Lords Sitting of 21 June 1872

MINUTES.
NEW REPRESENTATIVE PEER—Earl of Wicklow, v. Lord Inchiquin, deceased.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Sites for Places of Worship and Schools* (166); Inclosure Law Amendment* (169).
Second Reading—Limited Owners Improvements (154); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental (No.2)* (156); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental* (142); Elementary Education (Provisional Order Confirmation)* (148); Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation* (147); Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* (145); Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4)* (146).
Select Committee—Infant Life Protection* (118), nominated.
Committee—Union of Benefices Act Amendment* (140–167); Trusts of Benefices and Churches* (151).
Committee—Report—Bank of England (Election of Directors)* (144).
Report—Parliamentary and Municipal Elections (157–168).
Third Reading—Baptismal Fees* (160); Board of Trade Inquiries* (155), and passed.

ARMY REGULATION ACT—THE CIVIL POWER AND THE MILITARY FORCE.

  QUESTION.
  LORD PORTMANsaid, that during the discussions on the recent measures for the re-organization of our military forces attention seemed to have been directed mainly, if not exclusively, to the protection of our shores against foreign invasion—on the other hand, little attention had been paid to the question how the military force was to be made available for the assistance of the Civil Power in the case of domestic disturbance. Now, many years ago, it had been his misfortune to have to assemble the Yeomanry under his command as Lord Lieutenant of the county of Somerset, with the view to their giving such assistance, and the recollection of that had induced him to look into the recent Act for the re-organization of the Army in order to find what rule was to guide the authorities in regard to calling out the Yeomanry; but he had

  3
  been unable to find any such rule. It was with a view to elicit information on this important point that he had given Notice of the Question he was about to ask—namely, he begged to ask Her Majesty's Government? 1. What local authorities may now apply to the Secretary of State for any military force to aid the Civil Power; 2. By whom can the Yeomanry be called out to aid the Civil Power?
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTONwished to ask the noble Marquess whether the magistrates were not the local authorities to act in such an emergency?
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he thought that his noble Friend (Lord Portman) had done good service by raising this question in an Assembly the most capable of determining it. He begged to inform his noble Friend that the reason why there was omitted from the Army Regulation Act any arrangement as to the authority by whom application should be made for military force in aid of the Civil Power was that—with the exception of the Yeomanry—no change of the existing law had taken place. Before and since the recent legislation, the proper authority to make application to the Secretary of State for military in case of disturbances were the magistrates. He admitted that he could not refer to any statute for this authority, because the practice had not originated in any particular Act of Parliament, but had grown up gradually, and had been invariably acted upon. In 1717, a military force, by an Order in Council, was summoned to aid the Customs authorities in enforcing their decisions. Since then he believed that no similar Order in Council had been issued. Every subject of Her Majesty was bound to aid in the suppression of outrage and the preservation of peace and order, and from this obligation the forces of the Crown were not exempted. In the Queen's Regulations, No. 912, it was laid down that when a military force was so called out upon the requisition of the magistrates, they were bound to obey not only as ordinary subjects of Her Majesty, but as soldiers—that was, subject to military discipline and the Mutiny Act. In Sections 9 and 12 of the Queen's Regulations an opinion of Lord Ellenborough was quoted for the information and guidance of commanding officers when military forces were called out on
  4
  occasions of emergency, and it was even laid down that under certain circumstances the military might act without the presence of a magistrate. The Army Pensioners were also liable to be called out in aid of the Civil Power as a military force. The Militia were only available as a military force when embodied; while the case of the Volunteers had been dealt with by a recent War Office Circular. With regard to the Yeomanry, by the 44 Geo. III., c. 54, sec. 23, it was provided that the Yeomanry might
  "Voluntarily march on being called upon, in pursuance of any order from the Lieutenant or Sheriff of the county, to act within the county or adjacent counties for the suppression of riots or tumults," and "shall in all such cases, from the time of so assembling, or marching, as aforesaid.…. be subject to military discipline, to the Mutiny Act and Articles of War."
  The Act of last Session, which transferred this power, so far as the Lord Lieutenant was concerned, to the Secretary of State, left the power of the Sheriff untouched. The only change made by the legislation of last year was the transfer to the Secretary of State of the power hitherto exercised by Lord Lieutenants of counties; that, however, did not alter the statutory authority possessed by the Sheriff, who was the local authority, and who had still the power to call out the Yeomanry in aid of the Civil Power on occasions of sudden emergency. As a general rule for the guidance of the public, it might be laid down that the magistrates were the proper persons to apply to the Secretary of State, if there was time; or if not to the nearest commanding officer for the aid of a military force in suppressing disorder. He admitted that the various regulations might be somewhat confusing, but he believed that he had shown that there had been no important alterations made upon the subject, and that the existing law worked well. There were moreover strong objections to fresh legislation with regard to a subject which had always been dealt with very jealously, in consequence of a feeling that the forces of the Crown should be if possible used only in case of conflict with a foreign enemy, and not for police purposes, except under extreme pressure.
  THE EARL OF CORKhoped that his noble Friend would pardon him for saying that he did not seem to have an-

  5
  swered the Question put to him. The question was, by whom could the Yeomanry be called out in aid of the Civil Power. He himself believed that the law had been that the magistrates applied to the Lord Lieutenant, who, in his turn, applied to the Secretary of State; but, as the power over the Militia Force was now taken away from the Lord Lieutenant, it was desirable that they should know whether the magistrates were to apply directly to the military commandant of the district or to the Secretary of State. He thought that if the noble Marquess would consider the matter a little more, he would be able to give a more satisfactory answer to the Question that had been put to him.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The proper authority to call out the Yeomanry in aid of the Civil Power is the Sheriff. The Act said the Lord Lieutenant or the Sheriff; but the Lord Lieutenant's power having been transferred to the Secretary of State, the only legal authority remaining to call out the Yeomanry was the Sheriff.
  LORD PORTMANasked to whom the local authorities were to apply to call out the Yeomanry—to the Secretary of State, or to the commanding officer of the district, or to the officer in command of the Yeomanry? His own opinion was that the application must be made to the Secretary of State.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No authority, whether that of the general commanding the district, or the Lord Lieutenant, or the Secretary of State, could compel the Yeomanry to come out; they were volunteers and could elect whether they would come out or not. The hold that the War Office had upon the Yeomanry was this—that it was essential to their existence that they should receive certain allowances from the Executive Government, which allowances could be withdrawn. There was no instance, and probably would be none, of the Yeomanry refusing to act; but, as he had already said, they could not be compelled to act without their own concurrence.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYthought the noble Marquess was in error. If individuals could be called upon to aid the Civil Power in an emergency, it could scarcely be supposed that an armed force like the Yeomanry would have any right of refusal.
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTONsaid, that in 1842, as commander of a Yeomanry corps, he was called upon by the general of the district to march his troops out of their own county of Cheshire into Lancashire in order to suppress disturbances that had broken out there.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHremarked that it was strange the Yeomanry could not be compelled to aid the Civil Power, seeing that when called out they were under the discipline of marshal law, and that penalties attached to them for breaches of that law.
  LORD DENMANbelieved that as the High Sheriff had precedence of the Lord Lieutenant and of everyone in his county, except the Judges on Circuit, that he would have the right of calling out the Yeomanry, and even the Volunteers—as Her Majesty's subjects, individually—in the case of any riots; and in the Bristol Riots the complaint of the Government was, that the authorities of that city did not promptly call to their aid the military power. In the case of a riot, every subject of Her Majesty was bound to aid the civil powers directly the Riot Act was read, and it was the duty of every magistrate to call to his aid any military force near him, and all Her Majesty's subjects who witnessed the riot.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, with all respect for the noble Marquess, he did not think that he had quite clearly answered the Question. What they wanted to know was, who was the authority to call out the Yeomanry. The noble Marquess said if they were called but did not choose to come, no one could say anything to it. It should be borne in mind, however, that by a recent regulation a fine was imposed on any man who having entered the Yeomanry should leave the force before the expiry of three years. Surely, if there was the power of inflicting a penalty upon a man for leaving the Force prematurely, there must be a power of inflicting some penalty on a man who being in the Force did not come out when called upon. If there was no such power, he thought there should be some legislation to confer it.

LIMITED OWNERS IMPROVEMENTS BILL—(No. 154.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its object was to enable limited owners to spend their own money on their own property. The larger number of the estates in this country were in strict settlement, so that the tenant in possession was only tenant for life. That was a system to which most of them were much attached; but among many advantages there were some disadvantages attached to that state of things, arising from the principle of law that if you spent money upon the freehold, or upon anything that was affixed to the freehold, the money could no longer be dealt with separately, but stuck to the freehold and went where the freehold went. The result was that if a limited owner spent money upon the freehold, that money would go to his successor—the limited owner could not get it back out of the freehold. At the present day, people were more anxious than they used to be to provide for their younger children, and there was frequently a struggle in a limited owner's mind as to whether he should save his money for the younger children or should invest it in the improvement of his estate. He (the Marquess of Salisbury) wanted by this Bill to enable them to do the best to improve the estate without taking the money from their younger children. He was well aware that many persons would solve this matter in a different manner by saying that these difficulties were occasioned by the law of entail, and that if entail prevented these improvements, why not abolish entail? He would not touch upon the political point of view of this question. Many persons attacked and many persons defended the doctrines of entail from political motives; but setting aside political considerations, he thought it could be shown that entail tended rather to the improvement of land than otherwise. The reason was this. Settlement prohibited two things—it was a prohibition against sale and a prohibition against mortgage. If the tendency of land being relieved from settlement would be that owners would sell half
8
their land to improve the rest, then—however deeply he might deprecate such a proceeding upon political grounds—he must admit that there were certain cases where upon economical grounds there would be an advantage. Supposing it to be true that owners of land would take that course, no doubt the abolition of the law of settlement would tend to the improvement of land. But it was not true. The law of settlement, or the practice of settlement, had not been created by English law, but had been thrust upon it. The practice of people leaving large estates together with the hereditary tenure of land were dear to the hearts of the English people, and, therefore, he was quite certain of this—that if they abolished the practice of settlement what they would encourage would be not sales, but mortgages with all their consequent evils. Take the case of a man who felt himself embarrassed, or who wanted to spend money for unproductive purposes, or who had got "out at elbows;" the result in such a case would be that he would borrow. The abolition of the system of settlement would not set the land free in the market; but the result would be that land would be gradually more and more burdened with mortgages, until in the end we should want a Landed Estates Court for England. No one would dispute that the very worst thing that could happen to land would be that it should be under a general system of mortgage. They would then have a number of persons who had the burden of land upon them, but were utterly unable to discharge the duties attached to it. This difficulty, which he now proposed to deal with, had been felt by Parliament for some time, and many attempts had been made to apply a remedy. The mode that had been adopted had been upon this—that it should be permitted to burden land not with unproductive, but with productive mortgages, and to empower the owner to leave the money spent in improvements a charge upon his successor. But all these Acts had been only to some extent successful, because they were hampered with various difficulties. The first effort of the kind was the Public Drainage Act by which public money was to be lent for the purpose of general drainage. Another set of Acts enabled companies to lend money to limited owners who were anxious to im-

9
prove, giving them power to charge the money upon their land. That was good in theory, and was productive, no doubt, of a certain amount of benefit; but if they loaded improvements of land with interest at 5 per cent, to be paid to the company, and with money also to be paid to directors, surveyors, and the staff of the office, the result would be that the profit vanished altogether, and many persons who tried to improve estates in this mariner had found themselves burdened with the weight of an annuity quite out of proportion to the amount of benefit received. In 1864 Parliament made a further experiment in the direction of assisting limited owners, and passed an Act empowering such owners to expend their own money on improving their estate, having first obtained the approval of the Inclosure Commissioners, and to charge the estate with the money so expended. This was exactly the principle of the Bill which he now laid before their Lordships, only he was desirous to avoid the unnecessary complications that he thought had made those previous Acts almost inoperative. Under the Act of 1864 anyone wishing to spend his own money upon his own land must go to the Inclosure Commissioners and lay before them plans to be prepared by their surveyor, the approbation of the Commissioners being a necessary preliminary. The Commissioners were then to see that the work was properly done and the building carried out in accordance with the plans. The action of the Commissioners did not end there, for after that and during the whole life of the limited owner the Commissioners might send a surveyor down once a-year to see that the improvements were kept up. That was an amount of tutelage that very few landowners would submit to; and he believed that the Act had been mainly used by persons who were in the position of corporation sole, and had been used very little by ordinary owners of land. The object of these tiresome and irksome provisions was to protect the successor of the limited owner. He (the Marquess of Salisbury) would protect him in a more simple way. His proposition was that any limited person who desired to invest money in improvements of his estate, such as drainage and building (but not building upon his own house), should be enabled to do so; but
10
he must deposit and register his improvements with the Commissioners; when he had done that he had nothing further to do. He might leave the value of these improvements to his younger children, or to whom else he liked. When the legatees claimed the value of the improvements the Commissioners would ask the successor to the estate if he disputed the claim; and if he did dispute it then there was provided a simple mode of trying the issue—that issue being whether the improvements at that moment had or had not added to the letting value of the land. For that and for that alone he proposed that the successor should be required to pay; so that he would pay for absolutely nothing which he did not receive. In this way a limited owner would be enabled to invest his money upon his own estate, and to obtain a better income for himself; and also to obtain a national object—that of the improvement of the land. There was already abundant machinery to enable limited owners to charge their estates for the value of improvements; but the difference was that his machinery was cheap and effective, whilst the other was unnecessary, cumbrous, and costly. There was, however, no difference in principle between the two systems. There was one thing that must have sometimes troubled all their Lordships, and that was the question of labourers' cottages. Good cottages for the labourers were in these days an improvement essential to every well-managed estate. But building cottages must always be, to some extent, a matter of charity, because—except in cases where they would command 3s. 6d. weekly rent, which in most parts of this country was a mythical rent—they did not pay a fair percentage on the cost. It was very hard that the whole of such cost should come out of the limited owner's pocket. The limited owner who now built cottages, in fact, paid part of the money spent to the labourer, part to his own successor, and retained very little of it for himself. It would be a considerable improvement if a limited owner could lay upon his successor a fair proportion of the cost of building cottages; and by this Bill the limited owner would be able to charge on the estate the value of such cottages in the same way as he would that of other buildings. It had been suggested to him that it would be well to extend

11
the operation of the Bill to Ireland and Scotland. He could have no objection. No doubt, the Bill would be found capable of amendment in its details; but he believed that its principle would be of advantage in facilitating the improvement of land, and in divesting the present conditions of settlement in entail of some objections that were made to them.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDrather doubted whether his noble Friend had not considerably overstated his case. He believed that limited owners availed themselves of the Act of 1864 to a very much larger extent than the noble Marquess seemed to suppose—large sums of money had unquestionably been raised under it. He apprehended that no one would be opposed to the principle of his noble Friend's Bill, but he regarded some of the details as open to objection. For instance, in its present shape it would have a retrospective operation. He doubted whether that was advisable, seeing that limited owners had been acting with a full knowledge of the existing law. Again, he thought that 50 years was too long a term for the repayment of the capital sum borrowed—under the Act of 1864 the limit was 30 years.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, he feared that if the Bill became law the effect would be to lead to a more general mortgaging of estates throughout the country. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) described the Bill as one to enable a man to spend his own money on his own estate; but it would better be described as a Bill for enabling a man to spend another person's money on his estate. At the present moment an owner of a limited estate could, by applying to the Commissioners, and having any improvement which he might make valued and certified, charge his estate with an annuity which would pay off in 30 years the money he had expended, and the interest on that money also. Now, according to his noble Friend's Bill, instead of a person having to apply to the Commissioners to certify and report on the improvements which he contemplated, and carrying them out to their satisfaction, before he could create a charge on his estate—under this Bill a limited owner
12
might first spend the money, and then go to the Commissioners with an ex parte statement. The Commissioners had no means of inquiry into the desirability of the improvements made, or of ascertaining how the money had been laid out. Well, this person died, leaving his unsettled property to some other person than his successor. This person would be enabled to come forward and claim as part of the deceased's personalty, the charges he had created on his estate by his own ex parte statement, and on his own valuation, and the schedule lodged with the Commissioners, and unexamined by them would be proof. The successor was required to object to the claim within six months, and if he failed to do so, the provisional charge became absolute. Again, under this ex parte statement a successor might be charged with the cost of improvements which, if of any value at the time, were no longer of value when he succeeded, or which might even involve continuous outlay. In the case of drainage, it was well known that it required to be renewed after 20 years, and few buildings were in a good condition after 25 years. The noble Duke who had just spoken (the Duke of Cleveland), referred to the provision in the Bill by which the charge was to run for 50 years. The noble Marquess would, probably, however, reduce the term; nevertheless such a provision showed how loosely the Bill had been drawn up. He hoped their Lordships would pause before passing the Bill to remedy a grievance which he had not been able to discover to exist.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEthought that the noble Marquess who had just spoken (the Marquess of Bath) could not have read the 9th and other clauses of the Bill, or he would not have seen that under them an owner, coming into possession might have to pay for that which was of no value to his estate, for the clause enacted that—
"The Commisssioners should determine what amount (if any) of addition to the letting value of the land comprised in the settlement is produced by the improvement; and if they determine that there is none, the provisional charge shall absolutely cease."
The noble Marquess said that the owner of a settled estate wishing to improve his land might now go to the Inclosure Commissioners and get their sanction to

13
such improvements as he desired to make, and then borrow money from a company in order to execute them. That was quite true; but he himself (the Earl of Airlie) had had some experience of that mode of proceeding, and having tried it once he would never try it again. The expenses of one kind and another attending it were so great that after paying them there was but very little margin of profit left upon the improvements. This Bill provided a much simpler and better method of doing those things. When disputes arose as to the amount of value added to the estate by particular improvements, it was of great importance—especially in cases where the sum involved was small—that they should have a summary means of deciding such matters as expeditiously as possible. The Bill seemed to him a good one, and the objections to it to be for the most part such as could be best considered in Committee, rather than in a discussion on the principle of the measure.
LORD PORTMANsaid, that as this was an important Bill not only as affecting tenants for life, but as affecting remaindermen, he would request the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) to give them a long interval between the second reading and the Committee. Several points of the measure would require very careful consideration. One of those points referred to the power given to the tenant for life by the Bill to select any land under the settlement for the operations contemplated by the measure, and not as hitherto to confine the charge to the lands improved. Another related to the question of drainage. Under the present law something like £9,000,000 sterling had already been taken up and charged on the land for drainage. Draining was really a temporary improvement, requiring at the end of a certain number of years repairs costing almost as much as the original outlay. Moreover, draining was often experimental, and a great deal of money was thrown away which ought not to be charged on the successor. These and similar matters well deserved the noble Marquess's careful attention. He did not doubt, however, that the Bill might be ultimately moulded into shape; but great care must be taken to require a certificate of improved letting value when the improvement was made,
14
as well as at the time when the charge was proposed to be made.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he was unable to see how that Bill, if adopted, could work. How, he asked, was anyone to tell that the value of the estate had been increased by the outlay made upon it, unless he knew what the condition of the property was previously to the charge being put upon it? They would require to see the estate both before and after the improvement was executed, in order to judge what the improvement was worth. Moreover, the tenant for life, the person who sought to make the change, was not to be put to any expense in making the claim; but the person who was to succeed to the estate would have to go into an inquiry whether the charge on it was a fair one or not. He thought these were objections fatal to the proposal, and could not be got rid of in Committee.
LORD COLCHESTERsaid, he should support the Bill. The Report of the Agricultural Labour Commission of two years ago showed the importance of some legislation such as this, with a view to improve cottage accommodation, and he feared that if no new facilities were granted, such as this Bill proposed, a powerful weapon would be put into the hands of those who desired to upset the existing laws of settlement. The worst cases of defective cottage accommodation were not on estates such as most of those of their Lordships. They were either in the case of small freeholds or where cottages had been run up by speculators. But it was also found that on the smallest class of settled estates and limited estates the life tenant was unable to execute such improvements in cottage building as were necessary. He trusted the Bill would go into Committee, and pass in a shape which would produce the results anticipated.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, a measure of this kind was a step in the right direction. He thought that when money was laid out in real improvements, which rendered the estate more valuable than it was before, then, and only then, should the estate be held liable. He agreed, however, with the noble Duke (the Duke of Cleveland) that the term of 50 years was too long. As regarded the condition of farm buildings, this Bill was of great importance. The proposal was not novel, as a some-

15
what similar law existed in Scotland already, and, he believed, worked well. Believing that the measure would effect a decided change for the better, he should support his noble Friend's Motion for the second reading.
LORD DYNEVORsaid, he had had practical experience in Wales of the evils of the existing law. He had been desirous of laying out some of his own money on an estate of which he was limited owner; but on consulting an experienced lawyer he had been informed that the expenses of proceeding under the existing law were so heavy, and the inconveniences so great, that he would inevitably lose money, and he had therefore desisted from any such injudicious proceeding. He was glad, therefore, that this state of things was to be altered by the Bill of the noble Marquess. He thought it was capable of some modifications, which might be done in Committee; and while believing it ought not to have a retrospective action, he anticipated great benefit from its future operation. He ventured to differ from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Portman) who spoke of drainage as a mere temporary improvement. If it were well done there could be no better investment from a landlord's point of view.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday the 8th of July next.

PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.—(Nos. 117–157.)
(The Lord President.)

REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 3 (Offences in respect of nomination papers, ballot papers, and ballot boxes).
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON THE MARQUESS OF RIPON moved an Amendment in page 4, line 4, after ("liable") insert—
("If he is a returning officer, or an officer or clerk in attendance at a polling station, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour, and if he is any other person.")
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 (Hours of polling).
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON THE MARQUESS OF RIPON moved an Amendment in page 9, line 16, leave out
16
from ("later than") inclusive, to the end of the clause and insert—
("Until the hour herein-after mentioned, and no longer; that is to say,
"(a.) If the poll takes place between the last day of March and the first day of October, until seven o'clock in the afternoon, and
"(b.) If the poll takes place between the last day of September and the first day of April, until five o'clock in the afternoon.")
The noble Marquess said that this alteration would not only extend the hours of polling without incurring the danger of carrying on elections in the dark, but would render the hours uniform in all boroughs and counties in the United Kingdom. At present borough elections in England and Scotland closed at 4, and in Ireland at 5, the latter being the hour in all counties.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he was ready to accept this modification of his proposal. It was not, indeed, all that he wished for, but he was thankful for small mercies.
Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he rose to propose again, with certain modifications, the clause which he brought forward in Committee, and which was then rejected. He had to-day presented a Petition in its favour from the highest order of working men, representing a large proportion of the great trades of the metropolis. He had modified the clause which their Lordships rejected on Monday night, and should propose that public-houses be closed on the day of polling from noon until the close of the poll, instead of from 8 o'clock in the morning till 8 o'clock in the evening, as the clause originally provided. The working men alleged that a vast amount of bribery was carried on in boroughs, and they were extremely anxious, therefore, that this clause should be introduced into the Bill. They also maintained that a number of people were smuggled into public-houses under various pretences, and kept there till the poll was closed. Now when the working men came forward to express a strong opinion on this subject he thought their representations were worthy of the very gravest consideration. Some of them had remarked to him that there was no Representative of their class in either House of Parliament; but he verily believed their Lordships would make this simple concession in deference to their

17
feelings, in order to show them that their wishes were considered and their interests promoted in the House of Peers. The noble Earl concluded by moving the following clause:—
"That on any day fixed for polling at any contested election for any borough or borough county in England or Wales after the passing of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any licensed victualler or person licensed to sell beer by retail to be drunk on the premises or not to be drunk on the premises, or any person licensed or authorized to sell any fermented or distilled liquors in any part of England or Wales, to open or keep open his house in any borough where a polling-place is situated for the sale of beer, wine, spirits, or any other fermented or distilled liquors between the hour of twelve of the clock at noon of such polling day and the close of the poll on the same day, except for refreshments to a bonâ fide traveller or a lodger therein."—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the subject of the clause did not fairly come within the spirit and intention of the Bill, the avowed object of which was to amend the law relating to the procedure at Parliamentary elections—the matter was one which might more properly be dealt with in the Corrupt Practices Bill. But even admitting that it related to the present measure, the noble Earl's proposal was open to several objections. In London, for example, nothing occurred at contested elections, so far as he could discover, that would render it necessary to close public-houses during the hours of polling. Besides, on such occasions it would be unusually difficult to determine who was a bonâ fide traveller. Again, there were many country districts in which the population was exceedingly dense, and he could not see why the operation of the clause should not extend to such districts, instead of being confined to boroughs.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was unable to support the clause—which, moreover, certainly did not come within the proper scope of the Bill. There was one part of the country, with which he was acquainted, where the clause would produce great inconvenience. He alluded to the borough of Shoreham, where bribery had been found to prevail, so that 100 years ago it was extended into the Rape of Bramber—a district of some 30 square miles, commencing near Brighton and running westward to Worthing and Horsham. Now, if this clause was accepted, no public-house or refreshment-house could be kept open on the day of polling
18
through out this large district and throughout this day no man would be able to get a slice of bread and cheese and a pint of beer. This would be a great hardship upon bonâ fide travellers.
LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, the object of the Bill was to regulate proceedings at elections, and he was not aware that drinking was one of the proceedings at Parliamentary elections.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYmaintained that the subject properly belonged to the present measure, which was expressed to be designed to put down bribery and intimidation, and these were notoriously carried on to a great extent in public-houses. Even if the subject might be more fitly introduced into the Corrupt Practices Bill, they did not know whether that measure would ever be brought forward. He believed that this proposal was intimately connected with purity of election, both as regarded intimidation and bribery, and therefore he should take the sense of the House upon it.
On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 15; Not-Contents 37: Majority 22.
Resolved in the Negative.
Clause 17 (Alterations for application of Part I. to Scotland).
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON THE MARQUESS OF RIPON moved an Amendment, page 10, line 8, after ("provided always") insert—
("That if any person shall be proposed as a candidate without his consent the person so proposing him shall be liable to defray his share of all these expenses in like manner as if he had been a candidate himself; provided also.")
And in line 11, after ("officer") leave out ("and") and insert ("shall not exceed two guineas per day, and the fee to be paid.")
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made.
Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 168.)

COUNTY RATES.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  LORD HENNIKER, in moving for a Return of sums expended in the various counties in England and Wales levied on the county rate during the year 1871, said, that the Return for which he now moved was similar to one he had moved

  19
  for in the House of Commons in 1869 for that year. The Return was intended to show what proportion of the total expenditure in counties, in each county in England and Wales, was administered by the local authority under statute, and what proportion was expended over which they had entire control. This information had been found to be most useful on more than one occasion, in discussing schemes for the establishment of county financial boards, local taxation, and many other matters affecting management. A Bill would probably be introduced into the other House of Parliament to provide that certain Returns, including that which he desired, should be made annually; but as it was extremely unlikely that a measure of that kind could be passed that Session, and a large number of persons interested in county management were anxious to obtain the information in question, he hoped their Lordships would ask that it should be produced. In connection with this subject, he might be pardoned for adverting to the difficulty which was experienced in obtaining correct and accurate Returns. The Return for 1869 was not complete, and he was told, and he believed with truth, that there were no means of compelling those who prepared Returns to take any trouble about them, and—what was still more to the point, perhaps—no means of remunerating them for their trouble. This state of things required a remedy, for Returns were only misleading if they were not accurate and correct in every respect.
  Motion agreed to.
  Address for, Return of the sums expended in the various counties in England and Wales levied on the county rate during the year 1871, showing separately the total expenditure in each county and the portion of the above so spent under statute over which the local authority have no control and that over which they have an independent control; also the items of expenditure in each county under the last column: [Tabular Form].—(The Lord Henniker.)

  INCLOSURE LAW AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Law relating to Inclosures of Commons, and to provide for the management of Commons situate near Towns—Was presented by The Earl of MORLEY; read 1a. (No. 169.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.