Lords Sitting of 17 June 1879

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading— Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse) Improvement Scheme Amendment* (115); Inclosure Provisional Order (Matterdale Common) * (107); Inclosure Provisional Order (Redmoor and Golberdon Commons) * (109); Inclosure Provisional Order (East Stainmore Common) * (108); Local Government (Highways) Provisional Orders (Gloucester and Hereford)* (112); Local Government (Highways) Provisional Orders (Dorset, &c.) * (111); Local Government Provisional Orders (Castleton-by-Rochdale, &c.) * (114); Local Government Provisional Orders (Aspull, &c.)* (113); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Killarney, &c.) * (110).
Committee — Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment (83); Supply of Drink on Credit * (84); Children's Dangerous Performances * (64).
Committee — Report — Racecourses (Metropolis) (45); Omnibus Regulation (re-comm.) (41-117).
Third Reading—Costs Taxation (House of Commons) * (99), and passed.

RACECOURSES (METROPOLIS) BILL.
(The Viscount Enfield.)
RACECOURSES (METROPOLIS) BILL.

  (NO. 45.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  EARL MANVERSsaid, that, as their Lordships were aware, he was not in the habit of trespassing upon their attention; but before they proceeded to consider the measure in Committee he wished to be allowed to say a few words. The Bill, in his (Earl Manvers') opinion, had been introduced by the noble Viscount (Viscount Enfield) with great moderation and ability, and it was not brought forward before it was required; for he believed that the small race meetings, against which it was levied, were a great evil, demoralizing to the Metropolis, demoralizing to the suburbs, and an unmitigated nuisance to all of the better class of people who resided in their vicinity. Notwithstanding that the meetings might be an advantage to a few publicans whom, as a

  3
  class, he had no wish to disparage, he thought the consideration of their interests was hardly sufficient reason for the continuance of that which was a nuisance. The majority of those who attended these meetings did not know one horse from another; and if any noble Lord were to get up and say that they were calculated to improve the breed of racehorses, he could only say that he should be surprised. The noble Lord on his left who moved the rejection of the Bill, and who bore a highly respected judicial name in that House (Lord St. Leonards), told them something about vested interests, and declared that people might just as well complain of railways being a nuisance on account of the traffic and the number of travellers they brought into a neighbourhood as the sufferers from these gate meetings. Well, he (Earl Manvers) disputed that analogy altogether. Railways, it must be remembered, were made for the convenience of the whole travelling public, and where there were cases of residential injury compensation could be obtained; but no one ever heard of compensation being given through residential injury owing to these gate-meetings, by their proprietors. The noble Duke the Lord President of the Council had told them how great were the powers of the Jockey Club. He had said, moreover, that they had gone so far as to exercise their powers in the case of the race meeting at West Drayton. He (Earl Manvers) rejoiced that they had exercised those powers, and he would tell their Lordships why. Some years ago, on a very hot summer's afternoon, he was travelling from Windsor. He had taken his seat in a first-class compartment, of which he was the sole occupant, and he was congratulating himself, as it was a very hot day, on being alone, and on the pleasant journey he should have, all unconscious of the fact that it was the day of West Drayton races. The train he was in called at that station only, and on reaching it, the door of the compartment was opened, and in rushed 12 persons to occupy the seven vacant seats, without the slightest attempt at interference on the part of the railway officials. He should be sorry to characterize harshly any of his fellow-creatures; suffice it to say, therefore, that his fellow-travellers were not to be reckoned amongst the most refined of
  4
  the human race. They were vinous, they were spirituous, and their language was neither classical, nor Parliamentary; but as they did not relieve him of his watch he had nothing further to say against them. Prom all that ho had heard he had no reason to suppose that the frequenters of Kingsbury and Alexandra Park were at all more civilized than the persons he had just described, and of whom he had had such an un-enjoyable experience. He thought their Lordships had heard of this Bill before, or of one very like it; and, unless he was much mistaken, the old one had been withdrawn on a sort of understanding that the matter should be taken up by the Jockey Club. That august body, however, evidently had had very important matters to deal with, for it had not found time, or had not had the inclination, to deal with the matter. They had been told that the police could put down these meetings, if ill conducted; but did they ever hear of the police interfering except in the case of a regular free fight taking place? Perhaps it was right that the police did not interfere, for if they did it was possible that they might exceed their duty. Since, therefore, neither the Jockey Club nor Her Majesty's Government were willing to take up the matter, he thought that all those who agreed with his noble Friend (Viscount Enfield) would rejoice that the Bill had passed a second reading, and would cordially co-operate with him in endeavouring to increase rather than impair its efficiency in Committee.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEregretted that he was not present when the Bill passed a second reading; but he hoped the House would lend him its indulgence for a few moments whilst he made an observation or two on the measure. Perhaps no one had more right to address a few words to their Lordships on a Bill of this nature than he had, for it was only six months ago that he relinquished the position he had held as a steward of the Jockey Club. He was rather astonished, on reading over the observations of the noble Viscount who moved the second reading (Viscount Enfield), to see the various reflections he had cast upon the executive powers of the Jockey Club. His noble Friend who had just addressed them hinted that the Jockey Club was not a strong enough body to perform the duties that it had to

  5
  discharge. He believed, however, that the Jockey Club was perfectly well able to deal with all mattors connected with racing without Acts of Parliament, which were really fancy legislation. During the whole of the time he had been in Parliament he could safely say that he had never known either House consent to pass any Act that was not really called for by the desires of the people or the interests of the country. This Bill, which had been brought up from the House of Commons, never seemed to him to have received the discussion in the Lower House which it ought to have received. The House of Commons treated it rather as a joke, and they might well do so, because if it was such a necessity, and if it was called for to remove such crying evils, how was it that on no single occasion had the Jockey Club received any petition on the subject? No single individual had ever made a representation to them about it. Gate meetings were, as their Lordships were aware, becoming a very considerable mercantile business, and the interest in the business was by no means strictly confined to publicans or to sinners; because he knew perfectly well that some most respectable and monied gentlemen in the country had, in the belief that they conferred considerable benefits upon racing in the country, and that they promoted legitimate sport, identified themselves with gate meetings. He doubted, if they analyzed them, whether they would not find that nearly all the meetings—Royal Ascot and Ducal Good wood amongst them—resolved themselves into some emolument, which, in some form or another, was for the benefit of individuals or for the benefit of racing. These small Metropolitan meetings would die, or had died, a natural death. They were meetings which were got up by individuals for the purpose of making money; and in the ease of Kingsbury and West Drayton, Streatham and the Alexandra Park—which meeting had been resuscitated, after having been stopped—all the meetings were at an end. Some two years ago the Jockey Club made remonstrances as to the way in which the Kingsbury and West Drayton Meetings were conducted. They said that a sufficient body of police should be employed before they could give countenance to such meetings. On the understanding that these meetings
  6
  were not looked upon favourably by the Governing Body of the Turf, they fell into disrepute, and were now, he believed, done away with. He objected to the Bill, not because it sought to remedy evils to individuals or to the public, but on the ground that it was a Bill quite contrary to the general principle of legislation. If they were to take up in Parliament the question of racecourses, he considered they ought to do it with regard to the whole of England. There were large meetings at Liverpool, Manchester, York, and other places, and it would astonish their Lordships if he were to tell them the numbers of people who attended those meetings. Why did not the people of Manchester, if they objected to the race meetings, petition against them? The area of the Bill was so limited that it would only deal with the race meeting at Alexandra Park. If they wanted to make it of any value, they should apply it to every race meeting—to the whole of England. He would rather see it made to apply to every racecourse in the Kingdom, than that they should stultify themselves by passing fancy legislation. He must say that the noble Viscount who had moved the second reading of the Bill (Viscount Enfield) had shown an amount of ignorance on the subject that would lead one to believe that he had not attended a single race meeting since his father took such an important part in racing. The noble Viscount wished them to believe that the Jockey Club was so effete that they were in utter ignorance of their own duties. He could tell the noble Viscount, though he perhaps could not agree with him, that the amount of work the Jockey Club did in its own quiet way was very considerable, and that it was such a power in England that when its decisions were given they were never brought into disrepute. The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack (Earl Cairns), in the high position he held in the Legal Profession, would be exceedingly glad if all the decisions given by him on the Bench, of which he was so great an ornament, were received by the general public with equal approval. If they wished to strengthen a body which was upheld by the public, they would not seek to legislate in Parliament for that which the Jockey Club could do unaided.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1 (Definitions) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Horse-races unlawful within 10 miles of London unless licensed) agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Power of justices to license at Michaelmas Quarter Sessions).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONdesired to say a few words with respect to the principle of an Amendment which he would place upon the Paper to this clause. He might, however, say that the noble Earl (Earl Manvers) who had first addressed them seemed to have taken a very strange view of the stage of the Bill at which they had now arrived, and had given their Lordships a number of details with respect to the inconvenience which he had experienced in railway travelling, which it was by no means necessary now to enter into. Their Lordships had on a previous occasion decided that race meetings should not take place within 10 miles of Charing Cross without being licensed by the magistrates in Quarter Sessions assembled. Although he had opposed the Bill, he accepted the principle which had been laid down upon the second reading—namely, that all race meetings which took place within 10 miles of Charing Cross must be licensed by the magistrates. He hoped he need hardly say that, although he had opposed the second reading, he did not sympathize with gate-money meetings. fie believed them to be very injurious to racing, and he believed no one would wish to uphold, or in any way encourage, such meetings. But he also believed that in introducing this Bill, and bringing forward what he considered to be a remedy against the evils of these gate-money meetings, the noble Viscount (Viscount Enfield) had included within the provisions of the Bill other race meetings which might be of a totally different character to the gate meetings which he sought to suppress. The principle of the Bill, however, having been conceded that these meetings must be licensed by the magistrates in Quarter Sessions, he was placed in this great difficulty—that the noble Viscount, in moving the second reading of the Bill, did not vouchsafe to explain its provisions. The noble Viscount confined his remarks very much to abuse of the Jockey Club, and entirely omitted
  8
  to tell their Lordships how the provisions of the Bill would carry out the objects which he had in view, or the reasons why several of the clauses contained in the measure had been introduced. The effect of the 3rd clause was that the licences should be granted at any Michaelmas Quarter Sessions of the Peace. He wanted to know why the licences should only be granted at the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions? He thought that if that were done, it would cause very considerable annoyance to persons who were desirous of holding a legitimate race meeting, and not a gate meeting, within 10 miles of Charing Cross. If any persons desired to have a race meeting they would have to wait until the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions, and then the licence would not have effect until the following Lady Day. He certainly could not understand the reason of this. He could not see any reason why the licence should not take effect immediately after it was granted. If the noble Viscount had asked for a fortnight or a month's notice before the application, he could have understood it; but to say that after a licence had been granted to the persons applying they should not be allowed to hold a meeting until six months after, he could not understand. It might be that race meetings might be got up which were quite of another character to gate meetings—say, for instance, by the Household Brigade, which was quartered in London. If the Household Brigade wanted to hold a race meeting amongst themselves, where no liquor would be consumed except what they took down in their hampers, they must make up their minds—according to the Bill of the noble Viscount—to do so before the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions, and then they could not hold it until no less a period than six months had expired. He maintained that that was putting an excessive and undesirable restraint. He did not object to licences being granted by the magistrates; but he wished to point out that magistrates were magistrates at all the Quarter Sessions which were held during the year. His proposal, therefore, was to strike out the word " Michaelmas," which would have the effect of giving power to the magistrates to grant licences at any of the Quarter Sessions held throughout the year; and he should certainly take the sense of the

  9
  Committee upon it if the noble Viscount could not see his way to accept it.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("Michaelmas.")—{The Lord President.)
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDwas sorry he could not agree to the Amendment which had been moved by the noble Duke. This Bill was not intended to put down absolutely any race meetings which might take place within 10 miles of Charing Cross, supposing licences were granted by the magistrates; but it was desired by the promoters of the measure to give the public some assurance that there would be good order, sobriety, and regularity at those meetings. The Michaelmas Quarter Sessions had been named in order to make the Bill similar in the time of granting licences to the Act regulating the granting of licences for music and dancing, and two month's notice was required of the intention to apply for a licence, in order to give the public an opportunity of making objection, either by themselves or by counsel. Clause 4 went together with Clause 3, and as Middlesex and Surrey were the two counties with in 10 miles of Charing Cross where race meetings took place—for he believed there were no race meetings in Essex— he thought it right that the licensing of music, dancing, and racing, should all be placed on the same footing within the Metropolitan area. Under these circumstances, he must ask their Lordships to adhere to the present wording of the clause.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONthought the noble Viscount argued as if all race meetings were gate meetings. He objected to race meetings got up by the Household Brigade, and others in the same high category, being considered as gate meetings. Music and dancing licences were granted, too, for a whole year, and he thought the noble Viscount must have forgotten that fact. The noble Viscount said there were no race meetings in Essex. That was very likely at present. If publicity was what the noble Viscount desired, it could be obtained by other means than those which the noble Viscount had provided. The noble Viscount would also do well, when they came to it, to explain what he meant by Clause 4.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he assumed a somewhat different position
  10
  to that of his noble Friend who had just spoken. He thought his noble Friend was opposed to the Bill altogether; but, on the contrary, it seemed to him (the Lord Chancellor) that it was a Bill which deserved support, and he had voted for its second reading. But he was bound to say that he thought his noble Friend who had charge of the Bill (Viscount Enfield) would act wisely in re-considering this question as to the days for licensing. Those who prepared the Bill appeared to have been led away by the Statute of Geo. II. with regard to licences for music and dancing. In the cases of licences for music and dancing, it was right that the public should have a proper notice—a fortnight's notice—in order to be able to appear before the Quarter Sessions to oppose them. He could not help thinking that the noble Viscount had mistaken the sense of the Statute of Geo. II. The Act of Geo. II. required no notice whatever. The notice was simply a regulation made by the Quarter Sessions; and it would be perfectly competent for the Court of Quarter Sessions, even if the word proposed to be omitted was left out, to make a rule as to a certain amount of notice being given, so that any member of the public who wished to oppose the granting of a licence might have full opportunity of doing so. Unlike halls for music and dancing, race meetings were not places of continuous amusement; and, therefore, the arguments applicable to the former had no force in reference to the latter. Provided proper notice was given and no march stolen on the public, why should a licence not be granted at Whitsuntide, for instance, as well as Michaelmas, and take effect immediately it was obtained? He hoped the noble Viscount would see the propriety of leaving the question of notice to the magistrates.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, the noble Viscount's only object was due publicity. If licences for race meetings were given at the time when the other licences for places of amusements were granted, they would have some security that a large amount of public attention would be directed to them. If, on the contrary, they were given at any Quarter Sessions, there would not be the same security for publicity. Some of the races at which the Bill was aimed were run several times in the course of the year.

  11
  If officers of the Household Brigade wished to hold race meetings, there would be nothing to prevent them taking out a licence from year to year, or if they had not a licence, and wished to hold a race meeting at once, there was nothing easier for them than to go beyond the ten-mile limit.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEpointed out that the most valuable stakes were those in which the entries were made some two years before the race, and the present Bill would make the period of the future race dependent upon the will and pleasure of the magistrates. If the Bill were to become law, he should prefer that licences were to be granted at one fixed Quarter Sessions, instead of at any of the four held throughout the year. If two right rev. Prelates, or a couple of Judges, now in favour of this Bill, were to ride along Rotten Bow, and test the respective qualities of their horses in a gallop, they might unexpectedly find themselves within its provisions and subject to its penalties.
  EARL GRANVILLEopposed the Amendment. The Bill had been passed by the House of Commons, and been approved of by both the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. That being the case, it was not desirable to risk the passage of the measure when it went back to the other House by the introduction of any material Amendments, especially as it was one which was in private hands.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, if they once admitted the principle of magisterial licence, they would have to extend it to all manner of amusements in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis, to the Oxford and Cambridge boat-race, the Eton and Harrow cricket matches, and similar amusements, for they all tended to collect crowds, and were, no doubt, considered nuisances by some people.
  On Question, That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 88; Not-Contents 57: Majority 31.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Albemarle, E.

  Annesley, E.

  Bedford, D.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Devonshire, D.

  Belmore, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Coventry, E.

  Northampton, M.

  Cowper, E.

  12

  De La Warr, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Devon, E.

  Ducie, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Granville, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Grey, E.

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

  Hardwicke, E.

  Harewood, E.

  Emly, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Greville, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Hammond, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Lovelace, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Lucan, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Manvers, E.

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

  Morley, E.

  Powis, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Monson, L.

  Strafford, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Sydney, E.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Rivers, L.

  Saltersford,L. (E. Cour-town.)

  Cardwell, V.

  Hardinge, V.

  Portman, V.

  Sherborne, L.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Silchester, L. (E. Long-ford.)

  Carlisle, L. Bp.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  London, L. Bp.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.) [Teller.]

  Aberdare, L. [Teller.]

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Airey, L.

  Balfour of Burleigh, L.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Sea-field.)

  Bateman, L.

  Belper, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Blachford, L.

  Truro, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Wenlock, L.

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

  Wolverton, L.

  Zouche of Haryng-worth, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cairns, E. (L. Chancellar.)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Wilton, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Zetland, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Salisbury, M.

  Bolingbroke and St. John, V.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Airlie, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Cranbrook, V.

  Bathurst, E.

  Hawardon, V.

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Clonmell, E.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Durham, E.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Ellesmere, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Nelson, E.

  de Ros, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Dorchester, L.

  Romney, E.

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Gerard, L.

  Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

  Gordon of Drumearn, L.

  13

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Norton, L,

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Grey de Radcliff'e, L.

  (V. Grey de Wilton.)

  Ribblesdale, L.

  [Teller.]

  Sandhurst, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L.

  Hanmer, L.

  (E. Galloway.)

  Howard de Walden, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.) [Teller.]

  Walsingham, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Resolved in the Negative.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to, without Amendment.
  Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Friday next.

  VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 83.)
  (The Earl of Galloway.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEbegged to ask the noble Earl who had charge of this measure, whether he had any objection to setting forth the objects of the Bill? Such a proceeding was the more necessary, because no statement of its objects was made on the second reading.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he had no objection to comply with the desire of the noble Earl—especially as some serious Amendments had been placed upon the Paper. The object of the Bill was to introduce certain amendments into the law relating to the valuation of lands and heritages in Scotland. As many of their Lordships were aware, there were various bodies in Scotland known as Commissioners of Supply. Now, it had been found extremely inconvenient that so large a number of persons as the general body of Commissioners of Supply for each county should be called upon to sit for the purpose of hearing appeal cases; and the principal object of that Bill was that the Commissioners of Supply of each county should themselves form out of their own body a Committee — to be called the County Valuation Committee—to whom should be delegated the same powers as the whole body at present had. That was the real object of the measure; but it also provided for what were called " misnomers," and provided an easy way
  14
  of rectifying such misnomers. It further provided that, in case any person should feel aggrieved at his assessment, when made by persons who were not officers of Inland Revenue, and an appeal from their judgment might be brought before the Commissioners of Supply, there should be a further power of appeal to any two Judges of the Court of Session. Where the assessor was an officer of the Inland Revenue no appeal was allowed. The remaining part of the Bill was merely formal. It gave power to Commissioners of Supply by a majority of two-thirds of their number at any time to alter the place of meeting. These were the provisions of the measure. He hoped that the explanation he had given would satisfy his noble Friend, and that they would now proceed with the Committee upon the Bill.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, the noble Earl who introduced this Bill had explained that its main provision was that, inasmuch as the whole body of Commissioners of Supply amounted to an inconvenient number, they should elect among themselves a smaller number. That did not seem a very logical proceeding, neither did he see any reason why all the owners of land in the counties should be compelled, whether they willed it or not, to submit a valuation of their land to a Committee simply of the Commissioners of Supply. For his own part, he should think that that was a question of which the whole body of Commissioners themselves were the best judges.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, that if the Commissioners chose to sit as a whole body to the number of 20 for the purpose of investigation, instead of appointing from their body a smaller Committee for the purpose of hearing any appeal, there was power to do so.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that he should prefer to see the introduction of the word "shall," so as to make it compulsory on the Commissioners, in the first place, to investigate the case; but he had no wish to prevent the progress of the Bill in Committee.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Evidence to be taken if required).
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, he had given Notice of his inten-

  15
  tion to move the omission of two clauses in this Bill—namely, the 8th and 9th; and, inasmuch as the question involved in both clauses was the same, it would be the most convenient course to move the rejection of both at the same time. Many of their Lordships were probably aware that, by an Act which was passed in the 17th and 18th years of the Queen, and which was amended by an Act passed three years afterwards, power was given to the Commissioners of Supply in burghs and counties to appoint such assessors and valuers as might be thought necessary; and a power was given to appeal from their decision to the Commissioners of Supply, and from the Commissioners of Supply to a Judge of the Court of Session. Now, the object of the 7th clause of the present Bill was to extend the right of appeal to all cases in which the assessors were not officers of the Inland Revenue. It was also provided that the appeal should be to two Judges, which he did not think was necessary; but he did not wish to raise any unnecessary objection to a measure which he thought would, in the main, prove a very useful one; and he did not think it mattered much whether the appeal went to one Judge or two. Clause 8 provided that if either party to any appeal or complaint to the Commissioners of Supply of any county, or the magistrates of any burgh, required at the hearing of any appeal or complaint that the evidence should be taken down in writing, it should be so taken. That was not the course at present pursued in all cases. He was not a sufficient lawyer to say whether the word "writing" would include "shorthand;" but, if not, he conceived that to take it all down in ordinary writing would be a very cumbrous mode of proceeding in these days of rapid progress, and he thought it would be incurring a very unnecessary expense. He had yet to learn that any dissatisfaction had been expressed with the present system. He thought, moreover, that the 9th clause, which required that in stating any case the grounds of complaint and the replies should be set forth, in addition to the particulars required by the Bill, very objectionable. It made appeals much more cumbrous and expensive. It would make more work for the lawyers; but he had great diffidence
  16
  in using that argument in their Lordship's House; but at any rate he did not think they should go out of their way to make more work than was absolutely necessary for members of that Profession. He thought, also, that if this new method of stating cases for appeal, as provided by Clause 9, was adopted, the duties of the Commissioners of Supply would become very onerous, and there would be a difficulty in getting gentlemen to sit on the appeals. It must be remembered that the Commissioners of Supply were not a body of salaried officers, but a body of private gentlemen unpaid, and it would be impossible to induce them to spend a large portion of their time in hearing the long discussions which would be likely to arise under these clauses. It would probably be replied that it was only necessary to take the evidence in writing in certain cases; but he ventured to think, if they read Clause 9 carefully, it would be found to be necessary to take evidence in writing in every case—and for the reason that if they went to the Court of Session the case stated must contain the evidence, and if none was taken there could be no case stated. In his mind, to require the evidence to be taken in writing was virtually pre-judging the case; because, if before the case was begun to be heard one party requested that the evidence should be taken down in writing, it showed that he meant to be dissatisfied with the finding of the Commissioners. Again, he did not think that there should be an appeal given in the case where the assessor was not an Inland Revenue officer, and not incases where he was; and he might point out that in no less than 10 counties in Scotland the assessors were not officers of the Inland Revenue; neither were they in 45 burghs, including Ayr, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Greenock, Perth, Galashiels, Arbroath, and Stirling—these burghs included some of the largest and most populous towns in Scotland. He had, he thought, shown their Lordships that these clauses were not only unnecessary, but objectionable; but there was a further point—namely, the history of these clauses, and the manner in which they came to be inserted in the Bill. The noble Earl might possibly tell them that several counties and burghs had petitioned in favour of the Bill. So they had; but when they did so these

  17
  clauses were not in the Bill. These clauses, in fact, had not yet been discussed. The Bill came up to their Lordships as having passed all its stages in "another place;" but, as a matter of fact, they were never discussed at all. These two clauses were only inserted in the last stage of the progress of the Bill, and he ventured to say that very few conveners of counties or magistrates of burghs knew of their existence; and, most certainly, no opportunity had been given to them to consider the nature of the clauses, or how they would affect the valuation of lands. He, therefore, begged to move that Clause 8 be omitted from the Bill.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he must confess he was not prepared to hear such an elaborate argument from his noble Friend. He had not the slightest objection to take Clauses 8 and 9 together; but he was afraid that he could not accept the proposition to strike out Clause 8. The noble Lord objected to there being any distinction between the position of the Inland Revenue officers and other assessors; but he might remind his noble Friend that in the case of the 10 counties referred to, no such objection came from nine, and none from the burghs. The Bill had been introduced before Whitsuntide, and was read a second time three weeks ago, and before that time—indeed, before the Bill had left the other House of Parliament—these two clauses had been put in, and he had put off the Committee till now that there might be ample time for anyone to object to them; and yet only one county, that of Ayr, had objected. As a matter of fact, the two clauses were put in at the instigation of the Lord Advocate, who considered that inasmuch as there were many large manufacturers interested in this question of land valuation, and who might conceive that the judgment of the assessors was wrong, though they would probably find themselves mistaken, they would have a right to pay for their own protection, and it would be impossible for the Court of Appeal to judge of the merits of the case unless it had the written evidence thus before it. He thought it would be for the benefit of all classes that these two clauses should be retained. Then, again, with regard to the Commissioners of Supply, as he had already told their Lordships, the object of the
  18
  Bill was to reduce the number of the Commissioners to a Committee; and he did not see any reason to doubt that such a proceeding would be beneficial. On these grounds, he opposed the omission of these two clauses.
  On Question? Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Case to set forth grounds of appeal, &c.) agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Place of meeting of Commissioners of Supply may be changed).
  THE EARL OF SELKIRKsaid, there were several objections to this clause. He thought that if it was expedient to do this in any particular case, it could be best effected by a private local Bill, and not by this general measure.
  LORD BLANTYREsupported the clause.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he did not feel very strongly upon the point, as he was not the original promoter of the Bill. He would, however, remind their Lordships that by the clause in question power was put into the hands of the Commissioners themselves, and that it was only by their strongly-expressed wish, and a vote of two-thirds of their number present, that their place of meeting could be removed. He had not had any communication on the subject from the promoters of the Bill; but if there was any strongly expressed wish upon the subject, he would withdraw the clause.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRKobjected to the clause. In the first place, the place of meeting might be shifted at the mere caprice of the Commissioners; and, in the second place, it was well known that in some counties these meetings of the Commissioners were held, if not simultaneously, in rapid succession—in fact, he had known five meetings to be held in five days—and the greatest confusion would take place, unless there was a certainty as to the place in which the meetings were to be held. These meetings of Supply were somewhat analogous to the Quarter Sessions of England, and they were generally held at the county towns; and very great inconvenience would be caused if the venu of the meeting were shifted to another town 10 miles distant. In many cases, also, they were held subject to private local

  19
  Acts, and no great good could be gained by shifting, unless it was from an inconvenient place to a county town. In other cases it might be inconvenient to change them from such a place as Lanark to the great metropolis of the West of Scotland.
  Clause struck out accordingly.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next.

  OMNIBUS REGULATION BILL.—(No. 41.)
  (The Earl of Redesdale.)

  COMMITTEE (ON RE-COMMITMENT).
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee (on re-commitment), read.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIR-MAN of COMMITTEES)said, in deference to the wish of the Government, he had taken out of the Bill everything relating to the Metropolis, which was to be provided for by another Bill introduced on this subject by his noble Friend (Earl Beauchamp). He had also taken out of the Bill those parts open to objection on the ground that they interfered with local Acts. It would also be provided that the Bill would come into operation on the 1st of January next.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Bill reported without Amendment; Amendments made; and Bill to be read 3a on Friday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 117.)

  CYPRUS—ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE—PUNISHMENT OF PRIESTS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, there had been several statements in the public prints that two priests imprisoned in Cyprus had been deprived of their beards. After reading the Blue Book just issued respecting the government of Cyprus, he should be inclined to disbelieve those statements; but, on the other hand, some time had elapsed since they were made, and they had not yet been contradicted on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. But even should those statements now receive an unqualified contradiction, it would not be a waste of the time of the House to place before it those considerations
    20
    which should prevent the possibility of the occurrence which had been complained of, or of the introduction of English prison regulations into Cyprus. The case of these priests was a very painful one; or, as that word had recently been misused, and might be misleading—it was one of grievous hardship. If an individual were to deprive a priest of his beard, it would be a serious outrage, and it would prevent his officiating until it had grown again. At the time when the Bulgarians were intriguing against the Prelates of the Greek race, it was reported that one of these was got rid of by advantage being taken of his sleep to deprive him of his beard, after which, being unable to show himself in public in his diocese, he had to escape from it and go home. But when priests were deprived of their beards, as in this case, by the act of the civil authorities, it became a usurpation of ecclesiastical rights reserved to the Patriarchs. This was probably done by some subordinate official, in ignorance that its consequence was to degrade the priest, and to incapacitate him from fulfilling his holy office. This could not be done under the Turkish law, which, from the last Blue Book, we appeared to be still administering. But the noble Marquess could not plead ignorance, for this matter was brought before him when he was at the India Office, and a Jacobite Patriarch, who was going to India, came to see him and showed him his berat or charter, which gave him the right in Turkey to imprison and shave recalcitrant priests. This must have happened about the time that the Public Worship Act was passing; and the noble Marquess would, perhaps, recollect it, when he (Lord Stanley of Alderley) reminded him that the interpreter of the Patriarch made some observation or calculation as to the number of barbers that would have to be kept at Lambeth Palace, if the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury had the same powers over recalcitrant priests as were possessed by his brothers of the Oriental Churches. It did not appear that this form of degradation of priests was ever followed in the Western Church; but, in the year 767, the Patriarch Constantine of Constantinople was deposed, degraded, and executed, and he was degraded by shaving his head, beard, and eye-brows. He (Lord Stanley of Alder-ley) must now say a few words for the

    21
    laymen. Lay Christians did not wear beards, unless they were old men, or were in the Ottoman Service; but if they shaved the moustaches of the lay Christians, it would be putting an odious imputation on them. The beards of the Mussulmans must not be meddled with. There was an anecdote which well set forth the feeling on this subject; but as he did not wish to treat this subject otherwise than very seriously, he must refer their Lordships for it to the pages of Ibn Batoutah, the Arab Herodotus. Some time ago, but he did not exactly know when or where, in England, some playactors were sentenced by the magistrates to a short imprisonment, and were shaved; and as that interfered with their means of gaining their livelihood it caused great agitation, for the law did not allow of any greater hardship being inflicted on a prisoner than that which was contained in the actual sentence. English prison regulations were not in force in India; and, in the prisons in India, care was taken that the food of the Brahmin prisoners was cooked by cooks able to prepare their food. He thought, therefore, that an apology ought to be made to these priests for what they had suffered.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Those priests were deprived of their beards, so far as I can understand the matter, not in consequence of any firman or any decree of any Eastern or Western Council, but in accordance with the English prison regulations which have been introduced by Ordinance into the Island. I am compelled, however, to admit that there was an irregularity in the case, because, by the regulations of the prison, as they have been laid down, the hair ought only to have been removed in the case of a considerable period of imprisonment; and in the case of these particular priests, who were imprisoned for short periods, and for offences comparatively trivial, there was no justification, under the prison regulations, for depriving them of their beards. It was a misapprehension on the part of the Assistant Commissioner, of which notice had been taken, and in regard to which the High Commissioner, Colonel Greaves, had taken steps to prevent any such error occurring again. But I am unable to agree with the noble Lord in thinking that prisoners should not be subjected to personal indignities. It is a
    22
    personal indignity to put a man into prison at all, and the best way to avoid such an indignity is to act so as not to get put into prison. The object of depriving prisoners of their hair, however, is of a cleanly and sanitary character. I am wholly unable to determine by personal knowledge whether the Cypriotes require such a precaution or not; but I do not think that we shall be able to give any instructions of the absolute character which the noble Lord requires. No doubt, if there is any strong prejudice or popular feeling on the question, as I see has been represented in the newspapers, it will be the duty of the local authorities to exercise due care in the modification of any regulations laid down; and I have asked Colonel Biddulph, who is about to be High Commissioner in the Island, to make inquiries as to whether this particular punishment is suited to the circumstances of the Island or not. But I am afraid that some of the opposition has arisen from a claim on the part of the Greek clergy to which it is impossible for us to accede—a claim, that is, that the jurisdiction over them should be reserved to their own ecclesiastical superiors, and should not be exercised by the civil power. That is contrary to our fundamental notions of justice in this country, and it is impossible that we should accept such a pretension. I agree, however, that in all these matters it is better not to lay down an absolute rule, and that the regulations ought to be suited to the habits and feelings of the inhabitants of the Island.
    LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, in reply, that he was satisfied with the answer of the noble Marquess; but, owing to the lateness of the hour, he had omitted to say that whilst the English prison regulations were framed with regard to cleanliness, they were not required in this case, for whatever preconceived opinions there might be, he had no hesitation in saying that among the classes that usually tilled the prisons there was much more cleanliness in the Ottoman Empire than in any country of Europe; and he must disagree with the opinion of the noble Marquess that the being in prison was a personal indignity such as those he had complained of.
    House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.