Lords Sitting of 23 July 1861

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Lord Abinger, after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Lord Clerk Register Salary Abolition; Enlistment in India; Ordnance Survey Continuance; Crown Suits Limitation; Criminal Proceedings Oath Relief; Metropolis Local Management Acts Amendment; Ecclesiastical Dilapidations.
2a Voters (Ireland); University Elections; Salmon Fisheries; Irremovable Poor; Dublin Revising Barristers; Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Act Continuance; County Cess (Ireland) Act Continuance; Naval Medical Supplemental Fund Society; Local Government Act Amendment.
3a Attornies and Solicitors (Ireland).

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with certain Amendments agreed to, some agreed to, with Amendments; and some disagreed to, with their Reasons for such Disagree-

1341
ment: The said Reasons and Bill, with the Amendments, to be printed; and to be taken into Consideration on Friday next. [Nos. 230 and 231.]

ANNOYANCE JURORS (WESTMINSTER) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
LORD LLANOVERsaid, that the Act of Elizabeth entitled "An Act for the good Government of the City or Borough of Westminster," amended by subsequent Acts, appointed, amongst other things, an Annoyance Jury, whose duty it was to inspect annoyances, obstructions, and weights and measures. The object of the Bill was to abolish the Annoyance Jury, and to vest its powers in the "Court of Burgesses" which constituted the local government of Westminster, with power to appoint inspectors to summon offenders, and to inflict penalties, which were to be paid one half to the Bailiff of Westminster, the other half to the Court of Burgess, for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the Act. The object of the Amendments he proposed to move was to place the duty of punishing offences of this kind in the hands of the stipendiary magistrates, as was the case in the other metropolitan districts; and to direct the fines to be paid over to the Bailiff. The noble Lord said that the inhabitants of Westminster objected to the continuance of this power in the hands of the Court, which was a self-elected body; and, while admitting that more persons were fined for; having deficient weights and measures in the City of Westminister than in other parts of the kingdom, explained that circumstance by stating that in Westminster the fines were not, as they were elsewhere, paid to the county treasurer, but were paid to the burgesses and applied by them. The noble Lord then moved an Amendment in Clause 5 to strike out the words" the said Court of Burgesses," and to insert "two Justices of the Peace for the County of Middlesex."
LORD CHELMSFORDdefended the constitution of the Court, which lie said had been established three centuries, and which had always attending its meetings a town clerk, who was usually a lawyer, and who was appointed by the High Steward. The Annoyance Jurors, as they were called, though their object was rather to prevent annoyance, had the power to enter into shops and examine the weights and mea-
1342
sures, and defacing or destroying those they found defective, and amercing offenders in penalties to the amount of 40s. But the Court of Burgesses, assembling once a month, had power to mitigate the fine. This jurisdiction had been conferred upon the Court of Burgesses by an Act passed in the 27th year of the reign of George II., and had been exercised most beneficially for more than a century. As the humble classes wore those who suffered most front fraudulent weights and measures, it was necessary that there should be constant supervision over the traders in particular districts. A return published in 1858 showed that in the previous year there were a greater number of convictions for improper weights and measures in Westminster than, with one exception, in any other division in the country. The fines received by the Court of Burgesses amounted to £50 or £60 a year. He left it to their Lordships to consider whether the Court was more likely to discharge its duties more diligently and painfully in consequence of this amount of revenue. No complaint had ever been made as to the practical working of the Court, but it had been objected by many of the inhabitants that the being compelled to serve on this Annoyance Jury was a very great burden. Accordingly, a Bill had been introduced to abolish the jurisdiction of the Court of Burgesses, and to substitute for them an Inspector of Weights and Measures. The Court of Burgesses themselves did not object— they considered the measure to be a relief and a benefit. No doubt it was most desirable that the Inspectors should act under a constant and vigilant superintendence, and if the Inspectors were not to be answerable to the Court of Burgesses he thought the door would be open to a great deal of connivance and partiality. There was nothing in his noble Friend's argument beyond this, that the Court of Burgesses was a self-elected body.
THE EARL OF POWISwas of opinion that it was better to transfer the jurisdiction of the police magistrates than to continue it in the hands of the Court of Burgesses, It would, of course, be open to any of the inhabitants who thought they had reasonable ground for complaint against the Inspector, to prefer such complaint before the magistrates. It was but reasonable that the jurisdiction should he placed in the hands of the police magistrates, rather than in those of a self-constituted body like that of the Court of Burgesses.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONthought that the police magistrates had quite enough business thrown upon them without being saddled with those additional duties of looking after the Inspector of Weights and Measures and hearing complaints respecting him.
LORD LLANOVERsaid, he thought it would be a great improvement to have this jurisdiction transferred to the stipendiary magistrates; but he would not trouble their Lordships to divide upon the Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Amendment made; The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next.

UNIVERSITY ELECTIONS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, this Bill was introduced into the other House at the beginning of the Session in consequence of the Resolution of a Committee which sat last year, that it was desirable that votes for the election of Members for the Universities should be recorded in a prescribed form before a justice of the peace. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and, after considerable discussion, passed the House of Commons in its present form. The reason for the Bill was the non-residence of almost the whole of the University constituencies. They numbered respectively 3,500 and 5,000 voters, and only about 250 were resident either in Oxford or Cambridge. A great deal had been done by the multiplication of polling places to render it more easy for the voters in other constituencies to record their votes, and a majority of those voters were resident in the borough or county for which they possessed a qualification. The Bill sedulously avoided anything like voting by proxy, and would greatly diminish the cost of contested elections for the Universities. He, therefore, hoped their Lordships would assent to the second reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  Motion agreed to;
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

SALMON FISHERIES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,in moving the second reading of the Bill, the
  1344
  object of which was to preserve the breed and growth of salmon, said, that a Commission which was appointed last year examined witnesses as to the state of the rivers in England, and ascertained the undoubted fact that salmon which formerly existed in them in great abundance had diminished in some, and in others had almost ceased to exist. The causes were the establishment of fixed engines, the pollution of the waters, the complication of the law, the non-observance of a closing season, and illegal modes of fishing. The Commission made a Report, and this Bill was founded upon its recommendations. From the time of Magna Charta down to the 11 & 12 Vict., Parliament had constantly recognized the duty of protecting the salmon. At present all kinds of obstacles were interposed in the way of the salmon when they attempted to ascend the rivers for the purpose of spawning, and every possible effort was made to capture them by means of fixed engines, fixed nets, and other contrivances. It had been the uniform object of the Legislature to give the salmon a constant and ready access to the upper waters, and with this view it was now proposed to prohibit the continuance of any fixed engines except where a fishery of this kind existed by ancient charter or grant of the Crown. It was also proposed that in the case of dams and weirs a constant and ready access should be provided for the salmon to the upper waters by means of a gap or "free pass," and it provided a weekly close time from eight p. m. on Friday till six a. m. on Monday. Spearing and "burning the water" would be prohibited, and a penalty would be inflicted on any person who permitted deleterious matter to flow into a river so as to kill or poison fish, subject, however, to exemption from the penalty if he proved to the satisfaction of the Court that he had used the best practicable means, within a reasonable cost, to render such matter harmless. He believed that as the law now stood an action might be maintained against any person who thus poisoned the fish, but this was a costly process, and the Bill provided for the infliction of a penalty if the offence were proved to the satisfaction of two magistrates. The Bill inflicted penalties for the capture of unclean fish, for taking the young of salmon, and for disturbing the fish when spawning. It was proposed to declare a close time between the 1st of September and the 1st of February, and to make it illegal to sell or offer to sell

  1345
  any salmon during that time. There might be objection to some of the provisions of the Bill, but he hoped their Lordships would assent to the second reading. It was naturally of interest to all sportsmen, but it had also a wider interest, since it was calculated to insure a valuable supply of fish, which was now almost destroyed. This country possessed some excellent rivers for fishing, but the quantity of fish there seemed to be gradually becoming smaller. He did not expect ever to see salmon sold for a penny a pound, or to find a clause again inserted in the indentures of apprentices providing that they should not be made to eat salmon oftener than three times a week. But he did expect through the operation of this Bill that salmon would become more plentiful and cheaper than it was at present.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he had not proved a true prophet when he warned their Lordships that a rather extraordinary and somewhat amusing Bill would come before them on this subject. The House of Commons were entirely of his opinion, for in the Select Committee they had deprived the Bill of its singular and objectionable features, and this was now a practical measure, which, with some alterations, might be very fairly passed into a law. There would, however, be some difficulties in carrying out the Bill. He thought that their Lordships, however well versed they might be in natural history, would be very much puzzled if they should ever have to apply the definition of a salmon as given in the Bill. For example, it seemed that a magistrate before whom an offender under this measure was brought would be expected to know the difference between "a salmon, cock or kipper, kelt, laurel, girling, grilse, botcher, blue cock, blue pole, fork tail, mort, peal, herring peal, May peal, pugg peal, harvest cock, sea trout, white trout, sewin, buntling, guiniad, tubs, yellow fin, sprod, herling, whiting, bull trout, whitling, scurf, burn tail, fry, samlet, smoult, smelt, skirling or scarling, parr, spawn, pink, last spring, hepper, last brood, gravelling, shed, scad, blue fin, black tip, fingerling, brandling, or brondling." Now, he thought that most of the magistrates of this country would be rather puzzled when a delinquent was brought before them to know to which of these fish the offence applied. This must be simplified in Committee. He hoped, too, before going into Committee that his noble Friend
  1346
  would look at some points which rather seriously affected property. He entirely agreed that all fixed engines and obstacles to the passage of the fish up the river should be removed. There were, however, two clauses in the Bill which he thought were highly objectionable — namely, that which prohibited fishing with nets within fifty yards of a mill dam or fishing weir, and that which provided that the fishing should be closed from eight o'clock on Friday evening till six o'clock on Monday morning. As long as dams or weirs were obstructions to the passage of the salmon there might be reasons for prohibiting fishing in their neighbourhood; but as it was intended by this Bill to provide that a free passage should be allowed for the fish over such structures, it would be absurd and unjust to prevent proprietors from fishing as near such dams or weirs as they pleased. In some rivers in the south of England, as, for instance, in that at Christchurch, the enforcement of such a provision as that contained in the Bill would entirely destroy the fishing, because the pools near the dams and weirs were the only places in which fish could be caught. As to the weekly close time, it would, in his opinion, be quite sufficient to forbid fishing between six o'clock on Saturday night and six o'clock on Monday morning; and he hoped their Lordships would not overlook the circumstance that upon persons who had taken fishings as a means of obtaining a livelihood the deprivation of one day's fishing a week would operate as a great hardship. He hoped that the noble Lord would not insist upon retaining in the Bill the provisions to which he had referred.
  THE EARL OF LONSDALEsaid, he did not intend to oppose the Bill, but he thought that some alteration would be requisite in the wording of some of the provisions before it was allowed to become law.
  LORD LLANOVERconsidered that it would be politic to make some concessions to those who were interested in the upper waters, who were, or ought to be, the great salmon preservers.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that this was a subject in which all persons were interested, and he believed that they would willingly give their assistance in carrying out the law. At the same time he had no objection to some slight alterations being made to meet the views of the noble Earl who had raised the objection.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and Committed of a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

IRREMOVABLE POOR BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD WODEHOUSEmoved that the Bill be now read a second time. The object of the measure was to amend the present law with regard to the class called the irremovable poor. This class of poor was created under an Act passed in 1846, which made a residence of five years in a parish to confer a status of irremoveability. By another Act, introduced by Mr. Charles Buller, when he was President of the Poor Law Board, the support of the irremoveable poor was thrown upon the common fund of the union to which they belonged, the assessment being calculated upon the cost of the relief of the settled poor during the three preceding years. By this law a very large number of poor persons became irremovable; in 1860 no less than 225,000 persons were relieved as irremovable poor, the expenditure on their relief being £780,000. The alterations proposed to be made by the present Bill were these:— It was proposed, in the first place, to diminish the time during which a continuous residence should render a person irremovable from five years to three; and instead of its being necessary that this continuous residence should be within a particular parish, such residence within the limits of any one Poor Law Union should be sufficient to render a person irremovable. It was proposd also to make a change in the mode of raising the common fund from which the relief of the irremovable poor was to be given. Instead of an assessment on the average expense of the settled poor for the past three years, it was proposed that the fund should be raised by a rate on the assessment to the county rate; so that the expenditure from this common fund should be equally distributed according to the county assessment of all the parishes in the union. There were good reasons why these changes should he made, though they would not justify any apprehension or alarm that they would make any great and radical change in the existing law. The present was not a Bill for the abolition of settlement, nor was it a Bill for establishing a union rating. The measure was confined to one particular class of poor, and its ob-
  1348
  ject was to remedy certain evils that had arisen out of the law of 1846 itself. Of the two principal changes, one had reference to the ratepayer, the other looked rather to the interest of the poor. It was obvious that the law of 1846 aggravated the inconveniences which arose in parishes which were in the possession of a few landowners. Independently of the natural desire of the proprietors of such parishes not to be burdened with the charge of a large number of poor, an additional reason for removing them was given by the Act of 1846. Under that Act the charge for the relief of the irremovable poor was calculated on the average expenditure for the relief of the settled poor during three years. It was, therefore, the interest of the owners of parishes to diminish as much as possible the number of the settled poor within their limits. This was a grievance that did not rise from the general principle of the Poor Law; it had arisen wholly under the special legislation of 1846. He called it a grievance, for it certainly threw a burden on the ratepayers of open parishes, or those in the hands of many proprietors, and, undoubtedly, it gave rise to cases of extreme hardship among the poor. The question of the effect of close parishes was one that had been much examined and discussed. He would not push any argument to an extreme, but he knew that in some close parishes there had been an actual diminution of the population compared with parishes belonging to a number of owners. When poor people came in to supply a deficiency of labour, not in a particular parish, but in an entire district, it was a great hardship that the whole cost of their relief should be thrown upon what were called the "open" parishes; yet these parishes were overburdened with poor because land could be procured in them on which residences for labourers could be erected; while the "close" parishes, which benefited by their labour, exempted themselves from contributing to their relief, because they refused to permit them to settle within them. As to lessening the period of residence, one of the greatest improvements made in the administration of the Poor Law of late years had been the decrease of the number of removals. Those removals were to the poor the greatest hardships existing under the administration of the Poor Law system. Most of their Lordships must have seen cases of extreme hardship caused by those removals, and he contended it was their duty to diminish

  1349
  the hardships caused by them. It was proposed to render a man irremovable after a residence of three years—not in any particular parish, but within the union. However much they might be in the habit of praising the parochial system of this country, yet they must remember that these parishes were very ancient divisions, made without reference to the relief of the poor, and by adhering to them great anomalies and much hardship had been created. But the union was a recent division, formed with special reference to the administration of the Poor Law. The Bill did not seek to establish a union rating with regard to the settled poor; all that was sought to be established was to make the area of the union the limit within which a residence of three years should render a person irremovable. Owing to the provision in the law requiring residence in a particular parish to make a person irremovable, it frequently happened that after a man had resided for seven or eight years in a particular house, he lost his right to be considered irremovable by merely moving to a distance of 100 yards, or, perhaps, to the other side of the street in the same village, and rendered himself liable to be removed to a distant part of the country. It was to mitigate that evil of the law of settlement that the change provided by this Bill was proposed. He held in his hand Reports of Poor Law Inspectors and other documents, which contained evidence of the practical hardship which the present law entailed. He would quote a single instance. The precincts of St. Katharine's Dock had no poor, because all the labourers who worked within them resided in neighbouring parishes. Those persons became chargeable on the parishes in which they resided, and the place in which they worked escaped from all responsibility for their maintenance in case they became chargeable on the poor rates. It might be urged that this was a matter which had not been sufficiently inquired into; but really about few subjects had there been more investigation. A Committee of the House of Commons sat in 1847 and produced a blue book containing a great amount of information on the question. In 1848 various Inspectors were sent to inquire into the matter, and during the last three Sessions a Committee had been engaged in going through the whole case. It was on the Resolutions of that Committee that the present Bill, with the exception of one clause, had been based, Very grave
  1350
  questions, both as regarded the law of settlement and the area of chargeability, had occupied the public mind; and no doubt those would be discussed hereafter. It would not, however, be a sound argument, that because their Lordships were not prepared to abolish the law of settlement or to adopt a system of general union rating, therefore, they ought not to make any amendment which the existing law required. Looking to the great changes which had taken place in this country—looking to the manner in which the poor moved from one part of the country to another—and looking to the popular feeling with regard to the law of settlement, he ventured to think it was better for their Lordships to make small and well considered changes than to wait till matters grew to such a head that they might be driven to adopt some sweeping legislation, which, perhaps, might not be so well advised, and which, at all events, would not be so gradual and cautious as those measures which usually marked the progress of legislation in this country.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORD,in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said that the candid, lucid, and able statement of the noble Lord who had just sat down convinced him that he had formed a just opinion of the measure when he came to the conclusion that it was an attack upon the English parochial system, and the first step—and by no means an inconsiderable one — towards the establishment of union rating. Poor Law legislation must be based upon the principles of political economy; but it must always ho borne in mind that this was a Christian country, and that such legislation must also be founded upon principles of Christian charity. That was the wise view upon which the legislation of Queen Elizabeth was based, which succeeded the old monkish system of the relief of the poor by charity, and that was also the principle upon which the first Irish Poor Relief Act was founded, which succeeded the system of relief of the poor in that country by the indiscriminate charity of those who were very little removed above the grade of the people who received relief. But there was only one security which could be given that poor relief should be properly administered, and that was by making the area of rating so small that not only should every ratepayer know how the money devoted to that pur-

  1351
  pose was expended, but should be able to make his voice heard in case the mode of expenditure should be called in question. Both modes of relief had been tried in Ireland, and it had been found that small districts of rating worked best. The advantage of small rating districts over large ones was especially shown in the counties of Donegal and Clare. In the latter county, where the districts were large, pauperism was as 39, whilst in Donegal, where the districts were small, the pauperism was only 24½. In England, safe guards were far more needed than in Ireland for the pernicious system of outdoor relief was eating like a canker-worm into the public resources. Such relief was looked upon as a right, and the natural consequence was that children neglect their parents and parents their children; unless that system were kept under strong check the result would be most disastrous and the only thing that could supply an efficient check was having small areas of rating. The effect of this Bill would be to mulct the parishes where the poor where taken care of for the benefit of those parishes where the poor are neglected, and to induce a cruel system of compulsory migrating of the poor from one parish to another, till the time had elapsed which made them chargeable to the union. Their Lordships were again called upon to stand between the House of Commons and the public interests; last year they saved a large amount of revenue, and on this occasion he hoped they would also confer a considerable advantage. Noble Lords who sat opposite had many traditions connected with their party, but they had none more honourable than that which related to the passing of the Poor Law of 1834, which saved the property of the country, and which measure they promoted in the most generous and unselfish manner, and at a great sacrifice of popularity; and he trusted they would pause before, by passing the present measure, they inflicted a fatal blow upon that useful and beneficial system they had themselves established.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and insert "this Day Six Months."
  THE EARL OF DEVONsaid, that having been for many years connected with the Department from which this Bill emanated, he was anxious to say a few words; more especially because the Bill incorporated those principles to which he had always given a ready and cordial adhesion. He
  1352
  thanked the Government for having introduced it. He believed that the working of those principles must prove equally beneficial to the poor and to the ratepayers. In his opinion, the interests of those two classes could not properly be regarded as distinct. Whatever tended to raise the condition of the working classes, to secure to them adequate and just remuneration for their labour, and to mitigate the hardship which must, under the most favourable circumstances, fall to their lot, tended also, in no indirect or remote manner, to promote the interests of employers. As far as he understood the principles of the Act of William IV. and the views of its framers, he drew from them the conclusion that they acknowledged the necessity of, from time to time, introducing measures to extend the privileges of irremovability. He could not, therefore, admit that this Bill was inconsistent with the Poor Law Act, for it was only a just and equitable extension of it. The necessity for facilitating the circulation of labour from one part of the country to another had been recognized by all political economists, from Adam Smith downwards, and was one which need not now be demonstrated. There could be no question that it was of the utmost importance that the labourer should move freely from one part of the country to another, according to the fluctuations of demand and remuneration, and that after the lapse of several years he should not be liable, in the event of sickness or any accident, to be returned to the distant part of the country from which he originally came. In a very able and impressive speech his revered Friend, 'the late Mr. Baines, pictured in minute detail the hardship inflicted upon the labourers by their being torn from their homes and from the place where they had formed near and dear relations, to be sent to some distant parish; and as that right hon. Gentleman was never inclined to over-colour anything it could not be supposed for a moment that his statements were exaggerated. The hardship was recognized by the Legislature, and in 1846 an Act passed which introduced the principle of irremovability with respect to persons who had resided five years in any one parish. This Bill sought to extend that principle and to make it permanent. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment (Viscount Lifford) referred to the case of Ireland as an argument in favour of retaining small areas of rating. Under the peculiar circumstances

  1353
  of Ireland he (the Earl of Devon) had always been an advocate of the adoption of small areas in that country. Looking to all the difficulties which the new Poor Law had to encounter there, small areas were probably advantageous. If the present proposition had been to substitute a system of union rating he was ready to admit that considerable weight would be due to the argument. It might be that, on the subject of union rating, he entertained views which some of their Lordships would deem impracticable, but at present it was sufficient to say that the Bill contained nothing of so formidable a character as the abolition of the law of settlement and the adoption of union rating, and that a sound and useful measure was not prejudiced by propositions which might raise arguable points. All that the Bill did was to diminish the time and increase the area which was to confer the privilege of irremovability in certain cases; and, with regard to the poor, the benefit would be very great, not merely in diminishing the hardship of removals but in promoting a free circulation of labour. The advantage to the ratepayers was still more obvious, because instead of poor parishes being, as now, often unduly burdened, the burden would be more equally and justly distributed and the amount of litigation would be greatly diminished. The effect of the Act of 1846 was greatly to reduce that most objectionable part of the Poor Law expenditure. In the years 1843, 1844, and 1845 the amount spent in litigation was £285,000, and in 1851, 1859, and, 1860 it was only £186,000. Other changes might have had some effect, but from his experience in that Department he was inclined to ascribe the greater portion of that remarkable diminution to the adoption of the principle of irremovability. By this Bill that principle would he extended, and by the diminution of time it would be easier to ascertain the correctness of any claims to settlement, and thus tend further to reduce the expense. The Bill came to them recommended by two Committees of the House of Commons, and by a majority of the Poor Law Inspectors, whose authority must be admitted, and as he believed great benefit would result to the whole community he should cordially vote for the second reading.
  THE EARL OF STRADBROKEsaid, his consideration of the Bill had led him to a different conclusion from that of the noble Earl who had just sat down. It had been
  1354
  described as a measure which did not introduce union rating. That might be so, but he regarded it as a wedge which would lead hereafter to the introduction of that principle. Now, he had never objected to union rating in towns, to which this principle might perhaps be fairly applied. But this was not the case in rural districts—and, indeed, the very reverse was the fact there. At present there existed, he was happy to say, a number of parishes where the owners and occupiers of property took a great interest in their poor, and did their utmost to find them employment, and in which, when there existed a superabundance of labourers, the owners and occupiers subscribed to enable the surplus to emigrate, and thus reduced the poor rates in their respective parishes. In other parishes, however, where property was more divided, or where the owners lived perhaps at a distance, the poor were comparatively neglected, there was a want of employment, and the taxes were far heavier than in the well-administered parishes. The result of a union rating would be to punish the good administrators and to favour the neglectful. It had been said that it was the interest of owners to pull down the labourers' cottages; but such eases were extremely rare—the practice was seldom resorted to and was generally disapproved. He did not say that it was impossible to find one such case; but he believed that six cases of this kind could not be found in the kingdom. The general opinion of landowners was averse to this proceeding, and their aim everywhere was, he believed, to promote the well-being of their labourers—in truth, the general disposition of landowners was to improve the cottages on their estates, and to provide them with three sleeping rooms. No man had advocated the Bill of 1834 more than himself, from the time of its passing this Parliament he had never felt the shadow of a doubt of its great value, but he strongly objected to subsequent alterations which threw the burthen of maintaining the poor when sick on the parishes where they resided, generally adjoining those to which they belonged, and where they worked, in lieu of charging the parishes of their settlement, thus giving an uncalled for, and unfair advantage to ratepayers in parishes having few cottages—this law ought to be repealed. Feeling that the Bill would be prejudicial to the interests of the poor themselves, inasmuch as they would not be so completely employed as they now were,

  1355
  and believing, that it was the first advance towards a system of union rating, he should be compelled to oppose the second reading.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he felt extreme regret in having to oppose this Bill, because it contained a great deal which was likely to be of advantage. At the same time he could not at present consent to pass such a measure. Those by whom it was advocated had treated it as a little Bill; but it was really a very large one, and rendered a satisfactory settlement of other questions much more difficult than before. In his opinion the changes now proposed should be considered in connection with the law of settlement altogether. He admitted that the system of settlement in the form in which it now stood must be got rid of; but by introducing this Bill a difficulty was created in the way of complete legislation. The measure introduced important alterations as regarded the burdens upon property. An illustration had been given of three parishes where the rate was very disproportionate, and the change now proposed would, without showing any sufficient grounds, make a difference at once in the value of property there equivalent in one case to the withdrawal, and in the other to the imposition of a new income tax. That was a very great change, and unless their Lordships were convinced of its justice they ought not to make it. He granted that there was an inequality which ought to be removed; but this was too violent a settlement of the question. There was hardly a union in the kingdom in which the alteration here proposed would not make a difference of 1s. in the pound, some gaining to that amount, and others having to pay 1s. more than they did at present. Suppose two men had taken two farms in different parishes on a lease, assuming the respective burdens to be the same, it would be a serious thing in the one case to increase those burdens, while in the other they were possibly diminished to the same extent. Their Lordships ought to pause before they hastily made so great a change in the value and relative position of property. They were asked at this late period of the Session to take in hand a Bill of this importance, involving the principle of irremovability and union rating. Now, if they had sent down such a Bill to the other House late in July, would the House of Commons have consented to consider it? Their Lordships were asked to pass a Bill on imperfect information, that opened large questions which it did not close, and to pass
  1356
  it at a period of the Session when it was impossible to give the measure the consideration its importance deserved. He should be sorry to record his opinion against the principle of the Bill; and, for these reasons, he would entreat those who had charge of the Bill not to press it.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEbelieved this was an important and beneficent measure, which, if passed in the present Session, would cause it to be referred to hereafter as one that had produced a great public advantage. The noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) in opposing the Bill, stood in a different position from most of the other Members of the House. He said he was prepared to deal with subjects that few of their Lordships and few Members of the House of Commons were prepared to deal with—the two great questions of the law of settlement and the extension of the area of rating. That might be a valid objection to proceeding with this Bill as far as the noble Lord was concerned; but, he believed their Lordships were not prepared to deal with either then, or, probably, in the next Session. Was that a valid reason why they should reject a Bill that did modify the evils of the law of settlement and paved the way for dealing with that question hereafter? The noble Lord asked if it was fair that this Bill should be sent up from the House of Commons at a period of the Session when their Lordships would have no opportunity of investigating the subject? That was a plausible argument, but there was still a fortnight or three weeks of the Session to run, and that would give ample time to consider the Bill in Committee. And any investigation of a subject of this magnitude must be made by their Lordships individually; they had great opportunities, as landowners, of considering the subject, and the advantage of reading the results of the inquiries instituted by the House of Commons, that had thrown a flood of light on the question for some years past. If any subject had been fully investigated this was one. He did not refer to the Committee appointed ten or twelve years ago, but the Committee of 1858, of which Mr. Sotheron Estcourt was Chairman. This Committee did not make any recommendations, but wished to continue the inquiry, and it was re-appointed in the following year, and again in 1860, with the present Duke of Richmond as Chairman. Thus it sat for three successive years, and its recommendations were almost precisely embodied in the present

  1357
  Bill. Every enactment of the Bill was included in the recommendations of the Committee, with one exception; that was as to the mode of making the assessment for the union charge. The Committee recommended that the population should be taken into account, and, by a strange and difficult process, added to the pounds sterling. This recommendation was, he thought, judiciously avoided in the Bill. With that exception all its recommendations were followed. The noble Lord who moved the rejection of this Bill (Viscount Lifford) spoke of this as the first attempt to upset the parochial system of England, and to introduce the principle of a union rating. This was not the first attempt to upset the parochial system, in any respect whatever. That was done by the Acts of 1846 and 1848. This Bill carried the principle no further, but only altered certain details. The noble Lord spoke of the "fine end of the wedge," but that was introduced by Mr. Charles Buller; when the Bill of 1848 made the assessment for the irremovable poor chargeable to the union, instead of the parishes, the principle was initiated of which the noble Lord complained. Nothing was more unjust than the common fund now that the relief of the irremovable poor was charged on the unions. When the Poor Law was enacted the principle was just and fair; then parishes that contributed a large amount to the rates for their own poor paid a proportionate sum to the union charge. There was a reason for it. The object of the common fund was to provide workhouse accommodation for the poor of the union and the officers, and the parishes that had the largest number of poor contributed the largest share; but the irremovable poor were not the poor of the parishes who contributed the largest sum for their own poor. But those parishes were taxed, while rich parishes were exempted from a charge that justly ought to be imposed on them. There were close parishes with irremovable poor that did not contribute a single farthing to the common fund. That was not just to the ratepayers, nor was it just to the poor. In the union of Radford there were three parishes, one rated at 11 s. and the other two at 4s. each, though the rateable value of each parish was almost identical and the number of irremovable poor almost the same. According to union rating each would pay alike; under the parochial system one would pay three times as much as each of the other two. It could not be contended that
  1358
  this was a just principle now the, irremovable poor were made chargeable on the union fund. He believed the effect of the measure would be very beneficial, and tend to encourage landowners to increase the number of cottages on their property. There had really been a considerable increase since the Acts of 1846 and 1848. Although he felt that the subject was far from exhausted, he would refrain from trespassing on their Lordships' time by discussing the various points that might be raised, particularly as he knew that full opportunity for discussing these matters would be found in Committee. If their Lordships did divide ho hoped there would be such a majority in favour of the second reading as would indicate the concurrence of that House with the opinion, not only of the House of Commons, but also of the boards of guardians who had been applied to on the subject, and who had responded in favour of the Bill by a majority of nine to one.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONthought that, considering the enormous magnitude of the question, and the importance of the points involved in its discussion, it was rather hard of the Government to come to that House and ask their Lordships to road such a Bill a second time on the 23rd of July. It was really impossible to understand and read all the Bills brought up to their Lordships' House at this late period of the Session. Since the 15th instant no less than ten Bills had been brought into their Lordships' House, of which five were brought up from the House of Commons only on the previous evening. He understood that there were absolutely Bills in Government offices which had not yet been laid on the table of the other House of Parliament. He was sorry that his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees had not moved the Resolution which he had been accustomed to move in previous Sessions. He thought that Resolution was a very useful stimulus. Although he was not prepared to give his determined opposition to the provisions of the Bill, he did not think their Lordships should be called upon to deal with a question of such magnitude and importance at so advanced a period of the Session, and he hoped the Government would not persevere with the Bill.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 31; Majority, 9.

  CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Carlisle, Bp.

  London, Bp.

  Newcastle, D.

  Boyle, L. (E.Cork and Orrery.)

  Somerset, D.

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Denman, L.

  De Tabley, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Caithness, E.

  Chichester, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Clarendon, E.

  Fortescue, L. (V. Ebrington.)

  De Grey, E.

  Devon, E.

  Harris, L.

  Granville, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Llanover, L.

  Minto, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Spencer, E.

  Portman, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Eversley, V.

  Somerhill, L.(M. Clanricarde.)

  Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Sydney, V.

  Wodehouse, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cleveland, D.

  Colchester, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Bath, M.

  Delamere, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Kingsdown, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Lovel and Holland, L.

  Derby, E.

  (E. Egmont.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  Polwarth, L.

  Powis, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Stradbroke, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Dungannon, V. [Teller.]

  Lifford, V.

  Tredegar, L.

  Melville, V.

  Tyrone, L. [M. Waterford.)

  Chelmsford, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Churston, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

NAVAL MEDICAL SUPPLEMENTAL FUND SOCIETY BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that his attention had been called to this subject that afternoon by a petition from some widows of naval medical officers, which he had declined to present because he thought that the petitioners asked for some concessions to which they had no claim. There were,
  1360
  however, some things for which they were anxious, which perhaps the noble Duke might be disposed to concede. One was that a trustee of this fund should be appointed to represent their interests; and the other that it should be understood—as he believed was the case—that the Admiralty would under this Bill have power to increase the pensions of medical officers, if the fund would bear it, to an amount above £26 13 s. 4d.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that he was anxious to do all he could to satisfy the wishes of the annuitants, and at the same time protect the public interests. He would communicate with the noble Lord, and see what arrangement could be made to secure those objects.
  LORD CHELMSFORDfelt very much indebted to the noble Duke for the answer which he had given.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON THE BISHOP OF LONDON rose to call the attention of the House to the subject of ecclesiastical dilapidations. He said he was extremely unwilling to trouble their Lordships at that hour with any lengthened statement, but the noble Viscount (Viscount Dungannon) having frequently asked what course the right rev. Bench intended to pursue on the subject of dilapidations, he had thought it best, even at that late period of the Session, to ask their Lordships to read for a first time the Bill he was about to lay on the Table. The subject was one of very great importance, and ought no longer to be delayed. Some apology was, no doubt, due to the noble Viscount and to the clergy for the delay which had taken place already with regard to the Bill; but that delay had in a great measure arisen from the extremely complicated nature of the subject with which they had had to deal. How complicated the subject was would be easily understood from the fact that there were no less than 9,000 residences with respect to which this question of dilapidations arose; and the number of these residences was increasing at an average of 125 every year. The last time a survey was taken there were only 6,000 such residences; but during the last twenty-five years they had risen

  1361
  to 9,000 in number, and there was every prospect that they would increase. Their Lordships were aware that by the common law, and by the canon law, every incumbent was bound to keep his residence in repair; but it was only by Ecclesiastical Courts that this duty could be enforced. But the state of the Ecclesiastical Courts was not such as could be desired, and this part of the law was practically a dead letter—it was almost impossible for any ecclesiastical authorities to enforce the law. The result was that, when persons had small means, there was a strong temptation to put off this duty from year to year; and it continually happened that the death of the incumbent, or his removal to another incumbency, took place before the dilapidations were repaired. The only remedy then was a proceeding at common law by an action for damages against the incumbent, if he were living, or the heir, if he were dead. A reference had to be made, and three surveyors had to be employed, one for each of the parties, and a third as referee. In different parts of the country surveyors proceeded on different principles of valuation; they took different views as to what dilapidations were, and the result was the greatest confusion and uncertainty. Moreover, when all this had been done, it constantly happened that there were no assets wherewith to defray the expense of the repairs. The successor in all cases was under the disagreeable necessity either of proceeding against persons who were often of small means, or of putting up with the loss and repairing the residence at his own expense. The property oven of patrons was much diminished; it was a great hardship upon those who were appointed to benefices, and a still greater injury was done to the parish from the degeneracy in value of these incumbencies, and the lessened inducements held out to clergymen to undertake the cure, when they must make a considerable outlay, and perhaps become hampered with debt. By the present Bill power was lodged in the hands of the Bishop to insist upon the execution of necessary repairs. The machinery which it was thought most expedient to employ was already in existence—namely, the Board of Queen Anne's Bounty. In some instances a charge would have to be made upon the living, for which Queen Anne's Bounty would furnish the funds. A report from surveyors would have to be
  1362
  made, certifying that the repairs were properly executed. In all cases there must be a power to insist upon repairs being executed. In favour of the Bill it might be said that it was acceptable to a large body of the parochial clergy being based on the recommendations of a Committee of Convocation: but it was extremely desirable that during the recess an opportunity might be given to the Bishops, archdeacons, and rural deans, to have the subject fully discussed. It was further of the highest importance that the clergy themselves should consider what improvements might be made in the measure, in order that they might he introduced into a future Bill. He sincerely hoped that before the end of next Session this great evil might be remedied. The right rev. Prelate then presented a Bill for the Relief of Ecclesiastical Persons in respect of the Maintenance and Repair of Houses of Residence and other Buildings; and moved that it be read 1a.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, it would afford the greatest satisfaction to the clergy to know that this Bill had been laid upon the Table of the House, not with a view of progressing further with it this Session, but of giving thorn an opportunity of considering its details, and considering what further or other remedies might be applied to the case. The subject was one which very strongly required legislative interference, and personally he begged to express himself highly indebted to the right rev. Prelate, for the great trouble and pains he had taken in preparing a measure which, if it remedied the evil, would earn for him the gratitude of the clergy.
  LORD REDESDALEasked out of what fond the expense of the machinery for working the Bill, such as the surveyors and other officers, would be defrayed?
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that a fund would have to be raised in each diocese, for which it was intended that the archdeacons and rural deans should arrange, by means of an assessment on the value of the several benefices.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEthought that certain cases of dilapidations which were omitted ought to be included in the Bill, and that there would be a difficulty in defining what were ecclesiastical dilapidations. He felt that thanks were due to the right rev. Prelate and his right rev. brethren of the province of Canterbury for the pains which they had taken, and he

  1363
  hoped that in the next Session a satisfactory arrangement would he made.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 1a.
  House adjourned at a Quarter before Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.