670 should we go on, Session after Session, | agree that it is desirable to get rid of this discussing this matter as the House dis- tax, and the only question between one cussed the question of church rates and party and the other is this-In what manthe question of ministers' money, to come ner shall we do it? On this side Gentleto only one result-just like this House, men say the provisions proposed are not there is one door in and one door out of it only highly unjust but altogether incom-discuss it for years, and you will come to mensurate with the object, and it is not the proposition of the hon. Member for an individual that says it is, but it is the Edinburgh. I have lately been in Edin- Lord Advocate, speaking on authority; burgh, and I do not misstate that there and the learned Lord expresses his intenis scarcely any difference of opinion as tion of introducing a measure which he to the necessity of settling the question, thinks, without being unjust, will be much and as to the justice and the propriety more satisfactory than the Bill of the of settling it on such terms as are now hon. Member for Edinburgh. Why, then, proposed. Therefore I hope the hon. Gen- should that hon. Gentleman persist in tleman will not preclude himself from pro- pressing on the second reading of a Bill ceeding by the notion that the Government many of the provisions of which are not will bring in a measure likely to be satis- approved of by hon. Gentlemen who have factory, or if they do that it will pass this declared their intention of voting for it? House, but that he will press forward his He will lose nothing by postponing it for measure, and I will undertake to say that, a fortnight. The House will then have an like church rates and ministers' money, we opportunity of considering the measure of shall find this annuity tax question also be the Lord Advocate. The hon. Member, settled, and that "the demon of hatred, perhaps, fears that the Lord Advocate's malice, and all uncharitableness," will be measure may be such as strengthen the exorcised from the city of Edinburgh. objections to his own Bill; but I ask the House to wait and see what the Lord Advocate's Bill is.

MR. E. ELLICE (St. Andrew's) said, that having taken a prominent part in the discussions on this question for eight years, he wished to offer a few remarks. He believed that the good people of Edinburgh desired to relieve themselves at the expense of the Consolidated Fund. Four or five Bills had been presented to the House, all of which were applications to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to supply means for relieving the tax-payers of Edinburgh from payments which they thought were rather unjustly extracted from them. He should vote for the second reading of the Bill before the House, inasmuch as there was no such proposition involved in it; and he hoped the Lord Advocate, if he should succeed in defeating the Bill, would not have recourse to the old expedient of applying the public funds to relieve the objections of individual tax-payers. He only threw in these few words in order to put the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his guard, that whenever Bills came from the north they were generally attended with such an application for the public money.

MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT believed every Member of the House had come to the conclusion that the annuity tax in Edinburgh must be put an end to, and the question therefore was, whether that object could be satisfactorily effected by the present Bill. The hon. Member for Birmingham advised the hon. Member for Edinburgh to persevere in his Bill by referring to the example of what had occurred with regard to church rates; the truth being that that hon. Gentleman did not agree with the propositions of the Bill itself, because the Bill proposed to afford, although inadequate and inexpedient, some substitute for the tax to be abolished, while the hon. Gentleman wished to abolish the tax without equivalent and without substitute. [Mr. BRIGHT: No.] I understood him to say that, in a rich and intelligent city like Edinburgh, there are plenty of sources whence the income of the ministers ought to be provided. But on what ground does the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere) proceed? He says, "I shall support the second reading, but I shall in Committee propose Amendments." I understand him to say that he does not agree with VISCOUNT DUNCAN said, there apthe provisions of the Bill, but he considers peared to be but one wish on both sides that in Committee differences of opinion with regard to the abolition of the annuity may be arranged. It is clear, therefore, tax. He believed there was no difference that neither does he approve the provisions of opinion on either side that the tax must of the present measure. We all of us be abolished. But he rose to suggest to

}

Her Majesty's Government the following the Consolidated Fund, and he knew that question. He would very much like to if any charge on the Consolidated Fund know what were the principles of the Bill were proposed, the Chancellor of the Exalluded to or about to be brought in by Her chequer would not submit to it. The hon. Majesty's Government. On this side of Member for Kirkcudbright had said the the House they were in this difficulty, that existence of the annuity tax introduced they did not know what the principles were envy, hatred, malice, and all uncharitablethat were contained in the Bill which the ness. Whether that were so, and whether, Lord Advocate had stated to the House by the abolition of the tax, the "demon would shortly be brought forward. Her of hatred, malice, and uncharitableness," Majesty's Government had this advantage, would be laid in the Red Sea, he could that they knew the principles of the Bill not say, but you are reduced to this alternow before the House. He cordially con- native, you must either accept of this subcurred with what had fallen from the hon. stitute, though it should not be so ample Member for Edinburgh, that it was abso- as you would like, and with it the affeclutely necessary that this annuity tax should tions of the parishioners, or you must conbe got rid of. But he was in this difficulty tinue to submit to the demon of hatred at that moment, that being most anxious and malice. His principal objection to the to get rid of the tax he could see no other annuity tax was, that it violated the princourse to adopt than to vote in favour of ciples of religious liberty. It was held to the Bill now before the House. They were be the inalienable right of every man to not responsible for the other Bill not being worship God according to the dictates of brought forward. But, considering all the his conscience; it was persecution to com. circumstances of the case, he would sug-pel any man to adopt the creed of another, gest to the Government that they should assent to the second reading of the present Bill on the understanding that when they introduced their own Bill it should not be objected to by the supporters of the measure now before the House, and then that both Bills should go into Committee and be there taken into consideration together. MR. BLACK said, that seeing that the House was impatient, he would not take up their time for more than a minute or two. He begged, however, to remind them that at the opening of the debate he had not made a long speech, although he was fully prepared to do so, and to show that this annuity tax was regarded as an intolerable burden, that it was contrary to the prin ciples of religious liberty, that it was unjustly saddled on the inhabitants of Edinburgh, that it had led to nothing but tumult and riot and all kinds of confusion in the city, that it was injurious, not only to religion and morals, but to the Church of Scotland itself. Few persons had inquired into the question as much as he had done. He had searched diligently in every quarter in order to ascertain whether he could find any legitimate substitute for the tax that was likely to be received by this House. He knew very well the Bill to be brought in by the Lord Advocate would trench upon some of the funds of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he believed that, though the ministers of Edinburgh were exceedingly anxious to get rid of the tax, their longing eyes were towards

it was no less persecution to force him under threats of prosecution to support the creed of another. He had paid the tax, when compelled to do so. He did it on the same principle as the farmer of Lochlomond paid black mail to Rob Roy. If he were not forced to pay by threats of prosecution, of arrest, or imprisonment, he said at once he would not pay it. He paid every other tax as soon as the paper was presented, but with regard to this annuity tax, he entertained a strong conscientious objection to it.

Question put, "That the word 'now,' stand pert of the Question." The House divided:-Ayes 216; Noes 176: Majority 40.

Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read 2o, and committed for Wednesday next.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) ACT AMEND-
MENT BILL.

SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. GREGORY, in rising to move the second reading of this Bill, said, it was rendered necessary in consequence of a decision come to by the Poor Law Board that all children in workhouses, the religion of whose parents could not be ascertained, should be brought up as Protestants. This decision, in the face of the vast proportion of Roman Catholics and of Catholic pauper children in the majority of parishes in Ire

land, had created the greatest dissatisfac- | were either Roman Catholics or Presbytion, and had led to repeated collisions be- terians; and therefore it did not seem just tween boards of guardians and the Poor to register their child as a member of the Law Commissioners. The present Chief Church of England. Each of these cases Justice Blackburne, when Attorney Gene- ought to be decided separately and on its ral, had given an opinion that boards of own merits, but this could not be done by guardians were bound to register deserted the State, and must therefore be left to children as of the religion of the State; boards of guardians. Another object which but from the Poor Law Act itself, and from the Bill had in view was to provide greater an opinion given by Judge Keogh when attention to these poor children, by far the Attorney General, it seemed clear that larger number of whom, at present, died at where the guardians could come to a con- avery early age. It was extremely difficult clusion as to what the religion of the child's to rear in a poor house children separated parents was, they were bound to register it from their mothers at such an early age; in that religion. In many cases something but it was believed that if placed out to found round a deserted child's neck, such nurse the greater number of them would as a rosary, would sufficiently indicate that survive; and a clause in the Bill therefore the parents were not Protestant; but the empowered the guardians, if they thought Poor Law Commissioners insisted on all fit, to take this step. deserted children being registered as Protestants. This state of things gave rise to contentions which it was the object of his Bill to put an end to; and it therefore provided that in all cases where there was no clue to the religion of the child's parents the board of guardians should be left to judge what that religion most probably was, and should register the child accordingly. He had been requested to bring forward this Bill by Protestants as well as by Roman Catholics; and he could assure the House that many Protestant clergymen had expressed to him their desire that the matter should be settled by legislation. After the liberal manner in which the present Conservative Government had acted towards the Roman Catholics, in the appointment of additional Roman Catholic chaplains for the army, he trusted they would show the people of Ireland that they were ready to act with equal liberality in reference to this important subject.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time.'

LORD JOHN BROWNE seconded the Motion, for he believed the Bill would effect a wise and just settlement of a question which, if not speedily adjusted, bade fair to destroy the present harmonious working of the great majority of the Irish Poor Law Boards, and to divide into two antagonistic religious parties men who had hitherto acted cordially together for many years past, who had learnt to respect and esteem each other, and to exhibit that mutual forbearance which was essential for the proper administration of the Poor Law in Ireland. In the north of Ireland it might be assumed that the parents of every deserted child VOL. CLIII. [THIRD SERIES.]

MR. GROGAN said, that no one could complain of the tone in which his hon. Friend the Mover and the noble Lord the Seconder of this Motion had dealt with the question; but their proposition came to this-that the law of the land ought to be changed to meet the views of those who objected to the present system of registering deserted children. If these children were not registered as Protestants the opinion of Chief Justice Blackburne must be upset. Mr. Blackburne was at present Lord Justice of Appeal in Ireland; he had for some years filled the office of Lord Chancellor there, and it was well known that there was no more competent opinion on matters of this kind. It was said by his hon. Friend that Mr. Justice Keogh had delivered an opinion the other way. But was it so? What was Mr. Keogh's opinion? Why, that where it was shown that the child had been baptized in a particular religion, it ought to be presumed that its parents were of that religion, and be registered accordingly. The simple point before the House was whether they were prepared to repeal the established law of the land, as interpreted by one of the most eminent legal gentlemen in Ireland, merely for the purpose of accommodating some of the boards of guardians in the south; and he called upon hon. Members therefore, not under the pretence of restoring harmony and doing away with the bickerings and heartburnings which now existed, to introduce an element which must inevitably lead to those very consequences. Adopt this measure, and enact that boards of guardians should have the power at any of their meetings to declare the religion in which a deserted child

Ꮓ

HOUSE OF LORDS,

Thursday, March 24, 1859.

MINUTES.] Sat First in Parliament.-The Lord
Thurlow-after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS-2a Evidence by Commission;
Oaths Act Amendment.

3

Consolidated Fund (£1,222,333 8s. 9d.); Consolidated Fund (£11,000,000); County Courts; Convict Prisons Abroad.

THE COMPANIES ACT (1859) BILL. [FORMERLY TRADING COMPANIES WINDING-UP BILL.] RE-COMMITMENT.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee.

EARL GREY inquired if the noble Earl the President of the Board of Trade could give the House some explanation with regard to the working and results of the Limited Liability Act.

derstood that he was far from saying that the present state of things with regard to these children was satisfactory. The opinion of the law officers had been given in favour of the view which many persons took, that the children ought to be brought up in the religion of the State; and he was not prepared to say that that was not a correct opinion. Still it was a matter that required consideration, and the House had a right to demand that full opportunity should be afforded for that purpose. When the proper time arrived he should be able to show that there were other means of settling the question, and that the measure now proposed, so far from effecting that result, would only lead to irremediable confusion, and create a lasting sore. Under these circumstances, at that advanced period of the day, he should certainly support the Motion for adjourning the debate. MR. J. D. FITZGERALD asked whether the measure which had been introduced by the Government the evening before for the amendment of the Poor Law in Ireland, made any provision for the settlement of the question under discussion? MR. WHITESIDE could assure the hon. Member for Dovor (Mr. Osborne) that the Government had no desire to hide their opinion upon this subject, though the hon. Member was scarcely justified in assuming the tone he did when he said to them, "Why do you presume to be silent when I desire you to speak?" He did not understand that Mr. Justice Keogh differed substantially from the opinion which had been pronounced by his learned Colleague on the bench; but if those learned persons differed upon the law or the application of the law to the facts, that was reason sufficient of itself why the question should be fully and maturely considered. So far as the present measure was concerned, he believed that if it were agreed to the result would be to increase instead of diminish confusion in litigation. In answer to the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald), he did not believe there was such a clause as that to which the hon. Member referred in the Bill for the amendment of the Irish Poor Law, which had been introduced in his (Mr. Whiteside's) absence from the House. At all events, that Bill would be shortly printed, and the hon. Member would then be able to see what its contents were. Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said, he was afraid he could not give the noble Earl all the information he required; but he would with the aid of the Returns of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies give all that he could. The first Act enabling joint-stock companies to constitute themselves with limited liability passed in 1855. This Act extended only to England, and excepted banking and insurance companies. In 1856 another Act passed, giving increased facilities, and admitting companies to the privilege of limited liability on the mere registration of a memorandum of association. Banking and insurance companies were still excluded, but the Act extended to the whole of the United Kingdom. In 1858, banking companies were admitted under special restrictions, and the Bill now before your Lordships proposed to admit insurance companies to registration with limited liability. The number of companies registered under the Act of 1856 was 1,098 with a nominal capital of £75,442,887. Of these 68, with a capital of £7,439,000 had been dissolved, some by the voluntary action of the shareholders, others by the adverse proceedings of creditors; and there remained in apparent existence 1,030 companies with a nominal capital of £68,000,000. Many of the companies had not made any return. There was a penalty of £5 a day for not making the Return, but when a limited liability company had spent all its capital it was impossible to enforce the penalty. House adjourned at ten minutes Of these 1,030 companies he had ascertainbefore Six o'clock.ed that 207, with a nominal capital of