Sitting of 18 June 1878

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) * [201]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation (Downpatrick, &c.) * [210].
Select Committee—Epping Forest * [188], nominated.
Committee—Roads and Bridges (Scotland) [4]—R.P.
Considered as amended—Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) * [207].
Third Reading—Inclosure Provisional Order (Orford) * [189]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 3) * [208], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC PETITIONS— THE INDIAN PRESS LAW—POINT OF ORDER.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Mr. Speaker, I have to present a Petition from a public meeting of the inhabitants of Poonah, on the line of railway from Bombay, and from certain members of a religious society there, called the "Reformed Hindoos," on the subject of the recent law relating to the vernacular Press. The Petition contains an elaborate and able argument against that law, and it closes with a prayer, which runs as follows:—
  "Your Memorialists pray that your honourable House, as the only authority to whom Her Majesty's subjects can appeal for redress and protection against the arbitrary acts of the authorities in India, will not only condemn the measure which forms the subject of the present appeal, but will also make the further continuance of the present policy impossible, and ensure the progressive freedom of Her Majesty's Indian subjects by enlarging the representative element in the Legislative Council of India, and by the adoption of such other measures as to your honourable House may seem fit. And your Memorialists will ever pray," &c.
  The House will see, Sir, that in substance this is a real and a regular Petition, concluding with a prayer to the House; but I am desirous to call the attention of the House and your attention to two points in which it is deficient
  1682
  in regularity. In the first place, it is not called a Petition at all, but a Memorial, and in the words I have just read the Petitioners describe themselves as Memorialists. Over and above that, between the Petition and the first signature occur these words—"We beg to remain, honourable Sir, your most humble Memorialists." It is quite evident to me, Sir, that this is a clerical error, because the substance of the Petition, as the House will see from what I have read, is addressed to the House——[The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: How is it headed?] It is headed—"Memorial to the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom in Parliament assembled." I propose, therefore, upon my own responsibility, being quite convinced that these words constitute a clerical error, to strike out the intruded words; and if you, Sir, are of opinion that that proceeding is proper, to present the Petition in the usual manner.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have examined the document in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, and, although termed a Memorial, it is substantially a Petition properly worded, and concluding with a prayer. I apprehend that, under the circumstances, although the document is termed a Memorial, it may be received if the House should think proper.
  Petition brought up; and ordered to lie upon the Table.

QUESTIONS.
  THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. JACOB BRIGHTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is true that Mr. G. H. Clarke, of Ironville, Derbyshire, who was sent to prison on May 20th for refusing to vaccinate his child, has not been allowed to receive a letter from his family; and, if so, whether all prisoners are treated with equal rigour?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that debtors were allowed considerable privileges in regard to the receiving of letters; but that, as far as ordinary prisoners were concerned, no distinction was made between one class and another

    1683
    in their treatment whilst in prison. Of the particular case referred to he knew nothing; but he might say that prisoners were warned before trial that visits and letters would be limited, so that they might arrange their affairs if convicted; and, after their conviction, they had always an opportunity of sending to their friends to complete those arrangements. If the fact in this particular case was as stated in the Question, there must have been some mistake.
    MR. PARNELLasked, Whether prisoners confined for breaches of the Vaccination Laws were compelled to sleep on a plank bedstead like other prisoners?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that no distinction was made between any prisoners confined for nonpayment of fines.

    ARMY—CAVALRY FORCE AT LONG FORD.—QUESTION.
    MR. ERRINGTONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, Whether, if the accommodation at Longford Barracks is found to be insufficient for the head-quarters of a regiment, he will, out of consideration to a town so long an important military station, quarter there at all events more than one troop, or consider the expediency of sending there in addition an infantry detachment?
    COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY,in reply, said, that it was not proposed at present to increase the Cavalry Force at Longford; but, that in course of time, an addition might possibly be made to it.

    THE CURRENCY—SMALL SILVER COINAGE.—QUESTION.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been called to the great inconvenience now arising from the scarcity of small silver coin, especially of shillings and sixpences, and to the undue proportion of two shilling pieces now in circulation; and, whether he will direct inquiry into the subject with a view to a remedy?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, he had heard complaints, and he believed they were not infrequent, as to the supposed dearth of small silver coins, especially sixpences. From inquiries he had made, however, he had ascertained that the
    1684
    dearth, if such there were, did not arise from any failure on the part of the Mint to provide a proper stock of coin. He was informed that at the present moment the stock in the Mint ready for issue was as follows:—Shillings, to the amount of £13,000; sixpences, £19,000; and threepences, £3,000. A much larger amount of shillings and sixpences, he believed, was in stock at the Bank of England, through which all silver coins except three pences were issued to the public, the latter coins being issued by the Mint. The demand for silver coin at the Bank was very small at present owing to the depression of trade, and no difficulty was experienced by the authorities in meeting it. The explanation of the scarcity referred to no doubt was that small coins gave considerable trouble to bankers, and that bankers consequently were apt to give their customers an undue proportion of heavy coins, though they could always obtain any quantities of silver coin they required at the Bank. Perhaps if the hon. and learned Member put a little pressure on his bankers, the inconvenience he complained of would disappear.

  PARLIAMENT—MORNING SITTINGS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought it well to take that opportunity of explaining the intentions of the Government in reference to Morning Sittings. He had referred to the time at which Morning Sittings had begun of late years, and found that last year Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays occurred pretty regularly from the 12th June, and in the year before from the 13th and 23rd June, whilst in the year before that they also began about the same time. Under these circumstances, he thought it not unreasonable that the Government should take Morning Sittings, as a general rule, on Tuesdays and Fridays till the end of the Session. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) had an important Motion down for Friday evening next; but he could promise him a good probability of an Evening Sitting.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, he was quite ready to agree to the arrangement, and, under the circumstances, would not object to the Morning Sitting.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
    ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 4.]
    (The Lord Advocate, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress June 4th.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 24 (Regulations as to meetings and proceedings of trustees, board, and district committees).
    DR. CAMERONproposed to omit the following words, after the word "meeting," in the 7th sub-section:—
    "But this provision shall not prevent a person whose name is entered on the list of commissioners of supply as factor for more than one proprietor from voting on behalf of each such proprietor, in his absence, at a meeting of the trustees."
    The hon. Member said, the rule was that no trustee had a second vote, with the exception of the chairman, who had a casting vote when the votes were equal. But this clause made an important exception, by allowing factors to have as many votes as might be given by the proprietors whom they represented if those proprietors happened to be present. He thought this was a very objectionable arrangement. The commissioners of supply were proprietors, or factors who represented proprietors, having a rental of more than £800 a-year; but a proprietor who possessed property worth £4,000 a-year had—not five votes—but a single vote. He therefore thought it was evident that the commissioners of supply, and the trustees constituted out of them, voted as commissioners of supply, and not in respect of any property qualification except that which was absolutely necessary for a commissioner of supply. He could not see why a factor who represented five proprietors having a rental of £800 a-year each should be entitled to five votes, whereas a proprietor whose aggregate rental was £4,000 a-year was entitled to only one vote. He did not think it was desirable to perpetuate under this Bill a system of proxy-voting, which had been done away with in all representative assemblies.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that at a recent meeting of the Commissioners of Supply in Kincardine, it had been stated by one of the ablest advocates of Edinburgh—the Sheriff of the counties of Kincardine, Aberdeen, and Banff—that it was not within the competence of a factor, however many proprietors he might represent, to give more than one vote, and he wished to ask the Lord Advocate if this were not the law on the subject? He could not see any reason why there should be a different law under this Bill from what was the case in regard to other county assemblies. If the Lord Advocate would tell them what was the law, they would be able to understand why this new requirement was proposed for Scotland.
    SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, he could not say what the law might be; but he could assure the hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken (Sir George Balfour), that the practice was quite the contrary of what he had stated to be the law. It was the common practice for a factor to give two or three votes, according to the number of proprietors whom he represented. There was often a difficulty of getting a quorum at meetings of commissioners of supply; and therefore he thought it was very desirable to keep up voting by commission.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he was perfectly aware that bad habits were practised at certain meetings in Scotland; but he would appeal to the Lord Advocate to state what the law of Scotland really was on this subject. He felt perfectly sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not agree with the hon. Baronet in his interpretation of the law.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was not competent to tell the hon. and gallant Member what the general practice was in county meetings in Scotland, as such practice had not come under his personal observation, and he had not sought for information on the subject. But he could unhesitatingly say, with respect to the Act which established the qualification of commissioners, that it was his opinion and belief that, according to law, a factor, although representing several proprietors whose rental was above the value of £800 a-year, was entitled to only one vote. The Statute simply declared

    1687
    that such factor should have the qualification of a commissioner; and a commissioner who might have half-a-dozen qualifications in the same county was only entitled to act as one commissioner.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsupported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). It was well known that the multiplication of votes in Scotland, by placing several mandates in the hands of one person, was an undoubted grievance. It was especially so in the case of parochial boards. With regard to what the Lord Advocate had just said, he could confirm the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman from the experience of his own county, where one person, if he was a commissioner in his own right, or as representing others, was entitled to only one vote. If cumulative voting were permitted, one man might control the whole of a meeting. Six individuals at a meeting really represented a diversified opinion; whereas one person holding six mandates could only represent one opinion.
    MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he had never heard of anything unfair being done under the system of plural voting. It frequently happened that a proprietor had property in more than two parishes, and it was a great consideration to proprietors to be able to delegate their powers to factors who were well acquainted with the land, and were experienced in the details of county management. Again, factors very often represented proprietors at important meetings, when those proprietors were not able to be present themselves. This would be the case with Scottish Members of Parliament, who could not always attend the meetings of the commissioners of supply, but who took a deep interest in the questions which were brought before the meetings. He thought it would be extremely hard on proprietors that they should be left out altogether because they could not attend the meetings; but they would be shut out if what was taken to be law by the hon. and gallant Member (Sir George Balfour) were to be acted on. It would, in his opinion, be unfair to many proprietors to adopt the Amendment, as they placed their power of voting in the hands of the best persons they could find to represent them; and no reason had been given by the Government for departing from the present
    1688
    practice. He therefore hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the point was, whether there was any reason for departing from the present law as to voting? Whatever the practice in Scotland was, they had been told by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that the law was opposed to that which the Bill itself now suggested. If there was any special reason for the alteration proposed in the Bill he should be perfectly ready to listen to it; but he had not at present heard from the Lord Advocate why the alteration was made, and they were therefore discussing the question in the absence of that information. He thought the Government would do well not to insist on the acceptance of the clause as it stood. The hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Mark Stewart) had said that the Amendment would be very hard on absentee proprietors, who could not, if it were agreed to, be represented. But he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) supposed that factors who represented proprietors could express the opinions of those proprietors, and could defend their interests by words as much as they liked, although they might not be allowed to vote for as many masters as they served.
    MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, he hoped that the Lord Advocate would agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow. If a proprietor were present at a meeting, it was very possible that he might change his opinion in the course of discussion, and give a different vote from that which his factor would have given for him. It was very annoying to proprietors who were present to find themselves outvoted by one man having several votes.
    MR. M'LAGANsaid, he supported the Amendment, both in the interest of the public and in the interest of proprietors themselves. He thought that the more proprietors were called upon to look after their different districts, and the more they took an interest in their respective estates, the better it would be both for themselves and for others; but if they committed their affairs to the keeping of other men, and were never to be consulted as to the business to be brought forward at the county meetings, they would become mere cyphers in the hands of factors and agents. He also, as he had indicated, supported the

    1689
    Amendment very much in the interests of proprietors themselves. A factor might represent not one proprietor, but several proprietors; and if a discussion took place at a meeting with regard to a particular road, an agent might vote in favour of the road being made or repaired, when this might be contrary to the interests of all but one of the proprietors whom he represented. An agent would thus be called upon to use the votes of absent proprietors in favour of a scheme which was prejudicial to their own interests.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could see the difficulty which had been pointed out, and he had no objection, so far as he and the Government were concerned, to effect being given to the Amendment, on the understanding that this part of the Bill should be brought into harmony with what was the existing law.
    Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
    COLONEL ALEXANDER COLONEL ALEXANDER moved, as an Amendment, in page 15, to add at the end of the clause the following subsection:—
    "(8.) The board or any district committee may appoint a committee or committees of their own number for the better execution of the powers hereby granted to them, and such committee shall report their proceedings to the board or district committee appointing them, and every act, order, or thing which shall be done, ordered, or performed by such committees, on being approved of by the board or district committee, shall be equally valid and sufficient as if ordered, done, or performed by the board or district committee."
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he believed the committees would have under the Bill the powers which the proposed sub-section would give them; but he had no objection to those powers being expressed.
    Amendment agreed to; sub-section added.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 25 (Chairman to be elected, in absence of ordinary chairman); Clause 26 (District committees and board to make reports); and Clause 27 (Appeal from decision of district committee), severally agreed to.
    Appointment of Officers.
    Clause 28 (Appointment of county officers), agreed to.
    Clause 29 (Appointment of district officers.)
    MR. MARK STEWARTproposed, as an Amendment, in page 16, line 19, to leave out the word "may," and to insert the word "shall." He said that it often happened that when things were going smoothly the committees actually forgot to call meetings, and did not make these appointments. It would be more convenient for the district committees to make all the appointments, subject, no doubt, to the consent of the board, instead of only some of them.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he must oppose the Amendment. The district committees must necessarily have a clerk and a treasurer, because they held meetings, and conducted their own administration; but, on the other hand, he thought it was a proper question for the general body of trustees to determine whether each district should be burdened with the expense of a separate surveyor and a separate collector. It might, in some cases, be convenient, and a great saving, to have one general collector for the various districts of a county; and there should, therefore, only be power to nominate the officers in each district when it was judged right by the general body of trustees. For that reason he thought the word "may" must stand.
    MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he proposed afterwards to insert the words "with the consent of the board," to meet the point.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, he hoped the Lord Advocate did not infer that the word "may" in the clause meant "shall."
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he did not infer that. If the word "shall" were used, it would make it the duty of the board to give their consent to the appointment of fit persons, and would make imperative the appointment of all the officers in each district.
    Amendment negatived.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he hoped the principle laid down by the Lord Advocate, of diminishing the number of officers employed in con-

    1691
    nection with the roads would be fully carried out. The greatest precaution should be taken to prevent the multiplication of offices. The direction in which economy was practicable under the abolished trusts was in placing large areas of roads under one officer, with subordinates for the executive duties.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that while agreeing with everything which the Lord Advocate had said as to the powers to be possessed by the district committees of appointing officers, he thought such appointments should be made with the consent of the general body of trustees. These were very important questions, and he considered that the general body of trustees should decide them. He would, therefore, move that before the word "board," in page 16, line 21, the words "trustees or" be inserted.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he thought it was settled that the business to be transacted in a district, and requiring a clerk for its performance, was to be performed wholly by the district committee, and if they would turn to Section 26 they would see that this was so. He thought that any body of gentlemen selected as the committee of the district, and intrusted with the management of the district under this measure, would surely be fit to be intrusted with the selection of their clerk and treasurer, to write the minutes and keep their money. He should be happy to leave the other appointments to the district committees, if it were not for the consideration that it might be against the pecuniary interest of the county that they should make such appointments.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he thought the Lord Advocate had misapprehended the effect of what he proposed. The question was not whether the board should have the power to appoint its own officers, but whether the district committees should have the power of not only appointing clerks but surveyors. The Bill, as it stood, gave the board power to say whether the district committees should have a clerk and a surveyor; but he proposed that that power should be in the hands of the trustees, and not in the hands of the board. He also thought it would be more courteous to the district committees themselves, if the general body
    1692
    of the trustees settled this matter instead of the board.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, it seemed to him that the clause was of more importance than the Lord Advocate considered it to be. He remembered—and he had refreshed his memory by looking up their proceedings—that the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the state of the roads in Scotland found that there was a disposition to appoint a great number of clerks of separate trusts, and of separate divisions of trusts; and he thought he could point out where there were 81 offices in one county of clerks and surveyors. It was stated by one of the witnesses respecting Lanarkshire, for example, that those parties got £2,000 a-year among them. Independently altogether of the expense of maintaining the roads, the number of tolls and also of sub-tolls came to such a large proportion, that the different witnesses—among the rest Lord Belhaven, convener of the county of Lanark—gave it as their deliberate opinion, that under the system advocated by the promoters of this Bill, a saving of 25 or 30 per cent, as compared with the other system, would be effected. For these reasons, it was obvious that the Government could have no possible interest in the matter except to promote economy; and he thought that they should do all they could to place an embargo on the multiplication of little offices. In his opinion, the Government ought to accept the Amendment, as being calculated to effect that object.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. M'Laren) had anticipated him in the remarks which he had made. An examination of the printed statements of outlay on the roads of Scotland would show a very large portion of the charges caused by salaries to officers of various descriptions. Assuming the roads of all kinds in Scotland to be between 22,000 and 24,000 miles in length, and the expenditure at £250,000, then the saving in salaries alone ought to be nearly £50,000. Consolidation would not only allow of saving in salaries, but in the details of work.
    MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, he considered the Amendment was a ridiculous one. It would take away the responsibility from the board; and the fears of

    1693
    the hon. Member for Edinburgh. (Mr. M'Laren) were much more likely to be realized with a large body of trustees than with a small body; for he (Mr. Orr-Ewing) had always found that a large body was more inclined to appoint a great number of officers than a small one.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was disposed, not to follow his hon. Friend (Mr. Orr-Ewing), but to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay); and the more so, as he found that under Section 28 the trustees were intrusted with the appointment of the general surveyor of the county, and therefore the matter in question would rightly fall under Clause 29.
    Amendment (Mr. J. W. Barclay) agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. J. W. BARCLAY, the words "trustees or" were inserted in page 16, line 24, before the word "board."
    MR. MARK STEWARTproposed, as an Amendment, the insertion, after the word "officer," in page 16, line 28, the words "with the consent of the board." He objected to the exclusive power being in the hands of the district committee in the appointment of officers. It was well known that there was considerable jealousy evinced in the exercise of such power, and that not unfrequently party spirit ran high, much feeling was shown, both political and religious; therefore, in his opinion, no appointments should be made without the consent of the board.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEfeared he could not accept the Amendment proposed, for the reason stated. The appointment of some of the officers lay with the district committee; and, as regarded the others, it was for the trustees to determine whether such appointments should be made. He thought, under the circumstances, it would be a very unfortunate thing to take away from them a power of that kind. They were the proper persons to judge of the requirements of the case.
    MR. RAMSAYthought the hon. Gentleman who had proposed the Amendment (Mr. Mark Stewart) had not rightly considered the position in which he would be placed if he were a member
    1694
    of a district committee, or had to act for that committee in the capacity of their chairman. He thought the Amendment should not be adopted.
    Amendment negatived.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEproposed a consequential Amendment in page 16, line 31, to leave out the word "board," and insert "trustees." As the clause stood, with reference to the appointment of officers, the boards were to give leave, subject to certain conditions. The trustees were also to give that leave, and therefore the clause, as it stood, was ambiguous.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwanted to know if the trustees would have the power to appoint the officers for life? That would be a dangerous power to give them, inasmuch as influences might be brought to bear upon any one case. They might have district clerks, or officers of that kind, appointed for life, or for so long a term of years that, practically, they could not dismiss them, although they might not act in accord with the wishes of the Board.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that the best answer he could give was to refer the hon. Gentleman to the words of the clause—"and every such officer shall be subject to removal at any time."
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Yes, if the right of removal were not modified by special written agreement. Was it competent for the trustees to make an agreement for an appointment for life?
    THE LORD ADVOCATEthought not. The clause referred to the condition of the appointment, and set forth all that was necessary.
    MR. RAMSAYasked, if it would not be better to leave out the words—"Unless the power of removal be modified?" It was possible for the power to be abused, and he would suggest the omission of those words.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 30 (Salaries of county road officials. Allocation of general expenditure).
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYproposed an Amendment, giving the trustees the power of fixing salaries in accordance with the words adopted in the last clause. He proposed to leave out in

    1695
    page 16, line 37, the words "subject to the approval of."
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could not consent to the Amendment proposed. The board was a body that was constantly available, and the salary might require adjustment, from time to time, whenever a new officer was appointed.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsuggested that such a revision should take place year by year as would bring the whole of the officers' salaries and duties under the control, and, if necessary, the revision, of the Board.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked, if the trustees had power over the board in fixing the salaries of the officers?
    THE LORD ADVOCATEreplied, that it was subject to their approval.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 31 (Former officers to continue till removed), agreed to.
    General Management in Counties and Burghs.
    Clause 32 (Consolidation of trusts).
    On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment was made:—In page 17, line 38, the word "hereinafter" was struck out, and "hereinbefore" substituted.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY MR. J. W. BARCLAY moved, as an Amendment, in page 18, line 5, after "expressed," to insert the words "and allocation hereinafter provided." As the clause stood, it seemed to him it might place in one county the debts of a turnpike which really belonged to an adjacent county.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEasked the hon. Gentleman to delay his Amendment until he had time to look into it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 33 (Abolition of tolls, statute labour, causeway mail, &c.).
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that he had to move an Amendment which was rendered necessary by the alteration of the date in Section 6. In page 18, line 14, he proposed, after "Scotland," to insert—
    1696
    "Where such commencement shall happen before the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, and otherwise from and after the first day of June one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three."
    MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, that as the Amendment he had on the Paper depended upon the clause as it would be amended, he ought not perhaps to move it.
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
    On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments were made:—In page 18, line 23, after "exactions," insert "except as hereinafter provided;" and in the same page, line 24, after "Act," insert—
    "Provided always, That all the provisions of 'The Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845,' with respect to turnpike roads shall continue applicable to all highways which are turnpike roads at the passing of this Act."
    SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHERproposed, as an Amendment, in line 26, to leave out the words "not less than five years." It was only imposing causeway toll in another form; and he was at a loss to see why, if causeway or other tolls were abolished in the rural districts, they should be kept up in the boroughs.
    MR. MARK STEWARTcould not support the Amendment.
    MR. RAMSAYthought the words proposed to be left out had been inserted in consequence of the proposals made by a deputation who had waited upon the Government. An arrangement was made with certain boroughs that the dues should continue for five years.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that the terms of the clause were arranged with reference to the date when the Bill was to come into operation. He would explain that the dues in question were levied in respect of passage through the boroughs, and that not merely for the passage, but for the general purposes of the community. And the reason for continuing them a certain time was this—that whilst the boroughs consented to their general abolition they were exceedingly desirous to continue these exactions for a few years, to enable them to accumulate a fund with the view of providing for their general purposes. It would be only reasonable to allow the burghs a period of years for that purpose.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that the matter had been the subject of a great deal of consideration and arrangement. In the case of one of the burghs which he represented, he might point out that the total income from this source was £1,450—a very considerable sum—and it had nothing to do with the maintenance of roads. Out of that sum the burgh had to pay ministers' stipends and other matters of that kind; and no part of it was specially connected with the repair of the roads. At the same time, his constituents fully acknowledged that when the system of tolls was abolished, all other similar forms of exaction must go as well; but, as the Lord Advocate had said, it was only fair that a certain time should be allowed for the burghs to prepare for the additional expenditure that would be involved in consequence of the loss of revenue that would have to be sustained; and, therefore, he hoped that the proposition of the hon. Baronet (Sir Windham Anstruther) would not be accepted.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLfelt inclined to support the Amendment. A great deal might be said against causeway-mail. It was a kind of ancient transit duty levied on the community, similar to that levied by the robber chief in olden times. It seemed to him that the general public ought not to be called upon to pay such exactions for a long term of years to come. Even when the proceeds were applied to payment of ministers' stipends, they ought to be put an end to as soon as possible.
    MR. YEAMANobjected to the omission of the words from the clause. He understood that the words had been inserted in the clause by arrangement, after the deputation from the burghs of Scotland had seen the Lord Advocate on the subject. Many of those burghs depended upon revenue of that class of mail, and to cut off those exactions without previous notice would be unjust, and might be the means of causing great dissatisfaction in many of the burghs of Scotland.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEproposed, as an Amendment, in page 18, line 26, to leave out the word "five," and insert "four."
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, that the word mail in Scotland was equivalent in its meaning to rent. Causeway-mail was "rent" in other words. He objected to the Amendment proposed.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, there was no definite arrangement made as to the time. The arrangement come to had reference to the length of time that should elapse before the Act came into operation. He had already intimated that this mail—he would not call it black-mail—must come to an early termination. In the first Amendment he had placed on the Paper on this subject, he had substituted "three" in the place of "five," in deference to the opinion of one or two of the burgh Members.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, that the deputation from the burghs left under the impression that "five" would be the minimum number of years during which the causeway-mail was to be continued.
    Amendment agreed, to; word substituted accordingly.
    On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made:—In page 18, line 28, to leave out all the words after the word "situated," down to the words "eighty-three," in line 30, inclusive.
    On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following proviso was added at the end of the clause:—
    "Not with standing that the other provisions of this Act shall not be in force in any county (including the burgh wholly or partly situated there in), all causeway-mail with in such burghs shall be abolished from and after the fifteenth day of May one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four."
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwould like the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to explain why the tolls should be continued in this way, more than five years from this time.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYwished to know the precise meaning of the clause. As he understood it, whether the other tolls were abolished or not, the causeway-mail must come to an end in 1884.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEexplained, that in the case of certain burghs four years were given from the adoption of the Act, when causeway-mail would cease in all of them; and that it was

    1699
    proposed to extend the same rule to burghs within counties remaining under their Local Acts.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYdid not in that case quite see the occasion for the Amendment.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the hon. Member would understand that the first part of Clause 33 dealt with counties and burghs in counties where the provisions of this Act had either been adopted or might become compulsory in 1883; but there were other counties where the provisions of this Act might never come to apply—counties having Acts in which tolls were not abolished—and the object of the proviso was to abolish tolls in those counties four years after the date at which, in other counties, this measure became compulsory.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 34 (Application of tolls and statute labour money at present leviable).
    THE LORD ADVOCATE THE LORD ADVOCATE moved, as an Amendment, in line 35, after "May," to insert "or first day of June." He might explain that this Amendment was consequent upon the time of the adoption of the Act.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 35 (Trustees to purchase pontages, &c.)
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, that the clause gave power to trustees to settle what compensation should be paid to a person or corporation in respect of his or their patrimonial interest in pontages. He had to move that the word "patrimonial," in page 19, line 6, should be struck out, and "pecuniary" inserted. His reason for asking that this change should be made was that in reading the clause over, he did not well understand how the word "patrimonial" could apply to the case of a corporation.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he really could not assent to the Amendment. The word "patrimonial" had the same meaning in the case of a corporation as in the case of an individual, and it had a very distinct and well-known meaning. The word "pecuniary" would include everything. It
    1700
    would include the very causeway-mail abolished under the previous section. The distinction was quite an appreciable one. It was the difference between, for instance, a grant to levy a toll upon a public road or bridge, the property of the public originally, and erected with public funds, and the case of a private bridge. The right of levying tolls for the use of a private ferry given to corporations was a patrimonial interest, and the other was not.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYapprehended that, under the clause as it stood, the owner or owners of the bridge would be entitled to compensation in respect of the pontages without the cost of maintenance of the bridge being taken into consideration. He begged, therefore, to move, as an Amendment, at page 19, in line 12, after "debts," to insert "but in valuing such pontages the cost of maintaining the bridge must be deducted there from."
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that there could not be much doubt upon that point. Their patrimonial interest was the net sum which they derived from the bridge year by year. He should have no objection whatever to insert words to carry out the object of the hon. Member; but he did not think the words at present proposed were very happy in expression.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 36 (Roads formerly turnpike not wholly situated in one county or burgh).
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper, in page 20, line 9, to leave out from and including sub-section (d) to end of clause, the following words of sub-section 1:—
    "Where this Act shall have been adopted, or shall be in force in one or more of the counties or burghs in which such road is situated …. (e), the portion of such road within such county or any burgh there in shall be vested in, and managed and maintained by, the trustees, board, and district committees of the county, or the local authority of the burgh, as the case may be, in which such portion is situated."
    He had also put down a clause in substitution for the part struck out, which involved a very complicated question, not only between counties which had

    1701
    adopted the Act, but between counties which had adopted the Act and those which had not. He did not think the clause, as it stood in the Bill, would be workable; and he was not quite sure that the clause which he had put upon the Paper in substitution for it would meet all the circumstances of the case. What, therefore, he would suggest to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was, that he should postpone this clause, and consider whether another might not be framed which would more fully meet the case. If the Lord Advocate was not willing to take that course, he (Mr. Barclay) was quite prepared to discuss the points which arose upon the clause.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he did not propose to postpone the clause; but he had no objection to postpone the consideration of the Amendments and have them fairly considered, if that would meet the view of the hon. Member.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYremarked that if they were to understand that the clause was to pass now, he should like to indicate one or two points in which the clause was objectionable.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out, that if the hon. Member did not propose to move the Amendment which stood in his name, he would not be in Order in discussing the clause generally until the other Amendments standing on the Paper had been disposed of.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he did not desire to move his Amendment if he were to understand that the clause was to be postponed; but if they were to be asked to pass it as a whole, he should like to do so.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was very unusual to postpone a clause until a new clause was arrived at; and, therefore, he hoped the discussion might take place, either at a future stage, or on some clause to be brought up afterwards, and then, if necessary, this clause might be altered.
    DR. CAMERONwished to point out that if the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) insisted upon the postponement of the clause, it would prevent other points which hon. Members had to raise in connection with it from being now disposed of. Moreover, he (Dr. Cameron) had no doubt that by deferring to the wish of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, an agreement might be arrived at which would obviate the
    1702
    necessity for any further discussion. If, however, any points remained upon which an agreement could not be arrived at, they might be settled upon the Report.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the hon. Member would adopt that course.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he should defer to the opinion of the Committee, and not move his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he had to move an Amendment in sub-section (d) of the clause of very considerable practical importance. It was proposed, under that sub-section, to deal with bridges which happened to be partly in one burgh or county and partly in another, in precisely the same manner as if they were roads—that was to say, that, failing agreement as to cost of maintenance, the Debt Commissioners
    "Shall proceed forth with to ascertain and determine the proportions in which, according to equity, and taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, the expense of maintaining the same ought to be, and shall be, allocated, and be a charge against such trustees and such local authority or authorities respectively, and the decision of such Debt Commissioners shall be final."
    These words were to be found in Clause 64, and they were applicable to roads. Now, it seemed to him that the case of a bridge was very different from that of a road. In the case of a road they had to consider how much lay in one district and how much in another; but a bridge was altogether in a different position, each half standing as a natural terminus to the part of the road in the county or burgh on one side of the river and the other. For instance, in the case of Glasgow, there was a bridge connecting it with Hill head, and, under the Bill, an absolute discretion was given to the Commissioner, without any appeal from his decision, to fix the proportions of the cost of maintenance to be paid by Glasgow and Hill head respectively. What he maintained was, that in such a case, the cost of maintenance should be divided equally between Glasgow and Hill head; because, although a very much smaller place than Glasgow, yet Hill head obtained quite as much advantage from the bridge as Glasgow did. Besides, Glasgow had to maintain a great number of other bridges connecting it with other dis-

    1703
    tricts, both burgh and county; and he maintained that there was no necessity for giving this discretion to the Commissioner at all, and that in the case of a bridge the principle should be adopted which had, he believed, been adopted in many Private Acts—in the Aberdeen shire Local Act, for example—of dividing the cost of maintenance equally between the burghs and counties in which the bridge happened to be. He moved, after "charge," to insert "equally."
    SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAMEsaid, it seemed to him that it would be only fair that, in any allocation of the charge between two districts, the circumstances of which differed, some difference ought to be maintained. He thought the arrangement in the sub-section, to leave it in the hands of the Commissioners finally to decide what was the proper course to be pursued between the districts, was a perfectly fair one.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURwould suggest to the Committee that they should allow the whole question to be settled on the Report. There was one bridge connecting the county he represented with Aberdeen shire and another with Forfar; and he should like to have an opportunity of conferring with his constituents, in order to ascertain the bearings of the change which the hon. Member for Glasgow proposed.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he did not believe that the proposed Amendment was at all directed against the interest of any particular locality in Scotland, and it humbly appeared to him to be a very reasonable one. It was quite true that they might have a small area abutting upon a larger one, and a bridge partly in each; but, on the other hand, they must recollect that where they had a large area, whether city or county, there would be a great number of those bridges thrown upon that larger area. They had bridges at various points, and it was quite fair to make each area bear half the expense of those bridges of which half was within its limits. He thought that was reasonable, and he was quite prepared to accede to the Amendment.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEpointed out that there were cases in which the Amendment, if adopted, would inflict a considerable injustice. There was no doubt that the people in the immediate neighbourhood of the bridge
    1704
    connecting Glasgow with Hill head benefited thereby; but if benefit was desired by a much larger number of persons beyond than those living on the banks, and if those who passed over to Hill head were not connected with that burgh, but with the county of Dumbarton, it would be hard on the people of the former place to be called upon to pay the full half of the expense. There were exceptional cases, and it would be better to leave it to the discretion of the Commissioners.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the matter could not be left in the position in which it stood in the clause. Let them take the case of a turnpike road extending one mile on one side of the bridge and 50 miles on the other. The debt upon that road must be allocated more or less in proportion to its length; and if the clause were to stand in its present shape, the expense of maintaining the bridge for all time coming would be apportioned in the same manner as the debt was allocated. Such an arrangement would be manifestly unfair. He therefore thought that, whatever arrangement might be adopted, the present provision made in the clause would not be satisfactory, and could not be allowed to stand. Upon the whole he was inclined to think that the burden of maintaining a bridge should be equally divided between the two parties.
    MR. M'LARENentirely approved of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron); and, after the clear explanation of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate on the subject, he did not see how it could be resisted. Suppose a new bridge was to be built to-morrow, how would they propose that it should be undertaken? Would any reasonable party propose that Hill head should pay £100 towards building it, and Glasgow £3,000? Such a proposal, it seemed to him, would be altogether out of the question, because it was the people outside a great city who wanted to get into it, and it was not the people within it who wanted to get out in that particular direction. For the reasons that had been stated, he thought the Amendment ought to be adopted.
    MR. MARK STEWARTregretted very much the decision to which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had come, and thought that more time

    1705
    should be taken to consider the question, and hoped it would be further considered by the Government on the Report.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLentertained pretty much the same opinion as the hon. Member who had last spoken (Mr. Mark Stewart). He had no doubt that, as an ordinary rule, the simple plan was the right one—namely, that the cost of the bridge should be equally divided between the two parties. But he also felt that there might be very exceptional cases. There might be a case in which a very large and expensive bridge had been built, connecting a great city with a burgh little more than a village, and it was hardly reasonable to expect that that small place should undertake half the great cost of the bridge. What he hoped was, that the Amendment would now be accepted; and that before the Report the matter would be considered, and a new clause brought up, which would provide for such exceptional cases as that he had referred to.
    MR. VANS AGNEWremarked, that he could not agree that the Amendment should be adopted, and that the cost of the maintenance of the bridges under two separate jurisdictions should for all time be equally divided, because the circumstances must vary very much. At the same time, he did not like the clause as it stood. He did not think the expense of maintaining a bridge should necessarily be apportioned in all time coming in the same way as the debt on the turnpike roads leading to it was allocated between the two parties. If the matter were postponed, and fully considered, and a clause brought up on the Report to meet the general views of the Committee, it would be an advantage. He was sorry to say that he did not agree either with the clause or with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron); but he thought a fair arrangement might be arrived at if more time were taken for consideration. He would, therefore, ask the Lord Advocate to postpone the clause.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could not consent to postpone the clause, in which there was an attempt made—he did not say a successful one—to deal with bridges of an exceptional character.
    MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANpointed out that, as a matter of fact,
    1706
    the clause could not be postponed, because an Amendment upon it had already been moved.
    Amendment agreed to.
    DR. CAMERON DR. CAMERON moved, as an Amendment, in page 20, line 15, to leave out after "as" to "respectively," in line 20, inclusive. As the charge was to be an equal one, the words in the clause should be left out which provided that the charge should be allocated as nearly as might be in the same manner as was therein provided in relation to the allocation of road debts between the trustees of a county or counties and the local authorities of a burgh or burghs respectively.
    Amendment agreed to.
    DR. CAMERON DR. CAMERON moved, as an Amendment, that the word "equally" should be inserted in page 20, line 21, after "vested" in the following section—
    "The management of the bridge shall, failing agreement, be vested in the trustees or local authority, as the case may be, upon whom the largest portion of the cost of maintenance is allocated."
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYthought this was hardly a satisfactory arrangement. He would be glad if the Lord Advocate would explain how this Amendment would be practically worked.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was prepared, if the Amendment was postponed, to consider the matter.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that where the cost of the bridges was equally divided between two authorities, as was now agreed, it would be nonsense to say, as the clause stood—"The management of the bridge shall be vested in the trustees or local authority upon whom the largest portion of the cost of maintenance is allocated."
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, there were consequential Amendments necessary, and he agreed that the words "upon whom the largest portion of the cost of maintenance is allocated" should be deleted. He would consider as to some scheme for the future management by some joint committee of the two bodies.
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, there was another very obvious consequential Amendment that would have to be made if the words ran—"trustees or local

    1707
    authority." The management should be vested in the trustees and the local authority.
    MR. RAMSAYasked if it should not be "or local authorities;" because, in the case of two adjacent burghs, the bridge would be managed between the two.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEreplied, that it would be better to put it in the plural, and he would accordingly move that the words should be "in the trustees and local authorities chargeable with the cost of maintenance."
    MR. RAMSAYthought the word "or" should stand.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments were made:—In page 20, line 22, the word "authorities" was substituted for authority;" and in lines 23 and 24, the words "upon whom the largest portion of the cost of maintenance is allocated" were struck out, and the words "chargeable with the cost" inserted instead.
    DR. CAMERONpointed out a similar Amendment which would be necessary on the sub-section (i).
    THE LORD ADVOCATEagreed to the Amendment as it was merely consequential.
    Amendment made.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he proposed to add to the clause the following paragraph:—
    "One-half of the tolls under deduction of the expense of collection collected on any such bridge, or within one mile thereof, shall belong to the county which has abolished tolls, or to the burgh therein (as the case may be) within which such bridge is partly situated."
    Unless some provision of the kind were made, the county that had abolished tolls might have to pay half the cost of maintenance, while the county that had not abolished tolls might appropriate all the tolls on the bridge by keeping and maintaining the tolls upon the bridge as heretofore in connection therewith. He might refer to an Amendment on Clause 7. It was very obvious that Clause 7 of the Bill contemplated that tolls might continue to be levied on such partly-situated bridges in a county that had not abolished tolls. He thought the county that had abolished tolls ought either to have the half
    1708
    of those tolls collected on the bridge which it had to help in maintaining, or the tolls should be altogether abolished.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Clause, to add the words "One-half of the tolls under deduction of the expense of collection collected on any such bridge, or within one mile thereof, shall belong to the county which has abolished tolls, or to the burgh therein (as the case may be) within which such bridge is partly situated."—(Mr. James Barclay.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the Amendment appeared to him to introduce an entirely new element. The counties that had already abolished tolls had done so on conditions satisfactory to themselves, and when a county outside had also abolished tolls the two would be precisely in the same case; but why make exceptional legislation in favour of the county that had abolished tolls, when they would be on the same footing as soon as the county outside had adopted the Act?
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, it was the case of a bridge between two counties that he contemplated. The county that had abolished tolls was to pay half the cost of the bridge, and the county which had not might continue the tolls upon the bridge under the Act, and appropriate the whole amount collected. That was manifestly an unfair arrangement. One county abolished tolls two or three years sooner than another, and if it paid half the debt upon a bridge, and half the expense of maintenance, it ought to have some benefit for that.
    MR. M'LARENbegged to suggest to the consideration of the Lord Advocate, whether he might not bring up a clause on Report to the effect, that in the case supposed, the county on the one side of the river having tolls, in place of dividing tolls—which would be a clumsy expedient—with the county on the other side which had none, should bear the whole expense of keeping up the bridge as long as tolls were collected, and that when they were abolished the cost of the bridge should then be divided?
    MR. RAMSAYdid not regard this question as of much importance, considering the short period during which tolls could still be collected. If it had been proposed that it should be per-

    1709
    missible for counties to continue tolls, the question raised by the hon. Member for Forfarshire would have had importance, and the Amendment might have been passed. But, considering that there were so few years during which tolls could be maintained, and that the county which had abolished them had done so in the knowledge of the circumstances, he thought it was not a question on which they need waste much time.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEwas also of opinion that, considering the shortness of the time, the question was not one of importance.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that before the Committee divided upon this question—because he intended to take a division upon it—he wished to say that in the county which he represented there were two bridges, one under a bridge trust, and the other a part of the turnpike. The tolls upon those bridges amounted to a considerable sum, and under the Bill, as it at present stood, the whole of the tolls might be collected on those bridges for five years after the Bill passed. The whole of those tolls would be paid to the Commissioners of Supply of the adjoining counties, unless the adjoining county adopted the Bill. He did not know what the Lord Advocate considered a considerable sum; but he was sure the tolls on those bridges would in five years amount to several thousand pounds. The arrangement was so manifestly unjust, and offered so strong an inducement to the adjoining county not to abolish tolls as long as they could benefit by them, that he felt bound to divide upon the question.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the county to which the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) referred was the one he (Sir George Balfour) had the honour to represent, and the other case was that of the Montrose bridge, which connected that important sea town with its county, Forfar; and the apportionment of charges between the area contained in the roads over these bridges ought to be adjusted on well-considered grounds, affecting the localities, and the settlement of their claims ought to rest with an arbitrator appointed by the Secretary of State. He wished to say that, whenever counties had abolished tolls, they had done so for their own advantage; and, whatever changes might take place in the
    1710
    future, the counties that abolished tolls would do it upon their own conditions and terms. He desired to see tolls abolished, and he wished to see the bridges cleared from Forfarshire to Kincardineshire, and also the bridges that led to Aberdeen; but in Aberdeen they had abolished tolls, and if Aberdeen was to get half the tolls of the bridges as well as Forfarshire, it was a complicated business. They ought not to be hurried into legislation of a difficult and dangerous character.
    MR. ANDERSONfelt some sympathy with the county that had abolished tolls, but found itself shut in by pontages and tolls round its boundaries. That was a hard state of matters, and the Amendment proposed to deal with it as regarded pontages; but the same objection applied to roads, and yet it was not proposed to force counties maintaining tolls to remove them a mile within their borders; therefore, he did not see the use in pressing this matter as regarded bridges.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 125: Majority 56.—(Div. List, No. 175.)
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 37 (Bridge (not formerly turnpike) not wholly situated in one county or burgh).
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, under existing circumstances, he considered the clause was now unnecessary.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 38 (Detached parts of counties to form part of the county by which they are surrounded).
    MR. ORR-EWING MR. ORR-EWING moved, in page 22, line 14, to insert, after the word "county," the words "or counties."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the effect of an Amendment he meant to propose on the clause was that the assessor should send a detailed valuation of any detached part of a county which was within another county to the clerk of the trustees of the county in which such detached part was included, in order that he might assess in respect of the roads. There was already a pro-

    1711
    vision which was only to the effect that the clerk of supply of the county should report who were qualified as Commissioners in the detached part. This proposal went a step further, and directed the clerk of supply, or the assessor, to send a list of the valuation of such detached part of a county to the clerk of supply of the county which was going to assess for the roads. Either this provision, or some other means, would have to be adopted whereby the trustees of a county having control of such detached part should levy the assessment. He moved, in page 22, line 25, to leave out the following words:—
    "With a view to ascertain the persons, being Commissioners of Supply, entitled under the provision of this Act to act as trustees in those counties in which are included, as herein-before provided, one or more detached parts of any other county or counties, the clerk of supply of each such other county or counties,"
    and to substitute, "the clerk of supply of any county from which a part or parts are detached," should transmit the list of qualified persons, and so on.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEthought the Amendment would, if agreed to, have the effect of causing to be done something for which there was no necessity. There was no difficulty in the way of the assessing body obtaining a copy of the valuation roll for any county or part of a county. But, as these detached parts of counties remained integral parts of the original counties, it was necessary to have communication with the clerk of the Commissioners; because those who were on the valuation roll as qualified were not necessarily Commissioners, but must qualify as such and take their seats, and it was only after they had so qualified that they were entitled to act as road trustees. He proposed to enact that the clerk of the Commissioners of Supply should give that information, he being the only person that was officially possessed of it. As far as the valuation roll was concerned, it was not kept by him, but by the assessor of the district, and it could be had from him.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked, if there were not a difficulty in obtaining a copy of the valuation roll between the months of August and September? He thought there was, gh after that a copy could easily be
    1712
    got for a small charge. These Valuation Bills of counties and burghs should be printed and available for purchase at the lowest rate of charge. This kind of publicity would affect much good in keeping the valuations at their proper sum.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, it was a simple enough thing to get the valuation roll after it was published. He had moved this Amendment mainly at the instance of one of the gentlemen, who would, under the provisions of the Bill, be one of the clerks to a body of road trustees; and who was of opinion that, under existing arrangements, he would not be able to get a copy of the valuation roll in time to make the assessment.
    Amendment negatived.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE THE LORD ADVOCATE moved, in page 22, line 30, to substitute the word "January" for "December." The valuation roll was not completed until the 30th of November, and it was necessary thereafter for the Commissioners of Supply to meet and admit those Commissioners having qualification according to the new roll.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 39 (Lists of highways to be made up. Alteration of list), agreed to.
    Clause 40 (Highways may cease to be such, and other roads may become highways).
    SIR GEORGE DOUGLAS SIR GEORGE DOUGLAS moved, as an Amendment, in page 23, line 21, to leave out the words "church-door of," in order to insert the words "principal door of each church in." The hon. Baronet said, his desire was to secure greater publicity for any proposal to shut up roads than would be given by the Bill as it stood, which would be read as meaning that notices should only be affixed to the doors of parish churches, whilst his Amendment would insure their being placed on the principal door of each church in every parish.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 41 (A highway ceasing to be a highway may be shut up).
    COLONEL ALEXANDER COLONEL ALEXANDER moved, as an Amendment, in page 23, line 29, to

    1713
    leave out all the words from the word "in" to the word "shall," in line 30. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, he saw no reason why, when a road had been once shut up, it should again be acquired by the road trustees as a highway. His view was that the property in the road should revert to the owners from whom it had been taken in order to the making of the road.
    Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERnext moved, in page 23, line 31, to insert after the word "thereto," the words—
    "And from whom, or his or their predecessor or predecessors, the ground occupied by such road was acquired for such road."
    MR. WILLIAM HOLMSsaid, he had an Amendment on this clause, and his object was, that where a road was no longer required, the adjoining proprietor, on taking possession, should pay for it; and the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member being in effect similar, he proposed to accept it. He would, however, propose to amend it, by inserting after the word "acquired," the words "with payment."
    MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, supposing the property should be sold after the road ceased to be used, and the road and the land were to be transferred, they would give possession to the party who had sold the property.
    MR. M'LARENsupported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms), on the ground that the measure, as drawn, was very much of a landowners' Bill; and added, that he wished to know whether it was intended to continue the system under which a six months' notice was required before a road could be shut up?
    LORD ELCHOprotested against the suggestion that the Bill was a landowners' Bill. It had been carefully drawn by the Government, and would, he believed, prove equally advantageous to the property-owners and dwellers in the towns, and to the landowners and those residing in the rural districts. He did not think it would ever be proposed to close roads until they had become practically useless; and when shut up, the land would be of little value to anybody except the owners from whose property
    1714
    the land had been taken, and to whom it should revert. Of course, the question of the terms on which it should so revert was a fair one for consideration.
    MR. RAMSAYthought it would be only fair that the right of pre-emption of land no longer required for roads should be given to the owners of the adjoining land. At the same time, great care should be taken in protecting the right of the people to the use of the roads. It might be that a particular road had fallen into comparative disuse; but it might also be that it was the nearest way to the parish school or the parish mill, and, in that case, it would be a great hardship upon the inhabitants of the neighbourhood to shut it up altogether.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, provision was made in a later clause for the right of pre-emption of lands no longer required for road purposes. He saw no reason why the proprietor of land taken for the making of roads should be called upon to pay for it when it reverted to him after having served the purposes for which it was taken. The road trustees had simply granted to them a temporary way-leave over the surface of the land, and he saw no just ground to call upon the proprietor, after the reason for the way-leave had ceased, to pay again for his own property.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought care should be taken not to arm the trustees with power to close roads which, though, perhaps, not much used, had existed from time immemorial, and had been found useful by those who lived in their immediate neighbourhood.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the observations just made had a special bearing on the question of roads which formerly traversed moors and commons, before these were laid hold of by the adjoining proprietors, and which ought to have been preserved to the people. Care should also be taken to prevent the making of roads at the public cost for the mere purpose of rendering valuable property which, but for the existence of such roads, would be comparatively worthless. The great power still vested in the proprietors of lands, in respect to being the most influential portion of the Road Board, might be exercised in respect to communications over or to their lands.
    MR. ORR-EWINGdid not think the Bill would interfere with any existing right of way; it only proposed to deal with public roads, and when old roads were shut up, new ones would be made.
    MR. WILLIAM HOLMSexplained, that the object of his Amendment was to secure that, after a highway had ceased to be one, and had been shut up, the ground not required for the purposes of a highway should not fall into the hands of the adjoining proprietor without any payment on his part. That was the simple object he had in view, and he understood that the Lord Advocate was prepared to insert a clause giving effect to it.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the wording of the clause appeared to him to bear the construction that a right of way, which had existed from time immemorial, might be stopped by a vote of these trustees. He did not know the English language if the clause were not open to that meaning. He admitted that, in cases where a more eligible line of road was substituted for a less eligible one, there would be a reason for shutting up a highway; but, as Clause 40 stood, a highway might cease to be a highway, without any other being substituted. When he said he agreed with the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), he meant that the clause, not the Bill, was in the interests of the county proprietors; for it enabled the trustees to shut up a road, and almost bribed the proprietors to get it shut up. He, therefore, hoped that the Lord Advocate would frankly tell the Committee whether the Bill did or did not provide that a right of way, existing from time immemorial, was to be put a stop to?
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, no doubt there was a strong objection against arbitrary power being given to trustees; but he pointed out to hon. Members who had raised that objection, that such was not the object of the Bill. The trustees would be held responsible for their actions. If a highway were stopped without an alternative road being laid down, proprietors would be discouraged in giving land for these highways, and the trustees also would be discouraged in their efforts to carry out improvements. If the Committee laid down that principle, they would
    1716
    strike a serious blow at any improvements in roads. With regard to the clause having the effect of stopping the right of a footpath, which passengers had used from time immemorial, that was a question which rested upon different considerations. Perhaps the Lord Advocate would inform, the Committee what the real effect of the clause would be?
    MR. RAMSAY,before the Lord Advocate rose to answer the question of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), wished to be allowed to say that a way by which passengers had a servitude right to pass was never regarded as a highway in the ordinary acceptation of the term. A right of way, commonly so called, was entirely different from a right of highway; and the trustees had no more to do with the former than they had with a private estate. When hon. Members spoke of this Bill having been framed in the interest of proprietors, with a view to transfer to them the solum of the road, they appeared to forget that the common law of Scotland was in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. This measure would merely carry out the common law—namely, that the solum belonged to the proprietor from whose land the highway was taken. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had so clearly explained such to be the law, that it was merely wasting time to continue the discussion.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEexplained that there were, undoubtedly, a great number of public roads in Scotland that were not highways, and would not be highways, within the meaning of this Act; and it was quite settled that these could not be shut up by any body of trustees, because statutory authority was required to close a public road. Accordingly, there were instances, which were very well known, where the public were held entitled to defend their own. But, at the same time, supposing that an existing public road were placed by Statute under a turnpike trust, no doubt that statutory power would enable the trustees entirely to extinguish the right of the public over that road, if shut up, in terms of the General Turnpike Act. It would be quite another thing if they had adopted a road over which private servitude rights existed. Then, it would not be competent for them to shut that

    1717
    road against the owners of servitudes. That question had been decided, a year or two ago, in a case where a road was assumed by statute labour trustees, and along the line of the road there had existed, for centuries, a right of way to a mill. The trustees closed the road; but it was held, notwithstanding, that the immediately adjacent proprietors were not affected by the action of the trustees. The action entirely extinguished the public right, but it did not extinguish the private servitude rights. That was the state of the law, as he understood it.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYthought the Committee had materially prejudiced the public interest by passing the Amendment which had been made on the clause; because, as he understood the matter, the clause, as it originally stood, provided that, after a road had ceased to be a highway, there might still be a right of way; but, as the clause now stood, a road might be shut up by a body of trustees, who would have the power of depriving the public of their right of way; but he did not think the Committee intended that the right should be taken from the public to a road which might have been used by the public for centuries, and had subsequently become a statute labour road. This had not been done by previous legislation, and he certainly thought the whole clause ought to be rejected.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, if the Lord Advocate was prepared to assure him that the Bill substantially embodied the provisions of the general Turnpike Act of Scotland, including the provision which required six months' notice to be given of an intention to close a road, then he would be satisfied with that assurance. He was not suggesting any new law; but what he objected to was, that any attempt should be made to take from the existing securities possessed by the public. If the six months' notice were not incorporated, he should move an Amendment to the effect that, in all cases of intention to shut up a road, due notice of that intention should be given by advertisement.
    SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHERcalled the attention of hon. Members opposite to the power given in the clause with regard to shutting up highways, and to the definition of highways. He also pointed out that the clause gave power to the ratepayers to appeal to the
    1718
    Sheriff against the shutting up of highways.
    SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYhad read the clause most carefully, and was of opinion that no trustees could shut up what was called a right of way in Scotland.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLconsidered the question of so much importance that it was necessary to remove all doubt as to the legal effect of the clause. The Lord Advocate had stated the existing law of Scotland with regard to roads and servitude, but not the effect of the present Bill, it passed into law. Let that be made clear. If the clause were passed with the words "importing that trustees, if they think fit, may direct that roads shall be shut up," would the effect of such a statutory provision not be to enable the trustees to close a road in a literal and ordinary sense; would it still be subject to such rights as existed before it became a statute labour road, or highway, as the case might be?
    MR. M'LAGANdid not think that the trustees, who were the guardians of the public rights, would do anything as against the public. Although the ratepayers would have a right of appeal, how would they know when a road was to be shut up? He suggested that notice should be given to the ratepayers, and to the public generally, that a road was going to be closed, so that an opportunity might be afforded of appealing against the decision of the trustees.
    COLONEL ALEXANDER,referring to the remark which had fallen from the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. M'Lagan), directed his attention to his (Colonel Alexander's) own Amendment on the Paper, which would have the effect desired by the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,who expressed a hope that the discussion would now be brought to a conclusion, as the subject had been considered at some length, and there was other Business pressing, said, he quite agreed that notice should be given of the intention to shut up useless roads. In England, the practice was to place a notice at each end of the road that was to be closed; and the same plan might be adopted for Scotland. He agreed that the notice ought to be ample, and given on the spot.
    Amendment agreed to.
    COLONEL ALEXANDER COLONEL ALEXANDER moved, that at page 23, line 32, the following words be omitted:—"such ground as required for the purposes of any highway, or as to;" and expressed a hope that the Amendment would satisfy the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren).
    Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
    COLONEL ALEXANDER COLONEL ALEXANDER moved, in page 23, line 35, after "final," to insert—
    "But no such road shall be shut up as aforesaid until after the expiration of six months from the date of the resolution directing the same to be shut up as aforesaid, and 30 days' notice of the intention to propose a resolution to that effect shall be given by advertisement in any newspaper usually circulating in the county in which such road proposed to be shut up is situated."
    MR. M'LARENsuggested to the hon. and gallant Member that he should delete the word "thirty" from his Amendment, in order to insert "sixty."
    DR. CAMERONwas of opinion that it would be much better to leave the matter on the footing on which it was placed by the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, which was that notice should be given on the spot itself. After that suggestion, it was hoped this Amendment would not be pressed.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLdid not think the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Assheton Cross) was at all inconsistent with the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Alexander). The hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion was that six months' notice should be given—a very reasonable Amendment, which might be added to this one.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that the notice stated in his Amendment was the same as that which was contained in the present Turnpike Act.
    MR. M'LARENobserved, that the six months' notice was not really six months' notice of intention to shut up a road; but six months' postponement of the act of shutting it up. There was no notice of the intention to close the road, other than the 30 days.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLexpressed an inclination to move the omission of
    1720
    the latter section of the clause. If that section remained as it then stood, the whole intention expressed by the Committee up to that moment would be stultified. It was perfectly true that, so far as it went, the first section of the clause provided that the trustees might order that the road should be shut up; and then the Amendment proposed, in effect, that six months' notice should be given of the closing of the road. But, supposing that people should object to its being shut up, he saw no remedy provided for them in that regard. On the contrary, the matter was to be determined in a most summary way, for this was the wording of the latter section of the clause—
    "Any determination of the trustees under this and the preceding section shall be final and conclusive, and not subject to review in any court or by any proceedings whatsoever, unless any three ratepayers who shall be dissatisfied with such determination shall at any time within 14 days after the date thereof appeal to the Sheriff, who shall hear and determine the appeal in a summary way, and the decision of the Sheriff shall be final."
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that, as the clause stood, it certainly was out of shape; and he would undertake to re-model it on this footing—that 30 days' notice be given to the public before the question was considered; after the consideration of the question, and the determination to shut up the road, such determination should not take effect until six months afterwards; that, during the six months there should be a sufficient publication, so that any person, within that period of six months, might appeal to the Sheriff.
    Mr. M'LARENexpressed himself satisfied with that re-modelling of the clause.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 42 (Toll-houses to be first offered to adjoining proprietors).
    SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER moved to add, in page 24, the following proviso:—
    "Provided always, That in fixing such price the valuator shall take into consideration the terms and conditions upon which such site was originally acquired."
    Amendment agreed to; words added.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 43 (Provision for footpaths).
    MR. MARK STEWART MR. MARK STEWART moved, in page 24, line 12, after "highway," to insert—
    "And to make bye-laws, subject to such approval as aforesaid, for the avoidance of all unnecessary obstruction to ordinary traffic on such highways."
    The hon. Member explained, that the effect of his Amendment was that any obstruction found in the highway should be got rid of with the assent and assistance of the trustees. The object he had in view was to prevent any undue hindrances being found in the road, such as fairs, booths, or races. It had come to his knowledge that, on one occasion, when horse-races were going on in the public road, and the police were called in to put a stop to what the public generally regarded as a nuisance, they said they had no power whatever to clear the road. Therefore, he hoped the Government would accept the remedy which was provided by his Amendment.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEhad no objection whatever to the principle of the Amendment; but he did object to its introduction at this part of the Bill, which was the wrong place. If it were inserted here, it would have no application to the road, but would simply apply to the footpath. There were Amendments on the Paper for introducing a general provision applicable to all highways.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 44 (Boundaries of burghs).
    THE LORD ADVOCATE THE LORD ADVOCATE moved, in page 24, line 16, after "Parliament," to insert—
    "Or when no police assessment is levied, as the same are or may be ascertained, fixed, or determined for municipal purposes."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RAMSAY MR. RAMSAY moved, in page 24, line 17, to leave out from "where" to "burgh," in line 19, both inclusive. The simple object of the Amendment was to provide that, where the public turnpike road skirted the burgh, and the centre of the road was the present boundary of the burgh, that should continue to be the boundary; and that it should be a matter of arrangement
    1722
    between the county road trustees and the burgh authorities to maintain the road equally. This would be in accordance with the proviso immediately following the words he moved to leave out. The proviso was—
    "That in the case of contiguous burghs or police burghs, or a contiguous burgh and police burgh, the centre of the highway shall be held to be the boundary."
    In one of the burghs (Falkirk Burghs) which he had the honour to represent, there was a line of road skirting the boundary of the burgh; and the centre of the roadway was defined by the Reform Act of 1835 to be the boundary of the burgh. Why this should now be altered he could not conceive; because, later on in the Bill, the burgh authorities were to be left to arrange with those in the county for the maintenance of the roads within the burghs. Therefore, he moved that the following words be struck out.
    "Where the boundaries of any burgh run along a highway, the whole breadth of such highway shall, for the purposes of this Act, be held to be within the boundary of the burgh."
    Amendment agreed to; words struck out.
    On Question, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?
    MR. M'LARENsaid, he understood that as three lines had been left out, the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name was not now available.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEremarked, that the Amendment last carried left the clause just as it was before. He should put the clause in such a shape as to make it fit.
    MR. M'LARENwas much obliged to the Lord Advocate for not taking advantage of his technical neglect. He would, therefore, move his Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I put the Question in such a form as to enable the hon. Member for Edinburgh to move his Amendment. The hon. Member did not avail himself of that opportunity, and he is not able to move it now.
    MR. M'LAREN: I am satisfied.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 45 (Local authority to have management of roads within burghs).
    MR. C. S. PARKER MR. C. S. PARKER moved, as an Amendment, in page 24, lines 23 and 24,

    1723
    to leave out from "local authority," to "situated within," in line 26, and insert—
    "Highways and bridges situated within any burgh shall be by virtue of this Act transferred to, and vested in, the local authority of such burgh, and such local authority shall have the entire management and control of."
    The hon. Member said, that the Amendment he had to propose was one of form and not of substance. The question had been raised whether the words were sufficient to vest the highways in local authorities where they were not already so vested? His object was to make it more clear that the highways should be vested in the local authority, and he hoped the Lord Advocate had no objection.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: Certainly; I approve of it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Consequential verbal Amendments agreed to.
    MR. M'LAREN MR. M'LAREN moved, as an Amendment, in page 25, line 2, to leave out after "situated" to end of clause, and insert—
    "And the owners and occupiers of lands and houses within such burghs shall be chargeable with the same rates of assessment as the owners and occupiers of lands within other parts of the country."
    He considered the present Amendment a very important one, and unless the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had made up his mind to give way, he must take up a few minutes of the time of the Committee, which he was always unwilling to do. Of the 196 Amendments on the Paper, only six stood in his name. The Committee, therefore, would excuse him, if he attempted to convince them of the necessity for this Amendment. As the clause now stood, every little burgh must make a bargain with the county under this Act. He wished to give the little burghs the option of merging themselves in the county. The effect of his Amendment was, that such burghs should have the same right to merge themselves in the county, as regarded keeping up the turnpike roads running through the main streets of the burgh, as they had to merge themselves in the counties for police purposes. The question was very carefully considered by the Royal Commission on Roads. He held in his
    1724
    hand their Report, and if the Committee would allow him, he would read a paragraph of about eight lines, stating what the Commissioners, after careful consideration, said on the subject. At page 197 of their Report, they said they considered it should be optional for burghs, and more especially burghs of small size, to have all roads and streets maintained in future out of the county roads' funds, and that each burgh should have the option of placing itself under the operation of the county assessment, and the roads in question under the County Roads Board. They were of opinion that this arrangement in the case of the smaller burghs would be equally for the interest of the burghs and for the public advantage. Under these conditions, the Commissioners, in the next paragraph, said they were further of opinion that, in case of the general abolition of tolls, the levying of causeway-mail on roads passing through burghs should be entirely abolished and power of removal obtained. Now, his complaint was, that of the two recommendations which were intended to be adopted, this Bill adopted the last one but rejected the first. He thought it very important that the House should thoroughly understand this. In many parts of Scotland there were small burghs, consisting, practically, of two rows of houses, a row on the one side of the road and a row on the other side, and in some cases these were about a mile long. That was part of the turnpike road, and the county at each end had the same interest in maintaining that mile of road as in maintaining any other mile in the county. The Commissioners took evidence on the subject, and arrived at the conclusion that each burgh should have the option of merging itself in the county. Another reason was, that at the present day, in all these burghs, this mile of road, as he should call it, was now kept up by the county, and was, in every respect, part of the county. The effect of this Bill would be not to leave things as they were, but to cut out those burgh roads and to make them separate. His Amendment was to let the matter stand as it was just now. As far as the roads were concerned, they were liable to all the county tolls, and they wanted the option to remain liable to county assessments. It might be doubted by some hon. Members who had not looked into

    1725
    the subject whether these roads were kept up by the counties through the burghs. He might state that in the case of the county of Lanark a great deal of evidence was taken, and the whole question was thoroughly considered. The clerk of the county stated that such was the custom in all parts of Lanarkshire; and the Commissioners got evidence of what was actually expended by the County Trusts in keeping up the roads in the burghs of Lanarkshire. It appeared from the Report that £192 was spent in Airdrie, and that in all £672 was spent by the county on the small burghs of Lanarkshire, and £8,848 on Glasgow; and, of course, he could easily show that the same rule existed in other counties. He was not going into the case of Glasgow just now, because that was so important that no doubt it would be brought forward by an hon. Member for Glasgow, and discussed at considerable length. He would confine his attention to the small burghs. He represented no small constituency; but, having the opportunity of thoroughly investigating the facts of the case, he thought he understood them as well as anyone did, and in the interest of the small burghs who had few protectors, he begged to move this Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 25, line 2, to leave out from the word "situated," to the end of the Clause, in order to add the words "and the owners and occupiers of lands and houses within such burghs shall be chargeable with the same rates of assessment as the owners and occupiers of lands within other parts of the county."—(Mr. M'Laren.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'on payment to such trustees' stand part of the Clause."
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, it was necessary to keep in mind that the burghs which were entitled to have the management of their own roads under this Act were the Royal and Parliamentary burghs and populous places with 5,000 inhabitants and upwards. The proposal here was that burghs with less than that population should have the option. The question was, whether those burghs generally desired to manage their own roads? He could only say that, so far as regarded these populous places, those through customs were unknown. It was only in some of the old Royal burghs that any such exactions were
    1726
    made. The proposal in the Bill was that where a burgh took the "upkeep" of its roads which ran through the burgh, it should take part with the county. The only question between the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. 'M'Laren) and himself was on what terms were they to come in. His hon. Friend said on the same terms as the counties. He said that was hardly fair. It would be fair if they would throw in their lot in every case, and not only when they could get in at a cheap rate. They enjoyed their autonomous jurisdiction when it could be done at a cheap rate; but when it was more expensive, they wished to come in the county. Were it a good thing, they would remain out of the county; but when they had a bad thing, they wished to come in the county. It was left to the Sheriff to say what was a fair and reasonable payment to be made.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwished to call the attention of the Committee to what he might call his point of view, as he happened to represent a burgh which was affected by this question. To begin with, he must say that the strong argument in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) was this—that when the Bill was brought in last year, it was in the shape the hon. Member for Edinburgh now wished to put it. One inconvenience this year was that they had no explanation of the reasons why 'changes were made. This was one of the most important changes made in the present Bill. He brought it under notice the first day the Bill was introduced. The Lord Advocate said the object of the hon. Member for Edinburgh was to give to burghs under 10,000 inhabitants the option of joining in counties. For his part, his (Sir George Campbell's) object was to provide not for burghs under 10,000 inhabitants or under 5,000, but for the particular cases of Royal and Parliamentary burghs under the latter size. Many of these burghs had populations far less than 5,000. There was one such place which he represented—namely, Kinghorn—with a population of only 1,200 or 1,300. It so happened it was in the position his hon. Friend had described. It was a poor village, with a small population, lying along a great road, where there was great traffic. Not only one great

    1727
    road, but two others passed through the burgh. The consequence was that this burgh, which had hitherto never maintained the roads at all, would have to maintain three turnpike roads, with large traffic, which passed through the burgh. The case was still harder, because this burgh a few years ago extended their municipal boundary to the Parliamentary boundary. He thought this was a typical case, and he believed it would be entirely ruinous to this small burgh of 1,500 inhabitants to maintain three roads. It was a poor village; no carriage was kept, and but very few carts. They made no use of the road, and yet this Bill would impose upon them that heavy expense. What he had to submit was that these poor villagers should not be called upon to pay for the benefits which some of the larger burghs might derive from the autonomy which it was proposed to impose upon them. Then the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate said there was an appeal to the Sheriff, but no standard was laid down by which the Sheriff was to determine. Probably the Sheriff would think it his duty to see what the roads would cost, and to assign certain proportions commensurate with the cost of maintaining the roads. That would not be releasing the villages from this heavy burden. He did venture to hope that the Government would consider this matter, and that this clause would not be passed in a shape which would impose irreparable injury on the inhabitants of small burghs.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, his hon. Friend was under a mistake as to the Bill of last year. He had that Bill in his hand, and the terms of the 45th section were precisely the same, word for word, as in the present Bill.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYbelieved that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would find the definition of the word "burghs" was different from the present one. He wished to point out that the small Royal burghs would be in a very hard position under this clause. There were a good many small burghs in the county of Fife, of small size and small population, which, by the conditions of this Act, would be separated from the counties altogether. Now, it would seem to be a great hardship for these small burghs to maintain a staff of officials, a surveyor,
    1728
    &c., for themselves on the small rental which they had. He thought that the rates ought to be made the same on Royal burghs of 3,000 or 4,000 inhabitants, as on the counties in which they were situated. He did not see why any difference should be made between Royal burghs and police burghs of the same number of inhabitants. When it came down to a small number, it seemed to him that it would be more convenient that for the purpose of the roads the burgh should be joined with the county. That would be the most easy solution of the question. Burghs of 5,000 or 10,000 population had the power to be independent if they thought proper; and, having this power, could protect themselves. The Sheriff would scarcely know how to act, and it seemed to him that it might be more conveniently arranged to the satisfaction of all parties by a re-arrangement of the clauses referring to Royal burghs.
    MR. GRANTpointed out that the burgh of Musselburgh would be unfortunately situated with regard to this clause. Instead of having to maintain three or four miles, they would have to keep up nearly eight miles of highways. That arose from the boundary of the burgh running along a public road. This road was not bounded by houses on either side. It was, really, a part of the great highway between Scotland and England. It would be very hard indeed to prevent this burgh from throwing itself into the county at the county rate. The Lord Advocate had spoken of the indisposition of the counties to make bad bargains; but what made the bargains bad for the counties but the fact that under this Bill some of these burghs had been hardly used and overburdened in taking their share of the highways? It followed from that, as a matter of course, that the counties were under-burdened; and it was, therefore, not unfair that the burghs should ask to be entitled to be assessed at the county rate. It had been justly observed by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, that—
    "If the burgh title to be assessed at the same rate as the counties were not granted, no boon would be conferred upon the burghs at all by this Bill."
    Then, with regard to the appeal which lay to the Sheriff, to which the Lord Advocate had referred. This would not do

    1729
    away with, the hardship complained of, because the Sheriff would not be entitled to say—"You shall be assessed at the county rate." He would be obliged to treat the matter as a question of law, and would say—"If Parliament had intended you to be assessed at the county rate under this Act, it would have said so; but it does not say so." Therefore, he thought that it was not demanding a very great boon, to ask for these small burghs, from which, as in the case of Musselburgh, their present right to petty customs was sought to be taken away, that they should be allowed to throw themselves into the county and claim to be assessed at the county rate.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he was sure there was no intention on the part of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to deal hardly with the small burghs. If the intention were to prevent the Sheriff's dealing in a general way with any appeal made to him, he thought the clause might be so modified as to effect a compromise.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEhad not the least objection to modify the clause to the extent of investing the Sheriff with a discretionary power to make such an arrangement as he might deem equitable.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, he had failed to catch the extent of the concession suggested by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the effect of the alteration he intended could not give a very wide discretion to the Sheriff; but it would be wider than that which was conferred by the clause as it stood.
    MR. RAMSAYthought it right to ask the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to agree to a provision that the rate imposed on the burgh should not exceed that levied on places immediately surrounding the burghs. He thought an arrangement of that kind would be satisfactory, and ought to be effected. It was a hardship that the burghs, through which the county roads passed, should not be allowed to merge their jurisdiction into that of the county, and throw themselves into the county rate.
    MR. M'LARENremarked, that he had just referred to the Report of the Commission with regard to the case of Musselburgh, to which the hon. Member
    1730
    for Leith (Mr. Grant) had called the attention of the Committee, and found that the county trustees paid £400 a-year. The road in question went far beyond what a stranger would consider to be the town of Musselburgh, and embraced a considerable part of a purely county road. This was now kept up by the county. Why should it not continue so to be kept up in future? Musselburgh claimed no exclusive right. It said—"We are now part and parcel of the county as regards roads—leave us so as regards county rates."
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURhoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would find it possible to make a suggestion that would enable the Lord Advocate to effect a compromise, so that further time might not be wasted.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the Sheriff might be bound to treat a question which should arise under the Act as one of law. He thought the proposition of his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate was extremely fair, and that it ought to be readily accepted, as it gave the Sheriff considerable latitude in considering all the circumstances of the case.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought the Home Secretary might add a few more words with advantage in view to reconciling the conflict between county and burgh.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Government could do nothing further than they had done. He hoped the Committee would come to a decision at once.
    MR. RAMSAYhoped that the right hon. Gentleman would still consider the expediency of providing that the rate levied on the burgh should not exceed that which was imposed on the surrounding districts.
    LORD ELCHOthought the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate should consider whether it would not be possible to legislate generally on the subject, and whether any special legislation should not be rendered unnecessary. The question would arise in the county with which he was connected. All hon. Members wished that justice should be done to the small burghs, and he believd that this would be effected better by a general clause than by a special clause referring to Acts that would expire in a

    1731
    certain time. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would consider the suggestion before the matter came on again.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he admitted that the remedy proposed was better than no remedy at all; but it appeared to him that it would be advisable to go further, for the Sheriffs would find themselves placed in a very difficult position. He hoped that the Government would concede so much for the benefit of the small burghs, that they should not be placed in a worse position than they now occupied. It would be hard if the Bill, which was intended to confer a benefit on the people of Scotland, should have that bad effect; and unless some assurance were afforded that the small burghs would not be placed in a worse position than they then were, he thought the contest must be continued to the bitter end.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, he was sorry to detain the Committee; but was obliged, from a sense of duty, to challenge a division.
    MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he represented several Royal burghs which would be affected by the Bill; but he believed that the words proposed by the Government would have the desired effect. If he thought otherwise, he would be compelled to vote against the Government. He hoped the hon. Member for Edinburgh would wait for the Report to see whether he ought to divide on the question. If he should then think fit, he could do so.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 131; Noes 65: Majority 66.—(Div. List, No. 176.)
    Maintenance and Repair of Highways, and Assessments therefor.
    Clause 46 (Report on condition of highways, and estimate of cost of maintenance); Clause 47 (Board to meet and consider reports); and Clause 48 (Roads or highways may be shut up for repairs); severally agreed to.
    Clause 49 (Assessments in counties for management, maintenance, and repair).
    MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he would move to omit the word "five" in page 26, line 25 of the Bill, in order to
    1732
    insert the word "four." His object in so doing was, as £4 was the usual basis of assessment in other matters, to simplify the assessment in counties for the management, maintenance, and repair of roads. He hoped the Government would concede this point.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he had an Amendment to propose which should precede that of the hon. Member for the Wigton Burghs (Mr. Mark Stewart). He would move to omit that part of the clause, between the word "respectively" in line 14, to the word "district" in line 16, so as to make the first portion of the clause read thus—
    "The amount required for the management, maintenance, and repair of the highways within each district respectively, along with a proportion of the general expenses of executing this act, as allocated by the trustees in the manner hereinbefore mentioned, shall be levied by the trustees by an assessment to be imposed at a uniform rate on all lands and heritages within such district."
    The effect of this clause was to revive the old system, a consequence of which had been that the rate in one parish was sometimes 1d. in the pound, and that of the parish immediately adjoining it, 6d. He thought it would be very dangerous to give to the trustees the power which would be vested in them if the clause were adopted as it stood; and, therefore, hoped that the words would be omitted.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, there were possibly parishes in which the difference was not only warranted, but justifiable. The first part of the clause, as proposed by the Government, read as follows:—
    "The amount required for the management, maintenance, and repair of highways within each district respectively, or in the option of the trustees, within the several parishes constituting such district,"&c.;
    and it was the latter part of the sentence that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Barclay) desired to see omitted. He thought it would be useful, however, to retain the clause in its original form, as the words proposed to be omitted were essential to the object contemplated by Government.
    Amendment negatived.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he thought it was absolutely necessary to fix some limit of assessment. The whole

    1733
    assessment of the county which he represented was 3d. in the pound; and he, therefore, believed that the rate of 4d. in the pound was sufficient. He begged to move that after the word "assessment" in page 26, line 18, the words "not exceeding fourpence in the pound" be inserted.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEwas glad to hear that the rates in Ayrshire were so satisfactory; but he could not consent to the Amendment, because, in many counties where Local Acts were retained, the rates were higher than 4d. in the pound.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, that in his county, 6d. in the pound was not found more than sufficient.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONobserved, that was the case in his county also.
    MR. RAMSAYbelieved it would be well to limit the assessment to 4d. in the pound on occupiers, provided the Bill was so modified as to enable an assessment to be levied upon the proprietors under special circumstances for any excess of the expenditure for road management.
    MR. VANSAGNEWstated, that in his county the rate had never exceeded 4½d. in the pound. The Local Act had been in operation there during the last 12 years, and the rate had been 4d. in the pound in one part of the county and 4½d. in the other.
    SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHERsaid, the second part of the same clause ran thus—
    "And such assessment shall be paid, one-half by the proprietor, and the other half by the tenant, or occupier of the lands and heritages on which the same is imposed, except in the case of lands and heritages entered in the Valuation Roll as of the annual value of five pounds or under, in which case the whole of the assessment on such lands and heritages may, in the option of the trustees, be levied from and paid by the proprietor, who shall be entitled to recover the half thereof from the tenant or occupier."
    He proposed, by way of Amendment, to leave out from "district" in line 20, to "and" in line 21, with the view of making the clause read as follows:—"And such assessment shall be paid by the proprietor, who shall, &c." In rural districts the proprietors would have to pay the whole of the taxes, and they might as well make a beginning at once. It must be borne in mind that the majority
    1734
    of the people on whom such a rate would be levied were poor, and they would pay very unwillingly. It was quite clear that in the end the proprietor would have to pay the whole charge, and he might as well do it directly as indirectly.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsupported the Amendment. They had heard over and over again that the proprietor, and not the tenant, paid this taxation; and it would be a much simpler process, independent of its economic results, to collect the money direct from one person. For that reason, he was in favour of the Amendment.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, it was to be regretted that they should waste time in discussing Amendments which were contrary to the whole spirit and tone of the Bill. It was surprising that such obstruction should come from the other side of the House.
    Amendment negatived.
    SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAMEsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper substituting for the provision that
    "One-half of the assessment shall be paid by the proprietor, and the other half by the tenant or occupier of the lands and heritages on which the same is imposed,"
    a provision that, during the continuance of leases existing at the commencement of Act, three-fourths should be paid by the tenant, and one-fourth by the proprietor; while, on the expiration of the leases, three-fourths should be paid by the proprietor, and one-fourth by the tenant.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out, that by negativing the previous Amendment, the Committee had affirmed the principle that one-half should be paid by each. Therefore, the Amendment could not be put. It ought to have been proposed earlier.
    SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAMEregretted, that through his ignorance of the Forms of the House, he had made a mistake. He would propose the Amendment on the Report.
    COLONEL ALEXANDER COLONEL ALEXANDER moved, in page 26, line 25, to leave out "five" and insert "four." In the Bill it was provided that assessments on lands and heritages of £5 and under might, at the option of the trustees, be levied entirely from the proprietor, leaving him to re-

    1735
    cover one-half from the tenant or occupier.
    Amendment agreed to; word substituted.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 50 (Maintenance of bridges in two districts).
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH moved, in page 26, line 42, after "districts," to insert the following words:—
    "And with respect to the suspension bridge across the river Ness, erected with public money under the Act of the fourteenth and fifteenth years Victoria, chapter sixty-six, for the accommodation of the Northern counties, by the Parliamentary Commissioners, the burden of maintaining the said bridge shall in future rest on the county and burgh of Inverness, in proportion to their respective real rents, as established by the Valuation Rolls thereof."
    His Amendment aimed to remedy a statutory injustice under which the burgh of Inverness suffered. In the year 1849 there was a bridge across the Ness which had been free from tolls for a very long period. In that year, as was alleged, from the alterations upon the Caledonian Canal, the bridge was swept away. After some years another bridge was erected over the river by Parliament. The money was administered under a special Act of Parliament—namely, the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 66—and by the Parliamentary Roads and Bridges Commission; and under it, and the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 113, the maintenance of the bridge fell upon the whole of the Northern counties, including Inverness, Ross, Sutherland, and Caithness. Some years after Parliament resolved that they would no longer grant money in support of Highland roads and bridges, and passed the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 105, by which the Northern counties, other than Inverness, were expressly relieved of the maintenance of this suspension bridge; and the bridge was transferred to, and vested in, the Commissioners of Supply for the county of Inverness, and at the present moment was their property. Previous to the passing of the Bill, the burgh only paid its fair proportion of maintenance. By Section 14, it was declared that the burgh must pay for maintaining the roads within the burgh boundaries, which was fair enough. Nothing was directly said as to the maintenance of bridges within the burgh bounds. Now,
    1736
    the suspension bridge lay entirely within the burgh boundaries.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the hon. Member would, he was sure, excuse an interruption. He would call his attention to the fact that the clause applied to bridges not wholly within a burgh or a county, but partly situated in one and partly in another. Clause 85 applied to bridges wholly within a county; and, as the bridge was wholly within the county, he thought upon consideration the hon. Member would see that his Amendment would come better later on.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Chairman of Committees if that were his ruling on the point?
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was not in the least objecting to his hon. Friend moving his Amendment then; but he was merely pointing out that his Amendment would come better on Clause 85, which applied to bridges that were entirely within the boundaries of a county as that was.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsaid, that being the case, he would withdraw the Amendment for the present.
    Clause 51 (Assessment in burghs for maintenance and repair); Clause 52 (Former modes of assessment may be retained in certain burghs); severally amended verbally, and agreed to.
    Contracts by Road Authorities.
    Clause 53 (Power for road authority to make contracts in respect of repair of roads, highways, or bridges), verbally amended, and agreed to.
    Extraordinary Traffic.
    Clause 54 (Power of road authority to recover expenses of extraordinary traffic).
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, they would postpone the clause.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE: Will it be taken at the end?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Yes.
    Clause postponed.
    Construction of New Roads and Bridges.
    Clause 55 (New roads and bridges may be constructed by the board, and assessed for upon proprietors).
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY MR. J. W. BARCLAY moved, to insert in the sentence, in line 4, "the

    1737
    board, subject to the approval of the trustees, may resolve to construct any new bridge," &c., the words "trustees or" before the word "board." He thought that Amendment would make the clause a little more explicit.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he would not oppose the Amendment for a moment, if he thought it would make the clause more explicit; but he did not think it would at all have that effect. He wanted the board, as constituted, to act in this matter as bridge trustees.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment, but he really thought his next was necessary. He wished to insert in the same line, after the word "trustees" the sentence "other than elected trustees." The clause required to be more explicit. It provided that the terms of the contract were to be subject to the approval of the trustees, which surely meant the whole of the trustees; but the elected trustees had no vote in such questions. It would, therefore, be far more convenient to have it explained that it referred to trustees other than elected trustees.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he objected to this Amendment even more than to the last; because, when the word "trustees" was used, it was implied that it meant the word according to the interpretation previously given. If they admitted the Amendment, it would imply that the matter was not sufficient, as it was previously left, whereby it was provided that when there were any new roads or bridges to be provided, certain trustees should not act.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, on the assurance of the Lord Advocate, that there was no risk of a misunderstanding, he would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    COLONEL ALEXANDER COLONEL ALEXANDER moved, as an Amendment, in page 29, line 17, after "assessment," insert "not exceeding one penny in the pound." His reason for doing so was, that in the existing county Act the assessment was limited to a halfpenny in the pound; and if that amount were found sufficient, double that amount ought to be more than necessary here.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Valuation and Allocation of Debt.
    Clause 56 (Appointment of Debt Commissioners).
    On the Motion of Mr. J. W. BARCLAY, the following Amendment was made in page 30, line 14:—After "provided," insert "where the parties fail to agree."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 57 (Clerks of trusts to make out list of debts).
    On the Motion of Mr. J. W. BARCLAY, the following Amendment was made:—In page 30, line 31, after "labour" insert "and bridge."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, they would now report Progress, and take the Bill again the first thing on Thursday.
    MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, he should have been glad if the Government could have arranged to have gone on with the Bill again that evening; but, as his hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms) who had secured the evening for his Motion as to the Church Establishment, was absent, he feared that was impossible.
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.
    The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

MOTIONS.
  RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS (SCOTLAND).

    MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    MR. W. HOLMS: Sir, in accordance with the Notice which I gave some time ago, I now rise to call the attention of the House to the relative position of the various Religious Denominations in Scotland; and to move—
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Patronage Act of 1874, and its effect on the reciprocal relations

    1739
    of the various Religious Denominations in Scotland, and to ascertain how far the people of Scotland are in favour of maintaining the connection between Church and State in that Country."
    I have to ask the indulgence of the House while speaking on a question of so much importance to the people of Scotland, and which I am sure cannot be regarded with indifference by the people of England or Ireland. The fact that my hon. Friends the Members for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) and Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) gave Notice that they also would move for inquiry with reference to the state of religious parties in Scotland, is an evidence that this question is exciting wide and general interest in Scottish constituencies. I should have preferred that this question had been brought forward by Her Majesty's Government, as I believe the time has come when, in the interests of religion and in justice to the various religious denominations in Scotland, it is desirable that we should ascertain whether or not the people of Scotland are in favour of maintaining an Established Church in that country. I have asked for a Select Committee, as I believe it is more likely to come to an early decision than a Royal Commission. I assure hon. Members that, in moving this Resolution, I do so with a sense of the grave responsibility which attaches to a private Member who takes up a question which, directly or indirectly, affects a great and time-honoured national institution. I can further assure them that I shall approach this subject in no spirit of partizanship, or from any hostile feeling to the Church; but I shall endeavour to do so in a fair and, as far as possible, in a judicial spirit. I would remind hon. Members that ecclesiastical questions, whether of faith or Church government, have at all times excited the most intense interest among the people of Scotland. It is true that for many years the bitter feelings which were called forth by the Disruption have to a large extent died away. Those feelings, however, have again been aroused, and fresh interest has been given to this question by two recent events—namely, the abolition of patronage by the Act of 1874, and the declaration of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. When on a visit to Scotland last autumn, he said that if the people of Scotland
    1740
    desired the disestablishment of the National Church, he and the Liberal Party would be in favour of giving effect to their wishes. After such a declaration, it was impossible that this question could be put aside; and so long as it continues unsettled, so long shall we have that irritation and that waste of religious power arising from a state of things which Scotchmen of all Parties must deplore. In considering the Resolution which I have proposed, I would ask hon. Members to do so not from an English or Irish, but, if possible, from a Scottish point of view, and with reference to the history, the feelings, and the wants of the people of Scotland. The position and circumstances of the Church of Scotland are entirely different from those of the Anglican Church, or the Church of Ireland before it was disestablished. What, therefore, may be suitable in one country may not be suitable in another. In Ireland you had a State Church enjoying great revenues, ministering to a mere fraction of the people, and having little or no sympathy with the history, the feelings, and the religion of the great mass of the people. That Church has been disestablished. In England you have an Established Church which has still a strong hold on the people and a close connection with the State. Side by side with that Church you have a powerful and energetic Body of Nonconformists, whose system of Church government, whose forms of Church worship, and, in some respects, whose Articles of Faith are different from those of the Church of England; and whose ministers are, as a rule, drawn from a less aristocratic class than those of the State Church. The consequence is, that socially as well as ecclesiastically, the laity and clergy of the Church of England on the one hand, and of the Nonconformists on the other, to a large extent keep themselves apart from each other. In Scotland we know of no such distinctions between Churchmen and Nonconformists. There, the connection between Church and State has always been slender; and now, by the passing of the Patronage Act, has become attenuated to such a degree that, practically, it is independent of the State. Happily, nearly all Scotchmen have a common interest in the history of the Church of Scotland, for they either belong to it or have sprung from it.

    1741
    They can unite in admiring the farseeing and statesmanlike sagacity of John Knox and his able coadjutors in planting a church and a school in every parish; and, although from time to time, one Body after another have felt it to be their duty from conscientious motives to leave that Church, the highest tribute that can be paid to the memory of the great Reformer is to be found in the fact that the three great Presbyterian Bodies in Scotland are the same in doctrine, discipline, and form of Church worship. The union of Churches, having so much real agreement and so much in common, would appear to be natural and easy, and as I think, with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire, it certainly would be most desirable; but, unfortunately, this has not been found to be the case. To understand this, we must look to the past history of the Church of Scotland. After the Reformation, with the exception of a comparatively small number of Episcopalians and Roman Catholics, all Scotland was Presbyterian, and all Presbyterians, with an insignificant exception, were united in their adherence to the National Church. From that time down to the present day, the cause of every secession from her pale has directly or indirectly been the question of patronage. During the last 300 years patronage has been thrice established and thrice abolished, and during that long period it has never ceased to agitate the people of Scotland. In 1560, the "First Book of Discipline," which, although not formally ratified by Parliament, was subscribed by a majority of the Privy Council and by the General Assembly, lays down the principle on which the appointment of ministers should proceed in the following words:—
    "It appertaineth to the people and to every several congregation to elect their ministers,"
    and adds—
    "For altogether this is to be avoided, that any man be violently intruded or thrust in upon any congregation, for this liberty with all care must be reserved to every several church to have their votes and suffrages."
    The Book of Discipline, which received the sanction of the General Assembly in 1578, and became the authorized standard of the Church of Scotland in regard to government and discipline, again affirmed that—
    1742
    "None are to be intruded into any ecclesiastical office contrary to the will of the congregation to which they are appointed."
    Notwithstanding that such was the constitution of the Church of Scotland for more than 30 years after the Reformation, an Act was passed in 1592, which provided that the Presbytery
    "be bound to receive and admit qualified ministers presented by the Crown or other lay patrons."
    This Act remained in force till 1649, when patronage was abolished as being
    "unlawful and unwarrantable by God's Word, and contrary to the doctrine and liberties of the Kirk."
    This Act was annulled by Charles II. in 1660, and patronage once more was restored. In 1690, by what was known as the Revolution Settlement, patronage was again abolished. Previous to the Union of Scotland and England, so anxious were the people of Scotland to preserve all their national privileges, that what is known as the Act of Security was passed by the Scottish Parliament. In that Act, which was afterwards ratified by the Act of Union, it was expressly stipulated—
    "That the true Protestant religion, as presently professed within this Kingdom, with the worship, discipline, and government of this Church, shall be effectually and unalterably secured;"
    and adds—
    "to continue without any alteration to the people of this land in all succeeding generations."
    It would be difficult for language to convey more clearly the idea that, in forming a Union with England, all the existing rights and privileges of the Church of Scotland were to remain unimpaired and intact. Notwithstanding this solemn agreement, in 1712 an Act was passed—too well known afterwards as the Act of Queen Anne—with such indecent haste, that the people of Scotland and the General Assembly had no time to oppose legislation which was in direct violation of the Treaty of Union, and most distasteful to the whole country. That proceeding was immediately protested against by the General Assembly. In the following year they attempted to have the Act repealed, but were unsuccessful. From that time down till 1783, the General Assembly year after year gave instruction to their

    1743
    Commission, to take every opportunity to have the law altered, but without avail. Sir, I have been thus particular in referring to the history of patronage, in order to show that the people of Scotland have always been averse to patronage, that it was not in accordance with the principles of the Church of Scotland at the Reformation, and was in direct violation of the Act of Union. I shall now, with the permission of the House, endeavour to show that at all times the people of Scotland have been warmly attached to the principles of the Church of Scotland as they were at the Union, and that all secessions from her have been made, not by way of dissent from these principles, but in opposition to the forced departure in the Church itself from one of her fundamental principles—"That it appertaineth to the people to elect their minister." In 1733, the forcing of a minister on the parish of Kinross, in opposition to the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the people, led to the secession of the Rev. Ebenezer Erskine and other protesting clergymen, who formed themselves into what became known as the "Associate Presbytery." But, Sir, those men, in leaving the Church, did so avowing their unaltered adherence to the doctrine, discipline, and government of the Church. In 1752, repeated acts of forcing ministers on objecting parishes led, in 1761, to the second secession, known as the "Presbytery of Relief," because the seceders took this method of obtaining relief from intolerable tyranny of patronage. They had no desire to be regarded as schismatics, and earnestly declared that they withdrew from the Church of Scotland because her principles had been violated. Such was the determination to have freedom from patronage, that by 1773 there were no less than 190 congregations of seceders, and in 1834 they numbered upwards of 600, nearly all of whom had by that time adopted what was known as the Voluntary principle—that is, that there should be no connection between Church and State. In that year, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in order to remedy the evils of patronage, passed the "Veto Act," by which a presentee might be set aside, if objected to by a majority of the male heads of families being communicants. Disputes arose as to the legality of this
    1744
    Act, culminating in the Disruption of 1843. One of the last acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland previous to that event was to carry, by a majority of 241 to 110, what was known as the "Claim of Rights," in which they claimed a spiritual independence of the civil magistrate, and complained that the Court of Session, by compelling the Church to carry out its decisions with reference to disputed settlements of ministers
    "had invaded the jurisdiction and encroached upon the spiritual privileges of the Courts of the Church."
    They further declared that they could not intrude ministers on reclaiming congregations, and that at the risk and hazard of suffering the loss of the secular benefits conferred by the State and the public advantages of an Establishment. On the same day they adopted a Petition to the Crown, praying to be delivered from the "grievance of patronage," as being
    "opposed to the discipline of the Church as set forth in her earliest constitutional Standards,"
    And also—
    "as a breach, of the Revolution Settlement and an infringement of the Treaty of Union."
    They add—
    "The exercise of patronage has been attended with great injury to the interests of religion, and has been the chief source of the Dissent that exists in Scotland."
    And they further stated—
    "It is the main cause of the difficulties in which the Church is at present involved;"
    and concluded by a prayer for such a measure as would secure
    "the rights of congregations in the appointment of their ministers."
    This Petition was presented to the House of Commons by the Right Hon. Fox Maule, who moved that the House should go into Committee to take into consideration the claims of the Church of Scotland. The result of two days' discussion was, that his Motion was defeated by 211 to 76; but it is a significant fact that, of the Scottish Members who voted, 25 were in favour of the Motion, while only 12 were against it. That decision was, I think, a great political blunder on the part of the statesmen of the day. The result was, that

    1745
    upwards of 470 ministers left the National Church, and claiming in their freedom to be the true custodiers of the principles of that Church, and supported by a large number of the people, formed themselves in the Free Church of Scotland. Whatever difference of opinion may exist as to the wisdom of the course which they took, I venture to say that history cannot furnish a nobler example of self-denial, and of determination, at all hazards, to act in obedience to the dictates of conscience than that of those men leaving the Church of their fathers, and throwing themselves on the liberality of the people for support. It is an event of which not only Scotland but the Empire may be proud, and from which undoubtedly religion and education received an impetus which has had an important and beneficial effect on the people of Scotland for the future—while it almost rendered the power of lay patrons inoperative. Sir, those men, clergy and laity, left the Church of Scotland, not because they disapproved of an Established Church, but because they could not comply with the conditions attached to that Church. In the famous Protest which they made on leaving, they used these remarkable words—
    "While firmly asserting the right and duty of the civil magistrate to maintain and support an Establishment of religion in accordance with God's Word, we do not hold ourselves at liberty to retain the benefits of the Establishment while we cannot comply with the conditions now desired to be thereto attached."
    I think I have said sufficient to prove that the main cause of all Dissent in Scotland has been the question of patronage; but, Sir, I shall fortify myself still further by quoting the words of Lord Macaulay, a statesman who gave great attention to this subject. He said—
    "The British Legislature violated the Act of Union and made a change in the constitution of the Church of Scotland. From that change has followed almost all the Dissent now existing in Scotland; for the Act of 1712 undoubtedly gave rise to every secession and schism that has taken place in the Church of Scotland."
    When patronage was abolished in 1874, the Church of Scotland was simply restored to its original constitution and put in accord with the universal practice of all the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland, while the main cause of all Dissent was removed. I, in common with many others, voted for that Act, believing
    1746
    that it would be a healing measure, and that some way might be devised by which those Churches which had seceded on account of patronage might again be united and form a strong National Presbyterian Church. That expectation has not been fulfilled. It is true that eight ordained ministers from the Free Church, and about 15 or 16 from other Bodies, and three or four congregations have joined the Church of Scotland; but such isolated action has naturally rather been productive of irritation than of union; and two great Dissenting Bodies—namely, the Free Church, and the United Presbyterian Church, naturally ask why they, who protested against patronage, and gave up so much for principles which they held dear, now that patronage has been abolished, should be placed in a different position from the Church of Scotland? What, then, is now the ecclesiastical position of Scotland? It is a very remarkable one. If by a Church is meant a body of men bound together by community of beliefs and similarity of Church forms, then all Presbyterians in Scotland are, in reality, one Church; but, unfortunately, in the actual relations to each other, they are divided into three distinct Churches. First of all we have an ancient Church established by law, enjoying all the revenues set apart for religious purposes, a Church whose history is closely interwoven with all that is great and glorious in the history of Scotland. Those who are within her pale and those who have left it will, I think, equally acknowledge the accuracy of the opinion expressed by the Royal Commission appointed in 1834 on Religious Worship in Scotland, when they reported—
    "We believe that no institution has ever existed which, at so little cost, has accomplished so much good. The eminent place which Scotland holds in the scale of nations is mainly owing to the purity of the Standards and the zeal of ministers of its Church, as well as to the wisdom with which its internal institutions have been adapted to the habits and the interests of the people."
    The Church of Scotland has moulded all the other Churches which from time to time have left her; but time and circumstances have, in one respect, changed those Churches. The Free Church, which comes next in importance, when it left the Church of Scotland did so, as I have pointed out, protesting that it

    1747
    still adhered to the principle of having a Church in connection with the State. Long disconnection with the State, and no doubt a natural feeling of jealousy towards the Established Church has, to some extent, brought about a change, so that there is a division of opinion in the Free Church as to whether or not there should be a State Church. The United Presbyterian Church, which is third in importance, and combines within itself nearly all the earlier seceding Churches, has, from, longer separation from the State, as a rule become opposed to all connection between Church and State. Those three great Presbyterian Bodies—namely, the Established, Free, and United Presbyterian Churches—embrace 85 per cent of the church-going people of Scotland; while the various smaller denominations, such as the Independents, Roman Catholics, and Episcopalians, include about 15 per cent. I shall now call the attention of hon. Members to the hold which those three Churches have respectively on the people of Scotland. This is somewhat difficult, as we have no reliable statistical information on the subject till we go back to 1851, when a religious census was taken in connection with the usual Census. At that time, I find that the total number of places of worship in Scotland was 3,395, and the attendance on the morning of the 30th March was roundly 944,000, apportioned as follows:—The Church of Scotland had 1,183 places of worship, and 351,500 present at worship; the Free Church had 889 places of worship, 292,300 present at worship; the United Presbyterian Church had 465 places of worship, and 159,200 present at worship. All other Churches had 858 places of worship, and 141,000 present at worship. From this, it is evident that at that time the Church of Scotland supplied little more than a third of the places of worship, and had only 37½ per cent of the church-going population attending her services. It is interesting to note how far each of the three Churches has since that date supplied the religious wants of Scotland. The Church of Scotland, notwithstanding the shock which she received at the Disruption, entered on a career of church extension with so much vigour that, in 1877, her places of worship had increased from 1,183 to 1,406, or an increase of 19 per cent, exclusive of 126 preaching and mission stations. The Free Church
    1748
    had increased from 889 to 1,032, or 16 per cent; and the United Presbyterian Church from 465 to 525, or 13 per cent. From this, it would appear that the Church of Scotland had, relatively, made greater progress in providing accommodation than either of the other two Bodies. Whether the number of adherents has increased in the same proportion, we have no reliable information to guide us; but I think we may fairly assume that it has been in similar proportions. Allow me now to call the attention of hon. Members to the annual revenue of the respective Churches. From a Return made to this House in 1874, I find that the Church of Scotland had from teinds, £235,759; Exchequer grants, £16,300; local sources—chiefly rates in towns—£23,502; total, £275,501. That constituted the amount of her State or national endowment. I may here note that of her 1,406 churches; only 988 are endowed by the State—the remaining 418 being endowed or supported by voluntary contributions. If, however, we are to form an estimate of the energy of the respective Churches, as shown by their contributions for Church and other religious purposes of all kinds, we must look to their official returns. From those, I find that in 1876, 1,286 churches connected with the Church of Scotland contributed £374,715. If we take the same proportions for the churches which made no returns, the amount would be £408,600, or nearly £291 per congregation—a sum greatly in excess of all she received from the State. The Free Church, during the same year, raised £575,719, or £558 per congregation; while the United Presbyterian Church gave £378,079, or the enormous average of £710 per congregation. From this statement, it would appear that the total amount of free-will contributions of the three great Presbyterian Bodies, which form 85 per cent of the population of Scotland, amounted in 1877 to£l,363,400. If we take the Independents, Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, and other smaller denominations, as contributing in a similar proportion, as they form 15 per cent of the population, we must add, say £204,500, or a total of free-will offerings amounting to £1,567,900; while, as I have already stated, the total amount of State endowment amounts only to £275,500, or, in other words, the maintenance of religion in Scotland costs

    1749
    roundly £1,843,400 a-year, of which the State endowments amount to rather less than 15 per cent. From this, it is evident that the maintenance of religion in Scotland does not mainly, or even to any considerable extent, depend on State endowments. And now, as to the present position of the Church of Scotland. It is impossible to deny that, owing to the causes to which I have referred, a great change has taken place, especially since the Disruption. Formerly, the Church was extensive with the country. Now, of rather more than 4,000 places of worship, she has only 1,406, or about 35 per cent. Then, the parish minister gave the benefit of his ministrations to, and they were accepted by, the whole parish. Now, he is the minister of a particular congregation in a parish, while in some districts in the Highlands he has almost no congregation. I find, for instance, that in 1851, and I believe the proportion is much the same now, in four Northern counties—Caithness, Sutherland, Ross, and Cromarty—only 2,100 out of 36,250, or six out of every 100, of the church-going people of those counties attended the parish church. In those districts, the anomalous position of the Established Church, whose ministers, it has been well said, gather the wool while others tend the flock, is a continual source of irritation, a waste of ecclesiastical power, and a scandal which is injurious to religion. If we, on the other hand, turn to two of the great centres of population—namely, Edinburgh and Glasgow—we find, from the same source, that the number of church-going people attending the Established Church in those cities was rather under 24 per cent, a proportion which, in both cases, was slightly exceeded by the Free Church. Having thus endeavoured to put before the House, as clearly as I can, the relative positions of the Established, Free, and United Presbyterian Churches, the question arises—Are the people of Scotland satisfied with the present state of things? There are many, myself among the number, who would hail with pleasure any scheme which would unite all Scottish Presbyterians into one strong National Church, retaining those endowments which have hitherto belonged exclusively to the Established Church, but sharing them in common. There are, however, difficulties in the way, which appear to be
    1750
    all but insuperable. It would be rash to deny that, had patronage been abolished in 1834, instead of 1874, it would in all probability have prevented the Disruption of 1843, and there would have been no occasion for the assertion on the part of that Church of that spiritual independence which she has always claimed; but which, as formulated by the Free Church in their celebrated Claim of Rights at the Disruption, the State is not likely to acknowledge. The difficulties in connection with the United Presbyterian Church are even greater, as they are opposed on principle to all religious State endowment. There are others who would be glad to see the Church disestablished, and the funds which are now used for the endowment of religion applied to some other purpose of a national character, such as education—as thereby all classes, Churchmen and Dissenters, would alike share in the benefits of reduced school rates. I have already pointed out that less than 40 per cent of the church-going population attend her places of worship, while her endowments and free-will offerings put together amount to less than 40 per cent of the money expended in connection with religion in Scotland. I venture to think that hon. Members will agree with me, that a Church can only be regarded as a National Church so long as its continuance is in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the people. The real question, therefore, is—Do the people of Scotland wish that the Established Church, notwithstanding the anomalous position in which it is placed, should be continued as a National Church, or that it should be disestablished and disendowed? I believe that I am warranted in saying that, beyond her own pale, there are many who would not wish to see the Church disestablished. There are many members of the Free Church who still adhere to the principles which were so emphatically stated at the Disruption that, although they had to leave the Church because they held the principles of the Church to be violated, they still held that there should be a Church in connection with the State. As an example of this feeling, let me quote from a letter written recently by Lord Moncreiff, one of the most distinguished leaders of the Free Church—
    "As an adherent of the Free Church, I see no more reason for taking any part in an agita-

    1751
    tion against the Established Church now than the leaders of the great body of the General Assembly did in 1843."
    Then, again, there are some even among the United Presbyterians, although I believe the number to be small, who adhere to the principle that there should be an Established Church; while some of the smaller bodies of Dissenters, such as the Original Secession Synod, counting, I understand, about 50 congregations, hold the same view. It is, therefore, impossible, with the information which we now possess, to arrive at anything like a definite opinion as to what are the views of the people of Scotland on this question. Sir, we have had no inquiry of a general character into the ecclesiastical state of Scotland since 1834, and I trust that I have said enough to show that since that time events of great importance have occurred, which render it necessary that there should be one now, in order to ascertain whether the people of Scotland have such a respect for an ancient Institution which has done good service in the past, and is still doing good work, as would lead them to desire its maintenance as a State Church in the future, or whether they believe that the time has come when that Institution, having fulfilled the great religious and educational purposes for which it was established, and having been the parent of other Churches which, in all essentials, are precisely the same as herself, no reason exists for continuing to her privileges which, from being exclusive, are a source of irritation to other Presbyterian Bodies. You may ask me how this is to be done? It is scarcely for me to answer, as part of the work of a Select Committee would naturally be to determine the best mode of getting such information. For myself, I should be satisfied if each elector should be allowed to put in the ballot box a voting paper "for" or "against" the Disestablishment of the Church of Scotland; and if the result should prove that the majority are in favour of Disestablishment, I have no hesitation in saying that, on Constitutional grounds, no Church can be called National to which a majority of the people are opposed; and, whatever may be my own feelings towards the Church of Scotland, I am bound to say that it ought to be disestablished, and the funds to which it has at present an exclusive right,
    1752
    should be devoted to some other National purpose. I sincerely trust that the Government will agree to my Resolution, and grant an Inquiry by a Select Committee; as I rest assured that till this question is settled, it will continue in the future, as it has done in the past, to create an amount of irritation and bitter feeling, which cannot but prove prejudicial to the highest interests of the people of Scotland. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    MR. JAMES STEWARTsaid, that he rose with great diffidence to second the Motion; and, in doing so, had need to ask hon. Members for that indulgence which usually extended to those who, for the first time, ventured to address the House. He hoped that the Government would be disposed to acquiesce in granting a Select Committee. All who were acquainted with ecclesiastical affairs in Scotland must be aware, and must, he thought, admit that they were in a high degree unsatisfactory. He need not remind the House that the Presbyterian form of worship and of Church government was in a literal sense national in Scotland. He supposed he was quite within bounds in saying that not less than 80 per cent of the entire population adhered to that form of worship and of Church government; but, unfortunately, circumstances had arisen which had broken up the Presbyterians of Scotland into three powerful Denominations. Thoughtful men in each of those Denominations, feeling how much they held, both in faith and in practice, in common, deplored the differences which kept them apart; and there had consequently arisen a widespread and deeply-rooted desire that some means might be devised by which the Presbyterians of Scotland might be united in one National Church. The Motion before the House, and the Amendment which had been placed after it, were evidences of that desire. He trusted that the House would give its assent to the inquiry, which would, no doubt, be conducted in an impartial spirit, and the evidence adduced would help to guide them to a right solution. He confessed that he shared in the very prevalent feeling of dislike to raise a discussion as to the relative position of the Churches in Scotland on account of the heat which such discussions were too apt to engender; but there

    1753
    could not be a doubt that for some years past that question had been assuming an increased importance in Scotland. He believed it would not admit of further postponement, and therefore he thought that before men's minds became inflamed with controversy as to what were, and what were not, facts, it was in a high degree desirable that some authoritative inquiry should take place to establish the facts, so that they might be able to form a right judgment on the whole matter. There was no doubt, he thought, that such an inquiry would necessarily embrace in its scope the question of Disestablishment; but he hoped that Churchmen on both sides of the House would not be deterred from granting an inquiry on that account. The answer to that question would have to depend upon three things—firstly, whether it could be shown that the large majority of the people of Scotland were outside the communion of the Established Church; secondly, supposing that to be shown, did the maintenance of the Established Church constitute an injustice to the majority; and, thirdly, did that majority desire to have the Church disestablished? Should it turn out that those questions must be answered in the affirmative, he thought that even Churchmen themselves would admit that the time would seem to have come for its Disestablishment. He did not think the liberal-minded portion of the Established Churchmen would consider Disestablishment an unmixed calamity, provided it brought about a prospect of a re-union of Presbyterians in one National Church. He could not but think that they would consider the advantages of union outweighed largely the disadvantages of Disestablishment. As a Scotchman, and knowing the loss which religion and morality suffered from the present condition of things, and from the weakness which was inseparable from disunion, he earnestly desired to see some means taken which would open the door for a union of Presbyterians. The Patronage Act of 1874 had that object, no doubt, in view; but, as his hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms) had pointed out, it had utterly failed in accomplishing it. For himself, he was bound to say that, while he had not arrived at the opinion that the Established Church was in all cases and circumstances indefensible or unscriptural,
    1754
    yet he was convinced that the first step towards the desired end—namely, the union of Presbyterians, would be found to lie in the separation of Church and State in Scotland; for, so long as the union of Church and State was maintained, a barrier existed which must prevent union, except of the most fragmentary character—and for this reason, that the United Presbyterian Church was opposed to the principle of endowment of religion by the State, whilst the Free Church, though originally holding the Establishment theory, had discovered by her own experience that a Church could flourish independently of the State; and, accordingly, the vast majority of her people had now departed from that principle. He knew there were so-called Constitutionalists, who feared that if they touched the Church they touched the State; but no opinion, in his mind, could be more absurd. He believed there were no more loyal subjects than the Nonconformists of Scotland. There were strong distinctions in the connection which existed between the Church and State in England as compared with that in Scotland. He was not going to enter into these; but he would remind the House of one—namely, that whereas in England the Church recognized the Queen as its head, the Scotch Church did not do so, and never had done so; and, therefore, it was clear that by its constitution the Scotch Church was not by any means so intimately connected with the State as the Church of England. Some of the friends of the Established Church thought that she numbered amongst her adherents the majority of the people of Scotland. If that were so, he admitted that her position would be stronger than he took it to be; but it seemed to him that there was considerable evidence against that assertion. He did not suppose that people pretended that the congregations of the Established Church were larger as a rule than those of other Denominations. Well, then, he found there were 1,517 churches attached to the Free and United Presbyterian Churches, against 1,390 attached to the Established Church. And these last comprised about 300 Highland charges, most of them very meagrely attended. In regard to the money raised for religious purposes during the past year—which was not an unfair test of the vitality and power of Church

    1755
    organization—£965,000 had been contributed by Free and United Presbyterians, against £385,000 by the Established Church. If these were facts, then it seemed to him that the Established Church had not that hold upon the church-going population of Scotland which was asserted; and that there was, at all events, good ground for inquiry into the facts. If it be said that the present condition of things formed no injustice to those outside the Established Church, he could only reply that he could not understand how those who had given the question full consideration could hold that opinion. Here they had national funds set apart for the maintenance of religion, of a form which still continued to be the National form which by the action of the State—admitted now to have been blundering action—lay persons of the population were unable, unless by the sacrifice of what they held to be principle, to participate in the advantages to be derived from those funds. Was there no injustice in that? Then, again, it might be said that the union of the Presbyterians was a Utopian idea; but he had sufficient faith in the practical common sense of his countrymen to believe that if they removed this barrier, a re-union sooner or later must become inevitable. It was also objected that if they disendowed the Church, they would not know what to do with the funds; but in educational and other matters those funds, he maintained, could be applied in such a way that the whole population, and not one section of the community only, would benefit. He entertained no feeling of hostility towards the Established Church of Scotland. He acknowledged the important share she bore in carrying on the religious work of Scotland, and he did not wish to see her means of usefulness crippled or impaired. He believed the withdrawal of State funds would have no such effect. He believed, on the contrary, that it would have an opposite effect, and that it would develop within her bounds those potent resources which lay in the free-will offerings of her people, and upon which her sister Churches had with such conspicuous success relied. From this source, he found that during the space of the last 35 years, the Free Church had received for religious purposes no less a sum than £12,000,000, which was upwards of £340,000 per annum;
    1756
    and, as his hon. Friend the Member for Paisley had shown, the income had last year amounted to £565,000. They who belonged to that Church might be pardoned if they pointed to those results with some degree of pride. In his opinion, the withdrawal of all State funds, and the placing of the Established Church and of the Presbyterian Churches on one and the same footing, as regarded recognition by the State, was the only way in which they could hope to see the idea of a National Church in Scotland attained. No Church had a practical title to be styled national unless she comprised within her bounds the great majority of the people of the country. There was a time when there was a National Church of Scotland; but that National Church was now represented, not by one section, but by the three sections into which the Presbyterians were divided. He would not detain the House by entering in detail into the advantages which would accrue to Scotland by the removal of the obstacles which kept Presbyterians apart. He would only say, that if the Government assented to that inquiry, and were able to deal with that important question in such a way as to heal the unhappy divisions that existed, they would earn for themselves, and he was sure they would receive, the respect and gratitude of the people of Scotland.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Patronage Act of 1874, and its effect upon the reciprocal relations of the various religious denominations in Scotland, and to ascertain how far the people of Scotland are in favour of maintaining the connection between Church and State in that Country."—(Mr. William Holms.)
    MR. C. S. PARKER MR. C. S. PARKER moved the following Amendment:—
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present relations of the Established Church with the other Churches in Scotland, and with the people at large, and in particular to inquire how far the Church Patronage Act of 1874 has tended to remove the causes of disunion and dissatisfaction among the Presbyterians of Scotland, and what further legislation would most conduce to that end?"
    He was sure that the House generally would respond to the wish expressed that the Government might be able, if not to accept any of the Motions before the House, at least to find some mode of dealing with the question which

    1757
    should promote the cause of Christian Union in Scotland. The House must have been favourably impressed by the tone and temper of the speeches to which they had listened—the one from a member of the Established Church in Scotland, the other from a member of one of the non-Established Churches. Those speeches represented fairly the prevailing tone of feeling in the country. It was true that the sense of injustice had caused a bitterness of language on the part of some agitators; but at the more solemn meetings of the Churches and in their formal resolutions would be found a presiding spirit of Christian mutual goodwill. Even those Churches which might seem to be pursuing an aggressive policy did so in the firm belief that they were promoting not only the Christian welfare of the nation, but the higher interests of the Church to which, for the time, they were opposed. His Amendment was in no way hostile to the Motion. With his hon. Friends (Mr. W. Holms and Mr. J. Stewart), he believed that there was a strong case for inquiry, and that it had been rendered more urgent by recent legislation. He further agreed in asking for a Select Committee. It was only when he came to the question, what should be the Instruction to the Committee? that he found a difficulty in accepting the Motion. But, before he proceeded to explain where in his Instruction to the Committee would differ from that already proposed, he wished to speak in general support of the Motion for inquiry. The facts and statistics of the case had been so amply set forth by his hon. Friends, that it was unnecessary to weary the House by referring to them any further. But he was sure the House would feel that such magnificent displays of Christian liberality, life, and vigour through out Scotland as were indicated by these figures were a matter of congratulation. The chief appeal that he would make to hon. Members who represented English and Irish constituencies was, that they would endeavour not to look at this question too much in the light of any supposed analogy with the case of their own country. He did not disguise from himself the fact that whatever general principles were involved in the Motion were applicable to the Church of England as well as to that of Scotland; but he believed there were few hon. Members
    1758
    who held those general principles in so abstract a form, that they were prepared to apply them in the same way irrespective of the very different circumstances of each country. There were, no doubt, some who felt so strongly in favour of the principle of Establishment that they would be indisposed to admit almost any case in which it would be right for Parliament to put an end to an existing National Establishment; while, on the other side, there were, perhaps, a greater number who took the exactly opposite view, and held that all State Churches were contrary to Scripture and to justice. But the majority of hon. Members on both sides would concede that they must look at the particular case presented by each country. What was broadly the state of things in Scotland as compared with the other parts of the United Kingdom? In Ireland, the Church till lately established by law was that of a small minority. The great bulk of the people were taught to regard it as teaching deadly heresy. They also associated it with foreign invasion, and regarded it as imposed by conquest and maintained by force. In England, the Established Religion being, in its origin, the religion of the Reformation, was at first accepted by all the country, and still might be regarded as in the main the religion of the large majority. But, even in doctrine, at the present day a considerable difference existed between the Church of England and Dissenters—a difference, perhaps, best manifested in the fact that the House, in its wisdom, thought it well to prohibit the Catechism either of the Church of England or of any other Denomination from being taught in the Board Schools. And, besides the difference in doctrine, there was a difference which struck the imagination more in the outward forms of worship; and, further, there was an important difference in the mode of government. In Scotland there were no such distinctions. Almost the whole population had one creed—the Westminster Confession. For the instruction of the young they had one Catechism, which, instead of dividing, united the Churches. The forms of worship were so much the same, that very few would be able to guess whether they were in one of the Established or non-Established Presbyterian Churches. The

    1759
    forms of government were also alike, and each Church took an equal pride in the glorious obstinacy of their common ancestors in the faith, in rejecting English Prelacy, and securing the government of the Church by Kirk Sessions, Presbyteries, Provincial Synods, and General Assemblies. Thus it would not be going too far to say that they had one National Church in Scotland, not to be confounded with the State Church. The State Church held the endowments, and was in special relation with the State. But the National Church in Scotland, as was well known in Europe, America, and the Colonies, was not the Established Church, nor the Free Church, nor the United Presbyterian, but all put together formed the true National Church of Scotland. The broad fact with which they had to deal was, that they must distinguish between the State Church and the National Church. But then came the question—what was the cause of divisions in the National Church, and how far did those divisions create bodies so separate from each other that it was necessary to regard them no longer as one, but as several? There was a good deal of confusion on this subject in the minds of some hon. Gentlemen who were not familiar with Scotland. It was often said that the causes of difference were microscopical and speculative. He must deny that such a statement was correct. As regarded doctrine, or government, or worship, there was no difference at all; but when they came to the question of the relation of the Church to the State, the difference was by no means microscopical. As to its being speculative, he did not know what question could well be more practical than the question, how much independence or self-government, or autonomy, as it was now called, the Church was to enjoy? The doctrine of Hooker and Arnold, that Church and State were one, was held, he should think, by very few indeed in Scotland. Nor did the theory find more favour that the State was to rule over the Church—a doctrine most associated in their minds with the name of a certain German doctor, and in their own days with the much respected Dean of Westminster, who had the courage, speaking in the Presbyterian capital, to declare himself an Erastian of the Erastians. But he would also venture to affirm that
    1760
    the extreme opposite view—as taught by Hildebrand and Cardinal Manning, the Ultramontane theory—that the Church should rule over the State in such things as the Church was pleased to regard as spiritual, was not largely represented. It was often said that such was the theory of the Free Church of Scotland; but any one looking at the documents of that Church would find it strongly repudiated. What they did hold was a very different tenet—namely, that the jurisdictions of State and Church were co-ordinate, the State dealing with things temporal, the Church with things spiritual, and each deciding for itself what things were spiritual. This, indeed, was the doctrine of the Confession of Faith, held in common by all Presbyterians. But the two largest non-Established Churches held distinctive opinions. He would mention first the United Presbyterians, not as the more numerous body, but because they perhaps had the clearest and most defined doctrine as to the relations of Church and State. They held that State aid, as well as State control over the Church, was to be rejected as unsound and as unjust. Union between the Free Church and the United Presbyterians had as yet been found impracticable, even with an agreement in the following terms about the relation of the Church and State:—
    "That the civil magistrate, acting in his public capacity as a magistrate, ought to further the interests of the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ in every way consistent with its spirit and enactments."
    These last words were a saving clause to the United Presbyterians, because they were prepared to say that an Established Church was not consistent with its spirit and enactments. But they agreed that the civil magistrate should be ruled by the Christian religion in the making of laws, the administration of justice, and other matters. As to the Free Church, they had, last month, declared afresh their adherence to the Claim of Right, which was a claim to be considered the true Church of Christ in Scotland; and, as such, to be entitled, under the old Constitution, to all the rights and privileges of an Established Church. These they resigned only when they found they could not be held consistently with maintaining their spiritual independence. One of the few points on which he must differ from the

    1761
    hon. Member who proposed the Motion (Mr. W. Holms) was as to the cause of the Disruption. No doubt, the hon. Member was right in saying that patronage was the occasion of the Disruption, and that had these questions not arisen, or had the Government and Parliament, when they did arise, dealt with them wisely, there would have been no Disruption. But the Free Church, he was convinced, would not think they were properly represented, if the cause of the Disruption were admitted to be patronage. When that was asserted, they always contradicted it. Patronage was the chief occasion; but, in the conflict between the Civil Courts and the Church Courts, another class of questions arose—namely, as to the right to constitute parishes, and to give to the new parish ministers votes in the Presbyteries and Assembly. And, in the collision between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts, came out the deeper question of spiritual independence. He did not agree with the opinion of some hon. Members, that spiritual independence was unintelligible. What it meant was this—that while the then Church of Scotland were willing that all questions concerning their endowments, and all civil consequences should be regulated by the Civil Courts, they protested against interference by the Civil Courts in such questions as ordination or deposition of ministers. He now came to the question, whether it was true that the case for inquiry had been made more urgent by recent legislation? He should not use any of the language, so often heard, about the Patronage Act as being of an aggressive nature, or as having been meant to steal a march in any way upon the Free Church, or to filch its members from it one by one. At the same time, he did consider that a mistake was made in the mode of bringing forward that Act. When Dr. Norman Macleod, as Moderator of the Established Church, first came to ask for the abolition of patronage, he (Mr. Parker) was one of those who went with him to the right hon. Member for Greenwich, then Prime Minister, who replied to this effect—
    "What seems to be most important is, that if you are to make a change of this kind, you must reckon with the Free Church of Scotland. You must remember that Patronage was the occasion of driving the Free Church out."
    This being so, it was an unfortunate
    1762
    mistake that, when the Patronage Act was brought forward, there was no attempt made to negotiate with the Free Church. A right thing was done in the wrong way. He laid some of the blame upon the Free Church, for he did not think their attitude at the time, or since, was very encouraging. The Established Church, however, was making approaches to the Free Church now, and had received a courteous answer, and he did not see why proposals for re-union should not have been made then. It was unhappily forgotten that the State Church, was only one section of the greater National Church, and the matter was argued, by some of the ministers who assisted in passing the Act, as if it were a question affecting the Established Church alone. He was glad to say that the Lord Advocate of the day, (Lord Gordon), took a different line. He said—
    "I believe it to be essential to get Patronage out of the way in order to effect a union with the other Churches. I believe this Bill will afford a basis of union between parties who are so much at one in doctrine and government, and I think it would be of the utmost advantage to the entire Church of Scotland;"
    meaning thereby, not the State Church, but the National Church. But, in order to effect any such union, it was necessary to negotiate, not with individual members, but with the Governing Bodies of other Churches. His right hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) at that time proposed a Committee of Inquiry. Unfortunately, that was regarded by the House merely as a counter-move against the Bill, and, in consequence, it was not entertained. The other Churches were refused a hearing, and the opportunity of consideration was lost. The question now was, whether an inquiry by a Select Committee was not still the best mode of proceeding? What were the alternatives? There was one which his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) would probably bring before the House—namely, a Royal Commission, which might have some advantages. But he feared that in Scotland, where Liberalism was still somewhat rampant, there would be much distrust of a Commission appointed by a Conservative Government, and that distrust would counterbalance all the advantages. There was another alter-

    1763
    native—an admirable one at times—that of letting things alone. That might have two issues. The Gentlemen most anxious for Disestablishment were also most desirous of having the matter let alone just now, because they believed that the pear was ripening fast. An inquiry, which might issue in a Report favourable to the Established Church, would interfere, they thought, with the whole some development of opinion going on in Scotland; whereas, if things were let alone, the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church would employ their influence at the Elections, and return Members to vote for Disestablishment. But, whether that would effect Disestablishment or not depended upon what the English majority would do. A third more hopeful alternative was offered, by the fact that the Churches were approaching each other in a friendly manner. This might lead to some good result; but Churches could hardly solve the question without the aid of Parliament, because the point upon which all must turn was, whether Parliament at the present time was disposed to grant that amount of spiritual independence with which the Free Church would consent to become an Established Church again? It was only fair to say that not many Free Churchmen now regarded this as practicable; the majority of the last General Assembly had committed themselves to the contrary opinion. It therefore appeared to him that there was most advantage in referring this question to a Select Committee, partly as a means of opening communication with Parliament; but also because it would bring together the leaders of these Churches before an impartial and friendly tribunal. In a few words he would explain his reasons for moving the Amendment. He thought that the Instruction proposed by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms) would be found inconvenient by a Committee. The inquiry into the general effects of the Patronage Act was wider than need be; while, on the other hand, to inquire into the reciprocal relations of the various religious Denominations in Scotland only so far as affected by that Act, was too narrow; and, thirdly, as to the direction to ascertain how far the people of Scotland were in favour of maintaining the connection between Church and State in that country—that was a matter upon
    1764
    which information might be gained without the assistance of a Committee upstairs. Therefore, he moved that a more general inquiry should be made into the present relations between the Established Church and the other Churches and the people at large. He objected to the proposal of his hon. Friend to send round ballot-boxes, and wished rather that light should be thrown upon questions of principle. He wished, in fact, that the Committee should try to ascertain what form of national recognition of religion would be most suitable at the present day for Scotland. In conclusion, while thanking the House for their kind attention, he would remind them that the opportunity, neglected now, might not return. Private Members had done their humble part in bringing the question forward, and now, among the Leaders on one side or the other, he hoped there might be found more than one to earn the poet's praise, as statesmen—
    "Who knew the seasons when to take Occasion by the hand, and make The hounds of freedom wider yet."
    [The Amendment, not being seconded, could not be put.]
    MR. DALRYMPLEjoined with his hon. Friend who had just sat down in commending the tone of moderation in the speeches with which the debate began. But he confessed that he was somewhat at a loss to understand the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to this question. They had had three speeches already. The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms) spoke as a member of the Established Church, and as one who was friendly to it; but he procured a Seconder to the Motion in the person of the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. J. Stewart), who had avowed himself an out-and-out promoter of Disestablishment. The hon. Member for Paisley had spoken of the keen interest with which the people of Scotland regarded the question; but what had taken place? The hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) at 7 o'clock suggested that the House at its Evening Sitting, instead of dealing with this question, on which the hearts of the people of Scotland were set, should proceed with the discussion of the great Imperial topic—the abolition of cause-

    1765
    way-mail. More than that, he noticed that the Previous Question was to be moved from the other side of the House. That was not a bad idea, he owned, though he did not like the quarter from which it came. With regard to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker), it pointed to what the hon. Gentleman had himself called the admirable alternative of leaving things alone. The speech was characterized by much learning; but it was a question whether that had been the proper time for introducing many of the topics which had been raised. He really did not know the course which the debate would take; but he considered that the House should decide whether or not a primâ facie case had been made out for inquiry. If such a case had not been made out, then it was a serious matter to demand an inquiry. He was of opinion that no Committee should be granted unless a case had been shown to exist. His contention was, that the promoters of the Motion had not got a case; but, on the other hand, wanted the Committee to get one up, and it would not be according to the customs of the House to appoint a Committee, unless a clear case had been made out. They were indebted to several of the Motions upon the Paper in reference to Church Disestablishment to the visit to Scotland of the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs (the Marquess of Hartington). The other day, he (Mr. Dalrymple) was much amused at a speech made at a meeting of the Liberation Society by a Mr. Carvell Williams in reference to that visit. He remarked that the visit of the noble Lord had developed a remarkable amount of latent sympathy with the movement; that the noble Lord had probably been cautioned as to the subject of Disestablishment, but he had said as much as could have been expected from a gentleman in his position, whatever that might mean. The noble Lord had spoken of the abolition of patronage as a step towards Disestablishment, because it weakened the connection of the State with the Church. He had no doubt that that sentiment would be very popular in certain quarters, among those who grudged the Church her liberty, and with some landlords who had lost their patronage. He wanted to know why, when the noble
    1766
    Lord spoke in Scotland, he was not told a little more of the truth about patronage? Why was he not told that patronage was no essential part of the Established Church. He wanted to know whether its abolition was not the ne plus ultra of what was asked in 1842? Patronage might not have been the sole cause of Disruption; but if it had been abolished formerly, would it not have prevented Disruption? The noble Lord, in Scotland, said he was not going to say anything about Disestablishment in England; but, as the Secretary of State for India said in Edinburgh in December, when there was a burning in Scotland there would be a vast amount of scorching in England. The noble Lord had said that he hoped that this would not be made a test question; and, further, that he would not be a party to stimulating agitation, though he would not repress discussion. That sort of declaration was most cruel to one set of persons—namely, wire-pullers. To them it meant positive starvation. As to repressing agitation, to many who heard the noble Lord it must have been like proposing to forbid them to draw breath, it being as natural to them to do the one thing as the other. It would appear that the subject had already been made a test at Elections, and some hon. Members had fallen into trouble over it. The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms) was perplexed at the questions put to him by his constituents, and he (Mr. Dalrymple) suspected that his Motion to-night was made to escape from his troublesome constituents. He did not blame hon. Members for bringing the matter before the House, as he believed the more the Church was attacked the firmer hold it would have in the hearts of the people. But he wanted to know who desired the inquiry asked for? They had heard that the hon. Member for Paisley and the hon. Member for Greenock wanted it. The latter Gentleman was prepared for Disestablishment, and had seen his way to the apportionment of the funds of the Church, though he did not say whether they were to be devoted to religious or secular education. Did the Free Church of Scotland want the inquiry? They knew that the Free Church had petitioned the House in the matter, and repudiated the notion of overturning the Establishment. Did

    1767
    the United Presbyterian Church ask for an inquiry? By resolutions which they had passed, he thought not, as those resolutions expressed the opinion that the Motions brought forward to-night were unworthy of earnest legislation. And what did Dr. Hutton say? The House did not know Dr. Hutton. But the hon. Member for Paisley did, as he was one of his constituents. Dr. Hutton said the Dissenters would be more simple than usual if they surrendered their right to have the question settled by the usual constitutional methods, or if they were willing to accept the result of any tentative inquiry before such tribunals as were proposed, or the evasive confusion and delay of preparing Blue Books, which altered nothing and could add nothing to their knowledge either of the principle or facts of the case. Dr. Hutton said the Free Church was ready armed for war, and by hand and voice was prepared to do battle against the Erastianism of the Establishment. One more authority he would quote, and for a particular reason—Dr. Adam, who had particular knowledge of what were called the "Constitutionalists." The "Constitutionalists" were a small minority in the Free Church who maintained the principles of 1843, and who were against Disestablishment. Dr. Adam was very severe upon them because they had had an interview with the very source and centre of all Erastian evil—he meant the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. That was an unpardonable offence. He wanted to know what other course they could have followed than having an interview with the Lord Advocate, if something like an approach was to be made towards the Established Church? But there was one other Body that had not been mentioned—namely, the Established Church herself. The position of the Established Church in reference to inquiry was simply this. It was not afraid of inquiry in any way. It in no way asked for it, or refused it. It only wished to watch the proceedings. It occupied the dignified position of making no complaint, or in any way deprecating the inquiry which was asked for. He might, however, say one word on the kind of matter shadowed forth as the subject of these inquiries. The hon. Member for Perth wished to inquire into the working of the Patronage Act,
    1768
    and wanted to know whether it had had an effect which those who had anything to do with the passing of the Act never supposed it would have—namely, the settlement of religious differences in Scotland? That was not the motive with which it was passed. It was hoped that would be one result. There were those who said the desire was to draw off adherents from other bodies, though he had never been able to ascertain how that was to be done. If that were the object, it had succeeded in a very small degree; but, not being conscious of any such motive, he felt no disappointment. The main object of passing the Act was to free the Church of Scotland from something which was not natural to it, and from which it had long wished to be free. He maintained that the time had not come for inquiry into the working of the Patronage Act. Inquiry only took place when the incumbents died, and the mortality among incumbents had not been greater since the Act passed. Occasionally there had been scandals in connection with the election of a minister, since the Act passed; but there were scandals in connection with the elections of ministers elsewhere than in Scotland. It could not, therefore, be said that these were due to the Patronage Act. That Act had created great satisfaction among the people of Scotland, and they were thankful to the Government that had courage to deal with the question. As to the proposal of the hon. Member for Paisley, that the opinion of the people of Scotland for or against an Established Church should be taken by ballot, he was sure no such project would be sanctioned by the House. Not with standing the remarks of the Seconder of the Resolution, he could not admit that the question of Disestablishment was before the House. It had not yet come to that, although there were some in the House who desired it as a consummation to be arrived at. He was content to leave the defence of the Established Church to some future time, and he believed there would be many defenders in the House, and those not confined to one side of it. The position of the Church of Scotland at present was deserving of admiration. The address of Principal Tulloch at the close of the recent General Assembly was not only high in its tone and characteristically liberal, but it was essen-

    1769
    tially unlike the address of on ordinary ecclesiastic. Principal Tulloch was not only content to claim sympathy and support for his own Church, but he used expressions of kindness and charity for other bodies, and admiration for their work and their vitality. A time might come when the political exigencies of Party might hasten on the question of Disestablishment. It was possible that the position of other Denominations was becoming more and more untenable on account of the very liberty which the Church of Scotland enjoyed, and that might lead them to desire her overthrow. It was possible that the very vigour and life which were in the Established Church might make others feel that it was now or never if she was to be overthrown. But he felt assured that they would not be able to procure Disestablishment on any reasonable grounds with regard to the state of the Church, because it was engaged in quiet yet active and faithful work, was in no sense aggressive, and was holding out the right hand of friendship to the other religious Bodies in Scotland who were separated from it. It might be said of the Church of Scotland as it had been said of the Church of England—
    "Yea, she hath mighty witnesses, and though Her deeds of good have had their ebb and flow; she yet awaits in calm and faith sublime The righteous judgment of all after time."
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDON,in rising to move, as an Amendment to Mr. Holms's Motion—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into the causes which keep asunder the Presbyterians of Scotland, with a view to the removal of any impediments which may exist to their re-union in a National Church as established at the Reformation, and ratified by the Resolution Settlement and the Act of Union,"
    said, his object in moving it was because he thought a Royal Commission would be a far better mode of inquiry into the state of Ecclesiastical matters in Scotland than a Select Committee of that House. What he wanted to gain by such an inquiry was that an end might be obtained, by the best means available, of the unfortunate differences existing in Scotland among the three Presbyterian Bodies, all professing to have the same object in view—the upholding of the
    1770
    Protestant religion as adopted at the Reformation, and agreeing upon all those difficult questions which had their origin in an unknown world—differing only in the more trivial subjects, those of the government of the Church, payment of ministers, and things of that character. The observations which he wished to address to the House were intended to impress the House with the trivial nature of the differences which existed in the Churches of Scotland, and with the conviction that those differences might be removed if the question were gone into with a sincere desire to promote that object. In support of that view, he would refer to the testimony of Dr. Welsh, and others, who had treated upon the question. From these he derived the impression that Disestablishment was not wanted for its own sake, but as leverage for the Disestablishment of the Church of England. The case of America, he might add, was often alluded to as affording an illustration of the way in which religion might exist in a State in which there was no Established Church. The word "religion" it was true, was ignored in the American Constitution; but he found that in Congress at Washington they always had a chaplain to read prayers, and he was curious to know, as they had no national religion, how it was they arranged the question of having a chaplain? The Secretary of Congress had told him that they asked every minister of religion in turn to come and open Congress; and when he asked him if there were no limit to that, the reply was that there was no limit, and that on one occasion the Senate had been opened by a Jewish Rabbi. Neither in this country, nor in Scotland, would they be prepared for that. The truth was, that with them the Disestablishment of the Church meant the ignoring of all religion; and the question that ultimately would be asked when this matter came up, was—Should Great Britain be Protestant or not? Should Great Britain have a Protestant Sovereign or not? If they disestablished religion, they had no standard by which they could judge whether the Sovereign were Protestant or not. He should like to quote the remarks of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington), who did Scotland the honour to go there last year, and, he was bound to say, had created a good deal of the excitement which now existed on this

    1771
    subject. The noble Marquess said that what struck him, a stranger in the matter, was that, where there was so much agreement, and so much co-operation, there should be so much real rivalry, and where the exertions of one Church had only been equalled or surpassed by the self-sacrifice of the others, there should be so much rivalry existing; and he claimed for the Liberal Party sympathy with all the Presbyterian Churches. He thanked the noble Marquess for those words. The well-wishers of the country agreed with the noble Marquess, that there ought to be, and might be, some way of remedying that state of things; and he hoped the House would give its assistance in the inquiry which they wished to have. It was, however, impossible to deny that the speeches of the noble Marquess at Edinburgh and Glasgow had given great encouragement to the Liberation Societies of Scotland; but the noble Marquess probably had not known that their real designs were against the Church of England. He (Sir Alexander Gordon) could not but regret that, when the noble Marquess went to Scotland, he had not consulted two distinguished Members, who could have given him good advice on the subject—namely, Lord Moncreiff, who was Lord Advocate some time ago in the late Government, and the present Moderator of the Church of Scotland, Principal Tulloch, who entertained very strong views against the Disestablishment, or rather, the disendowment, of the Church of Scotland. If he had done so, he would have found that the Free Church always spoke of the necessity of Establishment, and only said that the Church, as now established, was what they wished to be rid of. They asked for the Disestablishment of the existing Church, in order that another might be established in the future. It was clear, from the statement of Dr. Welsh, that the exercise of patronage had been attended with great injury to religion, and was the chief source of Dissent in Scotland, and the main cause of the difficulties in which the Church was involved. Petitions had been presented that day from the Free Church of Scotland to the effect that, whilst desirous of preserving the ancient securities of the Church, the petitioners did not regard the maintenance of ecclesiastical establishments as the appropriate means of fulfilling those obligations,
    1772
    and prayed the House to consider the matter and adopt measures for bringing the differences which existed to as early a termination as possible. That was precisely what he wished. He wished the House to take the subject into their consideration, either by a Select Committee or by a Royal Commission. He would prefer a Royal Commission, because he thought a Royal Commission would be better qualified to consider the matter. The hon. Member for Bute (Mr. Dalrymple) had not put, in as strong language as he might, that patronage was the cause of the Dissent which existed in Scotland, and was the main cause of the difficulty in which the Church was at present involved. The Free Church now came complaining that the Government had removed patronage, and that proved how little they had to build a grievance upon. The fact was, there was a conflicting interest between the urban and the rural districts upon this question. It was well known to those who had gone into the question, that the United Presbyterian Church had its strength in the large cities and the populous towns, and not in the country places, and the chief opposition to the Established Church came from that Body. In their Report for 1877, the United Presbyterians said that an increase of Church membership could be looked for only in the great centres of population, and that the work of the Church should be prosecuted there. Surely, it was hard that they who said they could not extend their operations to the rural districts, should be so keen to take away from those districts that which they now had? That was what the people of the rural and the highland districts deeply felt. It was quite natural that the United Presbyterians should flourish more than the Established Church in a financial point of view, because they only took those who were able to pay. One of the questions put to applicants for admission to their Churches was—"Do you promise to contribute, according to your ability, for the support and extension of the Gospel?" That was the fact, and no doubt it was a good and right thing so to contribute; but was that to be made a condition to admission to a Church? The Established Church invited the people to go to it without stipulating for their money. True, the Highlanders in many cases did

    1773
    not use the Established Church; but they were, nevertheless, unwilling to give up the principle of an Establishment. They were proud, and did not desire to depend on Glasgow and Edinburgh for their religious ordinances. At the present time more than half the funds for the support of the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church came from Edinburgh and Glasgow, and the Highlanders saw that if the endowments of the Church were taken away, they would be left at the mercy of the people of those large cities. Both the United Presbyterian Church and the Free Church petitioned Parliament for the Disestablishment of the Church of England also; but they objected to any inquiry, and said that the repeal of one Act—the Act of Union of England and Scotland—would be quite sufficient to disestablish those Churches. He thought, however, that Parliament would not repeal that Act without inquiry. The only point of difference between the Free Church and the Established Churches in Scotland was the question of spiritual independence, and that question simply amounted to this—that the Ecclesiastical Law should be superior to the Civil Law, and that the Courts of the Church should decide what was and what was not an ecclesiastical subject. ["No, no!"] Perhaps the hon. Member who said "No," would tell the House what spiritual independence really was. The leading men of the Free Church said—"Our position here in Scotland is absolutely ridiculous. We are standing looking at one another and wondering how in the world we got into this position, and wondering how in the world we can get out of it." That was his own description of his own Church. The result of their deliberations appeared to be a desire to pull down the Established Church to their own level, and, when it was down, to try to build up another. He would not detain the House much longer; but he wished to correct one error. The leading journal had said that a large number of ministers had left the Established Church rather than admit the claim of a lay patron. But the fact was, that the law only required the Presbytery to receive and examine a nominee as to his fitness. But the law left the Presbytery at perfect liberty to reject a nominee, if, after examination, they found him unfit. There never was a
    1774
    claim on the part of the law to force a minister on a congregation without regard to his fitness. He trusted that, under the whole circumstances of the case, Her Majesty's Government would feel it to be their duty to institute an inquiry by Royal Commission, with the view of ascertaining clearly what were the points of difference which kept asunder the Presbyterians of Scotland. He held it to be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to look after the interests of Her Majesty's subjects; and as that was a subject which the Scotch people had very much at heart, he thought it was the duty of the Government to take up the matter and institute an inquiry. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    MR. ORR-EWINGseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into the causes which keep asunder the Presbyterians of Scotland, with a view to the removal of any impediments which may exist to their re-union in a National Church, as established at the Reformation, and ratified by the Revolution Settlement and the Act of Union,"—(Sir Alexander Gordon,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. BAXTER: Sir, it is not my intention at this late hour—a quarter to 12—to inflict a long speech upon the House, and certainly I will not follow the example of those who have preceded me, by expatiating upon the ecclesiastical history of Scotland, or dilating upon the doctrine of spiritual independence. My object is in a few, plain, practical sentences, to lay before the House my views of the ecclesiastical situation in Scotland. From what has taken place, both in this House and out of it, it must be evident to everyone that the ecclesiastical relations of the State in Scotland are not in a satisfactory condition, and must sooner or later be revised by the Imperial Parliament. Every Session we have Bills brought in to remedy

    1775
    minor grievances more or less pressing, at every Election candidates are questioned in regard to their views on the subject; and now we are asked to institute a general inquiry respecting the facts of the case and the wishes of the people. The last time the matter was discussed in this House was in July, 1874, when the Government brought forward a Bill for the abolition of patronage, in the vain hope that it would bring about union and strengthen the Established Church. Believing that this expectation would prove a mere delusion, I met it by an Amendment on the second reading, recommending inquiry; because I was convinced that any fair tribunal must come to the conclusion that such a measure would prove utterly futile, and certainly not effect the purpose in view. The hon. Member for Bute (Mr. Dalrymple) has stated that it was no part of the object of the promoters of the Bill of 1874 to bring back other Bodies into the Establishment. I am amazed at his forgetfulness of the debate which took place on the second reading of that Bill. It is very curious and instructive to read the speeches which were delivered on that occasion. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate lauded the Bill as a basis of reconciliation between the Churches, and seemed to have no doubt that it would bring about union and harmony. Everyone who spoke on the same side indulged in this pleasing hallucination, excepting the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander), who was not so easily taken in, and expressed more than doubts as to the efficacy of the healing measure. In moving the Amendment, I stated my firm belief that the Bill, if passed, would throw the great body of the Free Church into the arms of the Liberation Society, and I quoted the remark of a Conservative statesman, to the effect that he could not comprehend why the Dissenters did not hail with joy a proposal which, in his opinion, was a long step towards Disestablishment. Now, who that is conversant with what has taken place since can hesitate for a moment in deciding who were the true prophets. Confessedly, the measure has been a great failure. The people that in consequence of it have gone over to the Established Church are so few in number, and their history is so peculiar, that they are not worth
    1776
    mentioning. The great leading un endowed Denominations, with singular emphasis and unanimity, have repudiated the idea of returning to the Establishment, and the advocates of separation between Church and State have received such an accession of numbers and strength as to render the adoption of their views an ultimate certainty. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow said, in the debate of 1874, "that a Bill undertaken for the purpose of dishing the Dissenters would land the country in Disestablishment." He was right; that is now a mere question of time. Those whose fond hopes have been crushed by the consequences of the Act of that year, should not have forgotten the wise saying of Sir Robert Peel—"Whatever you do regarding an Established Church, don't legislate." Now, Sir, I am not one of those who think that the Establishment of the Church of Scotland is a crying evil, or that its Disestablishment ought to be made a test question at Elections. A man may be a very good Liberal, and yet fail to see that such a measure is called for, at all events, for the present. It must be kept in mind that there is no social grievance in Scotland as in England to redress; the landed proprietors and the gentry belong not to the Church established by law, but to a body of Episcopalian Dissenters, and adherence to the Church confers no social superiority of any kind; in fact, a large number of the upper classes belong to the Free Church. Then the revenues of the Establishment are small; there are no rich livings and no sinecures. The great body of the clergy do their duty faithfully and well, and a new school has arisen amongst them, and, I believe, is rapidly increasing, distinguished by a breadth of thought and a liberality of sentiment which are worthy of the grand history and traditions of their ancient Church. It gives me sincere pleasure to bear this testimony: but I can go farther, and point to better evidence than mere words. Most of the noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen who, in both Houses of Parliament, laud the Church of Scotland and oppose its Disestablishment, never enter the doors of its Churches. Many of them regard it as no Church at all, and they would advocate its separation from the State to-morrow, did they not imagine that in some way or other it served

    1777
    as a buttress to the Church to England. I entertain no such feeling. I have the highest respect for the Church of Scotland, its services, and its ministers. I attend my parish church when at home; and, in my opinion, it is a great misfortune, if not a danger, that the bulk of the proprietors in Scotland do not worship with the people. With these feelings and sentiments, I utterly repudiate any desire to injure the Established Church, and I regard the ecclesiastical situation in Scotland from an absolutely impartial position; but I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that the Church is now in a minority, and that there is not the slightest chance of any of the other Demominations rejoining it. It may have two-fifths of the community, or it may have one-third, but it has not a majority; and when I consider that the unendowed sects have more than 2,000 congregations, that they are raising vast and increasing sums for religious purposes, and that between the three great Presbyterian Churches in Scotland there is little or no difference either in creed or practice, I cannot defend the endowment of one of them alone. The necessity for such endowment can only be defended on the assumption that the voluntary principle could not be trusted to supply adequately the religious wants of the community in large, increasing towns, or in poor and sparsely-peopled country districts. Now, it is no disparagement to the Church to say that the other Denominations have been even more active in building places of worship to meet the wants of great towns; and sceptical indeed must be the mind of anyone who, after the experience of the last 30 years, could for a moment doubt that State assistance is not required to provide an ample number of churches in the great centres of commercial and manufacturing industries. The case of the purely country parishes is still more conclusive against the maintenance of State endowment. Not only is the Established Church in a minority in Scotland as a whole, but there are entire districts in the Highlands where the people en masse have left her communion and entire counties where her adherents are so few as to make State provision ridiculous. In these very poor parts of the country where you, from a theoretical point of view, profess it to be
    1778
    necessary, the people are of a very different opinion. They have provided and they sustain their own churches; the Act of 1874 has utterly failed to bribe them back into the Establishment fold, and if they can do without your aid, much more can the wealthier and more thickly-populated parts of Scotland dispense with it. I will not trouble the House with statistics; but, perhaps, in order to show the absurd state of things prevailing in the Highlands, I may be permitted to give the attendance on Sunday, 8th April, 1877, in two Presbyteries and in two counties at the Established and Free Churches; leaving out of view United Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, and other Bodies. In the Presbytery of Tain, 429 people attended the Established Church, 6,115 the Free Church. In the Presbytery of Loch Carron, 261 people attended the former, 3,210 the latter. In the county of Caithness, 1,477 attended the Established Church, and 9,306 the Free Church; in the county of Sutherland the numbers were 517 to 6,480. What I want to impress upon the House is, that no change whatever in the sense intended by the promoters of the Patronage Act of 1874 has taken place in the ecclesiastical situation in Scotland. On the contrary, the Free Church, by overwhelming and increasing majorities, has pronounced in favour of Disestablishment; the United Presbyterian Synod has issued an emphatic protest against all State Churches; and recent Elections in Scotland have rendered it evident that the time for inquiry has passed, and that that for action is close at hand. Let English and Irish Members keep in mind that £22,000 a-year is paid out of the Consolidated Fund for parishes in the Highlands; that 42 clergymen in these districts have their salaries entirely paid out of that Fund; that, in the great majority of the 42 parishes, there are very few adherents of the Established Church, and in some of them not a single soul. Great stress has been laid in certain quarters upon the necessity of an actual union of all the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland, which are really united both in doctrine and in form of government. To expect the Free Church and United Presbyterians to go back to the Establishment is a mere chimera—

    1779
    a vain and foolish delusion which the Legislature had better set aside at once. That union has already been effected in England, in the United States, in Canada, in South Africa, in Australia, and in New Zealand, and it can only be effected in Scotland after the same fashion—that is, on the basis of freedom and disconnection with the State. I do not profess to be very keen in the matter, because the evil is not a crying one, and the injustice is small in comparison with that in England; but I have no doubt that in a few years the national endowment at present bestowed upon one of the sects in Scotland must be withdrawn. [Laughter from the Ministerial Benches.] Oh, yes, hon. Gentlemen may laugh; they laughed a few years ago when it was proposed to disestablish the Church in Ireland, and I have been long enough in this House to remember many, many proposals which they at one time laughed at, but which are now embodied in the Statute Book. The question will then be what is to be done with the money? It does not belong to the landed proprietors who succeeded to or bought their estates with this burden upon them, and probably Scotland would grumble if it were simply paid into the Exchequer as belonging to the nation, which, undoubtedly, it does. Possibly, the best arrangement would be to let it go in aid of the school rate, which, although very useful, is in some cases very heavy, and which is levied upon all, and benefits all classes of the community. Some such change as this I look upon as inevitable, and I have reason to know that some of the most thoughtful and far-seeing minds in the Church of Scotland are coming gradually to that conclusion. I am not anxious to hurry on the consummation, and do not despair of seeing it brought about by-and-by without bitterness or bad feeling, and in such a manner as will prove once more what an example Scotland can set to the world in the matter of religious vitality and power.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, it would be vain to disguise the fact, that upon ecclesiastical questions there was great variety of opinion among Ecclesiastical Bodies in Scotland, and even among individual members of those Bodies. At the same time, it was a matter upon which he could congratulate his country and the
    1780
    House, that upon all essentials of faith and doctrine, upon all questions of form and ceremonial, the Churches were substantially at one. They were better still. They were as brethren in this, that they all mingled one with another and recognized that they stood upon the same common religious ground. He quite admitted, when they turned from that position, that there were great differences between them; and he could only hope that in any further discussion of these important matters, there might be shown the same fairness and moderation as that observed by hon. Gentlemen that evening on both sides of the House. From the very earliest period of the history of the Church of Scotland there had been a great deal of uneasiness, a great deal of distrust, a great deal of jealousy of the interference of the State. The complaint of the Church from the outset had been that her position and constitution had been invaded and encroached upon by the Legislature and the Courts of the country, and that she had been deprived of her right of electing her ministers, and also of other constitutional rights, such as those of appointing clergymen, of ordaining ministers, and of instituting cures. It was not only patronage that led to the Disruption in 1843; but much deeper issues were involved than those arising out of the Act of 1711—such, for instance, as the independence of the Church. He did not wish to refer to controversial matter; but it was right to keep in view that the Free Church made it the very head and front of her protest that she was the Church established by law upon the basis of the Revolution Settlement; and that, as a consequence, she was entitled to exercise all the rights and privileges which the Church possessed in virtue of that Settlement, but of which she had been wrongfully deprived in the interval. Accordingly, when the Free Church claimed the position of the original Church of Scotland, she claimed among the rights and privileges given to that Church by law, the privilege to choose her own ministers, to institute her own cures. Although the Courts of Law held that these claims were not according to the Constitution, as by them interpreted, they had never been abandoned by the Free Church; or, at least, by many

    1781
    within her pale. He did not wish to enter into the merits of this question, or to refer to the question of Disestablishment, because that would be quite beyond the limits he had set himself; but he might say, that beyond the pale of the Church of Scotland there were those who maintained the principle of an Establishment. There were certainly differences among those outside upon these questions. While many maintained the purely voluntary principle, and contended that there should be no relations between Church and State, there were also many, who, though they did not belong to the Established Church, still held as a fundamental principle of their faith that the State ought—though, perhaps, not in the form of the present Establishment—directly to recognize religion; and who also were of opinion, rightly or wrongly, that the emoluments, and the scanty funds of the Church should not be diverted from the purpose to which they were at present applied, but should be used for no other purpose than the teaching of religion. As to the observations that fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs (Mr. Baxter), although a great proportion of those who lived in the Highlands did not attend the Established Church, he ventured to challenge the right hon. Gentleman with this fact—that those were the very parts of Scotland, and those were the very persons who most strongly maintained the principle of an Established Church, and were most thoroughly averse from a single penny of these funds being diverted to any other purpose. These could not be referred to, therefore, as instances of a desire for Disestablishment. They wished to have the benefits of the funds for the religious teaching of themselves and their families; but they would not take them unless certain restrictions interfering with their religious convictions were removed. If they could have them as they were originally established, they would have no objection to derive any benefit from them. They would infinitely prefer that to any application of the fund to the augmentation of the school rate, which they objected to as an attempt to relieve the laird at the expense of the poorer population. As to the position of the Government, he frankly confessed that the arguments and views of the hon. Members who had supported the Motion
    1782
    either went a great deal beyond or failed to support the proposals for inquiry they had made. The Motion was limited to two points—it asked for a Select Committee to inquire into the Act of 1874, and also to ascertain the feeling of the people of Scotland. He was not very well versed in the Business of the House; but he was surprised to have a Committee asked for to conduct an inquiry in order to ascertain the public opinion of Scotland. It was an unconstitutional, and not an expedient mode of ascertaining that opinion. On the other hand, he thought it was premature and unnecessary to inquire into the Act of 1874. He contended that the Act was working satisfactorily, and had removed the sore of patronage which existed before; but, of course, the change did not get rid of all sources of unpleasantness, just as there were no circumstances in which there would never be disputes in Dissenting congregations. It would require a very strong optimist to believe that popular election succeeding patronage would sweep away all sources of trouble. He would, however, venture to say it had given far greater satisfaction than the other system, and that when the strife was over, there was far greater and heartier unanimity of sentiment among the congregation, than when a minister was forced upon them by patronage. Then, it was asked that there should be a special inquiry into the Church Patronage Act, its results, and the points on which further legislation might be desirable. In all the Motions which had been discussed grave questions were involved, which could not be usefully determined by any of the proposed inquiries. These were questions upon which the Government must make up their own minds when action was necessary. He did not think they would be much aided by any such inquiry. It might be necessary to inquire into certain facts; but, if so, the reference would have to be different in form from any then before the House. There were questions involved on which he felt deeply, and should like to express his views; but he thought it would be better to confine himself to simply indicating that the Government could not accept any of the three Motions proposed.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, this debate has divided itself into two branches, one as to the expediency of an inquiry

    1783
    in the form proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms), and the other as to the general condition of the Established Church in Scotland. I will offer one or two remarks upon the first question which is before us—namely, whether we ought to have an inquiry into this subject? Now, Sir, when I take the Motion of my hon. Friend on the particular question before the House, I fully admit that the Patronage Act of 1874—omitting from the present question whether it is consistent with the time during which it has been in operation to make it expedient that there should be an inquiry—is a perfectly legitimate subject for Parliamentary inquiry according to the precedents which former years afford. The subject of patronage was carefully investigated by a Committee of the House, and there could be no reason in the nature of the case why the same thing could not be done again. But when my hon. Friend proceeds to propose that a Committee should be appointed to ascertain how far the people of Scotland are in favour of maintaining the connection between Church and State in that country, I do not know of any adequate answer to the objection taken by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate and by other Gentlemen, that a Select Committee is no competent or suitable instrument for conducting an inquiry of the kind. If it is to be instituted at all, it ought to be conducted before another tribunal, and the proposal to break the connection ought to be made on higher and more solid responsibility than the recommendation of a Select Committee of this House. Well, Sir, when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) proposed to proceed by a Commission, instead of a Committee, it does not appear to me to mend the matter at all. A Committee is a body appointed by this House and responsible to it, and the Government would be placed in a position of considerable difficulty were they called upon to appoint a Commission. They could not be blamed if they chose the Members of that Commission, or a majority of them, from amongst those who shared their own views. I think, also, in a case like this, where there is a great difference of opinion actually existing in Scotland, it would be extremely
    1784
    difficult to secure the confidence of what I may call both parties in the Report of any Commission the Crown might appoint. It would be far better if there were to be a public inquiry into so much of the subject as might be legitimate—that the inquiry should have a popular source, and originate in this House—rather than that it should spring from the Prerogative of the Crown. As regards the main question of Church and State, I do not see that it is a proper subject for inquiry at all—or, more properly speaking, a subject upon which we need have any preliminary inquiry. The people of Scotland are the persons who are mainly to be considered in the discussions upon this matter. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bute (Mr. Dalrymple) has made an appeal to English feeling, on the ground that a conflagration in Scotland might produce a very disagreeable increase of temperature in England. Those, I may say, are the old arts—perfectly legitimate, but still the old arts—by which it was formerly attempted to maintain the Established Church in Ireland. What I certainly must say is this, that the case of these Church Establishments must be considered distinct from one another, and that each must be dealt with upon its own merits, with a careful regard to the principles that it presents, and to the feeling in each case of the people of the three countries. In this particular instance, the feeling of the people of Scotland must have a very large, and probably dominant, influence in the determination of the question; and the House would be placed in a totally false position if it were to say—supposing it to be true—that the deliberate national sentiment of Scotland is opposed to the maintenance of an Establishment; that, notwithstanding that fact—"We will invoke the force of English opinion, and the sentiment in favour of keeping up an Establishment in England, to rule the case of Scotland." As respects the inquiry, though with the most sincere desire to ascertain the feeling of the people of Scotland upon the working of the Act and other ecclesiastical questions, in the country, yet I confess my belief that the organs with which the Constitution provides them are sufficient to enable them to convey in an intelligible form to the House what their desires are. They have the power of

    1785
    meeting, the power of petitioning, and the power of the franchise; and, when I look at the course of the elections in Scotland from time to time, I doubt whether hon. Gentlemen opposite might not have acted more wisely, and fulfilled their character as interpreters of the opinions of the Scottish people better, if they had spoken with a little more reservation this evening. Therefore, although I, for one, would not object to institute the precedent laid down for us, and inquire into the working of the Patronage Act, if it were shown to be the earnest desire of the Scottish public in general that such an inquiry should take place, yet I find an entire absence of any evidence of such desire. The two great Presbyterian Nonconformist Churches are against this inquiry, and the Presbyterian Established Church of Scotland has not expressed any desire that such an inquiry should take place; and I should rather presume from the course taken by the Government, who must be taken to be in sympathy with the Church as an Establishment, that they are opposed to it. Therefore, I think, that after the three or four hours we have spent in the discussion of this question, we have attained to this point—that those who have proposed this inquiry in different forms to the House must have arrived at the conclusion, in their own minds, that there is no desire either in the House or in the community out-of-doors, which would warrant them in pressing their proposals. But the debate has taken a wider range. At the time that the Scottish Patronage Act was introduced in 1874, the House was warned that it would go directly to break the ground upon a subject which had previously remained tranquilly in the back-ground, and would raise the whole question of Church Establishment in Scotland. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has just stated, and I pay great deference to his opinion and do not question its accuracy, that the working of the Patronage Act within the precincts of the Established Church of Scotland, has, in his judgment, been satisfactory, and has diminished the range and intensity of those divisions in parishes which are connected with the choice and election of ministers. That may be so, and the union of a Church within itself is a matter which we all greatly rejoice to see, and every well-
    1786
    wisher to religion must contemplate it with satisfaction. But the union of a Church within itself does not go very far to determine the question whether or not that Church should be established as the national religion of the country, and should enjoy the ecclesiastical property of the country, in which the mass of the people are supposed to have a common interest. The Irish Established Church was one remarkably united within itself, one colour of theological opinion spread almost entirely over the whole Institution, and the cries of party were almost unknown within its pale. But the allegation of the union of that Church within its borders would not have availed as a plea for its maintenance; indeed, I do not think that the experiment of urging such an argument was ever tried by a solitary Member of the House during the discussions on the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, however interesting and material for its own purposes such a statement may be. It borders but little upon the wider question which has been contemplated but timidly and indecisively by nearly all the speakers in this debate. My right hon. Friend, indeed, has spoken out with great decision his opinion upon the question of the Establishment in Scotland. But I observe that the opinions of hon. Gentlemen on the other side, who differ from him, were far from being spoken out with force and breadth, and have only been indicated as matters that may hereafter be developed; and it is very difficult to collect, either from the speech of the right hon. and learned Lord, or from that of the hon. Member for Bute (Mr. Dalrymple), or even from that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), what are the precise grounds on which they are prepared to contend that it is necessary to maintain a Church Establishment in Scotland. I do not think that the subject has been sufficiently developed in the course of this debate for one to give any opinion, with regard to it; but I observe, undoubtedly, an absence of disposition on the part of the supporters of the Establishment to bring forward positive arguments in favour of it. I have heard it said, and said with great truth, that the Established Church in Scotland is highly respectable. There is no question about it, it is highly and universally respected;

    1787
    and so I think I may say was the Established Church in Ireland—that is to say, it had all the titles to respect that it could possibly derive from the high character, conduct, zeal, and energy of its ministers. But that, after all, goes a very little way towards showing that, on that ground, it ought to be the Establishment of the country. The promoters of the Act of 1874 have, it is evident, opened this question effectually. Before 1874 what did we know? We knew that the Church Establishment of Scotland was the religion of a minority of the people—that we knew perfectly well; but we knew, also, that a great majority of the people acquiesced, and contentedly acquiesced, in the maintenance of the Establishment. We know even now, as has been stated in the course of the debate, that this is not a burning question; no arguments of great vehemence have been employed either upon one side or upon the other; we have not been told on either side of the House, as we were told when the question of the Irish Church Establishment was raised, that the consequence of destroying the Irish Established Church, as an Establishment, would be more grave and formidable than those of a foreign conquest in the country. No such dismal prospect has been held out on this occasion. This is a matter which lies within a narrow compass; and I am convinced that whatever happens in Scotland, the people of Scotland are a religious people, and are certain to make an adequate provision for their own religious wants—a provision certainly not less adequate than what now prevails. Before 1874 there was an acquiescence which, if not universal, was, at all events, that of the majority, in the existence of the Established Church; and those who protested against it constituted not only a minority, but a small minority, though perhaps not an unimportant one, of the country. In my opinion, it would have been wisdom in the Church of Scotland to have been contented with the state of things that existed. But others of more enlarged views pressed the passing of the Patronage Act, and the consequence of that Act has been that men now look at this as a national question. The other Presbyterian Churches, which jointly must out-number the Church of Scotland, and which may be said to constitute
    1788
    if not a majority, at least one moiety, of the people of Scotland, have accepted the Patronage Act as a distinct challenge on the subject of Establishment, and have answered that challenge by saying that it is their deliberate conviction that the Establishment that now exists in Scotland ought not to continue in possession of the national property. I understand the Free Church at present to say that they do not think the existence of an Establishment ought to be maintained, and that they believe that the maintenance of an Establishment is no longer necessary to the welfare of religion, whatever use it might have been in former times. Until 1874 the question slept dreamily; but now, the two Independent Presbyterian Churches are united in their demand for a cessation of the preference shown to the third Church. I admit that, in the abstract, it is very difficult to prove that a Church should be national which does not command the adhesion of the majority of the people. As a general rule, I hardly know how a Church can be national which is the Church of the minority. The Established Church of Scotland has every title which it could possibly derive from its respectability; from the energy, cultivation, zeal, and piety of its clergy; and it also derives much advantage from many recollections of former times; but still, nothing has been said to show upon what principle it is that an Establishment is to be maintained which is the Establishment of a minority only of the people. I can conceive a case where the minority consists almost entirely of the poorest classes. I will suppose that the Free Church and United Presbyterian Church of Scotland had a monopoly of the wealthy and middle classes, and that the Established Church had the poorest classes left to its special and almost exclusive care. Such a case I can conceive, and I can believe, also, that it would have a most important bearing upon the question of Establishment in Scotland. I apprehend that the contrary holds in the present instance, and that if you take the average of the wealthy members of the Established Church and of two great non-Established Presbyterian Churches in Scotland, you will find that the average temperance standard of the members of the Established Church is higher and not lower than that of the others. It was at one

    1789
    time contended—and I thought at the time with great force—that the maintenance of a Protestant Church in Ireland was necessary in order that it might continually uphold the testimony against the errors of the Church of Rome. But will any man rise in his place and say that the maintenance of the Established Church of Scotland is essential as a protest against the errors of the Free Church and United Presbyterian Church? Therefore, Sir, I do not see what arguments there are in favour of the Established Church, and I will reserve to myself any arguments that I may have to raise on the general question, until I hear on what grounds the Establishment is supported. It is the people of Scotland and their convictions which will have ultimately to settle this question; or, if Her Majesty's Government think that the will of England ought to settle the question for Scotland, then, by all means, let it state that proposition, and then we shall know what we are about. As I have already said, it is my strong conviction that it would have been wise of the Church of Scotland not to have forced this question to the front. As they have judged right to do so, it is fair to call upon them to produce their arguments, and not to say only that they are a respectable body, which no one contests—that their clergy are excellent, which I admit—or even that the Patronage Act has diminished the feuds in parishes, which is quite possible—they must also show that the exclusive enjoyment of the national property which has been set apart for ecclesiastical purposes in Scotland by our religious communion ought to be maintained. My intention is to hold myself free on this subject; but, first of all, I should like to be assured of the concurrence of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in what I have said. I should like to know whether they agree with me, that this is a matter which ought to be determined by the sentiment of Scotland and not of England? If they agree in that proposition, we shall have made some progress towards placing this question upon a sound and solid basis. If they do not agree with me on that point, the sooner the fact is made known for the information both of Scotland and England the better. In some sense there might be some self-gratulation upon the part of myself and my right hon. Friends, who
    1790
    saw the danger of the change in 1874 and warned the promoters of the Act of it. The change that has taken place in Scotland in the position of this question is one which any intelligent man who comes from Scotland will not for one moment deny. The position of this question now is totally different from what it was 10 or even five years ago. A controversy has been raised by those whose interest, and, perhaps, whose duty, it would seem to have been to have avoided raising such a controversy. Let them now set out clearly and intelligibly what they think to be the merits of the case, and I have no doubt that it will receive an impartial hearing. But it will not be got rid of by mere superficial or collateral criticism, such as that of the hon. Member for Bute upon the speech of my noble Friend the Member for the Radnor Boroughs (the Marquess of Hartington). I was glad to hear that speech, because the propositions of my noble Friend were excellent, and I was glad that they had received additional currency from being repeated from the mouth of the hon. Gentleman. The Established Church of Scotland must stand or fall according to the general convictions of the people of Scotland; but, whether it stands or falls, the House is pretty much united in the opinion that there can be no advantage at present in instituting either a Parliamentary or other inquiry.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSScongratulated the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs on having found in the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich an apt pupil as regarded the speech he had delivered in the autumn. But he ventured in all humility to say to the right hon. Gentleman that no one who had held his high position, or who held the high position which he still occupied, had a right upon a matter touching the deepest interests of any part of the United Kingdom to make such a speech as he had done to-night—a speech exactly similar to that of the noble Lord on another occasion—and yet to say that he had not formed an opinion on the subject. The tenour of that speech was this—"If you will cry out loud enough, I will come and help you. I am not going to suggest that you should steal that article from the shop window; but, when you

    1791
    have taken it, you may come and ask my opinion of what you have done." Such attempts as the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord to get up a cry in Scotland were unjustifiable, wrong, and inconsistent with their high position in the House and the country; because they were Leaders of public opinion in a Party they all valued, however much they might differ from its opinions. It was not the part of those who had to lead to induce their followers to make a cry in order that their Leaders might take it up. The right hon. Gentleman said he had heard no defence of the Church of Scotland. Of course, there had been no such defence, because the Church of Scotland had not been attacked, except by the right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), on matters which had nothing to do with the Motions on the Paper. When it was attacked they would be quite ready to defend it. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman reminded him of the days of 1868, when they were dealing with the Church of Ireland, and it brought out two differences—in 1868, the right hon. Gentleman always endeavoured to distinguish between the Church of Scotland and the Church of Ireland, and now he wanted to make them look as like each other as possible; and, moreover, at that time, the right hon. Gentleman had a large majority behind him, which, at present, he (Mr. Assheton Cross) was thankful to say he did not possess. He would not now argue the question, when the only question was whether they should have a Committee or Commission of Inquiry into the Church of Scotland? But he would make this further remark. The right hon. Gentleman said, he wanted to know what was the opinion of the majority of the people of Scotland at that moment upon that particular question; but when he asked on what principle the question was to be argued, he appeared to have forgotten a principle at one time declared by him—namely, that every State ought to have an Established Church; and in the arguments relating to the Irish Church, he did not touch this principle, where the Church was in the different position it occupied in England and Scotland, and thus it was only owing to the peculiar circumstances of Ireland that he ventured to attack the Established Church of Ireland.
    1792
    That evening he threw to the winds the idea that there was anything to be argued when the question of Disestablishment in Scotland came to be discussed. He did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman; he hoped the House did not. He knew the present House did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and he hoped it would be long before any other House did. He would now come to the actual question they were discussing, for he declined to be led into a long discussion on a matter which had nothing to do with the Motions before the House. Now, by the first of these Motions, inquiry was asked for in 1878 into the working of an Act which was passed only so recently as 1874, and also as to its effect on the reciprocal relations of the various religious denominations in Scotland. It was perfectly clear, however, that the result of the operation of the elective principle as established by the Act could not be fairly tested in four years, or even in 10. It must take almost a generation before the full working of that Act could be ascertained; and all inquiry into the matter, therefore, at the present moment, would be absolutely premature. Of course, there were only a certain number of ministers in Scotland; they did not all die every year or every other year; and, comparatively speaking, very few ministers had died in Scotland since the Act came into operation. The right hon. Gentleman had said a great deal about that Act; but it was scarcely necessary for him to inform the House that he entirely differed from almost every word which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman on the subject. He did not believe that Act was a step in the direction of Disestablishment. He never, he might add, could understand the argument that the removal of a grievance which was the result of its passing into law constituted a hardship on the Free Church. He had heard that argument over and over again, but he never could understand it. He should think, on the contrary, that the proper course to pursue in a case of the kind would be to remove abuses if any were shown to exist. A right hon. Gentleman opposite said—"I assure you, whatever you do in this country the Free Church will never go back to the Established Church." Now, he did not believe that would ever be the feeling in Scotland.
    MR. BAXTERsaid, he had quoted the declaration of that body itself.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that might be the declaration of certain persons for a particular purpose, but still he did not believe that it was the expression of the real feelings of the people of Scotland; and, as had been stated that night—and it could not be denied—it undoubtedly was not the feeling of the inhabitants of the Highland parishes, who, as his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate told them, would be the last people to allow a farthing of the Church's present endowments to be devoted to any secular purpose whatever. Certainly these were questions that might have to be inquired into. The Government were as anxious as anybody to remove proved abuses; and if, on due consideration, they found that there was any abuse which they could possibly remove, they would take the best means in their power for that object. The next part of the Motion was that there should be an inquiry instituted by a Committee of this House to ascertain how far the people of Scotland were in favour of maintaining the connection between the Church and the State in that country. He could not imagine that any people would apply for a Royal Commission to inquire into such a matter. That was a matter which the Government must find out for themselves. He hoped as to that it would be a long time before the right hon. Gentleman came to a definite conclusion; he hoped, if he arrived at such a definite conclusion, it would be longer before he propounded it to the public; and he hoped that if he did propound it, it would be longer still before he found himself in a position to carry out his conclusion. He had the same objection to a Commission as he had to a Committee. Practically, the Commission as proposed would inquire not with regard to the Established Church itself, but with regard to the obstacles to union in the Voluntary Bodies who had separated from that Church. Such an inquiry would not be assented to by the Voluntary Bodies, and it would not be right. The Government had gone one important step towards the removal of abuses by the abolition of patronage, and the members of the Established Church of Scotland felt that a great grievance had thereby been done away, and they were much more satisfied
    1794
    with their present condition. That, he thought, would become the feeling of other religious bodies in that country; and the very reason why the right hon. Gentleman charged the Government with being unjust to the Scottish Dissenting Denominations was, because, by removing a grievance, it would draw these Denominations back to the Church which they had left in former years. He could not help stating the strong feeling he entertained regarding the observations of the right hon. Member for Greenwich. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would remember the great responsibility which would fall upon him in dealing with matters of that kind, when every word must have weight; but he ought not to state his views in that way, and then state that he had formed no opinion on the subject. Then, the same might be said of the noble Lord's speech, for no one holding the position he did had a right to say that the people of Scotland ought to form their own opinion while he formed none. That would be right enough in private dealings, but not for a man in the position of the noble Lord, because it was meant to have an effect without committing him to an opinion—and the intended effect was, to raise a cry at every Election for the purpose of promoting the question of Disestablishment, and to sow discord where there ought to be peace, and to introduce political contests when everything ought to be done to produce union between the three Churches, instead of dissension.
    MR. DILLWYNthought it was inexpedient to proceed with the discussion, as many other hon. Members wished to address the House. He moved the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Dillwyn.)
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONthought it was the opinion of the House that the debate should be adjourned. It was quite impossible that the whole subject raised could be adequately discussed at that hour of the morning—a quarter past 1—seeing that they had heard scarcely more than the speeches of the Members who moved the Resolution and the Amendment, and had not been able to hear the speeches of Members who had other Amendments on the

    1795
    Paper. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had spoken with considerable severity of the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, which was, he said, of the same character as that which had been made at Edinburgh, and was unjustifiable. He had also said that it was an attempt to raise a cry. The right hon. Gentleman could not deny that the question existed long before last autumn. The supporters of the Established Church themselves admitted that dissatisfaction with the Establishment existed in Scotland; and what he said at Edinburgh, and what he repeated now, was that some remedy for that evil must be found. He was prepared to discuss any remedy that might be suggested, and was not committed to the opinion that Disestablishment was the only way out of the difficulty in which the people of Scotland found themselves as far as this matter was concerned. But he believed the feeling in Scotland in favour of Disestablishment was real; and, if the majority of the people decided in that way, he, for one, should support them in the course they pursued. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the question did not exist long before he (the Marquess of Hartington) went to Edinburgh, or that it would not have existed had he not gone there? There was undoubtedly a difficulty in the condition of the Established Church of Scotland, as was shown by the numerous Motions made on the point, to a great extent by members of the Established Church. The hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) knew that the difficulty existed, and he was endeavouring to find a solution for it. He adhered to every word he had said at Edinburgh, for he felt that in Scotland there existed a state of things which could not last, and for which some remedy must be found. They had heard a great deal about the opinion expressed in Edinburgh last year by the noble Lord the present Secretary of State for India (Viscount Cranbrook) that if the question of Disestablishment were made a burning question in Scotland, it would be a scorching question in England, and this seemed to be the only argument which could be used in certain quarters in reference to the subject. As he had already said, he did not assert that Disestablishment
    1796
    was the only remedy that could be adopted; but, if it were, he thought the question was one that ought to be decided from a Scotch point of view, and not on considerations which might remotely affect any other part of the United Kingdom.
    MR. NEWDEGATEpointed out that the terms of the Union between England and Scotland were based upon the security the people had for the maintenance of tolerance in religion, and that the Sovereign of these Realms must be a Protestant, and in communion with the Churches both of England and of Scotland. That was the condition of the Union which lay at the foundation of the law on which Her Majesty and her heirs were entitled to the Throne. The right hon. Gentleman pursued a very dangerous course when, in respect of what had passed in Ireland, he endeavoured to merge a great constitutional question, which affected the whole of the United Kingdom, into one consideration affecting a small portion of the Kingdom, where there was some discontent. The right hon. Gentleman would give predominance to discontent, which might be temporary, against the securities for their liberties and their peace. He would ask him what had been the result of his experiment? Had they no murders in Ireland? Had they not in that House Representatives of Irish disorder? Had they not proposals for the further infraction of the Union? These were the peaceful fruits of the doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman had been at so much trouble again to enunciate for application to Scotland—Scotland, to which he looked with affection as the best security, in union with England, for the cause of freedom and of order.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, if this debate were adjourned he did not think it was very likely that it would come on again; and he, for one, was not anxious that it should. He had a Motion for the Previous Question that he had no opportunity of bringing on; but he would like to say one word to explain the course he had taken He had arrived at the same conclusion as some hon. Gentlemen opposite, but he had done so by a totally different path. In putting on the Paper a Motion for the Previous Question, he did not wish to shirk the debate; on the contrary, he

    1797
    came early to assist in making a House, though, for his part, if the House had been counted out he did not know that the occurrence would have been much to be regretted; but he would say that there would have been one cause for regret. They would have lost the speech of the right hon. Member for Greenwich, which would be regarded in Scotland as an important landmark in this discussion. His great objection to the Motion was that in the present state of feeling in Scotland with respect to the Church, such an inquiry as was proposed would lead to excitement, and put the population of Scotland by the ears in a way that was not likely to lead to any peaceful result whatever. As to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir Alexander Gordon), his (Sir George Campbell's) own opinion was altogether adverse to the principle of an Established Church. Believing, as he did, that the Church of Scotland was the least intolerant of all State Churches, he was willing to leave it alone as long as it had in itself sufficient vitality to live in the will of the people of Scotland. But, on the other hand, he was wholly opposed to any attempt to prop it up by pressure from without. Therefore it was that he was opposed to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member opposite to prop it up, altogether it must die, and he wanted it to die peaceably.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDON: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I never used any expression having the slightest tendency that way.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman and myself are entirely in accord. He does not wish to prop up the Church.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDON: I did not say I did not wish to prop up the Church.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is very difficult to please. He objected to my saying that he wished to prop up the Church, and then he equally objects to my saying he did not wish to prop up the Church.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he wished to congratulate the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) on the fact that there were not more Irish Members present, as a speech like that which the hon. Member had made
    1798
    would be sufficient to set them all against the Established Church in England, Scotland, and Ireland.
    MR. LAINGsaid, he did not wish to detain the House at that late hour of the night—20 minutes to 2—but he wished to disabuse the House of the impression made by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate as to the feeling in some of the Northern counties of Scotland, where the adherents of the Established Church were in a minority. It was stated that the great majority who did not belong to the Establishment were Establishment men in principle, and that they would resent any proposal to appropriate the present revenues of the Established Church for the purposes of education. Now, as regarded the principal portion of the county he represented—namely, Orkney—he could say, most distinctly and emphatically, that that statement was not correct; but that the distinct opposite was the case. In the county to which he referred, the great majority did not belong to the Established Church; and if there were a county which might be abandoned as an untenable outwork of the Established Church, probably that county of Orkney was the one. Yet the feeling of the people was now that things ought to remain as they were until the question was ripe for settlement. Although they did not belong to the Church, the whole county of Orkney might be searched, and they would scarcely find one member of the Free or Limited Presbyterian Churches, who was not in favour of Disestablishment. This result had been arrived at, not in accordance with any theoretical idea. It had been the result of a great many years' experience in a part of the country where the people had seen the great advantage of the working of the Voluntary system. He believed the working of the Voluntary system in these counties had been a great agent in civilization. This was the result of that experience in the great body of the Free Church in Scotland, which was gradually converting the people to that principle. They would find some old men belonging to the Free Church still in favour of the principle of Establishments; but as new men were brought into the pale of the Church, they would find them advocating the Voluntary principle simply and solely as the result of experience, and the intelligence of the Scottish

    1799
    people would lead them to wish that system to be extended to Scotland generally. Therefore, he said, most distinctly and emphatically, that in one, at least, of the Northern counties of Scotland the great majority, as he believed, were entirely in favour of the Voluntary principle and Disestablishment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Tuesday, 9th July.

    EPPING FOREST BILL.
    Select Committee on the Epping Forest Bill nominated of, Mr. STEPHEN CAVE, Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH, Mr. Serjeant SPINKS, and Two Members to be added by the Committee of Selection.
    Ordered, That all Petitions presented against the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on the Bill, provided such Petitions are presented three clear days before the Meeting of the Committee, and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or agents, be heard (with the sanction of the Committee) upon their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against the said Petitions:—That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; Three to be the quorum.—(Sir Henry Selwin Ibbetson.)
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Inclosure Provisional Order (Llanfair Waterdine) * (115); Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) * (122); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings) (Cork) * (117); Local Government Provisional Order (Darenth Valley) * (120); Local Government Provisional Orders (Belper Union, &c.) * (118); Local Government Provisional Orders (Dawlish, &c.) * (121); Local Government Provisional Orders (Bournemouth, &c.) * (119); Local Government Provisional Orders (Abergavenny Union, &c.) * (116).
Committee—Report—Elementy Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Portsmouth) * (108).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Artisans' and Labourers' Dwellings) * (101); Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Lochgelly) * (102), and passed.
Their Lordships met;—and having gone through the Business on the Paper, without debate—
House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.