Lords Sitting of 25 July 1873

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Penalties (Ireland)* (242); Elementary Education Act (1870) Amendment, &c.* (243).
Second Reading—Public Records (Ireland) Act (1867) Amendment (209); Rating (Liability and Value) (231), negatived; Extradition Act (1870) Amendment* (235).
Committee—Revising Barristers (218–244); Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c.* (223–245).
Report—Militia (Service, &c.)* (237).
Third Reading—Medical Act Amendment (University of London)* (214); Exchequer Bonds (£1,600,000)* (222); Treasury Chest Fund* (217); Consolidated Fund, &c. (Permanent Charges Redemption)* (198); Military Manœuvres* (216); Conveyancing (Scotland)* (238); Steam Threshing Machines, now Threshing Machines* (239), and passed.

NAVY—PEBBLE POWDER—THE REVIEW AT PORTSMOUTH.

  QUESTION.
  LORD VIVIAN,after again narrating the accident that had occurred to the yacht, on the occasion of the late Naval Review at Spithead, said, that there must have been some mismanagement or the accident would not have happened, and asked, Whether the Admiralty were aware of the effects of pebble powder used without shot, prior to its use at the late Naval Review; whether there was not an ample supply of the small-grained powder ready for use; and whether, if so, the Admiralty still considered that

  965
  all those in authority were blameless for the accident which was unfortunately occasioned by the use of the pebble powder?
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN,in reply to the noble Lord's Question, said, he had to repeat what he stated on the former occasion, that, in the opinion of the Admiralty, no blame attached to the officers or any person on board the gunboat. If the noble Lord were still not satisfied, he would give him the reasons for that opinion. On the morning of the Naval Inspection an official notice to this effect appeared in The Times, and other newspapers, and was put up at Portsmouth—
  "It is particularly requested that all yachts and steamers visiting Spithead on the 23rd inst. will refrain from passing between the lines of the iron-clad fleet during the inspection by His Majesty the Shah of Persia; and it is also requested that all vessels will refrain from closing round Her Majesty's yacht and other vessels in attendance. Yachts and other vessels should occupy positions north of the gunboat line, and south of the southern line next the Isle of Wight."
  If those instructions had been obeyed, his noble Friend would not have been under the necessity of putting the Questions which he had just asked. There were two persons, and two only, in the gunboat, who might have been responsible. The one was the warrant officer, or gunner, and the other the captain of the gun, by the firing of which the accident was caused. The former, in obedience to orders, was aft, watching the gunboat astern of his. He was in that position for the purpose of taking the time—six seconds—which was to elapse between the firing of each boat. The funnel and funnel-casing were between him and the yacht; consequently he could not see her. She was not seen by the gun's captain in consequence of the high rifle proof shielding around all the forward part of the boat except where the gun protruded. The captain, when he received the order to fire, carried out that order because he saw nothing in from of the gun; but he had not fired the previous round because he saw there was something in the way. This tended to show that the firing was by no means careless. It had been stated that those on board the yacht received a signal from the gunboat that the latter was not about to fire. Two men in the gunboat signalled to the yacht when she was about 50 yards off. They did so
  966
  by holding up their hands—which they meant to be taken as a signal that the yacht was to keep out of the way. A gentleman on board held up his hands and the two men understood this to be an intimation that the signal given from the gunboat would be attended to. They saw no more. The engineer did see the yacht when she was only about 15 yards from the mouth of the gun; but at this time there was not time to warn her away. The gun was not fired point blank, but at some elevation. He once more expressed his regret for the accident; but a local inquiry had been instituted by the officer who, on the day of the Inspection, had command of the gunboats generally, and, with all the facts before them, the Admiralty could not allow that the officers on board the gunboat were in any way answerable for the accident. In reply to the first inquiry of his noble Friend, he had to say that, of course, the Admiralty were aware of the effects of pebble powder prior to its use on the occasion of the inspection at Spithead. In answer to his second Question, he had to say that there was an ample supply of small-grained powder in the dockyard; but it was not customary to use those large 18 and 25-ton guns for firing blank charges, and no cartridges suitable for them and filled with small-grained powder were ready on board. As to the result, it did not much matter whether pebble powder or small-grained was used, because the yacht was in such close proximity to the gun that she must have been badly scorched whatever the powder used. In reply to the third Question, the Admiralty did still consider that all those in authority were blameless in respect of the accident.

ARMY—THE SHELL "BOXER SHRAPNELL."

  ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD,in moving an Address for Correspondence relating to the invention of the "Boxer Shrapnell" Shell, said: My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships' attention for a short time to a ease in which I think that a public Department has scarcely done justice to a gentleman who deserves better treatment at their hands. The Mr. Hope who is named in my Notice, served with distinction in the Army in the Crimea, and obtained

  967
  a Victoria Cross for valour in the field. At the end of the war he left the Army, and adopted the profession of a civil engineer. His name is well known in connection with works for drainage of towns and for scientific agriculture. Although not an Artillery officer, he had opportunities of which he took advantage, of studying artillery practically, and he noticed specially, defects in the spherical shells then in use in the artillery, uncertainty of flight, and generally, uncertainty in their destructive effect. On his return to England he designed a shell of a different form and construction, in which he hoped to remedy the acknowledged defects of the service shell. He took his pattern to the Artillery authorities of the clay, but the time was not opportune, it was unsuitable to the gun of the period, &c., and his invention was coldly received; but he was so satisfied of its merit, and that it would be called for some day, that he deposited his pattern and drawings at the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich, in charge of Colonel Boxer, who was then, and for several years afterwards, attached to the laboratory there. Mr. Hope paid little attention to the subject for some time, being engaged otherwise; but in 1869 he noticed reports of most favourable results from a new shell in some artillery experiments at Dartmoor. He made inquiries, and found that this was substantially his own shell, which without any notice to him had been patented in 1864, by Colonel Boxer with some modification, and had been adopted into the service with the War Office name of "Boxer Shrapnell." Mr. Hope found his own pattern still at Woolwich, and satisfied himself that the two inventions were in all material points identical. Mr. Hope then put himself into communication with the War Office, writing in the plainest terms his claim to the invent ion, stating that he had himself given the model to Colonel Boxer at the former time named. The result was the correspondence which is the subject of my Motion. It will be unnecessary, and perhaps irregular, for me to take your Lordships through it. The substance is, that Mr. Hope claims that the name and credit, and if there is anything more than credit attaching to the new shell, it is rightfully his. His claim is supported by the legal and scientific opinions of Mr. Grove; now Mr. Justice Grove; Mr. Aston, Mr.
  968
  H. Lloyd, Q.C., Mr. Young (Lord Advocate)—gentlemen experienced in cases connected with inventions and patents, who respectively give their opinions that the invention is substantially his; and that if he had taken out a patent originally, Colonel Boxer's patent could not have stood at all. I am quite aware that Colonel Boxer has rendered valuable assistance to the War Office in the scientific development and in the manufacture of war material, and that without entirely neglecting his own interests, he has been an efficient public servant. But that is no reason why he should adopt his friend's shell without acknowledgment; and it is no reason why the War Office should hesitate to make full inquiry into such a claim as Mr. Hope has brought forward. This Correspondence with the War Office lasted about two years. Mr. Hope has never been informed, as far as I can learn, that the War Office is satisfied that he has no claim; in fact, he has had no definite answer at all, except that Mr. Cardwell declined to continue the correspondence. At first there seemed to be a disposition to examine the merits; but Mr. Cardwell subsequently adopted the view that it was a dispute between Mr. Hope and Colonel Boxer, which ought to be settled by a civil action, in which he would take no part; but Mr. Hope having no patent had no claim against anyone for an infringement, and not being commercially interested in the manufacture of shells, he had no claim against anyone for damages, so he was in difficulty about his civil action. Moreover, the War Office, professing to be impartial, had taken a very strong part on one side, by retaining the name of "Boxer Shrapnel" to the invention in dispute; and it is quite as necessary for the credit of the War Department as for the interest of the ether parties concerned, that the whole transaction should be known, and that a dispute which involves a grave charge against an officer of the Department should be settled. Mr. Hope has expressed his perfect readiness that his claim should be submitted to the judgment of Sir William Eyre, or of the President of the Royal Society, or of any impartial arbitrator of high standing, and I submit to your Lordships that such would be the best way of disposing of this claim; but the case is one of considerable importance, and could only be decided by a really responsible arbitra-

  969
  tor. I am aware, from a short official experience, of the intricacy of claims to inventions, and of the difficulties that surround such questions. Sometimes a worthless invention is pressed, on speculation; sometimes a really valuable invention fails in some detail; and when that is supplied as an invention upon an invention, cross and confused claims arise. But I submit that this case separates itself from such uncertain claims; it is brought forward by a gentleman whose position is known; it is not worthless, for its value has been proved by its adoption into the service; it is not too intricate to be settled by some such reference as Mr. Hope is willing to submit to; and it would be right for the War Office to adopt this course. My Motion in form is an Address for Copies of Correspondence; but I should be glad to hear that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne), in consenting to produce whatever Papers can be properly produced, will be able to say that the matter will be placed in the hands of a competent arbitrator for disposal. The noble Earl concluded by moving that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for—
  Copies of Correspondence in 1870–71 between the authorities at the War Office and Mr. W. Hope, V.C., late of the 7th Royal Fusiliers. relative to the shell adopted into the service, and officially known as the "Boxer Shrapnell," which Mr. Hope claims to be his invention, and substantially identical with a shell deposited by himself in charge of the late Superintendent of the Royal Laboratory, Woolwich Arsenal, in December 1856:
  Also for, Copies of any Correspondence between the authorities at the War Office and Major-General Boxer, or the Judge Advocate-General, or other Law Officer of the Crown, upon the above subject.—(The Earl of Longford.)
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKbore testimony to the services of Mr. Hope, who had received the thanks of the War Department. He was one of those to whom Mr. Hope had shown his invention, and he entertained no doubt that the "Boxer Shrapnel" was substantially the same. Mr. Hope's invention had been adopted by many foreign States, who looked upon it as one of the most effective instruments of war; and he trusted Mr. Hope would receive recognition in his own country.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, the War Office had no objection to the production of such Papers as the De-
  970
  partment had in its possession. He was not aware of the existence of any letters addressed to the Judge Advocate General or other Law Officers of the Crown on the subject. He thought their Lordships would agree with him that until the Papers were on the Table of the House he should refrain from entering into this very intricate matter.
  Then, the latter part of the Motion being withdrawn,
  Address agreed to.

  THE IRISH MILITIA—QUESTION.
  LORD DUNSANYasked, Whether it is true that two non-commissioned officers of the South Cork Militia had been brought before a court-martial for imputed complicity with a traitorous association in Ireland in an attempt to steal the arms of the regiment for the use of such traitorous association; whether Her Majesty's Government. have adopted means other than the reports of commanding officers, to ascertain how far a spirit of disloyalty as evinced by such acts may extend through the same or other regiments of militia; and whether with respect to military offenders sentenced for breaches of military allegiance Her Majesty's Ministers are prepared to leave them to military law, or to consider that the fact of complicity with a treasonable conspiracy gives a political character to such offences entitling the culprit to lenient treatment as "political prisoners?"
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE,in reply to the first Question of the noble Lord, said, it was quite true that two noncommissioned officers of the South Cork Militia had been tried and convicted for complicity in a robbery of arms, and being convicted, had been sentenced to the maximum period of imprisonment with a full proportion of solitary confinement. He thought the noble Lord would have done well had he abstained from placing on the Paper his second Question, requesting to know what special means had been adopted to ascertain how far a spirit of disloyalty, as was evinced by acts of arms stealing, extended itself through Irish Militia regiments. If special means were adopted by Government for the repression of crime, he thought it not at all for the public interest that those means should be described in a debate in Parliament.
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, the noble Marquess had no right to put such an interpretation on his Question. He had not in any portion of his Question asked that what special means were had recourse to should be disclosed. All he bad asked was whether other than the Reports of commanding officers were relied upon to ascertain how far such disloyalty as he had drawn attention to prevailed in either the South Cork or any other Irish Militia regiment?
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, that the Question seemed to him capable of the inference which he had drawn from it, and he left it to others to determine whether that inference was not correct. With reference to the third Question—namely, whether the authorities were prepared to leave military offenders sentenced for breaches of military allegiance to the military law, or to consider that the fact that complicity with a treasonable conspiracy gave a. political character to such offences entitling the culprits to lenient treatment as political prisoners—all he could say was that if the noble Lord had paid the same attention to this subject as he usually did to passing events relating to Ireland, he might have noticed that the refusal of the Government to mitigate the punishment which some of the Fenian convicts were now undergoing had been justified on the ground that the offences of which they were convicted wore committed while they were serving in the Army.

  PUBLIC RECORDS (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 209.)
  (The Lord O'Hagan.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD O'HAGAN,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its object was to provide for the custody and preservation of the records of the Disestablished Church in Ireland. Before the disestablishment—the registries of baptisms, marriages, and burials, and other Church documents were in the care and under the control of the Church officers; but since that time they had been under the care of several persons, and many were kept in unfit and unsafe buildings. The Bill therefore provided that those records should be placed in the custody of the Master of the Rolls in
  972
  Ireland, and should be removed as soon as practicable to the Irish Record Office. In order to obviate any inconvenience that might arise from this transfer the Bill provided that a certified copy of every record should be sent to the officer who, but for the passing of this Bill would have had the custody of the original; which transcripts would be received in evidence without further proof. He might acid that the Church Body had passed a resolution in favour of this disposition of the Church records.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  REVISING BARRISTERS BILL—(No. 218.)
  (The Lord Cairns.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Suitable places to be secured for revision courts).
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, that the clause provided that the clerics of the peace for counties or the town clerks of boroughs should provide a suitable room for the Revising Barrister to hold his courts, and that the expense of such hiring should be reimbursed as part of his expenses in carrying out the Registration Acts. The effect of this would be to throw, directly or indirectly, upon the rates a burden which the 6 & 7 Vict. imposed upon the Treasury. True, the burden would not be a heavy one; but it was the accumulation of these small burdens which had led to the agitation on the subject of local taxation all over the country. He therefore moved the omission of the clause.
  Moved, "To leave out Clause 4."—(The Marquess of Bath).
  LORD CAIRNSadmitted that a new charge would be imposed by the clause upon the local rates, and that the latitude given to the clerk of the peace might give rise to considerable expenditure in the hire, without sufficient check, of rooms for the purposes of the revision courts. He would therefore consent to omit the clause.
  Motion agreed to; clause struck out.
  Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 244.)

  RATING (LIABILITY AND VALUE) BILL—(No. 231.)
  (The Earl of Kimberley.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to extend the liability to rating for purposes of local taxation to certain kinds of property not hitherto rated. This was the general scope of the Bill. No great question of principle was raised by it; but in order to explain the measure he should be obliged to trouble the House with some details which he feared would be very dry, but which he trusted he should be able to make very brief. The principal classes of property which the Bill proposed to render subject to local rating were—first, metalliferous mines; secondly, woods and plantations; thirdly, rights of sporting, when severed from the occupation of the soil; fourthly, some minor kinds of property used for the purposes of local government, which were not now subject to rates; fifthly, literary and scientific institutions; and, lastly, property belonging to the Government. With regard to mines, he might remind the House that under the present law relating to the subject—namely, 43rd of Elizabeth—only coal mines and quarries were rateable. The expression "coal mine" being used in a clause of that Act, it had been held on the principle expressio unius exclusio est alterius—that metalliferous mines were not included in the clause. The subject had been very often before Parliament, and the Local Assessment Committee, as some of their Lordships might remember, reported in 1860 that it was expedient that all mines should be assessed as coal mines are now assessed. Again, in 1866, a Committee of the House of Commons reported that there was no adequate ground for the distinction in respect of liability to rating between coal mines and quarries and other mines. It had, however, been represented by the owners of tin and copper mines that, owing to the fluctuations connected with the carrying on of those mines, it would be unjust—impracticable, in short—to treat them on the same principle as coal mines. It was, therefore, proposed by
  974
  the Bill to rate tin and copper mines upon the royalty. That principle had met with the general acquiescence of the owners of tin and copper mines throughout the country. As regarded other mines, which were not coal, or tin, or copper mines, the Bill would place them under the general provisions of the law under which coal mines were rated. It was estimated that at least £500,000 a-year would be made subject to rates by assessing these mines, and relief would thereby be given to the owners of other property throughout the country. He, therefore, hoped that part of the Bill would meet with the general acquiescence of their Lordships. With regard to woods, the Bill proposed to adopt a principle which had long obtained in Scotland, and to rate the land upon which woods and plantations were grown at the same value as the land would be rated if it were in a natural and unimproved state, and let for agricultural and grazing purposes, without any trees growing thereon. Where only saleable underwoods were grown, they were to be rated as if the land were let for that purpose. As to the rights of sporting, where the owner of land reserved to himself the right of sporting, it was reasonable to say that he should contribute whatever might be a just portion in respect of the value he derived from the land. Where the occupier himself had the right of sporting, there was no reason for dissociating the right of sporting from the land. The Bill proposed that in all eases the laud should be rated as if the right of sporting was enjoyed by the occupier; but where the occupier did not enjoy that right, he would be entitled to deduct from the rent paid to the owner so much as he (the occupier) had to pay in the shape of rates upon that right. He should, perhaps, next notice that there was an exemption at the present time for literary and scientific institutions, but under certain conditions. Their Lordships were not to suppose that all literary and scientific institutions, without exception, took the benefit of the law as it now stood. As it happened the richest literary and scientific institutions escaped assessment, but those which were poor were rated; and for this reason—that in order to maintain themselves from year to year they were obliged to let some portion of their premises. He submitted, as a general

  975
  principle that it was not desirable that the exemption of literary and scientific institutions should continue. It amounted to nothing more nor less than this—that the ratepayers in a district where a literary and scientific institution might chance to be established had to contribute towards its maintenance. While fully admitting the usefulness of these institutions, he did not see why the labouring man should be called upon to contribute to their maintenance by paying additional rates. He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would approve that portion of the Bill. The last and most important part of the measure was that which proposed to bring under assessment all Government property throughout the kingdom. This portion of the subject had been under the consideration of Parliament for a very long time. In 1858 a Select Committee of the House of Commons, of which Sir George Cornewall Lewis was Chairman, made an exhaustive inquiry into the whole system of local taxation, and their Report was to the effect that all property with the exception of that in the personal occupation of the Sovereign, religious buildings, and a few other minor exceptions, should be subject to assessment for the local rates and rates paid upon it accordingly. From that period the subject had been constantly discussed in and dealt with by Parliament. In 1859, under a Conservative Government, a Bill was brought in by Mr. Sotheron Estcourt for abolishing all exemptions whatever; but that measure was not proceeded with. In the following year—there having been a change of Government—it was thought expedient to proceed by way of Vote of the House of Commons in respect of the payment of rates for certain Government buildings, and the sum annually voted for that purpose, which was then £35,000, was now £63,000. In 1863, the Treasury announced that, in all future cases, the Government would be willing to pay rates for fresh property acquired by them on the assessment of the land before it came into the occupation of the Government. This Bill proposed to bring all Government property under the general assessment; and, in framing the Bill, the Government had been influenced by the decision in the Mersey Docks case, which took away the exemption from assessment which had previously attached to land used for docks and other works
  976
  of a public nature. Then arose the question in what manner this large amount of property was to be assessed. If this vast amount of property were to be thrown down before the local assessment committees to rate as they might think fit, the greatest confusion might arise, and it would be impossible to say what liability the Government would be making themselves responsible for. The Bill therefore provided that the Treasury, in connection with the local assessment committee, should draw up a scheme for the rating of all Government property, situate within their Union or parish, and that in case of it being found impossible to come to any arrangement on the subject the matter was to be referred to arbitration, as provided in the Land Clauses Consolidation Acts. The results of these arrangements were to be submitted to Parliament, and the schemes were only to have effect when confirmed by Parliament. The proposition was the result of considerable labour and consideration, and he saw no reason why, if carried into effect, it should not work fairly. He thought, on the whole, that their Lordships would see no reason for refusing to accept this part of the Bill. There was a clause in the Bill which proposed to make perpetual an exemption in favour of stock-in-trade, which had existed for 33 years, Parliament passing an annual measure to continue it. Theoretically, no doubt, no reason existed for exempting this class of property from rating; but experience had conclusively shown that an attempt to rate stock-in-trade was almost certain to meet with failure. The time had now arrived when Parliament should definitively make up its mind on this subject, and should sweep away this anomalous annual Act from the statute book by rendering the exemption of stock-in-trade perpetual.
  He now came to inquire what possible objection there could be to this measure. He was aware that a noble Lord opposite (Lord Henniker) had given Notice of his intention to move that the Bill should be read a second time that day three months, and therefore he had carefully considered the nature of the objections that might be raised to the measure. The question of local taxation having excited considerable interest throughout the country, and the Government having announced that they would

  977
  deal with the whole question, it was not impossible that it might be urged against the Bill that, in dealing with the question of local rating alone, Her Majesty's Government had merely touched a small part of a great subject, and that it was better, therefore, to delay passing a measure of this kind until the subject of local taxation could be dealt with as a whole. It must be remembered, however, that the question of local taxation was a most complicated and difficult one. Attempts had been made more than once to deal with the subject as a whole;—his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had made such an attempt, but the experience obtained on that occasion was likely to make everyone chary of attempting so largo a subject all at once. So many interests would be touched by any scheme, and so many questions raised, that it was scarcely to be hoped that any scheme on the whole subject, however well framed, would meet with the assent of Parliament. The subject of local taxation had many branches. In the first place, there was a strong desire on the part of those who owned property now subject to assessment that a large amount of wealth which existed in this country which was not derived from real property, and which was not now subject to be rated, should be made liable to assessment, and should so be made to contribute, in some degree, to local taxation. Unsuccessful schemes to effect this object had been repeatedly brought forward, and a former Lord Privy Seal had proposed that this should be effected by means of an income tax;—and there had been many other suggestions. He admitted the necessity of dealing with this branch of the subject; but when they attempted to deal with it, they could not confine themselves to the question of local taxation only—they must deal with it in connection with the whole taxation of the country. But he thought that this measure, however small a part of so large a subject, might be conveniently passed in the meantime. Another important branch of the subject was the improvement of our local government. He earnestly desired to see our local government so strengthened, and its powers enlarged, as to enable it to relieve the general government and Parliament from a large portion of the intolerable burden of business now cast
  978
  upon them; but, at the same time, he did not think that the passing of this Bill would in any way prejudice that question. They would find that they could not deal with local taxation without dealing with the question of local government; because the question of local taxation involved the questions of the boundaries of counties—boundaries of various kinds which governed the local taxation. But in order to deal with that question it was necessary to have an inquiry with respect to it. A Committee had accordingly been appointed to investigate that branch of the subject by the other House, and he hoped their labours would result in Parliament being in a position to consider the whole matter next Session.
  He had now referred to three important branches of the subject. It seemed to him a natural preliminary to any dealing our system of local taxation that we should perfect the system which we already possessed, extending it where it required to be extended, and making it consistent in itself. That was what it was proposed by the Bill to do; and it was not inconsistent with, but was a necessary preliminary to, a larger scheme of local taxation.
  An objection raised against the measure was, he believed, that it was not accompanied by an Assessment Bill. An Assessment Bill had, however, been introduced by the President of the Local Government Board into the other House, although it had not been proceeded' with; and he saw no reason why, because the present system of assessment was not made perfect, the House should decide that it should not proceed in the direction proposed by the Bill. He would, moreover, beg to remind their Lordships that there had been very great improvements made of late years in assessment. He himself had had the charge of a Bill on the subject, and he recollected well that the whole question was in a state of the greatest confusion, and that assessments were made in different parishes without any arrangement among themselves. But since the establishment of assessment committees, although they might have turned out not to be on all points satisfactory, very considerable improvement in the system of assessment had, he was sure their Lordships would admit, been made throughout the country. He, at

  979
  the same time, admitted that further improvements were necessary, but they involved chiefly matters of detail. The present system of deductions was, no doubt, by no means satisfactory. Different committees established different scales of deductions, and it would probably be better to have some fixed scale, such as already existed under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act. He could, however, see in the existing state of things nothing which would render it undesirable that the House should proceed in the direction now proposed by the Government. In two most important cases—that of mines and Government property—the mode of assessment was distinctly laid clown; and although it might be contended that in the cases of woods and sporting there might be difficulties in the way of the working of the measure, he must say that so far as woods were concerned, he saw no reason why a satisfactory conclusion as to the value of lands covered with woods should not be arrived at. As to sporting there might be complications with which the assessment committees might not find it easy to grapple, and there might possibly be conflicting opinions on the subject; but he could not help thinking that they would yield to experience in the working of the law. He had only to add that he was lost in astonishment at finding that a Notice for the rejection of the Bill should have proceeded from the other side of the House. It had been a matter of complaint year after year that the agricultural ratepayer did not obtain that relief which would be the result of bringing other kinds of property under assessment. Chambers of Agriculture throughout the country had urged the propriety of assessing woods and the right of sporting, while from the West of England a cry had been raised for the assessment of mines. Yet now it was to be contended that that outcry on the part of the ratepayers was to meet with no attention, and that the Bill ought to be thrown out, because they were not to obtain that further relief which they might expect to get hereafter. He should have thought that the Bill would be welcomed as clearing the way towards those other measures, and if it were rejected the effect would be that it would be supposed in many parts of the country that their Lordships were not really anxious
  980
  to relieve the agricultural districts of the burdens of which they complained.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, he would have been extremely unwilling, as so poor an exponent of the view taken of this Bill by many besides himself outside as well as inside their Lordships' House, to raise any opposition to it, did he not believe that a plain, a short, and a simple statement would induce their Lordships to accede to the Motion with which he would conclude. He would be the last person to say the Bill did not contain many good and excellent provisions; it was not so much the provisions of the Bill to which he took particular exception as to the mode in which they were proposed to be carried out. The plan for rating woods and so on was by no means in itself unfair, but it was incomplete. The person who hired a wood simply for the sake of the underwood was liable to be rated for the timber, although underwood growing with timber was far less valuable than where there were few, if any, trees. It was open to the assessment committees to rate the occupier in a case of this sort, either for saleable underwood or for the wood as a plantation, and it was in practice, out of the question to suppose the assessment committee would take the lowest valuation. This would not be at all fair, for the lessee could not possibly have any interest in the timber, and might be rated for it without any claim upon the landlord for assistance. Then, in Kent and elsewhere, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and other bodies let their estates, including woodlands, for leases on lives or a term of years, reserving the timber; in this case the lessee would pay the increased rates, and would have no power to claim assistance in paying them. Take also the case of copyhold lands; the owner, in many instances, could not cut trees without the permission of the lord of the manor, and, when sold, a third of the value belonged to him. This could easily have been provided for by a deduction of fine or quit rent. In rating game this injustice was fairly met. Then as to the rating of game—he did not object to the rules laid down, if game was to be rated; but the attempt to lay down rules for the guidance of the as-

  981
  sessment committees, rather than lay down a broad rule upon which they could act in their own way as the cases came before them, would probably end in litigation and misunderstanding. It was not always a question as to any real difficulty in dealing with a subject of this sort; it was a great thing to avoid any imaginary difficulty. Nothing was more likely to lead to an imaginary difficulty than the rating of game. The rules in the Bill might appear plausible enough; but it was no easy matter to rate so moveable and varying an article fairly, and he thought it would have been far better to have trusted the local authority entirely, for they must be the best judges of each case as it came before them. Then, with respect to the rating of Government property, that was, no doubt, a popular policy; but what did the clauses dealing with the subject do? They made the property liable to rating on principle, but they by no means enacted that it should be so. It was necessary to bring in a Bill for every scheme agreed upon. Was it really necessary to bring in one Bill to enable the Government to bring in another? He thought not; but that was all that was clone by the Bill. Surely, it would have been easier to have ascertained on what grounds an agreement could be made in one or two cases, and to have brought in a Bill or Bills, as necessity demanded, to really enact what was now only recited as a principle to be hereafter carried out. In this respect the Bill, in fact, did nothing practically. The system of arbitration appeared fair enough, but it was, to say the least of it, very extraordinary, for the umpire in certain cases was to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, or any other noble and learned Lord who might fill that position! What did this amount to? The noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, with all his varied duties, so important to the country, could not be expected to choose the umpire himself in every dispute over the rating of Government property, and the result would be that some one would be recommended to him. Either party to the suit could ask for the appointment, but one party would have it entirely in their own hands to appoint whom they pleased. He was far from saying this would not be fairly carried out, but the proposed provision was
  982
  unique in this respect. Then, as to the rating of stock-in-trade. This was a Bill for the abolition of all exemptions, and here they had the perpetual exemption of stock-in-trade, refused by their Lordships' House on a former occasion. It was true it was necessary to bring in a Bill every year to exempt stock-in-trade; but of all places to choose to insert a clause of that kind that was the most extraordinary. It was clone, too, in a roundabout manner; a few words would have embodied the enacting part of the measure and so made the Bill complete. The Bill said that no one should be rated in respect of his ability derived from his stock-in-trade. Upon this arose the question of what was stock-in-trade? Take machinery. It had been laid down by the Courts of Law that machinery bolted down to the ground was rateable. There would, perhaps, be a far larger and more valuable machine alongside of a smaller and less valuable one which required to be fixed in that way, while the larger one kept its place without anything of the kind. It was true it was impossible to rate stock-in-trade; but there would be no difficulty as to profitable machinery, and surely an Act of that kind ought to have been complete in that respect, for this was a Bill to do away with all exemptions, and the present state of the law was very unfair; yet the Bill left the matter just where it was before. Then why were Sunday and ragged schools exempted, and elementary and other schools to be rated? The only reason given was that the one class of schools had been exempted from rating before. There could be no sound argument in favour of that plan of proceeding. Sunday and ragged schools were only a certain proportion of the number of schools now existing in the country. Elementary schools were now one of the best institutions in the country, and either one thing or the other ought to have been done—they should either exempt all schools or rate them all. There was no profit attached to a school, as he knew full well, and it appeared to him they ought all to be exempted. However, he would not trouble their Lordships any further, for he thought he had proved the Bill required amendment. He would only call their attention to a dangerous precedent laid down in Clause 18, where the usual agreement was over-ridden, and the power of free

  983
  contract interfered with. It was usual for the lessee of a mine to contract in all cases to pay all rates and taxes which might be imposed by Parliament, except property tax, during the term of his lease; but here he was allowed to deduct one-half the amount he would have to pay under the Bill. That clause would, therefore, relieve the lessee at the expense of the lessor from charges which he had deliberately taken upon himself—except, of course, as far as coal mines were concerned. That was a most objectionable principle, and ought not to be adopted without consideration, at all events. The Bill was hardly to be recognized now when compared with its original shape. No doubt, many Bills had been brought into the House of Commons almost as a blank sheet, and had come out of it very useful Acts of Parliament; but if a Bill was passed in that way, sufficient time must be given for its full consideration and for every necessary Amendment. How much time, however, was given to their Lordships? They were told on good authority that next Wednesday was to be the very last Wednesday of the Session. But was that Bill one of the kind which he had described? It was brought in with all the ceremony of a Government measure, and he had the authority of the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who at the now well-known Nottingham Dinner spoke with pride of that measure as one of those which would make that Session compare by no means unfavourably, as far as important Government measures went, with former Sessions. But this measure was more important still, for it was brought in to redeem a pledge, given after a defeat in the House of Commons; and let them look at it for a moment in that aspect. A Motion was carried by Sir Massey Lopes by a majority of 100, which, whatever its wording might have been, was intended to say that local rates were now burdened with charges which ought to be borne by the Imperial Exchequer, and it asked that relief might be given in that respect; although no injustice was complained of where really local burdens were concerned. How had that pledge been redeemed? Three Bills had been brought into the House of Commons; two of them had been withdrawn; and that one, the third, was only printed on May 7, and brought
  984
  to their Lordships' House on July 22. That Bill was no doubt good in most of its principles, if there had only been a complete plan for dealing with a great question, such as local taxation. The three Bills, they were told, touched only the fringe of the question—in fact, were to pave the way only. Two-thirds of the foundation, however, was gone, and all they had was this Bill—which required amendment—with one of its most important provisions enacting nothing, but merely enabling other Bills to be brought in at some future time to rate Government property. He objected to that piecemeal mode of dealing with a question of that kind—one of no small importance. The necessary measures could have been brought in by degrees, but surely some general and complete plan ought to have been placed before them. Their Lordships were asked at the very last moment of the Session to consider a Bill acknowledged by Her Majesty's Government to be of very great importance, and to redeem a pledge given on more than one occasion. He trusted their Lordships would not consent to read the Bill a second time at a period in the Session when it was quite impossible to put it into a proper shape—such a shape as a foundation for a great measure, at all events, should take before it went out from their Lordships' House. There was a precedent to show that a Bill of this kind was beyond their Lordships' power to amend. In 1840 a Bill for exempting stock-in-trade from rating, to which he had before referred, was brought up from the House of Commons. Objections were taken to it; but it could not be amended. It was withdrawn, and at the last moment of the Session a similar Bill was brought in with its faults corrected, passed through all its stages in one night in the House of Commons, and passed through their Lordships' House without debate. He did not know whether that precedent applied in this case, but if it did it strengthened his argument considerably. They had been told by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley), that night, and they would often, no doubt, be told again, if they did not pass this Bill they would stop all re-adjustment of local taxation; but he would put it to their Lordships whether, after all the discussions there had been on the subject, when the principle was as good as

  985
  accepted, the Government could not easily, during the Recess, remodel the Bill, so that it might pass in a proper shape early in the next Session, and allow them to bring forward any other measures which might be necessary? However, he trusted their Lordships would reject the Bill, because of the lateness of the period of the Session, the impossibility of putting the Bill into a proper shape, and on the ground that the Bill, which professed to deal with a great question, only did what might now be done in a few weeks at the commencement of the next Session. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Lord Henniker.)
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he had expected to hear some more conclusive arguments than had just been urged to induce their Lordships to reject that Bill, and certainly, in their absence, there was ample reason why their Lordships should give it a second reading. He would endeavour to answer some of the objections raised by the noble Lord who had moved the Amendment. As to the clause relating to woods, the noble Lord had brought forward certain objections which he confessed seemed to have some force; but he might observe that when Parliament was imposing taxation on other occasions—he might instance the Union Chargeability Act and the school rate—it was not so careful of the interests of the occupier as to enable him to deduct from the owner of the property. Then, with regard to copyholders, he was informed that the copyholder could refuse to let the lord cnme upon the land to cut timber unless he paid some portion of the rate. The noble Lord (Lord Henniker) had urged that there would be extreme difficulty in working the provisions referring to the rateability of woods; but he would ask those of their Lordships who lived in Scotland or in Ireland whether that difficulty existed there? Further, in many parts of England woods were rated to the poor by local Acts. The present Bill followed almost the identical method employed in dealing with woods and plantations in Scotland—namely, assessing the ground in its natural and unimproved state; those words making it
  986
  clear that no capital was to be expended on the land, but that it was to be precisely in the position in which it would be if the trees were removed. In many cases the woods would be on land which was not of the best quality—for instance, on hill-sides. The exemption of woods was unfair in principle and unjust to the ratepayers not possessing woods. As to game, the noble Lord had argued as if the Bill proposed to rate the game itself, which was not the case; what was to be rated was simply the right of sporting, which was a very different matter. This was already the case when it was not severed from the occupation; and it was unfair to exempt it when severed from it, for the preservation of game diminished the rent of the farm, so that the district was mulcted of a portion of the rent on which the farmer would be rated. He apprehended no difficulty in assessing the right of sporting when reserved by the landlord, or when let to a person other than the tenant. With regard to Government property, the noble Lord was mistaken as to the manner in which the umpire was to be appointed—he stated that the umpire who was to decide in the case of a dispute between the Treasury and the assessment committee was to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. [Lord HENNIKER: In certain cases.] He (the Earl of Morley) did not hear that limitation. The umpire was to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the application of one of the parties to the arbitration. It was out of the question to leave the assessment entirely to the assessment committee, owing to the variety of purposes to which such property was devoted. The full rating value obviously could not be placed on the Royal Parks. No fairer plan could have been devised of settling the relative claims of the localities and the Government. He agreed with the noble Lord in regretting the exemption of ragged schools; that was not so in the Bill as originally brought before the House of Commons, and he agreed with the noble Lord in regretting that the exemption should have been inserted; but the feeling of the House of Commons was so strong upon the subject that it was impossible to avoid yielding to it. The fault, therefore, did not rest with the Government, who had been obliged to abandon their original pro-

  987
  posal. The exemption, moreover, was not to be absolute, but permissive—it was left to the discretion of the assessment committees to exempt them or not, so that it was not so important a matter as the noble Lord seemed to suppose. With regard to the rating of mines, there could be no doubt that Clause 18 did to a certain extent override existing contracts. But every mine-owner and occupier had agreed to it—not a single person had petitioned or remonstrated against it. Hitherto metalliferous mines had been excluded from rating; but as their value had been estimated at £11,000,000, it would be admitted that the question whether they should continue to be exempted from rating was a very important one. It had been decided to rate them. But tin and copper mines would be rated on a different principle from mines of coal and iron. There were characteristic differences—tin and copper running in lodes of various degrees of productiveness, and the mining being so speculative that one year there might be a rich mass of ore and another year nothing worth washing, the Bill proposed to rate metalliferous mines on the royalty, representing a percentage of the produce; all other mines would continue to be rated on the rental. The Bill did not deal with machinery not affixed to the freehold, that not being germane to it; besides which it would be difficult to exclude furniture if machinery were rated. The exemption of stock-in-trade would be rendered permanent, and rules were laid down for the assessment of corporeal hereditaments. The measure did not pretend to be one of great dimensions, but it was one of practical utility, rendering justice to the classes of property now rated, while it was an indispensable preliminary to the great scheme as to local taxation to which the Government were pledged. It was most inconsistent for the Opposition, who had loudly complained that the present taxpayers were overburdened, to obstruct a Bill which would materially alleviate the burden. Not only did it extend the area of taxation, but by the admission of Government property it assisted local taxation out of Imperial funds, though not as largely as the noble Lord desired. All classes in Cornwall—agriculturists, miners, and assessment committees—
  988
  were favourable to the scheme, and failing more weighty arguments than those of the noble Lord, it ought not to be rejected.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRKopposed the Bill on the ground that the principle of rating on which it was based weighed unequally on different kinds of property and most unfairly on the land. The assessing of underwoods was a great grievance, and would operate very unjustly. He thought it unjust to assess unproductive land, while machinery was unassessed. There was no difficulty in ascertaining the value of the latter, which was perpetually returning its cost.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the noble Earl who represented the Home Department in their Lordships' House (the Earl of Morley), had informed them with great emphasis that the provision in the Bill with respect to the rating of mines had been consented to by every mine-owner in the country; but the fact seemed to be that the mine-owners had simply refrained from petitioning Parliament against the proposal. He anticipated that the same remark applied to the support which was said to have been extended to the Bill by the Chambers of Agriculture. And he was not surprised at the fact in either case, because the measure had been so altered, clipped, and transmogrified in its progress through the House of Commons that it was next to impossible for any one not actually present at, and listening carefully to, the discussions, to know what had been done, until after the measure had passed through the House. [The Earl of KIMBERLEY said, the main provisions of the Bill had not been altered.] He could not rely upon the general consent which was alleged to have been accorded to the Bill, and the speeches delivered that evening had rendered him yet more apprehensive than he was before with regard to the measures, and more desirous that it should not pass into law. One of the main reasons which had been urged in support of the Bill was that it would place a large discretionary power in the hands of the assessment committees; but this he regarded as a strong reason against the Bill, inasmuch as to throw down an ill-considered and ill-understood law for their administration, would have the effect of fomenting litigation among a

  989
  class with a strong natural tendency in that direction. Another great argument in support of the Bill was that it was preliminary to some great scheme of dealing with the question of local taxation which the Government had in contemplation. He, for one, objected strongly to piecemeal legislation on a great question like this, and ventured to urge that before they consented to clear the way for the Government scheme they ought to see it. He believed it was General Trochu who had always got a plan, but nobody ever saw it. Again, it was said that the measure would afford relief to the land-owning class, who alleged that from various causes, historical, financial, and otherwise, they had up to now borne burdens which had been unjustly laid upon their shoulders. But it would simply give them relief by shifting the burden from one shoulder to the other, which was practically no relief at all. It was because of the fragmentary nature of the Bill, the late period of the Session at which it was introduced in the House of Commons, and the fact that it was full of conditions and obligations to which they objected, but which, if they attempted to amend them, would land them in the middle of a squabble on the question of Privilege, that he advised their Lordships for the sake of uniformity in their legislation to reject the Bill.
  EARL GRANVILLEreminded their Lordships that in a remarkable speech the other day the noble Marquess who had just sat down said, there was a great decrease of the working power and the wish for work in their Lordships' House. But what had happened that evening? The only speeches, with the single exception of that of the noble Marquess, which had been directed against the Bill, had been expressions of opinion as to points of detail which would have been appropriate in Committee, but were out of place on a question of second reading. Even the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill, expressed his approval of its principle, and objected only to the provisions by which it was to be carried out. The noble Marquess, on the other hand, made sweeping objections to the Bill; one of which was that it was introduced very late in the House of Commons. In answer to this he would remind the House that the House of Commons spent at
  990
  least a dozen sittings in elaborating the Bill, and that hon. Members of that House representing every one of the interests which could be affected by the measure worked most strenuously to bring it into the shape they thought most desirable. And now their Lordships, who were present in sufficient numbers to thoroughly discuss the principles contained in the Bill, proposed, after two or three short speeches, to reject the measure in a manner which he was perfectly sure, the country at large would most deeply regret.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he should not have taken part in the discussion but for the manner in which the noble Earl (Earl Granville) had taken their Lordships to task for proposing to reject the Bill before the House. To the statement of the noble Earl that the House of Commons spent many nights in bringing the Bill to its present shape, he only desired to add that great differences of opinion existed with regard to its provisions up to the time at which it left the other House. All he could say was when a Bill came up to their Lordships' House in such a state as this was, and at so late a period of the Session, it was their duty to reject it. He doubted if his noble Friend himself had had sufficient time to study the Bill; and he ventured to doubt whether he would tell their Lordships that they might amend the Bill as they thought fit—for he apprehended that there were a number of clauses which their Lordships could not amend:—and that being so, it would be far better that their Lordships should reject the Bill. His noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) remarked at the close of his speech, in anticipating objections, that the Bill formed part of a very large scheme, and was only a fragmentary portion of the scheme. If he wanted a reason for rejecting the Bill it would not be easy to find a more cogent one. His noble Friend also stated that a Committee was sitting on the question of boundaries, though their Report had not yet been laid before the House, and that this very important point must be dealt with in connection with the rating question. Here again was sufficient ground for the rejection of the Bill. But another measure was so mixed up with the question of rating that the Government thought it necessary to deal with it—he meant the As-

  991
  sessment Bill, with which the Government had not proceeded. The absence of such a measure was another powerful reason against sanctioning the Bill now before their Lordships. No doubt some assessment committees did their work well, but there were large numbers of these committees which came to very different conclusions upon the same points. The carrying out of the Bill was put entirely into their hands, and that was a great objection to it. There was also great inconsistency in exempting certain classes of educational institutions and rating others; and though the exemption of ragged schools was not in the Bi11 as originally introduced, that was not the fault of their Lordships, who must necessarily deal with the measure as it was placed before them. Another clause, Clause 18, relating to mines, was open to great objection. It introduced the thin end of the wedge by overriding contracts; and if sanctioned now by their Lordships the precedent would certainly be quoted against them hereafter. Much had been said of the advantage to the public which would be gained by the assessment for the first time of Government property; but on reading Clause 10 it seemed to him that the question whether Government property was hereafter to be rated or not would be entirely in the hands of the Government themselves. Under the clause the Treasury were to cause to be prepared, and as soon as possible laid before the House of Commons, a scheme or schemes specifying the Government hereditaments in the various parishes "which, in their opinion, ought to be included in the valuation lists for the purposes of this section." So that Government property would only be rated if the Government themselves thought it ought to be rated; and what, then, became of the boon which was supposed to be offered to the ratepayers in this way? Believing that the Bill dealt with the mere fringe of a very large question, that the limited questions which were so dealt with were not treated in a satisfactory manner, and that it was impossible for their Lordships now to deal in detail with certain portions of the measure, he should give his vote against the second reading.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, that if the arguments which had been used against the Bill were to prevail, he saw no prospect of dealing with this question at
  992
  any time. He submitted that the proper method of proceeding was to clear the way for the greater scheme by a measure like the present. It was difficult in any other way for the Government to redeem their pledge to relieve local ratepayers of some portion of the burden which now pressed upon them. The Bill would give a real and substantial relief to the ratepayers of the country. As to Clause 10, relating to the rating of Government property, the noble Duke seemed to think that it rested with the Government itself to say what should be rated and what not. That was entirely a mistake. The clause provided that the rates shall be payable upon the rateable value of all Government property as shall be included in a valuation list for the time being in force, under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, and other assessment Acts. It was to be rated like other property. As to the local assessment committees, he had some experience of their working, and believed that there would be no difficulty in carrying out the Bill through them. There was, indeed, no choice in the matter; they must be trusted to a very great extent in carrying out such a measure. As to the 18th clause, it only did that which had been done before in many cases.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, the speeches that had been made on his side of the House were quite sufficient to convince him that he ought to vote in favour of the Amendment of his noble Friend. The Bill proposed to rate the right of shooting. He wanted to know how it was possible to estimate the value of a "right?"
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he had to apologize for interrupting the observation of the noble Marquess that no alteration had been made in the mining clauses of the Bill. Immediately after that interruption he recollected that the words with reference to tin and copper mines were inserted in the Bill after it was introduced into the other House. With reference to what had been said as to over-riding contracts in connection with the 18th clause, he would make this observation—that virtually a breach of contract between a lessor and lessee was committed when an Act of Parliament threw upon the lessee the whole of a burden which ought to be shared between the lessor and the lessee.

  993
  Instead of the 18th clause proposing to authorize breaches of contract, it seemed to him to be an attempt to apportion fairly between two parties—lessor and lessee—a new rate which Parliament thought fit to impose. He contended that their Lordships ought to agree to the second reading, and to go into Committee on this Bill, where they might strike out such portions as they deemed objectionable, and pass the other portions of it which were admitted to be valuable.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, the 18th clause would justify a breach of contract in this way—where a tenant of a mine had contracted with his landlord that he would clear him of all rates that were imposed or might be imposed, this clause would enable that tenant, in breach of his contract, to throw half of a rate on his landlord.
  On Question, that ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 43; Not-Contents 59: Majority 16.
  Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day three months.

  CONTENTS.

  Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Saint Albans, D.

  Gwydir, L.

  Hanmer, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Hatherley, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Hatherton, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Houghton, L.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Airlie, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Chichester, E.

  Devon, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Granville, E.

  Monson, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Morley, E.

  Poltimore, L. [Teller.]

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Canterbury, V.

  Falmouth, V.

  Robartes, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Sydney, V.

  Stafford, L.

  Acton, L

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Truro, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Castletown, L.

  Waveney, L.

  Eliot, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Bath, M.

  Bristol, M.

  Richmond, D.

  Hertford, M.

  Rutland, D.

  Salisbury, M.

  Wellington, D.

  Abergavenny, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Boston, L.

  Bantry, E.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Bathurst, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cairns, L.

  Brownlow, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Derby, E.

  Colonsay, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buc-

  Denman, L.

  cleuch and Queens-

  De Saumarez, L.

  berry.)

  Ellenborough, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Hen-

  Leven and Melville, E.

  niker.) [Teller.]

  Lonsdale, E.

  Leconfield, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Powis, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Sondes, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clan-

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  carty.)

  Strathspey, L. (E. Sea-

  De Vesci, V.

  field.)

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Thurlow, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford

  and Balcarres.)

  Abinger, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Aveland, L.

  House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.