Sitting of 25 June 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland); Chief Justices Salaries.
3° Gunpowder Stores (Liverpool) Exemption Repeal.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. COWANthen rose and said, that in moving the second reading of this Bill, he wished to guard English Members against a misapprehension into which they were likely to fall on the subject. Only last week the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood) introduced to the consideration of the House a measure somewhat similar in title to the present; and, in doing so, that hon. Gentleman took occasion to go into the question of religious tests as they bore upon civil offices in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin; but, as the House was aware, owing to a fatality that occurred on that occasion—the "count out"—no decision was pronounced upon the question. He wished to state, for the information of English Members, who might not be aware of the fact, that there was scarcely any similarity between the constitutions of the Scotch and English universities, particularly with reference to their relation to the Established Churches of the respective countries. The students in Scotland were not required to reside within the walls of the colleges; neither wore they required to subscribe any religious tests, either at the commencement of their studies, or when they were about to receive honours or degrees. The Royal Commission, which was appointed by the Crown in 1826 to inquire into the Scotch universities, and which reported in 1830, stated that—
"There are few national institutions of long standing which have been more powerfully modified by the circumstances of the country than the universities in Scotland; and they have undoubtedly been gradually adapted, in an eminent degree, to the particular demands upon them, arising from the circumstances of the people for whose benefit they were designed. These universities are not now of an ecclesiastical character, or, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, ecclesiastical bodies. They are connected, it is true, with the Established Church of Scotland, the standards of which the Professors must acknowledge. Like other seminaries of education, they may be subject to the inspection of the Church on account of any religious opinions which may be taught in them. The Professors of divinity, whose instructions are intended for the members of the Established Church, are, in their charac-

1211
ter of Professors, members of the presbytery of the bounds, and each university returns a representative to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. But, in other respects, the Universities of Scotland are not ecclesiastical institutions, not being more connected with the Church than with any other profession. They are intended for the general education of the country, and, in truth, possess scarcely any ecclesiastical features, except that they have a certain number of Professors for the purpose of teaching theology, in the same manner as other sciences are taught. While, on the one hand, therefore, the proportion of students intended for the Church, and the importance of everything connected with the well-being of the Church of Scotland, render it essential to attend carefully to the interests of this class of students in any opinion which may be formed respecting the system of instruction in the Scotch Universities; on the other hand, it is to be kept in view that these universities are not framed on the principle of being mainly adapted for the education of the clergy. Neither constitutions, endowments, nor provisions for public instruction, are founded on the principle that the Universities are appendages of the Church."
He wished now to make a few observations upon the tests which it was his object to repeal by the Bill now upon the table. In the seventeenth century, as they all knew, there was a long and fierce religious contest carried on in both divisions of this island between the Kings and Parliaments of that age—the principles involved in contest being the Divine right of Kings on the one hand, and the civil and religious liberties of the people on the other. When the Episcopalians had the ascendancy in Scotland, as they had at the time of the restoration of Charles II., they passed an Act excluding all persons from the chairs of the universities of that country, except those who were connected with the Episcopal Church, which was then attempted to be forced upon the people of Scotland. At the time of the Revolution things changed. The race of Stuarts was then exiled; King William came to the Throne, and he, though most reluctantly, consented to the establishment of Presby-terianism in Scotland. In 1690 a test was imposed by the Scottish Parliament upon all the Professors in the Universities, for the express purpose of excluding all Prelatists and Papists, who were generally hostile to the then existing Government; for, as hon. Members were doubtless aware, it was during the twenty-eight years that the prelatical party of Claverhouse, Dalyell, Sharpe, and Lauderdale, held sway in Scotland, that some of the best blood in that country was poured out. The object of the test imposed in 1690, then, was to prevent the intrusion of indi-
1212
viduals who were opposed to the religious rights and liberties of the people, and who were mostly Jacobites, desirous to bring about the restoration of the Stuarts, which indeed they attempted in 1715, and again thirty years later. Various individuals were ejected under that measure, in consequence of their known attachment to the prelatic cause, and to the Jacobite succession. One of the clauses of the formula which professors were obliged to sign on being appointed to the office was as follows: —
"And I promise that I shall follow no divisive course from the present establishment in this Church, renouncing all doctrines, tenets, and opinions whatsoever contrary to, or inconsistent with, the said doctrine, worship, discipline, or government of this Church."
He begged the attention of the House to the words "follow no divisive course from the present establishment in this Church." Now, he denied that the Church as now established in Scotland presented any of the essential features which distinguished the Church of Scotland at the period when that formula was first imposed. In 1690 another Act was passed by the Scotch Parliament for the purpose of depriving individuals of the Church patronage which they had long possessed, and vesting it in the hands of the heritors and kirk-sessions of the several parishes. These latter bodies, he might mention, were not invested with the absolute right of presenting to the livings, but merely with the right of nomination, subject to the judgment of the presbytery of the bounds, and the acceptance of the people of each parish. But he begged the House to observe, that the patrons who were so dispossessed of the patronage, were in every case paid a suitable sum as an equivalent for the patronage they had surrendered. Now, it was well known that before the Commissioners for Scotland would consent to the Treaty of Union, they expressly stipulated that the doctrine and discipline of the Church as then established should remain fixed and unalterable in all time coming. The petition which had been presented that day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dovor (Sir G. Clerk) spoke of the abolition of University tests, which he (Mr. Cowan) proposed, as a violation of the Treaty of Union; but could there be a more infamous violation of the Treaty of Union, he asked, than that which was committed in 1711, when the British Parliament restored the Church patronage to

1213
the old patrons, against the solemn stipulations of the Treaty of Union in 1707, and without asking them to refund one halfpenny of the sum they received in 1690? And not only was that measure a direct violation of the Treaty of Union, but it had been the cause of all the dissensions which had subsequently taken place in the Church, and of the various secessions from it which had occurred. The first secession occurred in the year 1732; and that and all the subsequent secessions were clearly traceable to this gross violation of national faith. He held, indeed, that no dissent worthy of the name existed in Scotland. The various bodies which were separated from the Established Church had almost all been brought into that state of separation, not from differences of religious doctrine, but solely and entirely from the inroads which had been made by the civil power into the domain of the spiritual; by the oppression of the courts below, and the callousness and indifference of the last House of Commons, when redress from the usurpations of the Court of Session was craved in 1843. The last House of Commons had even refused to look at the claim of rights which was presented to them by the party which now constituted the Free Church. He believed that if the House had inquired into that matter, they would have seen, what many had no difficulty in seeing now, that the proceedings which drove that party from the Church, were the most violent outrage upon the rights and liberties of the people of Scotland. It was rather too late in the day to talk of the Treaty of Union as if it were still an integral compact between the two countries, seeing that, owing to the con-duct of the party to which hon. Gentlemen opposite belonged, it had already become little better than a piece of waste paper. The object of the Bill before the House was simply to declare that such things having taken place—that various bodies having, during the last century and in the present, been driven out of the Establishment by the oppressive acts of the civil power—it was but fair and just that they should not be allowed to suffer any further injury by their exclusion from the rights which, as British subjects, they were entitled to enjoy. What was the state of the case? he had referred to the test that was imposed by the Act of 1690, and which was ratified by the Act of Union in 1707, which test was intended to prevent
1214
Episcopalians and persons who were hostile to the Hanoverian succession from being admitted into the chairs of the universities of Scotland; but the fact was, that, in spite of those tests, a large number of Episcopalians did fill those chairs; and, he was glad to admit, filled them with credit to themselves and advantage to the country. Well, all he wanted was, that other Dissenters, whom the tests were never intended to exclude, should be also admitted to fill those chairs without let or hindrance. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis) appeared to assume, from some observations he made not long ago, that religion did not exist in Scotland beyond the pale of the Established Church. The hon. Baronet seemed to be ignorant of the immense religious efforts made by other bodies that were not in connexion with the State. As evidence of the efforts made by the Free Church to diffuse education and religion, he begged to state, without wishing to boast of the efforts of the body to which he had the honour to belong, that in the year ending March last there were no fewer than 1,671 Sabbath schools, 8,506 teachers, and 99,019 scholars, in connexion with that body, which, in the eight years ending March, had expended in various enterprises abroad and at home, 2,475,616 l. The existence of tests in favour of the mother Church was assumed to be necessary, in order that the interests of religion might not suffer. But was it the fact that the imposition of tests did operate to prevent the intrusion of improper persons even into the Establishment? He understood that at the last meeting of the General Assembly of the Established Church, held only a few weeks ago, no fewer than six or seven ministers were deposed for heinous crimes; one was deposed for poaching on the Sabbath day. Others were deposed for offences of a gross and revolting character; and every one of these late rev. gentlemen had, before he could be ordained, taken these tests. Did he reproach the Established Church for that? No; on the contrary, he rather honoured her for having had the firmness to perform a duty doubtless of a most painful nature. But what did such cases prove on behalf of the system of tests? He maintained that the object of the Legislature ought to be to give equal rights and privileges to all— not exalting one body above another—but recognising merit wherever it was found, whether within or without the Church.

1215
He gladly bore his testimony to the good which the Establishment was doing in many respects, throughout the country; but he did not think that its power of doing good would be diminished by the abolition of tests, which, in their operation, had been found to be the greatest absurdity and mockery that could possibly be devised. In the case of the test to which he referred, it was required that the individual who was appointed to a professorship should sign his name to the Confession of Faith, and it was also required that the presbytery of the bounds should witness his signature. He believed that this constituted the whole of the relationship between the Established Church and the Universities, except in so far as the theological chairs were concerned, and these were exempted from the operation of this Bill. It had been said that no act of legislation was necessary in the matter, because the tests were inoperative. He acknowledged that, in the case of the University of Edinburgh, with which he was more immediately connected, no tests in the case of the secular chairs had been required for the last sixty or seventy years. And if that had been the case in Edinburgh for so long a period, without the slightest danger to the interest of religion, he submitted to the House whether it was wise to continue on the Statute book obligations of this kind, which were not required or carried out, but which, he begged the House to remember, might be carried out even by a minority of the patrons, or of the Senatus Academicus, who had the power under the present law, to go to the Court of Session and prevent the induction of any professor who did not engage to conform to the discipline and doctrine, and attend the ministry of the Established Church. Many Episcopalians, as he had said, had been appointed to University chairs in Scotland, but he submitted whether it was fair to exact from Episcopalians, who had already subscribed the articles of their own Church, a subscription to the articles of another Church which abjured prelacy altogether? In fact, he could hardly conceive how an honest man could consent to such a proceeding, unless he had entirely changed his views on church government. There was a case which occurred not many years ago which illustrated the absurdity of the existing system of tests. Mr. Fisher, a Fellow of Clare Hall, in the University of Cambridge, was appointed Professor of Natural Philosophy at St. Andrews. He
1216
appeared before the Presbytery of that district to sign the test; but, whether through some bungling, or not, he (Mr. Cowan) could not say, it turned out, that instead of signing the test which was adapted to Professors, Mr. Fisher had actually signed the test which was usually required from an ordained minister of the Church of Scotland, and by signing this test, he declared that Presbyterianism was the only right form of religion, and that Prelacy was a great and insupportable grievance. Mr. Fisher found himself thus placed between two fires; for the brethren of his own College having heard of the circumstance, proceeded against him, and, he believed, deprived him of his Fellowship in consequence. Another case had just occurred at Aberdeen. Mr. Fuller, of St. Peter's College, Cambridge, had been elected Professor of Mathematics in King's College, Old Aberdeen, and it appeared that he had signed the required test abjuring Prelacy with the greatest alacrity. Some individuals, he believed, signed the test as articles of peace—others' signed it in a non-natural sense—others signed it affirming in so doing that it contained the confession of their faith and a great deal more—and others as a mere act of politeness, a taking off of the hat, as it wore, in passing to Presbyterianism. The fact was, that the Confession of Faith, which the parties signed, was a large volume which, he believed, not one in fifty of them had ever read—a volume, indeed, of dogmatic theology, containing many abstruse points with which none but accomplished theologians could well be expected to grapple—and yet the mere putting of their name to this volume was held to be a security against the intrusion of improper and unfit persons into the university chairs! It was the greatest mockery and absurdity ever heard of in a civilised country. If the test could be made a bonâ fide one—if it could be made so as to secure the appointment of none but religious men—or, at all events, of men who would inculcate nothing hostile to religious opinions—let it be so framed; but he very much doubted whether it could be framed so as to have that effect, because it was impossible to look into men's hearts— their opinions being a matter solely between themselves and their Maker. He would now refer to a case which created great excitement in Scotland some years ago. At the Disruption in 1843, an accomplished individual, whom he (Mr. Cowan) had the honour and privilege to call his

1217
friend—he alluded to Sir David Brewster—felt it to be his duty, along with thousands of others, to leave the Church of his fathers, and take up his position in the ranks of the Free Church of Scotland. That gentleman was Principal of the United College of St. Salvador and St. Leonard in the University of St. Andrews. The Presbytery of St. Andrews immediately commenced proceedings against him, for the purpose of ejecting him from an office for which he was in every way so well fitted, and which he so eminently adorned. They served him with a libel, a copy of which he held in his hand. It consisted of between forty and fifty pages. This Presbytery—which, he believed had been neither remarkable for the purity of its morals nor the soundness of its faith, nor for that brotherly love which ought especially to be cultivated in such a community—endeavoured to eject this accomplished philosopher for having become a member of the Free Church. The libel, which, he might mention, was full of the most extraordinary errors from beginning to end, concluded as follows:—
"That the Senatus and Faculty of the University of St. Andrews, ought to be required forthwith to redress the evil which you have brought upon the Church, by taking all the steps competent to them for removing you from the office of Principal of the United College, and that the Senatus be required to report to the Presbytery, quam primum, what steps they have adopted to effect this, that you may be removed from your office, and visited with such other censure or punishment as the laws of the Church enjoin for the glory of God, the safety of the Church, and the prosperity of the University, and to deter others holding the same important office from committing the like offence in all time coming, but that others may hear and fear the danger and detriment of following divisive courses."
"The glory of God!" It was not the first time that the foulest crimes in history had been committed for the pretended purpose of the glory of God; and he thought that to eject a man of this kind—a man of a world-wide European reputation—a man who had been counted worthy to be elected a member of the Institute in France—a man who was at that moment engaged in unremitting labours from morning to night in the Crystal Palace, one who was always most willing as he was able to impart valuable scientific information from the rich stores of his mind—he did think that thus to proceed coolly and deliberately to eject a philosopher like that accomplished man, was one of the puniest and most unqualified
1218
pieces of bigotry that had ever been committed in this country. But their proceedings soon came to a stop. They found that they had no power to carry out what they had vainly attempted and threatened to do. Whether they had ever possessed the power, or whether the exercise of it had fallen into entire desuetude, it was found that they had no power to eject or get quit of an individual who might be false to his vows, or who might act unfaithfully or unworthily as a professor. He had, therefore, to submit to the House whether such a state of things as he had described ought to continue to exist, which was originally intended to exclude none but Prelatists and Jacobites, and which had long been found to be quite inoperative—which did not prevent any one from accepting office, for an infidel might take the test. He who had no respect or regard for those things would take it without scruple; but the honest and honourable man, who was not a member of the Church of Scotland, was, as they had seen in the case of Sir David Brewster, liable to be proceeded against, and, as in Sir David's case, to be annoyed and oppressed by what he would venture to call a very contemptible piece of persecution. He regretted much that the noble Lord at the head of the Government was not in his place at that moment, for he wished to make a few observations, which he would do very shortly, on a matter intimately connected with this subject—the very scanty endowment of the professorial chairs in the University of Edinburgh. Owing to the circumstance that the Edinburgh bishopric was founded at a later period than the other sees in Scotland, and that it had no revenues at the time of the institution of the Edinburgh College, which was the last but one college created, there were no funds then available for the endowment of the professors' chairs in such a way as he thought the cause of education in that University and the best interests of the country were entitled to. He found, from a paper which he held in his hand, that there were thirty-two Chairs in that University, divided into four Faculties; and that the whole of the endowments, the fixed aslaries of these Professors, was as follows:—
"The total amount of endowment was 2,024 l. per annum, an average of less than 70 l. to each Professor. The Principal of the College in Edinburgh had 111 l; in Glasgow, 450 l.; and in St. Andrews, 238 l. The Professor of Humanity, in Edinburgh, had the miserable pittance of 25 l., while in Glasgow he received 289 l., and in St.An-

1219
drews, 219 l. The Professor of Divinity, in Edinburgh, 196 l.; in Glasgow, 425 l. 10 s. 7d.; in St. Andrews, 231 l. The Professor of Logic, in Edinburgh, 52 l; in Glasgow, 289 l.; in St. Andrews, 219 l."
The consequence of all this was, that the Professors of Edinburgh were frequently taken away from that important sphere of usefulness to the comparatively obscure and unimportant University of St. Andrews; and he submitted to the Government—he was sorry that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department was the only Member of the Cabinet present—whether the University of Edinburgh had not a fair claim to their attention—whether a greater degree of liberality with respect to these Chairs would not have a beneficial operation on the best interests of the country at large; for he thought that it was a niggardly economy, and most unjust to Scotland, that the capital of his native country should be treated so unfairly, as compared, for instance, with the endowments of the new colleges in Ireland. He might state, in addition, that the Town Council of Edinburgh—the patrons of the University—had exercised their patronage wisely and well for many years past. He believed they had ever been anxiously desirous to seek out the best men—no matter what their creed, Presbyterian or Episcopalian—who would in the best manner uphold the reputation of Edinburgh as a seat of learning by their talents and reputation, notwithstanding the niggardly economy of the State. They could not afford to place the University in a situation where they could not command the highest order of talent, whether literary or scientific, especially as they were now placed in competition with the newly-created colleges in the southern part of the kingdom; and therefore feeling, as he did, a most anxious desire to promote the interests of this University, he did hope that the attention of the Government would be given to the subject, and that they would be induced to treat the University with a greater amount of liberality. To return to the question more immediately before them, he would only, if the House would allow him, refer to the opinions of one or two individuals on the subject of the test, which he thought were well worthy of the consideration of the House. He had before him the copy of a letter from one of the Professors of the University of Edinburgh, Dr. Robert Lee, Professor of Biblical Criticism, which he might add was ad-
1220
dressed to the Chairman of a public meeting which was held in Edinburgh to petition in favour of the measure now before the House—at least substantially the same measure—for it would be remembered that a Bill to the same effect was introduced by the late Lord Advocate, now Lord Rutherfurd, in 1845. In reference to that measure, Dr. Lee wrote this letter, from which he would only read the following short extract:—
"I have no hesitation in expressing my decided approval of the object you have in view, and my hearty wish that it may speedily be attained in all its extent. I am not able to conceive who is a gainer by the law as it now stands, or what party would be injured by its abrogation, whereas the hardship it imposes, and the evils of various kinds which it inflicts, are such that one may well wonder they can be overlooked or denied. To remove every unnecessary temptation to insincerity out of our neighbour's way, is a plain dictate of morality; and it is no less clearly a dictate both of justice and prudence, that conscientious men should not be placed by law in a worse position than others who are less scrupulous. The present law defends the universities and the studious youth against those Professors from whom they are in no danger; and it exposes both to that class of men from whom alone there is any danger to be apprehended. In all other cases, men are reckoned trustworthy, not according to their expressed opinions—much less according to opinions which some worldly object may tempt them to profess —but according to their actions; and conduct, not professed opinion, is generally held to be both the appropriate test of worth, and the proper subject of reward and punishment. Nor can I think that the Act of Security should form any barrier to the repeal of the present law. The Legislature has already abrogated so many provisions of that Act as had become inconsistent with the interests, and repugnant to the feelings, of the Scotch people—to promote whose interests and gratify whose feelings the Act was originally passed; and it appears to me an extravagant proposition that the British Legislature now has not all the powers possessed by the English and the Scotch Parliaments in the year 1707. On the whole, I have long been of opinion that the repeal of the present law, in so far as regards all the professorships of literature, science, and philosophy, is a measure demanded by justice, and dictated by prudence."
He would not detain the House with reading all the opinions of eminent men which he now had in his possession; but he should like to read one letter which he had received that morning from Dean Ramsay, of Edinburgh—he supposed he might now, by favour of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, call him Dean of Edinburgh. That very rev. gentleman, from whom he had received the note, and who was well known as an able and eminent clergyman of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, said, in reference to the fact of the Lord Provost being in town—

1221
"I hope it is to help you to carry out two projects in which I know you are interested. The one for abolishing the form of tests for our universities in Scotland is surely a most desirable measure. Being myself an English University man, is the very reason why I am in favour of it, because the system on which the Universities in the two countries are founded being so entirely different, tests are absurd in Scotland as they are reasonable in England."
The other subject to which the very rev. Dean referred, was the measure for abolishing the annuity tax, which he was also in favour of. He was sorry he had detained the House longer than he originally intended—it was with deep regret that he felt he had discharged a duty which he had at first reluctantly undertaken in so very imperfect a manner. If the Universities of Scotland had met with the same measure of liberality which had been extended to the Universities in the other divisions of the empire—if, like them, they had enjoyed the privilege of sending representatives to this House—then, whether the tests would have existed at all in the present day, which he greatly doubted, at all events they would in all probability have been addressed on this occasion by some distinguished member of University—by an individual, a member of University, who would have produced a much more favourable impression upon the House than he could hope to do; but he hoped the House would overlook his feeble advocacy of this measure, which, he felt, was absolutely necessary, and which might be more fitly passed now than it could have been done five or six years ago when the feelings of individuals, owing to then recent events, on both sides were painfully excited. He was glad to think that such a state of things did not exist now; and, in conclusion, he could only say that he hoped he had said nothing which could give pain to any individual, or any body of individuals; if he had done so, he would be most happy to retract these expressions.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. W. LOCKHARTfelt it to he his duty to oppose a Bill which he believed to be destructive to the Christian and Protestant character of the Universities of Scotland, and indeed hostile to all religion. The religious opinions of professors of literature and science are, it appears, to be considered as of no consequence. Now, the hon. Member for the City of Edinburgh must have done some violence to his feel-
1222
ings when he undertook to promote a measure which is in direct opposition to the principles and practices of the Church of which he is a distinguished member. The late Dr. Chalmers, and the other leaders of the Free Church, wore at all times, and under all circumstances, the zealous supporters of those tests. As long as they remained in the Church, they advocated them, and when they seceded from it and founded a college of their own, they consistently provided that its Principal and Professors should conform to their opinions; but the hon. Member, in the whole course of his speech, has never alluded to that college. The time chosen by the hon. Member for the introduction of this measure is most unfortunate. These are not times in which the barriers of our Protestant constitution can be thrown down with safety; on the contrary, it is at this moment the duty of all Protestants to unite in upholding them. When a Bill identical with this was introduced soon after the disruption in the Church of Scotland, there were some circumstances, one of which has been mentioned by the hon. Member, which might perhaps he held to justify the interference of Parliament; but these circumstances no longer exist. Dissensions have happily ceased, and the Church itself is recovering from the blow it sustained in 1842. Hon. Members are aware that the melancholy results of the disruption were chiefly felt in the great towns. In Glasgow the number of seats let in the ten city churches were diminished by one half; but at the end of eight years they have again nearly reached the original number. The hon. Member has alluded, but in no terms to give offence, to the fact, that five clergymen of the Established Church were deposed by the last General Assembly. This is one of the results of that secession. A great number of parishes having been suddenly thrown vacant, it is not surprising that some individuals should have obtained preferment who were unworthy of it. He could not avoid mentioning that many worthy men now indulge in the hope that a reconciliation may at no distant day be effected between the Established and the Free Churches. This at least is evident, that every day that passes, such an event is rendered more probable. Neither has there been an expression of public opinion such as to justify interference with these tests. When the Bill already mentioned was thrown out, it was predicted that the table of the House would be loaded with peti-

1223
tions; but no one can contend that such has been the case. The Bill of the hon. Gentleman, although it excludes the Theological faculties, offers no sufficient safeguards even as to them; and it is obvious that with regard to patronage, and in other respects, they must be injuriously affected. Under the existing system the Universities of Scotland have ever been an honour to their country; and it may with safety be asserted that religious dissensions have never penetrated within their walls. It is altogether unnecessary, therefore, to follow the hon. Member through the various objections he has urged against the tests, or to occupy the time of the House in refuting his assertion that they are wholly inoperative. He has quoted largely from the Report of the Commissioners; but he has omitted to mention that their report was in favour of tests, and he totally misapprehends the purpose for which they were created by the Legislature. It was not in order to exclude Episcopalians, but to strengthen the National Church, and to secure for the youth of Scotland a sound religious education, that these tests were devised. This is a question, therefore, which does not affect the Universities only, but also, and chiefly, the Established Church. They bear the same relation to the Church of Scotland that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and Trinity College of Dublin, bear to the United Church of England and Ireland, with this remarkable difference, that while the Legislature has left itself at liberty to deal with the English and Irish Universities, it has for ever excluded itself from interfering with those of Scotland. The Treaty of Union between England and Scotland —not a mere Act of Parliament—but a solemn treaty between two independent nations—expressly provides that they shall for ever remain in connexion with the Established Church. The hon. Gentleman has indeed said that the Treaty of Union was violated at the outset by the Act restoring patronage. Now, there is not one word about patronage from one end of it to the other in it. But there is another provision in that treaty—one of paramount importance—which the hon. Gentleman has carefully avoided to notice. The oath stipulates to be taken by the Sovereign of the United Kingdom. The first act of our Most Gracious Queen, on ascending the Throne of this realm, was to take a solemn oath that she would for ever maintain inviolate all the rights and privileges of the
1224
Church of Scotland; and since this Bill has been placed on the table of this House, Her Majesty (as is stated in the petition of the General Assembly which has this day been presented by the right hon. Member for Dovor) has addressed a most gracious letter to that Venerable Assembly reiterating that assurance. The hon. Gentleman then read part of the Scottish Act of Parliament which relates to this subject, and which is engrossed in the Treaty of Union, and concluded by saying—that the rules of this House prevented any hon. Member from introducing a Bill which affected Her Majesty's pecuniary interests, without Her Majesty's permission; but did not prevent the introduction of a measure which was of more importance to our Most Gracious Queen than all Her Majesty's possessions. He submitted, however, that it was not decorous in any Member of the House to take that course, and that such a Bill, if introduced at all, ought at least to be introduced on the responsibility of Her Majesty's constitutional advisers. He had, therefore, no hesitation in moving that it be read a second time on this day three months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
MR. EWARTsaid, if it was not the intention of other Members to address the House on this question, he would not detain them long from a division; but before sitting down, he wished to answer one or two of the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. W. Lockhart). The hon. Member said that they were bound by the Treaty of Union not to do anything that was contrary to the letter and the spirit of that treaty. Now, he apprehended that it was competent for Parliament, in certain cases, and under certain circumstances, to act contrary to the spirit of the Treaty of Union; and, if he was not mistaken, that had already been done. He would waive, indeed, the instance of violation which his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan) had quoted. He was not sufficiently learned in the Act to know whether the restoration of patronage did or did not violate the Act of Union; but, if he was not mistaken, there was a provision in the Treaty of Union by which the number of Members for Scotland was fixed at forty-five. [Sir GEORGE CLERK: Not less than forty-five.] What was the number of representatives

1225
Scotland now had? No fewer than fifty-three. Therefore the Treaty of Union had been violated by the Reform Act of Parliament; and the truth plainly was, that though the Treaty of Union was, in general cases, binding, yet if an alteration was found to be for the benefit of Scotland, then this Parliament had the power to make the alteration. It was also said that the measure of his hon. Friend (Mr. Cowan) would have the effect of destroying Protestantism; but he (Mr. Ewart) could not understand how religious freedom should be at variance with Protestantism, on which, indeed, Protestantism was based; and he believed that in every instance religious freedom was found to be favourable to the growth of Protestantism. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Lockhart) then said, that at some future and no distant time he hoped to see a union take place between the Established and the Free Churches of Scotland, and that if that should happen, there would be no necessity for this measure. But that was not the ground which his hon. Friend took in introducing this Bill: he understood that his hon. Friend objected on general grounds to all religious tests, and that even if the union between the two Churches were already consummated, still he would think it right to come forward and demand that the Universities of Scotland should be thrown open to Dissenters in general. He did not take the ground as between the Established and the Free Churches—he took the general principle of opening the Universities to all classes. Another objection was, that these tests operated for the advancement of religion; but he (Mr. Ewart) was not one of those who thought that religion was to be improved by tests. Religion was to be advanced by entering into the spirit and the heart and the intelligence of man—not by imposing upon them religious forms, but by making them Christians first, and then, certainly, some forms must be adopted. He considered, therefore, that the present Motion was one in accordance with religion, and in accordance also with the times in which they lived. He considered that they, as Scottish Members, were indebted to his hon. Friend (Mr. Cowan) for bringing this question forward, which was congenial to the enlightened times in which they lived, and in conformity with the wishes of their constituents. And if they would act in the spirit of their ancestors they would take care to adapt those institutions which their
1226
ancestors had bequeathed to them to the wants of the present age. With these views he had much pleasure in supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend.
SIR GEORGE GREYbegged leave to say a few words. Having taken part some time ago in a Motion of this kind, and having supported a Bill involving the same principle as that which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowan) asked the House to assent to, he felt bound to state that the opinion which he then entertained as to that principle remained unaltered; and if the House went to a division, he should feel bound to support the second reading. At the same time, the House would remember that his (Sir G. Grey's) right hon. Friend the Secretary at War, who had brought forward a Bill of the same kind, and who was unfortunately prevented by indisposition from being present, had stated that the Government did not think that in the present Session it was expedient to press such a measure. He considered that the second reading of the Bill now would very inadequately express the real sense of the House upon the question. He doubted, therefore, the policy of the hon. Gentleman in bringing forward his measure at the present time, and he must say, that the present thin state of the House was not an index of the want of real interest being felt on this question; but it was that no one believed that this Bill was likely to pass during the present Session, and that the question, therefore, was not raised with any probability of success. With respect to the question itself, he believed that however useful or necessary these tests might have been at the time when they were originally instituted, the occasion for them had long since passed away, and their retention would not conduce to the advantage of the Universities themselves. If they were strictly enforced, the effect would be to exclude from the lay chairs many men eminent in literature and science, although that practical result was one which the good sense of the Universities had pro-vented from taking place. It was well known that persons not belonging to the Church of Scotland did hold chairs in the Universities, some without having signed the tests, whilst others had done so—in both cases showing that no real value was attached to them; and he was not aware that any practical inconvenience or danger to the Church had arisen in consequence. Such a measure as this would tend greatly to bring about that union of persons hold-

1227
ing different religious opinions which the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. W. Lockhart) considered to be so very desirable. If they were driven to a division, he should vote for the second reading; but he doubted the policy of taking the sense of the House upon the question at present.
MR. COWANsaid, with all deference to what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, he could not feel at liberty to withdraw his Motion. He had stated before that an expression of public opinion in favour of this measure had come from several bodies in the city which he had the honour to represent. Twenty-seven members of the Town Council voted in favour of the Bill, against three who voted for the previous question. The same result, he believed, had taken place in all the burghs of Scotland. If this were an ordinary question, or if this wore the first time the question had been introduced, he would have complied with the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet; but he thought the people of Scotland had a right to know what were the sentiments of the Scotch Members on this subject, and what were the sentiments also, or rather what were the doings of the House in reference to it. Though this was originally a Government measure, and though he had pressed upon them the re-adoption of it early in the Session, though he had delayed bringing the question forward, in the hope that the Government would yet be persuaded to take up their own measure, yet he must say he had not received from them that support which he thought he had a right to expect. He must, therefore, divide the House.
Mk. EDWARD ELLICEsaid, he would detain the House but a very short time, but he rose to represent to his hon. Friend, that in the present circumstances, as stated by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, it would be advisable not to press the Motion to a division, because he thought that the House, in this its present state, would be no index, on a division, as to the interest felt in this question. For himself he was assured that something must be done, and therefore, being in favour of the Bill, and representing a University which he was bound to say would be benefited by it, he thought the question would now be placed at a disadvantage by a division.
MR. ALEXANDER HASTIEsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would not accede to the request that had been made to him,
1228
not to divide the House. The present state of the House might not be a sure test of its feeling on this subject, yet, at the same time, it would show the people of Scotland, who ought to know, how Her Majesty's Ministers acted when this measure was before them. He regretted very much that he had not heard all the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. W. Lockhart). From what he had been able to pick up, it seemed to him that his hon. Friend considered this measure as opposed to the religion and the constitution of the country. But this Bill had no connection whatever either with the religion or the constitution of the country. The Theological Chairs of the Universities were altogether excluded from its operation; and with regard to the other chairs, he would ask his hon. Friend if a Dissenter might not be as well qualified to teach Mathematics and Natural Theology, or the Languages, as one who adhered to the Established Church? He was satisfied that in every University in Scotland there were Professors, of whom Scotland had just reason to be proud, who did not profess to be members of the Established Church. He held in his hand an account of the induction of a Professor in one of the Colleges at Aberdeen. The Gentleman who was so inducted was an Episcopalian; and he (Mr. A. Hastie) would inform the members of the House as to the state of doctrines which were held by the one class of religionists as compared with the opinions that were held by the other—the doctrines of the Episcopalians as compared with the doctrines of the Established Church of Scotland. The Episcopalians say—
1st. That Her Majesty the Queen is chief governor over the ecclesiastical as well as the civil estates of the realm, and that her supremacy as judge extends over all persons and causes, spiritual as well as civil.
2nd. That prelacy, or the government of archbishops, bishops, priests, and deacons, is the lawful constitutional government of the Christian Church.
These were the doctrines held by the Episcopalian: what did the Presbyterian say?—
1st. That the Queen has no superiority at all over persons or causes spiritual. In a word, he passes from the honest profession of the thoroughly Erastian doctrine of the Queen's supremacy over archbishops, bishops, and priests, to the thoroughly Presbyterian doctrine of the spiritual su-

1229
premacy of the General Assembly of Ministers and ruling elders. This is in the bond, and must be subscribed as the confession of his faith in Church discipline, confirmed by William and Mary's first Parliament.
2nd. He must profess and subscribe to the discipline of the Presbyterian Church, as the "only discipline and government of Christ's Church within this kingdom;" and in order to render his recantation of Prelacy more clear and unequivocal, he delares—
"that prelacie and the superiority of any office in the Church above presbyters, is, and hath been a great and insurmountable grievance and trowble to this nation, and, therefore, that it ought to be abolished," (and is abolished by law.)
Now, he should like to know how one and the same person could subscribe both to the one creed and the other, opposed, as these were, in so many essential points. But he supported this Bill because he considered that they were national universities, supported by national funds, and that, as such, they ought to be open to all the subjects of the realm. If these tests were rigidly enforced, every one would be excluded except the members of a Church which was in a minority among the Presbyterian bodies; and he was sure that even those who opposed the Motion were aware that the members of the Established Church were at the present moment in a miserable minority in Scotland, very different from what they were a few years ago. The tests assumed to exclude those who refused to take the oaths; but those who had no scruples upon the subject—those who had regard only to the emoluments—they would be ready to take any tests. He would only add further that the measure had his cordial support. He requested his hon. Friend to divide the House, and thus test the feelings of hon. Members on this measure.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 66: Majority 1.

List of the AYES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Anderson, A.

Duncan, G.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Ellice, E.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Elliott, hon. J. E.

Brown, W.

Evans, W.

Campbell, hon. W.

Ewart, W.

Charteris, hon. F.

Fergus, J.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Fox, W. J.

Crawford, R. W.

French, F.

Dawes, E.

Grenfell, C. W.

1230

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

O'Connor, F.

Guest, Sir J.

Pigot, F.

Harris, R.

Pilkington, J.

Hastie, A.

Romilly, Col.

Hatchell, rt. hon. J.

Scully, F.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Smith, J. B.

Heywood, J.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Heyworth, L.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Higgins, G. G. O.

Stuart, Lord D.

Howard, P. H.

Stuart, Lord J.

Howard, Sir R.

Tennent, R. J.

Hume, J.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Jackson, W.

Thompson, Col.

Johnstone, J.

Traill, G.

Keogh, W.

Watkins, Col. L.

Kershaw, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Lemon, Sir C.

Willcox, B. M.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Williams, W.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Willyams, H.

Melgund, Visct.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Moffatt, G.

TELLERS.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Cowan, C.

O'Brien, Sir T.

Hastie, A.

List of the NOES.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Gwyn, H.

Arkwright, G.

Hallewell, E. G.

Bailey, J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Baillie, H. J.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Baird, J.

Hayes, Sir E.

Barrington, Visct.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Henley, J. W.

Beresford, W.

Hope, Sir J.

Booker, T. W.

Jones, Capt.

Bremridge, R.

Lockhart, A. E.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Long, W.

Bunbury, W. M.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Campbell, Sir A. L.

Mackie, J.

Carew, W. H. P.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Chatterton, Col.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Mullings, J. R.

Cholmeley, Sir M.

Napier, J.

Christopher, R. A.

Sandars, J.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Scott, hon. F.

Davies, D. A. S.

Smyth, J. G.

Dod, J. W.

Spooner, R.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Stafford, A.

Duncuft, J.

Stanley, E.

Dundas, G.

Stanley, hon. E. H.

Du Pre, C.G.

Verner, Sir W.

Farrer, J.

Vesey, hon. T.

Floyer, J.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Forbes, W.

Waddington, H. S.

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Freshfield, J. W.

Wodehouse, E.

Fuller, A. E.

Young, Sir J.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Gooch, E. S.

TELLERS.

Gordon, Adm.

Lockhart, W.

Grogan, E.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Words added; — Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.—Second Reading put off for three months.

INCUMBERED ESTATES LEASES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGH,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said he believed he should be best consulting the

1231
convenience of the House by stating shortly the provisions of the Bill for which he asked its sanction. He earnestly implored the House, however it might deal with the details of the measure, not to refuse to take the subject into its consideration. He might allude to a rumour prevalent during the last few days regarding the results of the enumeration of the people, which had recently taken place in both countries under the orders of the Government census. He did not wish to anticipate the results which they would all hear soon on authority; but unless they wore greatly misinformed he feared they must prepare for a state of figures with respect to the census of the sister country which every man of feeling must regard as most deplorable; and if there was no other ground on which he could ask the House to lend its time and favourable consideration to a project which proposed to deal out some measure of relief to a portion of a population which had suffered to an unparalleled degree, the prevalent conviction of the fact he had referred to would justify him, Apart from that, there were some other matters which deserved consideration. He moved some time ago for a return of the number of persons against whom judgments in ejectment had been obtained in Ireland for the three years preceding 1850, and for those three years the total number was 35,416. He thought no one would say it was an exaggeration to state that these figures represented at least 250,000 persons who were affected by those evictions. He did not mention this with the view to raise hostile discussion as to the cause of that state of things. All he asked was, that the House would bear it in mind, and that, in addition to that, they had an additional stimulus from a new quarter—he meant the wholesale system of evictions by the Incumbered Estates Court. The Incumbered Estates Court was called into existence for the purpose of doing two things. It was said that the proprietary to a great extent was so embarrassed that they could not make improvements, and that it was necessary to have a new proprietary. In the course of the discussion on that Bill, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) made a remark which had been fully borne out by the events. He said the great object was to keep on the soil the capital which accumulated upon it. In common with that right hon. Gentleman, he ventured to express an opinion that the expectation would prove
1232
illusory that great masses of capital would go over from this country to be invested in land in Ireland; and it was now proved, in the first report laid before the House of the proceedings before Baron Richards and his Colleagues, that out of 587 persons who had purchased land under the Court in the last eighteen months, only thirty were persons whose addresses were in this country. Therefore it was evident that if they wanted a substantial class of purchasers of land in Ireland, they must seek them not from without, but from within the community in Ireland. But there was another fact connected with the purchasers worthy of note. It was also stated that nearly half of the 587 purchasers who had bought lots, had become proprietors of land, for which they had not paid more than 1,000 l. thus intimating distinctly that they must seek for competition among smaller and more limited capitalists. But the second object that was proposed by the Incumbered Estates Commission, he took it, was this—that the occupying classes should be placed in the condition that English tenants generally were placed in, that of having those about them with capital to put the land in working order, or that they should be induced themselves to lay out a moderate portion of capital in the permanent improvement of their holdings. But if they had a class who, in order to obtain any tenure of the soil, were obliged to invest the whole of their capital in its purchase, it was evident they must wait a considerable time before they could obtain that improvement which was desirable. Now, he thought every practical man would admit that if it were possible to find a condition by which the occupying purchaser would be called upon to lay out only a portion of his capital, they would obtain the best sums that could be offered for the estate; he meant buying the estate suject to a rental. He knew that he should be met by the objection, that they were bound in the first instance to secure the paramount object that the creditors should not be damnified. He entirely conceded that principle, and if it could be shown that if his proposals were adopted, the estates as a whole would be sold for less than they would otherwise fetch, then he admitted that he should have an uphill case to bring before the House. But he thought inquiry would satisfy any impartial person that that was not so. He thought if they could devise a system by which a tenant should become a purchaser of one-fourth of the

1233
rent, and the remaining three-fourths were reserved, they would get more by that distribution of the estate. He had had communications with a great number of persons, professional and otherwise, who had had extensive dealings in land sold under the Incumbered Estates Court, with reference to the improved value which he thought the land would have if sold in this way, and he would read the opinion of Mr. William Gibson, a solicitor of great practice, who said—
"My experience has impressed me with a very strong feeling in favour of letting land upon long tenures. I feel, therefore, that this Bill is a move in the right direction, especially that portion of it which would enable the tenants to pay one-fourth of the value as a fine. This provision is calculated, in my opinion, to be of the greatest benefit to all parties concerned. It will serve as an investment for the small capitalist as well as the larger, and I think you may be sure that land so disposed of will command a good price in the market."
Another opinion, which he would read to the House, was that of Mr. Power, who said, "I trust this Bill may pass into a law." Mr. Power went on to state the reasons why he thought land thus sold would bring an improved value, and he ended by saying, "I think the value of estates, one-fourth of which was purchased by the tenant, as you propose, would greatly increase." Now, what he proposed was, that power should be given to the Commissioners of the Incumbered Estates Court upon the valuation which they made in order to sell land, and which they might make more stringent if they thought it was not sufficient, to grant a lease to a ton-ant who had been in possession for a certain time, and who placed himself out of arrears, and who held to the amount which they had decided in a recent Act of Parliament, entitled him to the elective franchise—that he should be entitled to come in and ask for a lease under the terms mentioned, after an absolute order for the sale of land had been made. Now, whatever hon. Gentlemen might think of the rights of property, he thought it must be confessed there was no interference here. No one could be injured. The new purchaser would, of course, be subject to any leases so made; but between the outgoing of the old proprietor and the incoming of the new, they would give a security to the occupying tenant which would induce him to invest his labour and capital. As his hon. Friends opposite were well aware, from the time
1234
a mortgage was executed by the old proprietor, he had ceased to be able to make a lease; and by this Bill they would place the tenant in a position which the landlord would have put him in if he had had the power. In case the tenant had capital sufficient, he proposed that he should have the option of a lease in perpetuity at three-fourths of the rent, paying down a fine of one-fourth. He believed that the reserved rent of three-fourths would sell for more in proportion, than the entire rack-rent would sell for. Some hon. Gentlemen might be apprehensive of frauds, or at least of interference with their vested rights as landlords, and therefore he bad inserted a provision to protect that class of persons. Where a mortgagee, in order to realise the amount of his incumbrance, came into court, and afterwards the incumbrance was paid off, and the landlord returned into possession, the lease would not be made as against him. He did not know that it was necessary to detain the House any longer by dwelling on the details. If the House would consent to read the Bill a second time, they might be considered in Committee. But he would again urge on the House whether something of this kind was not necessary under present circumstances. They had a state of things which had gone on avowedly unsatisfactorily for the last seven years, and various Bills had been introduced both by the present and preceding Governments to amend the relations of landlord and tenant. This year no Bill at all was introduced; and unless the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. S. Crawford) should bring in the Bill that he promised, they must all go back to their constituents and say there had been no attempt made this Session to improve the relation of landlord and tenant. He did not think that any one Bill would be a panacea for the ills of Ireland. He did not profess to provide for those evils in this Bill. He only asked them to deal with one particular class. A great deal more remained which this Bill did not touch, but it did not interfere with further legislation, or greater legislation, which could only be successfully attempted by Government. But if he had shown the House that there was a class of tenants really worthy of consideration, he would respectfully ask the House not to dismiss the only proposition made this Session for their relief, without at least some consideration.
Motion made, and Question proposed,

1235
"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHtrusted that the Government would not for a moment, listen to this Bill. If it was a Bill intituled "a Bill to prevent any purchasers from being found for any Incumbered Estates in Ireland," he could understand it. The object was that land should be altogether leased in perpetuity as against the purchaser. Under such circumstances, was it possible that any purchaser could be found? It was hardly worth while to enter into a disscussion of its provisions, because he thought that they were so absurd as to render it impossible they could be assented to. If such a measure passed, it would have the effect of completely ruining property in that country by preventing the possibility of anything like a fair competition for the purchase of it. He, therefore, trusted that the House, even upon the ground of courtesy, would never assent to such a measure proceeding one stage further.
MR. NAPIERsaid, that if he thought the Government had any intention to permit this Bill to pass through a second reading, he would have given notice that he would move for its second reading that day six months. If this measure passed into a law, it would put an end to all security of property in Ireland. Such attempts at legislation as this did more injury to the introduction of capital into the country, and to the promotion of industry in Ireland, than anything that could well be imagined. What Ireland wanted was to be let alone. If property were adequately secured there, the country would go on advancing towards prosperity. The proposed measure violated the rights of property by throwing into the hands of three Commissioners the power of leasing any portion of the lands referred to them for sale, to any person, for 999 years, who could muster but one-fourth of its value. All they wanted in Ireland was simply the same security for life and property which they had in this country. He happened to have an account then by him which showed that the Incumbered Estates Court was already overburdened with the ordinary business appertaining to it, and already were the public serious sufferers by this state of things. By their own return it appeared that up to the 31st of March the total incumbrances amounted to 4,086,192 l. The total amount of property sold up to the same period was
1236
only 1,350,616 l., leaving a deficiency of 2,735,576 l. against the unfortunate creditors, who to this extent were left without any fund to pay them. Of the amount sold, only 848,000 l. had been paid to the creditors. When the money was paid into court, it was lodged in the three-and-a-quarter per cents; but every day any part of the purchase-money remained unpaid, there was an accumulation of interest at the rate of 5 per cent going on, making a difference of 1¾ per cent to the prejudice of the property. The owners, as well as creditors, therefore, under the existing system, suffered severely; and yet they were now called upon to pass a Bill which would give the Commissioners increased jurisdiction over property, which would aggravate considerably the losses already suffered by those who were entitled to their protection and commiseration. He would be happy to lend his best assistance in rendering the law in every respect more effectual for the attainment of justice; but he would never consent to abandon altogether the rights of property, which he felt he would be doing if he did not oppose the measure of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. T. M'Cullagh).
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he regretted very much that no Member of the Government was present when this measure was introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk; for so extraordinary a piece of legislation was never even introduced by the Ministers themselves for Ireland. He believed it was nothing more or less than a bold scheme of confiscation, which it was impossible could be entertained for one moment by that House.
MR. ROCHEwas surprised to hear the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) say that what Ireland wanted was to be let alone. Was not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that by the last census for Ireland it was ascertained that the population had diminished within ten years from 9,000,000 to 6,000,000? In the absence of any measure from the Government for the improvement and amelioration of the social condition of Ireland, he would support the principle of the present Bill, although he was by no means willing to bind himself to all the details. The Bill of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M'Cullagh) was intended only to deal with lands that were not cleared from incumbrances, and upon which there were tenants. The fair purchaser could not be interfered with by this Bill, for it pro-

1237
posed that the Commissioners, before the lands were sold, should have power to grant leases to tenants who were not in arrear, and who were prepared to pay down one-fourth of the value of the property in question. There wore a great many serious defects in the law under which these estates were sold. The most lamentable mistakes were made as to the value of land in Ireland. He implored the Government to let this Bill pass its second reading, and to give the House a chance of making it something like a complete measure in Committee. It was perfectly certain it would prove a most decided improvement to the existing system.
MR. HATCHELLsaid, he should have risen earlier, but he was anxious to see whether there was a second Member of the House who would support this Bill. He conceived that it was objectionable, not only in its details, but in its principle. It was impossible that it could be made anything like an effective measure by any amendments that could be made in it in Committee. It proposed a most unjustifiable encroachment upon the rights of property. He thought there could not be a more obnoxious proposal, unsupportable by any principle, that any body of Commissioners appointed for a particular purpose with a temporary power should be constituted into a body to administer the property of the landlords in Ireland which was encumbered to a greater or less extent. To say that land should be leased out on the terms prescribed by this Bill, was utterly irreconcilable with the rights of property, and therefore it was that he opposed the Bill. There might be cases calling for the interposition of the Legislature; but the question was, whether they should tolerate such a Bill as this even by reading it a second time. The Encumbered Estates Court was instituted to cure a great evil, arising from property having got into the Court of Chancery. The great complaint was, that the Court had power by its receiver to lease land, and therefore persons were interested in keeping the property unsold; and the Incumbered Estates Court was instituted for the purpose of facilitating the sale of property so circumstanced. In conclusion, he begged to move, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day six months,"
MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORDsaid,
1238
he had consented to have his name placed at the back of the Bill, because he was very anxious to see an attempt made at some practical measure which would relieve the wretchedness of the population of Ireland. He did not say that all the details of the Bill could be adopted, but he cordially agreed in its principle. He considered that, under existing circumstances, the occupying tenant had no motive whatever for improving the land. The improvement should be made by either the occupying tenant or the landlord. The landlord, even if he had the inclination, had not the means of expending capital in improvements. Therefore some system should be adopted, such as compensating the occupying tenant for any capital expended by him in improvements, to remedy the present defective state of landholding. What was the cause of the low rate of purchase obtained for property under the Incumbered Estates Commission? Simply because the purchases were valued at a nominal income. In the last Session of Parliament, the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government pledged himself to bring in a Bill this Session to remedy the present state of things; but it had not appeared. He (Mr. S. Crawford) could assure the House it was not by famine alone that the country was becoming depopulated; extermination prevailed as well under the operation of the poor-law, which had the effect of driving the people off the soil. The people—the very bone and sinew of the land—were leaving the country by thousands; and by and by they would be constituted a nation of paupers, for this reason, that there was not encouragement given for the investment of capital. A law regulating the relations of landlord and tenant was the only means of affording that encouragement and security to the tenant. He therefore hoped the right hon. Secretary for Ireland would bear in mind that the people of Ireland had suffered great disappointment by the neglect of the Government in carrying a Landlord and Tenant Bill. It was now sixteen years since the question of a change in the law in that respect had been brought before that House; and though the Government had done nothing itself to amend the law, every proposition which had been brought forward by others had been resisted by them. He considered that the Bill would effect some improvement; and, in the absence of any proposition on the part of the Government, he

1239
should give his vote for the second reading.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 94: Majority 79.

List of the AYES.

Butler, P. S.

O'Flaherty, A.

Corbally M. E.

Perfect, R.

Crawford, W. S.

Reynolds, J.

Grace, O. D. J.

Scully, F.

Grattan, H.

Somers, J. P.

Higgins, G. G. O.

Williams, W.

Keogh, W.

TELLERS.

O'Brien, Sir T.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

O'Connor, F.

Roche, E. B.

List of the NOES.

Anderson, A.

Hindley, C.

Arkwright, G.

Hotham, Lord

Armstrong, Sir A.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bailey, J.

Jones, Capt.

Barrington, Visct.

Kershaw, J.

Bernard, Visct.

Lacy, H. C.

Blair, S.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Bowles, Adm.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Brotherton, J.

M'Gregor, J.

Brown, W.

Matheson, Col.

Bunbury, W. M.

Milner, W. M. E.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Moody, C. A.

Campbell, Sir A. I.

Morris, D.

Carter, J. B.

Mullings, J. R.

Chatterton, Col.

Nass, Lord

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Napier, J.

Clay, J.

Newdegate, C.N.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Codrington, Sir W.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Conolly, T.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

Packe, C.W.

Cowan, C.

Palmer, R.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Pigott, F.

Davies, D. A. S.

Pilkington, J.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Portal, M.

Duff, G. S.

Powlett, Lord W.

Duncan, G.

Prime, R.

Duncuft, J.

Rawdon, Col.

Dunne, Col.

Renton, J. C.

Edwards, H.

Rice, E. R.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Evans, W.

Sandars, G.

Fergus, J.

Scholefield, W.

Ferguson, Col.

Somerset, Capt.

FitzPatrick, rt. hon. J.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Forster, M.

Spearman, H. J.

Freestun, Col.

Spooner, R.

French, F.

Stanley, hon. E. H.

Goold, W.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Grogan, E.

Thompson, Col.

Hallewell, E. G.

Tyler, Sir G.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Vesey, hon. T.

Hamilton, G. A.

Vivian, J. H.

Harris, R.

Watkins, Col. L.

Hastie, A.

Wawn, J. T.

Hastie, A.

Heneage, E.

TELLERS.

Herbert, H. A.

Hatchell, J.

Heyworth, L.

Bouverie, P.

Worns added. Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to:—Second Reading put off for three months.

MEDICAL CHARITIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.
Clause 1.
LORD NAASsaid, he wished to say a few words on the principle involved in this Bill, which appeared to him to be entirely novel. It was the first time, he believed, that any proposition had been brought forward for levying, through the medium of the poor-law machinery, taxes for other purposes than those of the relief of the poor. He did not mean to say that this objection pervaded the whole of the Bill, but it went through a great part of it. If this principle were established, the people of Ireland might afterwards be called upon to allow the machinery of the poor-law to be used for lunatic asylums, gaols, and other purposes, which were now supported by different means. He thought the mode of levying taxation as carried into operation under the poor-law sufficiently objectionable as it was, and only excusable under the circumstances in which the country was placed. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would consider the matter well before they took a step of this kind. With regard to the details of the measure, he thought that the House was entitled to expect from his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland a statement respecting the practical effect which he anticipated from the operation of this Bill. He admitted that the present mode of administering medical relief was not what it ought to be; but still admission did not involve a necessary acquiescence in the propriety of the change proposed. He should like to hear from his right hon. Friend an estimate of the number of dispensaries, hospitals, and medical officers which would be required if the measure became law. He should like also to know, though he did not expect an exact account, what amount of additional taxation would be wanted to be raised to carry out the measure.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, that considering this Bill had passed through the House in the last Session of Parliament, and had been read a second time in the course of the present, he was rather surprised to find his noble Friend asking for explanations with respect to the change of system in collecting funds for medical relief—a question on which he thought the House had been entirely agreed. His reason for proposing the

1241
change was, that nothing could he more unsatisfactory than the present system of levying rates for medical charities in Ireland, and there was no way of rectifying the evils which had arisen without having recourse to the poor-law system of rating. Had he been aware that this question would have been raised, he could have shown numerous instances in which, with a wealthy neighbourhood, there was a plethora of dispensaries, while in poorer districts, where they were much more needed, there was a plentiful lack of them. It was absolutely necessary, therefore, that the mode of raising funds for the administration of medical relief should be changed, and he did not think that any more equitable plan could be adopted than a system in accordance with the poor-law system of rating. The alteration which he proposed to make was not altogether new, as, with regard to fever hospitals and dispensaries, in order to justify grand juries to apportion a particular amount of rate for their support, it was necessary that an equivalent sum should be made up by private or public subscription. The portion of rate intended now to be taken from the landed proprietor was heretofore represented by the subscription which he paid. The returns of subscriptions and amounts of taxation voted for the support of these establishments, showed that in 1845 they came to 170,000; in 1846, 121,000 l.; in 1847, 122,000 l.; and in 1848, 113,000 l. In the year 1845, the number of dispensaries was 754; in 1846, 670; in 1847, 670; in 1848, 655. His opinion was, that if these dispensaries were properly distributed over the country, that a lesser number would be amply sufficient. He believed 465 well-distributed and well-managed dispensaries would be sufficient for the wants of the population. Taking, then, an average of 95 l. for each dispensary, that would give 44,175 l. as the amount which would be probably required for the support of the dispensaries of Ireland, thus effecting a considerable saving, as the present expense amounted to between 60,000 l. and 70,000 l. Now, as regarded the infirmaries and fever hospitals, their number was considerable. In 1845, they amounted to 108; in 1846, to 137; in 1847, to 130; in 1848, to 107; and he believed that, by adopting the system of district hospitals, a very large number of them would be done away with. From the calculations he had made he believed that, if the districts were properly marked out
1242
and defined, seventy-four district general hospitals, each with sixty-eight beds, would be sufficient for the treatment of all diseases. If he remembered right, the average number of beds now was fifty; and although under the plan which he proposed, the number of hospitals would be considerably smaller than at present, for they now exceeded a hundred in number, there would be altogether a larger number of beds. The increase would be 1,013 beds, which would be supported at the public expense. The expense of the hospitals and infirmaries was calculated at 53,655 l., so that the total expenditure under this measure would be about 97,830 l. Another point to be considered was, the enormous expense of the temporary fever hospitals in the different counties in Ireland, in consequence of the very defective state of the law when any sudden calamity occurred. He found from a return that the cost of supporting these temporary establishments under the Fever Act, was, in the year 1848, no less than 81,448 l. A considerable saving also, he thought, might be effected in the present item for vaccination. He had now endeavoured, as far as he could, to comply with the request of the noble Lord (Lord Naas). The calculations he had given were made from data which perhaps could not be strictly relied on; but it was the best data that he could select, and at all events it was sufficiently accurate to dispel any notion that the plan proposed by this Bill would be more expensive than the old system. He believed the plan would be infinitely fairer to the ratepayers, and far more beneficial to the poor in Ireland, to whom the relief was administered.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONconsidered the statement of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland was very satisfactory. Remembering how landed property in Ireland was already burdened, he thought the Committee had a right to know what the views of the Government were. If a rate not exceeding twopence farthing or twopence halfpenny in the pound would suffice for all the purposes of this Bill, he thought the measure would be very advantageous to that country. He had an Amendment to move in the first clause, to substitute the word "or" for the word "and." His object was to give the power of selecting "a physician or surgeon," instead of "a physician and surgeon" for these charities.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid,

1243
he would not object to that alteration.
MR. GRATTANsaid, that much of the sickness in Ireland had been caused by the neglect of their duties to the poor on the part of the absentee gentry; and he objected to this Bill because it would reduce the present amount of medical relief from 118,000 l. to 97,830 l.; which latter sum would be further encroached upon in order to pay the salaries and other expenses of the proposed new machinery. He considered that to be the worst of all economy which sought to effect a saving by cutting down the amount of relief and medicine given to the poor when suffering from sickness. The Government had already exposed themselves to some obloquy by reducing the grants to the hospitals and other charitable establishments in Dublin, and he recommended the Irish landlords to reflect before they permitted their property to be taxed by an irresponsible body of men.
MR. O'FLAHERTYsupported the measure, and thought the arguments of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Grattan), respecting the negligence of the gentry and otherwise, only proved the necessity for this Bill. He was not quite disposed to consent to the Amendment proposed, as he thought that plenty of men possessing the double qualification of physicians and surgeons might be found, and it was most desirable that gentlemen of the highest qualifications should be obtained for these appointments.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, if this Bill was adopted, the sum of 23,646 l., the total amount of donations made by the Governors of Irish hospitals, would all be lost, as well as 26,000 l. derived from other subscriptions. The result would be that the burden would be taken from the richer classes, and placed on the shoulders of the poorer. The subscriptions to infirmaries alone amounted to 117,618 l.; those to the dispensaries were 74,000 l.; and the fever hospitals, under the poor-law, cost for the temporary hospitals about 50,000 l., and for the permanent ones 31,724 l. He was convinced that there could not be less expended on medical charities in Ireland than 180,000 l. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland said the proposed plan would only cost about half that sum; but he was satisfied that it would require a rate of between 3d. and 4d. in the pound, which was infinitely higher than the calculations of the right
1244
hon. Gentleman. This Bill proposed a system of centralisation in which he could have no confidence, after past experience of the management of the fever hospitals under the poor-law. Local administration was the only effective check upon mismanagement; and he should, therefore, support all the Amendments to be pre-posed going in that direction. He thought the counties ought to have the power of exempting some of the infirmaries from the operation of this Bill, if they desired it.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2.
SIR ROBERT FERGUSONmoved an Amendment to omit the words which confer on the Commissioners any power over hospitals, except that of inspection. His object was to restrict the operation of the Bill to dispensaries. He did not deny that the present hospital accommodation in Ireland was inadequate and defective; but he believed that the Committee was not at present in a condition to legislate on this branch of the question.
Amendment proposed, p. 2, line 28, to leave out the words "or Hospital District or Districts."
MR. REYNOLDSwarned the Committee against the adoption of this Amendment, and hoped that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland would not consent to it, as hospitals and infirmaries ought, equally with dispensaries, to be placed under the inspection and supervision of the medical board. He thought great sacrifice of human life had arisen from the mismanagement of the hospitals, whether connected with the workhouse or otherwise; and there ought to be some protection given by the Bill to the sick poor against the cupidity of the local governing; bodies in certain districts. Economy of human life wont before economy of money; and he was glad to find that principle recognised by this Bill.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEopposed the Amendment on the ground that the infirmaries and hospitals required supervision as much as the dispensaries. He felt bound to controvert the assertion that the burden under this Bill would fall heaviest upon the poorer classes. With regard to the infirmaries in particular, there could be no great loss from the sacrifice of subscriptions, because the total amount of the subscriptions to the dispensaries in Ireland in 1849 was only 1,300 l.; the amount raised by the grand jury as-

1245
sessments for the dispensaries being 26,000 l., all of which sum was exclusively levied from the occupying classes. Therefore the richer classes would not be relieved of their burden, at the expense of the poorer ratepayers, through the operation of this Bill. Again, the county infirmaries at present were so situated that, beyond a certain radius, they were utterly useless.
Question put, "That those words stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: — Ayes 85; Noes 24: Majority 61.
House resumed.
Committee report progress.
The House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.