Lords Sitting of 24 July 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Highland Roads and Bridges; Militia Ballots Suspension; Lunatics Law Amendment.
2a Parochial Assessments; Confirmation of Sales, &c.; Savings Banks (Ireland); Turnpike Acts Continuance; Copyhold, &c. Commission; Weights and Measures (Ireland) Act (1860) Amendment; Public Offices Extension; County Surveyors (Ireland); Divorce Court.
3a Coal Mines; Police and Improvement (Scotland); Parochial Buildings (Scotland).

THE JOURNALS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he wished in justice to the Officers of that House to call their Lordships' attention to certain statements which had been made with regard to the manner in which the Journals of that House were kept, and to certain imputations which had been cast upon the Officers of the House in a Report of a Committee of the other House of Parliament on Parliamentary Proceedings, in which it was stated that the Lords' Journals were generally a year and a half or two years in arrear, and therefore,

727
whenever the Commons wished to search them, there were no Journals to search, but an entry was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the House of Commons; whereas the Journals of their own (the Commons') House were always entered up and printed to the current time. That evidence had been given by the Clerk Assistant of the House of Commons. He thought it but justice to the Officers of their Lordships' House to state the manner in which this portion of their duties was carried on. The Minutes of Proceedings of each day, and all documents presented, were sent up to the Journal Office, where they were developed by the Journal Clerks, so as to state, in a formal manner, what the House had done. This development of the Minutes into the form of the Journal was made ordinarily within a week, sometimes within a day or two, except as regarded the Judgments on Appeals, which, though entered as of the day, were often not finally settled for a considerable time. When developed, as before mentioned, they were at once sent to the printer, and the proofs were returned as soon as printed, and filed in the Journal Office within three or four weeks, or less, of the day to which they related. If within that period an inspection was desired, it was the practice to make out a fresh original entry for that purpose. The state of the case at present was this:—The revised proofs up to the 30th of May this year were printed, and he believed he might also say the proof sheets of the Proceedings up to the 11th of July and the manuscripts up to the 21st of July were nearly completed. Therefore everything was absolutely printed and revised up to the 30th of May, and most of the remaining records were not a fortnight behind-hand. There was one class of Proceedings with regard to which there was some delay—namely, the judgments on appeals; but such delay was incident to these records in consequence of the great care requisite in their preparation, and it sometimes occurred that the form in which some particular point of the judgment should be entered, especially as respected costs (the bills for which must be taxed and their amount set forth), were strongly contested. No such occasion for delay could occur in the preparation of the Commons' Journals. At the commencement of every Session there were always two copies of the Journals in the library for the use of any Members that might require them; but
728
after that there was an interval which varied from a month or two before the Proceedings were ready for publication. With regard to the statement, that when the other House sent to search the Journals, they only found entries prepared for the purpose, and that there were no Journals to search, the facts were that during the last ten years only twelve searches were made by the Committees: three of them took place on the day of the transactions which gave rise to the search, four on the next day, and two on the day after that, there being an intervening Sunday, and one on the fourth day. It was not surprising, then, that under such circumstances the Journals containing those particular entries were not in print. He regretted extremely that this statement of the case had not been given before the Committee of the House of Commons. He was sure, however, their Lordships would feel that it was but due to the Officers of that House, who were most diligent, painstaking, and accurate, that he should make that statement.
EARL GRANVILLEasked, to whose evidence the noble Lord referred.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, Mr. May's, than whom no person was better acquainted with the proceedings of Parliament.

PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS BILL.

  [BILL NO. 203.] SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that its object was to secure the uniform and correct valuation of property rateable to parochial assessments in parishes in the unions of England. In 1850 a Select Committee of their Lordships' House was appointed, which took evidence and made a report on this subject. A Bill was introduced shortly afterwards to carry out the recommendations of the Committee; but as the machinery was not acceptable, the measure was dropped, and the subject was not revived for many years. The difference, however, between the real value and the rateable value of property in many parishes was so great—amounting to as much as twenty, thirty, and even fifty per cent — that a more equitable assessment was greatly to be desired. Mr. Poulett Scrope's Bill was to a certain extent a remedy for this inequality; but the overseers of parishes had, in many cases

  729
  through carelessness, and sometimes from a worse motive, made untrue returns; and so long as the overseers made the statutory declarations required under that Act, the magistrates were bound to give effect to those declarations. The result, of course, was to inflict injustice upon the majority of ratepayers, and the only remedy being the expensive process of an appeal, that remedy was very seldom resorted to. Recent legislation had, however, rendered absolutely necessary that which was before desirable. Certain establishment charges and expenses of the irremovable poor were last year removed from the parishes and thrown upon the unions. Some uniform rating of the parishes composing the unions was therefore generally demanded, and the more so because one-third of the unions of England contained parishes in two different counties, in which a distinct mode of assessment usually prevailed. It was proposed that the board of guardians of the union should select from their body a committee to be called an assessment committee, consisting of not less than six and not more than twelve guardians, one-third of whom should be ex officio. It was by no means intended to introduce the principle of union rating in this Bill; the assessments would be simply parochial, and a right of appeal was given not only to individual ratepayers of the parish, but to the parishes of the same union if the overseers of such other parish should think the valuation unjust. The Bill, which resulted from the recommendations of a Parliamentary Committee, after having been framed, had been sent down to every union in the country, and had met with the general approval of boards of guardians. As their Lordships would have an opportunity of expressing their opinions on the details of the measure in Committee, he would only now ask them to give the Bill a second reading.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD PORTMANsaid, that having been a member of the Select Committee which inquired into this subject in 1850, he could bear his testimony to the necessity of a more equitable and uniform system of parochial assessment. He believed this measure would effect a great improvement on that head; but he felt bound to state to their Lordships, that unless an Amendment were made in Committee to the 15th clause, which altered the whole system of rating throughout the country, and had, by an Amendment in the Com-
  730
  mons, varied the intention of the promoters of the Bill, he should think their Lordships would find it advisable to pause before they passed this Bill this Session.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHventured to differ both from the noble Duke and the noble Lord who had just spoken. He doubted whether the alteration would effect all the harm the noble Lord imagined; and so far from the Bill being a valuable measure he doubted whether the very limited object sought to be obtained would prove at all commensurate with the trouble and expense of working. So far also from boards of guardians being in favour of the Bill, he believed the majority were against it.
  LORD REDESDALEthought the measure would require a great deal more consideration than it had yet received. He did not think the guardians would be very likely to take much trouble in revising the assessments of their several unions. They would be much more likely to come to some general arrangement, by saying—"If you give your vote in favour of letting us settle our rates in our parish in our own way, we will give you ours to permit you to do the same." The machinery of the Bill was most complicated, and the delay it would occasion in making and levying the rates would be extremely great. He believed, if this Bill were adopted, there would be at least three months' delay between the making of the rate and levying it; and if there were any alteration or amendment, or any objection raised to it, the delay would be greatly increased. As a present rule, the repairs of houses were mostly done by the landlord, and it was too often the case that they were rated on the whole rental, instead of the net. He thought the best course would be to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, because he was quite convinced that it would require a great deal more consideration than their Lordships would be disposed to give it at this advanced period of the Session. In its present shape it created considerable apprehension throughout the country.
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTONconsidered that it would be of the greatest possible advantage to establish a fair system of union rating, but he did not believe that the machinery of the present measure would be at all practicable in order to carry out that object. He therefore suggested that the Bill should be withdrawn (it being the first step towards union rating), and that a sound measure should be

  731
  introduced next Session at a sufficiently early period to ensure its full consideration.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEin reply said, the House ought not to regard this measure as a hasty piece of legislation, seeing that the subject had engaged the attention of Parliament for the last twenty years. Those who objected to the proposal as the first step towards union rating forgot that the first step was taken last year, and that this Bill was merely introduced to remedy defects in the working of the former measure. Instead of exciting those apprehensions of which the noble Lord had spoken, the answers received from those boards of guardians which had replied to the circular sent out by the Department, were, he believed, without exception, favourable to the Bill. In regard to the objections which had been taken to the 15th clause some slight misapprehension existed. The clause in its present shape was not originally included in the Bill; but was introduced on the Motion of the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck) under the impression that some difficulty and uncertainty would be thereby removed. The Government assented to the clause, believing that it did not alter the law, but only settled that which was unsettled before. Doubts, however, had since been raised, and apprehensions expressed with regard to its probable operation. The Government, therefore, would be willing to omit the clause; but, as this was a privilege Bill, they feared that the omission of the clause might imperil the passing of the measure. The following proviso had been submitted to those who objected to this clause, and had met with their approval:—
  "Provided that nothing herein contained shall repeal or interfere with the Provisions contained in the 1st section of the said Act, 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 96, defining the net annual value."
  He himself thought that it would be better to omit the clause; but that, it appeared, would be considered a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. That objection seemed to him to be rather a straining of the privileges of the other House. It was, at all events, a serious inconvenience, and he thought it would be desirable if possible to obtain from the House of Commons at the commencement of another Session, by some friendly communication, a more accurate definition of what they considered to be their privileges in this respect, in order that it might
  732
  be more clearly defined what were the obstacles to legislation in that House.
  THE EARL OF ROMNEYsaid, he did not attach the same importance as the noble Duke opposite appeared to do to the opinion of the Poor Law guardians, because they acquired additional power and importance under the Bill. If the views of the churchwardens and overseers had been asked, it was very likely that a different opinion would have been elicited. He did not intend to oppose the Bill, but considered that the best course for the Government to adopt would be to defer legislation on the subject till next Session.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  NEW ZEALAND BILL— [BILL NO. 209.]
  Commons' Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
COAL MINES BILL— [BILL NO. 144.]

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order.)
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONproposed to insert an Amendment—
  "No person shall be precluded by any Agreement made before the passing of this Act from doing such Acts as may be necessary for providing an additional Shaft or Outlet to a Mine where the same is required by this Act, or be liable under any Agreement to any Penalty or Forfeiture for doing such Acts as may be necessary in order to comply with the Provisions of this Act."
  LORD RAVENSWORTHcalled attention to the circumstance, that although this measure would impose some restraints upon the working of coal mines, it had received no opposition from coal owners, and expressed a hope that in the working of the Bill every indulgence would be shown to those whose peculiar position might render it necessary.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONadmitted that nothing but a strong case of necessity could justify the passing of such a Bill as this, and said that he had no doubt that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would, in the administration of the law, show the indulgence which was due to the coal owners for the manner in which they had received this Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL NO. 219.] COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Sums to be assessed by Metropolitan Board).
  LORD RAVENSWORTHcomplained of the undue charges which had been imposed on certain parishes. Chiswick, for instance, had been charged to the amount of £5,300, although scarcely £400 worth of works had been executed in that parish. The promoters of this Bill acknowledged the hardship of the case of the aggrieved parishes, and proposed to pass another Bill pari passu, and distinguished as "No. 2 Bill," with it, to effect a remedy. The complainants were induced to remain quiet; but at a certain stage the remedial Bill was withdrawn, in deference, it was said, to the temper of the House of Commons. He imagined that the phrase meant that metropolitan Members, and Members interested in this Bill, remained until a late hour, and were enabled by a little clamour to overbear any opposition to the course which they deemed fit to pursue. Under the circumstances his suspicions were aroused, and he was not induced to view with favour the single Bill now before their Lordships. The great grievance complained of by the taxpayers was not only that they were taxed heavily, but that they were taxed without their consent, and without receiving any benefit. In the Select Committee he proposed a clause to protect these parishes, and it was lost by the casting vote of the Chairman, simply, he believed, because the convenience of passing the Bill was thought to outweigh the admitted hardship of the case of these parishes. He should now renew the attempt to remedy the grievance by moving the addition of words at the end of this clause, to this effect—
  "Except such precepts as may be issued to the parishes and parts of the Fulham and Hammersmith district, which precepts shall be amended and part and parish charged according to the actual benefit derived from works constructed therein."
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTONadmitted the hardship of the case of these parishes, but advised that the proviso should not be inserted lest a greater hardship should be inflicted upon other parties.
  EARL GRANVILLEalso objected to the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clauses to 109 agreed to.
  Clause 110 struck out.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received To-morrow. [No. 227.]

DIVORCE COURT BILL— [BILL NO. 193.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, that the Bill be now read the second time.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that before their Lordships assented to the second reading of this Bill, he would present to them a Petition which he had received that day, signed by 296 inhabitants of Norwich, praying their Lordships to reject the Bill altogether. The parties stated that they only received notice of the Bill on Saturday last, and observed that it was being hurried very rapidly through the House. The present Act expired on the 31st of this month; and whilst he could not support the prayer of the Petition, because he did not think it desirable that the Court should suddenly cease to exist, he yet thought it would not be unreasonable that rather more time than something less than a fortnight should be afforded to their Lordships for considering the propriety of prolonging the Court or making it permanent. It certainly did appear, as the result of experience, that the Bill had failed to fulfil all the objects which its promoters had in view. Its effect certainly had not been greatly to diminish the scandal arising from the publication of very many indelicate and some indecent cases. Indeed, for one such case previous to the passing of the Act there were now at least twenty which were just as freely published in the newspapers. He was not expressing any opinion as to the necessity or expediency of continuing the Divorce Court as it stood; but, before an Act of such a doubtful description was made permanent, he would suggest to the noble and learned Lord opposite whether it would not be better to pass a short continuance Act of two or three years' duration, and to allow a general inquiry into the working of the measure, which was very much needed, to take place. He did not propose to

  735
  offer any objection to the second reading, but hoped the Government would consider the suggestion he had made.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that it would be remembered that two years after the Divorce Court Act was passed an amending Bill was introduced which contained a clause enabling the Queen's Proctor to intervene in cases brought before the Court, in order to prevent collusion between parties who sought to be released from their marriage vows. An Amendment was inserted in the clause by the House of Commons limiting the power of the Queen's Proctor to intervene to two years, in order to see how the proviso would work, and the object of the present measure was not to make the Divorce Act perpetual, but to continue the power of the Queen's Proctor to intervene, which expired on the 31st of July, so long as the Act remained in force.
  LORD REDESDALEhad no objection to the present Bill, but should have expressed himself strongly against any Bill the object of which was to perpetuate the present Divorce Court, because he was sorry to say that his worst apprehensions as to the effect of the Divorce Act itself, and the temptations it offered for the breaking of marriage ties had been realized
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the explanation of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would remove the apprehensions which existed as to any design to perpetuate the Divorce Court itself; and as the Bill in reality was to continue a provision which in effect limited the operation of the Divorce Act to some extent by preventing collusion, he should offer no objection to it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.