Commons Sitting of 18 July 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Spirit Duties; Census (Scotland); Excise Duties.
2° Coroners (No. 3); Hackney Carriages (Metropolis) Act Amendment
3° Medical Act (1858) Amendment; Copyhold and Inclosure Commissions, &c; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements; Highway Rates Act Continuance; Oxford University (No. 2).

CORONERS (No. 3) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. COBBETTsaid, he rose to move the second reading of this Bill. He had hoped that the right lion. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis) would have given some explanation of what he intended to do with his Bill, or that he would have withdrawn it altogether. [Sir GEORGE LEWIS: It is postponed.] He would ask the House to read his Bill a second time, and go into Committee pro formâ, in order to enable him to introduce Amendments. He had on a former occasion stated his reasons for bringing in the Bill. Its principle had been recognized by the Commission of 1849. That Commission recommended that an Act

  2111
  should be passed to provide that coroners should be paid by salary instead of by fee, and the reason given by them was the same which guided the Committee which sat during the present Session—namely, that in several counties of England conflicts had arisen between the magistrates and coroners, which was, to say the least of it, very unseemly, and might lead to still more serious consequences. The former disallowed many of the fees which the latter were entitled to charge, and thus practically diminished, to a considerable extent, the number of inquisitions. Now, that was a state of things which ought to be put an end to in some way or another. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had a Bill before the House, giving to coroners, who had their fees disallowed by magistrates, an opportunity of seeking their remedy by a case to be submitted to the justices of the Court of Queen's Bench; but all lawyers were of opinion that that Bill would not answer the purpose for which it was intended. The Bill which he (Mr. Cobbett) had introduced early in the year was framed in conformity with the recommendations of the Committee which sat this Session, and if the House now allowed the Bill to be read a second time, they might go into Committee pro formâ, which would advance it a stage, and would also enable him to bring it up on some future and early day in a more perfect shape. His own Bill had been introduced early in the Session, and a Committee, moved for by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Marylebone (Mr. Edwin James) had sat to inquire into the facts of the case. The Committee took evidence, and received ample proof that there should be such a Bill as had been recommended by the Commission; and the present measure carried out as strictly as possible the recommendations of both. Some of these recommendations, however, were of a minor character; it was doubtful whether they were altogether practicable, and he thought it advisable, after a good deal of correspondence and inquiry, to expunge such clauses from the Bill. There were fifteen counties in which fees which the coroners thought themselves entitled to charge were disallowed; the greater number being in Durham, Hants, and Stafford. In Hants, according to the statement of Mr. Todd, of Winchester, the inquisitions held by him had been reduced from one hundred and sixty to about thirty-two; and the localities where the case of sudden or suspicious
  2112
  death occurred in which no inquest had taken place were much dissatisfied. The magistrates, having practically control of the police, had instructed them to furnish him with information in so few cases that he had no doubt deaths took place in a suspicious manner where he was not called upon at all to act. The Committee had similar evidence from other quarters. In Middlesex there was a strong belief on the part of the coroner that one particular species of crime—child murder—was greatly on the increase. Several other witnesses who came before the Committee gave similar testimony, and this it was which had prompted him from the first to take the part he had done on this question. He had seen a great deal in the course of his own practice, which had convinced him of the great usefulness of the coroner's court in checking crime. Those who might feel themselves safe in committing crimes, if there were no such thing as a coroner's court and jury, were in constant dread of that institution. Among the other modes in which the crime of murder was committed was one which was obviously increasing—namely, by secret poisoning. One could scarcely take up a newspaper without seeing a case of suspected or proved murder by poisoning. He could not help thinking that the magistrates throughout the country had been scared without cause by finding that the cost of inquests had been greatly increased of late years, which they attributed erroneously to the misconduct of the coroners. Successive Acts of the Legislature had rendered it inevitable that the cost should increase. In 1836 an Act was passed giving power to the coroners to have post-mortem examinations made—a most useful Act, which had been the means of bringing to light some of the foulest murders ever committed, but imposing on the coroner the necessity of paying two guineas to a surgeon for making each post-mortem examination, and one guinea to any surgeon called as a witness. In 1836 or 1837 the Registration Act greatly increased the number of inquests. Those two Acts taken together had increased the expenses by about one-half. In 1837 an Act was procured by the Poor Law Commissioners forbidding the expenses of the coroners to be taken, as they had previously been, out of the poor's rate, and making it imperative that the justices should pay them out of the county rate. The magistrates in several places had begun to refuse to pay the

  2113
  coroners' expenses in various cases, which course had led to disputes between the justices and the coroners, and in some places to an almost total discontinuance of the practice of holding inquests, except in some very strong cases of suspicion. He did not mean to cast any reflection upon the magistrates, who were no doubt anxious to do their duty in saving the county rates. But if that were done in an indiscreet manner, it might end in increasing the rates, by leading to expensive prosecutions, as well as by leading to the encouragement of crime. But in the counties in which magistrates interfered coroners were almost abandoning their offices. Mr. Hills, one of the coroners for Kent, told him the other day that, though he was informed that upon two consecutive days two children had been smothered in the same house, he held no inquest. The coroner might have acted wrongly in that instance, but the magistrates were to blame for not requiring inquests to be held in such cases. To prevent such collisions and difficulties for the future, he moved that the Bill be read a second time.
  MR. DEEDESsaid, he wished to second the Motion, because he was desirous that all the disputes between coroners and magistrates should be brought to a conclusion. He was sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to cases which had occurred in Kent. He had never shrunk from the investigation of those cases. No directions had been given to the coroner which, properly considered, could interfere with the discharge of his duties; and he had no hesitation in saying that in the instances mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman inquests ought to have been held, and that the expense of holding them would have been allowed by the magistrates.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it seemed to be generally admitted that the present state of things with regard to the office of coroner demanded remedy. Questions had arisen in various counties between coroners and magistrates for which at present there seemed no satisfactory mode of solution. The Bill which he had introduced, and which had been postponed, had for its object, while maintaining the mode of payment by fees, to provide for the decision of disputes between magistrates and coroners, by an application to the Queen's Bench. The question was investigated by a Select Committee this Session, whose opinion was that it was not desirable to
  2114
  attempt to amend the present system, but entirely to alter it, and to remunerate the coroner by salary. He had considerable doubts at first as to the expediency of that change, but if it were the general wish of the House that the experiment should be tried he was willing to acquiesce in the adoption of that course, provided that the rest of the institution should be made to harmonize with that mode of payment. At present the coroner was elected by the freeholders. The tenure of the office was freehold, and he could only be removed by a judicial proceeding before the Lord Chancellor. In point of fact he was irremovable, and the only security for his proper discharge of his duties was his being paid by fees. If that security were, by the substitution of a salary, withdrawn, it would be desirable to give to the Crown some power of removing from his office a coroner who was unfit for, or negligent in, the discharge of his duties. It was also a matter well deserving of consideration whether the office—which, though frequently called a judicial one, partook more of the nature of one of police—should continue to be an elective one. These elections often led to contests which partook of a political character, involved great expense, and caused the successful candidate to enter upon his office burdened with debt—a most unfavourable position for any one who had judicial duties to perform. He would suggest that it might be desirable to confide the appointment of coroners to the Lords-Lieutenant of counties, who were persons of consideration and of interest in the counties, and included within their ranks men of all political opinions. He doubted the expediency of limiting the selection of coroners' juries to the list of county jurors, and thought that it might perhaps be expedient to diminish the number of jurors. There was not, that he was aware, any magic in the number twelve, and he believed that a smaller number would be sufficient to conduct these inquiries. He should be prepared to vote for the second reading of the Bill; but he hoped that his hon. and learned Friend would take these remarks into consideration, and in the Amendments which he intended to introduce into his Bill adopt such of the suggestions as he thought were well founded.
  LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he was glad to find that the evils now experienced in connection with the office of coroner were about to be remedied, but he doubted whe-

  2115
  ther the suggestions as to future appointments was one which the House could adopt. He thought there would be great objection to place the appointment in the hands of Lords-Lieutenant, who each in his county was of decided party politics. He thought it would be better to improve the present mode of election by lessening the expense, and if that attempt did not answer it could be again revised. He was much in favour of the principle of paying coroners by salary instead of fees, but he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that, if that principle were adopted, the institution should he made to harmonize with it.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he thought the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman for the removal of the coroner, should his removal be desirable, a good one, and he was willing to accept it on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, of which he was one. He should have no objection to see a power of control placed in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, who might be empowered to remove the party holding the office in the event of inability from old age to perform its duties, or misbehaviour. He would agree to any such alteration in the system, but as to the other suggestion of altering the rule of election, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman before attempting such an alteration would give the subject very serious consideration. Not merely was it an old office, but it was an office vested in the freeholders, and had in times past been a great safeguard to the liberties of the people. He admitted that it would be well to reduce the expense of election, but he should regret to see the day when the office of coroner would cease to be an object of ambition.
  MR. PHILIPPSsaid, he was not sanguine as to the good effects which were likely to result from the present Bill. If the character of juries was to be raised, he thought their numbers ought to be diminished. The Bill was directed against the restrictions which some magistrates had imposed upon the payment of coroners; but, in his opinion, these disputes were not of sufficient number or magnitude to require the interference of the Legislature. However, he should not oppose the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. FARRERsaid, he should support the second reading. In the county of Durham, which he had the honour to represent, during the last three years 207 inquests had been disallowed in a popula-
  2116
  tion of 391,000, and in the West Riding, in a population of 1,325,000, only 378 had been disallowed. It would appear, in fact, that Durham was at the head of the counties in which the disputes between coroners and magistrates prevailed. It was necessary to provide some remedy, and therefore he was very glad to see that the right hon. Home Secretary had given his consent to the second reading. However, he agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Harry Vane) that the appointment to the office ought not to be vested in the Lords-Lieutenant; he thought it would be better to vest it in the county magistrates.
  MR. MONTAGUE SMITHsaid, that if an alteration in the mode of appointment were to be at all made, he would prefer to see the appointment in the hands of the responsible Ministers of the Crown rather than in those of any other parties. On the other hand, if it were determined to maintain the system of election, he would suggest that the electors should be the freeholders on the Parliamentary register—a mode which would preserve the old elective system, and at the same time save it from being, as it now practically was, a mockery and a delusion. He would further suggest that the power given by the Bill to a Judge in the Court of Queen's Bench to direct an inquest to be held should be given to the Judge of any superior court.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsuggested that the elective system in connection with the office should be preserved, but that the electors should be not the freeholders of the county, but all parties, whether freeholders, leaseholders, or others, who might be on the Parliamentary register.
  MR. BRADYsuggested that means should be provided in the Bill for paying medical men to prosecute to the utmost the post mortem examinations which circumstances might prove to be required.
  SIR WILLIAM MILESsaid, it was very desirable to render the composition of coroners' juries as respectable as possible. Nothing, however, could be more objectionable than to transfer the appointment of coroners to the Lords-Lieutenant of counties. He approved of the proposal for placing the election of coroners in the hands of those whose names appeared in the Parliamentary register. It was exceedingly desirable to reduce the expenses of the election to this office, which were often very large. He trusted that with some Amendments the Bill might be found to work effectively.
  COLONEL STUARTsaid, he also approved of the Bill, but he likewise objected to the suggestion of placing the appointment in the hands of the Lord-Lieutenants of counties. What they wanted was to prevent the office of coroner falling altogether into disuse; but at the same time many of the inquests that were held were altogether unnecessary. For instance, something like 180 inquests were held on the bodies of those who were lost in the Royal Charter; and there was no necessity for so many inquests, as the verdict in one case ought to rule the rest.
  MR. RIDLEYsubmitted that there ought to be a more liberal allowance to the coroner when obliged to go a long distance. The proposed allowance was in his opinion quite insufficient.
  MR. HUMBERSTONsaid, he was opposed to the mode in which coroners were at present elected, and he thought that the appointment should either be made by the Lords-Lieutenant on the magistrates of the county. By which a great saving of money now expended on the elections of those officers might be effected.
  Bill read 2°, and committed; considered in Committee, and reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 271]; re-committed for Friday.

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL—COMMITTEE.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE. SECOND NIGHT.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [11th July],
  "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair;" and which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee."
  —instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. STANILANDsaid, that the character of the measure might be collected from the last clause, which confirmed acts previously done by local authorities. In that respect the Bill was retrospective, and opposed to the general course of legislation. The real object of the Bill was to enable vestries who had incurred expenses in supporting a Bill in reference to the supply of
  2118
  gas to the Metropolis to pay those expenses out of the rates. In that Bill there was a provision to the same effect; but if the Bill should not pass, there would be no means of paying these expenses, which amounted to several thousand pounds. The Bill also provided that it should be competent for any vestry in the Metropolis to appear by council before a Committee of the House, and to take part in supporting or opposing any Bill, and pay the expenses out of the rates. That was an unprecedented power to give to the vestries, and he thought clerks of vestries would be apt to use it to the great advantage of themselves and the detriment of the ratepayers. He trusted, therefore, that the House would agree to the proposal of the hon. Member for Colchester, that the House would go into Committee on the Bill that day three months.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he trusted the House would go into Committee on the Bill. He did not know why the hon. Member (Mr. Staniland) who did not represent any of the places that would be affected by the Bill, should oppose it, except it was that the other evening he came forward as the great champion of the gas companies whose monopoly was threatened by a Bill which had been brought in for this purpose. The provisions of the Bill seemed to be founded on the most fair and equitable principle. The gas companies had great funds at their command, and might inflict great injury upon a Metropolitan parish, and at present the parish had no means whatever of entering into a contest with the companies, inasmuch as they had no funds applicable to such a purpose. The Bill would enable them to raise the funds, and it was a power which he thought they ought to have.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he should support the proposal in the Bill providing for the payment of the expenses incurred by local authorities in protecting the public interests of their districts.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, municipal corporations might resist Bills which interfered with their local authority, if the Court of Chancery said that that was a right application of their funds. But that was not the power which it was proposed to give to every little vestry in the Metropolis, but a power of promoting such Bills as they might fancy were for the benefit of their parish. If the Bill passed, they ought to entitle it, "a Bill for the benefit of vestry clerks."
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, that the vestries had been put to great expense in supporting the Gas Bill before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and it was now proposed to empower the local authorities to levy rates to pay such expense. If the inhabitants of the Metropolis desired to pay money for this purpose, what business had the Member for Boston and the Member for Reading to endeavour to prevent them? The Bill applied to the Metropolis, and not to the whole of the empire. The Corporation of London had the right to appear before Select Committees of that House, and if the Corporation was extended so as to include the whole Metropolis, the hon. Member for Westminster needed not to have introduced this Bill.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the necessity for the Bill arose from the peculiar position of the Metropolis in reference to municipal institutions. He had been reproached many times in the course of the Session with not bringing on the London Corporation Reform Bill. It had been very much against his inclination that that Bill had been so long deferred. A proposition had been made with regard to the creation of a municipality embracing the whole of the Metropolis. Now, when the Bill to amend the Corporation of London was first brought forward, there was no question of that nature debated, and all the House had in view was to accept the present boundaries of the City of London as something definitive, and to improve the constitution of the corporation. The question had since been raised whether it was not possible to abolish the Corporation of the City of London, and to distribute its revenues over the whole Metropolis. That question was one for the consideration of the House, but he confessed he retained the opinion which was expressed in the Report of the London Corporation Commissioners, that London being, as it was sometimes called, a province covered with houses, was not fitted to be constituted into a single municipality, and that it was impossible to constitute it into a single municipality, as Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and other large towns respectively were. His belief was, that the interests of the people living in the east, the west, the north, and the south of London were so discordant, that it would be impossible for them to be represented in a town council, and that the magnitude of the Metropolis was so great as to render the ordinary functions of a
  2120
  municipal government inapplicable as regarded the Metropolis. The Commissioners, although they came to the conclusion that it would not be possible to have a municipality for the whole of London, nevertheless recommended the creation of a Board of Works, with certain limited powers. A measure was introduced by Sir Benjamin Hall on that recommendation, and the Metropolitan Board of Works had been constituted with defined powers extending over the whole of the Metropolis. That was the nearest approach to a municipality for the whole of London which it was possible to make. But then it was true that these great parishes of the Metropolis, many of them of much more importance than large towns in the country, had very important interests, and it was certainly difficult to regard them in the light of ordinary rural parishes. It seemed impossible to divide the Metropolis into municipal districts other than into parishes, and on the other hand it was difficult to deal with parishes as if they were municipal bodies. Municipal boroughs had, he apprehended, a certain power of promoting private Bills, and they all knew that that power had been exercised very extensively by the Corporation of the City of London. The City Remembrancer, indeed, was an officer specially appointed to manage Parliamentary business. Other municipal bodies, such as those of Manchester and Liverpool, had also power to promote or oppose Bills, and he apprehended that if the interests of the town were attacked by a private company they would have the power of appearing before the committee, and the expenses of the contest would be paid out of the borough fund. [Cries of "No."] Well, that might be a doubtful point, but his impression was that, under certain conditions, it was legal to pay such expenses out of the borough fund. The question then arose what should be done with respect to a parish such as Marylebone or Southwark (much more important than a great number of municipal boroughs in the country), when they believed their interests were about to be attacked by s private body. At present they had no legal right to appear before a Parliamentary Committee; and this Bill sought to give them that power. The Bill appeared to give it, certainly, in a very extensive way, and said that the expense might be paid out of any rate whatever raised under the present Bill or under the Metropolitan Local Management Act. He

  2121
  thought that in its present form it was likely to lead to a great increase in the business of promoting and opposing Bills, and it behoved the House not to pass an unguarded measure on this subject. On the other hand, he could not but feel that there was a real defect in the present state of things. Persons often had a substantial interest, which they ought to be permitted to support at the common expense, and if power for that purpose could be given in a sufficient and proper manner he should have no objection to the Bill; but in its present form he regarded it with considerable suspicion. He had no objection, however, to consider the clauses of the Bill in Committee, and he thought at all events that there ought to be some control on the part of the Metropolitan Board of Works, which was the only body extending over the whole of the Metropolis, before expense was incurred by any parish in Introducing or opposing a Bill. That would check any tendency to parish jobbing.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the proposition he made at the beginning of the Session, had not been correctly referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. What he proposed was, that in the Metropolis there should be local Corporations, each confined to an appropriate district, for the purpose of managing all matters of detail of a local character; and that there should be another aggregate body composed of representatives from the local bodies, for the purpose of managing those affairs which were of an aggregate character, and applied to the whole Metropolis. With regard to the question before the House, he could not but express his surprise that the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Staniland), who on a former occasion appeared as the acknowledged agent of a number of private companies, should now come forward to obstruct a Bill enabling vestries to protect the interest of the inhabitants of the parishes of London, whenever it was necessary for them to apply to the Houses of Parliament.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he must deprecate the language used by some hon. Members, when they said that the hon. Members for Colchester and Boston had no business to thrust themselves into a matter of this kind, as they had nothing to do with the Metropolis. That appeared to him to be the enunciation of a new principle, which he did not think ought to be tolerated in Parliament. He always
  2122
  thought that it was one of their greatest privileges not to be the mere representatives of any particular interest, but the interests of the whole kingdom. He, for one, objected to the principle on public grounds. It formed a dangerous precedent, which might soon be applied to other parts of the kingdom. Municipal boroughs could not make a charge upon the inhabitants without the consent of the ratepayers, and there could be no objection to the Bill if such a condition were included in it; but he objected to vestries having the power to tax the inhabitants without their own consent.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, the Metropolis had for years past suffered from one of the most severe and crushing monopolies possible. The inhabitants now wanted power to defend themselves against such a monopoly; but hon. Members seemed inclined neither to let the inhabitants help themselves from the Imperial purse, nor to let them tax themselves for Metropolitan purposes. This was rather hard; but it furnished another instance which went to show that London should be formed into a complete and perfect municipality. He hoped the House would consent to go into Committee on the Bill; the promoters of which would be willing to adopt any reasonable safeguards against the abuse of the power now sought for.
  MR. CHILDERSsuggested that the power of opposing Bills in Parliament, which these bodies wished for, should be given, on condition that they satisfied the Committee before whom they appeared, that they had good and legitimate grounds of opposition.
  MR. F. W. RUSSELLsaid, that as a ratepayer, he must protest against this most anomalous Bill. If the precedent were once established, there was not a parish in the country which would not have a right to the same privileges.
  MR. BRADYsaid, it was absolutely necessary to protect the public of the Metropolis against the monopolies of companies, and he should support the proposition of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Westminster.
  SIR WILLIAM MILESrequested the hon. Baronet (Sir John Shelley) to state whether he would adopt the suggestion of the Home Secretary.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he had not the slightest objection to adopt the suggestion of the Home Secretary, and to provide that in every case before any opposition

  2123
  was instituted to a Bill before Parliament, the consent of the Metropolitan Board should be obtained.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERobserved, that it would have been only candid of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Limerick (Mr. Russell), to have told the House that he was chairman of the Committee of General Gas Companies.
  Question put,
  The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 68: Majority 10.
  House in Committee.
  Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Powers of "Local Authority.")
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that it had been ruled in Committees of that House that no corporation could appear as petitioners against any Bill, other than a canal or railway Bill. Under these circumstances, he thought the words of this clause too wide, as they might be taken to refer any work whatever.
  MR. TAVERNER MILLERagreed with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking the wording of the clause too wide, and thought his hon. Friend (Sir John Shelley) ought to propose its postponement, with a view of having it amended.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he would suggest the words "with the consent of the ratepayers in public meeting assembled." Those words would remove the objection to the clause.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he thought such a restriction objectionable, as introducing too cumbrous a machinery. A provision, such as that agreed to by his hon. Friend, namely, one making the consent of the Board of Works necessary, would he a sufficient guarantee. Another guarantee might be introduced if the Committee thought it desirable, namely, that the expenses of a Bill should be chargeable on the ratepayers only in the event of the Committee before whom the Bill came being of opinion that they were proper expenses.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEobjected to making the consent of the Metropolitan Board of Works a condition, as there might be an antagonism between that Board and the local authority; and the former might, in their own interest, refuse the assent to opposition.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that the clause as it stood was nearly similar to one in the Metropolis Local Management Act. He should introduce words to carry out
  2124
  the promise which he had made to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  MR. AYRTONmoved words to provide that the consent of the Metropolitan Board of Works should be necessary in order to enable vestries to appear in Parliament either to promote or oppose a Bill.
  Clause, as amended agreed to; as was also Clause 4.
  Clause 5 (For Payment of Expenses incurred by Local Authority).
  MR. CLAYproposed an Amendment to the effect that all costs should be paid out of a special rate to be levied for the purpose, as he thought it would be improper to allow the sewers rate or other rate to be applied in payment of the costs of litigation.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 37, to leave out from the word "rates," to the end of the Clause, in order to add the words "to be raised under the authority of this Act."
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the effect of the proviso would be, that for an expense, it might be of £50, a special rate would have to be raised in such a parish as Marylebone. It was obvious that this was utterly unwarrantable, as the expense of collection would be far beyond the sum to be raised.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISalso opposed the Amendment as impracticable.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he did not understand that it was intended by the Amendment that a special rate should be made for each item of legal expenditure, but that the whole of the expenditure for the year should be paid out of a special rate.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 81: Majority 5.
  MR. CHILDERSmoved a proviso at the end of the Clause to the effect that the expenses of a local authority in supporting or opposing a Bill in either House of Parliament should not be paid unless the Select Committee were of opinion that such local authority had reasonable cause for appearing before them.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he thought on further consideration there was no necessity for the proviso. The Select Committee, before they heard a local authority upon a Bill, would have to decide whether they had a locus standi, and a decision in the affirmative would be equivalent to a decision that the expenses of appearing

  2125
  had been properly incurred. The proviso therefore would be mere surplusage.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, the opposition to the Bill was very inflated—he would not say with gas, although it did so happen that nearly every hon. Member who opposed the Bill was connected with a gas company.
  MR. HARDYsaid, he believed that there might be many cases where parties had a technical locus standi, but had no reasonable ground for opposition. He admitted that the Committee would only interfere in some case of gross abuse; but these were exactly the cases where protection to the rate-payers was required.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he adhered to his opinion that the words were unnecessary, but he would not oppose their insertion.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, that it was very necessary that there should be some check or control on the part of the ratepayers upon the legal costs and charges which might be incurred. He thought that as a proper check on the vestry clerk, who incurred expenses on the ratepayers, there should be a power of taxation, and he, therefore, proposed to insert at the end of the clause the following words:—
  "Provided always that before the payment of the costs and charges by the parochial authority such costs and charges shall be taxed by the taxing officer of either House of Parliament."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to; as were also the other Clauses of the Bill, with the exception of Clause 7, which, on the Motion of Sir John Shelley was struck out.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS.—INLAND PROMISSORY NOTES.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee of Ways and Means.
  Mr. MASSEY Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
  (In the Committee).
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved the following Resolution:—
  "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged and paid for and upon every Promissory Note made in the United Kingdom for the payment of any sum of Money exceeding £4,000, now chargeable with the Stamp Duty of £2 5s., the following rate of Stamp Duty in lieu of the said duty now chargeable thereon (that is to say); for every £1,000
  2126
  or part of £1,000 of the Money thereby made payable the Duty of Ten Shillings."
  Resolution agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.
  And it being Six of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House till Tomorrow, without putting the Question.