Lords Sitting of 12 June 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Masters and Operatives.
2a Highland Roads and Bridges.
3a Petitions of Right; Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction; Malicious Injuries to Property Act Amendment.

DILAPIDATION OF GLEBE HOUSES.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNON, seeing the Archbishop of Canterbury in his place, was anxious to inquire of that most rev. Prelate, Whether he could afford any information as to the Dilapidation of Glebe Houses Bill, and whether there was any intention of proceeding with it in the present Session?
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that the subject had been brought under the consideration of Convocation, but he was afraid that at this period of the Session there was little hope of any legislation taking place upon the subject.

LIGHT WEIGHT RACING BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DERBY presented a petition from the Stewards of the Jockey Club on behalf of a General Meeting of the Club against the Bill, and said that he would make no observations on the subject till after his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) had given his reasons for the second reading of the measure.
  LORD REDESDALE, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said he would in the first place allude to the petition which had just been presented against it by the noble Earl. He believed that in the first draught of the petition laid before the Jockey Club, a great many reasons were urged against the Bill; but it was thought more prudent by those present at the meeting that all reasons should be omitted; and accordingly the petition as now presented to their Lordships only expressed the opinion of the Club that all regulations respecting racing were better entrusted to their authority, and that the passing of the Bill would have a prejudicial effect—though they did not inform the House in what way the Bill would have a prejudicial effect, He had given
  296
  notice on Friday last that, in consequence of representations made to him by trainers, he meant to reduce the minimum weight in his Bill from 7 stone to 6 stone. What then could be the objection of the Jockey Club to the measure? It could not be to its principle, which was that there should be a minimum weight prescribed for handicaps—for one of the stewards had announced that it was his intention to propose a higher minimum than had been hitherto adopted in such races. The only objection of the Jockey Club, therefore must be, that the Bill interfered with their authority in these matters. This raised the question whether they ought to repose confidence in the Jockey Club in respect to this point. Had that body acted so as to induce the public to trust to them for this reform? That the minimum should be raised would be admitted, he thought, even by those who might see it their duty to speak against the Bill. Then, how long was the present system to be allowed to go on without any steps being taken by the Jockey Club in that direction? Shortly after he had brought in the present Bill, one of those gentlemen who had signed the petition declared, through the public journals, that, he meant to propose that the weight should be raised to 5 stone. After some discussion had taken place in the newspapers, it was announced that that gentleman and another distinguished member of the Club intended to propose a minimum of 5 stone 10 pounds. Ever since he had raised the question he had declared that if the Jockey Club would take it up seriously, he would not go on with the Bill. But nothing had been done by them. Several meetings of the Jockey Club had taken place since; yet, notwithstanding the declaration of the steward to whom he had referred, not only had nothing been done, but all their proceedings had been in opposition to the present Bill. Their Lordships would, therefore, see that under these circumstances he could not do otherwise than proceed with the Bill. He desired at the same time to inform the House that the Jockey Club was not unanimous in their opposition to the measure. He had had communications from members of the Jockey Club, who stated that they were in favour of his Bill and ready to support it. Therefore the petition before the House could only be considered as representing the opinion of a portion of that body. The principle of the Bill, as he had stated, was to raise the

  297
  weights above the standard to which modern practice had reduced them, and particularly to strike a blow at a great deal of the gambling that took place in racing transactions, through means of what were called light-weight handicaps, which Admiral Rous, the steward before mentioned, had openly acknowledged to be injurious to the best interests of the turf, and to encourage trickery of all sorts. These matters had naturally attracted the attention of those who liked the sport, and who were anxious to promote the improvement of our breed of horses. As a specimen of the present system, he would refer to the race that was lately run for the Chester Cup. In that race 29 horses started, and only six of them carried more than 7 stone. The highest weight in the race was 9 stone, carried by a six-year-old horse; the next was 7st. 8lbs., and the other weights ranged down to as low a figure as 4st. 10lbs. An aged horse started with 6st. only, and the winner, a three-year old, had been handicapped at 4st. 71bs., but carried 5st. 3lbs., being 10lbs. extra for races won after the handicap had been made. Those of their Lordships who knew anything about horses must feel that this system of weights was perfectly ridiculous in so far as it furnished any fair test of what horses could do. In calling their Lordships' attention to the support the Bill had received, he asked them to bear in mind that he had no connection with the turf whatever, and that the support he had received was wholly unsolicited by him, and that on the contrary he had declined to avail himself of some proposals he had received for securing support from certain quarters. A gentleman who owned racehorses, and with whom personally he was not acquainted, had written to him to say that he was in favour of the Bill, and offered to get up petitions from trainers and others for it, but knowing the position in which these trainers stood to their employers, he did not think it desirable to ask from that body of men any opinion on that subject. That expression of opinion, however, which he had thus declined to solicit, he had received spontaneously from the trainers themselves. He had received a letter from one of the Newmarket trainers, embodying the sentiments of many of his class, in which it is said,—
  "I can assure your Lordship that the general opinion is that if the Bill passes with a limitation to six stone your Lordship will have conferred a great boon and benefit upon the racing world generally."
  THE EARL OF DERBY: By whom is that signed?
  LORD REDESDALE: By Mr. Bradley and twenty-four other trainers. That memorial was forwarded to him, and he, therefore, agreed to reduce the minimum from seven to six stone. The memorialists also said:—
  "We are of firm opinion the present state of weights is productive of serious mischief, in that accidents have several times occurred through boys of such tender age and light weights having little or no command of horses. Bartholomew's accident at Goodwood for instance. We suggest six stone as an Amendment, feeling sure, from the general opinions expressed, that it would give great satisfaction and be a great boon to the turf."
  He would ask their Lordships to consider how strong must be the views of those persons who thus placed confidence in him, who was unknown to them, and quite unconnected with racing affairs. Many other trainers had also expressed strong opinions in favour of the Bill as it now stood, and they were more interested in the matter than any other persons, for their livelihoods depended upon a proper system being adopted, and their profits on the number of horses kept in training. Adverting to the dangers attending the light-weight system, he would call their Lordships' attention to what must be the danger of placing a child, weighing little more than four stone, including saddle and bridle, upon a young and fiery horse. Surely their Lordships would acknowledge that that was a danger to which they ought not to be exposed, and that legislative interference was as much called for in their case as in that of factory children. Again, what must be the nature of the process necessary to bring down even ordinary boys to the required weight, and what effect did such training have upon their constitutions? Their Lordships must not imagine that these children enjoyed all the profits received for their riding. They were mostly apprenticed to trainers, and were permitted by their masters to ride, and who received the wages for their efforts, and although the boys of course received some presents for riding satisfactorily, whether for winning or for losing, the fee for riding went into their masters' pockets. There was another reason, he believed, why the trainers as a body were desirous that the minimum should be raised to six stone, and that the system of putting up small boys to ride horses should be abandoned, and that was the moral effect it had upon the boys themselves, and

  299
  the pernicious habits they acquired, which frequently clung to them through life. He had received a letter from a person who had been formerly a jockey, and is now a trainer, in which he said:—
  "How comes it that complaints are so often made to the stewards of meetings, and boys fined. Those who put them up pay the fine, and make them do wrong next time to serve a purpose. Then they get suspended, and all this comes from evil-disposed persons who give them orders to ride in such a manner, knowing they will be punished. But what do they care if the child has served their purpose? Nothing of the kind occurred before light handicaps were the fashion, and during the twenty-eight years I was a jockey I was never called before the stewards for misconduct, nor did such things occur once in twelve months with any jockeys at that time. This is the greatest proof we want reform. These boys do what our laws say shall not be done, but how can you complain against a child that cannot help himself? It is the man who puts him up who is to blame. Allow me on behalf of nine out of ten of my brother trainers and jockeys to thank your Lordship for the good you have already done with your Bill, which we hope will be made law."
  Let their Lordships consider what must be the feelings of an honest trainer in putting up a boy who was physically unable to do him justice and to bring out the qualities of the horse, upon whose training he had bestowed his time and attention. He had given one reason for his Bill in the present misuse of boys; another reason was that the present lightweight system was prejudicial to the breed of strong and useful horses. There was certainly some difference of opinion as to whether there had been any deterioration in the breed of thorough-bred horses in the country or not; but he was satisfied that there had been a material deterioration, for, although undoubtedly some superior animals were produced, yet they were by no means in proportion to the number of horses bred, nor were they of so strong and useful a character as those which were formerly bred in this country. He had put the question to a noble Lord not now in his place—a racing man, and in favour of light weights—whether he believed that there were now as many horses capable of carrying good weights over long courses as there were thirty years ago; and he at once said "No," although the number of horses in training had greatly multiplied. Those who, like himself, were hunting men knew how difficult it was to procure strong well-bred hunters, especially those approaching to thorough-bred, or to find thorough-bred stallions in country districts likely to get such horses, and there were complaints
  300
  from all quarters of the injurious effects produced by the present system of breeding more with a view to speed than stoutness. There were several precedents for legislative interference in regard to the breed of horses, racing arrangements, and for the prevention of gambling. All racing must be more or less attended with gambling; but it was nevertheless permitted and encouraged, upon the ground that it tended to promote excellence in our breed of horses, but when a system prevailed which tended to promote gambling, and at the same time to discourage the breeding of stout horses, a ground for legislative interference was established. Some of the Acts for encouraging the breed of horses probably arose out of the great destruction of these animals in the wars of the Roses, the first being in the time of Henry VII. In the reign of Henry VIII. Acts were passed in relation to this subject, and also in that of Edward VI. and Elizabeth. As a precedent for legislation on racing matters, he would specially call attention to the 13th Geo. II., cap. 19, which was the foundation of the present Bill, by which the weights were limited to 10 stone for five, 11 for six, and 12 stone for seven-year old horses. That Act was passed in 1740, at a time when the turf was greatly patronized in this country and when its interests were carefully watched. That may be considered the period when our thorough-bred stock was being perfected, being half-way between the birth of Flying Childers in 1715 and that of Eclipse in 1764; and he would ask any advocate of the present system whether he believes that our breed would have attained its present excellence, if, instead of the weights prescribed in that Act of Geo. II., the light weights of to-day had then ruled on our race-courses? It was said that they ought to avoid indiscriminate legislation; and he too was entirely against such legislation—but Parliament ought to see whether this was not a matter requiring attention, and one in which their interference would not be productive of much benefit. A noble Earl had written to him through a public paper, saying—"Suppose a Bill were passed compelling you to place your home farm in the hands of trustees, with Mr. Mechi as manager thereof, would not that be just as reasonable as the Bill you have introduced?" Now, he was glad that the noble Earl in advancing this argument had reasoned by analogy, for that enabled him to point out

  301
  the noble Earl's mistake. When you reasoned by analogy it was necessary that the things compared should be analogous. He presumed that the noble Earl considered both cases analogous because both were an interference with private concerns; but he forgot that the character of the interference must be similar, or else the cases were not analogous. If he were to bring in a Bill declaring that the noble Lord's stud should be placed in the hands of trustees, who should name the trainer, that would be an analogous interference to the one the noble proposed for his home farm; but to provide that when his horse was entered for a public stake he should run under certain conditions was only the same kind of legislative interference with private concerns as that which prescribed, when he brought his corn to market, that it should be sold under particular regulations with regard to weights. The noble Lord appeared to be unable to discriminate justly between what is private in racing and what is public. When a man entered a horse for a public stake he was not the only person concerned. There were others who entered their horses, some with the; intention of running them honestly, and others, he was sorry to say, who entered them with a dishonest object. Again, there were persons who ventured their money on the performances of those horses. If, there fore, any measures could be adopted by the Legislature to check dishonest practices on the part of owners or others in a public race, he contended that it be-came a matter of public concern and a jus-tillable subject for public interference. There were a great many private matters in which the Legislature thought it right to interfere. For example, it interfered in the most sacred of all private relations, marriage, declaring that the ceremony should only take place in certain hours of the day; and he certainly thought that to regulate the weight which should be put upon a horse in a public race was nothing like so violent an interference with private concerns as to prescribe the hours for a man's marriage. In point of principle, therefore, if you could show that the Bill was likely to be of public advantage there could be no ground of objection to it on the ground of its being indiscriminate legislative interference. The question was one which the Jockey Club ought to take up, but if they did not do so it was one which called for legislation. The Jockey Club was moreover not omnipotent, and any steps it might take
  302
  to check the practices of which he complained might not be universally accepted. There were thus good grounds for proceeding by Act of Parliament, instead of leaving the matter in the hands of the Club. Some five months had now elapsed since the introduction of the Bill; and yet, though the attention of the Jockey Club had been called to the Bill, and though, knowing the objection entertained to it by some leading members of that body he had offered to withdraw it if they would promise reform, they had held meeting after meeting without taking any steps in the matter. Among the large number of trainers in favour of the Bill, Mr. John Scott, who might he regarded as the head of the profession, strongly advocated the introduction of a six-stone regulation, and declared that with such a provision the measure would confer great benefit. On these opinions he greatly relied, and with such testimony in its favour he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE DUKE OF BEAUFORTrose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. Notice had on two occasions been given by advertisement that this question would be brought before the Jockey Club. On the first occasion they were unanimous, and on the second there was but one dissentient to the opinion that this was no fit subject for legislative interference. The noble Lord had urged the second reading of the measure on three grounds—first, that it would tend to improve the breed of horses; secondly, that it would prevent rascality; and, thirdly, that it would dispense with the employment of young boys in riding. On the first point he differed entirely from the noble Lord. He thought that carrying heavy weights would be much more likely to deteriorate the quality of horses than carrying light weights—carrying heavy weights would break down half the horses before they arrived at maturity. He assured the noble Lord that he should be most happy to assist in putting down rascality on the turf; but he could not see, and a great many others could not see, how you were in any way to attain that end by introducing a different scale of weights. It seemed to him that there would be as much rascality if the riding weight was 6 stone as if it were 9 or 10. With regard to the misuse of boys, he did not believe that they were so liable to accident as the noble Lord had represented. He was sure

  303
  that many of the trainers who had signed the memorial had done so under a misapprehension. He had a conversation the other day with Mr. John Scott, who told him that he was in favour of a Bill that the minimum weight should be 6 stone, because his horses would then be better ridden. He then said to Mr. Scott, "Suppose you had a valuable horse in a race, with 11 stone on his back, what would you do?" to which the reply was, "Scratch him at once." Mr. Scott was not the only trainer who entertained this opinion; he had spoken to many others who expressed the same views. There was no doubt that attempts were made to orrupt the boys engaged as riders, but he thought that all such cases could be better dealt with by the Jockey Club than in any other way. No accident, he believed, had ever happened at a race to a boy under 6 stone. That was a remarkable statement, but he understood that there was no doubt of its correctness. He could assure their Lordships that it was the almost unanimous opinion of the Jockey Club that the Bill of the noble Lord would do a great deal of harm, and would do little or no good of any kind.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Three Months").
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid, he did not think there was any ground for bringing against our present racing system those severe charges which the noble Lord the author of the Bill had advanced. He (the Earl of Winchilsea) felt persuaded that the Bill would hold out a premium for bad horses, because under its operation such a crushing weight would be imposed by handicappers upon good horses that no owner would run them. The noble Lord was merely theorizing upon a question, of the practical working of which he knew nothing. There was nothing to justify the imputation of the noble Lord that our breed of horses was degenerating under our existing system of racing, and in reply to such an allegation it was only necessary to point out the eagerness of foreigners in competing for the successful runners on the English turf. England, indeed, had not only given race-horses to the world, but also laws and regulations for racing; and he did not think that the present Bill, which would be the severest blow the turf had received since the time of Charles the Second, came with a very good grace from their Lordships. It was impossible to deny that racing in this
  304
  country was made the subject of extravagant gambling, but the extent of that evil was, he thought, frequently exaggerated; and he should also express his belief that the freedom from émeutes and revolutions which England enjoyed in the most critical periods was, in some degree, to be attributed to the fact that racing afforded to persons of restless temperament a much more innocent excitement.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDErose to tender his thanks to the noble Lord who had introduced this Bill, and to express his sincere hope that their Lordships would pass it into law. He felt even more strongly than the noble Lord apparently did the call of humanity upon this subject, if humanity was to be deemed a motive for legislation. He had always viewed with considerable dislike any restriction upon what might be called the rights of labour, but many such restrictions had effected a great amount of good, and he had no hesitation in saying, from what he had himself observed at races, that the present Bill was as much required as any Factory Act ever passed by Parliament. It was terrible to see the children who were put upon horses and exposed to the most fearful accidents for nothing in the world but what might be called the supposed pleasure of others. It was said if crushing weights were put on horses no man would run first-class animals—but such magnificent horses as West Australian and the Flying Dutchman were never put into handicaps. He was not aware, for example, that any horse had ever established its reputation by winning the Chester Cup. These prizes fell to the owners of horses that carried mere "feather weights," and which were in many cases kept back merely for the purpose of succeeding in such contests. The noble Duke opposite had talked of the cruelty of running a young horse upon hard ground with 11 stone upon its back. Why should 11 stone be put upon its back because they were not to be allowed to put less than 6? If the merits of horses were fairly put before the handicappers, there never would be animals started with a difference of 5 stone between them. Such a difference would be found only where a deceit had been practised. The noble Lord who had introduced the Bill did not intend that horses should run with 11 stone upon them, nor would such be the effect of his measure. His own impression was that the root of the evil lay in horses being

  305
  brought out too young. What good could be attained by running horses when it was impossible to have a fair trial of their bone and muscle? The late Lord Jersey, who had often carried off the "blue riband" of the turf, never ran a horse until he brought him out for the Derby, and if the only effect of the present Bill should be to put a check upon running horses of two years old it would prove a good and useful measure. With all deference to the noble Duke, it was not uncommon for the poor children who were at present put on horses to meet with serious accidents. Upon one occasion, at Northampton, he saw a boy killed by the mere stumbling of a horse; though he was not thrown, the mere concussion of the brain was fatal, and he believed a similar accident happened a few years back in the south of England. It stood to reason, indeed, that if children were put upon horses accidents would occur. He had always approved of plates being given by the State for the enouragement of the breed of horses, and therefore it was from no dislike to the turf that he supported the present Bill, which he trusted would receive the assent of their Lordships and of the other House of Parliament.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I do not think the question now before your Lordships can be called a party question; and in rising to make a few observations upon it I wish to be understood as expressing my individual opinion only. I have listened very carefully to the speeches which have been delivered in the course of the discussion, and I must say they have been amusingly consistent with the nature of the subject and with the character of the different speakers. The noble Lord who moved the second reading of the Bill took a steady heavy-weight gallop over the old Beacon course. The noble Duke who followed, preferred a short half-mile run, while the noble Earl who spoke on the same side was as light and as frolicsome as a fresh two-year old. I do not mean myself to enter into any elaborate discussion of the general merits of the Bill—it deals with details which I do not think it necessary your Lordships should discuss—more particularly since it appears from the speech of the noble Earl that the Jockey Club have the intention of taking the question into consideration. I am not going to discuss at length the question raised by the noble Marquess, whether it is desirable in handicaps that the handicappers
  306
  should go down as far as four stone, or such low weights. The noble Marquess stated some objections of detail, with regard to those great races into which I need hardly enter, and which I think had better be left to the Jockey Club than be dealt with by your Lordships. My noble Friend the Chairman of Committees reproached the Jockey Club with being so exclusive that they would not permit the interference of laymen upon any question which came before them. If the Jockey Club had legal power which enabled them to control all matters connected with racing, and it was shown that they acted in opposition to the opinions of every one who took an interest in racing or in the improvement of the breed of horses, then a case might be made out for interference on the part of your Lordships. But the Jockey Club has no legal power whatever. They are the landlords of a part of Newmarket Heath, on which races are run, and are therefore able to insist upon the observance there of any regulations which they choose to make; but with regard to other racecourses, they have no power whatever, and the adoption of their regulations in other parts of the country is an entirely voluntary act on the part of those who have the management of race meetings. What is the composition of the Jockey Club? Are its members exclusively of one class, and so bound up in one amusement that they may be considered entirely to exclude from their consideration all matters which are not connected with it? The list of the Club includes fifty-four members, some of whom are members of agricultural societies; some are cavalry and yeomanry officers; ten, I think, are masters of foxhounds, and twenty are Privy Councillors. Of these twenty Privy Councillors, one has been President of the Poor Law Board, two have been Postmasters General, two have been Viceroys of Ireland, seven have been Cabinet Ministers, and two have been Prime Ministers of this country twice in their respective lives. This is the constitution of that eminent body; and if they are backed up by a large part of the population, by the owners of horses and by those who take an interest in the amusement of racing, I think it is but fair to infer that they are not so exclusively absorbed in the pursuit of racing as to be likely to exclude from consideration all the collateral advantages which may be derived from it. I now come to the reasons why I do not think that your Lordships ought to take legis-

  307
  lative action upon this subject. Two of the reasons for this measure are contained in the preamble of the Bill, and the third is that upon which great stress has been laid by the noble Marquess—humanity to the boys who are put upon these horses. Upon this last reason I cannot lay great stress. I think it is impossible to compare legislation of this sort, even if effectual, with legislation applied to great masses for the restriction of the hours of labour, or for preventing the employment of young children in mines. If you enter upon the course contemplated by the noble Lord in this Bill, you must pass an Act to prevent boys going bird's nesting, or venturing into the water before they are able to swim. [A laugh.] Noble Lords may laugh, but I remember being in a country in which a similar precaution was enforced. I wanted to bathe in the Danube, and before I was allowed to do so I was obliged to exhibit in a small pond before two gentlemen in uniform, who had to be officially satisfied of my power of swimming before they allowed me to enter that noble river. Such an amount of interference I imagine that your Lordships are not prepared to adopt. The next object of the noble Lord is most laudable—namely, the diminution of gambling and dishonest, practices. Now, no one in this House—not even ray noble Friend who spoke so warmly—will contend that there are not many malpractices and a great deal of gambling of an injurious character connected with the Turf; but does any one suppose that this Bill will put an end to those evils?—that some trifling-regulations as to the weights which horses are to carry will put an end to gambling and to the malpractices which are connected with the turf? The idea that it would do so is perfectly futile; and I believe that if you wish to protect young and inexperienced persons against those fraudulent practices, you can take no more unwise course than by an unwise Act of Parliament pretending to do that which no legislative enactment can effect. With regard to the breed of horses, I totally disbelieve that there has been any deterioration in it. I think that it is impossible to walk through the streets or parks of this Metropolis without seeing that no such thing has occurred. The noble Duke (the Duke of Beaufort) referred to a conversation which he had had with an eminent trainer; probably your Lordships will not think it irrelevant if I state the result of conversations which I have had to-day with one
  308
  of the greatest dealers in the Metropolis, and a large job-master. The dealer sells horses of all kinds, hunters, hacks, and carriage horses, and it is of course his interest to represent that there is extreme difficulty in procuring good horses, and that it is, therefore, necessary to ask very-high prices for them. He told me that there was at present a greater demand than at any previous time for a very beautiful class of horses with very high action, and that any price could be got for them; but he said, "If you ask me for a fair opinion whether you find fewer horses than you used to do combining great strength with high breeding, I believe that, notwithstanding the drain for the foreign market, there are quite as many to be obtained as formerly." The jobmaster to whom I intended to apply for information was not at home when I called; but his foreman said, "Oh, complaints that you cannot find good horses are universal; but it is fair to say that I have been a long time in the job trade, and I never remember a period at which exactly the same complaints were not made." This is confirmed by the observation of the noble Chairman of Committees that so much as 120 years ago complaints were made that there had been a frightful deterioration in the breed of horses. This is, in fact, one of those complaints which are constantly made, but which, when examined into, prove entirely without foundation. As far as I can see, there are no precedents whatever for such a measure as this. The clause to which my noble Friend referred as furnishing such authority was repealed a few years afterwards, and in the Index to the Statutes I can find no reference to any proposition of a similar kind connected with the subject of racing. For these reasons I certainly am not inclined to support the Bill of my noble Friend. Without professing to give an opinion that it may not be desirable that the Jockey Club should fairly consider this question, at any rate I do not think it is one with which your Lordships ought to interfere. There has lately been too much desire to legislate upon every possible question, and I am persuaded that that desire ought to be checked rather than encouraged. There is an old maxim, de minimis non curat lex, which I think may fairly be translated, "Do not legislate for feather weights."
  THE EARL OF DERBY: Doubtless your Lordships have received a great deal of edi-

  309
  fication and amusement from the speeches that have been delivered in the course of this debate, and no doubt my noble Friend who introduced this Bill has likewise received a great deal of edification and instruction on this topic; but I hope your Lordships will not think it disrespectful on my part, on a subject of this kind, to say that I think your Lordships as a body are hardly competent to judge of the merits of the question, notwithstanding that you have received so much support in your deliberations by so full a bench of the right rev. Bishops—we are hardly, I think, so competent to deal with such a question as the present as those who have devoted more of their attention to the subject, and who take a deeper interest in the pursuits of the turf. I am anxious to state in a few words how far I concur and how far I differ from my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees in the objects which he seeks to effect by the prevention of malpractices, the improvement of the breed of horses, and, to a certain extent, the protection of the jockeys themselves, both low weights and high weights. These objects I conceive most desirable ones; but, on the other hand, I think I can show my noble Friend that his Bill will not in the slightest degree attain them. I concur with my noble Friend the President of the Council that unless a very strong case is made out it is most undesirable that your Lordships and Parliament should legislate upon a subject of this description. No doubt if there is a great object to be attained, or a great and gross abuse to be put down, and legislation will effect the object or put down the abuse, that would be a justification for the interference of the Legislature even with such a subject as this. But is that the case? My noble Friend believes that there is a great deal of gambling, especially that species of gambling produced by handicaps. Now, I so far concur with my noble Friend that I very much regret the increase of handicaps compared with weight-for-age races which has recently taken place. At the same time, I see that in the present state of the turf it would be impossible entirely to abandon handicaps without putting an end to many county meetings, and thus losing a great deal of harmless amusement. I do not deny that handicaps afford considerable facilities for fraudulent practices; but that does not at all depend upon the more or less weight which the horses are to carry. The object of those who subscribe to and
  310
  enter their horses for handicaps is to deceive the handicapper, not with regard to the positive, but with regard to the relative weight-carrying qualities of their horses. My noble Friend said that horses are kept in training for these handicaps which would not continue in training if they did not exist. That may be so; but, on the other hand, if my noble Friend examines the statistics of the turf he will find that horses are now kept in training for a much shorter period than they used to be, and that a comparison between the young and old horses formerly and at the present day shows a considerable difference. Some days ago, with reference to this Bill, I looked up some statistics, and they will be interesting, as enabling us to compare the ages of the horses that ran in 1829 and 1859. I have only the ages of those that ran and won in 1829, and of the running horses in 1859, but the figures enable us to compare the ages of the horses. In 1829, of the winning horses there were of two-year-olds fifty-five, of three-year-olds 194, and of four-year-olds and upwards 279. The total was 528 horses. The proportion of two-year-olds to three-year-olds was as two to seven, and the proportion the two-year-olds bore to the whole number was one to nine and a half. I find that, in 1859, 1,666 horses started for the different races, of which number 588 were two-year-olds. 504 were three-year-olds, and 574 were four-year-olds and upwards. While the proportion of two-year-olds to three-year-olds was as to two to seven in 1829 it was in 1859 as eight to seven. The proportion of two-year-olds to those above them, which was in 1829 about one to nine, was in 1859 more than one to three. I mention these facts to show that there was a much larger proportion of old to young horses formerly than at the present time. My noble Friend objects to these handicaps that they tend to discourage the good horses, and to give great advantages to bad and inferior horses. Now, the very character of a handicap is, that you must frame your handicap so as to give a moderate three-year-old as fair a chance of winning as a superior five or six-year-old. If, therefore, you began with 7 stone, the consequence would be that in all handicaps the superior old horses would have to carry 11 stone and 12 stone, and the handicaps run would be left to inferior horses, which, would have the advantage of being ridden by jockeys instead of boys. The good

  311
  horses would then be excluded from handicaps, while at present they have a fair chance. But when my noble Friend says that horses that cannot carry 6 stone ought not to be kept in training, and are good for nothing, I assure him he is quite mistaken, for I could mention horses that with 6 stone on their backs cannot live at a racing pace for three minutes, but yet are competent to carry my noble Friend over a cross country for hours, and to keep up with the hounds. You cannot, in all cases, have lasting qualities accompanied by the enormous effort and great speed of racing; but it does not follow because a horse cannot carry 6 stone in a mile and a half race and live, that he belongs to an inferior class of animals, and is incapable of being made useful for hunting purposes. My noble Friend says it is more difficult to get good hunters now than it used to be; but I must remind him that hunting is a very different thing now from what it formerly was. Perhaps my noble Friend would like to turn out at six in the morning, go on a long, slow drag before he found his fox, and then ride after it at six or seven miles an hour for the remainder of the day. If he wants a class of horses suited for that kind of work, I admit he would not find them in handicaps. But if he inquires how horses can best combine bone, blood, speed, and endurance, I believe that the character of English horses never stood higher, and that in these qualities they are unmatched by any country in the world. If my noble Friend thinks that to prevent gambling on the turf all that is necessary is to do away with light weights, let him go to a steeplechase. I never saw but one, and never wish to see another. But there they have heavy weights, old horses, and long courses. No boys are put upon horses in these steeplechases, the lightest weight put up being 8st. 7lb. A steeplechase, therefore, combines all my noble Friend's requirements; and yet I will venture to say that, with regard to the character of the horses, the gambling, the fraudulent practices, the danger to horses and men, and the number of serious accidents, there is no comparison whatever between the ordinary racing with boys of light weight and steeplechasing. I do not deny that there are evils inseparable from handicaps; I regret their prevalence; but they do not depend either on the lightness or the heaviness of the weights, but on the character of the horses themselves. That which is really the cause of a great deal of the
  312
  evil and the deterioration in the breed of horses is the way in which the animals are forced forward, owing to the vast preponderance of two-year-old races. The consequence is that young horses are called upon for exertions far beyond their strength, and great numbers of horses are broken down, while others are entered without reference to their carrying light weights, or to their competency to stand the work, because being brought out as two-year-olds they may, over a long course, have an advantage and answer the purpose of gambling, and winning the large stakes which are attached to these two-year-old races. I do not wish to put down all two-year-old races by legislation, but I should like to induce members of the turf, in the interest of the turf and of the breeders of horses, to see if some intervention and regulation are not possible. If not, your Lordships would do much better absolutely to prohibit all two-year-old races than to raise the weights of the jockeys. One reason why it is desirable that practically the weights should be somewhat higher than they are at present is not on account of the danger to little boys or the argument which my noble Friend has brought forward, but on account of the great difficulty you have in procuring jockeys to ride old horses in the present competition with the light-weight system. As soon as a jockey arrives at the weight of 8st. 7lb. he has comparatively little opportunity of riding, for the great amount of riding is monopolized by boys of from 6st. 5lb. to 7st. 12lb. When jockeys arrive at 8st. 5lb. the labour they have to undergo to bring themselves down to racing weights has cost the life of many respectable men, and is attended with great danger to others. I will only say that this matter is under the serious consideration of the Jockey Club. Notice has been given of a motion at their next meeting for raising the weights on the Derby and some other races from 8st. 7lb. to 8st. 10lb. A. proposal is also under the consideration of the Jockey Club, which has my cordial concurrence, to enable them to raise the weights on handicaps to a minimum of 5st. 7lb. I assure your Lordships that many boys can ride as well as any men, and would be perfect masters of their horses under circumstances where my noble Friend would find himself in a considerable "fix." The improvement of the breed of horses and the prevention of gambling are very desirable objects; but

  313
  I do not think they will be touched or promoted by the measure of my noble Friend. I think that he has not established such a case as will induce your Lordships to enter upon legislation where all previous legislation has proved a failure. I assure my noble Friend that the subject is under the consideration of the Jockey Club, and that this year will probably not pass without some legislation in the direction of his wishes. I therefore trust, after the opinions expressed by your Lordships, that my noble Friend will not give us the trouble of dividing, but will consent to withdraw the Bill.
  LORD REDESDALEreplied. He thought no better proof of the necessity for increasing the weight could be given than the returns quoted by the noble Earl. They proved most clearly that a system equally injurious to the breed of horses and to the best interests of the turf had sprung up of late years in connection with the light weight handicaps; that the evil was increasing, and that reform in racing matters was urgently required. He considered the noble Earl's speech to be in fact favourable to his proposition; but after the promise he had given that if the Jockey Club would take the matter in hand he would not persevere with it, he had no choice but to act in accordance with that promise, after the assurance which the noble Earl had given to him and to the House on the part of the stewards of the Jockey Club, who had selected him to present their petition, and empowered him to enter into that engagement on their behalf. He would, therefore, ask leave of the House to withdraw his Motion for the second reading, and if the Amendment was also withdrawn, he would then, with the permission of the House, withdraw the Bill. He might be permitted to say, however, that there was strong evidence that the introduction of the Bill had led to the serious consideration of this subject, and therefore he should always feel satisfied with himself for having brought it forward. He would add, that none of the arguments which had been brought forward proved that the subject was one with which the Legislature ought not to interfere. If the Jockey Club should by new rules put down the abuses complained of, and if what they proposed met with universal submission from the racing world, legislation would be both unnecessary and undesirable. But the interests of the dishonest members of that society were op-
  314
  posed to the establishment of a sound system, and he feared not only that the Club rules, if carried to the required extent, would be resisted in some quarters, but still more that the Club may be deterred from doing all that they ought from an apprehension of such resistance. If such should be the case, he trusted they would not hesitate to apply to Parliament for a law to enforce their rules, and he was satisfied that whatever they asked for would be granted.
  Amendment and original Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn, and the Bill also withdrawn.

DUCHY OF CORNWALL (LIMITATION OF ACTIONS) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE moved that the House go into Committee on this Bill, and stated his belief that the Bill would have the effect of placing the Duchy of Cornwall and landed proprietors in the neighbourhood, on the best possible footing.
  LORD VIVIANsaid, he could assure the noble Duke that great jealousy existed in the minds of those holding property within the bounds of the Duchy, in consequence of the sharp practice exhibited by those charged with the management of its affairs. Those who held lands "in charge" thought that they had been very hardly treated by the agents of the Duchy, and unless these lands held "in charge" were exempted from the operation of the Bill he should move clauses to effect that object.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1 (9 Geo. III., cap. 16, to extend to the Duke of Cornwall.)
  On the Motion of Lord KINGSDOWN the following addition was made to the clause.
  ("Subject nevertheless as to the Property and Possessions included in this Act to the Provisions contained in Sections Seventy-two and Seventy-five of the Act of the Seventh and Eighth Years of Her Majesty above referred to with respect to the Property and Possessions included therein.")
  LORD VIVIANcomplained that a case had occurred in which parties were refused access to the records of the Duchy, except on condition that they would not oppose this Bill.
  LORD PORTMANsaid, that there was a sharp practice in manner and a sharp practice in action. They were not pleasant words to use in any case, but few men were able to conduct public business in the soft and oily way which would probably satisfy the noble Lord. He certainly de-

  315
  nied that there had been any sharp practice on the part of the Duchy in action. It had been found most difficult to recover and maintain the rights of the Duke of Cornwall, which in past times had suffered material damage.
  LORD CHURSTONstated that cases had come to his knowledge, and things were said to be done by order of the Duchy, which, if they did not actually amount to sharp practice, certainly savoured of it.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEobserved, with regard to the inspection of Duchy records, that in the case of Crown records, any person who asked to examine them was called upon to state whether he wished to do so for the purpose of opposing the rights of the Crown, and unless he stated that that was not his object, he was not allowed to inspect them. He believed that if an inquiry were instituted by impartial persons into the management of the Duchy property, it would be found that, so far from sharp practices having been resorted to, there had been a desire to act with the greatest possible leniency in maintaining the rights of the Duchy, which, in some instances, had been sacrificed for noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen, who now came forward to complain. The noble Lord said that there was a feeling of uneasiness in Cornwall on the subject, and no doubt if a person had got property which did not belong to him, he might feel uneasy when the rightful owner came forward to claim it. With regard to the present Bill, if the opponents of the measure thought it no boon, let them say so, and he would at once give it up; but it was not fair towards the managers of the Duchy estates, nor to the illustrious Prince, who was about to come into the property, to make accusations of "sharp practice." If any persons had such charges to make, let them bring those charges forward distinctly before the Duchy Council, and they would be investigated, and, if found substantial, the grievance would be remedied.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he could bear testimony to the fact that "sharp practice" did not always originate with the managers of Crown property, but was very often practised against that property. He believed his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to be justly entitled to every farthing that could be properly obtained from the property assigned for the maintenance of his dignity.
  LORD VIVIANsaid, he should be rejoiced to see his Royal Highness receive
  316
  every farthing to which he was entitled. He had spoken on behalf of others, and not from any interested motives of his own.
  LORD KINGSDOWNdid not believe that during the twenty years he had been a member of the Council of the Duchy, upon any one occasion, upon any one subject, in reference to any one appointment or other act, there had been a single object in view except that of discharging honestly and faithfully the duties imposed upon the members.
  LORD PORTMANacknowledged that there had been a strong expression of feeling in the Duchy, but he was sure it was not well founded.
  Clause, as Amended, agreed to.
  LORD VIVIANthen moved to inser the following clause.
  "Provided always, That Section Seventy-two of the said Act of the Seventh and Eighth Years of Her Majesty shall be and the same is hereby incorporated with this Act, and shall be read as Part thereof; provided also, that no Manors, Lands, Tenements, or Hereditaments, or the Rents, Revenues, Issues, or Profits thereof, shall be deemed to be or to have been duly in charge to the Duke of Cornwall so long as any Person or Corporation shall be or shall have been in possession of such Manors, Lands, Tenements, Rents, Tithes, or Hereditaments, or in the Receipt of the Rents, Revenues, Issues, or Profits thereof, adversely to the Duke of Cornwall."
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he must oppose the clause.
  Motion, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendment to be received on Friday next.

UNION OF BENEFICES BILL.

  COMMITTEE—(ON RE-COMMITMENT).
  Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendments read.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsuggested that as notice had been given of many Amendments it would be better that the Bill should be re-committed, in order that the now clauses should be considered.
  Order discharged; and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House forthwith; House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses I to 11 agreed to.
  Clause added to enable an exchange of patronage.
  Clause 15, (Site of Church to be pulled down not to be sold or let without certain Consents.)
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD THE BISHOP OF OXFORD moved an Amendment. He had no objection to sell

  317
  the sites of the removed churches; but there were certain cases in which the ground itself under the churches had been consecrated for the burial of the dead. He contended that where the Church had pledged herself in the most solemn manner to maintain for ever a certain parcel of ground it was monstrous that she should afterwards come to Parliament and ask for power to break her pledge, for the purpose of taking advantage of the increased value of the land so consecrated. The deeds of consecration of a church and of a burial-ground were essentially different. One consecrated a building for the purposes of worship, the other set apart a portion of ground from all profane uses for ever. He saw no objection to selling the site of a church to which no consecrated burial-ground was attached, because the occasion for which the consecration of the building took place having passed away, and it being for the glory of God and his increased worship and service that the church was to be removed, he did not see any objection to selling the ground on which the church stood. But it was different with the churchyards in which the dead were buried. It might be said that the same objection applied to churches in which dead were buried in the vaults; but his Amendment did not touch them, because in the first place the vaults being constructed in the ground under the church, and the church alone being consecrated, there could be no objection to the removal of the coffins, as they would have to be removed in any case should this Bill pass; but at all events it would throw on those who objected to the sale of such sites the onus of proving that the ground was consecrated, which would be almost impossible.
  Amendment moved, after ("Department") to insert ("nor if it shall have been consecrated for the Burial of the Dead.")
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was quite at a loss to know how any objection could be raised to the sale of the sites in question, when it was notorious that ground of a similar character had been sold to railway companies; and surely, when the sole object of the Bill was to provide increased facilities for the worship of God, the most tender conscience could not object.
  THE BISHOP OF CASHELcould not see any difference between selling the site of a church and a burial-ground, seeing that both were consecrated.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDthought that
  318
  his right rev. Brother misapprehended the question. In the one case it was the church and not the site that was consecrated, and in the other it was the ground itself. The church might be removed, but the bodies of the dead remained in the churchyard by which it was surrounded.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that the distinction drawn by his right rev. Brother was so very fine that he could hardly understand it. He could understand the Church being held to the strict performance of all her contracts, but he could not comprehend why she should be allowed to depart from them in the case of churches, and be prohibited from doing so in the case of burial-grounds. His right rev. Brother had no objection to the sale of the site of a church under which hundreds of corpses might have been buried, but the consecration of which for burial it was impossible to prove. The operation of the clause would, therefore, on his own statement, be nugatory. He looked upon this as an insidious attack intended to destroy the whole of the Bill, for if it were carried the good effects of the measure would be rendered entirely nugatory.
  THE EARL OF POWISsupported the Amendment. This point had been settled in a Bill which was passed five years ago. They ought not for a few thousand pounds to shake the confidence of the people in the permanence of these sites for burial-grounds.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Sdid not think the argument of the right rev. Prelate who moved the Amendment had been at all shaken. This was a Bill for Church purposes, and the question was, would the advantage arising from the sale of these sites, cover the loss arising from the violation of the contract created by the consecration of these burial-grounds?
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that it would be extremely difficult for any one to prove that a particular piece of land had been specially consecrated as a place of burial; and the result of the adoption of the Amendment would merely be to raise uncertainty as regarded the title, and persons would not purchase unless at a diminished value to cover the risk.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, if there was any great public necessity for the sale of these sites, he should not object to the measure; but when he found that no such necessity existed, he was disposed to support the Amendment.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that in

  319
  order to meet the objection of the noble and learned Lord, he had no objection to add the following words, "Provided also that the validity of such sale should not be questioned by reason of any allegation that the ground had been consecrated." It should be recollected that this was a Bill for Church purposes, and it was not for the Church to propose to disturb these contracts, which were made by the Church, and consecrated by her.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, the sale of a church or a burying-ground was as repugnant to his feelings as a layman as it could be to that of a clergyman, and he would only consent to it in cases of extreme necessity; but the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate would, in point of fact, put an end to the practical working of the measure. He regretted that such a Bill as the present should not have been taken up by the Government, as without their assistance the right rev. Prelate would never be able to carry such a measure as would produce the full effect desired. Surely, if they were willing that these sites should be sold for the benefit of railway companies, they would not object that they should be sold for purposes of a purely religious character. The Bill would to a certain extent be useful, but this great question could never be fully settled till it was taken up by the Government.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, that believing that the measure was one of great public necessity, he would support the clause as it stood.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYwas opposed to the removal of any churches. Let the pews be removed, and good clergymen placed in them, and congregations would be drawn thither.
  After a few words from EARL GRANVILLE,
  On Question, Whether the said Words shall be there inserted? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 10; Not-Contents 21: Majority 11.

  CONTENTS.

  Marlborough, D.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Salisbury, Bp.

  Carnarvon, E. [Teller.]

  St. David's, Bp.

  Powis, E. [Teller.]

  Romney, E.

  Denham, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Lyttelton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Campbell, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Somerset, D.

  De Grey. E,. [Teller.]

  Newcastle, D.

  Ducie, E.

  320

  Granville, E.

  London, Bp.

  St. Germans, E.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Cranworth, L.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Dartrey, (L. Cremorne.)

  Cashel, &c, Bp.

  Harris, L.

  Derry and Raphoe, Bp.

  Kingsdown, L.

  Durham, Bp.

  Wensleydale, L.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Wodehouse, L. [Teller.]

  Clauses 15 to 21 agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Providing Funds for Payment of Expenses of carrying Act into execution).
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, he thought it extremely undesirable that when a sum of money had been raised by the sale of these sites, a portion of it should be locked up to remain as a fund for future speculative alterations. It would be merely a temptation to the schemers who surrounded the office of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to propose useless plans for making away with this money.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsubmitted that the objection would be met by an alteration, of which he had given notice; and after a short conversation,
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Appropriation of Seats in Church of United Parish).
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDobjected to the power given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to meddle with pews. He believed the right rev. Prelate had no objection to the Amendment which he bad proposed, namely, to leave the Bishop to deal with them by faculty.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, the opinion he held on this subject might be unpopular, but he objected to pews altogether. It was the old custom, before the Reformation, that there should be no pews at all; and in the church which he attended they had been swept away. Whenever he went to church, he sat with the rest of the people, without the smallest distinction; and it appeared to him that nothing could be so inconsistent with the feelings with which a man ought to attend Divine worship as that he should box himself up in a pew. Take power by all means to knock pews down, but do not provide for building them up again.
  Then it was moved to add the following Schedule.
  "The Metropolis (including all Places comprehended in that expression, as defined in the Act 18 and 19 Vict. Cap. 120, intituled 'An Act for the better Local Management of the Metropolis").
  "Cities of—

  "York,

  Exeter,

  "Lincoln,

  Norwich,"

  The same was agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
  LORD REDESDALEgave notice of some further alterations which he would move on the third reading. Amongst them was a proposal to give powers for re-seating churches without a union of benefices. There were a great number of sacred edifices in the City, in which there was no provision whatever for those casual visitors, of whom there were always many in London. Last Sunday, however, he was at one (St. Michael's, Cornhill,) that had been admirably restored, and there he found exactly the arrangement which he thought desirable. There was a large congregation; and it appeared to him that if a similar course were adopted at some other of the larger and handsomer City churches—Bow church, for instance—the same result would follow.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS JURISDICTION BILL.

  THIRD READING. BILL PASSED.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDproposed an Amendment rendering it penal to be guilty of any indecent behaviour in a church, whether during Divine service or at any other time. This was intended to meet the case of persons staying behind after service to sing hymns, which was one of the forms which indecent conduct had lately assumed.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that the Bill was aimed against indecent behaviour in churches at any time; and therefore he did not see the utility of the proposal.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEproposed a clause somewhat mitigating the penalties imposed by the statute of Philip and Mary, but re-enacting the power which was given by that Act to any person to seize and convey before a magistrate any one offending in church.
  LORD CRANWORTHdid not propose to repeal the Act of Philip and Mary, so that any portion of it which remained in force would continue to do so; but he begged their Lordships not to be led by their indignation at what had recently been taking place to enact a provision so little in accordance with the general spirit of our law as to give any person power to seize any other person—not in flagrante delicto, but at any time—and to convey
  322
  him before a magistrate on a charge of misbehaviour in a church. It had been said that "hard cases made bad law;" but let them not make bad legislation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORalso opposed the Amendment, saying that, although he was as anxious as anybody to put an end to such disgraceful scenes as had recently occurred, he did not think that this was the proper way to attempt it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments made.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at Ten o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.