Commons Sitting of 17 June 1873

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—John Carpenter Gander, esquire, for Devon County (Southern Division).
SELECT COMMITTEE—Civil Service Writers, appointed.
Report—Endowed Schools Act (1869) [No. 254].
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Game Birds (Ireland)* [196].
Second Reading—Public Meetings (Ireland)* [157], debate adjourned; Habitual Drunkards [11], [House counted out].
Committee—Rating (Liability and Value) [146]
Considered as amended—Indian Railways Registration* [168].
Third Reading—Law Agents (Scotland)* [184], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1871— DRAUGHT OF SEA-GOING VESSELS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PLIMSOLLasked the President of the Board of Trade, Why the draught of water of sea-going vessels at Bristol, Liverpool, London, and some other ports, is not obtained by the Board of Trade as at Shields, Sunderland, Cardiff, Swansea, seeing that shipowners at the latter places complained of partial reports; and, if he will cause reports to be obtained from all alike?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE,in reply, said, that under the Act of 1871, which gave authority to the Board of Trade to act in these matters a discretionary power had been clearly and expressly given to the Board as to the extent to which the system should be carried. The Customs had been unable to assist in carrying out the surveys, and therefore the Board of Trade were obliged to rely upon their own officers. If the Board were to undertake to survey every ship in every port in Great Britain a very much larger and more costly staff of officers would be required. The present system was experimental, and its results, as he had reason to believe, were useful. He would remind the hon. Member that in order to influence and check the action of shipowners in the matter, it was not necessary that every individual ship should be surveyed, because the knowledge that a ship might be surveyed at any time was sufficient to produce a very consi-
  1062
  derable effect; and even under the system of occasional survey a very gross case of overloading was not likely to be passed over by the surveyors. The system had not yet been applied to the port of London; but surveys were made at Liverpool and Bristol, and the Board was increasing its staff of officers at those ports.

CIVIL SERVICE—WRITERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will be good enough to state whether holidays will be granted to all Writers; whether sick leave under special circumstances and medical certificate will be granted to all Writers; whether special rates of pay will be paid to Writers for special work; and whether, when Writers are ordered away on duties, a suitable allowance will be made to them for their travelling expenses?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, he was happy to be able to answer all the hon. Member's Questions in the affirmative. Several of these things had been done already, and the others they were willing to concede. He would add, however, that these matters were not strictly in the hands of the Treasury, but of the different Departments. If in any case the writers felt they did not get that to which they were fairly entitled and applied to the Treasury, he would endeavour to set matters right.

VISIT OF THE SHAH OF PERSIA—NAVAL REVIEW AT SPITHEAD.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. BOWRINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Tickets proposed to be issued to Members on the occasion of the Naval Inspection at Spithead in honour of the Shah of Persia, on the 23rd instant, will be transferable, as in the case of the Tickets for the Military Review at Windsor; and, whether, even if the Tickets will not be generally transferable, he will allow such Members as may be willing to surrender their own claims to transfer their Tickets to other hon. Members, to be used exclusively by the latter for their wives or daughters?
  MR. GOSCHEN,in reply, said, that there was this great distinction between

  1063
  the naval review and the military review at Windsor—that in the latter there would be a general distribution of tickets to others besides Members of both Houses of Parliament, which was not the case with regard to the naval inspection. If Members of Parliament were to be allowed to transfer their tickets, the practical effect would be to hand over to them the power of distributing tickets—a privilege which no other persons were to have. That was not what the House itself understood yesterday, neither would it be desirable that such should be the case. With regard to the other point, while facilities would be given to hon. Members to embark on board vessels at Portsmouth, they would have to reach that town by train as they best could.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, that on former occasions special trains had been provided for the accommodation of Members of Parliament.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that there had been a very general expression of feeling on the part of hon. Members that, while they were most anxious to be present on the occasion of the naval inspection, they should defray their own expenses.
  In answer to Mr. BOWRING,
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, it was very probable that on the closing of the list on Wednesday it would be found that the vessel appropriated to the Members of the House of Commons could accommodate some of the Members' wives and daughters, and he therefore proposed that in that case tickets for Members' wives and daughters should be ballotted for by those Members who had put their names down on the list.

VACCINATION ACT (1871).

  QUESTION.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Secretary of the Local Government Board, Whether the Local Government Board addressed in April last a Letter to the Bridgwater Board of Guardians to the effect that "the Board are not prepared to say that it is open to the Guardians to act upon their own judgment" with respect to successive prosecutions of persons who persist in refusing to have their children vaccinated; whether the Law does not leave it open to the Guardians to act upon their own judgment in this matter; and,
  1064
  on what grounds the Letter of the Local Government Board suggested to the Guardians that, instead of acting on their own judgment, they should be guided by a recommendation of a Select Committee of this House, which was struck out of the Vaccination Act of 1871, and failed to receive the sanction of this House when proposed in the form of a Bill in 1872?
  MR. HIBBERT,in reply, said, that the extract from the letter from the Local Government Board to the Bridgwater Board of Guardians was not accurate, it having omitted the important word "not." The extract should run, "the Board are not prepared to say that it is not open to the Guardians to act upon their own judgment."
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he hoped the Local Government Board would in future use one affirmative instead of two negatives to express their meaning.

THE TICHBORNE CASE—PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is with the sanction of the Government that the Attorney General prosecutes Members of this House and others at the instance of the Lord Chief Justice, for expressing their views on the proceedings in the Tichborne case; whether they so act by the advice of the Attorney General, or by what other legal advice they are guided in respect of these prosecutions; and, if he would state to the House the grounds on which the Government proceed in this case?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, he thought the Question of his hon. Friend, as it had been printed, had been put under a misapprehension. The Government had nothing whatever to do with the matters to which the Question referred, and this applied to the whole of the three branches of the Question. With respect to the action of the Attorney General, as he (Mr. Gladstone) understood the office of the Attorney General, it was entirely distinct from the action of the Government, and was by no means confined to his intercourse with the Executive Government. There were many duties which the Attorney General had to perform on his own motion, and there

  1065
  were likewise other duties which he had to undertake in a case like this on the motion of the presiding Judge. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had been kind enough to inform him that the course he had taken in this case was entirely owing to communications from the Judge who had presided at the trial of the suit; and therefore that was a matter of a judicial character appertaining to the conduct of a trial which was now going on. But he likewise learned from the Attorney General that it was quite a mistake to suppose that he had prosecuted or was proceeding against any Member of that House. As to anything said in the House which the presiding Judge might think improper, that was entirely outside the cognizance of the Attorney General. With regard to the more general Question—namely, whether it was desirable or not that public discussions should be held on this matter—he must say that was a matter entirely beyond his (Mr. Glad-stone's) cognizance. It must depend entirely upon the rules of procedure in the Court of Justice and the rules of procedure of that House.

  RATING (LIABILITY AND VALUE) BILL— [BILL 146.]
  (Mr. Stanfeld, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Goschen, Mr. Hibbert.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 16th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Abolition of Exemptions.
  Clause 3 (Extension of Poor Rate Acts to other property).
  SIR JOHN ST. AUBYNmoved, at end of clause, to add—
  "Provided, That where a tin or copper mine is occupied under a lease granted on a reservation wholly or partly of money dues without fine, the gross annual value of the mine shall be taken to be the annual amount of the dues payable in respect thereof; and in the following cases:—1. Where any such mine is occupied under a lease granted wholly or partly on a fine; and 2. Where any such mine is occupied without any reservation of dues, the gross annual value of the mine shall be taken to be such as the assessment committee, overseers of the poor, or other rating authority (acting subject and according to the provisions of the Acts relating to union and parochial and other local assessments,) determine to be the annual amount of the dues in money at which the mine might be reasonably expected to be let without fine on a lease of the ordinary duration, according to the usage of the country."
  1066
  The hon. Baronet referred to the attempts which had been made by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) to pass a measure with regard to the rating of mines. He also mentioned that he himself was the author of a Bill on that subject. The reason why a measure on that subject had not been carried was its inherent difficulty. Some persons would, no doubt, be content to allow their mines to be rated under the provisions of the Bill. But the plan he proposed was that tin and copper mines should be assessed on the royalty, by which he meant the value of a certain fixed proportion of the produce of the mine. This was the only fair mode of assessment. The plan of rating on the principle of the rent which a hypothetical tenant would probably give, could not be adopted, except with a large amount of injustice and inequality. Tin and copper milling presented the greatest contrast with other mining industries. In West Cumberland, for instance, the ore was not found in narrow and uncertain lodes, but in beds or layers, generally speaking of considerable thickness, and the produce of which might be estimated and assessed pretty accurately. But tin and copper were invariably found in lodes which were simply fissures in the earth, extending sometimes for a considerable distance, at varying inclinations, and extending to uncertain depths. These lodes varied in width from half an inch to 20 feet. The metal sometimes became poor and sometimes rich; sometimes the lode would be barren, and sometimes productive throughout its entire course. As an instance of the fluctuating produce of such mines, he might mention that in 1868 a copper mine yielded ore to the value of £3,590; in 1869, only £580. Another copper mine produced in 1868 £12,270; in 1869, £6,700; in 1870, £840. A mine on his own estate produced in 1859, £13,550; in 1866, £337; and seven years afterwards —namely, in 1873, nothing at all. A tin mine which in 1864 yielded ore to the value of £3,300, produced £650 in 1865, and in 1866, £2,473. Another tin mine yielded £10,000 in 1854, £6,500 in 1855, and in the following year £21,500. Another set of statistics, with which he would not trouble the House at any length, showed that 130 tin mines had been worked during the 10 years from

  1067
  1861 to 1870; but out of these 51 sold no ore in one year, 59 sold none in another, and other years showed a similar result. The state of copper mines was still worse. Out of 160 worked in a particular district between 1861 and 1870, an average of one-half of them were unproductive; in the year 1870, however, the number unworked was 110. What course would be adopted by the assessment committees having to deal with such a state of things as this? Instances had recently occurred of two mines rated at £2,500 and £2,000 respectively, and on appeal the assessments were reduced to £550 and £260. These were instances of the impossibility of rating mines fairly; if the Bill were passed without his Amendment being adopted, the assessment committees would be driven to assess them at the royalty. Why, then, should not the inevitable be made legal? The royalty was the true rent, and the proposal to assess at the royalty was approved by the agriculturists in the districts, the only persons really concerned. Within the last week he had presented Petitions from every single union in the district which he represented (West Cornwall), and those Petitions were universally in favour of rating mines on the royalty. It was not fair to look at this question with regard to one particular mine or union. It ought to be looked at with reference to the largest possible area. Taking the whole of the tin and copper mines in the West of England counties, in Devon, and in Cornwall, he found that in the eight years from 1862 to 1869 inclusive —years of comparative prosperity and adversity—the total value of ores raised amounted to £13,994,000 odd, or, in round numbers, about £14,000,000. The annual value during these years was about £1,743,004. In many cases the money obtained by the sale of the ore was not sufficient to pay the expense of getting it. It had been found necessary to make calls to the amount of £2,502,000. Taking the whole of the tin and copper mines in the counties of Devon and Cornwall as one concern, he found that the loss to the adventurers during those eight years amounted to about £1, 334, 000—an average annual loss of about £166,000. After that they could not talk of beneficial occupation. The royalty during those years was £702,348. It had been laid down by the House of Lords that
  1068
  an unprofitable concern was that which neither yielded nor was capable of yielding a profit. Assuming the annual loss on these mines to be less than £166,000 —say £125,000—still, how would it be possible to apply the principle proposed by the Government in this Bill to a losing concern like that? He had shown that tin and copper mines could not be rated fairly according to that plan; that the royalty did furnish an adequate standard by which to estimate the value of the mine to the owner; and that in the districts to which his Amendment referred it would give a very much larger sum for rateable purposes than any other. He did not put the matter before the Committee on the ground of the depression of the tin and copper trade at this moment, though it was well known that in the face of an arbitrary system of assessment there were many mines trembling in the balance, which would at once be closed if additional burdens were thrown upon them. His object was to put such rating upon mines as would be fair between class and class, and which would be easily understood and capable of equal application in times of prosperity and times of adversity. He begged respectfully to commend his proposal to the sense of justice of the Government and the Committee. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving his Amendment.
  MR. LOPES,in seconding the Amendment, said, he wished to make a few remarks on the legal points involved in the case. Under the statute of Elizabeth metalliferous mines were not rateable, but dues were rateable provided those dues were reserved in kind, and not paid in money. In the year 1872 a decision was given in the Courts, and it was laid down that surplus land and plant were rateable in certain cases. That was the present state of the law. And what did the Bill propose to do? It proposed that in future a mine should be rateable in the same way as any other hereditament; or, in other words, that the adventurers of a mine were to be regarded in the light of a hypothetical tenant from year to year, and were to pay in the same way. But the calculation involved in such a system was one which it was impossible any assessment committee could make. It might be said that rating took place in respect of coal mines. But the case of coal mines

  1069
  was essentially different from that of metalliferous mines. One day there might be every reason to believe a metalliferous mine highly prosperous, and in a short time circumstances might have so changed that the adventurers would be in despair. How, then, wer these mines to be rated? The proper way to rate them was to have regard to the dues paid to the lord. The dues were the basis on which the assessment ought to proceed. He brought in a Bill himself last Session, the object of which was to do away with the existing anomaly with regard to rating mines. The Bill was allowed to proceed to a second reading, and both the President of the Local Government Board and the Home Secretary expressed their approval of its principle. He hoped, then, the Government would accept the Amendment now proposed. He had not the slightest hesitation in saying, from his own knowledge of the county of Cornwall and a large portion of Devon, that if the principle laid down in the Bill of the Government was applied to the mines worked there, it would lead, not only to the hindrance, but to the total destruction of a large portion of the mining industries of those counties.
  MR. A. W. YOUNGsupported the Amendment. The farmers of Cornwall without exception were in favour of it, so were the towns—at any rate, he could speak for his own. He hoped the Committee would give effect to the unanimous wishes of the people interested in the matter.
  BRISTOWEopposed the Amendment. He did not see why tin and copper mines should be subjected to one method of rating and other mines to another. He could not understand why the parishes were to have the benefit of the capital invested by the landlord or the tenant in the improvement of the land, as by buildings, drainage, and similar permanent improvements, and yet were to have no benefit from the capital invested in plant and machinery for winning ore from the mines. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment; for if he did, there would be very great difficulty in carrying out the principles of the Parochial Assessment Act.
  MR. A. P. VIVIAN,in rising to support the Amendment of his hon. Colleague (Sir John St. Aubyn), said, he did
  1070
  so mainly on the ground of the necessity that existed for uniformity of assessment. The plan proposed by the Government of leaving it to the assessment committees to find the rateable value was nothing new; it had had plenty of trial with coal mines, and the result had been anything but satisfactory; some assessment committees proceeded on one system of rating, and some on another. For instance, in the county of Glamorgan there were no less than six different modes of arriving at rateable value in the seven unions. If it was difficult for assessment committees to arrive at rateable value of coal mines it would be much more so in the case of copper or tin mines, and that for several reasons. No one could even approximately form an opinion when such a mine was opened how it would turn out; the value of the minerals themselves was subject to larger and more sudden variations than even coal, which no one could foresee. Then, again, that class of mines in which the mineral was found in lodes were more uncertain in their productive power than other descriptions of mineral property where the mineral was found in beds or known veins or seams as with coal, and the number of abandoned workings in Cornwall and Devonshire showed the very precarious nature of these undertakings. One great cause of the fluctuation in the value of their produce was the quantity of tin and copper imported; the arrival of a large quantity of copper or tin in our ports from Chili or Banca, sometimes lowered the price of the metal so much as to make what were previously flourishing mines in Cornwall, losing concerns. Then, again, strikes in the copper smelting works in Wales had lately seriously affected the welfare of copper mines. The fairest basis on which to rate these mines had for a very long time occupied the attention of those best able to form an opinion, and the unanimous decision arrived at had been to revert to the old basis of dues payable to the lord, which all parties interested agreed in wishing for. The lord's dues, being a proportion of the actual produce of a mine either in kind or money value, rose or fell in value with the prosperity of the mine itself as far as was practically possible, and in this respect they differed materially from the ordinary royalty of a coal mine which was a fixed sum per ton, whatever the

  1071
  value of the coal itself might be. The lords' dues represented the rent of the lords' underground property as much as the tenant farmer's rent did on the surface. The dues wore, moreover, a very full rent in consequence of the power of abandonment which was allowed to the tenant, and, further, the power which the tenant had of disposing to his own advantage of any of the plant which he had erected. He strongly objected to the surface works and buildings being compared to farm buildings; they were the tenants' outlay without which rent could not be paid, and were far more analogous to the farm implements such as steam ploughs, thrashing machines, &c. The surface buildings were not permanent, but very temporary improvements of the property, seeing that a large proportion of the mines were abandoned under five years' working. They further contributed to the sale of the lord's underground freehold from time to time. The best proof of the very temporary value of the most prosperous description of mining property was that it would not fetch in the open market more than 10 or 12 years' purchase, whilst land often fetched over 30 years' purchase. In conclusion, he would impress upon the Committee the fact that mining enterprise in Cornwall and Devon had very much suffered of late years. The Census of 1871 showed a decrease in the population of Cornwall of over 7,000; this arose from emigration, and consisted chiefly of hardworking experienced and practical men who had left the Duchy and the county of Devon, between 1861 and 1871, to find work abroad, very often leaving their wives and children behind to be supported by the rates. He feared that if any ill-considered basis of assessment were adopted than the lords' dues, the effect would be that they would see a still further emigration of the Cornwall and Devonshire miners, and that the effect of this legislation would be to increase rather than to alleviate the local burdens as was intended. For those reasons he strongly supported the Amendment.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he had stated that if from the local and technical knowledge of Members any particular case could be shown to justify in the mind of the House some special method of dealing with it, he did not think it would be for him or the Committee to
  1072
  refuse to listen to and exercise its judgment upon it. He was prepared to admit that the hon. Baronet (Sir John St. Aubyn) had made out a special case. His hon. Friend had shown the extreme fluctuations in the products of mines of this description, and the exceptional difficulty of any fair, practical, and reasonable method of assessment of them under the ordinary law of the land. Having accepted the Amendment generally, he was not, of course, as yet prepared to state the best form of words in which it should be put; but he would consider the method of phrasing it with his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General. Whatever the landlord received, whether money dues or dues in kind, or dead rent, whatever was reserved or paid to the landlord should be the test of the rateable value of the mine. To effect that object some additional words were required to be added to the Amendment. It would also be necessary to state that the value of the mine in one year should depend on the receipts of the year preceding. The main alteration which he would propose was this. The measure of the gross annual value should be the measure of rateable value also, because the difference between the gross and annual value was the cost of the repairs, insurance, and other expenses necessary to maintain the premises in a state to command rent.
  COLONEL HOGGsaid, that the agricultural portion of the community were entirely united in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir John St. Aubyn). He (Colonel Hogg) was glad the spirit of it had been accepted by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld).
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISH,as one of the few Members representing a district where dues were taken in kind, suggested that the Amendment should be extended so as to include lead mines also, seeing that out of many hundreds of such mines in Cornwall only two or three were paying.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he thought there was no provision for the case of an owner working his own mine.
  MR. STANSFELDreplied that that was provided for by sub-section 2.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he did not think that that sub-section met such a case.
  MR. PAGETsaid, he saw no reason why certain mines should be singled out

  1073
  and exempted from rating on plant and machinery while other mines were still liable to be rated.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he was not prepared to assent to lead mines being added to the category of mines until those who were interested in lead mines asked that that should be done. In South Durham none of the mines were rated on the shafts and machinery, but on the principle of the rent paid to the landlord, with considerable deductions made. If the principle proposed was carried out, one set of mines would be assessed on the gross rental, and another set would receive the benefit of considerable deductions.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he thought the proposition to set a valuation on stone in quarries an unprecedented one, and he could not understand why it should be included with mines of any description
  MR. W. B. BEAUMONTsaid, he thought they might repeal the Act of Elizabeth, and leave all these matters to be settled by the local authorities. It would be presumptuous in him to offer an opposition to the very strong case which the hon. Baronet the Member for West Cornwall had made out, and the more so as the hon. Baronet's proposition had been accepted by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Local Government Board. But he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to have an opportunity of considering the representations made to him by gentlemen connected with lead and other mines to see whether or not they should be introduced into the clause proposed by the hon. Baronet.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he was heartily glad that the Government had accepted in spirit the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. There was no reason why the provisions as to tin and copper mines should not be applied to lead and other metalliferous mines. If they were not so applied, inextricable confusion would be the result. He utterly dissented from the view that the principle on which this rating was to be carried out should be laid down by the various assessment committees throughout the country, and that on an appeal against them the Court of Queen's Bench should decide what was the law on the subject. That course would lead to another 35 years' litigation. The principle of rating should be determined by the House.
  SIR JOHN ST. AUBYN,in reply, said, he thought all questions as to machinery would come to be determined at a more fitting time. He would probably have little difficulty in agreeing to the alterations proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld); but before he expressed an opinion on them he should like to see them on Paper.
  MR. J. LOWTHERcontended that whatever exemption was made in favour of copper and tin mines ought to be extended to jet mines. The difficulty was that no one knew what was the Government plan of rating mines; and, before the Committee proceeded further, he thought they ought to know what the Government plan was. There were many sources of mineral wealth—such as jet mines, stone mines, and gypsum mines—to which it was evident that the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) had not been directed.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, it was for Gentlemen interested in other mines to bring their case forward, and make the same convincing case which had been made out by his hon. Friend (Sir John St. Aubyn) in favour of tin and copper mines.
  MR. MAGNIACmaintained that the whole case of Cornwall was an exceptional one, standing on its own merits. He trusted that the Committee would refuse to take other mines with the case of tin and copper, and that the Government would adhere to the proposition that mines in which these two metals were found should be treated as separate from others.
  MR. J. LOWTHERcontended that he was perfectly justified in saying that other classes of minerals which stood upon all-fours with tin and copper should be entitled to the exemption.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, that all metallic ores which occurred in lodes were wrought under precisely the same conditions. It would, therefore, be absurd to legislate for the case of tin and copper only. The principle adopted by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) was a just one, and should be made generally applicable to ores which occurred, not in beds, but in lodes.
  MR. MUNTZagreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that tin and copper mines ought not to be made exceptional.
  MR. LIDDELLpointed out that there was much greater risk and uncertainty in working minerals which ran in veins than those which lay in beds, and therefore he thought it essential that the Committee should not attempt to lay down down hard-and-fast principles, but should leave it, as far as possible, to the assessment committees, who knew the local circumstances of each case, and who were perfectly competent to deal with the question, as was shown by the fact that in the county with which he was connected (Northumberland) the assessment of mines had been raised during the last few years by £1,000,000 without any appeal having been made.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he thought the principle embodied in the Amendment of the hon. Member (Sir John St. Aubyn) would be entirely satisfactory, both to owners of tin and copper mines and other residents in those districts. There need, however, be no interference with the rating of mines the working of which did not partake of the same hazardous character. The royalty paid on a coal mine could only to a limited extent be compared with the rent paid for a farm. In the case of such a mine, the tenant did many things which in a farm would be done by the landlord. A mine might be compared to a tract of moorland which a tenant would take on a long lease at 10 s. an acre. The tenant would in that case trench the ground and by outlay would improve it fourfold. The assessment committee would very properly assess him on the improved value. If the occupier of a coal or iron mine had his engines and the cost of sinking the shaft provided by his landlord, he would have to pay a very much higher rent for the mine than he would under ordinary circumstances. He quoted instances to show that the royalty paid for coal mines was in some cases far less than the sum at which the mine was actually assessed at the present time. In one case the royalty was £5,000 and the rated value £5,838; in another case the rateable value would be reduced by one-sixth of the present assessment if the royalty were taken as a basis. It was plain from this that, although the royalty might be a fair basis for Cornwall and copper mines, it would be most unfair for other parts of the country and other mines.
  MR. PAGETfailed to see why a special principle should be laid down for these cases, and he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would state whether it was intended to lay down the principle proposed only with regard to these particular mines.
  MR. STANSFELDdeclined to discuss the new clause before it was drawn; but he would say that he was unable to commit himself any further than he had gone. He had undertaken to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Sir John St. Aubyn), subject to certain modificabut beyond this he could not go.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked whether the new clause would be brought up upon Report or in Committee?
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that he saw no objection to introducing it in Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PEASEmoved, at end of clause, to add—
  "The gross annual value of a mine rated under this Act shall be ascertained in manner following:—In the case of a mine occupied upon a rent reserved contingent on the annual produce thereof, whether ascertained by weight or measure (any reservation of a minimum certain or fixed rent notwithstanding); the rent payable by the tenant to the landlord annually shall be deemed the gross annual value, until the contrary be proved. In the case of a mine occupied as aforesaid, and of which the rent payable annually to the landlord shall have been proved to be a rent below the reasonable gross annual value of the said mine; or in the case of a mine occupied on a reservation of fine, or partly on fine and partly on the weight or measure produced; or in the case of a mine occupied by the owner thereof; or in the case of a mine occupied by any other mode of reservation; the gross annual value of such mine shall be estimated on the ascertained produce thereof, and upon a computed rent for such produce as if it had been a mine occupied upon a rent reserved contingent upon the annual produce thereof, whether ascertained by weight or measure."
  The hon. Member expressed his opinion that it would be far better to lay down some principle than to leave the matter wholly in the hands of the local assessment committees, a course which would be sure to produce discrepancies in rating. He wanted to have it laid down that those who worked their own minerals should be rated on the same scale as those who merely rented them, with the view to one general standard of rating being established in respect to those mines.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he thought the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham altogether unnecessary. The judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in the Great Eastern Railway case had laid it down that the rent of a mine was only to be taken as presumptive evidence of value liable to be rebutted. That was what the Amendment of the hon. Member amounted to, and the terms used were no improvement on the well-known words of the Parochial Assessment Act.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, the Amendment would lead to a great reduction in the valuation of many collieries. The mode of assessment proposed was one which would not be in the interest of the ratepayer, and would leave a large amount of property, such as buildings and mining plant belonging to the lessor, unrated. He did not think there was any more difficulty in rating iron mines than there was in rating coal mines; the assessment committees were daily adopting an improved mode of doing so, and a great ninny gentlemen who were interested in the subject, to whom he had spoken, were in favour of leaving the matter to the assessment committees. This Amendment would be introducing into assessment committees a new bone of contention. The Government could not assent to it.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) would consider the question of metalliferous mines generally, and would not make exceptions in the case only of tin and copper.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, there was great uncertainty in working all minerals; but the uncertainty was greatest in working those which ran in veins. It was essential, therefore, that the Committee should lay down no hard-and-fast line, but should leave the assessment, as far as possible, to be dealt with by local committees acquainted with the local circumstances. In Durham, owing to the recent opening out of mines, the assessment had been raised one million, and there had not been a single case of appeal. This fact showed that no difficulty arose where the assessment was made by local committees.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, if the present Amendment were carried a reduced rating would be brought about
  1078
  on coal and iron mines, and that was an alteration to which he hoped the Government would not give their sanction.
  MR. BROGDENsaid, he saw no difficulty in applying the principle adopted in respect to the rating of coal mines to all other descriptions of mineral.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he thought it would be most undesirable that any new definitions should be introduced with reference to the rating of mines, as he believed that the principle hitherto applied to coal mines had always worked well.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he thought the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) was amply justified in bringing this matter under the consideration of the Committee. He would venture to say there was hardly anything in the law of rating so entirely undefined and variable as the mode of rating coal mines. It would be impossible to make the law entirely uniform; but he was confident something might be done in that direction if the President of the Local Government Board would devote the same attention to this matter as he had done to the rating of woods. At the same time, he could not support the precise Amendment proposed by the hon. Member opposite, because its effect would be to rate coal mines on a lower basis than they were at present.
  MR. PEASEsaid, that in placing the Amendment on the Paper, he was actuated only by the desire to secure some uniform system of rating for all mines. Having drawn the attention of the Government to the point, and brought about the brief discussion which had taken place, he should not press the Amendment to a division.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANcalled attention to the fact that, according to a Parliamentary Return, as many as 13 different modes of assessing coal mines were in force. In more than one-third the royalty was taken as the basis: in others the plant was added; in three the letting value was taken. Surely some definite principle should be fixed on?
  MR. LIDDELLstated that the Return from which the hon. Member (Mr. Hussey Vivian) quoted was dated 1867, and great improvements had been made during the past six years in some districts. In the North very great progress

  1079
  had been made, and an intelligible principle had been arrived at. A percentage on the amount of capital invested was added to the amount of coal sold, and from this was deducted a reasonable allowance for keeping up the machinery. That principle had proved sound, inasmuch as it had been long in practice without appeal.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, the principle was most unjust, because in his county (Glamorganshire) mines were worked by driving in at the side of a hill, and therefore without machinery.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, the number of appeals were few, and that the matter might be fairly left to the assessment committees, who would, no doubt, arrive at some uniform principle.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, it was true the Return quoted was seven years old, but no other was in the possession of the House. Hon. Members said the principles on which mines were assessed had been much improved; but on what was the assertion founded? Why had not the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill furnished a new Return, if the present state of things really differed from that which existed when this Return was obtained.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MUNTZmoved, at the end of the clause, to add—
  "The word 'mine' shall be held to mean all coal, metalliferous, ironstone, clay, and limestone mines; such mines to be rated at the clear nett annual at which they could be let. The words 'Land used as a plantation or wood for growing timber' shall be held to mean all woods, forests, and ornamental plantations; such land to be rated at the nett estimated value of adjacent lands."
  It was a difficult question to say what was a mine, and he did not see how the assessment committees could come to a satisfactory conclusion on the subject.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the question of what was a mine had been litigated for two centuries, and he thought that the definition had been at last settled. The Courts had decided that, whatever was obtained by open working, such as in a quarry, was not a mine; but that if the material was obtained from beneath the surface by means of shafts then it was a mine, and it would be most unwise to unsettle that interpretation of the term by attempting to re-define it.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the Solicitor General had stated that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham was mere surplusage; whereas, in his opinion, it would be positively mischievous.
  MR. LOPESsaid, he thought that if the Bill were ever, unfortunately, to become law, it would furnish a subject for litigation for the next ten years; and he believed that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) were adopted it would add to the confusion.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, that, after such expression of opinion on the part of the Committee, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHmoved to add the following words at the end of the clause:—
  "Provided, That the gross annual value of the hereditaments comprised in sub-section (1) shall be ascertained in the manner and on the basis hereafter provided in this Act."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALexplained that it was impossible to accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, because its effect would be to make a new law of rating by this Bill, which would be directly contrary to the object of the Government. The Government wished to preserve the law of rating as it had been settled during the last three centuries, and merely to make fresh provisions with regard to those descriptions of property which had hitherto been exempt from rates, but which were now to be rendered subject to them.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was not open to the charge that he proposed a great change in the law of rating. All that was proposed was, that when property was brought under the law of rating it should be rated in a fair and proper manner, and that the law with respect to it should be altered so as to insure its being so rated. Perhaps the words of the Amendment went further than he intended, and therefore he asked leave to amend them so as to make the Amendment refer only to properties "not now rateable."
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that even then the Amendment would mean more than the hon. Baronet was conscious of, for it would refer to all mines that were rateable for the first time under the Bill,

  1081
  which did not propose any special rating for iron and other mines. By his general proposition the hon. Baronet would tie them down to re-consider the very question raised by the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), by the Amendment already withdrawn.
  Amendment negatived.
  On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill,"
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsuggested that the Government should consider the expediency of rating itinerant traders who paid visits to towns, did a good trade, and then left them without contributing to the local taxation.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, the hon. Member should also include travelling menageries.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, the clause as it stood would be unworkable. A great alteration had been made in the Act of Elizabeth by taking saleable underwoods out of it, and therefore we should now be working on a principle which it was not intended to adopt when the Bill was introduced. He hoped that the clause to be brought up would be intelligible.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 4 (Repeal of 6 & 7 Vict. c. 36, and 32 & 33 Vict. c. 40).
  MR. REEDmoved, in page 2, line 4, to leave out the words "and 'The Sunday and Ragged Schools (Exemption from Rating) Act, 1869." He said those words, by which these institutions were exempted from rating, were the result of a compromise, and he thought he was entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to state the grounds on which he proposed to repeal an enactment of this nature, after it had received the assent of the House by a considerable majority. He could not see any consistency in repealing the Act applying to half those schools. The right hon. Gentleman said the circumstances had entirely changed since that time; but he was quite satisfied that the opinion of the country had not changed, and he was aware of no change except that the Government had determined to abolish all exemptions. But he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he did not propose to deal with the Act of Will. IV.,
  1082
  by which one-half of the Sunday schools in the country were exempt.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 4, to leave out the words "and 'The Sunday and Ragged Schools (Exemption from Rating) Act, 1869.'"—(Mr. Charles Reed.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he felt bound to leave this question to the decision of the Committee, because the principle of the Bill was the repeal of all exemptions from rating. He was perfectly conscious of the strong grounds urged by the hon. Member in favour of exempting these schools. He admitted the great utility and value of these institutions, and that public opinion, as evidenced by numerous Petitions, was in favour of their being exempted from rating, and he also admitted that the present condition of the law was what his hon. Friend bad rightly called a compromise. He should therefore, on behalf of the Government, assent to the Amendment.
  MR. COLLINSurged that, as elementary schools established by voluntary subscription saved rates which otherwise must be raised to establish the elementary schools, such schools were in principle as much entitled to exemption as Sunday and ragged schools, the establishment of which was not compulsory.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought the exemptions in the Bill should be extended. He asked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) upon what ground he drew a distinction between Sunday and ragged school and other somewhat kindred schools, and upon what grounds exemptions were to be granted to some and not to others? He hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment in the manner in which it was put, and if they would support him, he would divide on the Question.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he thought the object of this Bill was to bring about equality and put an end to all exemptions from rating. Sunday and ragged schools might be useful institutions; but the Committee ought to consider that the exemptions of these from rating meant additional rating upon other schools. Some were of opinion that children who had been hard at work all the week had better be

  1083
  allowed to run in the fields on Sunday than be mewed up in Sunday schools. He did not see why special exemptions should be extended to Sunday schools and not to other institutions. They should legislate in this matter so as to bring about a just equality.
  MR. PEASEperfectly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. In 1869, the House, by a large majority, was of opinion that these schools ought to be exempted from rating, and he thought it was hardly worth while to disturb the compromise then entered into.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he could not, in the name of consistency, see upon what ground the Government could exempt ragged schools and not exempt other institutions from rating. He understood they were disposed to exempt ragged schools because the exemption would save the ratepayers. ["No, no!"] Then why exempt them?
  MR. COLLINSsuggested that the clause should be struck out, and that on a future occasion another clause should be brought up, treating the whole subject of exemptions. Supposing the Committee passed the clause as it stood, would that prevent them in the future from dealing with it? would it prevent them from considering hereafter the whole question of exemption?
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL,while he did not agree with his hon. Friend who had just spoken, did not think his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. C. Reed) had made out a case for exempting ragged schools.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, it was perfectly true that in 1869 ragged schools were exempted from rating; but since then the Elementary Education Act had, been passed which required that children should be sent, not to a ragged school, but to a regular elementary school. Therefore, there was no reason whatever for continuing the exemption of ragged schools.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, the clause dealt merely with what were exemptions at the present moment. The question as to other exemptions was to be dealt with hereafter.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACHsaid, it might be taken that ragged schools, under the Elementary Schools Act, would very soon cease to exist, so that the matter in dispute was really only the exemption of Sunday schools. Such
  1084
  an exemption as the law now stood, was equivalent to a grant from the rates in aid of Nonconformist schools alone; for the Sunday schools of the Church of England were generally held in buildings in which, on week-days, education was given which was not gratuitous, and for this reason Church Sunday schools could rarely be exempted under the provisions of the Act. This was so clearly unfair, that he should vote for the repeal of the exemption altogether.
  MR. T. HUGHESsaid, he did not agree with the hon. Baronet who had just addressed the House, and he hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he thought there were few cases in which the exemption had not been conceded. The country had not rated the schools which they had power to rate; the opinion of the House had been most emphatic in favour of the exemption; and in spite of the opposition of the two front benches, the second reading was carried by a majority of 157.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) had stated that the principle of the Bill was the abolition of exemptions, but he was now giving up the principle, surrendering, as the Solicitor General said, to force. Upon what principle, then, were literary and scientific institutions to be rated? If the principle were abandoned in the case of Sunday and ragged schools, it ought to be abandoned in the case of institutions which had hitherto been exempt, and many of which would be closed if they were subjected to rating.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 239: Majority 212.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.
  And it being now ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. GOLDNEY,in rising to call the attention of the House to the provisions of the weights and Measures Acts and to the inexpediency of Superintendents of Police and Police Constables being employed as Inspectors of weights and Measures under such Acts; and to move a Resolution, said, the subject was one of considerable importance to the commercial and trading community of the country. The great desirability of having a uniform system of weights and measures was admitted; and it had been attempted by successive Governments and Parliaments to secure such a system. In 1760, a standard measure of length was provided, and placed in the custody of the Clerk of the House. No action was, however, taken in reference to it until 1793, when Inspectors of weights and measures were appointed. In 1824, after an inquiry by a Committee of the House, a general Act was passed on the subject, which, however, practically became a dead letter in consequence of no provision being made for the verification and inspection of weights and measures. In 1835, another measure was passed—that which was now in force —under which the weights and measures of the kingdom were regulated. It was a comprehensive measure, and directed that a standard should be provided; that copies should be supplied to the different localities throughout the kingdom; and that certain measures should be adopted for testing and adjusting them, and the different Quarter Sessions throughout the country very freely adopted and very fairly applied it. So matters remained until 1839, in which year the General Police Act was passed, which caused much discussion and gave rise to the apprehension that under it local burdens would be largely increased.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being found present—
  MR. GOLDNEY resumed: The Act of 1839, instead of being directory, was permissive, and gave power to the Court of Quarter Sessions to put the Act into operation if they thought necessary. The Act had been in operation for years throughout all the counties of England, and was working satisfactorily as a
  1086
  Police Act; but the magistrates, in order to make it more palatable, proposed some changes. The provisions of the Act of 1835 were that in every county the magistrates should divide the whole area into districts; that over such districts there should be an Inspector, and a complete set of standard weights and measures; and that it should be the duty of the Inspector to attend market towns on certain specified days. He (Mr. Goldney) contended that the effect of having put the execution of the law with respect to this subject into the hands of the police had been in a great many cases to deter fair dealers from bringing their weights and measures to be adjusted owing to their apprehension that they might be summoned for having them incorrect. It appeared, too, that the police fancied it was their duty not to afford any assistance to the trader in adjusting his weights and measures, but rather to detect wherever they could anything like irregularity. The operation of the law under these became so burdensome that a great many Petitions were presented to the House praying for relief. In 1867, a Royal Commission was appointed to consider the subject of weights and measures. That Commission sat five years and published five separate Reports at different intervals. They reported that the whole system was bad, if not vicious; that there was no central authority at all to control the Inspectors; that the weights and measures required skilled persons to deal with them; that it was inexpedient that police duties should be imported into matters which were connected with the commercial system; and that steps should be taken to give facilities to traders to have their weights and measures rectified. The misfortune was that there was no discretion vested in the magistrates in this matter, and a party having in his possession any weights and measures which differed from the proper standard was liable to be punished equally with the man who committed a fraud. The evidence taken by the Commission showed that at one time the convictions in Manchester were so large and vexatious that the tradesmen petitioned the town council to change the system, which was done. At Bath, where the convictions had been intolerable, the new Inspector invited all the traders to come to his office and have their weights and

  1087
  measures adjusted. They did this willingly, and the Inspector gave it as his opinion that when weights and measures were deficient it arose not from fraud, but in almost every case from accident or negligence. There should be some central control for testifying the qualifications of the testers, and that the duties should be performed with regularity and fairness. The object should be to prevent fraud, and not to encourage its detection, and precautions should be established that persons should not be punished for deficiencies of a venial character. There should be a distinction between those who verified the weights and measures and those who had to inspect them. The scale makers refused, before the Committee, to guarantee the correctness of their weights and measures for six months on the ground that use, and even contact with the atmosphere, would soon place them out of order. One of the recommendations of the Commission was that the Board of Trade should have the appointment of these Inspectors, and it would be desirable that at all events they should pass the Civil Service examination. Some of these police Inspectors had thought it right to enter into the Government Departments. One had entered a post-office and examined the balances used in weighing letters, while another had gone into the Custom House and tested the measures of capacity employed in spirits and wines. In another case one Inspector went into a country banker's in order to examine the weights used for gold. If their powers were really so large there ought to be some security that they were competent to undertake their duties. If the Government thought it desirable to employ these policemen as stampers and examiners it was desirable on every ground to relieve them from their duties as policemen. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is inexpedient to continue the employment of Superintendents of Police and Police Constables as Inspectors of weights and Measures."—(Mr. Goldney.)
  MR. PEELsaid, that in the absence of the President of the Board of Trade, the duty devolved upon him of replying to the remarks of his hon. Friend the
  1088
  Member for Chippenham. He admitted that the subject was one of immense importance, and one which, if placed upon a sound and satisfactory basis, would give an amount of satisfaction throughout the country which more apparently important measures had failed to inspire. It was in 1835 that the Act was passed by which the whole inspection of weights and measures was put in the hands of the local authorities, who appointed their local Inspectors; and since that time there had been no material change in the law, although various Committees and Commissions of Inquiry had been appointed and had reported upon the subject. He agreed with the hon. Member that the great object which they should keep in view in regard to this matter was unity, and to a certain extent centralization of authority. If they could have a central authority possessing practical and experimental scientific knowledge, and which could impart such knowledge to and control the local officers, great advantage would be gained; but, considering the number of officers appointed throughout the country, it would be difficult to aim at that unity of system which was so desirable. Among the bodies empowered to appoint Inspectors were the Justices of Quarter Sessions, the Vice Chancellors of the Universities, and the town councils in England; the magistrates, the grand juries, and, in default of them, the Judges of Assize in Ireland, and the justices convened by the Sheriff in Scotland. The remarks of his hon. Friend were chiefly intended to show that under the Act of 1835, officers of comparatively rude character were appointed who were unfitted to perform the delicate duties intrusted to them, and that if it was desired to have an efficient system there must be a control over the officers, who must themselves be of sufficient intelligence to receive impressions from head-quarters. He thought that was a most excellent scheme, and it was the endeavour of the Government to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, who, it should be noticed, drew a distinction between the offices which the police were fit to hold and those for which they were not properly qualified. The Commissioners entertained no objection to the employment of the police

  1089
  in the inspection as far as fraud or accidental injury of weights and measures was concerned, though they were unanimously of opinion that the duty of verification should be performed by a much higher class of men. He hoped that time might be found, though not this Session, to embody in a Bill the recommendations of the Commissioners, which were of the highest importance to the country at large, and that in the Bill would be clauses containing the spirit and the practical suggestions which the hon. Gentleman had made to the House. In his opinion, they would most successfully meet the wishes of his hon. Friend if they could infuse a portion of the great skill and practical experience of the Warden of the Standards into the officers who might be appointed throughout the country. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would rest satisfied with this explanation, and not press his Motion to a division.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he had not found in town or country any complaint with reference to the inspection of weights and measures. In the larger towns they were attended to in the most admirable manner. They wanted no central authority in this matter. If anything they had too much of it, and they saw its evil effects elsewhere. There was not only the seller but the buyer to be considered, and he wished to know who was to appoint these talented Inspectors proposed by the hon. Gentleman, and who was to pay for them. Weights and measures, taken as a whole, were fairly attended to; and if such was not the case in the county in which the hon. Gentleman resided why did he not, in quarter sessions, move for a committee to inquire into the matter. A very much better case must be made out before the House of Commons would consent to have a central authority dealing with their weights and measures. If they were to go on in that way, in a short time they would have nothing but central authorities. In the counties with which he was acquainted no difficulty whatever was experienced in the matter. Even if they were to appoint a man in London at a salary of £10,000 a-year to superintend the weights and measures of the kingdom mistakes would be made. If hon. Members in their own localities would endeavour to insure accuracy, it would have much more effect than the
  1090
  appointment of a highly paid central authority.
  MR. HAMBROsaid, that in his county (Dorsetshire) there were very few complaints, and the duties were efficiently performed at a very small expense. He agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down that if hon. Gentlemen in in their own localities were to attend to the matter they would do much more good than a central official who would cost the country a great deal.
  MR. SCOURFIELDobserved that in his county (Pembrokeshire) he had heard no complaints on this subject. This, however, was an age of grievances of every possible kind; but there was no such practical grievance in this matter that the Board of Trade should appoint a highly-paid official to look after it.
  MR. A. JOHNSTONfelt bound to say that within his knowledge there were great complaints of the working of the Act; but, perhaps, the complaints came from tradesmen not as honest as they should be. There might be something in the matter brought forward by his hon. Friend. As payment was exacted from the tradesman, the Inspector was apt to be hard on those who did not come often to have their weights and measures verified.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that after the assurance which had been given by the Government he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PATRONAGE).

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER,in rising to call the attention of the House to the present system of patronage in the Church of Scotland; and, to move—
  "That, whereas the presentation of ministers to Churches in Scotland by patrons under the existing Law and practice has been the cause of much division among the people and in the Church of Scotland, it is expedient that Her Majesty's Government should take the whole subject into consideration, with a view of legislating as to the appointment and settlement of Ministers in the Church of Scotland,"
  said, there was hardly one passage of Scottish history which was as interesting as that which he had the honour of introducing. He thought he could show that it was according to the genius of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland that the election of ministers should be in the

  1091
  hands of the people. He should be obliged to take the House a long way back to show this. The principle was laid down in the First Book of Discipline. It was also found in the Second Book of Discipline of 1578. It was recognized in the various Acts passed in 1592, under which the Presbyterian form of government had been sanctioned by the civil power, in 1638, 1649, 1660, and in 1690, when patronage was abolished as having been greatly abused. This was the Act—that of 1690—on which he mainly relied. The Act of 1690, besides giving the right of tithes to the patrons, gave a payment of 600 merks when the patronage was removed. The Act, as far as he had been able to ascertain, had been made with the desire of giving full compensation to the patrons, and the same wish existed at the present day. They rested a great deal on the settlements of 1690, and he thought he should be able to show to the House that they only desired to return to the settlement then made. The Union of Scotland and England took place in 1707, and he desired to show that when that Union took effect the Act of 1690, chap. 23, on which he relied, was incorporated in the Act of Union, and they were entitled to demand that every subsequent Act which interfered with it should be repealed if it could be shown that it had worked ill. He thought they might reasonably have supposed that the Act under which the Union was passed in the year 1707 might have remained undisturbed. Such, however, was the troublesome state of affairs at that time, that it was only five years after the passing of that Act when the whole of this solemn compact was thrown to the winds. In 1712 an Act was passed which revived patronage, which undid all the good which had been secured to the Church and people of Scotland by the Act of 1690, and by the previous Act of 1649. He did not wish to characterize that Act by any stronger terms than by stating that it was a violation of the Act of Union. Lord Macaulay had said that the British Legislature violated this Act, and from that change had flowed all that Dissent which now existed in Scotland. The Church had petitioned against its violation almost continuously from that time to the present. He thought he did not say too much when he said that every secession which had taken place from
  1092
  the Church of Scotland had been more or less due to the Act of Anne. He would not assert that was the only cause of secession; but he would say that at its root lay the objections to the unfortunate Act passed in what was known as the Black Parliament of Anne, in 1712. He might come at once to the unfortunate disruption of the Church in 1843. He would say that, in point of fact, that disruption was due to patronage. In 1842 the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland passed a resolution as to patronage, to the effect that patronage was a grievance, attended with much injury to the cause of true religion, and ought to be abolished. He knew that the question of spiritual independence was very much involved in the disruption of 1843; but he believed that the root of the evil in 1843 and subsequent periods was patronage. He was extremely unwilling to say too much as to the result of the passing of the Act or its repeal. He would like to say a few words as to the motives which actuated him in bringing the matter forward. He heard from all sides that it was a narrow-minded movement; that the Church cared for no one except herself; and that the movement did not deserve the confidence and support of the House. If that was a true description of the movement, he should not have had a hand in it at all. He trusted that he had more liberality. He had sat in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland for seven years, and he undertook to say that that Church had invariably exhibited a spirit of liberality in this matter, and that their desire was not to benefit themselves, but to find a basis of union with Presbyterian bodies. No such basis of union could be conceived or formed until the Act of Anne was abolished. He did not say what was to replace that Act. It was not for him to enter upon so large a question; but the earnest desire of the Church of Scotland, the only desire by which he was actuated, was to find a basis upon which they could re-construct the Established Presbyterian Church of Scotland. As the Primo Minister would ask him for a proposal, he would say his proposal was to repeal the Act of Anne and to fall back on the settlement of 1690, which was thoroughly well known and approved in Scotland, leaving to the Church the responsibility for making regulations for

  1093
  the election of ministers. This step would remove the great obstacle to the union of the Established with the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church, which were separated by differences that were microscopic; it would enable any former minister of the Established Church to accept office in it; and, as regarded others, a simple resolution of the General Assembly would enable them to do so. That morning he should have made a different statement; for he should not have supposed it, possible that those who had attained freedom by extraordinary sacrifices could wish to prevent others doing so by constitutional means. In the course of the day, however, he had received a resolution of the Free Church Committee, who, far too wise to object to the dealing with the Act of Anne, or to the abolition of patronage, deprecated any Parliamentary action "not adapted to meet the entire ecclesiastical condition of Scotland "—a very vague and ambiguous phrase. What action would be adapted to meet that condition if the repeal of the Act of Anne would not? for it was the one thing to which every section of the Presbyterian Church was opposed. If any member of that Committee sat in this House he would be bound to support this Resolution. The Committee of the Synod of the United Presbyterian Church had drawn up a document of a far more consistent character. It referred to the disestablishment and disendowment of the Established Churches of England and Scotland. The views of United Presbyterians, as consistent voluntaries, were entitled to the highest respect; but he wanted to know whether the Government or the House desired the disestablishment of the Established Churches of England and Scotland. Why, the House, only a very few weeks ago, had decided by an overwhelming majority against any such proposal. The Committee of the Synod of the United Presbyterians went on, however, to say that
  "The Established Church of Scotland has done nothing to warrant its being aided by the general citizenship and the members of other Churches to an enlargement of the statutory powers."
  He knew well the loss which the Established Church of Scotland sustained through the disruption of 1843; but if she had not been rooted deeply in the
  1094
  affections of the people, if she had not been doing a good, a great, and a glorious work, the throes of that great disruption would have destroyed her. In 1843 that Established Church had 924 original parishes, 42 Parliamentary chapels, and other chapels and preaching places, to the number of 233, making a total of 1,189; and since 1843 she had erected 37 of those chapels into parishes, and endowed new parishes to the number of 182, at a total cost of £673,000. The same Church had built upwards of 200 new chapels, at a cost of from £1,500 to £2,000 apiece. Yet they were told that she was not entitled to be aided, and was not doing her duty in the country. That statement was, he thought, unfounded, and one which it was unworthy of the United Presbyterian Body to make. It was urged that there was no feeling among the people of Scotland against lay patronage; that there had been no public meetings about it; and that all that movement was within the Church herself. He would admit that there had not been a great outside agitation on the question; but it was not the habit of the Church to get up great agitations. Moreover, the system of patronage was practically abolished now. Appointments to all the Crown livings were made at the instance of the Home Secretary. When a Crown living fell vacant the Home Secretary sent down to ask what the people wished, and to say that if they would name an acceptable and proper candidate, he would appoint him. Practically, therefore, the Crown patronage was in the hands of the people, and in a large majority of instances the same was the case with the private patronage. But if the existing system had been found to be so bad and unworkable that it had been already virtually abandoned, why should the rights of the people rest upon the caprice of the Crown or of any individual patron? The principle for which he contended was recognized by Sir James Graham's Act, which was passed in 1843. With these facts before them, he wondered that anybody should suppose that the system would not work well. It would be objected to his Motion that there was nothing in it referring to the Act of Anne; but, on the other hand, if he had proposed any specific action, it would have been said that some other course would be a great

  1095
  deal better. He had, however, indicated the way in which he wished to proceed, and for his proposal he hoped to have independent support from both sides of the House. If no Liberal Motion could be made by a Churchman, and no liberal Motion could be supported by anybody who sat opposite, he was sorry for it. They had not, he supposed, a monopoly of wisdom on his side of the House. When he found a Motion which he believed to be essentially good, and which ought to be passed in the interest of the Church of Scotland and of Liberal principles within and without that Church, he was not ashamed of receiving support from Gentlemen opposite. His great desire was that the Government should undertake to deal with this subject. He knew his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government would say he was so burdened with work that it was impossible for him to undertake to do so; but he (Sir Robert Anstruther) did not expect the Motion to be accepted in its entirety upon the first occasion of its being presented to Parliament. This was a matter worthy of the consideration of the Government. It was a matter which interested the great mass of the Scotch people. The measure he recommended was a liberal measure, notwithstanding it was supported by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. He believed it to be a measure which would heal ecclesiastical differences in Scotland to a large extent, and the Government which carried such a measure—whether the present or a succeeding Government—would earn the gratitude and esteem of the people of that country. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. GORDONseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, whereas the presentation of Ministers to Churches in Scotland by patrons under the existing Law and practice has been the cause of much division among the people and in the Church of Scotland, it is expedient that Her Majesty's Government should take the whole subject into consideration, with a view of legislating as to the appointment and settlement of Ministers in the Church of Scotland."—(Sir Robert Anstruther.)
  MR. M'LARENobjected to the Resolution on account of its extreme vagueness. It only said that the Government
  1096
  should be requested to take the matter into consideration with a view to legislation. It said nothing as to the direction which that legislation should take. It was a mere abstract, unmeaning Resolution. Instead of a Resolution for a plan it was a Resolution fishing for a plan—suggesting that the Government should find what his hon. Friend was unable to find himself. His hon. Friend had said that all would be right if the Act of Anne were abolished; but why did he not ask the House to say so in his Resolution? Again, his hon. Friend quoted the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland as being favourable to his Motion; but their resolutions from year to year showed that they regarded the movement in which he was engaged with horror. In 1869 they resolved that the election of ministers should be by a committee of heritors, elders, and male communicants, giving at the same time some effect to the opinions of the permanent community. It would be observed that the female communicants were excluded from a share in the nomination, whilst in the United Presbyterian Church and in the Free Church female communicants took part in the election of ministers. That resolution was affirmed in the two following years, and last year they resolved that the election of ministers should be held "according to the views of the Church," that was to say, not by popular vote, but by the election of heritors, elders, and male communicants. His hon. Friend had read and communicated a resolution which he said had been that day passed by the Free Church. He would remind his hon. Friend that resolutions communicated by telegraph were not always correct. He (Mr. M'Laren) had received a letter from a leading member of the Free Church written yesterday, telling him what was to be done next day, and the course which would be adopted, and which threw more light on the matter than the telegram did. The correspondent said they would object to this movement as essentially an attempt to alter the existing state of things in the direction of a rehabilitation of the Established Church. They objected to the rehabilitation as a delusive one, and they objected to the authority of Parliament being applied to for any Church purpose, and in particular they would regret it as a serious mistake on the

  1097
  part of the Government if they lent any countenance to the movement. The correspondent said the effect of the movement, if taken up by Parliament, would be to leave the greater part of the Church to expand, and would expand it in the sense of disestablishment. [Cries of "Name!"] He should be happy to give the name to any hon. Member if he wished it. At the last Assembly there was a great discussion on the subject, and three forms of resolution were submitted, all strongly condemning the Established Church as an establishment. The strongest of the three resolutions was adopted by a large majority. His hon. Friend seemed to represent the United Presbyterian Body as having observed a discourteous attitude towards the Established Church, and he also dilated on the progress achieved by the Church itself. Now, on the last occasion when this subject was discussed, he stated that the Church had advanced greatly, as seen by the fact that in the previous year it had collected £250,000. But in the comparison of the United Presbyterian Body and the Church of Scotland, it was right to remember that the Church of Scotland had 1,200 ministers, while the United Presbyterians had but 500; and that while the Church collected £250,000, the Presbyterian Body collected £100,000 more. The Established Church was not justified, therefore, he thought, in coming to Parliament as par excellence the Church of the people, and as entitled to be put on a more advantageous footing than all the other religious bodies in Scotland. He hoped, therefore, the Resolution would be negatived.
  MR. C. DALRYMPLEwas anxious at the outset to say that those who were favourable to the Motion were under obligations to his hon. Friend the Member for Fifeshire (Sir Robert Anstruther) for bringing it forward, and expressed his satisfaction that a subject which was associated in Scotland with so much controversy, and which required a delicate and tender handling had been introduced in a speech which left nothing to be desired. The hon. Member for Edinburgh had charged the Motion with vagueness; but his hon. Friend had, he thought, exercised a wise discretion in not widening too much the field of discussion, and he must on his part complain of the vagueness of the
  1098
  speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) inasmuch as he devoted his time not to answering the speech of his hon. Friend, but details of a scheme which was not before the House, and that he quoted the letter of some distinguished correspondent, a member of the Free Church, a communication which he expected would have great weight with the House, and then declined to give the name of the writer. He (Mr. Dalrymple) recognized in the tone of the letter, the tone of the printed communication from the Free Church, which had already been quoted. He was not sorry that some delay had occurred in bringing forward the question, because it was well that public opinion with respect to it should have time to ripen in Scotland. It was well that the general assembly of the Church of Scotland should have the opportunity in five successive years of declaring by decisive and deliberate majorities in favour of the change; it was well that the subject should have received something of a rebuff and check. Some years ago on the occasion of a memorable deputation to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, if it had the effect, as he believed it had, of sending back the Committee upon Patronage to Scotland, to reconsider the whole matter to look again into the history of the question, to summarize and condense it for their use in Parliament, and to make quite sure of the state of feeling throughout the country upon the subject. Now, however, the right time had arrived, because public opinion had become matured, and because the Church of Scotland was engaged in busy and successful work. Those who now advocated change were not doing so on behalf of a decrepit institution, but of one which was at once venerable and full of life, and which merely asked for that restoration of her liberty which she deemed to be necessary for the exercise of her natural powers. But there was another reason which at first seemed to tell against their case. Why the time was well selected for his hon. Friend's Motion. There never was, perhaps, a time when patronage was better administered in Scotland than at present, not only by private individuals, but by the Crown; but he did not mention that fact as an argument for retaining patron-

  1099
  age, because he held that a score of what were called harmonious settlements did not outweigh the evils of one disputed settlement, and a disputed settlement was always possible under the present system. What he wished to urge was that if the change were made, while patronage was being well administered, they might hope that the change would be effected without heart-burnings, that they might pass as by an easy transition from the old system to the new, without that sort of wrench which follows upon exasperation of feeling, and upon a sense of disappointment and injury. After all the demand was natural, for obviously no persons could be so interested in the appointment of a minister as those who were to profit by his ministrations. What he looked for was a popular system, such, for example, as the nomination of a committee in every parish, elected by as wide a body of electors as the people pleased, a committee who, in the event of a vacancy, should have the choice of the minister. By this system the evils of canvassing, cajolery, and the abuses of a popular election would be avoided. With regard to "females," as the hon. Member had called them, he must be a bold man who proposed to exclude them from having a "say" in the election of a minister. Some people thought it a matter for humiliation to have to come to. Parliament in matters of this kind. It was alleged that the members of the Established Church liked to hug their fetters. For his part, he denied there were any fetters. He had always been of opinion that the State benefited more by its alliance with the Church than the Church did by its alliance with the State; but for the present it might suffice to say that the question which was raised to-night was one of such delicacy and difficulty that he would not like to trust its settlement to any body less important than the Imperial Parliament. There might be difficulties in the way of the settlement of the question; but at least it was important now to ask for the opinion of Her Majesty's Government upon it. For his part, he did not know where the opposition to the movement was to come from. It was not likely to come to any great extent from the patrons; already a conspicuous example had been set by a distinguished proprietor and patron, a
  1100
  noble Duke, who was a Member of the present Government—an example of liberality in connection with this question which he trusted would be widely imitated. Nor would opposition come from many who were outside the Established Church. On many occasions had ministers of the Free Church with whom he was acquainted, urged that they should endeavour to advance the object which they had in view in the Motion of that night. They owed it to themselves to endeavour to advance the question; They owed it also to the memories of those who in past times had worked in the cause, but who were no longer among them. He never could dissociate the subject from the recollection of one who was a prominent member of the deputation which had been referred to—a man who was as superior to all narrow and sectarian views, as he was conspicuous for his stature among men, and possessed of a gifted eloquence to which few could aspire. He referred of course to the late Dr. Norman Macleod. For the sake of the memory of men such as he, as well as in respect of their own principles, they were bound to promote the objects of the Motion. He should give the Motion his cordial support, and he trusted that it would at no distant period form the basis of legislation.
  MR. CRAITFURDsaid, he had listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Anstruther), but he felt entirely at a loss to make out in what capacity he had appeared. He looked to the Motion, and he had to confess that he could not find anything in it. In his speech the hon. Baronet certainly gave them some idea of his opinion; but he carefully guarded himself against being supposed to represent anyone but himself. The hon. Member had also been careful not to commit himself to any plan. He had referred to a great member of the Established Church—Dr. Norman Macleod—but he forgot the questions put by the Prime Minister to the rev. Doctor in the memorable deputation as to what the Church proposed. That question put the Church hors de combat, and so far as he was aware it had never been answered—and what were they asked to do now? Not to condemn patronage. They were asked simply to declare that the presentation of ministers had led to great divisions. This was pretty much a truism. The

  1101
  history of the Church was well known, and the disruption of 1843 was sufficient to show the divisions that were caused by patronage; but the hon. Baronet had not the courage of his opinions. He did not ask them to condemn patronage, and the Resolution as it stood would not make them one whit better than they were now. It did not even ask the House to say that the Government should take it up; but merely that it was expedient it should be dealt with. In all the circumstances, he thought that the question was not ripe for discussion, and that it could not be till some practical scheme were brought forward. He therefore declined to discuss the question at present; and, as he was neither inclined to support the Motion nor to vote for patronage, he thought the best thing for him to do was to move the Previous Question.
  MR. GRAHAMseconded the Amendment.
  Previous Question proposed, "That that Question be now put."—(Mr. Craufurd.)
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURgave his cordial support to that part of the Resolution of the hon. Baronet the Member for Fifeshire (Sir Robert Anstruther), which declared the—
  "Presentation of Ministers to Churches in Scotland by patrons under the existing Law and practice has been the cause of much division among the people and in the Church of Scotland."
  He supported it the more readily because his own people had gone out of the Church of Scotland at the time of the first disruption, in consequence of the exercise of private patronage. The hon. Baronet now came to the House of Commons, and claimed for that Church the right to be freed from a law which oppressed the consciences of the Christian people who adhered to the Established Church of Scotland. This was a right which he showed had existed in former years, and had been guaranteed to the people of Scotland by the Settlement at the time of the Union. It was withdrawn by an unjust law passed in 1712 by an English Parliament against the feelings and wishes of the Scotch people; and the abolition of this patronage would restore the right to choose the ministers of the Church to the people to whom it belonged. There could be no doubt on this head, seeing that the Petition to
  1102
  Parliament prepared in 1869 under the resolution of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland set forth that—
  "Your Petitioners are further of opinion that the nomination of ministers should be vested in Heritors, Elders, and Communicants."
  This right to decide on the selection of their ministers by the people belonging to the free Churches of Scotland, had been resolutely contended for and successfully secured by these Churches, and in a way which would ever reflect honour on the spirit and resolution of a Christian people. No doubt other reforms in the Established Church of Scotland must follow on this righteous claim being conceded, and seeing that he (Sir George Balfour) had voted in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Miall) for entire disestablishment of all churches, no doubt could exist as to what his vote ought to be on this Motion. It would be time to express an opinion as to disestablishment of the Church of Scotland when that question was brought directly before the House, but in the meantime the Church of Scotland ought to be relieved of the oppression of which she complained.
  MR. ORR EWINGsaid, that the objections of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) seemed to be not so much to the principle of the Resolution as to the fact that the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Anstruther) did not propose any scheme in place of the one which he wished to do away with. The question, however, was a very difficult one to deal with, and it was almost impossible for a private Member to take it in hand, because at least one-third of the patronage of the Church of Scotland belonged to the Crown. The Resolution was, however, brought forward by the hon. Baronet in the belief that it was the almost unanimous opinion of the laity both of the Established and the Free Churches that the system of patronage ought to be abolished. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had endeavoured to show that the Church of Scotland gave very little in the way of subscriptions in comparison with the other Churches; but it should be recollected that the clergymen of that Church were paid by the heritors and in other ways, and were not dependent on the money given by persons who held seats, as in the case of the Dissenting Churches, this head, seeing that the Petition to and as these amounts all figured as sub-

  1103
  scriptions in the case of the latter they certainly made a larger show in that respect. They did not, however, wish for a moment to injure any of the other Churches; all they wanted was to benefit their own. He regretted that a question of such importance to Scotland should be discussed in such a thin House. The Scotch were a loyal people, and transacted their business quietly, and therefore few Members took any interest in subjects affecting them; but when any matter was brought forward with reference to the Irish, who were more aliens and enemies than friends, there were generally a large number of Members present. It appeared to him extraordinary that the Free Church of Scotland should appear before that House in opposition to the abolition of patronage, when the people of that country generally were in its favour. The solo motive which he could assign for that opposition was that they feared the Established Church would be strengthened by the change, while she might lose some of her followers; but there was plenty of room for all the religious bodies in Scotland, and there was no good reason why patronage should be maintained contrary to the general wish.
  MR. MACFIEsaid, that the abolition of patronage was one of the traditional cries of the old Whigs of Scotland, and he did not believe that their descendants had changed their opinion on the subject. Nothing would please the Scottish people so much as to know that the House had agreed to the Motion of his hon. Friend (Sir Robert Anstruther). That Motion was a request to the Government to take up this ecclesiastical subject, and to do for Scotland what they had already done for Ireland. They had been told that the Free Church would not come back; but he did not care whether they did or not; the House ought to do justice to the Established Church of Scotland, and if they did that there would be nothing to prevent the whole of the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland from working together, and dividing the endowments between them.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr Ewing) had referred in the course of his speech —he was sure unintentionally—to the people of Ireland in terms which he must regret, when he stated that they were to be viewed rather in the character
  1104
  of aliens and enemies than of loyal and faithful subjects. He would not, however, dwell on the matter any further, for the hon. Member was too benevolent calmly to adopt any such sentiment. The hon. Member had also called attention to the thin attendance of hon. Members during this important discussion; but he (Mr. Gladstone) thought he could make a good apology for the House in respect to that matter. He agreed that the convictions of the people of Scotland ought to govern the action of the House in reference to it; but it was not easy to ascertain what those convictions wore, and he was quite sure there would have been a much larger attendance of Members if the House felt that the time had arrived when they could discuss this question to a practical issue. He regarded this as a preliminary discussion. He did not complain of the Motion having been brought forward. After this discussion there would be greater maturity of opinion in Scotland than could be said to prevail at present. His hon. Friend (Sir Robert Anstruther) was able to show that for a long series of years back there had been discussions in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and declarations in favour of a great change in the system of presentation to livings, involving the abolition of patronage; and he had also been able to show that a large portion of the patrons themselves were disposed to concur in the change. Those were important facts, and they seemed to warrant his hon. Friend in asking Parliament to adopt some measure to that end; but his hon. Friend had in his candour stated other facts, and they were to the effect that important bodies like the Free Church and the United Presbyterians had expressed their sentiments upon the subject in a way which showed that they were entitled to have their opinions upon it, and that they must be considered in any legislation which might be adopted by Parliament. That was a position which would prevent the House from giving a definitive opinion at present upon the question. This discussion had been an interesting one; but his hon. Friend; in his eloquent speech, had in reality only touched the question—he had passed over the surface of it. His hon. Friend commenced his Motion with a vague declaration, and concluded by saying that the

  1105
  system of appointment of ministers ought to be greatly altered. That proposition was a very important one, but was a very small portion of the whole subject. It was true there had been in Scotland, from the time of the Reformation onwards, a strong re-action against the system of patronage. He (Mr. Gladstone) remembered the controversy on the veto law. At that time and from that time he had always felt that those who passed that law contended for what was called spiritual independence, and they finally passed a resolution against patronage. But there had been a remarkable diversity of proceeding in Scotland, and there was at this moment the widest difference of opinion as to what ought to be done with regard to a change in the present law. There were several different epochs of Scottish history from 1560 downwards, when the law relating to ministers had been altered, and for scarcely any two of them had the same method been adopted. In 1834 the question was handled by elders of the Scotch Church, who were men of eminence, and who would be an ornament to any communion in Christendom, and a completely new method was adopted. None of the old plans were revived. It was proposed that there should be a right of veto only in the male heads of families, being communicants; but that night there had been quoted the declaration of the General Assembly of the present year, which proposed not to establish popular election in the wide sense, but to give the power of veto to the heritors, elders, and male communicants. [Mr. ORR EWING: Committees to be formed of each of these elements.] That only showed how far it would be from popular election. If they were to take their stand on the ancient system of popular representation, that would not be election by committees, but a right of election claimed by Christian people generally. The General Assembly did not go that length. As to the Motion, while he thought the time had come when it was reasonable that some steps should be taken in this matter, he did not think that the time had come when it would be wise or safe for the Government or the House to bind themselves by a general Resolution which gave no indication of the nature of the measure to be adopted. In repealing the Act of 1690 they would give the nomination to the heritors and elders,
  1106
  by whom the presentation would be made to the congregation for their assent; but such a proceeding would be a perfect mockery in such counties as Ross and Sutherland; and when they regarded the condition of ecclesiastical matters in portions of Scotland which were not inconsiderable, the question of patronage raised a very large question indeed. How far they were to extend the right of election, and how far it was to be limited to the choice of ministers conforming to the rules of the Established Church, were very great and serious questions, and well deserving of examination. Now, he would state a circumstance that came within his own personal knowledge. Being in Scotland last year he went to church on Sunday. There was the Established Church and the Free Church, and what was the state of things? In the Established Church the minister preached to a mass of empty benches. A few members connected with English families visiting the neighbourhood, the members of the minister's own family, and a few others, numbering about 10 or 12 persons altogether, composed the congregation, hardly entitled to be called one, but the minister was paid by the State. well, a little down the valley was the Free Church, crammed to excess, while those who attended had not means enough to pay a clergyman for their spiritual wants. This was an extraordinary state of things, and one which gave rise to serious questions. The hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. Craufurd) had moved the Previous Question. On questions which were premature he (Mr. Gladstone) thought it was a most fair course to take. What he proposed was this, that Parliament should pursue—he could not say during the present Session, because the latter part of the month of June was not a time when practical progress could be made with reference to a subject of this sort—the course which was pursued by Parliament at the time of the last great crisis of the Church of Scotland. At that time a Committee was appointed by the House to make an investigation into the history of the Church of Scotland in relation to the law of patronage, which investigation, although it did not terminate in any legislative action, was, he believed, of great value. Since 1834, Parliament had no examination of the matter and yet very important changes

  1107
  had been made in the interim. That most remarkable disruption which occurred in 1843, recorded, he was afraid, an instance in which the rulers of this country did not really know the course they ought to have pursued. In conclusion, he would say that viewing the inherent difficulties of this case, and the importance that, before taking definite steps, they should well understand what they were going to do, he proposed that Parliament should be invited at the earliest fitting opportunity to resume these investigations of 1844, so as they might have the opportunity of gathering material and satisfying the House as to the real convictions and wishes of the people of Scotland in regard to the law of patronage. He was persuaded that in pursuing that course his hon. Friend (Sir Robert Anstruther) would be using the greatest diligence and the greatest despatch towards the practical settlement of the question; and if he agreed to such a proposal he would have every assistance on the part of the Government that he could reasonably desire, although undoubtedly it would not be consonant to their duty or their interest, in the face of defective information upon such an important matter, and so vital, to pledge themselves to the course contained in the Motion before the House.
  MR. GORDONsaid, that in the first place, for the sake of the Church of Scotland, they should endeavour to place the matter upon a footing which would be consistent with the feelings of the people of Scotland; and they should also endeavour to do so because they were hopeful that the result of a change in the matter of patronage would bring about a reunion of the Presbyterian Churches which concurred in faith and the rules of Church government, and which would never have been separated had it not been for the unfortunate disputes with reference to the exercise of Church patronage. He trusted that some arrangement would be made by which the matter would be settled in a satisfactory manner.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERreplied, in answer to the question which had been asked, as to what was his reason for introducing the Motion, he had only to say that he had introduced it as an independent Member of the House, and had consulted with no one except
  1108
  his hon. Friend who had seconded the Motion. He agreed that this was the first time the subject had been introduced into the House for many years, and that this Motion could only have the effect of ventilating it. He had been met in the most handsome and conciliatory manner by the Government, and if the Amendment were withdrawn he should be most willing to withdraw the original Motion.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEurged the hon. Member for Ayr not to divide the House by pressing his Amendment.
  MR. MILLERexpressed his belief that the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech would create great dissatisfaction in Scotland, as it simply meant the prolongation of the discussion from year to year until something was done in the matter.
  Previous Question and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CIVIL SERVICE WRITERS.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, it would be un necessary for him to go at length into the subject upon which he had given Notice of a Motion, as he was glad to say the Government had intimated to him that they would not oppose the inquiry for which he asked. There was a class of gentlemen to whom the Motion referred who had suffered great wrong and considerable pecuniary loss by certain Orders in Council which had affected their position, and there was another class of persons interested in this Motion with regard to whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted with that consideration and fairness with which he (Mr. Otway) felt sure he would act when their case was fully brought to his notice. The right hon. Gentleman had that day announced certain concessions, which if carried into effect in the spirit to which he (Mr. Otway) had alluded, would give satisfaction to that class also. The State had been employing for many years a class of persons called writers, as was supposed, for merely mechanical work; but, in point of fact, they had been doing clerical work of a high order, and sometimes even had been engaged in instructing the clerks of the Government. They had expected

  1109
  that they would receive, according to the regulation of the Civil Service Commissioners, special pay for this special work, but had not received such pay. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met him in a fair and liberal spirit, and had promised that effect should be given to the regulation referred to, he would simply move his Motion.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire whether Writers appointed before August 1871 have suffered any wrong or injustice by the cessation of the system of a progressive rate of payment." —(Mr. Otway.)
  And, on July 2, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. STANSFELD, Sir PERCY HERBERT, Sir HENRY HOARE, Mr. PLUNKET, Mr. KIRK-MAN HODGSON, Mr. BATES, Mr. DILLWYN, Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Mr. BACHHOUSE, Mr. PERCY WYNDHAM, and Mr. OTWAY:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

  HABITUAL DRUNKARDS' BILL.
  [BILL 11.]
  (Mr. Donald Dalrymple, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Akroyd, Mr. Clare Read, Mr. Miller, Mr. Downing.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. D. DALRYMPLErose to move that the Bill be now read a second time —when
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.