to feed goldsmiths and coiners at the public charge."

Adam Smith says—

"When the tax upon a commodity is so moderate as not to encourage smuggling, the merchant who deals in it, though he advances, does not properly pay the tax, as he gets it back in the price of the commodity. The tax is finally paid by the last purchaser or consumer. But money is a commodity with regard to which every man is a merchant. Nobody buys it but in order to sell it again, and with regard to it there is in ordinary cases no last purchaser or consumer. When the tax upon coinage, therefore, is so moderate as not to encourage false coining, though everybody advances the tax, nobody finally pays it, because everybody gets it back in the advanced value of the coin."

Therefore, according to Adam Smith, we actually throw away this money we pay for coinage, because it is quite possible for us to get it back at nobody's expense. Another passage to the same effect from Adam Smith is as follows:—

"The Government, when it defrays the expense of coinage, not only incurs some small expense, but loses some small revenue, which it might get by a proper duty; and neither the Bank nor any other private persons are in the smallest degree benefited by this useless piece of public generosity."

That is the highest authority, and his arguments are of force sufficient to convince anyone that the course we are taking is no more warranted by abstract principles than it is successful in the results that it produces. The same opinion is held by M'Culloch. He says—

"Coins charged with a seignorage equal to the expense of coinage do not pass at a higher value than what naturally belongs to them, but at that precise value; whereas, if the expense of coinage be defrayed by the State, coins pass at less than their real value. A sovereign is of greater utility and value than a piece of pure unfashioned gold bullion of the same weight; because, while it is as well fitted as bullion for being used in the arts, it is, owing to the eoinage, better adapted for being used as money, or in the exchange of commodities. On what principle, then, should Government decline to charge a seignorage or duty on coins, equal to the expense of coinage —that is, to the value which it adds to the coins?"

That being the case, then, I think the authorities fairly establish for us that there ought to be some seignorage charged upon coin. But the question still remains—what seignorage? This question is answered in a Paper which some time ago I laid on the table of the House, and which I dare say has attracted the attention of hon. Members — a Paper signed by the Master of the Mint and Colonel Smith, the former Master of the Mint at Calcutta—two of the highest authorities that could give an opinion on the subject. In that Paper they say that it is the duty of the State to require such a seignorage as would indemnify it for the expense of coinage in the first place, for re-coinage when worn out, and also for the wear and tear, or for the bullion that would be required in restoring the coin to the state in which it was when first issued. They argue this matter in the most clear and conclusive manner, and the conclusion they come to is that a charge of £1 8s. l½d for every 100 sovereigns would be sufficient not only to indemnify the State for coining and re-coining, but also for the wear and tear the coin might undergo. They propose that every year the sovereigns coined eighteen years before should be called in and re-coined, and they prove that by a moderate charge of this kind, amounting to about 1 2–5ths per cent, the coinage of the country could be maintained in its integrity. The question of mintage at this time I shall not push further; though it seems to me that the arguments in favour of the course I have explained are exceedingly strong and convincing. But I am bound to say that there is an argument against it which must be considered, though I have never seen it brought forward in any essay. It has been assumed that if the State gives the coinage for nothing, or manufactures the bullion that is brought to the Mint, making a charge for the labour, the result is exactly the same and the coin is of the same value. No one is more opposed than I am to any attempt to tamper with the current value of the sovereign. Anything which would alter the current value of the sovereign — that is, the value of the sovereign wherever it is legal tender— and oblige a man to make calculations how much more he should pay or receive for the sovereign than he is accustomed to pay or receive, would be impossible to enforce in this country. Now if you charge a mintage for the sovereign, you raise its current value. At present we sell the sovereign as a manufactured article for bullion of the same weight, and a certain number of sovereigns for a fixed amount of bullion having just the weight of these sovereigns. But suppose we ask more for the sovereign than we do now—suppose we require 1 or 2 per cent more, it is quite evident that nobody will come to exchange bullion for sovereigns until the sovereigns have risen to a value that will make it worth his while to do so—that is, till they have risen to the value of the extra percentage demanded. It must be remembered that sovereigns are perpetually being destroyed. They are lost in ships, they are melted down, they cease to circulate, and if the supply of them by Government be arrested by an impediment placed in their way, such as an extra price, of course no more sovereigns will be coined until they become so raised in value as to come up to the price that the Government demands for them. The effect of a seignorage in raising the value of the coin is thus described by Adam Smith—

"Were the private people who carry their gold and silver to the Mint to pay themselves for the coinage, it would add to the value of those metals in the same manner as the fashion does to that of plate. Coined gold and silver would be more valuable than uncoined. The seignorage, if it was not exorbitant, would add to the bullion the whole value of the duty; because the Government having everywhere the exclusive privilege of coining, no coin can come to market cheaper than they think proper to afford it."

Ricardo expresses a similar opinion, as follows:—

"It appears, then, that although a given weight of bullion can never exceed in value a given weight of coin, a given weight of coin may exceed in value a given weight of bullion by the whole expense of seignorage, however great that seignorage may be, provided that there was effectual security against the increase of money through the imitation of the coins by illegal means."

And the following passage occurs in Mr. Mill's Principles of Political Economy:—

"If Government, however, throws the expense of coinage, as is reasonable, upon the holder, by making a charge to cover the expense (which is done by giving hack rather less in coin than has been received in bullion, and is called levying a seignorage), the coin will rise to the extent of the seignorage above the value of the bullion. If the Mint kept back 1 per cent to pay the expense of coinage, it would be against the interest of the holders of bullion to have it coined until the coin was more valuable than the bullion by at least that fraction. The coin, therefore, would be kept 1 per cent higher in value, which could only be by keeping it 1 per cent less in quantity, than if its coinage were gratuitous."

And Mr. M'Culloch says—

"A small seignorage or duty upon the coinage of both gold and silver would probably increase still more the superiority of those metals in coin above an equal quantity of either of them in bullion. The coinage would, in this case, increase the value of the metal coined in proportion to the extent of this small duty; for the same reason that the fashion increases the value of plate in proportion to the price of that fashion. The superiority of coin above bullion would prevent the melting down of the coin, and would discourage it a exportation. If upon any public exigency it should become necessary to export the coin the greater part of it would soon return again of its own accord. Abroad it could sell only for its weight in bullion. At home it would buy more than that weight. There would be a profit, therefore, in bringing it home again."

Therefore, if the Government were to demand a seignorage of 1 per cent, it would really raise the sovereign to a value of 1 per cent beyond its present value; and everybody who owed money would pay 1 per cent more than he bargained for, and everyone who received money would receive 1 per cent more than he had a right to expect. That is the conclusion which Mr. M'Culloch has come to, and he states it as an argument against the imposition of a mintage. I think the difficulty might be perfectly well met by deducting the payment from the sovereign, instead of requiring 1 per cent to be paid in money at the Mint; for it is no matter how you take it, whether by a money payment of 1 per cent, or 2d. for one sovereign, or by giving 122¼ grains of gold instead of 123¼. Whether you take it from the sovereign or take it in the shape of money payment, it does not matter to the State; but the difference is that, in the first case, the sovereign will be worth 2d. more than it is now; in the second ease, the 2d. will be deducted from the metal of which the sovereign is made, and it will retain its present value. If there be a seignorage we must make up our minds to a deduction from the value of the sovereign to the amount of the seignorage we charge, and that not with the view of altering but retaining the value of the sovereign. Unless you take something from its value the effect must necessarily be to raise the coin beyond the value of the bullion for which it is given in exchange. I apologize for going into these matters, but really they are of great practical interest. I am not even proposing anything to the House new, but I merely wish to ventilate the subject, and give hon. Gentlemen and the public at large the means of thinking over this matter, and forming a judgment on a very curious question and one of great interest. There is another side to the transaction, and that relates to the question of an international coinage, to which the hon. Gentleman has called my attention. Well the French Government have put themselves into communication with us. They have written to me on the subject of international coinage, and wish to know what steps the Government of England are willing to take in the matter. I was in no condition to give any definite answer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer can speak with no other breath than that of the House of Commons, and until I knew the feeling of the House of Commons I could not venture to give any opinion; but in my answer I ventured to go thus far. There are two things perfectly plain—the one that, under any circumstances, we could not have any hope of establishing an international coinage — on the chance of which I do not wish to dilate now—with a country that has two standards. France has a gold and a silver standard. A gold and a silver standard is not a double, but an alternate standard. The two metals are always fluctuating in their relations to each other; it is in the nature of things for the cheaper metal for the time being to drive out the dearer. Therefore, when the silver standard drives the gold coin out of circulation, it leaves us nothing to compare our international coin with except the silver standard, to which it would have no exact relation. And so I ventured to say, in answer to the question, that it would be impossible to hold out hopes of assimilation until France made up her mind to give up the silver standard and have only a gold standard; and I am happy to say that France is favourable to the abandonment of her silver standard, as I gather from the Report of a Commission on the subject which I have received. Again, it seems to me, on abstract principles, that we should never have an international coinage, unless the coin were identical in weight and fineness, and unless the seignorage charged on it were identical in both countries; because, if I am right in my view, that the value of coin is affected by the terms on which it is put into circulation—that is, the amount of mintage charged for it—then, on the supposition of having different mintages, we should have coin put into circulation having different values. People would take their gold to be coined where the thing could be done most cheaply, and thus the coin for which the higher mintage was paid would be reduced in value by the more abundant produce of the cheaper mint. That is all I hare ventured to say in reference to the matter to the French Government, and I trust that I have not gone beyond the proper limit in saying it. The conditions which I have mentioned are really elementary conditions of the whole question. But I wish here to point out that I believe it is possible for England and Franco, if they can make up their minds to give up a little of their prejudices for the sake of the great advantage of having an international coinage, to obtain that object, and I will just show the House how that could be done. The French are proposing to coin a 2 5-franc gold piece, 5 francs more than the Napoleon. That would be less in value than the sovereign by 22 centimes, or about 2d. If we were about to impose a seignorage of about 1 per cent, or 993 of a grain, and take gold to that amount from the coin, our sovereign would be identical with the 25-franc piece. It would still remain as a current coin in this country of exactly the same value as now, and it would have the additional advantage that it would be identical in value with the 25-franc piece. But, in order that that might be done, France would have to make a sacrifice on her part. I forget the mintage she charges; I believe it is between a fifth and a quarter per cent. If she could be prevailed upon to make it 1 per cent, we should have solved the problem as far as England and France are concerned, of an international coinage. The operation would be performed by modifications of the same principle—France would, as now, take the payment in money, England would deduct from her coin, and thus equality would be obtained. It is singular to remark what a number of coins in the world approach one another in value. The Spanish doubloon, the Prussian Frederick, the half-eagle of America, approach exceedingly near in value to each other, and I think it very possible, if France would meet us in this way—should Parliament be induced to look at the matter from the point of view I have put it—we might come to some arrangement by which we should get the blessing of one coinage throughout Europe, a great step in civilization. These are the remarks I had to make to the House. They are not given with any great confidence in my own opinion. All I am anxious to do before we separate is to give to hon. Gentlemen and the country at large a subject for consideration. It appears to me that the subject is not so difficult as might be supposed; and that by a single measure we may secure to ourselves the great benefit of saving all the expense incurred on our own gold coinage, without imposing those expenses on anyone else, and at the same time of striking a coin which would have the advantage of an international circulation.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not stated whether he would grant the Papers he had asked for.

said, the hon. Gentleman had not stated what were the Papers he asked for. It was not usual to give the correspondence between Departments of the Government. At present, he really did not know what were the Papers for which the hon. Gentleman moved; but if the hon. Gentleman would put himself in communication with the Government they would give him all the Papers they could. Of course the hon. Gentleman was quite aware that he could not move for their production on that Motion, and therefore he would lose nothing by acceding to his suggestion.

said, he had stated in his speech what Papers he wished to move for, and the Secretary of the Treasury had just promised to give them.

thought in that case it was hardly worth the right hon. Gentleman's while to ask him again for them.

said, that on the 4th of June last the following Question was put to the Home Secretary by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray):—

"If his attention has been directed to the statement published in one of the Irish newspapers, apparently on authority, to the effect that the prison authorities so secured the hands of one of the political prisoners by manacles behind his back, that he could neither dress nor undress, or raise food to his mouth, and continued this cruelty for thirty-three days; and if the statement be true, was the circumstance reported to the Home Office, and is there any objection to place the before the House, with a statement as to whether the officer guilty of this cruelty was reprimanded or otherwise dealt with, and how?"— [3 Hansard, cxcvi. 1238–9.]

To that Question, the Home Secretary replied—

"I am obliged to my hon. Friend for making this inquiry, for it is clear that the statement he has just made, if true, ought to be explained; if not true, it ought to be contradicted."— [Ibid. 1239.]

The Home Secretary went on to describe various acts of violence committed by the prisoner while in confinement, and then proceeded to say that the facts were these—

"The prisoner having committed these acts of violence, and being a very powerful man—so powerful that it required three or four warders to master him—was for a while manacled with his hands behind his back. But, so far from being kept in this condition thirty-five days, he was only so for apart of a day; but when he took his meals the handcuffs were placed in front, so that he was able to take his meals without difficulty. The punishment of manacling a man with his hands behind his back is never inflicted except when prisoners are so violent that they cannot be restrained in any other way. Rossa's handcuffs were never on at night."—[Ibid. 1241.]

That was reported in The Times in the first person—a test of care and accuracy in reporting; and in a leading article on the following day in The Times, this version of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was given—

"It is quite true that the prisoner's hands were tied behind his back as an indispensable precaution, but only for a few hours."

About three weeks after that he himself received a letter from a solicitor in London, enclosing a statement purporting to have been made by a warder employed in Chatham Prison at the time that cruelty was alleged to have been perpetrated. And, although not then aware how far he was empowered to use the name or the deposition of the writer, he lost no time in informing the right hon. Gentleman that he had received a formal contradiction of the statement he had made in the House, in order to give him an opportunity of again referring to the authorities of the prison and verifying the statement. When he subsequently read in the House the deposition of which he had given the Home Secretary notice, the right hon. Gentleman, with something less than his usual courtesy and fairness, objected to the course he had taken in not giving him previous notice of the name of his informant, and that taunt from the right hon. Gentleman was received with those peculiar cheers which were always heard on those (the Government) Benches whenever by any accident a Minister of State made use of an unjust or ungenerous expression. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the whole matter involved in the statement originally made, in the contradiction which the right hon. Gentleman gave to that statement, and in the contradiction which he himself had read of the right hon. Gentleman's contradiction resolved itself into a question of the comparative credibility of a dismissed warder and the authorities of Chatham Prison. But since then two Members of that House had seen the prisoner, who, in their presence, and in the presence of the deputy governor of Chatham Prison, distinctly and solemnly averred that he had been manacled, as originally stated, for thirty-five days, from five o'clock in the morning to seven in the evening. [Mr. BRUCE: The original statement was that he was manacled day and night.] He raised no dispute whatever as to whether the punishment inflicted on the prisoner was proper or not —a point altogether wide of the question now before them. He believed that no man in the House was more inclined to treat these unfortunate persons with clemency and kindness than the right hon. Gentleman; but the question at issue was one of a more important character than the offence committed by the prisoner or the punishment inflicted on him; it was whether a Minister of State had been induced by the representations of the authorities of the prison to make in that House a statement which was directly opposed to the facts of the case. He was sure that neither the House, nor public opinion, nor the right hon. Gentleman himself would allow that to remain a moot question. If it were true that that prisoner was manacled for only a day, or part of a day, or for a few hours more or less, then, of course, whether through aberration of mind or otherwise, the man was utterly unworthy to be believed on his word. But if it was substantially true that he was manacled for thirty-five days, as had been stated, then the governor of Chatham Prison had conveyed as deliberate an untruth as had ever been conveyed to a Secretary of State. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would take care that such an investigation of that matter was made as would satisfy the public mind on the facts of the case one way or the other; and no kind of investigation would satisfy the public mind unless the prisoner was allowed to be represented by some professional man of character and ability.

said, as he was one of the Members alluded to by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore) as having visited Chatham Convict Prison, to inquire into the truth of the statements made respecting the manacling, for a long period, of O'Donovan Rossa, he begged to give the House a short detail of what he heard and the impression made on him. His hon. Friend the Member for Cork County, (Mr. Downing) was desirous that he should accompany him when he went to ascertain whether the allegations contained in the Irishman newspaper were true respecting the treatment of the prisoner. He (Mr. Blake) accordingly applied to the Secretary of State for the Home Department for permission to visit the prison and interrogate O'Donovan on the subject. This was freely granted, the Secretary of State expressing a strong desire that the truth should be ascertained. On Friday last he and his hon. Friend went. In accordance with the order of the Secretary of State the prisoner, O'Donovan Rossa, was produced. His statement was to the effect that about fifteen months ago—soon after he was transported to Chatham, in consequence of charges of breaches of discipline, and especially the assault on the governor— his hands were manacled behind his back for thirty-five days, from five in the morning until seven in the evening, except at meal times, when he was handcuffed in front, to enable him to take his food with a spoon. The deputy governor, Major Farquharson, who was present, positively contradicted this statement, saying it was impossible that it could be; but the prisoner as strongly re-asserted it. He (Mr. Blake) and the hon. Member for Cork then went to the office, where they met. the other deputy governor; they repeated the statement of the prisoner. He, too, said it wag impossible, and that the records of the prison would prove that no convict had been placed in irons in the manner described for so long a time. He retired to consult the records; on his return he said he did not deem himself at liberty, without authority, to produce or state what was on the records of the prison. Accordingly, he and his hon. Friend were left without any information as to what the records would really prove. Against the resolute assertion of the prisoner there was nothing opposed except the ipsi dixit of two gentlemen, neither of whom were officers of the prison when the alleged occurrence took place. The governor, who might have thrown more light on the matter, was absent. These and other circumstances inclined him and the hon. Member for Cork to believe that the statement of the prisoner was true. With respect to the violence of O'Donovan, especially his outrage on the governor—and a very disgraceful outrage it certainly was, if the perpetrator could be regarded as being in a state of mind which rendered him an accountable being—he wished to observe that, from the extraordinary things the prisoner was said to have done at the time, the frenzy he appeared to have been in, and other circumstances which were stated, he came to the conclusion that O'Donovan must have been deranged at the time that the deplorable occurrence had taken place with respect to the governor. The prisoner himself stated that on his arrival from Milbank —no other political prisoner being then at Chatham—he was put to work with nine ordinary convicts; that he suffered many annoyances from them, disliked their association, and requested to be put to any labour apart from them; that, on this being refused, he became exasperated, and then begun those acts of insubordination for which he states he was so severely punished. They subsequently saw Richard Burke, who well deserved the high terms in which the Secretary of State had spoken of him when the subject was last before the House; he was, indeed, as the Secretary of State said "bearing his fate like a man." He disdained to make any complaint about himself, but made some representations on behalf of his companions. He looked delicate and emaciated; and it was only when he (Mr. Blake) and the hon. Member for Cork pressed him as to the cause of his looking so ill, that he said he was unable, owing to an intestinal complaint, to use the gruel for breakfast and supper, and had consequently been obliged to use bread and water for these two meals for some months. Still, he wished it to be understood that he did not urge this as a complaint, as he was resolved to bear with everything without a murmur. Anyone who saw this man, let him even condemn the course he took, could not but feel admiration for the fortitude he displayed. They would also feel it hard to believe that one who seemed to care so little about himself, and yet showed such kindly solicitude for others, could have been a party to running the risk of the loss of many lives in order to secure a benefit for himself. Indeed, at last, it was being admitted that even those who were known to be engaged in the attempt to rescue him never contemplated that such a fearful catastrophe would have happened—the best proof of which was, that some of themselves perished in it. The food given to the prisoners, as shown to them, appeared to be good, but the quantity for breakfast deficient by four ounces of bread. The report that had got out, that, after the hon. Member for Mayo's speech, some of the prisoners were put out of hospital and sent to hard labour, was incorrect. None of them had been in hospital for some time, except Halpin, a few months ago, and none of those at Chatham were at present at hard labour. On his return the same night from Chatham, he (Mr. Blake) sought out the Home Secretary, and made a strong representation to him. as to the necessity of at once directing that Richard Burke should get nourishing food that he could make use of, or that otherwise he would be likely to fall into consumption. The right hon. Gentleman listened to his representations with the greatest attention, and promised at once to have the prisoner's case inquired into, with a view of having whatever diet given to him that was necessary for the preservation of his health. In common justice he must say that he believed there never was a man in his position possessed of stronger feelings of justice and humanity than the Home Secretary. He had no doubt that he had done everything in his power consistently with the law and what he considered his duty, to mitigate the lot of the political prisoners. It was not the Home Secretary's fault that the law subjected them to the same punishment as criminals convicted of the worst offences. He therefore had the greater confidence in appealing to him to go a step farther, and recommend Her Majesty to set these men free. They had suffered a great deal. To anyone, no matter what privations and hardships they might have been accustomed to outside, the fate of a convict was a dreadful one. The iron discipline, enforced silence, utter solitude for many hours, absence of interesting occupation, and separation from home and friends, rendered the punishment even to the most hardened terrible to endure; but to men like many of the political prisoners, well educated and accustomed to refinement and comfort, the horror of their situation was difficult to realize. Public opinion was now strongly inclining to the feeling that men for political offences ought not to be subjected to the same degrading punishment as those who had been guilty of heinous crimes. It seemed, indeed, hard that a man who violated the law in the assertion of a political opinion he entertained, no matter how erroneous it might be, should be classed and treated like a common robber. He had too good an opinion of the Home Secretary's enlightenment and high-mindedness to think that he would subscribe to such a doctrine. Whatever the political offences of these men might be, they had paid a terrible penalty. This ought to be considered, as well as the present peaceable state of Ireland and the strong feeling which had existed there in favour of an amnesty. The Government could not be blamed for imprisoning those who opposed it as those men had done; but sound policy, as well as humanity, dictated that when they had gone through so much, and when there was no longer danger to be apprehended, mercy should be extended to them. The remedial measure which Government had lately passed and what was expected from the land question would go far to restore peace and prosperity in Ireland. It was the true way to make the people grateful and loyal; and the House might rely that no act would be felt more gracious, or gratify the majority of the country more, than to set free those on whose behalf he had, he feared, but feebly pleaded.

said, that as this was a question affecting the character of public servants, he hoped that by the indulgence of the House he might be allowed to address them again on the Motion for adjournment. He was anxious, first of all, it should be clearly understood that this punishment, whether excessive or otherwise, was inflicted upon Rossa for an act of insubordination only, and not in consequence of his being a Fenian prisoner. The complaint was, that he had had his hands tied behind his back for thirty-five days, and it was added in an Irish newspaper that he had been manacled night and day, so that at meal times he had to lap up food like a dog. The answer he (Mr. Bruce) gave was, that this was not true; that the prisoner had to be manacled for an act of insubordination, but was manacled only during a portion of the day, and not at all at night or when he had his meals. In consequence, however, of the statement made by his hon. Friend (Mr. Gr. H. Moore), he had ordered an inquiry by one of the Directors of Prisons. Major Farquharson, the deputy governor who was present at the interview between his hon. Friend (Mr. Blake) and the prisoner, stated to the Director that the latter gave a somewhat different account to that given by his hon. Friend. Major Farquharson said—

"The prisoner stated that he had had his hands handcuffed behind his back the greater portion of thirty-five days, and that he had frequently had to eat his meals on his belly like a dog, and he gave the exact dates. Mr. Blake and Mr. Downing then expressed, themselves satisfied with everything concerning the prisoner's treatment, with the exception of this one point—namely, the mode and duration of his being handcuffed."

The governor was then called upon to explain what had actually occurred, and what was really the punishment inflicted on this man. He would read the questions and answers—

"Did you give an order that the convict O'D. Rossa should be placed in handcuffs after he committed the assault on the 16th of June, 1868? If so, state the circumstances under which it was given.'—' The day after the assault was committed I went on leave for three days, giving over charge to Captain Harvey, who requested to know, before I left, whether I would authorize his placing convict O'D. Rossa in handcuffs with his hands behind him, the prisoner being then in such an excited state that some severe measure of restraint seemed requisite. I authorized his doing so, provided they were taken off at night.' ' Do you remember how long he was restrained, he being handcuffed behind his hack?'—'As I was absent on leave I cannot exactly say, but on being called upon to state in May last the length of time passed by Rossa with his hands behind him, I sent for the warder who had been doing duty in the separate cells, who stated that, to the best of his belief, it was only for one day. To convince myself of the truth of his statement, I desired him to bring me his separate cell-book, which confirmed his statement. I also sent for the chief warder's occurrence book, which corroborated the entry in the separate cell-book. I then felt no further doubt on the subject, and considered the evidence thus produced quite conclusive.' ' On subsequent visits after the assault was the prisoner handcuffed behind his back?'—' I have no recollection of over having seen him with his handcuffs behind his back. No other order was given by me for him to be handcuffed behind his back between the 16th of June and the 23rd of July, 1868, nor has ha ever been so restrained more than a few hours at a time, except on the occasion above referred to.'"

The chief warder was asked—

"'Were you in charge of the separate cells on the 16th of June, 1868, when convict O'D. Rossa was confined for assaulting the governor?'—' Yes.' 'Was he placed in irons on reception at the separate cells?'—' To the best of my belief he was not.' 'Was he ever handcuffed with his hands behind his back?—' He was.' ' How often, and when?'— ' Cannot exactly say; but whenever the governor's order was given for the use of handcuffs it was invariably entered in the separate cell-book. It is so long ago that I cannot exactly say how long he was handcuffed behind.' ' Was he handcuffed behind for so long a period as one month?'—' Oh, no. I doubt whether the period extended to three days.' ' Were the handcuffs invariably removed at meal times and at night?'—' Yes.' ' Do you remember the prisoner being placed in handcuffs on the morning of the 17th of June, 1868, and who gave you the order?'—' I can't give the exact date, but it was on the morning the governor went on leave after the assault. Captain Harvey gave me a verbal order personally, but I cannot remember whether he specified the hands being behind the back or not.' ' Would you place the handcuffs behind without an order to that effect?—'No.' ' Is it customary to record in the separate cell-book all cases of prisoners handcuffed behind?'—' Yes, in all cases.' ' You cannot state the exact time the prisoner was kept in handcuffs behind; do you think it could have been a week, of course, assuming that they were removed at night?'—' I do not.'"

Captain Hardy, the deputy governor, was asked—

"Were you on duty as deputy governor on the 16th of June, 1868, at this prison, and do you remember convict O'D. Rossa being under punishment in separate cells for an assault on the governor?—' I was on duty on the 17th and 18th, and remember the occurrence. I think I visited the prisoner in the separate cells on the 18th.' ' Was O'D. Rossa then in handcuffs?'—' Yes, with his hands behind his back.' 'Did you visit him daily after that?'—' Not daily, but alternately, day by day, with Captain Harvey.' ' Did you see him more than once with his hands behind his back?' —' Not more than once, and that was on the 18th.' ' After the third day following the assault can you say with confidence whether the prisoner had his hands behind his back during the remaining portion of his punishment?'—' I am confident he had not.' 'During the time the prisoner was handcuffed behind, were the handcuffs ever removed?'—Yes, at night and at meal times.'"

He admitted that some doubt existed as to the length of time during which the prisoner had been handcuffed—whether that period was, not thirty-five, but one, two, or three days. Then came the evidence of Dr. Burns, the medical officer, who was asked—

"'Did you visit the prisoner daily while under confinement?'—Answer, 'I did.' When you visited him was he handcuffed?' — ' He was.' ' How was he handcuffed — with his hands behind his back or in front?'—' Part of the time in front, part of the time behind his back.'—' Did you often see him handcuffed behind his back?'— Answer, "No.'—'How often did you see him so handcuffed?'—'Three days.' 'Did the three days you speak of follow immediately after the assault?' — '"Yes.' 'How was he handcuffed for the remaining portion of the time?'—'With his bands in front.'—' Do you think that as a means of restraint it was necessary to handcuff him behind?'—Answer, ' Yes; he was in an excited state for some time.'"

There was also the evidence of Chief Warder Turner, who, being asked whether he ever saw the prisoner handcuffed behind, answered in the affirmative, adding, in reply, to the question, "How often?" "I cannot say the exact time, whether one, two, or three days. There is only one entry of the prisoner being handcuffed behind, and that was on the 17th of June, the day after the assault." Then there was the following note of Captain Stopford, the Director who conducted the examination:—

"The books are examined, and I find only one entry of the prisoner being handcuffed behind, and that was on the 17th of June, 1868. There are other entries of his having been handcuffed, but not behind. It appears to be the invariable practice to enter all prisoners handcuffed behind as a measure of restraint in this book."

Now, it was perfectly true that the Warder Kaye, to whom the hon. Member for Mayo referred, did make a different statement, and inquiry had been made as to the character and trustworthiness of that witness. He found that he had—

"Joined the service on the 4th of April, 1865; that in June, 1868, he was placed on second probation of three months for making a frivolous and unsubstantial report against another officer, having during the whole of his service been reported very frequently for neglect and irregularities. While so under probation he was several times reported for neglect, irregularity, and insubordination, and consequently was dismissed the service in 1868. The governor reports that this officer never was in charge of the treason-felony prisoners, and could not have communicated with them except by talking through the doors of their cells on one or two occasions when he was patrolling the hall where they were while the regular officer was absent at dinner. The governor con- sidered him to be a man whose word could not be relied on entirely."

The statement of Kaye was supported by another man named Douglas, but that witness was also regarded as being untrustworthy. It appeared that during the last five years he had been reported five or six times every year, and that this year he had been reported five times, once for telling a falsehood as to the finding of clandestine correspondence on a prisoner, and making a false statement against another officer which he afterwards denied. Those were the two persons on whose evidence the statement was made in support of the prisoner's own statement; but, in opposition to that evidence, there was the evidence of the medical man, supported by the evidence of the officers and warders. There was, besides, the evidence of the two deputy governors who visited the prisoner repeatedly, and the evidence of the entry in the book itself, which had been examined by Captain Stopford. Therefore, although there was, he admitted, a certain amount of doubt as to the exact length of time during which the prisoner was handcuffed behind, yet hon. Members would, he thought, be disposed to think that the evidence of the entry in the book, as well as of the persons more immediately in charge of the prisoner, was on the whole the most trustworthy. He was, at all events, quite satisfied that the information which had been given by the governor had been given on evidence which seemed to be sufficient, and not without careful inquiry from those whom he believed to be fully informed on the subject. As to the prisoner Burke, it was true that he was not able to eat the gruel which was provided for the other prisoners. The medical officer, however, stated that in his opinion it was fancy on the part of the prisoner, and that he doubted whether it would disagree with him. But, be that as it might, orders had been issued by the medical officer to supply him with food which would give him sufficient nutriment.

said, he was glad the subject had been brought under the consideration of the House, and he would take the opportunity of making an appeal to the Government as to the wisdom and expediency of extending the clemency of the Crown to all the political prisoners in Ireland, declaring it to be his solemn belief that no possible injury, but great advantage, would be the result to the peace and welfare of the country.

made a similar appeal to the Government.

said, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he was enabled to inform the House whether any and what steps had been taken to carry into effect the provisions of the Act of Parliament for securing the means of communication between the passengers and the guards on railways? There had been a delay of eight months in taking the necessary measures with that object, and something in the shape of a temporary method had, he understood, been adopted in some instances, a rope being extended from carriage to carriage. A letter had appeared in The Times within the last two or three days which gave reason to believe that the railway companies had not done all that was required of them in the matter. On the whole, he was led to the belief that the railway companies had not, as a general rule, established any uniform or efficient means of communication between the passengers and guard. Consequently, numerous letters of complaint had been sent to the public Press, and various newspapers had drawn attention to the subject. The result of the twelve months' delay had been that the railway companies proposed to establish a cord communication. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would state Ms opinion whether a cord or rope communication was the most efficient that could be provided. The South Eastern Railway had been fitted up with Mr. Deacon's apparatus, and the result had been that in 500 cases there had been only three failures, and in another 714 cases only seven failures, and those even had been accounted for. Colonel Yolland, in his valuable Report on this subject, had strongly condemned the cord system. He would now read to the House the opinion expressed by Mr. Martin. ["No, no!"and "Agreed!"] At all events, as this was a matter affecting the safety of railway travellers, he hoped the House would permit him to state the objections which had been urged by scientific and practical men against the adoption of the rope system-Communication by means of a rope placed outside the carriage would certainly not be efficient. Ladies and infirm old gentlemen could not put their heads out of the window to pull the rope, while the amount of slack was so great that it would require considerable strength to communicate with the guard. It had likewise been urged that in winter time the frost and snow would prevent the rope system from acting, and that, indeed, its adoption was a compliance with the letter but not with the spirit of the statute. In conclusion, he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether any railway companies had neglected to comply with the provisions of the Act; and, if so, whether they had assigned any reasons for such non-compliance?

rose to call attention to a case which was not at all confined in its principle and legal bearings to the interests of railway companies and proprietors, but which equally affected the liability of every associated company, every private individual who owned a warehouse or manufactory, and every professional man who had an office for daily business. In thus trespassing upon the House, he had no wish or intention to invite expression of opinion on the merits of the case itself, or on the settlement, which was now beyond litigation or dispute. Therefore, after citing the bare facts, it would not be necessary for him to allude cither to plaintiff or defendant. The circumstances were as follows:—On the 17th of February, 1868, a lady professor of dancing travelled in a third-class carriage by an early train from Boston to Spalding; distance, seventeen miles, fare 1s. 6d. On alighting at Spalding she went into the ladies' waiting-room, and in turning to pass out she caught her foot in the seam of the carpet, which, as she stated in evidence, had become unsewn, the thread having worn away. She foil, and in so falling caused, as she alleged, a serious injury to the lower portion of her spine, which incapacitated her afterwards from following her profession for many months. She claimed at first £1,000 damages, which (for technical reasons) were subsequently increased by Judge's order to £10,000. The railway company pleaded non-lia- bility and absence of all negligence or default. The learned Judge, he believed, at an early stage of the inquiry, before medical witnesses were called and after they had been called, ruled unhesitatingly that the company were liable. There remained, then, only the question of compensation, which was settled by consent at £1,500, because it was deemed inadvisable to press the case. This, no doubt, was a very extreme case, a very unusual case; and were it not for fear of giving offence, where it was least his intention to do so, he should say that it was an exaggerated view almost amounting to burlesque upon reasonable liability. As well might it be ruled that if one stone in a paved courtyard of a station was rougher than another or an inch higher than its neighbour, and a passenger tripped over the offending stone, that the proprietor was liable for costly damages. He was not a lawyer, and was perhaps incapable of appreciating those subtle refinements which went to make up the legal view of liability; but he put it to anyone who was the proprietor of any office what his notion would be if anybody in passing from his premises met with an accident, went away, and successfully claimed excessive damages. Where railway companies or directors were concerned every small injury or wrong assumed exaggerated proportions. The plaintiff, the witnesses, and the professional men all took an exaggerated view, and verdicts were given not with reference to the injury sustained, but to the ability of the railway companies to pay. He asked the attention of the House to this subject on public grounds alone; and the broad proposition he laid down was this —It was not the interest of the public to relieve railway companies from liability in proven cases of negligence and neglect, but neither was it the interest of the public to hold them liable for injuries in such a case as he had detailed. If courts of justice were to act as insurance arbitrators in every ease of accident between the public and railway companies, then railway companies ought to have the powers of insurance companies and charge a special rate in proportion to the risk they ran. Railway companies did not ask to be relieved of general liability; they only asked that damages should be apportioned to the fare received and the distance run. He hoped when he brought this subject forward next Session he should have the sympathy and assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade.

The answer I shall give to the Question of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) will be very short and simple. As the House is aware an Act was passed last year for the purpose of compelling railway companies to establish some mode of communication between passengers, guards, and drivers. The management of the affair was, to a certain extent, placed in the hands of the Board of Trade, and after the Act was passed there were offered to the Board—I believe that I should be within the mark if I said—many scores of plans. I believe from first to last 200 or 300 plans were offered to them, by which such a communication could be established. We have many sagacious men connected with the Board, of Trade, and I say nothing to their discredit when I admit that they could not decide absolutely what was to be done. The course taken was to communicate with the leading men that manage the great railways of the country, and ask their opinion, for they have just as much interest as the public in preventing accidents and saving the lives of their passengers. The companies formed a committee of their ablest managers, and I need not say that some of the very ablest men in the country are connected with the management of the railways. The result was that they suggested — after having examined all the plans—that a particular plan should be adopted. The Board of Trade thought it was infinitely better for the public that they should act in this matter along with the intelligent managers of the companies rather than sanction or determine upon any particular plan of their own. Now, the plan that was sanctioned was that to which my hon. Friend referred in terms, I thought, almost of contempt. The Act fixed the 1st of April, as the date at which this communication was to be established; but the interval allowed was too short, because it took some months to determine how it was to be done, and then necessarily it would take some months more to fit up the rolling stock of the companies. The Board of Trade exercising the power given to them, extended the time to the 1st of August, and, so far as I know, the Act has been complied with. The hon. Gentleman says, or supposes, or suspects, for of his own knowledge he knows nothing—ho does not tell the House that he has been spending his time since the 1st of August in inspecting the various railways—that no communications have been established. He has read in a paper that in certain, trains on the Great Western Railway the communication was not in a condition to work with success. I have had a communication from the management, and the explanation given is this—that with all their efforts they had not been able to fit up all the carriages composing the rolling stock of the company, but had fitted as many carriages as were necessary for the ordinary traffic; but during the last few months everyone that could run away—not being a Member of Parliament—was leaving London, and the Great Western Railway Company found it necessary for the convenience of passengers to bring into use the whole power of their rolling stock, and they had to use certain carriages to which the band of connection had not been attached, and the consequence was that the mechanical contrivance was not accurately fixed, and the thing for the moment was a failure. The manager says—"I have every reason to believe that in the course of a few days the whole of the company's stock will be fitted up, and the system will be in full operation." Wherever the rope system has been sanctioned by the Board of Trade we have found that the rope is attached, and, as we have reason to believe, it is in successful operation. The hon. Member has referred to the South Western Railway, where a different system has been operation for two or three years. The directors thought that it worked sufficiently well for them, and the Board of Trade sanctioned that system upon that line; but on the lines of the North they have sanctioned the rope system, and it is in operation. I will undertake to say that if the Board of Trade had sanctioned any other system some hon. Member would have have been found to put a similar question to me, and would probably have been able to bring as many arguments against that other system as the hon. Member has urged against the system which the Board of Trade has sanctioned. We have done the best we could, on consultation with able men connected with the railways, and the plan sanctioned is in operation, and I say it is not fair to the railways—within four days of the time fixed for bringing the plan of communication into effect— [Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN: Four months after the time allowed by the Act.]—The Act no doubt said the 1st of April; but the Board of Trade finding the time insufficient, extended the period to the 1st of August. But even if a longer time had been necessary, what then? We are not endeavouring to entrap the railways, but to deal generously and fairly by them as with the public. We have endeavoured to do so. But to get up— and without speaking from his own knowledge—from his having travelled on the railways—[Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN said, he had travelled on the lines]. I did not understand the hon. Gentleman to say so in his speech—to get up within four or five days of the time allowed for bringing the plan into operation and bring a general charge against the railway companies after the plan had been adopted by so many competent men, and assume that nothing had been done and no effort made to promote the safety of the public, was hardly fair to the railways. I will say nothing about the Board of Trade, for we are not thin skinned, and we do not suffer much from such criticism. As to the case referred to by the hon. Member for Yorkshire (Mr. C. Denison) it has been before a court. It may be that the Judge's ruling was entirely wrong, and the jury's verdict contrary both to law and fact. I know nothing about it. But this I know, and I will give my own opinion. I thought it one of the most monstrous cases I had ever heard of in connection with questions of compensation. My opinion is that the whole law with regard to compensation for accidents as now worked with regard to railways, is one of very serious injustice, and deserves the examination and consideration of the House. It was only the other day that I read in the newspapers of a man brought into the court on a stretcher to show the jury what a deplorable condition he was in. The Judge said that was not a wise thing to do in the case of a man so near death's door; but the man, after receiving his compensation money, "was found in two or three weeks following his former avocation in perfect health. Another similar case was mentioned where the man was going about on crutches—[An hon. MEMBER: It was the same man] — and in a few weeks after he got compensation he was following his ordinary occupation. There are, no doubt, instances from time to time of neglect and carelessness on the part of railway companies, for which they ought to suffer. But there is also a system which I consider to be no better than swindling practised upon railway companies. And if the hon. Gentleman at the beginning of next Session moves in this House for a Select Committee to inquire into this question thoroughly, with a view to justice to the companies, as well as to the general, public, I think I am empowered to say that the Government will make no objection to the appointment of such a Committee, and I should be very glad if from it there should come a Report which should enable Parliament to establish a more satisfactory condition of the law than that which prevails at present.

rose, and was about to address the House, when there arose cries of "Order!" The hon. Member said, I move the adjournment of the House.

said, that having already spoken the hon. Member could not make such a Motion.

said, that he only wished to correct a statement of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, the hon. Member could make an explanation, but could not make a reply.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had charged him with bringing forward this question only five days after the Bill came into operation; but it was not known that the time had been extended.

That is not explanation.

I have stated in this House on more than one occasion that the time had been extended to the 1st of August.

said, that no one could object to the appointment of the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman had suggested. It was, however, to be wished that the right hon. Gentleman had not expressed himself so strongly, for the phrases which he employed—injustice, and so forth—led to the conclusion that he himself had prejudged the question.

said, that the House had not unwisely signified more than once its desire that there should be no discussion at the present moment of questions in controversy between the Government of this country and that of the United States; but he hoped, by a very few words, to relieve the anxiety felt by his noble Friend. There was no mystery in this matter, as he supposed; it was one of extreme simplicity. The land boundary and the water boundary formed not one, but two distinct questions occupying different positions. The land boundary question was settled. Mr. Campbell, on the part of the United States, and Colonel Hawkins, a distintinguished officer of Engineers, on the part of this country, had traced the line of that boundary, the maps had been drawn up, compared, and certified, and that question was at an end. As to the water boundary, a difference of opinion had arisen between the Commissioners, as his noble Friend was aware. In 1860, Lord Russell, then Foreign Minister for this country, proposed that the matter, if it could not be settled in any other way, should be referred to arbitration; and the United States agreed to that proposition. The civil war, however, supervened, and no effect was given to that agreement, nor were further steps taken till October of last year. The noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) signed a Protocol under which the subject was to be referred to arbitration, and that Protocol Lord Clarendon converted into a Convention, which was now awaiting the ratification of the Senate, which would meet in December next. Under these circumstances, it was impossible for him to give the assurance asked for by the noble Viscount, because the matter had passed for the present out of the hands of the British Government, and rested entirely in those of the Senate of the United States.

said, he should at the proper time, move that this clause be omitted. He was aware that the principle of an educational rate had to a certain extent been recognized in Scotland for many years; he would not, therefore, weary the Committee with attempting to describe that which was much more familiar to many hon. Gentlemen than to himself — namely, the educational rating system of Scotland. But he should not be open to contradiction if he said that this clause amplified that principle to a considerable extent. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had remarked that morning, upon the Motion that the Chairman do leave the Chair, that English Members had a perfect right to take exception to the introduction of principles which might be held to be precedents for legislation in regard to other parts of the United Kingdom. Now, he thought that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other hon. Member would feel disposed to contradict him when he said that the principle involved in this clause was likely to be made a precedent for legislation to be proposed next year. He believed that the Vice President of the Committee of Council looked upon this clause as affording a valuable groundwork for his English measure of next year. He thought the House should not allow itself to be hastily led to accept a principle so important as that which was involved in this clause. It was a principle to which he entertained an un-mistakeable aversion—namely, that of a local educational rate — and he should feel it his duty to afford the Committee an opportunity of expressing an opinion in regard to it.

said, the clause proposed to take away the rating power from those who at present possessed it, and to vest it in an entirely new body. In burghs, the Town Council was the body which alone had the power of making a rate; but the proposal here was to deprive the Town Council of all control over these particular rates, and to hand it over to a School Committee, upon which only three members of the Town Council at the outside could sit. He trusted that the power of levying rates would be allowed to remain with the Town Council, and with that object he moved, after the word "or" in the first line, to insert "Town Council in any burgh."

said, he did not quite appreciate the objection of the hon. Gentleman to the clause, as the Town Council was to have the appointment of the School Committee. There was nothing unconstitutional in allowing the School Committee, appointed by the Town Council, to make the assessment.

concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lowther). He did not think there would be any use in his hon. Friend pressing his proposed Amendment, because the House was at this period composed principally of supporters of the Government. The national schools in Ireland were maintained out of the Consolidated Fund, to which Scotland contributed. His own opinion was that in the three countries national education should be paid for partly by local rates and partly by grants out of the Consolidated Fund. The first object was to induce parents to fulfil the obligations they were under to educate their children, and it should be only a last resort to provide for the interference of the State on the disregard of parental responsibility. This first object could best be attained by an extension of the voluntary system, assisted by children's pence on the one hand and State grants on the other. He protested against the system which was being adopted in this Bill being hereafter quoted as a precedent for adoption in England. It was impossible to divide against it, because the measure came before them so late in the Session. They had reached the 7th of August, for the clock pointed to a quarter to one, and many hon. Members had left town.

added his protest against the adoption of the system; and if, any time in the future, he heard this Bill quoted as a precedent for England, he would repudiate it.

said, he also desired to protest against the principle of the clause, and would divide against it if the hon. Member for York led the way. He had a very strong objection to an educational rate upon visible property only.

(Mr. YOUNG) said, the rate was not laid upon the owners exclusively. It was laid upon the owners and occupiers of visible property, and, like the poor rate, was laid upon the owners and occupiers of all lands and hereditaments, and in their lands and hereditaments were included all houses down to a rental of £4. This rate was laid upon the owners and occupiers of all property, and therefore it was a mistake to say that it was laid upon the owners of visible property only. [Mr. SCLATER BOOTH: The real point is that personal property is not levied upon.] Under the Poor Law Act of Scotland, passed in 1845, an option was given to lay the assessment upon the inhabitants of parishes according to "means and substance," but that was so universally distasteful that he believed it was repudiated, and the present mode of testing the ability of persons to pay was adopted.

desired to remind the Committee that in England rates were now devoted to education, as in the case of pauper children.

hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division, because, if he were to succeed in striking out this clause, there would be no means of carrying out education in Scotland. The question was a very simple one. The Solicitor General had given the explanation—for which the Committee was greatly indebted to him—that occupiers would be rated as well as owners. Even taking him upon his own ground, everyone knew that the rating occupiers meant that the burden that was paid by the occupier ultimately fell on the owner. They were about to extend a principle which he believed to be sound—the principle of rating for schools. But was it right that this burden should be borne alone by property of one description? If a school, for instance, was necessary in Edinburgh, and if a rate should happen to be levied for the purpose, the question is whether the hon. Member (Mr. M'Laren) ought to pay upon the actual value of the premises and land on which his warehouses stand, or on the income which he derived from the warehouses? It was much more equitable and much more just that taxation should extend to other descriptions of property and not to real property only. His opinion was they would have to come back to "means and substance" after all. He ventured to say to his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Mr. W. E. Forster) that if he wished to have an Education Bill next year for England he had better get the Prime Minister to bring in a Bill rating personal property.

remarked on the ominous silence of Her Majesty's Government. Question after question had been put them, but the Vice President of the Committee of Council had very wisely abstained from entering into the subject. He would withdraw his Motion, because he should not be justified in asking the House to divide.

moved, after "any," to insert the word "national."

said, he could not understand the meaning of the proposition. The clause included any school open to inspection, and allowed the Privy Council to deal with any such schools.

asked if parish schools were included in this clause?

Yes; and schools of all denominations.

said, that in that case he would withdraw his Amendment.

objected to the Amendment being withdrawn.

said, that as the Bill now stood parochial schools were not to be liable to be converted, and it would not be right to limit it as proposed in the Amendment.

said, that this clause should be restored to the form in which it stood in the original Bill, and by which the Committee of Council were only allowed to make grants to schools where the same were national schools. In order to raise the question, he moved the insertion of the word "national" in line 5.

suggested that it was unnecessary again to divide on precisely the same point, and that the important question could be raised on the whole clause.

said, that there were many hon. Gentlemen who voted against him on the previous occasion who would probably give a reverse vote upon this Amendment. He did not want to give up the important point whether this was to be a national or denominational system. What he wanted was to strike out the special power to be left in the hands of the Council to say whether denominational grants were to be made or not. It would be unfair to place on this Board the enormous demand which would be made upon its discretion in this question of giving grants to denominational schools. Let them lay down a broad principle by Act of Parliament, and let the Board carry that out. As the clause now stood they were going to delegate to another body the power of disposing of this Parliamentary-grant, and putting its hands into the public Exchequer upon a basis utterly contrary to the whole scope and intention of this Bill. He would move the omission of the words at the end of the clause, in order to insert the words—

"It shall not be lawful for the said Committee to make any such grant aforesaid to any school not being a national school within the meaning of this Act."

Amendment proposed, in page 26, line 22, to leave out from the words "national school," to the end of the Clause."—(Mr. Craufurd.)

said, he did not object to the maintenance of any such denominational schools as now existed, but he distinctly objected to introduce a wedge which might split up Scotland into sects, and encourage Episcopal or Popish proselytism in every parish in Scotland. To concede that the Roman Catholics and Episcopalians might have separate schools supported by State grants was to admit that the system about to be established was national in nothing except in name.

protested against the intolerant language which they had just heard from the hon. Member, that Roman Catholic and Episcopalian children were not to be educated. He should like to know upon what principle of toleration and justice Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, who paid their share of taxation, should be refused education?

appealed to his hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Macfie). It was impossible that in a case like the present one everyone could exactly have his own will. The Government had endeavoured to do the best they could; the House had shown a great disposition to meet the Government in arranging this Bill, and he hoped that his hon. Friend, with that good sense which he generally showed, would not think it necessary to take exception to an arrangement which seemed to be absolutely necessary.

explained that he did not object to the maintenance of the present schools, but to the introduction of a system which would bring a system of proselytizing into every parish.

said, that the Government had forced through the Bill in such manner that they had not been able to discuss the one clause of vital importance in the Bill. The Lord Advocate had told them that this was to be an undenominational Bill; but he (Mr. Aytoun) said that with this clause it would be a denominational Bill. It gave unlimited power to the Board to report to the Privy Council whether there should or should not be denominational schools; and looking at the conduct of the Government it was perfectly clear that this system would be entirely denominational. This question was not understood in Scotland, as the Lord Advocate had admitted; but at this period of the morning he must content himself with protesting against that clause, unless it was amended as proposed by the hon. Member for Ayr.

said, he desired, before the division was taken, to explain in a sentence or two the nature of this clause. His hon. Friend (Mr. Aytoun) had said that he had admitted that in Scotland this Bill was not understood. Now, what he (the Lord Advocate) said was this—that by the course taken the Amendments which the Lords had made had in some of the remoter parts of the country been taken to be the propositions of the Government. It certainly had never occurred to him that there were two hon. Members who had so little apprehension of the real nature of this Bill as the hon. Members for Ayr and Kirkcaldy as to say that this was a denominational Bill. This was the only attempt that had been made not to limit, but rather to destroy, the denominational system. He would first explain what it was that the Bill did. The parish schools wore not denominational schools, although the management was more restricted than could be wished. The other denominational schools receiving grants were by this Bill to continue to be put under undenominational inspection, and subjected to a Conscience Clause; and a machinery was provided for grafting them on to the national system. Undenominational inspection itself was a great advantage. The next question was what was to be the constitution of these national schools? These schools were to be founded by the Council, and were to be paid from the rates. Now, who could say that is the denominational system? Where was it proposed that the denominational schools were to be paid out of the rates? The provision was that these schools were to be put down, by the Board, and were to be managed by an undenominational committee chosen by the rate-payers of all denominations. It was a grievous misrepresentation to say that this was a denominational system. There was nothing denominational about it. It was as purely a national system as it could be. Then came the question what was to be done with the fragmentary but important portion of the population that did not belong to the Presbyterian Church—those belonging to the Roman Catholic persuasion. It was true the Scotch schools—strict and austere as the people were in their religious opinions— had always been conducted as though under a stringent Conscience Clause, and children of all persuasions could sit upon the same bench. But that was not enough. They knew, as a matter of fact, that Roman Catholic children would not attend Protestant schools. While in this clause, therefore, they prohibited denominational grants, or rather grants in addition to voluntary effort, they left it open to the Board, where they find a population suited to that special exception, where they are satisfied that the children will not otherwise be educated, to certify that such is the ease to the Privy Council, in order that the voluntary effort may be supplemented. But that did not give a denominational aspect to the fabric they were erecting.

said, the learned Lord Advocate had not explained why the Government had changed their opinion on this matter. He denounced the clause, for it tended to the establishment of denominationalism, and that in its very worst form.