Commons Sitting of 30 June 1869

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading— Annuity Tax (Edinburgh) [19]; Party Processions (Ireland) [6], debate further adjourned.
Committee—Report—County Courts (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (1868) Amendment* [121].
Considered as amended—Debts of Deceased Persons* [165].
Third Reading—Joint Stock Companies Arrangements* [110]; Special Bails* [162], and passed.

REGINA v. OVEREND, GURNEY, & CO.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EYKYNsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in refusing to undertake the further prosecution in the case of "Regina v. the Directors of Overend, Gurney, and Co. (Limited)," and also refusing to furnish a sum not exceeding £5,000 towards the cost of that prosecution, he was aware that the Directors had been committed by the Lord Mayor of London to take their trial upon a charge of conspiring to defraud the public of £3,000,000 sterling, and a private individual bound over in £5,000 to prosecute the law with effect; that a grand jury of merchants had found a true Bill, and that the Lord Chief Justice had ordered the Directors to find sureties for £10,000 each to appear; whether the Law Officers of the Crown had advised such a refusal, and on what grounds; and, whether the Law incapacitates the prosecutor from appearing in person; and if so, who is responsible
  for the prosecution of the case on the trial, and the due administration of public justice?
  MR. BRUCE: Sir, I was aware of the facts referred to in the Question of the hon. Gentleman. I must say I did not consult the Law Officers of the Crown upon this occasion; but I did bring the matter before the Cabinet, where it received due consideration, and my Colleagues were of opinion that there was nothing in the circumstances of this case to distinguish it from ordinary cases of fraud, where the prosecution must be conducted by the sufferers themselves. The only precedent that I know of was that of the British Bank, the prosecution of which was undertaken at the cost of the Government, and that was regarded not so much as a precedent to be followed as an example to be avoided. From time to time similar applications have been made to the Government, and all have received the same reply. During the last term an application was made to Government to furnish the costs and undertake the prosecution of the Directors of the Leeds Bank. That application was also refused. Still less can the Government undertake to furnish a contribution towards the prosecution the conduct of which does not rest in their own hands. I am aware it is said that there is an inconsistency on the part of the Government in this matter, and that they acted very differently in the case of Madame Rachel. But that case was entirely different. The question at stake in the case of Madame Rachel was whether the Judge of the Sheriff's Court, when sitting in a criminal court, had properly exercised his jurisdiction, and on the decision in that case rested, the legality of many previous decisions, so that the matter was one of great public interest. My hon. Friend asks me whether the law incapacitates the prosecutor from appearing in person. The prosecutor has power in civil cases to appear; but the Lord Chief Justice has laid it down to be the rule and practice of the courts that prosecutors in criminal cases should not be permitted to appear in person. With respect to the question as to who is responsible for the prosecution of the case on the trial, I can. only answer that this case rests exactly on the same footing as other cases. Cases of this kind are extremely rare. But this is not the occasion for entering upon the question

  823
  whether cases of this sort should be prosecuted at the expense of the Government. All I can say is that it is not the practice. The Government, after mature consideration of the subject, did not believe that the circumstances of this case furnished sufficient reason for an exception to the general rule.
  MR. EYKYNgave notice that on going into Committee of Supply on Thursday next he would call the attention of the House to the subject.
  MR. FAWCETTasked whether there was any law to prevent a solicitor from appearing?
  MR. BRUCEsaid he believed there was no law; but he did not undertake to say what was the practice of the Courts. In certain cases he knew there was a rule that barristers alone should be heard.

AGRICULTURAL RETURNS.

  RESOLUTION. ADJOURENED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [13th April],
  "That the Agricultural Returns, now made annually, should, after this year, be discontinued, and collected every fifth year in the place of annually."—(Mr. Pell.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. M'LAGAN: ✶ I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) should have introduced this Motion, or that anything should have taken place in this House that might tend to embarrass the Government in the annual collection of agricultural statistics. I know the difficulties my friend Mr. Caird, when a Member of this House, encountered when he took this question in hand—how year after year he was opposed by the Government and Members on both sides of the House —and how, when he was successful, he prevailed only by getting a division adverse to the Government. Sir, the agricultural statistics have been collected only for three years, and the collection of them may be said to be but experimental yet; and no one can deny but that it has been auspiciously commenced, and that, in so far as the experiment has proceeded it has been successful. I cannot help thinking, therefore, that under the circumstances it is unfair to do anything to mar that experiment. All that I ask is to give it a fair trial. An objection made to the annual collection of
  824
  these statistics, as being useless, is that some corn dealers had never heard of them. But this is no evidence of the uselessness of the statistics; it is evidence of the ignorance of those dealers. I could scarcely have believed that there was any corn dealer or merchant in this country who had never heard of them if it had not been mentioned here. Do these dealers not read the newspapers? Another objection urged against the utility of the statistics by my hon. Friend is that some corn dealers to whom he had spoken had never made use of them. But this is only evidence of the folly of the dealers, who refuse to avail themselves of what would prove of advantage to them in their trade. I may set my experience of dealers and merchants in the corn trade against that of my hon. Friend's, and state that every merchant to whom I have spoken on the subject has expressed himself in favour of the annual collection of statistics, and his regret that anything should have been done here to imperil its continuance. And when the agricultural statistics were being collected in Scotland, about twelve years ago, the corn, cake, and manure merchants all showed the greatest anxiety to obtain the results of the inquiry. But another objection has been made to the value of the annual collection of these statistics by my hon. Friend the Member for South-east Norfolk (Mr. Read), that a knowledge of the yield per acre being of far more importance in determining the produce of the land annually than a knowledge of the acreage, the annual return of the acreage is of little use. Now, I at once admit the full importance of obtaining a knowledge of the yield per acre. But I say, by all means obtain that knowledge in addition, but do not cease to get a knowledge of the acreage. There is nothing to prevent the acreage of the crops being published by the end of July; but you cannot get an accurate estimate of the yield per acre till about the end of October, after the farmers have begun to thrash out their crops. Now, there is one circumstance which I must mention here that distinguishes the ascertaining the yield per acre and the acreage; at the best the yield per acre, even though taken in October, is but an estimate, while the acreage published in July is a certain quantity, and it is always of advantage in making any estimate to have at least

  825
  one certain quantity upon which you may have your calculations. But my hon. Friend the Member for South-east Norfolk said that there were many important matters to be agreed on before agricultural Returns could be expected to be valuable. And amongst these he mentioned the yield per acre, the average quantity consumed by each individual in dear and cheap years, the time of the harvest, the consumption of grain by cattle in cheap years. Now, I may state that all these elements of the computation have been long known, and are now generally agreed on by statisticians and the large importers of grain. But my hon. Friend says that in dear years it is not taken into account that the poor consume more wheat than in cheap years. This depends upon various circumstances; it depends upon whether the people in those dear years are well-enough employed to give them wages to purchase an additional quantity, and it also depends upon whether cheaper substitutes cannot be got for the wheat, such as potatoes, rice, barley, or oats. Now, this consideration adduced by my hon. Friend is not new. It was brought prominently before the public in two lectures on "Our Daily Food.," delivered by Mr. Caird, which my hon. Friend heard. And I am inclined to agree with Mr. Caird that the high price of wheat has an effect in diminishing the use of it, though not to the extent that might be expected. My hon. Friends have both stated that the number of acres in the different crops is a comparatively constant quantity, or at all events varies so little in five years that it is easy to estimate in any one year the acreage of the different crops if the Returns were made every five years instead every year as at present. My hon. Friend the Member for South-east Norfolk adduced Scotland to prove his case. He said that the statistics of Scotland showed a gradual decline of cereals in that country. I shall show that the decline has not been gradual, and I shall supply some deficiencies in his speech about the Scotch statistics. And perhaps the House will permit me shortly to detail first the mode in which the agricultural statistics were collected in Scotland twelve years ago, as I was one of the enumerators who aided in the collection. A grant of money was entrusted to the Highland and Agricultural Society for the collec-
  826
  tion of these statistics. The able and indefatigable secretary of that society, the late Mr. Hall Maxwell, had the organizing and superintendence of the collection of the statistics, and the satisfactory manner in which he executed his duty may be judged of from the fact that only one-fifth per cent of the j schedules were not returned, or 100 out of 50,000 schedules were not returned. In the same year, that is, in 1855, an attempt was made to collect the statistics in eleven counties in England, and 7 per cent of the schedules were not returned. Scotland was divided into districts, and over each district was placed an enumerator. Each district was divided into parishes presided over by members of committee. The schedules, when filled up with the number of live stock and the number of acres in crop, were all returned directly to Mr. Hall Maxwell, and as soon as possible published. After a sufficient quantity of the crop had been thrashed to admit of a correct estimate of the yield per acre being made, meetings of the committees were held, at which the yield per acre and weight per bushel were determined, and the results forwarded to Mr. Maxwell. Sir, I shall now, as I promised, supply a deficiency in my hon. Friend's speech on Scotch statistics, which will disprove his case and prove mine. He has stated that it is easy to estimate the acreage in the different crops any year if the Returns are made once in five years. Now, let us take the returns in wheat as made in Scotland in the years 1855, 1856, and 1857. In 1855 there were 191,130 acres in wheat, and, in 1856, there were 263,328 acres, or there were 37 per cent more acres in wheat in 1856 than in 1855. There were no Returns in England in these two years to give us any idea of the average in wheat, but as the same causes existed in England as in Scotland for producing these results, we are warranted in supposing that there would be the same increase in the acreage in wheat in England as in Scotland in 1856. And as evidence of this we had a great diminution in the importation of wheat and flour in 1857, amounting to about 5,000,000 of cwts, even though the Russian ports were thrown open in 1857, after the war, while there was a corresponding increase in the quantity of barley and oats in the same year—thus showing the probable large reduction

  827
  which had taken place in the acreage by these two cereals. Again, in 1857, there was about 15 per cent less in wheat in Scotland than in 1856, and it is likely that there was the same difference in England. Now, Sir, is it not evident that instead of the annual change in the acreage of the crops being gradual, it is is rather variable? And would Mr. M'Culloch, or Mr. Caird, or my hon. Friends themselves, ever have estimated or guessed that there would be such a difference in the acreage of wheat of two successive years as 37 per cent and 15 per cent? Of what use would quinquennial Returns be in such years? They could do nothing but mislead. But we need not go back twelve years to see how variable the annual acreage of the crops is. Between crops 1867 and 1868 there was a difference in the quantity of wheat of about 280,000 acres, which is equal to more than a month's consumption, assuming the yield per acre and the quality of the grain to be the same. Thus also we find similar variations, though not to the same extent, in the acreage of crops in Ireland. If we take, for instance, the quinquennial period, between 1856 and 1861, we find that the average annual decrease in the acreage of wheat is about 6 per cent of the acreage in 1861, while the decrease in the year 1862 is fully 11 per cent, so that no one could have estimated correctly the acreage of wheat in 1862 from knowing the acreage every fifth year only. The result will be found to be as various in any other quinquennial period we may take. And hence we cannot depend upon any annual estimate of the acreage made from quinquennial Returns. If we want accuracy we must have annual Returns. My hon. Friend said that it was of more importance to us to know the yield of corn in France than the yield at home. If we admitted the importance of that knowledge we would put ourselves into a position of obtaining accurate informations of our own crops so as to enable us to avail ourselves of the annual statistical Returns made by the French. They show their appreciation of the importance of these annual Returns by sparing no trouble or expense in obtaining them. Sir, did time permit, I could have detailed the mode adopted by the French in collecting these statistics. I shall only mention here that there are two Returns made every
  828
  year—1st, one of the acreage of the different crops; and 2nd, one of the yield, weight of grain, &c. Besides these, there are weekly and sometimes daily reports of the state of the weather and the crops sent up to Paris from all parts of the country before harvest, so that the Government is always in a position to act upon this information in purchasing corn, if there is the prospect of a deficient harvest. It is instructive for us to know that in addition to the annual, much smaller Returns were made every five years, but these were, after a trial, discontinued, as they were found unnecessary and troublesome in the collection, and they are now collected every ten years when the Census of the people is taken. I have no hesitation in saying that if the statistics are collected every year in this country for some time, the filling up of the schedules would become very easy, I may say almost a habit with the farmers. But if they are to be collected only once in five years, the trouble and annoyance always felt at the commencement of a new operation would be experienced every fifth year when the farmers were called on to fill up the schedules. My hon. Friend could not have adduced a better example in favour of the annual collection of agricultural statistics than France, for it is well known that when there is a threatened deficiency in the crops, France has the earliest information, and sends forth commissioners to purchase wheat in the corn-growing countries, and she has even on several occasions purchased over our heads cargoes which were intended for us, who, from want of accurate information about our crops, did not know what we may require; and thus in a few weeks afterwards we have had to pay a much higher price for the food of our people. This is one of the uses of annual agricultural Returns to the public in general. I could mention more, but as I have already detained the House so long, I shall only allude shortly to the use of these Returns to farmers themselves. I am one of those who think that as a rule farmers should not be speculators, but there are occasions when, with correct agricultural Returns before them, they possessing the earliest and best information, would be quite justified in taking advantage of their position. How much money, for instance, the agricultural interest could have made if

  829
  they had disposed of their wheat some months ago, instead of keeping it on till now? There are facilities of doing this at present, which farmers did not possess some years ago. Again, what does a farmer do when he has a smaller acreage in grass or roots? He either reduces the number of his stock, or he purchases a larger quantity of cakes or other food; so, when the agricultural Returns show a reduction in the acreage of grass or roots over the whole country—and I have already shown that great variations do occur in the annual acreage—the cattle food merchants and farmers provide in time for the expected deficiency, and thus prevent dearth of cattle food, or an inordinate rise in the price of it, while the farmers lay their plans for bringing out their stock for sale at the most advantageous time. Again, the expense of collecting these statistics, varying from £12,000 to £20,000 annually, is adduced as an objection to them. Now, Sir, I shall not give my opinion on this objection, but I shall quote the opinion of Mr. Hubbard, whose absence from the House during debates of this class all must regret. Mr. Hubbard spoke as follows on this point in 1864:—
  "As to whether the expense was £5 000, £15,000 or £50,000, the immense importance of these statistics could not be measured by any expense. In one season England had spent £20,000,000 in corn alone; and, in 1847, as largo a sum as £100,000 might have been saved by priority of information on a single day's transaction, when we had to compete with other nations in the markets of Europe and America."—[3 Hansard, clxxv. 1372.]
  Did I not know that my voice is powerless, I would raise it from this place in an appeal to the farmers of England to give all the assistance in their power to the Government in the collection of correct annual agricultural Returns. But I know the influence of my two hon. Friends with the farmers, whom they so worthily represent in this House, and I appeal to them to use that influence with their agricultural constituents to accomplish that object. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire stated that whatever exertions we may use in the collection of agricultural statistics, there was a Mightier Power who determined the ultimate results of the harvest. I cordially endorse the sentiment quoted by him—"Man proposes, but God disposes." And it is because I endorse that sentiment with all reverence that I con-
  830
  sider it my duty, as it is my interest, to use the faculties and talents with which I have been blessed, to use every exertion, to use the opportunities placed within my reach to attain an object, before I can with confidence leave the rest to be disposed of by a Mightier Power.
  MR. ASSHETONsaid, he thought it would be admitted that agricultural statistics, like all other statistics, were perfectly useless unless they were accurate; and, under the present system of collecting them in this country, they were so inaccurate as to be not only worthless, but delusive. He belonged to a part of the country which did not grow much corn, but which produced beef and mutton, and the Returns sent in during the last three years from that district were, he believed, delusive in the extreme for several different reasons. In the first place, he regretted to say that the farmers purposely and wilfully sent in wrong Returns. Having himself wanted to know what was the number of cattle in a given area with a view to organize a scheme of insurance, he asked the farmers to make a Return of how many cows, &c, they had, and some of them, although they were honest men, had put down the wrong number from a feeling which was quite foolish, because a landlord had a right to walk over their farms and could ascertain what stock they had for himself. Another grave error crept into the Returns from his part of the country in this way—The farmers were asked to state how many acres they had under wheat or oats, how much meadow land and pasturage, not including mountain and moor lands. But near his district there were large tracts of mountain and moor land on which many sheep and cattle were sent to graze, and those sheep and cattle were left out of the Return. Another source of error lay in the fact that although all over the country they had a statute acre they had also local acres varying from each other to a very great extent, in some cases the size of one being double that of another. How, then, was any reliance to be placed upon Returns collected by the Government under such conditions? Such being the evil, the question was how was it to be cured? The only way in which those statistics could be made really useful, either for Imperial or private purposes, was by having them collected from house to

  831
  house and from door to door, as they were collected in Scotland, and properly verified by the Government. He knew that in England people did not like the sort of espionnage by which officials went round to them and called upon them to state how many cattle, &c, they had; but he did not see why agricultural statistics should not be collected and published as accurately as the Returns we possessed of bales of cotton and other commodities. It was a question whether the country was prepared to incur the expense of collecting really trustworthy statistics of agriculture year by year. He himself doubted it; and he thought they were likely to get more accurate Returns if they obtained them every five years instead of every year. He should, therefore, support the Motion of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. PeU).
  MR. M'LAGANobserved that the statistics had been collected in Scotland by schedules, as at the present time they were collected in England.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he thought that this was a most important question, and that the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Assheton) had thrown much light on it. It appeared, however, to him that, to be of advantage not only to the country but to the agriculturist himself, those Returns must be collected annually and not merely once in five years. Four objections had been taken by the agriculturists to those statistics. The first was that if they had made correct Returns of the quantities of land they had under different crops, the landlords would take advantage of them and raise their rents. That was a most absurd idea. It was manifest that if a landlord wanted to raise his rent he would not do it in that way. The landlord did not know what Return the tenant made, and, moreover, the landlord, if he chose, might go and see how the land was cultivated and what the number of stock on it was. The second objection was that those Returns would place in the hands of the Government an instrument by which they would put increased taxation on the farmer. He did not see exactly how the Government would be able to do that, even if they were so disposed; and he certainly did not believe that any Government, from whatever side of the House it was composed, would wish to take advantage of the
  832
  Return they had asked the farmer to furnish by placing extra fiscal burdens upon him. The third objection was the expense of the Returns; but if they were returned with accuracy the money spent in in their collection would be well laid out and need not be grudged. The fourth objection was a more serious one—that they were incorrect and useless. At present they were, perhaps, not as accurate as they should be; but practical and far-sighted agriculturists, who had at first opposed the collection of those statistics, now acknowledged that it would be greatly to their advantage if they could only know from year to year the breadth of land that was under different crops in this country, so as to guide them in their calculations as to its yield, and enable them to judge for themselves how much corn it would be necessary to import from abroad. In 1867, the number of acres under wheat was 3,640,000; and the number of quarters grown was 9,380,000. In 1868, there were under wheat 3,951,000 acres, and the quantity grown was 16,436,000 quarters. With such an increase as that in the latter year, it was surely of great advantage to the nation to know that it had that quantity of food in the country; and any intelligent farmer could have made his calculations on that basis if he believed it to be accurate. But supposing they had their Returns made out only once in five years, they would not know what variation occurred in the different crops from year to year. The Government gave the farmers very little trouble to make out the Returns, which, he thought, ought in future to include agricultural horses. If the Government would only put themselves in communication with the hon. Member for Southeast Norfolk (Mr. Read), the Chairman of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, with a view to drawing up of a plan for the amendment of those Returns, so as to make them really valuable, he believed the hon. Gentleman would afford them every information in his power. In conclusion, he hoped the Motion of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) would not be pressed to a division.
  MR. BOWRINGgave a sketch of the various experiments made in the collection of agricultural statistics in former years, and said that they had proved satisfactory; what was now necessary was that the sending of those Returns

  833
  to the Government should be rendered compulsory. The objections to them at present entertained by the farmers were mainly founded on the fact that the Returns were not made compulsory; and he did not believe that the farmers of England generally would be opposed to the introduction of a Bill rendering their collection compulsory. He trusted that the Government would bring in a measure to that effect, similar to that which was before the House—but which was not proceeded with, although it passed the House of Lords without opposition—some few years ago. The proposal that those statistics should be collected only once every five years was most inadequate for the objects in view. The particular year in which the collection was made might be one of great abundance, or of great scarcity, and the result must necessarily be illusory. If that proposal were pressed to a division he hoped that the House would not accede to it.
  MR. W. W. BEACHsaid, the disfavour with which the collection of those Returns had been regarded by the agriculturists had, to a great extent, disappeared, and that class now said that such statistics, if accurately taken, were not opposed to, but rather conducive to, their own interest. A statement of the mere acreage under corn crops did not give an accurate idea of the amount of the harvest that would be realized; but he thought it was desirable that all the statistical information which the farmer could give should be correctly given; and he cordially joined in the expression of a hope that the agriculturists of this country would not refuse to take the trouble necessary to render the Returns as useful and as reliable as possible. He thought their annual collection was absolutely essential to the utility of the Returns; and he therefore concurred in the appeal which other hon. Gentlemen had made for the withdrawal of the Motion of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire.
  MR. HOSKYNSsaid, the great value of those statistics to the agriculturist was illustrated by the fluctuation in the price of corn in the years 1846 and 1867. He maintained that they ought to be taken annually, for the acreage varied from year to year by the very large quantity of land improved by drainage, the reclamation of bogs and
  834
  waste lands, and acreage taken in by in-closure. He hoped the Returns would be rendered with increasing accuracy every year. They would be of great value to the consumer, and he believed that ultimately the farmers themselves would generally admit the benefits of the system.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, the speeches just delivered had been most conclusive against the Motion of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). It was only five years since Mr. Caird succeeded in obtaining a victory over the Government of the day and getting these Returns. Since then only three annual collections had been made; and it was surprising how very accurate the Returns had been. In England alone out of 392,000 farmers all but 22,000 had given in their Returns. In Scotland—where the farmers were generally acknowledged to know their own interest better than in other parts of the country—the number who had declined to make Returns amounted only to one-half per cent. In England the percentage of those who declined varied greatly in different counties. In Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Northumberland, only 1 per cent declined; in Cumberland, only a half per cent; while, on the other hand, in Hertfordshire, Huntingdonshire, and some other counties, as many as from 30 to 37 per cent declined. He believed the fact to be that in these counties the large proprietors had taken a prejudice against these statistics, and advised the farmers not to fill up the Returns. In one county he was sorry to hear that a leading proprietor gave notice publicly that he would not allow the collector of the Returns to come upon his property. The refusals were, he believed, owing to the prejudice of the proprietors rather than to that of the farmers, because it was difficult to see how the interest of the farmers in the matter could be different in Hertfordshire from what it was in Cumberland. He thought there was no reason to believe but that in general the Returns made were accurate. Where the farmers refused to fill them up themselves, the collectors had instructions to get the information required as best they could in other ways; and, on comparing the information so obtained by the collectors with that contained in the Returns furnished by the farmers them-

  835
  selves, it was found that the results brought out were much about the same in both cases. There might be some few districts where, as stated by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Assheton), the farmers made wrong Returns; but he did not believe that was so generally. The general accuracy of the statistics might be relied on, and, at all events, for the purposes of comparison between one year and another, they were of great value. At present the circulars were sent out to the farmers about the middle of June. They were requested to return them on the 25th of June, but the aggregates were not published till the 25th of September. Now, he thought it might be possible to enhance the value of the Returns by bringing out the result of them at the end of July or the beginning of August, but this could only be done by the co-operation of the farmers in filling up the Returns as soon as possible, or by making them compulsory. After the speeches delivered in the course of this discussion he need not trouble the House with any arguments to show the value of these Returns both to the farmers and the consumers. If, indeed, anyone desired to form an estimate of their great value and importance, it would only be necessary for him to consult the Returns for last year, which showed that of land sown with wheat there was an excess of 300,000 acres over the previous year. The hon. Member for South-east Norfolk (Mr. Read) might perhaps allege that it was generally known among agriculturists that there was an excess; but it was clear that the most experienced men had not the least idea of its extent, because one of the highest authorities on agriculture had published a pamphlet, after the harvest and before the publication of the official Returns, in which he estimated the excess of land sown with wheat at only 100,000 acres. The excess of 300,000 acres of wheat meant an increased growth for the year of 1,200,000 quarters, and of the importance of ascertaining this fact as early as possible he could not exaggerate. It meant that we should be relieved from the necessity of importing that amount from abroad, and that shipping to a large extent would, not be wanted. The commercial arrangements connected with the supply of this quantity of wheat were, he need hardly point out, of a
  836
  most extensive character, and therefore the sooner the facts bearing upon it were ascertained the greater the economy for all concerned. Farmers also were greatly interested in this subject, for if there were an impression on the minds of speculators in grain that the proportion of corn being grown in this country was not so great as it was in reality, they made their arrangements in accordance with their belief, and ordered more corn from abroad than was necessary. In this statement he was borne out by a Petition which had been presented to that House by a number of gentlemen connected with Mark Lane, and consequently interested in the importation of wheat. They asserted that the want of such information in former years had led to great losses to the merchants, as well as to the agriculturists, by inducing large importations of foreign corn, when a smaller quantity was actually required to satisfy the wants of the country. He ventured to hope with the hon. Member for Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) that the small minority of the farmers of this country who now declined to supply these statistics would in future co-operate with the Government and the other farmers with a view to the earliest and most accurate ascertainment of the facts. To be of real utility the Returns must be made annually, for changes occurred year by year. The Return for last year showed an excess over the year preceding in the number of cattle amounting to 322,000 head, and in that of sheep amounting to 1,700,000; so that it appeared that the loss sustained by the cattle plague of two years before had been much more than replaced. The same Return also showed that there had been 48,000 more acres of oats sown, and 84,000 more acres of potatoes. As bearing upon prices, it was of the highest importance that these facts should be known, and he might express an opinion that the collection of Returns once in five years only would be quite worthless. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed to a division.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Pell) would withdraw his Motion. Some years ago, the Highland Society of Scotland undertook to collect agricultural statistics for that country, and local committees consisting of the most

  837
  intelligent farmers, were accordingly constituted in each district, and collected the statistics in such a way as to disarm all suspicion of inaccuracy. This, too, was done at a very trifling expense, as a proof of which he might mention that the whole cost of the collection of the statistics for Aberdeenshire was only £193. "We knew perfectly the amount of all articles of large consumption imported into this country, and the only articles as to which we were in darkness were those of our own agricultural productions; but he could not doubt that when English farmers were disabused of the idea that the Returns were intended to serve a sinister object, or to be extorted by an underhand process, they would be as ready to furnish them as those of Scotland were. It was of very great importance that Returns of agricultural produce should be made in this country; and, in his opinion, they ought to be given to the public by the 20th of July in every year at the latest; as for quinquennial Returns, he felt satisfied that they would be of no possible use.
  MR. READon behalf of the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), who was absent from the House in consequence of a domestic affliction, said he should have great pleasure in withdrawing the Motion, as he felt sure that his hon. Friend would be content with having had this matter fully debated, and in all probability set at rest, at least, for some years to come. Replying to some of the arguments adduced in the course of the discussion, he pointed out that the objections directed against quinquennial Returns were equally applicable to the taking of the population Census once every ten years; and as an instance of some of the practical difficulties in the way of filling up the circulars, he mentioned that his stock were grazing upon six different properties, and at present he had not finally decided what he should sow on a portion of his own farm. It should also be borne in mind that it was the yield, and not the number of acres sown, which was the really important point. He believed the acreage of wheat would be much less this year than it was last year; that the acreage of barley would be somewhat larger than it was last year; that the acreage of peas and beans would be more than had been ever known; and
  838
  that of clover was very small indeed. If there were the same amount of wet cold weather in July and August as there had been in May and June we should, he believed, grow 100 days' consumption less of wheat this year than last; and under no possible circumstances could the deficiency be less than fifty days' consumption. The prejudices entertained by some farmers as to making the Returns had been caused to some extent by the action of the Government, and he might remark upon what was considered the childish apprehension among farmers that they might hereafter be called upon to pay a tax on horses used in agriculture; that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was so extremely fond of uniformity that he had made the costermonger's pony pay the same tax as the nobleman's carriage horse; and, if it had not been for the exertions of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, every brood mare in the country would certainly have been taxed. These statistics might be theoretically useful and interesting; but so far as any practical benefit to the farmer himself was concerned, they might put the whole of them in one's eye and see none the worse for it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

EDINBURGH ANNUITY TAX BILL.
(Mr. M'Laren, Mr. Miller, Mr. Crum Ewing.)
EDINBURGH ANNUITY TAX BILL.

  [BILL 19.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. M'LAREN,MR. M'LAREN, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it might be necessary, in the first place, to explain that its principal object was to reduce the number of ministers now in the City churches of Edinburgh, which at present was thirteen to ten, in order that by the saving of clerical power a small tax of 3d. in the pound, which is now paid by all occupiers of property within the ancient boundaries of the City of Edinburgh, may be entirely got rid of. In 1853, Mr. Adam Black brought in a Bill which had the same object in view as the present measure, though it took a different mode of attaining its object, leaving the clergy in possession of £2,000 a year, amply secured on docks, wharves, feu-duties, &c, in the town of Leith, and also of the seat rents. Mr. Black's Bill was twice carried

  839
  in this House; but unfortunately, in 1860, he did not proceed with it, hut withdrew it in favour of another Bill, which was introduced by the Government of that day. Referring to this subject, he would adopt the explanation respecting the authorship of the Bill, given by a deputation from Edinburgh, which waited upon the Home Secretary a few days ago. Mr. David Smith, the Chairman of the Edinburgh Ecclesiastical Commissioners, is reported to have said that—
  "As the settlement of 1860 had been effected by the Lord Advocate in the name and on behalf of the Government, the Church was entitled to ask the Government to adhere to that settlement.
  Now he did not mean to challenge the statement, indeed, he admitted it; but the statement was not that an arrangement was made with the people of Edinburgh at that time, but only that arrangements were made on the part of the Church and on the part of the Government of that day. He would ask was the present Government to be bound by everything which had been done by preceding Governments? Were they not living in a progressive age? If, indeed, the Lord Advocate, as Member for Edinburgh, had supported and carried the Bill through Parliament in sympathy with the wishes and desires of the people of Edinburgh; if he could have said that the inhabitants, or Town Council, or public bodies, supported the settlement, and if these things could be proved— which he undertook to say could not— he admitted at once it would have been a very important fact; but so far from the people of Edinburgh approving of the Bill which was passed by Lord Palmers-ton's Government, they did everything in their power to oppose it. The Town Council of Edinburgh had circulated a paper among Members of the House, in which they stated that they had done everything in their power to stop the Bill; and warning the House that they would never accept such a settlement, but would go on agitating until they got it altered. Before the Bill passed large public meetings were held, protesting against it; and after it had become law, a great public meeting was held, at which it was agreed to get up a solemn protest against the settlement, and that solemn protest was signed by 7,600 rate-payers of Edinburgh, including nearly 3,000
  840
  electors. From these facts, which were incontrovertible, it could not be alleged that any settlement had been made with the inhabitants of Edinburgh, whatever might have been done on the part of the Church, and whatever might have been done by the Government of the day. Moreover, the present Government had no share in, and were in no way answerable for what had been done under Lord Palmerston's Administration; and he could show that the Administrations which intervened between that time and the present did not consider themselves as so bound. In 1866, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth, then Home Secretary, and who had filled the same Office in Lord Palmerston's Administration, when the Bill was passed, agreed to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Act, which was obviously inconsistent with the notion of a final settlement in 1860; for if any such settlement was then made why should a Select Committee be appointed in 1866, to consider and report upon it? Nor did Lord Derby's Government consider that any final settlement had been made, for they brought in a Bill during their last year of Office to deal with the case of the parish of Canongate, which had two ministers, paid by a public rate of 1s. in the pound; and they carried the Bill to reduce the ministers from two to one, and the tax from 1s. to 3d. in the pound. All that the present Bill sought to accomplish was to abolish the small rate which was now imposed, and which amounted to 3d. in the pound. As to the details of the Bill objections were formerly taken with some of the clauses which were intended to give a complete guarantee for the life interests of existing incumbents. It was objected that these clauses would not be effective for the object in view; but when the Town Council took these representations into consideration they adopted and circulated draft Amendments to the Bill, which would remove all doubts as to the subject, and give complete security for the life interests of the ministers. He would trouble the House with only a few statistics. There were five ministers and churches in the New Town of Edinburgh, and eight in the Old Town. The population of the five New Town parishes was about 40,000; and there were a great number of empty sittings in these

  841
  churches. The population of the Old Town was now about 30,000, and it had eight ministers and eight churches. What the Bill sought to do was to reduce the number of ministers in the Old Town by three, not interfering with the ministers in the New Town at all. In the Old Town there were about 15,000 Roman Catholics, leaving only about 15,000 Protestants of all ages; and for these the Bill proposed to leave five ministers. Edinburgh, moreover, teemed with Dissenting places of worship of every kind, both in the Old Town and in the New. Now, these considerations showed that there would be no hardship in making the reductions proposed. In the whole City of Edinburgh there were twenty-six Established churches and chapels of ease, and of these thirteen depended partially for endowments on this local rate which the Bill sought to abolish. There were thirty-five Free churches and nineteen United Presbyterian churches, making a total of fifty-four churches belonging to these two bodies—who were negotiating for a union, and who might be regarded as only one sect—or double the number of those belonging to the Establishment. Then there were twelve Episcopal churches, ten Baptist and Independent churches, and fourteen of the smaller churches; making altogether 116 Protestant churches, and three Roman Catholic churches, which brings the total number of places of worship in the City up to 119. It had been asserted that we propose by this Bill to make the City churches practically voluntary churches —giving them no public endowment; but the facts were altogether contrary to that assertion. Thirty years ago, the City of Edinburgh sold all its property and rights and interests in the harbour and docks and yards and shore ground of Leith under a valuation, afterwards sanctioned by Parliament. It was arranged that £2,000 a year of this sum, as the value of their interest, should be paid to the Established clergy. That had been paid for the last thirty years, and it was as good and as solid a security as any to be found in the United Kingdom; and if the Church Establishment was abolished to-morrow, this £2,000 a year would go into the coffers of the City of Edinburgh for the property which it had sold. In addition, the clergy would, by the Bill, be left with the pew rents amounting to £4,300, which were increasing at the rate
  842
  of £120 a year. Then there was a certain amount of free-will offerings at the church doors amounting to £ 1,700 a year. We propose, in place of giving these free-will offerings to the poor, to let the poor be supplied from the proper quarter—the poor rates — and that these offerings in churches should go to pay the small miscellaneous expenses incurred—in the same way as in the Church of England, and in all the unendowed Churches. The pew rents might also be largely increased. In proof of this he might state that under the present system, in three of the most recently erected, churches in the New Town, notwithstanding the enormous increase in the population, and that the rental of the City had nearly trebled, and the cost of education and of everything else had greatly increased—the average of the seat rents had fallen from £1 0s. 6d. in 1832 to 12 s. a sitting in 1868; and in three churches in the Old Town, the average which, in 1832, was 12 s. was now 5s. 6d. only. The Bill was based on the calculation that there would be from the seat rents and the £2,000 a year from Leith property an annual income of £600 for each of the ten ministers. There were too many of these churches—there was a mere handful of people in each; and if they suppressed three of the churches it would do good in place of being injurious; for the congregations would have nothing to do but to walk into other churches which were almost next door to them. The whole area of the eight Old Town parishes of Edinburgh occupied less than one quarter of a square mile, and if they shut up three churches, the only inconvenience would be that the people who attend them would have to turn a little way to the right instead of the left, and vice versa. No possible injury can accrue from the adoption of this scheme. There had been forty Petitions in favour of the Bill from all parts of Scotland; for this was not considered a local question. This annuity tax was the only existing rate for ministers' stipends in Scotland, and therefore the Nonconformists in all parts of Scotland objected to it. There tad been only fifteen Petitions against the Bill, and they are mostly from presbyteries, and not from the people generally. There was only one other point he had to mention, and that arose from the statement which was made to the

  843
  Home Secretary by a gentleman to whom he (Mr. M'Laren) had already referred, who said that since the Bill proposed to raise the same sum from ten churches which was now raised from thirteen, it must fail practically But that did not follow. Take the case of the High Church, for example, which produced only £49 from new pew rents, but for which £120 a year was paid for the small miscellaneous expenses of the church. If this Bill were passed, the £49 would still be forthcoming in the other churches, where the parishioners took seats, but the £120 for miscellaneous expenses being already provided for in these churches, would be saved, and thus the general funds of the church, would be increased by the change. In other words, the gross revenue would be the same as now, while the gross expenditure would be less by £120 a year for each suppressed church. He would not now trespass further on the attention of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. M'Laren).
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYrose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. The hon. Member having gone at great length into the history of the annuity tax, and the various measures which had been introduced prior to the Act of 1860, proceeded to say that the Act of 1860 provided for the teen ministers at £600 a year each, amounting altogether to £7,650; and in order to raise that sum it took the £2,000 from Leith, then the bonds of annuity which the Act granted to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners over the town, amounting to £4,200, and £1,450 from seat rents. There were several other very important provisions in the Act of 1860. Before that time the Corporation of Edinburgh managed the collection of the annuity tax, but under that Act the collection of the tax and the management of the City churches was handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Edinburgh, who had ever since continued to manage the ecclesiastical property of the City. The Act of 1860 reduced the tax from 10 d. to 2d. —which was a manifest gain to the City of Edinburgh—and the number of ministers was now only thirteen instead of eighteen. Then as to the proposal of
  844
  the hon. Member opposite (Mr. M'Laren), he proposed to find stipends for the City clergymen in this way—He proposed that they shall have £2,000 from Leith. The hon. Member had not explained the origin of that fund, but it arose as an ecclesiastical revenue belonging to the Corporation of Edinburgh, in the shape of an annuity, payable to the Corporation in lieu of its property in Leith, harbour, docks, warehouses, feu-duties, &c, which were surrendered in 1838. Now it appeared to him (Sir Graham Montgomery) if the City of Edinburgh was to be excused from paying this £4,200, then the town of Leith would have an equal right to claim that this £2,000 a year should not be imposed upon them. The hon. Member also proposed that the annuity be reduced from £4,200 to £2,050, and that the Commissioners shall so regulate the letting of the seats in the Church that they shall never produce more than £4,800 in a year. Unfortunately, those rents have never produced that sum yet. The hon. Gentleman proposed to do away with three of the churches in which money for the seat rents were paid; he also proposed to make considerable alterations, so as to secure in a better manner the life interests of the clergy of Edinburgh; and in that way he held out a bribe to the clergy of Edinburgh to agree to the Bill by making their private interests so much better than they would otherwise be. He expected that these gentlemen, in their desire to secure better terms for themselves, would neglect the interests of their successors; but he (Sir Graham Montgomery) thought that in that matter he might be somewhat disappointed. Another most objectionable provision of the Bill was the proposal to take away the church-door collections, which were made every Sunday in Edinburgh, and which had hitherto been applied to assist in supporting the poor. No doubt the poor of Edinburgh, like the poor of any other place, were supported by the poor rates; but still there could be no doubt, also, that many an honest person was kept off the roll by the administration of this fund. He could not conceive a more excellent provision than this one which the hon. Gentleman proposed to do away with. The hon. Gentleman has said that the Act of 1860 was no compromise, for that it was not made with the consent of the in-

  845
  habitants of Edinburgh, but was only an arrangement between the Government of the day and the Established Church; but anyone who read the evidence that was given before the Select Committee in 1866, would find from many statements that many people consider the Act of 1860 a compromise. The Lord Advocate himself had stated distinctly that the Act of 1860 was a compromise. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I hold, as far as I am concerned, and shall hold as long as I have a voice in public matters, that until the men with whom I made the compact of 1860 come forward to me, willing to relinquish it they are entitled to require me to uphold it, and I am determined to do so."
  Then the Town Council of Edinburgh were equally committed to that compromise, for on the 30th of April, 1860, a meeting of the inhabitants of Edinburgh was called by the Town Council to consider the Bill which was then in progress, and that public meeting passed a Resolution—
  "That in reliance that every effort will be made for attaining aid from other sources towards the reduction of the tax and for the sake of the peace of the City, and as the condition of an immediate settlement, the meeting would acquiesce in the proposal of a tax on occupiers which would enable the Corporation to provide stipends for the present ministers, and ultimately for fifteen, at £600 a year—taking the seat rents as stated in the tables of the Lord Advocate, commencing with a free balance of £1,660 till they reached £2,500, the tax to be redeemable in the option of the ratepayers, and undoubted security to be given for the payment of the stipends."
  Another party to the compact of 1860 was the Church of Scotland, or rather the Presbytery of Edinburgh; for the ministers, instead of having £550 a year now would have received stipends of £800 a year; and the Church also made a great sacrifice of principle in reducing the number of ministers. Then there are other parties who were also concerned in this matter; for instance, previous to 1860 the College of Justice, which consists of writers to the signet— the barristers and advocates of Edinburgh, were exempted from the annuity tax, but under the Act of 1860 they agreed for the first time to pay their share. Another thing he wished to mention was that as the Lord Advocate first introduced his Bill in 1860, he proposed to establish a sinking fund, by which, if that proposal had been adopted, the tax at this moment would have been more
  846
  than half-way redeemed; but the Corporation of Edinburgh declined the arrangement. It should also be mentioned that if the ministers of Edinburgh ceased to collect this fund, the payment of the ministers, so far as the City of Edinburgh was concerned, would be in exactly the same position as in many of the other burghs of Scotland—as for instance in Glasgow, where the ministers of the Established Church were paid their stipends derived from the commonality of the town; and the same was the case in Perth, and in other places. He hoped, therefore, the House would not interfere with the settlement produced by the Act of 1860. He would conclude by moving that the Bill be read a second time on this day three months.
  MR. ORR EWING*: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable hesitation that I rise to second the Motion which has just been made by my hon. Friend, and to address a few remarks to the House upon the Bill which is now under discussion; and I venture to do so because I believe that this Bill aims a heavy blow at the existence of the Church of Scotland, an institution which I feel has done more to mould the character of Scotchmen, by its teaching from the pulpit, and its admirable system of parochial schools, and to make Scotland what it is, than all the other institutions in that country. It is that institution which has made our people self-reliant, independent, industrious, and peaceable; and notwithstanding that we suffer from an inferior climate and an inferior soil, there is no part of Her Majesty's dominions which is more prosperous, more contented, or more happy than Scotland. I wish, in the first place, to direct the attention of this House to the Preamble of the Bill which has been introduced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh. The Preamble, instead of doing that which a Preamble is generally supposed to do, conceals the real intention of the Bill rather than gives expression to the force of its clauses. The Bill is entitled—a Bill to abolish the annuity tax for ministers in the parish of Canongate, and for other purposes; and the Preamble goes on to say it is expedient that the annuity tax for ministers in the parish of Canongate on behalf of the ministers of the parish should be abolished, and other provisions should be made re-

  847
  specting future payment of said ministers in the City of Edinburgh, by amending certain Acts upon the subject. I am sure hon. Members would believe from the title and Preamble of the Bill that its principal object was to abolish the annuity tax in the parish of Canon-gate, and to provide for a change in the provisions relating to the other ministers in the City of Edinburgh, which would be equally secure and satisfactory to the clergy of the Church of Scotland, and, at the same time, less objectionable to the Dissenters of Edinburgh. But what is the real object and intention of the Bill, and what do its clauses carry out? Its clauses carry out the entire disendowment of the Church of Scotland in Edinburgh, with the exception of £2,000 paid to the Church by the town of Leith, to which I will again refer; and to disendow the Church of Scotland is to disestablish it, for we acknowledge no supremacy of the Crown, and the sole reason why we are an Established Church is because we are endowed by the funds which this Bill, if passed, will rob us of. I therefore think, Sir, that it would have been more straightforward on the part of the hon. Member for Edinburgh had he followed the example of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, in his Irish Church Bill, and called this Bill, a Bill to put an end to the Establishment of the Church of Scotland in Edinburgh, and to make provision in respect of the temporalities thereof. This Bill may be generous to the rich inhabitants of Edinburgh, by relieving them of payments which they hitherto have made; but it is by no means generous to the poor, for one of its provisions is, that the money now collected at the church door, which is distributed amongst the deserving poor of the City parishes, is to be used for the payment of the clergy. We are taught by the highest authority how great is the virtue of giving to the poor, but what shall be the reward of those who do not give, but who taken away from the poor? It is also provided that the seat rents are to be handed over to the clergy, but in country parishes seat rents in the Church of Scotland are unknown; people, therefore, going to live in towns from the country do not think of taking seats and paying for them, because they have never been accustomed to do so. I need not go
  848
  into the history of the annuity tax, because that has already been so ably done by my hon. Friend the Member for Peeblesshire. I should just wish, however, to call the attention of the House to a fact that my hon. Friend omitted to go into, and that is that when the agitation first took place in 1851 it was not so much because of the burden of so many ministers, but because of the injustice of certain portions of the inhabitants being relieved from the tax. In 1851, after the Report of the Select Committee, a Bill was brought in by Lord Dalhousie, and why was not that Bill carried through Parliament? Because of the opposition of the Church party. Who was the Gentleman who promoted that measure? The hon. Gentleman the author of the Bill now before the House. In 1852 and 1853 similar Bills were brought in and supported by the hon. Member for Edinburgh and his Friends, but again they were opposed by the Church party, and consequently withdrawn. In 1857 a Bill was introduced by the present Lord Advocate, but it was not carried, through the opposition of the Church. After other attempts at legislation we come to the Act of 1860, by which the Church of Scotland made great sacrifices for the sake of peace, and the inhabitants of Edinburgh received great benefits. The number of clergy was reduced by this Bill from eighteen to thirteen, and the tax upon the inhabitants was reduced from 10 d. to 3d. in the pound. The hon. Gentleman has stated that if the inhabitants of Edinburgh had given their consent to that Act he would admit that he and the inhabitants of the City were bound not to disturb that settlement, but that they did not give their consent. But the hon. Baronet who moved the rejection of the Bill read resolutions which had been passed at a public meeting of the inhabitants, which had authorized the Lord Advocate—who I am glad to see now in his place—to carry that Bill. The principle of that Bill was satisfactory to the people of Edinburgh. The hon. Member seems to consider that he had proved, to the satisfaction of this House, that because, in 1866, a Royal Commission was issued to examine into the operation of that Bill of 1860, and also because, under Lord Derby's Administration, a Bill was brought in—in 1867—for the diminution

  849
  of the Canongate ministers, that the late Government did not consider the question finally settled; but every Member of this House knows how easy it is to get Select Committees, or Commissions, appointed on questions with which the House does not agree. As to the Bill of 1867, its object was only to settle the affairs of another parish which had not been included in the arrangement brought about by the Act of 1860. I am sure that if hon. Members will take the trouble of reading the evidence which was given before the Select Committee which sat in 1866, they will come to the conclusion that not only the City of Edinburgh, but especially the hon. Member himself, is bound, in honour, not to disturb the arrangement which was made by way of compromise in 1860. The hon. Gentleman has said that since that settlement he has learned wisdom. Now there are two kinds of wisdom—there is the wisdom of the serpent and the wisdom of the dove. I do not know to which he lays claim; but I do think the hon. Member has not been taught that wisdom which tells us to do unto others as we should wish others to do unto us. Nor has he been taught that wisdom which induces a man, whether acting in his public or private capacity, to adhere rigidly to all agreements into which he may have entered. I have no doubt the hon. Member considers, from the peculiar circumstances of the last General Election, that he has received great adventitious aid to rely upon in proposing to carry out the destruction of the Church of Scotland in Edinburgh. He, no doubt, thinks that hon. Members, who have been sent to this House to support the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government in disestablishing and disendowing the Irish Church, will not be acting consistently if they do not support this Bill, which is to disendow and disestablish the Church of Scotland in Edinburgh. I would, however, direct the attention of hon. Members to the fact that the two cases are not parallel. The Church of Scotland cannot be called an alien Church. It cannot be said, either as regards its doctrines or its form of worship, that it is not in consonance with the feelings of the people of Scotland. On the contrary, it is that Presbyterian form of worship for which our forefathers fought and conquered, and which, at this pre-
  850
  sent moment, is in strict conformity with the feelings and aspirations of the people of Scotland. No doubt, it is not now the only Presbyterian Church—we have the United Presbyterian and Free Churches; but, although we differ in one important point of Church government, yet, in all the essentials of a Christian Church, we are the same. Even in our government, with one exception, we are identical. We are governed by our Kirk Sessions, our Presbyteries, our Synods, and our General Assemblies, in all which the laity are fully represented, having equal powers with the clergy in all their deliberations—a system of government, I venture to think, that is most wise and worthy of imitation by all Churches, for, in my opinion, it is the best safeguard of the energy, the purity, and the popularity of the Church. The part of Church government in which the Dissenting Churches differ from the Church of Scotland is patronage. The law of patronage has been the cause of all the dissent from the Church of Scotland for the last century and a half, and is at this moment the chief cause of our continued separation. It was the sole origin of the great disruption of 1843, an event which will be ever memorable in the annals of our country, exhibiting as it did the noblest sacrifice ever witnessed of nearly 500 men giving up churches, glebes, manses, livings, and everything that could be held dear, for the maintenance of what they believed a great principle. Much has been said on behalf of the Free Church, and I willingly add my testimony in her behalf. She has done noble things. Her efforts with respect to education are beyond all praise. But I ask is there nothing to be said on behalf of the old Church of Scotland and of that gallant band of brave, good men, who did not believe it to be their duty to leave the Church in 1843, but who stuck by the sinking ship, and not only took her safely into harbour, but have so repaired and strengthened her, that she is more capable than ever to carry the glad tidings of the Gospel not only through our own land, but into our colonies and dependencies? I think, Sir, there is much to be said on behalf of that Church. There never was a Church placed in such trying circumstances as the Church of Scotland then was, and which, notwithstanding, is at present

  851
  doing more good, and is more powerful than it was in 1843. I should like to correct the statistics on this subject, which were given by the junior Member for Edinburgh on one occasion on which he addressed the House. On that occasion the hon. Member said that the combined strength of the United Presbyterian Church and the Free Church amounted to between 1,500 and 1,600 churches; whereas, that of the Established Church amounted to about only 900. I wish to inform the hon. Member and the House that the number of churches belonging to the United Presbyterian Church in Scotland amounts to 493, and those of the Free Church at 872, making in all 1,365 churches; whereas, the number of churches belonging to the Church of Scotland amounts to 1,250, being 350 more than the hon. Gentleman gave us credit for. When the disruption took place in 1843, the Church of Scotland had only 1193 churches. Since then we have increased that number by] fifty-seven. We have also endowed since 1843, 131 churches, at a cost of not less than £496,500. The hon. Member has attempted to show to this House by statistics—of which he is a great master—that the Church of Scotland is in a dead state. Now, I should like to call the attention of the House to what the Church of Scotland is doing in the way of education, of endowments, and of promoting other philanthropic objects for the benefit of mankind in Scotland and throughout the world. We collected in 1868 no less than £165,093 for educational, missionary, and charitable purposes at home and abroad. For education at home we collected last year £22,847. For home missions, £69,397, and for endowment, £40,700—in all, £132,944; whereas the Free Church collected last year for missions and education, £66,729, and for local building fund, £56,279, making in all £123,008. I hope, therefore, the House will not be led away by the statistics of the hon. Member, because I believe the Church of Scotland was never more active and energetic than she is at the present moment. I think I have shown that the case of the Irish Church and of the Church of Scotland are not parallel cases. But, assuming that they were, I should like to ask does the hon. Member deal with the question in the same way as the Premier has dealt with the
  852
  Irish Church? What does the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Edinburgh propose? That the £4,200, which is now paid by the inhabitants of Edinburgh, under the Act of 1860, should be taken away from the Church. But does he propose to value that at twenty-two and a-half years' purchase; or that, after it has been taken from the Church, it should be applied to the public purposes of the nation? Not at all. He proposes nothing of the kind. But he proposes that the inhabitants of Edinburgh should absorb this money. Now, I should like to know what right the people of Edinburgh have to this money any more than the landlords of Ireland to the tithes? The House will be no longer surprised at the popularity of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, the author of this Bill, which, while it robs the Church of her property, enriches the people of Edinburgh. Nor will they be at a loss to understand how it was that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate, of whom every Scotchman is justly proud, and who enjoys the confidence and esteem of Members on both sides of the House, was obliged to withdraw from the representation of the City of Edinburgh, because he preferred to maintain the integrity of an arrangement solemnly entered into and confirmed by the Act of 1860, to the following of the leadership of the senior Member for Edinburgh. It is not the first time that the inhabitants of Edinburgh have repented of their conduct to one of Scotland's greatest sons, and I feel certain the day is not far distant when the City of Edinburgh will make reparation to the right hon. Gentleman for the treatment he has received, because of his honourable conduct in this matter. It is true that the Bill does not entirely disendow the Church of Scotland in Edinburgh, because it leaves the £2,000 which is obtained from the harbour of Leith. The hon. Member laboured hard to shew that this property belonged to the City of Edinburgh, and. not to the harbour of Leith. But the hon. Gentleman forgets that the grant was given to the Church of Scotland a century and a-half ago of 1 merk Scots upon every ton of goods coming into the harbour of Leith, which grant was commuted into a fixed charge of £2,000 in the year 1838, when the City of Edinburgh having got into a state of bankruptcy sold the harbour of

  853
  Leith to the inhabitants of Leith. Now, I should like to know upon what principle the hon. Gentleman proposes to relieve his constituents of the payment of £4,200 a year, which is the sum paid under the Compromise Act of 1860, and to leave the inhabitants of Leith still burdened with the £2,000? The latter are surely more entitled to be relieved from the payment of that sum than are the citizens of Edinburgh from the £4,200; because, while a certain portion of the inhabitants of Edinburgh do derive a benefit from these churches being in their midst, the people of Leith can receive no possible benefit there from, as they are at too great a distance to have the advantage of the ministration of these particular clergymen. But it would not suit any party or political purpose that this £2,000 should be given back, and hence the indifference which is shown as to whether it is taken away or not from the Church of Scotland. Does this not prove that there is no principle involved in the Bill? It is only a Bill to rob the Church and enrich the owners of property in Edinburgh. It is entirely a Town Council question, got up for party purposes, and that the citizens of Edinburgh take no part in the matter. In order to show that such is the case, I will just read to the House an extract from the most talented paper that we have in Edinburgh—a paper which has the widest circulation, and which is sure to receive at the hands of hon. Gentlemen opposite the greatest consideration; because I say, without hesitation, that it is the most powerful lever on behalf of Liberalism which exists in this country. I allude to the Scotsman. The Scotsman of April 7, 1869, says—
  "However desirable, or however objectionable, the object of the meeting here on Tuesday night, presided over by the Lord Provost, the meeting itself certainly supplies another instance of the fact that public meetings in Edinburgh receive little countenance from the public. The public may, or may not, be in favour of the propositions made at the meeting; but assuredly the public is giving itself no trouble one way or the other. The meeting also illustrated another peculiarity of our municipal condition—the almost entire separation between the Town Council and the town. The reporters seem to have stretched a point to make out a good platform list, but it is almost all Town Council, er preterea nihil. The fullest lists contain fourteen or fifteen Town Councillors, and five or six other lay citizens—one even of these a salaried officer of the Council. The question before the meeting was one about taxa-
  854
  tion, which makes it additionally strange that so nearly all the zeal should be monopolized by Town Councillors, who represent the local taxpayers so imperfectly that a virtual majority of those who elect them pay only one thirty-fourth part of the City's burdens. There was something, perhaps, even stronger still—those Town Councillors who make a business or trade of agitating this miserable question are almost all elected by that half of the city which has not a ½d. of interest in the matter—which never had more than the false pretence of an interest, and last year lost even that. The grievance of the municipal agitators used to be that, under a compromise suggested by themselves, and an expedient devised by their own Parliamentary representative, they had to pay 4–5ths of a penny, not to the clergy, as they represented, but to a municipal fund devoted to purely secular purposes; and now that that grievance has been removed they seem only the more aggrieved—their wound was great because it was so small, and now it is greater because it is none at all. There are two ways in which the question of provision for the clergy of the Established Church in Edinburgh might be honestly and reasonably dealt with. Let it be abolished altogether along with all such provisions throughout Scotland, or till things are ripe for that settlement let the Edinburgh arrangement remain as it is, which is where it was placed by the request of the very parties who are now assailing it, and with the reluctant consent of all the other parties interested. There is just as much or as little reason for abolishing the Established Church elsewhere as here. The Edinburgh clergy are now paid just as the clergy of Glasgow, Dundee, Stirling, or other towns, by a fixed payment from the burgh funds, and not from the produce of any particular tax."
  I should like to ask the Government if they are prepared to support the principle of this Bill and the proposed appropriation of the money? If so, then common justice should compel them to hand over the funds of the Irish Church to the Irish landlords. It would be less objectionable to do this in Ireland than to do in Edinburgh what is proposed by this Bill. Some hon. Members may think from the fact of Scotland having returned so many Liberal Members to support the Premier in disestablishing the Irish Church, that Scotland is in favour of severing all connection between Church and State. I have no hesitation in saying that the feeling of Scotland is quite the reverse. The great majority of Scotchmen believe that religion is the foundation of all sound government; and the true cause of the great preponderance of Liberal Members returned to this House by Protestant Scotland at the last election was that Scotchmen, not unmindful of their own struggles, did sympathize with the roman Catholics of Ireland in having thrust upon them an

  855
  alien Church, with whose doctrines or form of worship the great majority of the people do not agree. Although the Scotch people have no sympathy with Roman Catholics in religion, yet they had sympathy with simple justice; but, though wishing to see justice done to Ireland in this matter, I believe the people of Scotland are as sincerely attached to the principle of connection between Church and State now as they were at the time of the disruption in 1843. It was said by Members of the Government during the General Election, and by many of their ardent supporters, that the injustice of the Established Church in Ireland was a source of weakness instead of strength to the Established Churches of England and Scotland; and that it was a delusion to say that, if the Irish Church was disestablished, it was the intention of the Government to disestablish the other Churches too; and they declared that they had no such intention. I give them full credit for sincerity in these declarations; but I warn the Government that if they support the second reading of this Bill they will create the greatest alarm throughout Scotland at least, if not throughout England, because the people will begin to doubt the sincerity of those declarations. I appeal, then to the Government not to support this Bill. For my own part I trust the day is far distant when the Church of Scotland shall be disestablished; for I believe she is an active and zealous Church, that is doing much good work; and I hope she will for many centuries remain the Church of the people, carrying the consolations of the Gospel to the bedsides alike of the rich and of the poor.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Sir Graham Montgomery).
  MR MACFIEsaid, that the constituency he had the honour to represent joined their neighbours of Edinburgh in their desire to have this question at length settled. The endowments of Edinburgh did not date back to the time of the Reformation; they were originated, or applied to the Church in Edinburgh, a century later. The people of Edinburgh wisely and befittingly wished to provide ministrations suited to the metropolitan
  856
  character of their city. The Parliament of Scotland gave effect to their views. In the Scotch Act imposing the annuity tax you read—
  "For-as-meikle as the City of Edinburgh, being the chief and principal city of this kingdom, whither upon occasions' of the sitting of Parliament, for the most parte, the Secret Council and Session, and other great judicatures within the same, the nobilitie, gentrie, and people of the kingdom, of all sorts, and from all the corners of the country, do daily repair and resort, not only the inhabitants of the said burgh, but the whole kingdom is concerned that able and faithfull ministers, of partes and abilities suitable to the eminency of the place and weight of the charge, should serve in the said city, and for their encouragement competent stipends should be settled and provided for them. And the said town having been at vast charges for building of churches and public works upon that and other occasions, the common good and patrimony thereof is exhausted and overburdened, and upon the considerations aforesaid the inhabitants of the said burgh, who have the comfort and benefit of the said preaching of the Gospel, and ministery within the same, and His Majesty and Estates of Parliament, considering that there is not a more easie and effectual way for providing and paying the stipends than in manner and by the imposition foresaid, and that it is just and necessary that the same should be authorized and sattled by ane perpetual law in all time coming."
  By this quotation you will observe that not only have the inducing circumstances changed with respect to the sittings of Parliament, the residing of nobles, &c, in Edinburgh, but the justification alleged no longer exists. The persons who obtain the benefit of the religious services provided for are no longer those who pay. You have just heard what a large proportion of the inhabitants are not connected with the Established Church. Many also now live not intra but extra muros. He believed the settling of this question would be greatly to the advantage of the Church of Scotland. He agreed with hon. Members opposite that it was not a decaying or lifeless body. He looked forward to its being re-united in vigorous life with other large bodies in Scotland. It was a happy indication that the Church of Scotland seeks again to be freed from patronage. He was happy to be one of a numerous deputation who, a few days ago, waited on the Prime Minister, and were well received on this object. The present Bill provides for the acquisition and exercise of patronage by congregations. It was in his (Mr. Macfie's) opinion a great recommendation of this Bill to the House's attention and

  857
  favour that it is promoted by the Town Council of the City of Edinburgh—the very body who had originally assigned the endowments which they now see have become anomalous and objectionable—a corporation which had all the stronger claim on their confidence, inasmuch as it has—throughout, so far as he knew—used its right of presentation with remarkable discretion. The object sought was reached by three different endowments—Bishops' Teinds—the merk per ton, a tax imposed on all goods brought into Edinburgh and Leith by land or water—and an annuity or rent-charge. The first of these Government very long ago re-claimed and took to itself; the second exists no longer, with respect to goods brought to Edinburgh by land. With respect to goods brought by sea there are remains of it in the payment of the £2,000 a year to the Edinburgh clergy, of which he had been glad to hear hon. Members on the other side speak as they have done. He trusted the time was coming when Leith would get justice in this matter. His hon. predecessor in the representation of the district opposed all attempts to rid Edinburgh of its burden because the burden on Leith was not at the same time cancelled. He preferred the other course of helping Edinburgh, in reliance on the good feelings of our neighbours and the justice of the House. He left the matter to be considered and settled at the proper time. There were likely to be fitting opportunities, either when the general subject of ecclesiastical endowments should be under review, or when there should be legislation on the subject of charges levied on shipping and at ports for other than maritime and port purposes.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he would explain in a single word what the measure really was. It was simply a Bill to reduce the number of ministers from thirteen to ten. But the real and important point was whether it was advisable that they should have in the City of Edinburgh the question of ecclesiastical endowments revived? It was really the Irish Church question applied to Scotland—were they to have religious endowments in Scotland? To read the outside of the Bill one would suppose that it was a measure to abolish ministers' money in Edinburgh, and to make other provisions in respect to the stipends of ministers in
  858
  that parish. Well, what were those other provisions; how did the Bill secure to the Established Church in Edinburgh by other means the things necessary for the maintenance of worship? The hon. Member's explanation was that the Church was to have £2,000, which was to come from Leith, and were to have the pew rents and the church door collections. With the exception of the Leith fund, there was absolutely nothing, because the pew-rent system was simply a voluntary one, and the effect of this Bill would be to relieve the Church of these voluntary sources, because the pew-rents were to be paid to the general fund; and, as regarded the collections at the church doors, they were simply as now for the relief of the poor. So that, in fact, the Bill was a double measure for robbing the Church and plundering the poor. That is the plain English of the measure. He did not pretend to say whether endowments were right or wrong; but do not let hon. Members go into the Lobby with a false impression as to what the Bill meant. It meant that you are to accept the principle of disendowment in regard to ecclesiastical establishments. But the question was really a subordinate one on the part of those who were promoting that Bill. What was really meant was the assertion of the voluntary system for the maintenance of ministers. The question was simply one as to religious endowment; and as this question had been raised in Ireland, so it would be raised in Scotland. Perhaps Wales might be the next in respect to disestablishment and disendowment. The present measure, he maintained, was a distinct departure from the engagement and compromise entered into by his right hon. Friend the present Lord Advocate in 1860. Whether it was right or whether it was wrong, it was a compromise deliberately entered into by both parties. The tax was reduced from 10½d. to 3d., and gave other relief, and his hon. and learned Friend said—"We bought that relief by a settlement which we made with the ministers." That was a distinct compact, and if he knew the character of that House they would uphold it.
  MR. MILLERsaid, he supported this Bill because, if carried, it would produce something like peace in the City of Edinburgh; and he must remind the House that the Lord Provost had said that if it

  859
  is not carried he would not be responsible for the peace of the City. The Established Church in Edinburgh is at a discount in consequence of the controversy constantly arising on this question. Were it removed by the passing of this Bill, that Church would be on the same footing as other Churches there. But there could be no peace while it stood in the way. There are within the Parliamentary burgh twenty-six Established churches, fifteen maintained by endowment, and eleven voluntary; and, beyond one which has not yet been opened, these churches have not increased since 1843. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr Ewing) said that in his part of the country the Established Church was flourishing, but he did not give any facts to prove it. He talked of having got £400,000 in twenty-six years. Why, the Free Church during that time has raised between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000. The Bill asked £4,000 a year from the rich Church party of Edinburgh—certainly a small sum, looking to the fact that one denomination, the Free Church, has alone built within Edinburgh thirty - five or thirty - six churches, and has maintained every one of them. Other denominations are flourishing in a similar fashion. He should be sorry to see that the Established Church could not be kept up in Edinburgh; he knew many excellent ministers in it, and he believed that were it relieved from the odium of the annuity tax it would be the means of doing great good.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had not intended to take any part in the discussion; but after the observations which had been made, he could not avoid saying a word with respect to the arrangement which, with the consent of his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Laren), they carried, with such an overwhelming majority, at the request of the Town Council of Edinburgh, which he admitted supported the measure in the most substantial manner. He consented to do so in consequence of receiving at public meetings and elsewhere decided proof of the public feeling in the matter, and when the measure was carried through Parliament and became law, it gave large relief to the rate-payers of Edinburgh. But, at the same time, it was right to say that a great many people raised a great deal of opposition to the
  860
  measure, and protested against it. Under these circumstances, when the Bill passed it was rather a Parliamentary compromise than a binding engagement. It was impossible for Parliament to bind either its successors or itself; and even those who took part in the proceedings were not in the least excluded from exercising their own opinion upon certain questions which arose subsequently. The contested election for Edinburgh in 1865 turned altogether upon this question of settling the annuity tax. He (the Lord Advocate) was opposed to any unsettling of the compromise of 1860; and although, he was sorry to say, he had not that amount of encouragement which he might have expected, he could not regard that as any reason for altering his opinion as to the binding nature of a compact which had been so solemnly entered into. He had maintained that opinion throughout; and upon that ground he opposed the Motion for the second reading of the Bill of last year, although he was quite aware of the risk he ran in doing so. Subsequently, on the General Election of last year, he took leave of his constituency on this plain ground—that he felt he could not, as their representative, be a party to undoing the settlement of 1860. He felt that he ought not to engage in a contest in these circumstances, and thought it more proper and due to himself to take the course which he adopted, holding himself perfectly free and entitled to consider this annuity tax question in the future, and to adopt what course he might feel it his duty to adopt with regard to it in the circumstances that might arise. To the position which he took up as representative of the constituency of Edinburgh he still adhered. He was, therefore, perfectly free to consider the question which had now arisen—what course they were to follow in the present circumstances. He was not prepared to throw over the settlement of 1860; but, at the same time, neither was he prepared, in the circumstances which had arisen, to oppose the second reading of the Bill. The reason why he was not prepared to oppose the second reading of the measure was this—There was an excitement, there was an agitation in respect to this matter; he could see no end to it; and he found that a certain portion of those gentlemen who supported him in bringing about the settle-

  861
  ment of 1860 had now come to be of opinion that the time had arrived when the matter ought to be re-considered. He therefore did not intend to offer any obstruction to the second reading of the Bill; but he did not see his way to go further; and he thought it was likely he might oppose the measure in its future stages. If there was really a wish to get rid of this tax, the means were not far off, for the truth was that the tax could only be levied when required for municipal purposes, and the revenues of the Town Council were increasing so steadily that it might before long become unnecessary to levy it.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that every hon. Member would of course take the view which his conscience dictated as to the course he should pursue upon this question. But how stood the case? What took place in 1860? There were several parties to the compact then made. There were the people of Edinburgh themselves, the Town Council, the members of the College of Justice, and the Government, as represented by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Lord Advocate). Now, had no alteration taken place in the position of these different parties since the compromise was entered into? First, the College of Justice undertook to bear a burden of 3d. per pound, not having been liable to pay anything on that account before. Yet he did not find that the Town Council, while desirous of getting rid of the burden themselves, were equally anxious to relieve the College of Justice. With respect to the Corporation, as representing the people, they were relieved of a tax of 10½d. in the pound, which might have been 14 d. in the pound, and that was reduced to 3d.Upon that consideration they passed the resolutions which the right hon. Gentleman (the Lord Advocate), as he contended, had a perfect right to regard as confirming the Bill he was bringing in, and as agreeing to the terms on which the Bill was proposed. The Corporation were thus relieved of the 10 d. in the pound, and they undertook for that to give a bond for a payment in perpetuity—for whom? Not for the same number of ministers as before; for the Church had agreed to reduce the number to thirteen. So that all these parties had changed their position; and now you came forward to undo a compromise, not of the nature
  862
  represented by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, but which must be regarded as binding upon all the parties to it. He was not going to argue this question as a question of disendowment, but as a question between man and man, and he asked whether it was a proper thing, when only nine years have elapsed, and when the parties to the compact were still living, to upset a compact so solemnly entered into—a compact to which the Government, the Church of Scotland, the Corporation, and the College of Justice are all parties. He asked whether, in passing this Bill, the House would not be entering on a very dangerous course? He was not disposed to undervalue the excitement and agitation which might exist in Edinburgh, with regard to this annuity tax question, but he could remember how that agitation arose. It did not originate with the people from any dissatisfaction with the settlement of 1860, but with some of those very persons who were parties to that compromise. He asked whether it was just, whether it was moral—that that House, nine years after so solemn an engagement was made, should undo that engagement—a compact which, he maintained, that House ought rather, with all its strength and moral power, to uphold?
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that as to the settlement of 1860, he thought his right hon. Friend (the Lord Advocate) was fully justified in regarding the resolutions of the Corporation as warranting him bringing in that Bill of 1860. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) said there was no compact between the Government and the people of Edinburgh; but the fact was that the Government acted in direct accordance with the wishes of the people of Edinburgh. All that was objected to was that his right hon. Friend had rated too low the receipts that would be derived from the pew rents, which was a very trifling matter comparatively. He thought therefore, that his right hon. Friend did quite right in proceeding with the Bill on the assurance of those resolutions, backed up as he was by the all but unanimous support of the Members for Scotland. The Church made concessions, and gave up advantages which they possessed, in order that that compromise, which he regarded as a desirable settlement of the question,

  863
  might be carried out, and in these circumstances, and seeing that the arrangement, before it was finally entered into, underwent so much deliberation, it ought not, he thought, to be lightly-upset. He admitted that the settlement of 1860 might not have been perfectly satisfactory. He thought, the manner in which the Church funds were lumped together was an objectionable feature of the Bill; but he was of opinion that the Church of Scotland would derive increased strength from greater independence of action, and that with this view some arrangement might be entered into by which—sufficient security being given—a portion of the annuity tax might be surrendered. In that way, he thought, it was quite possible that some solution of the question might be arrived at; but he would resist to the utmost any such interference with the settlement of 1860, as was proposed by this Bill.
  MR. M'LARENbriefly replied, saying, with regard to the observations of the Lord Advocate, that the right hon. Gentleman had really admitted all that he (Mr. M'Laren) had contended for— namely, that the people of Edinburgh, before the Bill of 1860 passed, in place of approving of it, did remonstrate strongly against its passing in the shape in which it did pass.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he should vote against the second reading. He had always been of opinion that this annuity tax ought to come to an end, and he thought if the hon. Member for Edinburgh had brought in a Bill properly framed, there would not have been much difficulty in accomplishing that object. But he objected to this Bill because it was a Bill which repudiated the obligation to pay the tax; the contract and the life interest involved were entirely disregarded, and the security of the parties was altered. The ministers were placed on a new footing with regard to their salaries; the securities guaranteed to them by Act of Parliament were altered; the basis upon which these securities were obtained was destroyed, and they were placed upon the shifting basis of pew rents. Such a Bill ought not to be passed by this House, and he thought it due to protection of the rights of contract that he should give his vote against the second reading.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that if he could regard this arrangement of 1860 as a contract between individual parties, he should have no hesitation about giving his vote against the measure; but when they came to deal with a public body, and especially under the peculiar circumstances of the case under consideration, the question became more difficult. He admitted that the resolutions passed by the Town Council when the Bill of 1860 was before this House were sufficient to justify the framers of the measure in proceeding with it; but it must also be borne in mind that before the compromise was finally effected, the Town Council did, in the strongest possible manner, on behalf of the inhabitants of Edinburgh, state their objections to that compromise, and the subject had been of continual turmoil ever since. It was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to give full weight to these considerations. What they had to do was to see that the rights and interests of all parties were secured and cared for; and in these circumstances, without pledging himself to the details of the measure, which would be open to discussion in Committee, he was prepared to support the second reading.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 142: Majority 9.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday next.

PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
(Mr. William Johnston, The O'Donoghue.)
[BILL 6.] SECOND READING.

PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [16th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that having been unable, owing to the lateness of the hour, to address the House on the former occasion, he wished now to say that it was not possible for the Government to assent to the second reading. He had no particular liking for the law which the hon. Member (Mr. W. Johnston) by this Bill called upon

  865
  the House to repeal; nor, indeed, for any law which was of a special and exceptional nature, and which created offences of a technical character. It was on the ground of proved necessity only that the Government declined to consent to the repeal of the existing law, which was intended to remedy very grave and serious evils. Few persons, he believed, were aware of the state of things prevailing in the North of Ireland at certain periods of the year. There existed between different classes of the people what might be called an armed peace or an armed observation. On these occasions one of the two parties marched out with a great number of flags, banners, drums, and other music; they fired shots and hurrahed as they went along. It might or might not be the case that the opposite party did the same, but they often did. Sometimes, but not always, these processions passed off without bloodshed. A great deal depended upon the route taken by the procession—upon whether the procession invaded or did not invade what was considered by the other party sacred territory. That was a state of things which was scarcely credible in the age in which we lived, but it was proved. The famous battle of Dolly's Brae some years ago excited general attention, and the Government of the day, with the assent of all parties in that House, took measures to prevent, as far possible, a repetition of such affrays. Only a few weeks ago, however, a collision of the same kind occurred at Pointz Pass in the North of Ireland. It was the Roman Catholics who on the latter occasion, thought fit to make this demonstration. This act of folly provoked something worse, for when the party reached a spot where the road ran through a wood they were received by an ambuscade formed by the Orange party, and a collision ensued, leading to very serious results, and to the loss of more than one life. The circumstances remained for judicial investigation, and he only mentioned them now for the purpose of explaining to the House the sort of thing which went on upon both sides. The steps taken by the Government to prevent bloodshed on these occasions, and something like civil war upon a small scale, consisted partly of prosecutions at Common Law or under the special provisions of the Party Processions Act
  866
  after the violation of the law. but chiefly of the immediate use of the constabulary and troops. What was practically a small army was sent down to the North of Ireland for the purpose of maintaining peace, and this was a duty devolving equally upon every Government. Last year, under the late Government, some twenty stipendiary magistrates were sent, in addition to those resident in the district; the police force was also largely increased, and a strong force of cavalry and infantry was likewise ordered to the North. Exactly similar steps were being taken by the Government with reference to the approaching anniversaries. It might be asked what all these police and soldiers did in Ulster. The course pursued, if only one party appeared and made a display, was to abstain from interference at the time, but to take, if possible, the names of some of the more prominent actors, with the view, at a later period of making them amenable to justice. If, however, there were two parties in the same neighbourhood, and a collision were likely to occur, the force on the spot interposed, barred the entrance to some street or road, and so cut off the hostile bodies from each other. Measures of precaution such as these would be imperative upon the executive Government, whether the Party Processions Act were in existence or not. With respect to the law itself, the enforcing of its provisions was not so simple a matter as some might be disposed to imagine. The fact could not be denied that the operation of the law had produced in the minds of large and respectable classes in the North of Ireland a sense of inequality and unfairness. The fact undoubtedly was that the Act was technical, and therefore had to be strictly construed. Demonstrations had been made in other parts of Ireland which were much resented by the Protestants of the North, yet it had been decided by the Law Officers of the Crown that they did not come within the provisions of the Party Processions Act. Of these demonstrations, some were thoroughly free from imputation—such, for instance, as the O'Connell procession some years ago, the objections to which he could never quite understand. But there wore others of a more questionable kind. The M'Manus funeral produced a large amount of irritation, but the most objectionable were those called "the Fenian

  867
  funerals," in honour of the three men executed at Manchester. To one or more of the earliest of these funerals no impediment whatever was offered by the Government of the day; and the declaration of the highest authority of that Government that those funerals were not against the law produced, probably, more than anything which had. since occurred, a feeling of great irritation among the Protestants. That feelings such as these should exist among influential and loyal and most respectable classes was undoubtedly an evil; but there had been no intention, either on the part of those who framed the Act or of those who were called upon to administer it, to subject those classes to any inequality. In some parts of the North, again, the law had remained practically a dead letter owing to the difficulty of enforcing its provisions. It had been found difficult to identify those who had taken a part in processions. An armed force was usually present to represent the authority of the law; but, except they were called upon to do so for the preservation of peace, for that force to proceed to extremities would be productive of greater evils than those with which they interfered in order to suppress. The law had been most leniently administered; in fact, almost with excessive lenity. But the Government could not consent to a repeal of the law without having before them the results of full and careful investigation. The Government, accordingly, recognizing the undoubted evils and difficulties which he had described and the very grave differences of opinion existing, were about to cause an impartial inquiry to be instituted into the operation of the Party Processions Act at the present moment and for some years past. That inquiry would have for its object to enable the Government to decide whether that law ought to be maintained and enforced more rigorously, or whether any change ought to be made in its provisions. In view, however, of the extreme excitement prevailing this year in the North of Ireland, and with the information which they possessed, they must decline the responsibility of depriving themselves of any powers with which they were at present armed for maintaining law and order and respect for the rights and feelings of all classes. There was, as he had stated, room for doubt as to the propriety of maintaining
  868
  the Party Processions Act in its present shape; but there could be no room for doubt as to the propriety of maintaining the public peace, or of preventing those disastrous consequences which might ensue from any collision in the North of Ireland. The Government, therefore, were unable, without full investigation, to consent to strike this Act out of the statute book. At the same time, he had great hopes that peace would be maintained; and nothing, certainly, should be wanting on the part of the Government to secure that object. Much, however, could be done by others; and he was bound to repeat the expression of his regret that his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast (Mr. W. Johnston) should have thought it his duty to stimulate the excitement already prevailing in Ireland by his letter published the other day. He appealed to his hon. Friend and to all gentlemen of influence in the North of Ireland, and especially to those who were in the commission of the peace, to co-operate with the Government in preventing any displays which, especially in the present excited state of feeling, might lead to disastrous and lamentable consequences in a part of Ireland which, in many respects, formed so admirable a portion of the United Kingdom.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONsaid, that at that hour—twenty minutes to six o'clock —it would be absurd to continue the discussion.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, he wished to know in what manner it was proposed to conduct the inquiry of which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had spoken—by a Committee of the House, or otherwise?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: Certainly not by a Committee of the House; it will be undertaken by the Government upon their own responsibility.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN: By a Commission, then, I presume?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: Probably by a Commission.
  SIR JOHN GRAYappealed to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to name an early day for renewing the debate, so that the discussion might be read by the country before the 12th of July.
  After short discussion, Debate further adjourned till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.