Commons Sitting of 12 May 1870

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Registration of Voters in Counties (England and Wales), Mr. Winn discharged, Mr. Pell added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Readinq—Vaccination Act (1867) Amendment [126].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Valuation of Lands and Assessments (Scotland)* [102].
Committee—Irish Land [29]—R.P.; Women's Disabilities [31], negatived.
Third Reading—Poor Relief (Metropolis)* [36], and passed.

CHARITY COMMISSIONERS' REPORT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has noticed the paragraph in the Charity Commissioners' Report, just issued, again calling attention to—
  "The unsatisfactory state of the Law relating to the administration of charities, and of the necessity of giving larger powers to some of the ordinary tribunals;"
  and, whether the Government propose to take action thereon?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he presumed that the Question referred to a passage in the Appendix of the Report, in which the Commissioners made a general statement, to the effect that it would be desirable to give wider powers to some of; the ordinary tribunals. The suggestions were, however, of a very general character, and the matter was under the consideration of the Government. He was not aware that the Commissioners had arrived at any conclusions with respect to new legislation; but when they did their recommendations would be duly announced.

SALARIES TO CLERKS IN THE CUSTOMS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL TAYLORsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, When the revised scale of salaries granted to the Clerks in the Customs in the Port of London by Treasury Minute of 28th November 1868, but subsequently suspended by Treasury Letter of 1st January 1869, will be allowed to come into force; and, whether the operation thereof will date, as originally directed, from the 1st April 1869?
  MR. STANSFELD, in reply, said, the hon. and gallant Member seemed to infer that the only question reserved by the present Government upon the Treasury Minute of the 28th of November, 1868, made by the late Government just before quitting Office, was the time when that Minute should be brought into operation. That there might be no mistake upon the matter, it would be well to say that the present Government took a wider view of their responsibility upon this point, and by suspending the Minute they intended to reserve the right to consider the proposal under that sense of responsibility. He was confident the motives of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in issuing that Minute were unexceptional; what he had said had reference only to the present Government's views. It appeared that three several Commissions had been appointed to inquire into the subject; two of them had reported, and the third was still deliberating. When this third Commission had reported the Government would give the whole subject their best consideration.

NAVY—GOVERNMENT STORES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HOLMSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is true that at any of the Home Victualling Yards articles of provisions or clothing have been kept so long in store that they have had to be condemned as useless; and, if so, whether he can state what the articles are and how long they have been in store; and, whether he can say if any purchases of such articles have been made notwithstanding there were such stocks in store?
  MR. BAXTER: It is true, Sir, that articles, both of provisions and

  575
  clotting, have been kept in store till they perished from age. At Plymouth Victualling Yard, on a recent inspection, it was found that a quantity of flushing jackets had been in store since 1854, and had become useless; that upwards of 2,000 sets of materials for making trousers were in the same condition; that lime-juice and prepared soup had become deteriorated through age and unfit for issue; and that 4,000lbs. of pickles had to be condemned. The extent to which articles remain in stock which ought to have been issued or sold long ago has not yet been fully ascertained; but a thorough inquiry is now being made by the Superintendent of Victualling into the state of the stores both at home and abroad. Purchases of some of the articles in question have been made at dates subsequent to the laying in of the stocks to which my hon. Friend refers.

INLAND REVENUE OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, having reference to the increased duties of ordinary Inland Revenue Officers, and to a supposed understanding come to on the subject, it is intended to increase their salaries; and, if so, from what time the increase will date?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I attach no weight to any supposed understading. I neither suppose nor understand. There is no doubt that the number of Inland Revenue officers must be increased by the new duties which have been thrown upon them, and I hope will be thrown upon them; it is also clear that in many cases the duties discharged by these officers have been increased, and it is equally certain that some extra charge must be incurred; but the public will be benefited to a much greater extent. Under these circumstances, I am quite ready to say we shall be pleased to consider the question of increasing the salaries of these officers, having regard to the points I have mentioned.

PROPOSED REPUBLICAN DEMONSTRATION IN HYDE PARK.—QUESTION.
GENERAL FORESTERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the
576
Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the "Daily Telegraph" of May 10, headed—
"Demonstration in favour of French Republicans.—A number of persons who sympathise with M. Flourens and the French Republican party, as it is called, have resolved on holding a demonstration in Hyde Park on Sunday next, at 2.30 p.m., to express sympathy with the French Republican party, and to protest against the alleged demand by the French Ambassador for the extradition of M. Flourens;"
and, whether such a demonstration will be permitted to take place?
MR. BRUCE: Sir, I have seen the paragraph alluded to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I believe that some such scheme has been in contemplation, on the supposition—a very mistaken supposition—that a demand has been made for the extradition of M. Flourens and some other French refugees by the French Government. I shall take this opportunity of stating most explicitly that, neither officially nor privately—neither directly nor indirectly—has Lord Clarendon received any communication from the French Government, from Lord Lyons, or from M. de Lavalette, with respect to M. Gustave Flourens or any other French refugee; nor has any mention been made to Lord Clarendon of any connection which they may have had with the conspiracy now under investigation at Paris. Under these circumstances, the reason for holding the meeting being altogether without foundation, it may be hoped that no attempt will be made to hold the meeting. If any such attempt is made, I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that every care will be taken to preserve peace and order.

COMPENSATION TO TAX COLLECTORS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he intends to provide any compensation for the parochial officers who have hitherto collected the Income Tax and other Taxes which he proposes to place under the officers of the Inland Revenue?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that in consequence of the collection of the income and other taxes by Inland Revenue, instead of by parochial officers, the subject of their compensation was under

  577
  the consideration of the Government, and they proposed to guide themselves by the Bill introduced on the subject by the First Minister of the Crown, when Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1854.

IRISH LAND BILL— [BILL 29.]
(Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Chichester Fortescue, Mr. John Bright.)
IRISH LAND BILL— [BILL 29.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 9th May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 17 (Restriction on eviction of tenant).
  DR. BALL, who had an Amendment on the Paper to omit the clause, said, as the omission of the clause was, he understood, objected to, he would propose certain Amendments which would obviate the necessity of that course. He thought it extremely objectionable that compensation for improvements should be mixed up with questions of rent. It was not probably contemplated in framing the Bill; but, as the clause was worded, in the case of an ejectment it would be in the power of the tenant to set up a counter demand and turn his landlord out of Court, making him at the same time liable to the costs of the ejectment. He proposed, therefore, to move some Amendments. His principal alteration would be to insert after the word "satisfied," in line 17, the words "unless the Judge or chairman before whom the ejectment is decided shall otherwise direct." The object of this was to retain in the hands of the Judge the powers which he at present possessed of accelerating or staying the period of ejectment.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he would not offer any opposition to the Amendment proposed by his right hon. and learned Friend, because he believed it right that discretion in this matter should be given to the Court. He suggested, however, that his right hon. and learned Friend should alter the word "ejectment" to "case."
  DR. BALLsaid, he would accede to the suggestion.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he was sorry to hear that the Solicitor General for Ireland had given his sanction to the Amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Dr. Ball), because this clause was really
  578
  the only one in the Bill which afforded any protection to the tenant. He entirely objected to leaving any discretion with the Chairman of quarter sessions to give a landlord power to get possession of a tenant's farm until the compensation to which he was entitled was paid. In the Bill of 1850, the landlord was bound to tender to the tenant the amount of his improvements before he could bring an ejectment. He trusted the Government would re-consider the matter before giving to the Judge or Chairman of quarter sessions a power which was never before given in any Bill on the subject.
  DR. BALLsaid, his hon. Friend did not see the inconvenient consequences which would follow if no jurisdiction of this kind was vested in the Judge. For instance, if the tenant owed one year's rent, but had a house worth seven, the landlord would have to pay seven times the amount he sought to recover before he could proceed against the tenant, or the tenant could continue his occupation for seven years without paying any rent. He was sure the hon. Member did not contemplate such an arrangement as that, and his observations must have had reference to ejectments on title. But he might be sure that the Judge would exercise the discretion given by the Amendment with the greatest tenderness for the tenant, and simply employ it to prevent injustice.
  MR. SYNANopposed the Amendment. The 8th section said that "ejectment for nonpayment of rent shall not be deemed 'disturbance;'" but his right hon. and learned Friend wanted to apply his Amendment only to ejecment for non-payment of rent. The Amendment was not required, in the first place, because such ejectment was taken altogether out of the operation of the 3rd clause; and, secondly, because the compensation under this section was the compensation duo after all the claims of the landlord had been met.
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, if a lease was granted for 14 years, when the 14 years came to an end, if the landlord did not allow the tenant to continue in possession, he would be guilty of "disturbance;" but, under Clause 17, the tenant could not be compelled by process of law to quit until he had been paid the compensation to which he was entitled, which would be an indeterminate com-

  579
  pensation to be assessed under the 3rd clause. He had some difficulty in seeing what would be the position of the landlord between one tenant demanding possession under a lease, and the other who was entitled to remain in the holding until compensation was given.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, there was not much difficulty in the matter. As soon as the lease expired by efflux of time, before the landlord could, get possession another process must be gone through—namely, giving up possession by the tenant. But if a tenant was unwilling to give up possession, and the landlord proceeded to eject, then the tenant would be "disturbed" within the meaning of Clause 3, and would apply to the Court, when the machinery provided by Clauses 12, 13, and 14 would come into operation. Clause 17 proposed that the tenant should not give up possession until paid compensation; but there might be extreme cases in which it might be desirable to enable the Court, should it think proper, to make the tenant quit before getting compensation.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGexplained that his objection was not intended to apply to cases in which a tenant was ejected for non-payment of rent, but to cases in which the tenancy was determined by a notice to quit. He repeated his objection to the proposed power as one never before given under any Bill.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he would not accede to the Amendment if he thought it reversed anything enacted by the earlier portion of the Bill. But he thought the hon. Member's fears were unfounded. The clause laid down the general rule that a tenant was not to be compelled to quit his holding until compensation was paid; but, having first laid down that general rule, it proceeded to give the Court a discretion to sanction a departure from that rule where the Court might think necessary. He could not deny that cases might arise where such a power would be requisite; and he believed the Amendment would make no substantial change in the policy of the Bill.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he did not see why it should not be plainly laid down that, when the landlord obtained possession of the land by the decree of the Court, he should pay the money to the
  580
  tenant which it had been decreed that he should pay. He thought the clause might be so framed as to give security to the tenant, and preserve the peace of the country.
  MR. W. H. GREGORYsaid, there were two objects in view—the one to secure compensation to the tenant for his improvements, and the other to prevent the tenant's wrongfully keeping possession. If they allowed a tenant to stay in who was notoriously a pauper, they would be doing a grievous injustice to the landlord, and encouraging the tenant to put forward false claims in order to raise a dispute, and keep the landlord out of possession. On the other hand, it was urged that a lien might be worthless to the tenant. Why should it not be provided that the landlord should give the tenant such security as might be approved by the Court for the value of his improvements?
  MR. W. SHAWsaid, he thought it would be unjust, where it was sought to evict for non-payment of rent, to let the tenant hold the land; but in all other cases the best security for the tenant was the possession of the land.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, it would be a perfect mockery to tell a tenant of a small holding that he could apply to the Court of Chancery to enforce his claim to compensation; and if this Amendment were carried he should regard the Bill as not worth acceptance. What was wanted was that the tenant, on leaving his holding, should have the money to which he was entitled at once, in order that he might be able, if he chose, to go into a town to engage in some kind of business, or emigrate to America.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he thought the opponents of the Amendment lost sight of the fact that the clause, as it stood in the Bill, would lay down the general rule that the tenant was to remain in possession. The question was, whether the Committee would leave the Court, which they had already entrusted with large powers, to decide whether there were exceptional cases where justice required the suspension of the general rule; and, if so, upon what terms it was to be done. He could not think the Court would exercise this power of dispensation except in special cases and with proper safeguards.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 18 (Court to mean Civil Bill Court or Court of Arbitration).
  DR. BREWERobserved, that in by far the larger number of cases the fee simple of the land would not pay the costs incurred in the settlement of disputes under the Bill. It was, therefore, of the first importance that the public should have confidence in the Court of First Instance, in order to prevent the necessity of appeals. Under these circumstances, he moved, in page 10, line 23, to leave out from "say" to "or." in line 25, and insert—
  "The Court of Land Session, consisting of the three judges of the Civil Bill Courts of three adjoining counties (to be grouped from time to time by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland), which Court shall take cognizance of the matters relating to any holding situate within the jurisdiction of the three Civil Bill Courts in which the three judges severally preside: The said Court of Land Session shall be held once a year in the assize town of one or more of the counties within the jurisdiction of the said Civil Bill Courts in the months of November and December to hear and decide upon the land questions submitted to it; and an appeal from the decision of the said Court of Land Session shall lie (with leave of the said Court) to the judges of assize within the county where the matter has arisen, whose judgment shall be final."
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that the Amendment was founded upon an assumption which the Government did not admit, and that was that the County Courts were not to be trusted to administer this Act. The assistant barristers already decided a great number of important matters, and decided them to the satisfaction of the parties. The Amendment itself would give rise to great inconvenience. It would be no easy matter to bring together three assistant barristers who were already engaged four times a year in their Courts, and had besides their own business to do. Further, they would meet only once a year in one town in the county; whereas they now sat four times a year, and in several places in each county. Again, the local character of the tribunals was one great advantage of the Bill, and for these reasons the Government could not assent to the Amendment.
  DR. BALLsaid, he thought some such plan as proposed would be an improvement; but he feared that the
  582
  Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be ready to provide for the additional expense which would be necessary if assistant barristers were asked to meet in the different counties, and by so doing to increase their personal expenses and sacrifice their professional practice.
  MR. BRUENsaid, he was sorry that the Government would not adopt the Amendment, or at all events a portion of it, for he thought that it would be a great advantage to have three Judges sitting together. If single Judges gave decisions he was afraid that some of them would be of an extraordinary character. He did not think that the objection as to the increase of expense was a valid one against having a good system. In his opinion the sittings of the three Judges ought not to be confined to one a year.
  VISCOUNT ST. LAWRENCElooked with great apprehension to having 32 different land Courts in Ireland, and thought that more strongly constituted Courts would better administer the law. As to the expense, it would be better for landlords and tenants to submit to some taxation rather than they should be taken from one Court to another upon appeal.
  MR. SHERLOCKobserved, that the proposed Court would meet only once a year, whilst the assistant barristers sat four times a year, and it was very important that there should be frequent adjudications.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. W. SHAWasked any hon. Member acquainted with the Quarter Sessions Courts in Ireland whether he thought them suitable Courts for determining matters involving such an amount of property as the Bill would place under their control. Conflicting decisions would be given by the 32 Judges of the existing Courts, and thereby much dissatisfaction would be caused in Ireland. Again, those Judges to whom it was proposed to intrust the carrying out of this Bill were not men of the highest standing in their profession, and, generally speaking, had no knowledge of the laws relating to property; while many of them were old men, who could not bring to the consideration of such questions that freshness of mind which was so much required. As an owner of property, he (Mr. Shaw) looked with great apprehension to the action of the

  583
  Courts which would have to put this Bill into execution, and although he might be told that there would be an appeal from those Courts, yet that, he contended, would be the imposition of a penalty on a poor man, for in the end all the compensation that might be awarded to him would be swallowed up in law costs. He should much prefer to establish a Court on the basis of the Landed Estates Court, and to give it entire jurisdiction in cases arising under this Bill; and the expense of such a Court would, he believed, be less than the cost of the procedure contemplated by the measure. Until the first year had passed, and it had been ascertained what amount of business was likely to arise under the Bill, he would not appoint any other Judges than the two who now presided in the Landed Estates Court; for his opinion was, that there would not be many cases, as he thought that landlords and tenants would try to work pleasantly together and make their own bargains. Under the Bill power might be taken to appoint the existing Judges, of whom it was generally thought in Ireland that there were too many; from them a selection could be made of Judges who should go on circuit, and they would form a tribunal in whom all parties would have full confidence. He moved, in page 10, to leave out lines 24 and 25, and insert "a Judge of the Landed Estates Court."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, that since his hon. Friend mentioned this matter to the Committee at a former sitting it had received the careful consideration of the Government, and they had come to the conclusion that they could not accept the Amendment. His hon. Friend had, he thought, exaggerated the case as regarded the Civil Bill Courts, because, as a commercial man, he had not had experience of those tribunals, in which the costs were not so heavy as had been suggested. So far from their inflicting penalties on the suitors, they were really very cheap Courts, for the scale of fees allowed to practitioners in them was very low; and he knew that in some of the heaviest cases in which they had been called upon to adjudicate the costs had not exceeded £2. Again, not only were the Courts cheap, but they were also efficient; and the assistant barristers who presided in them would bear
  584
  comparison with other Judges who had to discharge similar duties and were in receipt of like emoluments. It was a great advantage that they were practising barristers, as they were thereby enabled to learn the law day by day, and add to the knowledge of it which they had acquired when younger. He could not agree in the assertion of his hon. Friend that the Irish Judges had much time at their disposal; on the contrary, they had as much work to do as the English Judges, and he could not believe that they had any time to devote to carrying out the objects of this Bill, as proposed by the hon. Member. As to the Judges of the Landed Estates Court, there were at present only two, and he was sure they were well worked. The assistant barristers, on the other hand, were well acquainted with the counties in the Courts of which they presided, and with the manners and customs of the people; while to their existing business the Bill would add only a few cases at each sessions, so that they would not experience so much difficulty in getting to work as would be felt by a new Court. He hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. CORRANCEsaid, he derived but poor consolation from the nature of the legal machinery by which the Bill was to be administered. Hitherto, questions had been met by the statement that the Court would decide them; but the constitution of the Court did not, as it ought to do, inspire full confidence, even on the Ministerial side of the House. He had made a note of the variety of functions the Court would have to discharge, and amongst them were the following:—to define the Ulster custom, the nature of the disturbance to the tenant, what were permanent buildings, the reclamation of land, the duration of holdings, the disposal of tenants' interest, the diminution of the value of the land, the state of cultivation, time bargains, the settlement of the amount of rent, the equity of titles and of leases, unexhaustible manures, and tillage. Now, how the Judge of the Court, who he supposed would be a barrister of 10 years' standing, would be able to satisfy the public requirements upon all those different questions, he (Mr. Corrance) was at a loss to understand. As yet the Civil Bill Court had taken cognizance only of issues in-

  585
  volving the sum of £40, and in some cases £100, and now it was proposed to confer upon it these extraordinary powers. This was a Bill for the pacification of Ireland, and we were seeking to pacify it through lawyers, who perhaps made as many quarrels as they settled.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the hon. Member seemed to think that the barristers were to decide these various questions out of their own consciousness; whereas these were questions of fact which would be decided upon evidence, and with an amount of local knowledge which would give weight to the decisions; while upon questions of a professional character they would have the assistance of first-rate valuators.
  MR. SHERLOCKexpressed his confidence in the ability and competence of the Judges to discharge all the duties imposed on them.
  MR. OSBORNEprotested against this practice of lawyers getting up in that House to praise one another, on the principle of—"You scratch me I scratch you." The assistant barristers of Ireland were very much like assistant barristers elsewhere, and neither better nor worse. If they were to admit the arguments of the hon. Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) against the competence of the Court in question to deal with the various questions to be submitted to it, they might discredit their jurisprudence on every point. From the objections made by the hon. Member it would appear he thought that Mr. Law, who wrote upon the properties of superphosphate of lime, and Mr. Thorley, who manufactured a peculiar food for cattle, were the more competent to judge of such matters than the assistant barristers in Ireland. His (Mr. Osborne's) experience of cheap law was that it was not only most nasty but most expensive; because in Ireland there were a class of attorneys with small heads, who would undertake any case on the chance of getting a favourable verdict. The only thing he feared was, that under this Bill there would be a great deal of cheap law, which would burden its harmonious administration. With regard to the scheme of the hon. Member for Bandon (Mr. W. Shaw), which was of a very extensive character, he (Mr. Osborne) thought the Legislature had better try what they could do with these assistant barristers. If the attorneys could be kept
  586
  quiet, the Bill would work harmoniously—and he was strongly of opinion that, so far from this Bill being a useless one, it would be one of the best Bills ever brought forward for the good of Ireland.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, the objection to the proposals of the Bill was, that it would saddle these barristers with totally new duties, which their previous training and professional experience did not fit them to fulfil; and he believed that if they could be polled on the subject they would almost unanimously admit their want of qualification to deal with the important questions as between landlord and tenant which would arise under the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Civil Bill Court).
  DR. BALLmoved the insertion of words obliging the Judge himself to decide all questions of fact. He believed it was the intention of the framer of the Bill that the Judge should so decide all questions arising under the Bill; but unless the words he proposed were adopted, it might be contended that the Judge had the power of leaving questions of fact to a jury. In his opinion the Judge should be placed exactly in the position of an Equity Judge, and not in that of a Judge at Nisi Prius, with a jury. He therefore moved, in page 10, line 37, after "judge" insert—
  "Provided that the judge of the Civil Bill Court shall himself, without a jury, decide any question of fact arising before him in such cases."
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, it did not follow that, because the assistant barrister was able to decide questions of law he would be able to decide complicated questions of fact, as to which he had no special knowledge or fitness. These were points which ought to be settled by a jury. He hoped the Government would not agree to the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be acting wisely to press his Amendment. In 14 & 15 Vict. c. 57, s. 100, there was a provision that in all cases, except ejectment, the parties themselves might have a jury if they wished it. Again, the Lord Chancellor, if difficult questions of fact arose in a case before him, might summon a jury

  587
  to decide them, and he thought that in this case the Judge should have the power to call in a jury or not, at pleasure.
  MR. BRUENsaid, that jurors in Ireland were all so intimately connected with the land that it would be impossible to get together an impartial jury to decide the questions of fact arising under the Bill. He therefore thought the assistant barrister should be alone responsible.
  DR. BALLsaid, he thought it would be a great misfortune that the Judge should be enabled to shift from himself responsibility. The persons who would have to act as jurors would not be men specially summoned for the purpose; and when, therefore, the assistant barrister wanted a jury he must take them from the bystanders who happened to be present, and who would, for the most part, be farmers. Now, no one would, he thought, maintain that a decision thus arrived at would be as satisfactory as that of an educated lawyer. Although in a large number of cases juries might be called for under the existing law in the Civil Bill Courts, yet, as a matter of fact, they were not summoned, and the decision was given by the assistant barrister himself. He admitted, at the same time, that where a question of damages was involved a jury formed a very good means of assessing them; but that was not so when mixed questions of law and fact had to be decided. He would not, however, press his Amendment in opposition to the views of the Government at a time when few Members were in the House.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he agreed with the right hon. and learned. Gentleman that a jury was not a good tribunal, where they had to deal with complicated issues of law and fact, and that consequently a jury would not be a good tribunal for determining the greater number of questions that would have to come before the Court. But what the Judge would in the present instance have to do would be to select an issue of fact, and submit it to a jury; and for a decision of that kind they were, he thought, the best tribunal, under the direction of a Judge, which could be found. The powers proposed by this clause were possessed by every County Court Judge in this country, though it was not often used.
  LORD ELCHOmaintained that in deciding the questions to which the Amendment related the sympathies of the jury, taken as they would be haphazard from the bystanders, would be entirely on the side of the tenant. To insure, therefore, the fair administration of justice and the proper working of the Bill, the decision, in his opinion, should not be left to them. The hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) had pointed out that if it were left to the Judge he would have to leave the Court to ascertain whether a particular improvement had or had not been made; but surely there could be no difficulty in his sending a person whom he could trust to procure the necessary information? He hoped the Government would re-consider the matter.
  MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid, as a landlord, he would prefer having the decision given by one man, such as the assistant barrister, whoever he might be.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEobserved, that the discretion which would be given to the assistant barrister in the cases in question was neither more nor less than that which he now exercised in cases of ejectment, which concerned matters relating to land as much as anything in the Bill, and involved as much interest, excitement, and difficulty. There was no reason for depriving the Judges by this Act of the power they now possessed.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, it was not a question of retaining the discretion of the barrister; but whether he should be able to escape from the responsibility which would otherwise attach to him, and which he ought to exercise.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. BALLmoved, in page 11, line 1, to leave out from "the," to "require," in line 8, both inclusive, giving power to appoint an assessor to each Judge. The assessor was to personally inspect the various matters in dispute that came before the Court, to report to the Judge, and to give his advice and assistance. He would be much in the position of a nautical assessor to the Judge of the Court of Admiralty. It was plain that the assessors having skilled knowledge, would be persons of far greater importance in the administration of justice in this part of the law than the Judges.

  589
  He had himself seen the way in which the nautical assessors of the Court of Admiralty embarrassed the Judge by setting down particular points as nautical, and therefore without the province of the law, and subject only to their opinion. But not only would the appointment of an assessor be inconvenient to the Court, his interference would also be unsatisfactory to the people. No one in Ireland would submit to have a case decided by a person not a barrister and perfectly irresponsible, whose views, however, erroneous, being on questions supposed to be peculiarly within his province and practice, could not be controlled by the Judge nor appealed from to a superior Court. Besides, he doubted whether the Government would be prepared to pay a salary such as would be necessary to obtain a high class of persons to discharge the duty. It would never do to appoint as assessors men who were in the habit of earning their living among those between whom they would have to assist in adjudicating. It would be necessary to lift them above such a position by the payment of a reasonable salary. He also thought that it would not be satisfactory to the people to have their disputes decided by such influence as an assessor would exert on the Judge, for his influence would be in the nature of private communications, not of evidence given in public and tested by cross-examination. If the jurisdiction of the Judge were to be exercised in a manner to give confidence, his judgment must follow upon evidence given in open Court and tested openly, and upon grounds which could be taken to a higher tribunal and again tested, without regard to the opinion of any valuators but such as were examined in open Court on the part of the litigants.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he was bound to concur in the expediency of this Amendment. Chairmen of quarter sessions decided civil cases in which £100 was in dispute and heard motions for ejectment without the assistance of assessors. Valuators, as far as his experience went, were as a class by no means competent for the duties the clause contemplated; and he had known very incompetent persons sent from Dublin to value land with a result very unsatisfactory to those concerned. Moreover, they would not be competent
  590
  to advise the Chairmen; because, although they might know the value of land in one county, they would not be able to form an opinion upon land in another, and he defied a stranger properly to estimate the value of land reclaimed, as compared with what it was before reclamation.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he regretted he could not join his hon. Friend in support of the Amendment. The Amendment was based on the assumption, which in his opinion was wholly unfounded, that the Government would not appoint competent and fully qualified persons.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he thought it was very important that the functions of the witnesses, the jury, and the Judge should be kept distinct; but there was considerable danger of their being all confounded together, if a valuator were appointed in the precise manner proposed by the clause. It was worth consideration, on the part of the Government, whether it would not be better to leave the whole matter to be dealt with in the ordinary course of evidence.
  THE O'CONOR DONconcurred in the objection that the valuator would, to a certain extent, become the judge of the case, and he did not think it probable that such a salary would be attached to the office as would entice men whose judgment could be implicitly depended upon. It was proposed to appoint 32 of these valuators—one for each county—but if they received salaries which would place them above all suspicion of being got at by interested parties, the aggregate sum required would hardly meet with the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If, on the other hand, their salaries were not fixed, they would be regarded with suspicion by both landlord and tenant, and, moreover, would be open to a species of corruption as yet unknown in this country among persons holding judicial positions.
  LORD ELCHOpresumed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had considered the question of salary, and that these gentlemen would be tolerably well paid. As their efficiency depended on their being above suspicion, their salaries would doubtless be high; and he therefore wished to know, what decision had been arrived at on this point?
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, that irrespective of salaries, he hoped the Government would accede to the Amendment. A valuator of this kind would be a most pernicious person in the administration of justice. He was to hold office during the good pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant, and would be required to state privately to the assistant barrister which side ought to be credited. If he resided in the county, it would be said that he was subject to undue influence, while if he were non-resident, he would be unable to make himself acquainted with the particulars of each case, as he could not, during the sessions, minutely inspect 40 or 50 different homesteads and farms. It was far more satisfactory to have questions of fact decided by juries than by Judges. If a jury went wrong, it was dismissed for good; whereas, this valuator, being always present, might permanently mislead the barrister, and make him give decisions which he would not have given, if he had been guided solely by the evidence adduced by the parties.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he could not assume, with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. M'Mahon), that the sole function of this officer would be to mislead the assistant barrister. The sole object of the Government was that which was common to both sides of the House—namely, to provide the assistant barrister with professional advice, so as to facilitate his coming to a just conclusion. The Government had, however, been very anxious to hear the opinions of both sides of the House on a thoroughly practical question of a very difficult kind. After listening to all that had been said, the Government were of opinion that the balance of argument was against the appointment of these officers. The Government, therefore, thought the best course would be to omit the appointment, of these officers from this part of the Bill at all events, reserving to themselves the liberty of carefully considering the question at a later stage.
  MR. C. S. READsuggested that the assistant barrister should be empowered to call in the assistance of a practical man occasionally.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, the object of the Amendment he had placed on the
  592
  Paper was to give original jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal in cases of a certain class or which involved a certain amount of money. Under the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 57, the jurisdiction of the Civil Bill Courts was restricted to £40 even in such common cases as an action on a promissory note, or for goods sold and delivered, which were easily tried, and in which no suspicion of unfair dealing was likely to arise. But this Bill contained a clause which had been already passed to enlarge that jurisdiction, and the Judges were also empowered to decide a number of interesting points which had been enumerated by his hon. Friend the Member for Sussex (Mr. G. B. Gregory), although no guarantee was given that the standard of the tribunal would be raised. It might, indeed, be said that there would be a right of appeal against their decision; but no lawyer would maintain that a case carried up for appeal was at all similar to one which was tried by a Court under its original jurisdiction. Appeals would be on questions of fact and discretion; and, under such circumstances, there would be the greatest possible indisposition to overrule decisions appealed from. The suitor, therefore, would be in a far more disadvantageous position than if it were possible for him, after proper legal notice in the first instance, to remove the case to the Court of Appeal. He subscribed, as a general rule, to the opinion of the excellence of the Assistant Barristers' Court as now existing; but there were exceptions in which appointments had been made made from political motives, and which did not command that respect, or carry that weight, which the public were fairly entitled to expect from them. The Assistant Barristers' Courts had not that safeguard which attached to many Courts in the country and to the Superior Courts in Ireland. Every learned Gentleman knew that if a Court should be unfortunately weak, that which aided it and guided it to a sound decision, was a careful and competent Bar practising before it. Necessarily, from the circumstances of the country, those who practised, and must continue to practise, before these tribunals would be composed almost entirely of the little local attorneys practising in the country towns—a race of men whom he did not hesitate to describe as the curse of the country, and who pandered to the pas-

  593
  sions and prejudices of an ignorant people—and it was from such a class of practitioners we must expect the mail difficulties and main dangers of this Bill to come. He had a strong repugnance to the tendency to litigation throughout the Bill. The object of his Amendment was to give the option to either party o taking the opinion, by way of original jurisdiction of the Court above, without having the case tried in the Civil Bill Court, to which naturally it would be attached. He moved, in page 11, after line 8, to insert—
  "Provided always, That wherever any clam made under this Act shall exceed the amount recoverable by civil bill process in matters of contract under the Acts for the time being in force in that respect, it shall be lawful for either party, by notice to be served three clear days at the least before the first day of sitting of the Civil Bill Court at which such claim is about to be tried, to remove the case at once into the Court hereinafter provided for appeals from such Civil Bill Court, there to be so tried as if such case had been commenced in such Court of Appeal."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. BALLmoved an Amendment designed to give the tenant additional security. He wished to give the Judge power to charge the estate instead of the landlord, because the landlord might be an absentee, or only a tenant for life, and if he should die the day after the order was made the tenant would have no one from whom to claim his award. Besides this, he urged his Amendment in justice to the tenant for life. Ejectment was resorted to, generally speaking, with a view to improve the estate, and if a tenant for life resorted to ejectment with this object, he would make himself liable to seven years' rental, while the benefit which would accrue to the estate would be benefit to the remainderman instead of himself. He concluded by moving, in line 18, after "chairman," to insert—
  "And it shall also be in the power of the chairman to declare the moneys awarded by any such orders to be paid by the landlord a lien or charge upon the holding in respect of which the claim shall have arisen, whether such holding shall be transferred to a new tenant or resumed by the landlord."
  MR. SYNANsaid, the words ought to be "the landlord for the time being," because the Amendment was intended to operate on the remainderman.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, it would not be fair to charge the estate, and perhaps the remainderman, for a wrong done by
  594
  the tenant for life; he would, however, have no objection to the Amendment if it made the charge for compensation a lien on the estate in the case of a tenant in tail.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYregarded the Amendment as unfair to the remainderman. He hoped it would be withdrawn.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he thought they ought not, without further consideration, to adopt a proposal which would have the effect of prejudicing the estate of the remainderman, by making him liable for payments made without his consent, and possibly even without his knowledge.
  DR. BALLsaid, he was afraid that the Bill would press very severely upon tenants for life; but he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Appeal from Civil Bill Court).
  DR. BALL, with a view to increase the number of the Judges who were to constitute this Court, proposed to add the Vice Chancellor and the three chiefs of the Common Law Courts. He did not, of course, make it incumbent upon them to sit; but there was no reason why the duty of presiding over this Court should be restricted to the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls. He, therefore, proposed to leave out from "Rolls," in page 12, line 21, to "Exchequer," in line 23, both inclusive, with a view to insert "the Vice Chancellor and all the Judges of the Common Law Courts."
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEobserved, that the matter was one well worthy consideration, and one upon which the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite was deserving of attention. They had intended, in framing the Bill, that there should be an equity element in the Court, and they thought that element had been sufficiently provided for by introducing the two first Judges in equity. The Chiefs of the Common Law Courts had been omitted because it was felt that they already had plenty to do. The Government, however, had no objection to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  DR. BALLproposed, in line 25, after "Rolls," to insert "or the Vice Chancellor or one of the Chief Judges of the Common Law Courts."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. M'MAHONproposed to insert words giving an appeal to the House of Lords. It might be said that the more appeals there were, the more expense was imposed on the tenant; but it was entirely in the interest of the tenant that he wished to give this appeal. Hitherto the Irish Judges had persistently refused to adopt the views of the English Judges with regard to agricultural usages modifying contracts, except, as he was informed, in one instance in which Chief Justice Whiteside had ruled in favour of this principle. The consequence of this refusal of the Irish Judges to enforce agricultural customs might be seen in the wretched condition in which Ireland had long been. It might be asked what would a tenant do if there was an appeal to the House of Lords? How could he afford to carry his case before so expensive a tribunal? Of course, it would be only in very important cases that this should be done, and then all interested might club the expenses. It was unfortunate that no case with regard to agricultural customs in England had been carried to the House of Lords, as their decision would be binding on the Irish Judges, who declined to follow the ruling of their English brethren in this matter. The manner in which he had worded his Amendment would prevent its being used for vexatious or insufficient purposes, and he hoped that the Government would adopt it. He begged to move, in page 12, line 30, at end add—
  "And any person aggrieved by the judgment of the said Court for Land Cases Reserved, may appeal therefrom within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner to the House of Lords; but such appeal to the House of Lords shall be only on matters of law or equity, and on a special case to be approved and certified by one of the Judges of the said Court for Land Cases Reserved, whose determination on the settlement of such case shall be final and conclusive."
  MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, no one had greater respect for the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords than he had; but he thought there were already a sufficient number of appeals allowed under the Bill. First of all, there was an appeal from the assistant bar-
  596
  rister to two Judges of Assize, and then an appeal from them to the Court for Land Cases Reserved in Dublin. Great pains had been taken in the Bill to insure a full and sufficient Court for the trial of these cases, as the Court was to consist of five Judges, one of whom must be the Lord Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, one of the Chief Judges of the Common Law Courts, or the Master of the Rolls. He did not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was as well acquainted as he was with the expense of carrying an appeal to the House of Lords. There was an old rule—ut sit finis litis—which it was most desirable to observe not only in this case, but in all others. The Courts of Appeal provided by the Bill were quite sufficient, and it would be for the benefit of all parties to rest satisfied with their decision.
  MR. SHERLOCKsaid, it had been objected to that Bill that it would involve the people of Ireland in litigation, and it had been alleged that when it passed it would be necessary for every landed gentleman to keep an attorney. The Mover of the present Amendment proposed to extend the area of such litigation by giving an appeal to the House of Lords in any case involving a question of law or of equity, which, in point of fact, almost every case did. The clause, as already amended at the instance of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball), provided that the tribunal to determine those questions should be the Judges of the Courts of Common Law and Equity in Ireland; and thus they would have the collective wisdom of all the Irish Judges to decide those points, arising between poor and rich, and between tenants and landlords, in which the landlord, if so disposed, could, by the aid of his long purse, protract the litigation, to the great injury of the tenant. Under those circumstances, he thought a further appeal to the House of Lords would be most mischievous, and even where the poor man might happen to succeed before that tribunal an appeal to it would be his utter ruin. The general sense of the Irish Members was therefore, he believed, opposed to that proposal.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press the Amendment.
  MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, he thought the Amendment singularly inopportune, inasmuch as at this very moment Englishmen were canvassing the merits of the House of Lords as a Court of Appeal, and seriously doubting whether it was the most admirable tribunal they could have in the last resort.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 21 agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 22 ("Limited Owner").
  MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid that, in 1852, a Bill had been prepared by the late Mr. Sharman Crawford and himself, by which they endeavoured to give some protection against arbitrary evictions in the case of properties sold under the Encumbered Estates Court. But the time for tenant-right legislation had not then arrived, and it was rejected on the second reading. One of the most remarkable passages in the speech of the Prime Minister on introducing his Bill was that in which he expressed his regret that something of this sort had not been done, and he referred in proof to the misery inflicted by the reckless clearances effected by new purchasers. He was now able to state on the best authority that during the course of the last 16 years property to the extent of £40,000,000 had been disposed of by the Court, and that this property when sold was occupied by no less than 88,000 tenants. When, by the operation of the law of 1850, they severed the ties between the owner and the occupier, they might be said to have established an equitable claim on the part of the occupier to statutable protection. He proposed by his Amendment,
  "To empower the Landed Estates Court, after decree of sale, to grant to any solvent tenant in possession a lease for thirty-one years, in such form and with such covenants as the Court might deem fit; the property to be sold subject to such lease; and further to empower the Court of Chancery to grant similar leases."
  The hon. Gentleman said, that acting on the suggestion of the Chairman, he would not move his Amendment now, but would propose it in the shape of a proviso at the end of Clause 24.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 23 (Agreement by limited owner).
  MR. G. B. GREGORYmoved, in page 14, line 18, after "date," insert—
  "Provided, That no such order shall be made by the Court unless notice of the application for the same shall have been given in the prescribed form to the person for the time being entitled to the first estate of inheritance, if any, expectant upon the determination of the estate of the limited owner, or if such person shall be a married woman, infant, or lunatic, to his or her husband, guardian, or committee respectively, and also to any mortgagee or registered incumbrancer upon the land on which such order is to take effect."
  The object he had in view was, that before the Court made an order notice should be given, at all events, to the person who was entitled to the next estate. It was a common principle in any Court of Law that the person claiming the next estate of inheritance should be represented before the Court in any question dealing with it, and it was upon that principle that he proposed this proviso.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he was quite willing to adopt the Amendment down to the word "respectively;" but he did not think there was any necessity to give notice to any mortgagee or registered encumbrancer, because the next Amendment, which stood in the name of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, would make the annuity subject to all such charges.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYamended his Amendment by leaving out all the words after the word "respectively."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 24 (Power of limited owner to lease).
  MR. SYNANmoved, in page 14, line 23, after "grant," insert "building and." The object of this Amendment was to give power to limited owners to have building leases as well as agricultural ones. Several towns in his county were going to ruin for the want of such a power as that which he sought to include in the Bill.
  MR. PIMsupported the principle of the Amendment, the adoption of which he considered very desirable indeed. In the next clause the Government proposed to sanction advances to landlords for the improvement of waste lands; but there was no way of carrying out that improvement which was comparable to the granting of leases of this kind. It was

  599
  far more important to grant the power of making leases of this kind than to grant the public money. He suggested that leases of unreclaimed land should be for 60 years, and of land for building purposes for 150 years, on the condition that, in the former case, five years' rent, and in the latter case 20 years' rent, should be expended upon the property.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESOUEsaid, he did not desire to say anything on the merits of the question in opposition to the opinions expressed by hon. Members who had just spoken; but he was glad to take the earliest opportunity of stating the view of the Government as to the proposals now made, and as to Amendments on the Paper dealing with the subject of leasing powers, and Amendments of the Lands Improvement Acts of Ireland. The Government fully recognized the importance of these questions, and were strongly of opinion that the present state of the law required amendment. It was, however, very advisable not to attempt too much by the present Bill, and it would be far better to reserve those matters to be dealt with on another occasion. The Bill as it stood covered a very large extent of ground, quite enough for the present purpose of Parliament, and it was not desirable in the interest of the success of the measure itself to enlarge its scope. All the proposals to which he had adverted deserved the best consideration of the Government and the House, and nothing he now said referred to the merits of the case, but merely had regard to the prudence of introducing these matters into a Bill which already covered sufficient ground. Their policy was founded on the old paradoxical maxim—"They are fools who do not know how much more the half is than the whole."
  DR. BALLpointed out that an Act of Parliament, passed in 1860 for the purpose of extending leasing powers, enabled limited owners to grant agricultural leases for 21 years, improvement leases for 42 years, and building leases for 99 years, in the latter cases with certain judicial consents. That Act had not been much used, and one provision, enabling the Landed Estates Court to give any term they thought necessary, seemed to have been almost entirely overlooked. He knew a case in which, that portion of the Act had been used to obtain long leases in a town where it
  600
  was thought important to encourage building; but that was the only instance of which he knew where this power had been exercised. No doubt an objection could be raised on the ground of the expense involved in going to the Landed Estates Court; but he wished to show that more powers already existed in this matter than was generally imagined.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEagreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in thinking the Act to which he had alluded an excellent one, if it would only work. He thought a Bill ought to be introduced at an early period to amend the Act, so as to make it work.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he did not think, after what had fallen from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that his Amendment ought to be negatived, and therefore he would withdraw it for the present.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WREN-HOSKYNSproposed, in line 25, after "fixed periods," to insert, "or for the life of the lessee." The object of the Amendment, he said, was to provide leases for the tenant's life. Such leases greatly encouraged agricultural improvements by giving a sense of security. They also had the advantage of not going to executors in case of the tenant's death, while they were not liable to be assigned like leases for a term of years, and they prevented sub-division. If the object of the Bill were to produce a good feeling between the landlord and the tenant, he could not imagine anything better adapted to that end than the consciousness that the tenant should have a life interest in his farm. If the Government objected to the Amendment he would not press it.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he was not an enthusiast in favour of leases for life; but he would not go into the question, inasmuch as the hon. Member had admitted that his was one of the proposals which he (Mr. C. Fortescue) had already said ought, in the interests of the measure, to be excluded from consideration. On that ground only he requested the hon. Member not to press his Amendment.
  DR. BALLsaid, he did not see how this proposal would embarrass the Government or interfere with the Bill. He thought there were many considerations

  601
  in favour of a lease for life. The landlord would, of course, know that a person to whom he was giving it was an industrious and skilful farmer; and he would have the satisfaction of knowing that he had made a wise and prudent choice. After the tenant's death he would be able to make other arrangements; and if it was advisable might give it to the person whom the farmer himself proposed. He thought the tenant also would prefer this arrangement, as every man, whatever his age, still fancied that a life interest was better for him than any term of years.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the authority of the hon. Gentleman who introduced the question was so great on all subjects connected with land tenure that one hesitated to differ from him. But the reasons against the adoption of the clause were manifold. The right hon. and learned Gentlemen (Dr. Ball) might not see any objection to the introduction of this proposal into the Bill, but there were many others who did, and therefore the bringing forward of this question imported a new subject for debate at a stage when time was exceedingly precious. Another reason against the introduction of this proposal was the effect it would have upon the 3rd clause of the Bill, as there would be, he thought, a difficulty in reconciling the Amendment with the principles which the Committee had sanctioned. Already the Bill was sufficiently laden with matter, besides which the Amendment was inappropriate on account of the difficulty of arranging it so as to correspond with, the essential point of the Bill—namely, that relating to damages for eviction.
  MR. WREN-HOSKYNSsaid, he had felt there was some little inconsistency between his Amendment and other clauses of the Bill, though he did not think they were insuperable. He should not, however, press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SYNANmoved, in line 34, to leave out all from "rent," to "him," in line 37, and insert—
  "The value of the holding arising from any improvements executed by the tenant shall be expressly excluded."
  The principle of the Bill was, he said, that all improvements made by a tenant should be his property, and if they were to deprive him of their value without
  602
  payment—in other words, if they were to raise the rent in consequence of these improvements so made by him, they would be doing a gross injustice.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEreminded the hon. Member that this clause applied to agreements for leases between landlords and tenants, and contended that the Amendment would impose a condition which was inconsistent with the principle on which the clause was founded.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, it was distinctly declared in the Bill that the improvements by a tenant were to be his property, and it was clear that that fact ought to be regarded when the prolongation of a lease was agreed on.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, the adoption of the Amendment would make the clause inoperative, for that which was not expressed could not be expressly excluded. The clause on the subject of improvements expressly said that on the termination of a lease for 31 years the tenant should not be entitled to any compensation in respect of any improvements except permanent buildings and reclamations of land; so there were certain improvements in respect of which he would, and others in respect of which he would not be entitled to compensation; and this clause would not in the least affect his claim to the value of improvements, because it went simply to the question of annual rent.
  MR. SYNANsaid, his object was to have it stated in the lease that the rent was exclusive of tenants' improvements, and to make the lease void without such statement.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments made.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSmoved the addition to the clause of the Amendment he had previously withdrawn—namely—
  "So as to empower the Landed Estates Court, after decree of sale, to grant to any solvent tenant in possession a lease for thirty-one years, in such and with such covenants as the Court may deem form fit, the property to be sold subject to such lease, and further to empower the Court of Chancery to grant similar leases."
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, this was a proposal of interest and importance, and it had the high authority of Judge Longfield, who gave evidence in support of it before a Committee some years ago, and had recommended it since. He (Mr. C. Fortescue) was far from saying

  603
  that the proposal was not worthy of consideration; but he was not at all clear that it was a question which ought to be dealt with by this Bill; and, at all events, it would be impossible to deal with it in this part of the Bill. The Amendment could not be adopted as part of the clause before the Committee, because the clause dealt only with limited owners, and the hon. Member's proposal, if it were applied at all, must be applied to all owners. Therefore it could not be adopted at this stage; but if it were brought up as a separate clause it would be carefully considered by the Government.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSgave Notice that he would bring up a new clause to carry out his views.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Rules for carrying first part of Act into force) agreed to, with consequential Amendments.
  Clause 28 (Application to Board of Works for sale of holding).
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the Amendment he now proposed was one of a series which involved no change of principle in this part of the Bill, but would, he thought, improve the machinery and make it more thoroughly consistent with the principle already adopted. In the main the object in view was to call for the intervention of the Board of Works only in cases in which parties desiring to purchase applied to the Board for an advance of public money. On all questions of title the Board would not intervene, nor yet in cases in which an application was made under the Bill to purchase a holding without applying for an advance of public money. His Amendment would exclude the Board of Works in Part II. of the Bill; but it would be brought in in Part III. He moved in page 16, lines 25 and 26, to leave out "Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, in this Act referred to as the board, for the conveyance," and insert "Court for the sale."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further consequential Amendments agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 29 agreed to.
  Clause 30 (Sale of holding by Board).
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that the word "Court" for the purpose of carrying out this part of the Act would be held to mean the Civil Bill Court, or the Landed Estates Court. The intention was not to confine these clauses to the latter Court, but to enable the Privy Council to make rules which, if they thought proper, would bring such cases as those with which the Committee was now dealing before the Civil Bill Court under such restrictions as might be laid down. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the omission of the commencement of the clause up to "with" in line 14, and the insertion in lieu thereof of the words "upon any application of an advance as aforesaid.
  DR. BALLsaid, that to give the power of the control of a sale to a tribunal like the Civil Bill Court appeared to him to be extremely objectionable. He should be quite contented to give it to the Landed Estates Court, which possessed all the requisite machinery for the purpose, which the Civil Bill Court did not. To confer such a jurisdiction as was proposed upon the latter, would create the utmost alarm among the moneylenders throughout the country. Let the Committee imagine an English capitalist being told that he must take into account that his mortgagor could sell every inch of his property behind his back and without a shadow of a record. He, for one, was entirely opposed to power being given to the Chairmen of quarter sessions to decide upon a sale as well as the application of money connected with that sale.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)replied that if hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House were very much alarmed as to the operation of the clause they certainly did not look so. If the Committee would refer to page 19 they would find these words, that—
  "For the purposes of this part of the Act 'the Court' shall mean the Civil Bill Court or the Landed Estates Court, according as one or the other of such Courts may be prescribed."
  It was of great importance to decide by what Court the case should be heard. If the amount in dispute were small it would be very hard to drag the parties into the Landed Estates Court, where the expenses would be heavy. His

  605
  right hon. and learned Friend would see on reference to another part of the Bill that the Privy Council, of which body he was himself a Member, was empowered to determine which Court should have jurisdiction. The Privy Council might draw up regulations to the effect that cases relating to small properties, say to the extent of £100, should be referred to the Civil Bill Court, and others to the Landed Estates Court. Indeed, they might even decide that no cases whatever should come within the jurisdiction of the Civil Bill Court.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, he thought it would be better for Parliament itself to settle this point instead of leaving it to the Privy Council in Ireland. He supposed that cases of small amount would go into the Civil Bill Court; but a whole estate might be alienated in small amounts. The Civil Bill Court was a most unsatisfactory tribunal to deal with such matters. This Court was to decide on the sufficiency of the purchase money, but really it possessed no machinery by which to do this.
  MR. GLADSTONEsubmitted that the discussion was premature, as it was not competent for the Committee to introduce the desired change into this clause.
  DR. BALLadmitted that was so, but remarked that as this was the first of a series of Amendments, he wished to have an explanation from the Government on the subject. It was important to know what tribunal was to be substituted for the Board of Works in Ireland.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 31 (Payment of purchase money).
  On Motion of Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, clause struck out.
  Clauses 32 to 36, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 37 (General powers of Court and Board in conduct of sale of land).
  DR. BALLproposed that the words "Civil Bill Court" should be omitted. The owner of a fee-simple estate wanted neither Civil Bill Court nor Landed Estates Court to enable him to sell his reversion expectant upon the lease to the tenant; the clause, therefore, applied specially to limited owners and to persons under disability to sell. It was an indispensable condition in any proceed-
  606
  ings of that character that the purchase money should be received by and remain within the mastery of the Court. But in the case, for instance, of purchase money governed by the trusts of a settlement, how was this purchase money to be held by the Chairman of a county, to whose credit was the money to be lodged, and how and when? Again, was the Judge of the Civil Bill Court to be called upon to exercise functions to which he was a stranger, to act as a conveyancer, to order searches, and to write upon the title? There were very few settled estates which were not encumbered, if not with mortgages, at least with provisions for younger children. See what difficulties, what intricate equities might arise as to the proper application of the purchase money. He earnestly pressed the Government not to give such extensive powers to the Civil Bill Courts. It was not fair to the Chairmen. He was not reconciled to the proposal because the Privy Council was to make the rules under which the Civil Bill Courts were to act. He hoped the Government would not insist on applying this jurisdiction to the Civil Bill Courts. He moved, in line 37, to leave out "the Civil Bill Courts or."
  MR. SHERLOCKsaid, he had no doubt the Civil Bill Courts would admirably discharge the duties legitimately imposed on them by the Act; but this clause, as it stood, would involve them in matters which they had no machinery to work out. The Civil Bill Courts had no records, and no place to preserve muniments or titles. These questions should be reserved for that Court which had a full machinery, where there was a power to give a Parliamentary title to purchasers, and where the expenses would not be increased.
  MR. W. H. GREGORYconsidered this a very serious matter. He had no doubt the Chairmen of quarter sessions would do their work well; but they had not the machinery for properly carrying out the duties which this clause would impose on them. He quite agreed with the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball). Very great alarm would be created if the Civil Bill Courts were allowed to interfere in matters of this kind. It would be one of the most dangerous and prejudicial acts as regarded the property of the country if the 32 Chairmen of these

  607
  Courts were allowed to settle the distribution of the purchase money of an estate. It would, not only prevent money from going into the country, but would lead to the withdrawal of much that was there already. He believed the great object in giving this jurisdiction to the Civil Bill Courts was to enable them to effect sales at a reasonable rate to tenants; but that object might be carried out as economically with the machinery of the Landed Estates Court.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he thought the Civil Bill Courts could effectually administer estates within rules laid down by the Privy Council.
  MR. AGARELLISsaid, he hoped the Government would give way on this point. The people of Ireland had far more confidence in the Landed Estates Court in this matter than in the Civil Bill Courts. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory) that proceedings in the Landed Estates Court might be made sufficiently cheap.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that seeing such singular unanimity on both sides of the House against this part of the clause, he thought it would be unwise on the part of the Government to resist. He would, therefore, accept the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 38 (Rules for carrying second part of Act into effect), amended, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

WOMEN'S DISABILITIES BILL— [BILL 31.]
(Mr. Jacob Bright, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Eastwick.)
WOMEN'S DISABILITIES BILL— [BILL 31.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Jacob Bright.)
  MR. BOUVERIE, in rising to move that "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee," said: Sir, I do not think it was a proper mode of treating a Bill
  608
  of this kind and of this importance by moving the Previous Question. I hold that if we disapprove of it, the more straightforward course is to meet it with a direct negative. I think that, in two or three respects, a false notion has been entertained by the House in regard to this Bill. In the minds of many hon. Members who have not paid much attention to the arguments bearing on the measure, nor to the circumstances in which it has been produced, nor to the views and aims of those who advocate it—especially out-of-doors—I believe much less importance has been attached to it than it really possesses. I look upon it as a Bill of the utmost importance; indeed, in its remoter operations and probable consequences if it forms part of the legislation of this country—and I hope it will not—I think it might be said to be even more important than the Irish Land Bill which occupies us so much this Session. It is fraught with serious consequences to all our social and domestic relations, and threatens danger to all that renders those relations happy and enjoyable. But even in reference to its immediate effect it is not unimportant. It proposes to make an enormous addition to the constituency of the country. The hon. Member (Mr. Jacob Bright) has told us that in some of our large towns—in Bath, for instance—more than one-fourth would be added by it to the present constituency, and in Manchester one-sixth. It has been stated in one publication connected with the movement, that the number of new voters which the Bill would enfranchise in Manchester is 10,000; but my hon. Friend now says it is 7,000. In Salford the number would be about 2,000; in the city of York it would add one-sixth to the existing electoral body, and in Newcastle one-seventh. That is a large increase to the present constituency of the country, and, therefore, the immediate effects of the measure are not without some importance to Gentlemen sitting in this House; because I apprehend if it becomes law it will be absolutely imperative on the Government to wind up the business of the Session, to dissolve Parliament, and proceed to a new election. That, I think, is a consequence which may not have occurred to the minds of many hon. Members who voted for the Bill. Another false notion on this sub-

  609
  ject which it is desirable to correct is, that this measure is one on behalf and for the advantage of women. Now I beg leave distinctly to take issue on that point, and to assert that it is not for their advantage or behoof, but that it will inflict a calamity and a curse upon them; and, what is more, the great bulk of the women of this country have the good sense to know it. For myself, I can say that it has not been my lot to fall in with one sensible woman who is in favour of it, and I have heard several hon. Members, who are themselves disposed to vote for it, say that their wives have entreated them not to support it on this occasion. Another thoroughly erroneous notion was started in the previous debate on this question. I refer to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that this is a matter on which the Government need have no opinion at all. Now, I think this is essentially one of those things on which they are bound to form an opinion, and to state it distinctly to this House. Of course, their opinion must be a well-considered and a conscientious one; and, whatever it may be, I should extend to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench the credit of being influenced by perfect justice and fairness in coming to their conclusion. But I must protest, as an independent Member of this House, against a Government which is supposed to guide our legislation, to direct the course of business in this House, and which influences for weal or woe the councils of the nation—I must protest, I say, against their forming and expressing no opinion on a subject of this nature. I trust, therefore, we shall not again hear broached any such erroneous notion. Well, what does my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester propose to do? He says—"You have given the municipal franchise to women by the operation of the Bill you enacted last year, and I now beg you will be good enough to go a step further, and give the electoral franchise to single women and to widows, but not to married women." Now, I think the precedent set by the Act of last year was a very bad one. The clause was slipped in very adroitly, by my hon. Friend on behalf of his fair clients, in the course of the passage through Committee of a Bill that had no direct connec-
  610
  tion with the subject, excepting that it related to municipal elections. There was no real debate upon his clause. No one particularly noticed it at the time it was proposed; it was adopted almost without any discussion; and, in common with others, I own I very much regret that it was passed. But the fact that the House went to that extent is no reason why we should go further. If we do so, it will be made an argument hereafter in favour of our going still further. My objection to the direct proposal of my hon. Friend that women should have a vote at Parliamentary elections is, that it would plunge them into all the trouble, turmoil, heat, and annoyance incidental to contested elections. The roughest work that any of us have, is that which we perform at those elections, and no one who has experienced it can say it is agreeable work. Supposing this Bill becomes law, how are candidates to bring themselves and their political opinions under the notice of the fairer portion of the constituency? There are three modes by which a candidate can seek the votes of his constituents. Firstly, there is that of the nomination day, but I need not say anything of that, because I suppose it is at an end. Another mode is by speechifying at public meetings; and the third is by canvassing carried on by either the candidate himself or his committee. Is it intended that the unmarried women of England, with that delicacy of nurture which distinguishes the greater number of them, shall enter into the rough struggle of public meetings and be shouldered and shuffled about at those gatherings? I have done a great deal of this work, and I am always glad to meet my constituents; but will any man who is interested in the comfort, the happiness, and the sense of propriety of our countrywomen say that he would like them to take part in those struggles, and listen to the questioning and noise that prevails on such occasions? Then, is the candidate to address a ladies' meeting; is he to explain his views at a meeting of the female part of the constituency specially called to hoar him? I apprehend that would be ridiculous. If so, is there to be a canvassing of all the unmarried women and widows? I think, Sir, we ought not to subject women to anything of the kind. It would be odious to the women of England, and we ought not

  611
  to expose them to it. My hon. Friend will say—"Give them the vote, and let them not vote if they do not like to do so." But it would be the duty of the proper officer to put them on the register; and in many parts of the country the female portion of the constituency would hold the balance of the contest in their hands. Do you suppose that under such circumstances they would not be annoyed, worried, and persecuted in such a way as to make their lives intolerable to them during a contested election? But then my hon. Friend says—"They have property, and that property ought to be represented." If that came from the opposite side of the House I should have thought it only consistent with some of the views held on that side; but my hon. Friend, and those who act with him, have always upheld the personal right of voting, and therefore from them that argument cannot be allowed for a moment. After all, Sir, property is a mere test of fitness; the voter should be independent, and if from any circumstances he is not so, he is unfit to enter into theelectoral struggle. I say women are unfit to engage in that struggle, and that, consequently, the argument based on the rights of property falls to the ground in this case. But, further, the moment the Bill giving married women a separate right to their property passes the House, married women will possess property over which their husbands will have no control. Therefore, if the Bill now under discussion should pass, there will hereafter be an unanswerable argument for conferring the franchise on married women. The consequence of this will be a dual vote and a dual government in every house. I must protest against such a system of domestic anarchy. Either the wife will vote with the husband, in which case he will virtually take two votes to the poll, or she will vote in a contrary way, and then there will be domestic discord. I think the House ought not to sanction either alternative. These are objections to the simple proposal of my hon. Friend as it appears on the face of this Bill; but the principle goes much deeper, and is one to which I think there is still stronger objection. If the Bill should become law, how will it be possible for any very long time to refuse women the right to enter the House? The real meaning of this
  612
  Bill is that we are to unsex women altogether. They are the weaker portion of the human creation. Nature has ordained that they should be so. Are we to take them down from their pedestal, and make them enter into rough competition with men? Are they to come into this House and to sit on these Benches? If so, why should they not sit on the Treasury Bench? And even this is not all. It is avowed that we are to become a nation of Amazons; that we are to have women barristers, attorneys, doctors, and for aught I know, Bishops. I have here a clever little book, written with great eloquence, power, earnestness, and honesty of purpose. It is entitled Woman's Rights; and is written by a lady named Caroline H. Dall. It was published in America, but I believe the writer is either a Canadian or an Englishwoman. In it I find these passages—
  "When society strikes out from the statute book all distinctions of sex, and admits, she is a person capable of thinking and acting for herself, she will lay the foundation of a new civilization. (P. 27.) The result of a great deal of reading of a great many law books is only this—that we are I more firmly convinced than ever that the most necessary reform is a simple erasure from the statute book of whatever recognizes distinctions of sex. (P. 64.) In the laws which regard single women, we object, then—1. To the withholding of the elective franchise. 2. To the law's preference of males and the issue of males in the division of estates. 3. We object to the estimate of women which the law sustains, which shuts her out from all public employment, for many branches of which she is better fitted than man. (P. 66.) After women have gone on some 20 years electing Members of Parliament nobody will be surprised to find some women sitting in that body. But, objects somebody—If that ever happens we shall have women on juries, women pleading at the Bar, women as attorneys, and so on.'"
  She then adds—"And this is exactly what we want." I venture to think that the objects thus avowed are such as should not receive the sanction of this House, because if they were realized they would upset all the domestic relations of life. My hon. Friend and the other advocates of this Bill say their object is to raise women. After all the arguments I have heard on the subject and the best reflection I have been able to give it, my opinion is that the result of the Bill would be to degrade women. The House of Commons has recognized the fact that women are not as well fitted as men for the rough labours of life by

  613
  prohibiting them from engaging in some of the coarser handiworks which men are obliged to perform. We do not allow women to go down into the "sunless mine," and yet the demand is now made that all women should be treated exactly like men. An old authority once said that an Act of Parliament could do everything but make men into women and women into men, but that is exactly what we are asked to do by this Bill. Were the hon. Members who support this measure to succeed in their attempt they would do an irremediable injury to our social and domestic relations. I have said that it is for men to do the rougher work of life, and I maintain that election work as well as Parliamentary work, is a very rough part of the work of life indeed, and that women are not fitted for either the one or the other. Women should be satisfied with the great power they now possess indirectly, which is far greater than anything they can hope to attain directly. By the exercise of their gentler influence they obtain more political power than they would ever obtain were they to hustle with men in the polling-booths. I well recollect a gentleman, formerly an hon. Member of this House, who went down to a pleasant borough in the West of England, where he was utterly unknown, and which he was anxious to represent in Parliament. Immediately on his arrival he announced that he was unmarried, that he possessed a good fortune, and that he proposed, if elected, to marry a lady of the borough. The consequence was he was returned triumphantly. Well, the hon. Member sat upon these Benches for some years; but unfortunately he did not keep his promise, and the result was that when he again went down to his borough on the occasion of the next General Election they would not even look at him; he had not the slightest chance, and he never sat again in this House. That is a proof of the great indirect influence which the ladies exert in political affairs, and that influence I, for one, am most anxious to preserve to them. Without further detaining the House, I must entreat hon. Members to pause before they pass this Bill, and not at the bidding of the hon. Member, to rush in where angels would fear to tread. I beg to move that this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee.
  LORD ELCHO, in rising to second the Motion, said, that he had not taken part in the Division the other day in consequence of his having been engaged in private matters. It had never entered into his head that the vote of one hon. Member could signify much on such a matter, neither had he conceived it possible that the Motion for the second reading would have been carried. He should be the last person in the world to seek to deprive a lady, whether married, widow, or single, of her just rights; but he did not think that a vote for Members of Parliament or a seat in that House was one of her just rights. The worst service, in his opinion, that they could do to the women of this country was to give them votes. The result of such a concession, which was demanded by a few ladies only—strong-minded ladies—would be to lower the position of women in this country to a great extent. He trusted the House would not pass the measure.
  Amendment proposed, 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 six months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Bouverie,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsupported the Motion for going into Committee. He thought when he saw the Notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) upon the Paper, that at least they should have heard some new argument against the principle of the Bill on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, only brought forward the old stock arguments against it that had been fully dwelt upon the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Spencer Walpole). He looked upon this measure as involving a very important question, and he entirety demurred to the right hon. Gentleman laying down the law as to what the women of England ought and what they ought not to do. In his opinion the women of England were quite as capable of judging of what they are fitted for as the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had

  615
  argued as though this Bill, if passed, would compel all women to go to the poll, while, at the same time, he carefully avoided touching upon the justice of the question, because he was perfectly aware that not a shadow of argument could be brought forward against the Bill upon that point. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) in arguing the question, had said that as long as representation was based upon property that House had no right to grant the franchise to one class of persons and to refuse it to another. Now, would any hon. Member be kind enough, to answer that argument? In his opinion, women were quite as competent as men to pass judgment upon questions of the day, and, indeed, on social questions they were even better qualified to decide than men, because their hearts would stand them in better stead than the hard-headed reasoning of the latter. As to the horrors attending canvassing that had been so graphically painted by the right hon. Gentleman, he did not know what the ladies of Kilmarnock thought of the right hon. Gentleman; but he should not have supposed that the right hon. Gentleman would greatly terrify them were he to call upon them and ask them for their votes. It was not at all necessary in these days of newspaper reports that ladies, or in fact that any electors, should attend public meetings in order to know which way they were to vote, and he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that under the measure recently introduced by the noble Lord the Postmaster General, the most disagreeable part of election business would be avoided, and thus the most timid ladies—nay, even the most timid men—need not be deterred from recording their votes. It was evident that the women of this country were anxious to exercise greater political power than they had at the present moment. He had himself presented a Petition from several ladies, which stated that they desired to exercise that power for the good of the country. With regard to the medical profession, he thought that women were peculiarly well qualified for it, and that it would be advantageous to the State if there were many female medical practitioners. He directed the attention of the House to the observations of a Judge in one of the American States, who admitted that,
  616
  though he had been opposed to females acting as jurors, yet in the case which he had been trying they had conducted themselves in an admirable manner. His right hon. Friend feared that the influence of women in elections would very materially strengthen the Conservative Benches of that House—["No!"]—but he thought such an apprehension a bad compliment to the ladies of England. ["No, no!"] They would soon find out that the politics of the party opposite did not conduce to the benefit of the country. He had heard no arguments on the other side which bore with any weight upon the question, and therefore he should support the Motion for going into Committee upon the Bill.
  LORD GARLIESsaid, he did not wish to trespass on the time of the House; but he believed hon. Members would indulge him for a few moments when they knew the position in which he was placed. A great portion of his constituents had gone mad in respect to the rights of women, and it was because he did not join in the furor that he wished to say a few words in respect to the question before the House. He represented a constituency of some 16 parishes, half of which had sent to him Petitions in favour of the present Bill; but it was not in his power to vote for it. One argument in favour of the measure was that it favoured the direct representation of property, which he, as a Conservative, naturally approved; and another consideration, which, from self-interest, might induce him to support the measure, was that the women were supposed to take an unusual amount of interest in any man ranking among the class of bachelors. It had, by recent legislation, been determined that the suffrage was a privilege; and, on that ground, he argued that it should not be given to the female sex, for it would be no privilege to them; and he believed that the majority of the women for whose supposed benefit the Bill was brought forward, would recoil from exercising what they believed to be a masculine privilege.
  MR. EASTWICK, considering the importance of the subject, and the lateness of the hour, moved the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Eastwick.)
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he believed the House was perfectly prepared to deal with the question, after the very able speech of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). "When; the hon. Baronet the Member for Fife-shire (Sir Robert Anstruther) said that the right hon. Gentleman had used no arguments, he must have meant that the arguments used did not reach his understanding, for a more lucid exposition of sound doctrine in opposition to the Bill could not have been made. It was argued that, because women were admitted to vote at municipal elections, they ought to be allowed to vote at Parliamentary elections. He had observed some disposition to confound the functions of the House, the most powerful element of the Imperial Parliament, with those of municipalities; but he trusted that the distinction between the functions of the House and those of mere municipalities would always be observed. ["You, Sir," said the hon. Member, addressing the Speaker, "are not a Mayor, sitting in that chair."] The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to say, that he hoped that with respect to the qualifications and rights of women, the House would abide by the opinion of the greatest Sovereign, who ever in the person of a lady occupied the Throne of this country, that woman had a right to vote in matters connected with the Poor Law, for that was a system locally administered, so completely so, as originated in the days of Queen Elizabeth, as to render the parochial system an extension of the system of "the family." It was quite right that women should have a voice in the care of their poorer neighbours. So, likewise, by voting for the parochial churchwardens Queen Elizabeth very properly decided that women should have a voice in the internal arrangements of their parish churches; but it was not proper to presume that the education of women generally fitted them to have a voice in the Imperial questions which were to be decided in Parliament, or to throw women into the contest and rough passages of a Parliamentary election. The hon. Member for Manchester quoted the other day a passage from a speech of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, but laid no stress on the qualification accompanying that passage. The right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire
  618
  said that if there were to be universal suffrage then women should vote. That point, however, had not yet been reached by the extension which Parliament had given to the suffrage, and he (Mr. Nowdegate) shared the prevailing opinion of the House in thinking the extension of the suffrage under the last Reform Bill quite wide enough. It was a great mistake to conceive, that the proposal before the House could have a Conservative tendency. Whenever a proposal like the one before the House had been advocated it was advocated by those who entertained the most ultra democratic views. That was the case in the United States. This proposal was an exaggeration, and a precedent which he believed would be very dangerous, and, therefore, being remarkable for his obstinacy and for his determination that his fellow-countrywomen should suffer no wrong, he could not lend himself to the support of doctrines which even in the United States were thought to be wild and exaggerated.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I hope the hon. Member who has moved the Adjournment of the debate does not intend to press that Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GLADSTONE: That being so, I may say a few words on this subject, and I rise chiefly for the purpose of answering the appeal which was made to; the Government by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), who made a complaint that the Government had not taken any part in the discussion on the second reading of the Bill. I must say that the importance of a measure is not the only criterion of the question whether it is the duty of a Government as such upon all occasions to take part in the debate. Whenever the Government in its official capacity takes part in a debate, it is supposed and understood to invade the liberties of the independent Members of this House, and that is a consideration which often makes it desirable to leave even questions of very considerable importance outside the direct action of the Government, which direct action again has a tendency to draw them within the sphere of political party—a result not always to be desired. That was in a marked degree the view taken by the late Government at a time when we had among us Mr. Stuart Mill, the late Member for

  619
  Westminster, whose absence from this House we all deplore. ["No, no!"] I beg pardon for my rashness in speaking on behalf of dissentient Members who have just signified their disagreement; but I did believe that that was the unanimous sentiment of the House, and I am very sorry if the time has come when either political or other prejudice can so blind us that we cannot recognize and appreciate the merits of one who was an ornament to this House. On the occasion to which I refer my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), who was then the Leader of this House, quitted it and gave no vote upon the subject, he having been in the House when the subject was brought on, and the state of the opposite Bench at this moment, so far, at least, as the late Cabinet is concerned, appears to me an emphatic testimony that they agree with the doctrine I am pronouncing. A very important element in the consideration is, whether there is a practical necessity for the interference of the Government, or whether the Government are convinced that the matter is one on which the House is perfectly competent to act for itself. That undoubtedly is a matter that may very naturally influence their conduct; and I may say for most of my Colleagues as well as for myself, that we were both surprised and disappointed at the result of the debate on Wednesday last. We do not attempt to limit the freedom of anyone either in the official body or elsewhere; but, undoubtedly, there is a prevailing opinion, which I, for one, strongly entertain in common with all those who are sitting near me, that it would be a very great mistake to proceed with this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Sir Robert Anstruther) has made a most gallant and chivalric defence of the opinions which he entertains. But I cannot say that his argument weighed with me. He said that he regarded the turbulent proceedings at elections as likely to be abolished by the Bill which has been introduced by my noble Friend the Postmaster General; but in answer to that I may say that we had better wait until that Bill has become law, and those happy results have been achieved, before we venture to assume as a fact such a transformation in the elections of this country. My hon. Friend says that the property held by women requires to be
  620
  represented, yet if that be so that argument does not apply to the principle on which this Bill is founded, because the Bill excludes all married women from the benefit—or the evil as it may be—to be derived from the franchise. But even if women are as competent as men to exercise the franchise—if it is a function equally suitable for them, why do you not recognize in married women that which you recognize in joint proprietorship, in joint ownership, in joint trade, in joint tenancy, and allow both a man and his wife to vote in respect of property which is sufficiently valuable to qualify them? Again, if it be true that the property of women ought to be represented, the ingenuity of the legislators of other countries has discovered a mode of attaining that end without its being open to the objection which attaches to this measure. In Italy widows and single women who are possessed of a property qualification are authorized to exercise the franchise, but only through the medium of a relative whom they appoint for the purpose. These, however, are particular points in the question; and the real matter at issue is much broader, for the question really is whether there is a necessity, nay, even, whether there is a desire or a demand for this measure. I must say I cannot recognize either the one or the other which would justify such an unsettling not to say uprooting, of the old landmarks of society, which are far deeper than any of those political distinctions which separate Gentlemen now on these Benches from those on the other. I am not aware of any such case, while I think that the practical matters that we have in hand are amply sufficient for our energies and our best attention. At nearly 2 o'clock in the morning I will not attempt to go into the general arguments, but I have listened to the debate with interest, and I am perfectly content to give my adhesion not only to the proposal, but also to the declaration and the reasoning of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, and I shall therefore cheerfully follow him into the Lobby.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTsaid: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) seems to think that no one in his district at all events cares about this question, and that the women certainly do not want to have the fran-

  621
  chise. I do not know how it happens—I know nobody in Kilmarnock myself—but since I came into this House to-night I have received no less than four telegrams from Kilmarnock, telling me that Petitions are being forwarded, and that meetings are being held in favour of this Bill. Now, I think that I have a right to remind the House that we are accustomed to deal with Petitions as showing the general feeling of the country upon any question. Since we met this Session, 130,000 signatures have been attached to Petitions in favour of this Bill, and sent to this House. When the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary spoke upon this question on the second reading of the Bill, he made it a great point that if we give women the suffrage they will next want to come into this House. I doubt whether that is a serious argument. Last Session we gave women a right to vote in municipal elections; but we did not also give them a right to sit in our town councils. If this Bill were passed, no one believes for a single moment that women would expect to have seats in this House, and that being so, and it being granted that women are not likely to come into the House, that in itself is a very strong reason why they should have some influence in electing Members of Parliament outside the House. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock says that women would be unsexed by the passing of this Bill, but that cannot be seriously believed by any one. If this Bill were passed women could come up to the polling-booth, if they chose, once in three, four, or five years, and that is the only difference that would be made, and yet we are told that in that way we should be unsexing women. Much has been said as to the undesirableness of introducing women into the turbulent scenes of contested elections, but that objection should be entirely abandoned, because by the legislation of last year we have already brought women into political contests by giving them the municipal franchise, and an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, who is opposed to me on this question, admitted that municipal contests are quite as political as Parliamentary contests. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock gave us some information on the subject from a book written by a lady. But I think that if he had tried to discredit the mat-
  622
  ter by reading extracts from a book, he should at least have given us an English and not an American book. We look at this subject from very different points of view on different sides of the Atlantic. There is no person in this House who has a higher sense of justice than the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, and I am sure there is no one who is prepared to make greater sacrifices for impartial legislation. I should like to call his attention to one argument. There are two kinds of votes in this country—the local vote and the Imperial vote. Women now have the local vote universally, but it is f comparatively small importance to them, for as no distinction is made between men and women in the action of the local bodies, men in protecting themselves protect women also. Parliament, however, legislates for men and women separately; it constantly imposes inequalities upon women in regard to property, social matters, and many most important questions. It legislates in one direction for men, and in another for women. Thus, while the local vote is of comparatively small importance to women, the Imperial vote is of great importance to them. My opponents say that one-seventh portion of the occupiers and owners of property in the country are to be for ever excluded from the political franchise. Why are they to be excluded? No reason has been given for their exclusion, beyond the fact that they are women. Representation always means protection; protection is more necessary for the weak than for the strong; and I appeal to a Parliament elected by household suffrage to make household suffrage a reality.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 220: Majority 126.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for six months.

  VACCINATION ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CANDLISH, Bill to amend the Vaccination Act, 1867, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CANDLISH and Mr. Serjeant SIMON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 126.]
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.