among other things that the Office of Public Works in Ireland, when it granted a Provisional Order, only charged the absolute expenses; but the Board of Trade, for Provisional Orders which affected Ireland, charged a fee of £35 each towards the expenses, when the draft order was deposited, and from that sum of £35 a fee of £10 10s. was paid by the Board of Trade to counsel for settling the Order, so that it would appear that the Board of Trade made a profit of £24 108. on every Provisional Order passed affecting Ireland. He wished to ask whether it would not be possible for the Board of Trade to follow the same plan in regard to Orders affecting Ireland as that followed by the Office of Public Works in Ireland? Then, on page 102, the Committee would find a perfectly new matter introduced into this Vote, amounting to £3,100, which consisted of fees to Receivers of Wreck and the Coastguard, with travelling and incidental expenses under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854. 1854 was some time back, and there never had been such a charge as this on the Estimate for these Services. The expenses connected with the Receiver of Wreck's duties had always been defrayed from the proceeds of wrecks, and a Return furnished to the House pursuant to Act of Parliament in connection with the Mercantile Marine Fund showed that the proceeds of the sale of wreck within the year was £3,329; while the fees and commissions received by the Receiver of Wreck amounted to £3,273, making a total of £6,602, which went to the remuneration and contingent expenses of the Receiver of Wreck. He believed that last Session an Act was passed entitled "The Merchant Shipping Fees and Expenses Act," by which the application of the proceeds of wreck to the payment of the Receiver of Wreck was sanctioned; and, that being so, he could not see the necessity of throwing the expenses connected with these Services on this Vote. On the the first page, £3,100 were put down as among extra receipts. That was the same sum as was charged against the public on page 102, so that the public were not at any loss on account of this innovation; but, whatever might be put down as extra expenses on the first page of this Vote, the introduction at a later page to a charge of £3,100 saddled this Vote with a per VOL. CCLXIV. [THIRD SERIES.] manent charge of that amount, which could never be got rid of until the officers receiving the money were pensioned. Hitherto, the wreck had paid its own expenses, and the account had year by year diminished, and the fees might be expected to dwindle down to what was just enough to cover the expenses. He thought it was very bad policy to introduce a sum like this as Exchequer Extra Receipts; and he hoped the Government might have some explanation respecting it beyond anything that he was able to suggest or conceive. MR. CHAMBERLAIN said, the hon. Member (Mr. O'Connor) had asked two separate questions. The first was, why the charges in connection with Provisional Orders differed from those which were made in reference to Public Works in Ireland? MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR hoped the right hon. Gentleman would excuse him while he explained what the real point was. His statement was that, according to the Official Returns furnished by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the Board of Trade paid a fee of £10 10s. to the counsel consulted in regard to the issue of a Provisional Order; but the Board previously levied a deposit of £35 from the promoters, so that they made a profit of £24 108. out of every Provisional Order that was issued, whereas the Irish Board of Works charged nothing beyond the absolute expenses. MR. CHAMBERLAIN said, he did not know how the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Connor) got his information that the Irish Board of Works did not charge anything beyond the actual expenses. re MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR marked, that it was so stated in a Return presented to the House. MR. CHAMBERLAIN said, the hon. Member assumed that because the Board of Trade paid £10 10s. as a fee to counsel, that was the whole cost to the Board. The hon. Member seemed to forget that the Board of Trade had all their office expenses to pay in addition to the fees to counsel. There was no legislation so cheap, so convenient, or that gave rise to so little dissatisfaction subsequently, as this system of legislation by Provisional Orders. The greatest care was taken to see that the Orders were drawn up so as to give as little trouble, and inflict as small an E amount of injustice as possible; and he did not believe that the charges made by the Board of Trade had ever been considered excessive by those in whose service the Provisional Orders were issued. In regard to the second point, the hon. Gentleman seemed to attach too much importance to what was, after all, a mere change in the mode of presenting the accounts. The object of the change was to give to the House of Commons more and more detailed information; and the plan had been adopted, for the first time that year, of showing in the Votes the exact amount of the fees charged. There was no fear that the fees would continue to be charged long after the work ceased, because they were apportioned to the work, and all the money received was paid into the Exchequer. attacked what had constantly been pressed upon the Government by Committee of Supply-namely, that in making payments they should set forth what the payments were for, and if they had receipts that they should give them a statement. He believed that that was the best course of checking the public expenditure. It was the course adopted in regard to many other accounts, and he hoped it would be universally adopted. Certainly, if the Government constituted a number of new offices, and suddenly saddled the public with a new charge, there would be ample justification for attacking them; but, in this case, the charges complained of were simply fees that were payable on a certain transaction being completed, and the Committee had before them not the fees actually payable in the course of the year, but MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, in re- an estimate of them given in a round gard to the first point raised by the right sum. He should like to have some inhon. Gentleman the President of the formation from the right hon. Gentleman Board of Trade, wished to remind him the President of the Board of Trade in that if the Board had office expenses in reference to one of these items-namely, connection with Provisional Orders be- a salary of £1,000, advancing to £1,200, yond the sums paid in the shape of fees to one of the Assistant Secretaries, who to counsel, so also had the Department also received £500 a-year for performof Board of Works in Ireland. All he ing the work of auditor in connection contended was, that if the Board of with the Metropolis Water Act of Works could furnish a Provisional 1871. He had no doubt that the duties Order, when petitioned for, at the abso-performed were highly important, and lute expense they had been put to in he believed there was a charge made connection with it, the same course upon the Metropolitan Water Companies might be taken by the Board of Trade to provide the remuneration; but he in similar cases. In regard to the wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman second point, he wished to point out how far the duties this gentleman had to to the right hon. Gentleman that al- perform under the Metropolitan Comthough, unquestionably, they had now panies Water Act interfered with the in the Board of Trade Vote, at page 102, duties he was called on to fulfil as a detailed account such as had never the salaried officer of a Public Departbeen supplied before, yet it was not ment? As the sum paid by the Metroa question of the sum of money abso-politan Water Companies was large, he lutely paid as fees which had been introduced at all. The sum put down was a good round sum of £2,200 for the Receivers, and another sum of £800 for the Coastguard. He understood that that was not a varying sum, but a permanent charge. Personally, he thought that that was a very unsatisfactory, and even dangerous way of giving the information. MR. RYLANDS said, he was very much surprised that his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. O'Connor) had raised that debate. His hon. Friend had gone at considerable length into a matter of account, and had Mr. Chamberlain presumed that the work rendered was substantial; and he should like to know whether the extra work was done during the time which ought to be devoted to the Public Service? He hoped to hear some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. MR. CHAMBERLAIN said, the arrangement to which his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands) referred was undoubtedly an anomalous one; but it was one which had been in existence for a good many years, and it had been brought before the Committee each year since it had been entered into. He could not go back to the time the appointment was first made, or state the reasons for it, | because he was not in the House at the time. He could only say, in regard to the way in which it worked now, that he believed a great deal of the work was done out of office hours, and in no way interfered with the work done for the Crown. Mr. Stoneham, who performed the two duties, was a very valuable officer, and fully worth the whole of the sum he received from the State for the work rendered to the Department. Vote agreed to. B. BARTTELOT SIR WALTER moved that the Chairman report Progress. It was then half-past 1 o'clock in the morning, and it would be necessary for the House to meet again at 2 in the afternoon. He was sure that the Government would not, under the circumstances, desire to continue the Committee. MR. CHAMBERLAIN assented. Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"-(Sir Walter B. Barttelot,)-put, and agreed to. Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock. Committee to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock. SUMMARY PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.-[Lords.]-[BILL 216.] (The Lord Advocate.) COMMITTEE. Bill considered in Committee. Clause 3 (Application). THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN) moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, to insert at the end of the clause "The provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts shall also apply to prosecutions under the Tweed Fisheries Acts: Provided always, SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. MR. COURTNEY said, the Bill was intended to legalize the sale of certain birds in the United Kingdom, which, notwithstanding that the birds had been lawfully killed here or had been killed abroad, could not now be sold under the Act of last year. He trusted the House would agree to the second reading of the Bill. Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,". (Mr. Courtney,)-put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock. LUNACY LAW AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL.-[BILL 192.] That it shall be in the option of the prosecutor (Mr. Dillwyn, Sir George Balfour, Mr. Benjamin to proceed either under the forms of the Tweed Fisheries Acts, or under the forms of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts." Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly. On the Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, further Amendment made, in page 2, T. Williams.) COMMITTEE. ORDER DISCHARGED. BILL WITHDRAWN. Order for Committee read. MR. DILLWYN, in moving that the Order be discharged, said, he believed Order discharged; Bill withdrawn. House adjourned at a quarter HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, 29th July, 1881. * there were some points in the Bill which | donment by Her Majesty's Government the Home Office did not consider would of a somewhat important Bill, under the work satisfactorily. He therefore begged pressure of strange influences, ought not, to move that the Order be discharged. I think, to be passed over quite without At the same time, as the Department notice. I shall not enter upon the genehad expressed a general approval of the ral subject of Teind Law, and beg only measure, he hoped that at the earliest to mention that Teind Law constitutes a possible date the matter would be taken part, and a very ugly part too, of the in hand by Her Majesty's Government. Land Laws of Scotland, and that in every Motion agreed to. transaction relating to the buying or selling of land careful investigations require to be made, sometimes with very uncertain results, relative to the state of the teinds on the property concerned, and in the parish in which it is situated. I must also mention that teinds, in the present signification of the words, is something very different from tithes, as formerly understood. In point of fact, there are no tithes in Scotland now, as they were commuted into a rent-charge about 250 years ago. The teinds of Scotland may now be concisely and correctly described as being that portion of the gross rental of Scotland which is appropriated to the payment of the stipends of parish ministers, or is liable at a future time to be so appropriated. In the early part of this Session Her Majesty's Ministers introduced a Bill called the Teinds (Scotland) Bill, which was read a second time some weeks later without opposition. The Bill sought to place on a clear and intelligible basis the liabilities of landed property in respect of teinds. It sought to place the relations of proprietors on the one hand and parish ministers on the othernamely, the payers and receivers of stipends-upon an easy and amicable footing. It sought to put an end to the expenses and litigation which the present law promotes, and almost necessitates. It sought to effect these objects by the drawing up of an inventory for the information of all concerned, as an authoritative exposition of the state of teinds in every parish of Scotland. The Bill was absolutely and carefully unpolitical in its character, and was totally unconnected with the question of Establishment or Disestablishment. Perhaps the best exposition of the purport and character of the measure is contained in the pointed note prefixed to the Teinds (Scotland) Bill, which I shall, therefore, read to the House MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading- Committee Metropolitan Open Spaces Act * * tration of Parliamentary Voters, &c. (173); British Honduras (Court of Appeal) (167); Pedlars (Certificates) (163); Metallic Mines (Gunpowder) (169); Seed Supply and other Acts (Ireland) Amendment (177), and passed. * MINISTERS STIPENDS, &c. (SCOTLAND). ADDRESS FOR A RETURN. THE EARL OF MINTO, in rising to call attention to the position and prospects of the question of reform of the Law of Teinds in Scotland; also to move for a "Return for each county in Scotland of the name of every parish in which an augmentation was made of ministers stipend and of allowances for communion elements respectively during the period that has elapsed since the 20th March 1876; also the name of each parish in which there are unexhausted teinds, and the amount applicable to the augmentation of ministers stipends, &c. in each such parish (in continuation of former Return, No. 242, 1876,") said, my Lords, I am always reluctant to occupy even a few minutes of your Lordships' time in this House; but the aban Mr. Dillwyn of a number of landed proprietors represent"The Bill has been prepared at the request ing the counties of Scotland. Its object is to complete the valuation of the tithes of Scotland, and to make up a roll of tithes in each parish under judicial authority. The want of such a roll has been the cause of a great amount of litigation and uncertainty as to the extent of the liabilities of proprietors of estates to the Church. The Bill does not provide for commutation of tithes, nor does it increase or lessen the liability of owners, or shift the incidence of the burden of the tithes in any way. It is purely executive, and aims only at ascertaining the rights and liabilities of parties interested, according to the existing law, in a more summary and inexpensive manner than is possible under the existing statutory procedure." 66 That the working of the system of the Established Church, which is invariably wrong in principle, and its exactions in the matters of church and manse rates, augmentations of stipends and otherwise, have not been more offensive or injurious for a generation than they are at present; and that disestablishment, and nothing short of it, as the only legislative redress to the non-established churches and great body of citizens, and the sole remedy of the religious scandal, ought not to be delayed without urgent cause. That they have learned of the withdrawal of this objectionable measure (the Teinds Bill) on the 4th July. That they have since heard with astonishment of a proposal of the Lord Advocate to re-introduce the Bill on an early day. That they resolve, in the event of an attempt to resuscitate the Bill, to take such steps as they see cause for its prevention, and for raising the whole question of disestablishment in connection with it.” I think it is desirable that these things should be known and appreciated as regards the past; but I, for my part, would have passed them over in silence had it not been my belief that the same influences which have prevailed this Session against the cause of reform will operate with even greater force in future, as the time of a General Election approaches. I conclude by moving for the Returns of which I have given Notice. THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE: My Lords, every part of the noble Earl's statement, so far as my knowledge goes, is perfectly and entirely accurate. The Bill introduced into the other House of Parliament dealing with the subject of teinds is a useful measure, and well calculated to effect the object in view. In the discussion in the other House of Parliament, so far as I am aware, no successful attack was made on the principle of the measure. Now, I venture to assert that the only two classes of men who are directly interested in the simplification of the Teind Laws were virtually agreed in supporting the principle of this Bill. But it has always been said in Scotland that there is one powerful class-the Legal Professionwho are interested in maintaining the present system in consequence of the harvest of litigation that it engenders. But, in point of fact, the most zealous and most efficient Teind Law reformers are members of the Legal Profession of all grades-Judges, Sheriffs, agents, solicitors, are all of one mind in condemnation of the existing law. They feel it as a reproach to Scottish law that so barbarous a state of things, and so ruinous to their clients, should be suffered to continue. But if all these classesheritors, ministers, and lawyers-unite in condemning the present Law of Teinds, to what influence is the obstruction due which has proved fatal to the Bill of the Lord Advocate? The answer is clear and simple. The influence which has been so efficacious was a purely sectarian one. The word has been passed from tremely by the landlords and clergy of high sectarian authority that, in the Scotland, and it was opposed by those interests of the question of Disestablish- who are very zealous for the immediate ment, all legislation for the reform of or approximate Disestablishment of the The Bill was the Teind Laws must be opposed at all Church of Scotland. hazards. The worse the condition of dropped in the other House in consethese laws, the greater will be the un-quence of pressure of Business, and popularity of Church institutions, and the owing to the opposition it received from greater will be the popularity of an agi- a certain section of the Liberal Party. tation for Disestablishment. Expensive There is no chance of that measure litigation, and plenty of it, between being introduced this Session, and I am heritors and ministers, and between not able to make any promise with reThe matter is heritors inter se, seems to be the aim gard to next Session. and prayer of the enemies of the Church. receiving the consideration of the GoThe spirit which animates the opponents vernment; but they were unable to state of all reform in the Law of Teinds may when the matter could be dealt with. be seen in the following resolutions of There is no objection to give the Return the United Presbyterian Synod, agreed moved for. to on the 11th July. They resolve Motion agreed to. It was desired ex |