Commons Sitting of 8 May 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2o Labourer's Cottages; County Voters (Scotland); Princess Alice's Annuity.
LABOURERS' COTTAGES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, that he hoped to carry with him the sympathies of the House while he moved the second reading of this Bill, which was directed to the removal of an evil which had already attracted great attention both in that House and in "another place." The condition of the labouring poor in large
  1734
  towns had engaged the attention of statesmen in the other House of Parliament in connection with the demolition of buildings occupied as dwellings by the lower classes. Public opinion had directed inquiries into their condition, which had already been productive of great benefit; the dens of London had been visited; and where no man with a decent coat could formerly have ventured, where nothing but the most dreadful language was to be heard, amid constant scenes of intoxication and vice, decency was beginning to prevail, and words of comfort were preached; sanitary laws had been passed by the House, and police regulations had been productive of much benefit. Still the evil was great, and he knew not how in crowded cities it was possible to apply an effectual remedy. The evil, however, was not limited to great cities. It was, be was constrained to admit, equally prevalent in the rural districts. This melancholy state of things was in a great measure to be attributed to the overcrowded state of labourers' cottages. He would, as an instance, refer to a case recently tried at the Reading Assizes before Baron Wilde where a labourer, the father of a family, was charged with rape on two of his own daughters. It appeared that the whole family—three little daughters and a boy—slept in the same bed with the prisoner. This state of things existed within a mile or two of the Royal Castle of Windsor. He would also mention another case equally painful, in which, there being only two beds in the cottage, the father and mother occupied one; the children, among whom were a youth of fourteen and a girl of fifteen, slept in the other. The family bore a respectable character; the girl was described by the clergyman whose school she attended as remarkably virtuous and good—yet she gave birth to a child, the fruit of incestuous intercourse with her brother. Thus the records of judicial proceedings and the experience of those who had inquired into this subject proved the necessity for facilities being afforded to landowners by wise laws to improve the dwellings of the labouring classes and to enforce among them something like decency. Not to appear invidious, he would describe a cottage on his own estate in Devonshire, tenanted by a widow of seventy-seven years of age. There was only one living room, 15ft. 5in. by 9ft. 9in. Immediately adjoining was the piggery. In front ran an open sewer,

  1735
  which when he saw it was choked up, and the filth was positively running in at the door of the house. He spoke to the woman and said this was a dreadful state of things; he hoped she would allow him to remove her to a better cottage, where her family might be brought up with more decency. She said she was born in the cottage, and had lived in it ever since; she had brought up a family of twelve children in it—all gone but one daughter, and she was married and had ten children She objected to leave the cottage, and would rather pay 10s. a year than be compelled to remove. The House annually voted large sums for education; throughout the length and breadth of the land the education of the labouring classes was well attended to; in many instances the education of the labouring classes was even superior to that obtained by the sons of farmers. But it was to a great extent in vain that they inculcated lessons of morality at school if their minds were demoralized by the necessary consequences of the crowded state of their dwellings. It was from such homes that our gaols, reformatories, and entire convict system were recruited. Surely, it was better to cut off the evil at the fountain than attempt to dam it up when it became a vast and fetid stream polluting the morals of society, and when it had attained such proportions as rendered it difficult to be assailed. The principle he advocated had already been adopted by the Legislature in the improvement of landed estates; and he did not see why that principle should not be extended to the improvement of labourers' cottages. Mr. Greene, formerly Chairman of Committees, who had taken great interest in this subject, was favourable to the Bill. The object of his Bill was to enable tenants for life to raise money at the least expense, in sums not exceeding £140 each cottage, for the improvement of labourers' dwellings. The application was to be made to the Chairman of Quarter Sessions; and on satisfying that functionary of the desirableness of the proposed expenditure he would receive a certificate from him authorizing the outlay, and he would then be entitled to raise the necessary money, and the mortgage was made a first charge on the estate; there was also provision for taking care that the money so raised was applied solely to the purpose of improving the dwellings of the labourers' on the estate. He could not see that any injustice would be done to the person who would
  1736
  succeed to the property, as the charge upon it would be compensated by having decent cottages for the labouring population employed upon it. With respect to encumbrancers, he proposed to give them an opportunity of appearing before the Court, and stating any objections to the changes; but he thought their interests would not be injured by increasing the value of the property over which they held mortgages. He admitted that this was a difficult subject to deal with, and that many of the details of the Bill might be well improved, and in Committee he should be glad to adopt any suggestions which might be made, and of which the House might approve. Objections had been made to giving the power of allowing charges to the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and he did not deny there was ground for objection; but he had sought in vain to discover any other tribunal by which the business could be conducted so expeditiously and so cheaply. That, however, was a point which could be considered in Committee, and he hoped the House would allow it to reach that stage. The object which the Bill had in view was an important one—they had to deal with great evils, and the time had come when the consideration of the condition of the labouring classes earnestly demanded the attention of the House. He would remind the House that, although very minute laws had been passed to provide for the comfort and interest of the comparatively rich, nothing had been done for the poor man, whose dwellings remained in many cases in the same condition that they had been one hundred years ago. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the Bill be now read a second time.
  SIR GEOEGE LEWISsaid, he thought the House would be agreed upon the general policy of the measure, as far as it sought to give facilities for the construction of labourers' cottages, and to limit any technical difficulty that might present itself to prevent the landowner from raising funds for that purpose. But he thought that the hon. Baronet had somewhat exaggerated the present bad condition of labourers' cottages; for, although many of them were susceptible of vast improvement, yet their character varied in different counties. Certainly his own experience did not coincide with all that had been put forward by the hon. Baronet. In some counties the cottages were in a satisfactory state, while in others

  1737
  less progress had been made, but it might be said that almost universally there had been efforts made by all solvent proprietors to improve the condition of the cottages upon their estates. He did not think that landlords had been governed by any desire to protect themselves against the operation of the law of settlement. It appeared to him that the part of the cottages inhabited by the labourer and his family during the day was generally in a satisfactory and comfortable condition; but the sleeping accommodation certainly was defective, and, therefore, he concurred with the general objects of the Bill. But they had also to consider how it was proposed to carry out those objects; and to some of the proposals he must certainly take exceptions. The Bill proposed to give power to tenants for life, and persons under disabilities, to raise sums not exceeding £140 for each cottage, which should be a first charge upon the property He did not find that there was any limit to the number of cottages that might be so built, and, therefore, the extent of the charge that might be so created could not be foretold. Then the money was to be raised with the sanction of the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and the hon. Baronet said he had no objection to any other tribunal if a better one could be pointed out. But the Chairman of Quarter Sessions was no tribunal at all, for at present he believed the Chairman of Quarter Sessions exercised no independent authority—he was merely primus inter pares. The proposition to invest that functionary with an entirely new and independent power was one which required grave consideration before it could be adopted. Hon. Gentlemen sometimes complained of the Government as seeking to extend the principle of centralization; but hon. Members themselves readily took that course, as in the present Bill, in which it was proposed that the Secretary of State might prescribe by publication in the London Gazette the requirements of cottages to be built under the operation of this measure. That, he thought, was very questionable policy, and he doubted whether the duty could be satisfactorily performed by the Secretary of State. It was impossible to lay down a plan which would be equally applicable to all cottages built in all parts of the country, and to attempt to do so would lead to many complaints. The matters might, however, be considered in Committee. Although he entertained a belief that if the Bill ever reached the
  1738
  stage of Committee it would require very material alterations, still he did not object to the general object, and therefore should give his vote for the second reading
  MR. DUTTONsaid, that in cases where a proprietor entered into possession of his estate late in life, with only a life interest, so that the property went to the male heir, and there were several daughters, there was no inducement to spend money, which would bring but small interest, and no direct return for the capital. There could be no doubt that throughout England the cottages were in very bad condition. In many cases they were from 100 to 200 years old; and the landlord would rather pull them down than attempt to repair or improve them; there was also a system on which agents acted when a cottage was pulled down by not building another in its place, but to compel the occupier to seek another home, and thus remove himself from chargeability upon the poor rate of the parish; consequently, the labourers were crowded in the towns, where they paid high rents for insufficient dwellings, and had to walk a long distance to their work. Owing to these circumstances, when the Census returns were published, it would be found that while the population of the agricultural towns had increased from the number of labourers driven away from the rural parishes, the population of the latter had fallen off considerably. With respect to the details of the Bill he certainly thought the Secretary of State should have power to limit the number of cottages to be built; although he did not think there was much fear of over-building cottages under this Act, for though landlords might be anxious that their labourers should dwell near them, there was certainly no inducement to build more cottages than were really necessary. It was already possible to obtain money from certain societies, but it was necessary to pay a very high interest for it, and, therefore, he thought it would be wise to enable landowners to raise money from private parties on reasonable terms for the improvement of the cottages on their property. He did not think the hon. Baronet had at all overstated the evils of the present state of things.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEthought the House was indebted to the hon. Baronet for having called attention to this important subject. But there was no worse-paying property in England than cottage property. He should wish to ask the Home

  1739
  Secretary why they should not apply to this subject the same principle that had formerly been adopted with respect to drainage, and for which purpose the Government advanced money at 3 per cent? His objection to the Bill was that it was not sufficiently advantageous to the landlord. There ought to be the strictest regulations to prevent the cottagers from misusing the accommodation afforded by the new cottages. The fact was that, strange as it might seem, the labourers liked the old cottages and did not like the improvements; they regarded it as a positive grievance to be put into a new cottage, and when they got in, and found they had three rooms, they always, unless under strict regulations, let the third room. The matter could not be in better hands than those of the Government.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he admired the intentions of the hon. Baronet, but he thought he had mistaken the source of the evil of which he complained, and that, therefore, his Bill would not remove it. He did not agree with him in thinking that there had been no improvement in the condition of labourers' cottages on estates. As a rule bad cottages did not prevail upon landowners' estates; but were to be found in back streets, and lanes of hamlets, and small towns, where small proprietors sought to make the utmost possible amount of profit from their property. Many of these wretched dwellings were built by shopkeepers and beersellers, who found it to their interest to have large numbers of their labourers as their tenants and customers. He thought that our defective law of settlement and of chargeability was more responsible for existing evils than any neglect on the part of landowners. When one or two landlords owned all the property in a parish they could, by excluding the poor from residence within that parish, also exclude them from becoming chargeable to the poor rates of that parish. The poor were, therefore, driven into neighbouring hamlets or small towns, where they were crowded together and rendered chargeable upon the rates of the parish in which the hamlet or village was situated. He feared the Bill would not have the effect which the hon. Baronet expected, and, therefore, regretted that he could not give it his support.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, he also thought that many clauses of the Bill would be found to be inoperative; but he
  1740
  could not agree that landowners generally discouraged the erection of cottages upon their estates in order to diminish the charge upon the poor rates, and his own experience led him to think that building good cottages was the best method of lessening the poor rates. With respect to the proposal contained in the Bill to give authority to Chairmen of Quarter Sessions to sanction the building of cottages, he did not think they were the proper tribunal, and would suggest that the power should be given to the Court of Quarter Sessions, and not to the Chairman individually. The overcrowding of dwellings in rural districts was very difficult to prevent, even by a resident landlord, and it could only be prevented by constant supervision and the enforcement of stringent regulations.
  MR. COLLINSthought a change in the law of chargeability to the poor rates would effect more good than could be hoped for from this Bill. The measure was, however, a step in the right direction, for which the hon. Baronet was entitled to the thanks of the House; but, as various objections had been raised, he would suggest that the best course would be to send the Bill to a Select Committee. For his own part, he must object to giving advances for building cottages priority over all other charges by retrospective enactment. Such ex post facto legislation would be unjust to the first mortgagee.
  SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, he feared that if the Bill were sent to a Select Committee little more would be heard of it during this Session. It was generally admitted that the object of the Bill was a good one, and the only question was as to its machinery. He agreed with the House that the power of sanctioning advances should not be given to the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, but he thought that the objection to that course would be sufficiently obviated by enacting that the application should be made to the magistrates sitting in Quarter Sessions generally. But he could not understand why the Enclosure Commissioners should not be intrusted with the power. It had been objected that there would be great expense if those Commissioners were to exercise the power; but in his dealings with those officers he had found the expenses extremely light. It had been suggested that the Exchequer Loan Commissioners should be authorized to advance money to landowners for the purpose of building cot-

  1741
  tages. He was afraid, if that body possessed any accumulation of funds, that in the present state of the finances of the country the Chancellor of the Exchequer might possibly lay his hands on it; but he could not see any objection to such a suggestion being carried into effect, provided the money was advanced on good and sufficient security. It was the province, however, of private proprietors to look to these things themselves rather than to apply to Parliament, and facts were coming out in respect to the recent Census which showed the great value to their estates of the labouring poor. In the district with which he was connected the population was sensibly and rapidly diminishing, though there was no part of the country where the labouring poor man was better or so well requited for his work. This result was produced by emigration. The persons emigrating were better off than the other portion of the labouring poor, and, having a great spirit of independence, they scraped together all the money they could and went off to Australia or America, in the hope of becoming landowners themselves. What was the consequence? The landowners generally recognized the value of the labourer, provided every necessary accommodation for his abode, and he should say that where they pulled down one cottage they built up two. With this diminution of the labouring poor going on, it was the interest as well as the duty of all persons connected with land to do everything in their power to keep them at home, by making them happy and comfortable in their condition, and this was best effected by providing decent and suitable lodgings for the labourers, and thus raising them in their own estimation. He believed that every Gentleman in that House desired to support the proposer of the Bill in the contemplated object, though there might be differences of opinion as to the details of the measure; but he would not recommend the adoption of the suggestion to send the Bill to a Committee upstairs, for such a proceeding would in all probability prevent the House from even hearing anything more of the Bill for the present year. He had not very great hopes of effecting much on this subject by legislation, as such matters were better left to be done by individuals, particularly as it was the general feeling that it was incumbent on all to do their best for those dependent upon them. The question had attracted considerable atten-
  1742
  tion of late, and he believed, notwithstanding the instances quoted, that the cases of degradation in the abodes of the labouiers were not so numerous as many hon. Gentlemen might suppose. To the second reading of the Bill he was ready to give a cordial support.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS,in answer to the question which had been asked respecting the Drainage Act, said the House would remember that some years ago, a certain sum was set aside, by a Bill brought in by Sir Robert Peel, to be advanced to landowners by the Inclosure Commissioners for the purposes of drainage. A large part was taken by the Scotch landowners, and the fund was altogether exhausted or nearly so. Early in this year the Inclosure Commissioners brought the subject under the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, representing that it was desirable that this loan should be replenished; and, so far from the Chancellor of the Exchequer having laid his hands on the balances, the fund had been exhausted in the legitimate way. The subject of replenishing the fund was still under consideration, and he was sanguine in the expectation that it might be possible to advance additional sums for the purposes of drainage.
  MR. SLANEYgave his hearty concurrence to the principle of the present Bill, and hoped the hon. Mover would persevere with it, undeterred by the objections that had been made to details. With respect to the Drainage Loan Act, there could be no doubt of the great advantages that that had been the means of effecting in the way of advancing improvements. His Scotch friends had taken early advantage of that loan, and he had availed himself of it to some extent in his own district. He was convinced in the case of property strictly entailed that it would be a great advantage to enable the tenant for life to saddle some portion of the expense on his successor of the erection of comfortable cottages for the humbler classes, which would prove a permanent benefit to the estate, by lessening the poor rates and diminishing crime. He had seen numbers of industrious, working Englishmen, during a late tour he made through the United States, and he was happy to say that since their arrival on the other side of the Atlantic, they had become possessed of bits of land, and were now landowners.
  MR. HENLEYdid not suppose that any one would disagree with the prin-

  1743
  ciple stated by the hon. Gentleman, that it would be desirable to enable a person having a limited estate in property, to borrow money for the purpose of improving the property, and the condition, likewise, of the poorer people on it. The Bill, however, was not confined to persons of limited estate, for it would give to any landowner, whatever his interest, the power of making use of its provisions as he pleased. It was true that each cottage built must not be worth more than £140; yet a man having the fee simple of an estate so incumbered that he could not borrow one shilling further upon it might, under the present Bill, build any number of cottages not above £140 in value for each, and charge the expense on the estate, to the exclusion of all previous incumbrancers. He had no doubt that that was not intended, but the House had a right to complain that somewhat more care was not shown in drawing the provisions of the Bill. It had been justly observed that these buildings ought to be permanent improvements; but there was no provision in the Bill for that purpose. At present a man could not borrow a shilling from the Inclosure Commissioners for draining his estate, unless it was shown upon investigation that the estate would be improved to the amount of the money laid out; and it was a capital defect in the present Bill that it contained no provision of that kind. Under the Drainage Act the money was laid out after careful inquiry, and the estate was proportionably improved. No hardship was then done to the mortgagee; but without some such provision actual spoliation might take place under the present Bill. No doubt there were a vast number of cottages everywhere very different from the condition required by modern opinion; and, no doubt, the feeling of the poor themselves, as evinced in the instance given by the hon. Mover of the Bill, was quite as strong, though not exactly of the same kind, on this subject as that of those above them. Nevertheless, every one must acknowledge that there had been gradually going on a great improvement in respect to cottages. The old style of cottages had no room upstairs at all; but a better class of buildings had come into existence. Some alteration in the law of settlement had been alluded to; but at present he was not aware that residents in cottages paying less than £10 a year rent threw any burden on the estate. That question, however, had nothing to do
  1744
  with the present Bill. The simple question now was whether the Bill ought to furnish persons having a limited estate in property with the power to borrow money for the purposes of building cottages, charging the expense on the estate. If proper machinery was provided to guard against excessive expenditure on this head, and if the charge was not made a first charge before that of all prior incumbrances, unless the annual value of the estate were improved thereby, he should be glad to see the Bill, when confined to such principles, pass. As so much had already been said with respect to the tribunal, he would only observe that he agreed with those who thought that the Chairman of Quarter Sessions did not constitute the proper judge in this case, nor did he think that the Quarter Sessions would be a proper tribunal, even if the matter was referred to them. This business was out of the jurisdiction of the magistrates at Quarter Sessions as conservators of the peace, and ought not to be forced on them in any way. He had the good—or ill—fortune to be Chairman of a Board of Quarter Sessions, and he could conceive what an endless affair it would be before the Court, with an array of surveyors swearing on each side, and learned counsel cross examining the witnesses. It was a sort of question that the Inclosure Commissioners or some authority of that kind were best fitted to deal with. If he might make a suggestion to the hon. Mover of the Bill, as there was very little difference of opinion as to what ought to be done, he should say it would be better than sending the Bill to a Select Committee to commit it pro formâ for the purpose of having it drawn in a different shape, so that advantage might be taken of the various suggestions which had been made, and unnecessary details might be struck out. In this way a short Bill might be easily passed in the present Session of Parliament.
  MR. WHALLEY,as connected with a society for improving the dwellings of the poor said, the only question involving a difficulty in connection with the subject was how landowners, many of whom were merely tenants for life, were to raise money for the improvement of their cottages, and by so doing improve their estate? But if the principle which had already been applied to farm buildings and drainage, which had been productive of so much advantage, were applied to the building of cottages

  1745
  the difficulty would be met. He objected to a reference to a Select Committee; for the House was in possession of all the information on the subject which was necessary for legislation. He should recommend the hon. Mover to take the advice of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, and thoroughly revise the Bill, and by that means a measure might be prepared which the House would be willing to pass.
  MR. BARROWsaid, he believed that many landowners who were tenants for life were willing that powers should be granted to enable them to raise money to build cottages; but he was not prepared to consent that estates, many of which were mortgaged up to the hilt, should be dealt with without the consent of the mortgagee. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that questions of property of this nature were not such as should be sent for settlement to the Quarter Sessions, whose proper business was the conservation of the peace. He was opposed to sending the Bill to a Select Committee, because it involved principles which should be discussed publicly in the House, and he thought it would have to be altered in every clause before it would meet with general approbation.
  LORD HENLEYobserved that the vital part of the Bill was the amount of percentage at which the Bill gave the power of raising money. The Bill stated that the money should be raised at a rate of interest not exceeding 4 per cent. Now, having had some experience in his county in raising money for the erection of gaols and so forth, to be repaid by instalments, he could say that they found that they could not raise money to be repaid by instalments at less than 5 per cent. and they had difficulty in doing that. Another matter which must be regarded when they went into Committee was as to proprietors of small estates. Many large landowners would be glad to make improvements to pay 3 per cent. or loss. This was not the case with the proprietors of small estates, who sometimes laid out their money to receive 16 per cent. building cottages at £30 each, and letting them for £5 a year. Under the present Bill a person might borrow money to build these cottages at 4 per cent. and then borrow at 5 per cent to pay off the first loan; so that the 16 per cent on the cottages would still leave him with a handsome percentage; but the reversioner, when he came into
  1746
  the estate, would find it incumbered with a great number of cottages which he would rather not see on it. This was an evil that ought to be, and might be prevented. He thought also that a provision should be made that not more than a certain number of cottages should be built on a certain quantity of ground. He thought the Bill would require considerable alteration.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTstated, that he believed his hon. Friend the Mover of the Bill would readily adopt the suggestions that had been made. He was willing to alter the tribunal, to which objection had been taken, and to substitute in its place the Inclosure Commissioners; it would be his desire in framing the provisions by which the new tribunal would be brought into play to make them very much in accordance with the provisions which had already received the sanction of Parliament in reference to drainage and other improvements on estates. His hon. Friend would fix the Bill for some not distant day, on which he would ask the House to allow it to he passed through Committee pro formâ, so that it might be reprinted with the Amendments; and he hoped then that a measure which promised to be so beneficial would be allowed to pass into law.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for Monday next.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS PREVENTION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT RAYNHAM,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, there had been no legislation on this subject for twelve years, and it had been found that many offences of this description were committed which could not be properly dealt with under the present law. For instance, in the case of dog or cockfighting there was great difficulty at present in procuring a conviction. The Bill provided that any person present at such scenes should be regarded as aiding and abetting. Then with regard to the offence of flaying animals alive, at present persons guilty of such an offence were liable to not exceeding three months' imprisonment. This Bill increased the penalty to not exceeding six months; and the Bill also provided that all persons who bought these skins with a knowledge that the animals had been subjected to this treatment should be subject to a penalty not exceeding £10.

  1747
  Another provision related to drovers driving cattle in the metropolitan districts. There were many other provisions, the objects of which he might state generally, without going into detail, were to supply the defects of the existing law. One of these provisions was to require water to be supplied to cattle exposed for sale in public markets. It might appear that the Bill went too much into detail, and was directed against offences which were dealt with by the existing Act; but the law as it now stood was in some cases painfully inoperative, and he believed that in an amended form this measure might be made to accomplish an object which all humane persons must desire.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it was very difficult to draw the line between those amendments of the law which it was desirable that the Government should propose and those which should be left to the initiation of private Members, and it was still more difficult for a Member of the Government himself to draw that line. A question of new police regulations, however, on such a subject as this ought, he thought, to be left to the Government to bring forward, if they heard general complaints that the existing law required amendment. Now, there was in existence a very detailed Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 92—which was passed in 1849, and he could not bring to mind a single representation made to him of its inefficiency. That statute was worded in very general terms, with a moderate penalty; and he did not think that if they increased the penalty they would render the law more operative. On the contrary, it was generally found that if penalties were rendered more severe the public became indisposed to lay informations, and there was a corresponding unwillingness on the part of magistrates to convict. By the second clause of the Act to which he referred, it was provided that if any person should cruelly beat, ill-treat, or torture any animal, or procure it to be beaten, ill-treated, or tortured, he should forfeit for every such offence the sum of £5. That clause seemed to him to include every case of cruelty to animals, and when there was a general enactment of this nature he saw no use for a particular enactment respecting the flaying of cats. The proposed
  1748
  enactments with regard to cattle were already sufficiently provided for by police Acts and regulations of a similar nature. The 10th section of the Bill proposed that any magistrate should be empowered to order a horse that was disabled to be slaughtered. Now, he was doubtful whether the mere fact of a horse being disabled ought to authorize a magistrate in ordering it to be slaughtered. That was carrying legislative interference beyond the point usually recognized in this country.
  VISCOUNT RAYNHAMsaid, that this provision was only intended to apply where the horse was permanently disabled.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISdid not suppose that if a horse happened to be lame for a week any magistrate would order it to be slaughtered. Well, then, his noble Friend extended the principle of the Habeas Corpus Act to animals, for by the 11th Clause magistrates, on any summons or warrant for offences under the Act, might require the owner to produce the horse or other animal alleged to have been tortured at the hearing of the charge. The same power of "bringing up the body" was applied to horses in hackney coaches; for by Clause 18 the Commissioners of Police in the Metropolis were not to grant any certificate that a carriage was in a fit and proper condition for public use unless the applicant should not only produce such carriage as was already provided for, but should also produce a certificate under the hands of two respectable householders that such person was to their knowledge the actual owner of a horse or horses sufficient and proper for the draught and service of such carriage, and of their belief that it was his bonâ fide intention to use such horse or horses for such draught or service, nor unless and until such and the same horse or horses was or were produced and submitted to the inspection of such Commissioners, who, if satisfied that the horse was sufficient and proper, might grant the certificate. He did not know whether his noble Friend had been in communication with Sir Richard Mayne on the subject of this Bill, but certainly the duty was one which it was hardly fair to cast on an officer in this position, who might be a very good Commissioner of Police but a very bad judge of horseflesh. Unless he called in the aid of experts, or employed a veterinary surgeon or an inspector of cavalry, he might frequently pass a lame horse for a sound one. Altogether, he did not think that any case had been

  1749
  made out to show the necessity of fresh legislation on this subject, and he hoped, therefore, that his noble Friend would withdraw the Bill.
  MR. HALIBURTONcomplained that the word "animal" was not defined in the Bill. Now, there were two sorts of animals—a dumb animal, called a donkey, and a speaking animal, called a man. Cruelty in both those cases was very reprehensible, and it was a cruel infliction on the Members of this House either to have to endure long speeches or to have to listen to Bills so crude and ill-digested that they could not be licked into any shape whatever.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, there was a definition of the word "animal" in the existing Act.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the opposition offered to this Bill by the Home Secretary was almost the greatest instance of political virtue on record; for, as every cab-horse was to undergo inspection, a little army of placemen would be at the command of the Government if the measure became law. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  VISCOUNT RAYNHAM,however, said he was willing to withdraw the Bill.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, with-drawn; Bill withdrawn.

  VALUATION (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. BLACKBURN,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said that under the existing law of Scotland the assessor in the first instance found the gross rating value within his district; but by this Bill it was proposed that the assessor should fix the net value by which the rates for a county or borough should be levied, and that the rate should be assessed on that value. In the English Parochial Assessment Acts the Home Secretary applied this principle to England, and he contended that which was good for England on this subject was equally good for Scotland, and that justice required that the net and not the gross value should be the principle upon which the levy should be made.
  1750
  He saw that a petition had been presented against the Bill from a city in Perthshire, but, like a great many town council productions, the English was not very intelligible, and he could not understand it. It had been said that his proposal would interfere with the franchise; but that objection was founded in error, for nothing could be further from his intention than to do so, as his whole object was to provide that the assessor should return a net instead of a gross sum.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEwas sorry he could not give his assent to the Bill. The result of it would be that the area of the franchise would be at once reduced. This question of valuation in Scotland had been very carefully considered in 1854, and at that time the task of reducing it was given up in despair. In Ireland, no doubt, a valuation founded on the net, and not on the gross value, had been established. But in Scotland, even if such a system of valuation were established, there was no uniform machinery in the country to carry it out, and that, as a consequence, the basis of taxation would, if the Bill were to pass into a law, be rendered different in different localities. The effect of the measure, moreover, he believed, would be to reduce the property tax in Scotland some twenty or twenty-five per cent, and to produce confusion, which it was desirable to avoid.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  MR SOTHERON ESTCOURTdid not understand that the hon. and learned Lord objected to his hon. Friend's Bill if it could be carried into effective operation. He did not believe that his hon. Friend had any intention of narrowing the extent of the franchise; and, therefore, he thought all considerations founded on that apprehension might be given up. In England as in Ireland rateable value was assessed upon the net return, and so it ought to be in Scotland. If two returns were necessary, one of the gross, another of the net rental, he supposed there would be no objection to such a Return being ordered. With regard to the effect of the Bill he would not express an opinion; but regarding it as an attempt to bring about a desirable result, he thought it might pass

  1751
  the second reading, and, if necessary, be amended or even rejected afterwards.
  MR. PEELthought it was right to point out what would be the effect of this Bill both on the income tax and inhabited house duty. The Income Tax Act expressed clearly that the value of a house should be taken at its rack rent value. In Scotland there was a valuation roll which gave annually the value of property according to its real value; and, therefore, there was no objection to that being admitted as the real value of houses upon which the income tax and the house tax might be assessed. But his hon. Friend proposed to leave the valuation rate, and to reduce the rateable value of houses by a large number of deductions, such as insurance, repairs, &c, and the consequence would be that the annual value of property in Scotland on which income tax was paid would be very much diminished. It was highly inexpedient, he thought, that such a question should be decided on by a Bill of this nature.
  MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, that the income tax ought not to be levied on the rent value of property any more than any other impost. As respected the Lord Advocate's objection, it seemed to be that the valuation would be uncertain and variable. But what test of value could be had better than rent? The same objection applied to valuations themselves as to the deductions to be made from the valuations. He should like to know why the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department proposed to take the net value in England while the Government objected to that course being adopted with regard to Scotland? All they asked was that the valuation should be made on the net value of the property, otherwise they would have one rule prevailing on one side of the Tweed and another on the other.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that in the Parochial Assessments Bill he had adopted the existing rule of English law with reference to rateability, and sought to make no alteration in the basis on which Parliamentary taxes were levied. Neither the poor rate nor any other rate would be altered; all that was altered was the mode of assessment. He understood, however, that the operation of the Bill under discussion would be to alter the basis of the income tax, as well as of the inhabited house tax in Scotland; and that being so, it was quite clear it went beyond the scope of the measure which he had laid upon the
  1752
  table, and that if it were to receive the assent of the House, it would be necessary to alter the basis of taxation in England and Ireland, and to increase the rate at which the income tax was levied in order that it should produce its present amount. If this Bill were to proceed at all it must be carefully limited in such a manner as to be applicable to local rates only.
  MR. MUREsaid, that in Ireland the assessment was based upon the net and not upon the gross value. The only difficulty, as he understood, in the way of the Bill was this question of the franchise. He thought the omission of a few words which were not inserted in the original draft of the Bill would obviate this difficulty. Uniformity of valuation might be secured by applications to the courts of law in the ordinary way.
  MR. BLACKsaid, that this change, if made, would apply principally to the local assessments. It should be remembered that there was a Committee now sitting on the income tax. There were gas and water companies, and if the rateable value of property were reduced, these bodies would be deprived of a large portion of the income which had been secured to them by legislation. He hoped the House would not assent to the second reading, seeing that the people of Scotland were almost unanimous in their opposition to the measure.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEthought the Bill would either be nugatory, or it would place very undue powers in the hands of assessors. He contended that the system of assessments in Scotland was superior to that adopted in England and Ireland, and he thought if any change were made, the latter should be altered so as to be assimilated to the former.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSthought the hon. Baronet was quite right in preferring the Scotch to the English system, but believing that the Irish was superior to either, and that the Bill in the main tended to bring the Scotch more into accordance with the latter system, he should give it his support.
  MR. FINLAYsaid, he had not heard any argument convincing him that the principle of the Bill was wrong, for no one could doubt that in the abstract it was fairer that assessments should be levied on the net than on the gross value. It appeared to him that inasmuch as all properties had not the same deductions, if you took the gross rental some properties must

  1753
  pay much more in proportion than others. That, he thought, was a serious objection to the present mode of assessment. While, however, he fully agreed in the principle of the measure, he admitted that there were many objections to the details.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that from his present information as to the existing state of the law in Scotland, and comparing it with the provisions of the Bill under discussion, he felt bound, as being responsible for the finances of the country, to offer the most uncompromising resistance, at every stage, to this Bill and to every Bill of a similar character; because it was a Bill involving principles which must tend in the first instance, and if continued, step by step, have the effect of breaking up the principles on which the income tax in England and Scotland was founded. In dealing with the subject he excepted and cast aside the income tax of Ireland. Ireland was not originally subject to the income tax; and when in 1853 a burden was laid upon that country from which it was before exempt, Ireland was placed in different circumstances. Landlords in Ireland were placed under liabilities to which they were not subject in England. Powers were by the Act given to the Government of making an assessment on the landlord or the immediate tenor of the landlord in Ireland, placing him under liabilities which did not exist in Great Britain. Along with those liabilities there was granted to the landlord a certain mode of valuation which was required by the circumstances of the case and the state of the law in Ireland. It had been said that the only point of resemblance was that the Commissioners made use of Government officers to value. But the instincts of Scotch Members were not so low as not to have discovered, by no very difficult or intricate process, that a Government valuer was by far the best that could be found. They were by far the cheapest to the country, and were a great expense to the Treasury. The case of Scotland, however, stood substantially on the same footing with that of England, and the proposition was that the assessor should deduct the annual cost of repairs and insurance, and other expenses necessary to maintain the property in its actual state. These annual charges, both upon agricultural property and buildings, in Scotland were very much less than in England, and if this measure were passed with regard to Scotland, with what
  1754
  justice could the same provisions be refused to English proprietors when they came next year to ask for them? But that would not be the end of the mischief, because if once the relations between Schedule A and Schedule D were disturbed, the whole machinery of the income tax would be broken in upon. There was a strong feeling in the country, cropping up at intervals, that Schedule D was taxed higher than it ought to be in relation to Schedule A, and, though that feeling from various motives had been hitherto resisted, if those who came in under Schedule A broke up the present arrangement of the tax, he must warn them that the result might be that they would have a much larger lump laid on their backs to adjust the difference between them and Schedule D.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman's objections were entirely removed by the fact that his hon. Friend the mover of the Bill was ready to except the income tax from the Bill altogether. He thought, therefore, it would be very unfortunate if the Bill were rejected from any fear of injury to the favourite tax of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHART,differing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, thought that everything which went to diminish the injustice of the present mode of levying the income tax, so far from breaking it up, would tend to make people more tolerant of it.
  MR. BUCHANANasked what was to be expected from this Bill, if parts were to be struck out, and other clauses were about to be added? He thought they ought to deal with the Bill as it stood. He for one should vote against the Bill.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he had been quite astonished to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what effects were about to follow from this Bill, of which he had no idea whatever. If it were necessary he had no objection to make such alterations in the Bill as would exempt the income tax from its operation, but he could not see why the income tax should not be estimated on the net instead of the gross value. With regard to all other taxes, he still adhered to the principle of the Bill.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: —Ayes 78; Noes 146: Majority 68.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for six months.

MASTERS AND OPERATIVES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MACKINNON,in moving the second reading of this Bill said, that his Object was to put an end to the frequent recurrence of strikes, such as those which were now constantly taking place, and which he could not but regard as a very great misfortune. And, undoubtedly, there seemed every prospect of their recurrence from time to time unless some legislative enactment were passed which would have the effect of preventing them. The Bill passed through the House of Commons last year, and in the other House it was read a second time under the sanction of Lord St. Leonards and was referred to a Select Committee; but, owing to the late period of the Session preventing evidence being taken there at a particular point, referring to the coal owners in Northumberland, it did not proceed further. The principle of the Bill, therefore, had already been affirmed by both Houses of Parliament, and he presumed would not now be disputed. As to the details of the measure, he was desirous that it should be referred to a Select Committee, in order that inquiry might be male whether the proprietors of coal-pits, who were very much opposed to it, should be exempted from its operation. He had received applications from innumerable operative societies and manufacturing firms to renew the Bill, and believed it would be attended with great advantage not only to employers but to the employed. He believed that the unhappy dissensions between the two classes, which they had now to deplore, could be healed only by the establishment of tribunals of the kind proposed in the Bill. He concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, it was quite unnecessary for the hon. Gentleman to assure the House that in promoting this Bill he had no other object in view than the good of the community, and especially of the working classes. He (the Solicitor General) understood that the pre-
  1756
  sent measure was substantially the same as that brought forward last Session, with certain alterations which the inquiry of the Select Committees had induced the hon. Member to adopt. He was sorry to say that the objections which he entertained towards it last year had not been removed. The hon. Gentleman said that as his Bill had been approved by both Houses last year he was entitled to assume that it would not be disputed. Of course, it might be said that the principle of the Bill was that it was very desirable that means should be adopted for settling disputes between masters and men more easy of access, less costly, and less liable to delay than the ordinary tribunals; and in that sense the principle could not be contested. But, in his opinion, the principle of such a measure as at present consisted, not of the end aimed at but the machinery employed; and hence he was disposed to question the principle of the present Bill. His objection applied to the whole scheme of the Bill. He did not deny that the subject was a most important one, but they were not at present without legislation upon it. The Act of George IV. provided machinery for settling, by means of arbitration, disputes between masters and workmen, which was substantially as extensive as the scheme of the hon. Member; and he objected, therefore, to a system which, without offering greater advantages, would compete with that which already existed. The only ground upon which the hon. Gentleman Sought to establish his scheme was, that it would put an end to the present disputes between employers and employed; but even that failed him, because neither the Act of 1824 nor the present Bill referred to the question of the prospective rate of wages, which was the point at issue in the present and in nearly all strikes. There was nothing in the law as it at present existed to prevent people from referring disputes to any body of arbitrators, and he could not see the use of multiplying Acts which simply enabled people to do that which the existing law did not prevent. Another objection to the Bill was that the councillors were to be elected annually. It was scarcely possible to conceive that there would be no antagonism between the masters and workmen on that point, and that there would not be contested elections. The consequence would probably be that the tribunal which was to settle disputes would possess the confidence of neither of the parties who were at issue. Further,

  1757
  the tribunals proposed to be established would necessarily be attended with considerable expense, for there were to be a clerk, a registrar, voting papers, polling, and so on, but no means were provided in the Bill for meeting these expenses. On all these grounds he should feel it his duty to oppose the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. KINNAIRDreminded hon. Members that last year the Bill had really been approved by both Houses, for it had passed the Commons and was only prevented from passing the Lords by the late period of the Session at which it arrived there; and he, therefore, greatly regretted the determination which the hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed with regard to the Bill. The Act of George IV. had proved utterly inoperative, as had been proved before two Select Committees, and, therefore, further legislation was necessary; and the present Bill was the result of the inquiries of two Committees, who had very carefully investigated the matter. The present Bill was simply permissive, and the expense of carrying it out would be borne by the parties availing themselves of it. The evil proposed to be remedied was notorious, and he should like to see the matter taken up by the Government; but unless they were prepared to introduce a better measure they ought not to discourage private Members by oppposing the Bill.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYquite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down as to the importance of the subject; but it seemed to him to be so tender a subject that he should be sorry to see it touched, unless taken up by a strong hand. It was better to let matters rest as they were, than to endeavour to patch up a system which could in no way accomplish the object which they all had in view. He should say for one that he could not for the life of him see how the Bill could affect such a question as that of the recent strikes in London—neither the question of pay nor the question of time would be affected by the present Bill. The matter of strikes was so important that he would recommend that the matter should not be touched unless it was taken up by the Government of the country.
  MR. LIDDELLpreferred the existing tribunals to the councils of conciliation, upon which he looked with no little apprehension. The powers given by the Bill as to the summoning and examination of witnesses
  1758
  were arbitrary and unusual. Altogether, he doubted whether legislation upon this subject would be beneficial, or whether it would not rather tend to aggravate than to settle disputes. At the same time, he was so anxious that the House should do all that it could to promote harmony and good relations between masters and workmen that he should be glad to see the Bill referred to a Select Committee.
  SIR JOSEPH PAXTONsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor General, though well acquainted with the present state of the law, was not well acquainted with its operation. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had inquired as to the working of the law as it existed in some of the manufacturing districts, he would have found that it was entirely inoperative. Similar councils to those proposed by the present Bill—the Conseils des prud' hommes —had existed in France for seventy years; and while nearly all the other institutions of the country had been swept away, they retained their position up to the present day, and were found most advantageous in the settlement of disputes between masters and operatives. It was not intended to apply the system to ordinary labour, but to skilled labour, and especially to that kind of labour which was taken by the operatives to their homes. It was a permissive Bill, and he submitted that it would be of the greatest use in the manufacturing districts.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had been accused by high authorities of speaking on one side on Wednesdays and voting on the other. He admitted that when there was upon the Table a measure, the object of which was manifestly benevolent and philanthropic, but the machinery of which was defective, he might sometimes have voted for a Bill many of the provisions of which he could not approve. He was afraid that in this instance his speech must be against the Bill of the hon. Member for Rye; and if his vote was to go with his speech his vote also must be against it. By the law as it at present existed a power of arbitration was given to magistrates; the effect of this measure would be to create a concurrent jurisdiction, and where there was a concurrence there was always danger of a confusion of jurisdiction. The Bill proposed to refer all matters in dispute to a council, to be authorized by the Secretary of State. Now, in his opinion, nothing could be clearer than that the Executive Govern-

  1759
  ment ought to stand quite clear of the deplorable disputes which occurred between masters and men. Those were matters in regard to which neither the judicial nor the executive authorities of the country could exercise any good influence. The diminution of these disputes was to be looked for in the increased enlightenment and improved intelligence of the working classes themselves. Already they had become less envenomed, and were attended with less violence and fewer serious crimes than was formerly the case. The questions at issue were now discussed with more of argument and reason on both sides; and very often the principles of political economy were referred to, though, no doubt, the speakers frequently proved themselves to be very indifferent political economists. He believed the cheap newspapers were sufficiently enlightened to give good advice to the working classes in their disputes; and he believed that the penny papers were not at all in favour of these strikes, and had given sound, though perhaps not palatable advice to the workman. He trusted that the improvement which was taking place in the cheap publications which were read by the working classes would tend to continue and increase this amelioration of the relations between masters and workmen, and to render less and less frequent the occurrence of strikes. By this Bill it was proposed that, upon a petition being presented to the Queen or to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Secretary of State should have power to authorize the appointment of a council, to consist of not less than two or more than ten masters, and not less than two or more than ten workmen. The first members of this council were to be elected by the persons whose names were signed to the petition. Thus, any number of persons might get a council appointed without giving notice to any one except the Secretary of State; and was it likely, he asked, that a tribunal so constituted could arbitrate satisfactorily in the case of a serious, and, perhaps, a prolonged dispute, between masters and workmen? The council was to be continued by annual election, every member of any trade who had reached the age of twenty-one being entitled to vote for the members of any council within the county or city in which he lived. This was a most extravagant proposition. He could not imagine that such a mode of election could produce any but the most unsatisfactory results. He
  1760
  could not express a favourable opinion of any of the main provisions of this Bill, and, therefore, feeling that in dealing with this subject a false step might be productive of the most serious consequences, he must, although he was perfectly convinced of the excellence of the motives of the hon. Member for Rye, move that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. LEVESON GOWERsaid, the more he considered this subject the greater appeared the difficulties for legislation in the matter. Most of the witnesses examined before the Committee which sat in 1856, said that the great difficulty in this case was with regard to the appointment of Chairman. The Bill did not deal with that difficulty. It merely said that a certain number of the masters and operatives should appoint a Chairman; but he doubted whether they would be got to agree as to who should be Chairman, and in that case the whole machinery of the Bill fell to the ground. He did not believe that the points in dispute between masters and workmen were such as could be settled by one man or any body of men. The existence for some years of a voluntary system of conciliation in the Potteries had led him to doubt the necessity for legislation in this matter, and he felt reluctantly compelled to give his vote against the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. FRANK CROSSLEYbelieved that the Bill, if it were passed, would be perfectly inoperative, and that in attempting to legislate on the subject the House was going beyond its province. No one disputed the good intentions of the hon. Member for Rye; but he did not think the hon. Gentleman had had sufficient practical experience of the working of the present system. The arrangement of these disputes should be left altogether to the persons immediately interested in them, and he believed that they would be more effectually settled by the good feeling of the masters and their workmen than by any enactment of the Legislature.
  MR. MELLORsaid, that a society of the nature referred to existed at present in Nottingham, and its success was altogether owing to its voluntary character.

  1761
  The present Bill was open to all the objections which had been urged against it by the Solicitor General, but he would be happy to support a measure that would give force to the decisions of these voluntary associations.
  MR. AYRTONwas proceeding to address the House when—
  It being Six of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the Debate till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at thirteen minutes before Six o'clock.