Sitting of 18 July 1855

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Norfolk (Eastern Division), Henry Josias Stracey, esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Public Houses (Ireland).
2° Convention with United States.
3° Crown Suits.

STANDING ORDERS.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEbrought up the Annual Report of the Select Committee for the Revision of Standing Orders and stated that the alterations recommended were principally to make the Standing Orders of the two Houses as far as possible agree. The chief alteration which the Committee recommended was in the eighth Standing Order—that for the future no Members locally interested should be Members of a Committee on an opposed Bill. In all the changes which had been made for many years past the aim had been to give Committees an entirely judicial character, and that was the object of the proposed alteration. Local Members now stood in the anomalous position of having power to interfere, without any responsibility or share in the decisions of the Committee. In the case of an unopposed Bill, it was referred to the Chairman of Ways and Means, and he was assisted by one of the Members whose name was on the back of the Bill; but when Bills were opposed, it could only be necessary to resort for advice to local Members in such, few instances that they were amply provided for by the power of any Member to attend in any Committee-room. Local Members would not be deprived of any right as Members of Parliament, but would have the opportunity of directing the attention of the House to any mistakes which they conceived the Committee had made in their Report. For these reasons, he should move that the House agree to the recommendation.
MR. FRENCHsaid, that without offering any opinion as to the expediency of the proposed alteration, he would beg to direct the attention of the hon. Baronet to the unnecessary fees exacted on the bringing Bills before the House. It was very well

1021
known that on that account the undertaking of many useful projects in Ireland had been checked, and that railway enterprise had been most especially discouraged there.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he objected to the recommendation of the Committee as unconstitutional. It went to deprive local Members of the means of attending to those interests which they were meant particularly to represent—it would lead to great inconvenience on the part of the House, and it would induce to the canvassing for support amongst Members of Committees by the promoters of Bills when they found they were debarred of the presence and assistance of their local Members; and in addition, it would promote the discussion of the Reports of Committees on Private Bills—a result hitherto avoided as much as possible.
MR. LLOYD DAVIESsaid, he fully concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), in opposition to the proposed recommendation.
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, he felt great doubts of the expediency of the alteration, as he was convinced many useful Bills would have been lost had not the local Members been present to supply information, which the Committee could obtain from no other source. If local Members were deprived of the power of taking part in the proceedings, they would cease to attend the Committees, and the interests of their constituents would in many cases suffer.
MR. SOTHERONsaid, he believed the decisions of Committees would give more satisfaction, if, after the parties were requested to withdraw, they did not see that the local Members remained to influence those decisions. It would be far better for the character of the tribunal that information should be given by witnesses, and not by Members, who had no power to give a vote in the Committee. He could assure the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) that the Standing Orders Committee wished cordially that some means could be found for diminishing the fees; but that question had not been referred to them. As to protecting the public against the arrangements of rival parties, whose interests were distinct from the interests of localities, he considered it part of the duty of every Committee to watch over the public interests. He hoped the House would agree in the alteration,
1022
and, in future, exclude local Members from Committees on opposed Bills.
MR. BARROWsaid, he would suggest that local Members should be permitted to be present in Committees, in order to ask questions and hear the discussions, but should be excluded, together with the public, when the Committee came to consider a Report.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he thought that, carrying out the principle which had been acted on for some years of making Committees as independent as possible, it would be right to exclude all members locally interested from taking part in the proceedings of Committees. Local members ought to be excluded, because, as judges, they were not to have a voice; as advocates, they would be objectionable, because no opportunity would be afforded for replying to their arguments; and, as witnesses, they would be obnoxious to the same objection that the other side could have no opportunity of cross-examination. He did not think the presence of local members was at all requisite, as in the cases of Railway Bills, where local interests were left unrepresented on the Committee, no complaints had ever been made that local interests had suffered thereby.
SIR ROBERT FERGUSSONsaid, he differed from the opinions expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. Local members were excluded from Railway Committees because the local interests affected by those Bills were so extensive that they could not be completely represented. He thought upon Private Bills the presence of local members was an advantage, and therefore he hoped the House would not deprive them of the power of examining witnesses.
MR. DEEDESsaid, he was of opinion that local interests would not be left unguarded by the proposed change, and he would recommend the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Sotheron) to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire, Mr. Barrow.
SIR JOHN DUCKWORTHsaid, that as Chairman of the Committee, he would support the suggested alteration; but at the same time he must confess that he was much surprised the country had not taken exception to the present practice long ago.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, that the reason why local representation was admitted was that the Committee should have the best information on the subject before them. Another reason was indeed alleged—that

1023
of the constitutional right of Members. He thought the best system to adopt was to exclude local members altogether, and to examine them as witnesses if they had any information to give.
MR. MUNTZsaid, he concurred in the recommendation to exclude local members, and would take that opportunity of remarking that he considered the present system of examining witnesses before Committees of that House to be extremely objectionable. He believed that persons examined in that House without the administration of any oath gave very different evidence from that which they would give before the House of Lords, where they were sworn.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he thought that some steps should be taken to relieve private parties, whose interests were affected by private Bills, from the heavy expense to which they were now subject.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, for the sake of unanimity he was willing to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. Barrow) as a step in advance, for he believed that it could not be a final arrangement.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, if the hon. Chairman of the Committee assented to the suggestions of the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire he (Sir G. Grey) should not dissent, but he really thought the preponderance of argument was in favour of the proposal of the Committee. He thought it would be humiliating to Members of that House to be allowed to attend upon Committees, but to be turned out of the room whenever the public was ordered to withdraw. If the principle was to be adopted that local members were not to influence Committees, except as witnesses, then they ought only to be allowed to appear as witnesses. The majority of the House appeared to be in favour of the Resolution of the Committee of Revision, and he thought it would be desirable to come to a decision upon that point.
MR. ALCOCKsaid, he differed from the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), with respect to the administration of oaths, and thought the proper alteration would be to abolish the administration of oaths in the House of Lords, and thus harmonize the practice of the two Houses.
MR. THORNELYsaid, he could not help thinking that some advantage was derivable from the presence of local Members upon a Committee, although that position was disagreeable to the hon.
1024
Members themselves. He thought local Members ought not to be called upon to retire from the room when the public were excluded, but they should withdraw to a distant part of the room, so as not to take part in the discussions of the Committee.
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREsaid, he regarded the subject as one of considerable importance, as affecting the purity of the decisions of that House. The presence of local Members was undesirable, and he considered it would be useless to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire, as it would fail to produce unanimity upon the present occasion.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to ask whether, if Members were to be called upon to give evidence as witnesses, they would be required to pay the fee of three guineas for the privilege? He wished the House would turn its attention to the enormous expense attending proceedings before Select Committees.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, that in a case in which his constituents were concerned, the amount of fees which were required to enable the parties to appear, either by themselves or counsel, was tantamount to a denial of justice.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That the Committee on every opposed private Bill (not being a Railway, Canal, or Divorce Bill), or Group of Bills, shall be composed of a Chairman and Four Members not locally or otherwise interested in the Bill or Bills in progress, to be appointed by the Committee of Selection."
The House divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 57: Majority 23.
Certain Standing Orders were then repealed, and new Orders, as reported by the Committee, agreed to.

EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULAR ESTATES BILL.
Order for Committee read.
THE MARQUESS OF BLANDFORDsaid, that, considering the state of the public business, and the impossibility of carrying the Bill to a successful termination during the present Session, he did not feel justified in taking up any further portion of the time of the House; he would beg, therefore, to move that the Order for the House to go into Committee be discharged. The House would, perhaps, permit him to make one or two observations connected with his reasons for taking that course. In the first place, however, he wished to correct a statement made by him

1025
on moving the second reading of the Bill. On that occasion he stated that the incomes of certain Chapters were of a certain amount, while the sums expended by those Chapters in charities were of another certain amount. In those instances he committed the error of stating the gross income instead of the net. He had since received communications which would enable him to correct the error. In 1852 the gross income of the Chapter of Winchester Cathedral was 22,878 l., the net income was 18,085 l., and the grants for charities, &c., amounted to 1,036 l. The gross income of the Chapter of Ely was 16,214 l., the net average income for the last seven years was 11,766 l.; the grants for charities, &c., averaged for the last seven years about 600 l. The gross amount of income of Canterbury Cathedral, for 1852, was 25,211 l., the net income was 20,972 l., and the amount of the grants was 1,306 l. The gross amount of income of Durham Cathedral was 57,801 l., the net income was 47,304 l., the average amount of annual grants for the last seven years was about 2,000 l. The gross amount of income of Westminster was 30,657 l., the net was 24,696 l., the average amount of annual grants was about 700 l. After the second reading of the Bill he was requested not to go into Committee until after the Cathedral Commissioners should have made their Report. He complied with the wish of the House in that respect; although he had, at the same time, felt fully persuaded that the Report of that Commission would not throw any practical light on the provisions of the Bill: and, in confirmation of the accuracy of that opinion, he appealed to the result, that Report being now before the House. But the delay thus occasioned was the principal cause of his now being unable to proceed with the Bill in Committee. There appeared to him to be, however, one essential fault in that Report—namely, that it was exclusively confined to the interests of the cathedral establishments, passing over altogether every consideration connected with the parochial interests of the country. That Report proposed to take those funds which Parliament had already set apart for the purpose of augmenting small benefices, and apply them to capitular purposes. However important those capitular institutions might be, they ought not to be dealt with to the exclusion of other, and, he believed, infinitely more important interests connected with the Church. With
1026
regard to the body in whom it was proposed to invest the administration of the estates under the Bill, he must own that he did not, on consideration, believe that it was of sufficient strength to undertake the larger duties which would be confided to it. That was a point which deserved the most serious attention of the House. It would be most impolitic and unwise for the House to proceed with a measure of such importance until it should be clearly ascertained that the body to whom those duties were to be entrusted was suitably constituted for that purpose. Neither could he conceal from his mind that exception might be fairly taken to the expenses likely to be incurred by the plan at present proposed; and, altogether, he was of opinion that the Commission, as at present constituted, did not possess that confidence on the part of the public which a body entrusted with such important duties as his Bill would create ought to possess. The Commission ought to be put on such a basis, and to be constituted in such a form, as should ensure to it the confidence of the country. He hoped, therefore, that during the recess Her Majesty's Government would take into their most serious consideration a matter having, as it had, the closest bearing upon the best interests of the country, and that they would be prepared with a plan next Session by which the whole subject might be brought under discussion, and such a Commission be constituted as should be fully competent to perform the important duties required of them. He begged to offer his best thanks to the House for the assistance which had been afforded to him in his efforts to bring the measure to its present stage, and would conclude by moving that the Order of the Day for going into Committee be discharged.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought the noble Marquess had exercised a wise discretion in having determined not to proceed further with the Bill that Session, considering the many important Amendments of which notice had been given, and which, if discussed, would have afforded very little chance of the measure obtaining the assent of Parliament before the prorogation. Under the circumstances, he would not say a word on the subject of the Bill itself, but he entirely concurred in what had fallen from the noble Marquess as to the importance of maturely considering the constitution of the body to whom was to be intrusted the discharge of the

1027
onerous duties which such a measure would impose. He believed that the Church Commission of 1851 had been productive of the most beneficial results. If the Bill had been proceeded with, and these new duties had been imposed upon that Commission, it would have been matter for consideration whether they would be able to perform those additional duties in a satisfactory manner. The subject, undoubtedly, was worthy of the attention of the Government during the recess, and the House should have an opportunity of making every possible inquiry into the operation of the Church Commissioners, and into the principles on which they had proceeded in the administration of ecclesiastical property. There were other measures having a bearing on the same subject, such as the Church Building Act, and the Act relating to the subdivision of parishes. It might be a question whether the duties created by those Acts might not be placed in one and the same body; but it would be wrong to impose them on the Ecclesiastical Church Commission without some revision of that body being first made.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he was glad to hear the right hon. Baronet intimate that a Commission of inquiry ought to be instituted into the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commission. He must, however, take exception to one remark which fell from his noble Friend (the Marquess of Blandford). He could not agree with the opinion which his noble Friend had expressed that the Report of the Cathedral Commission had thrown no new light upon the subject which the Bill of his noble Friend embraced.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he trusted that when the noble Marquess again introduced his Bill he would make some provision for protecting the rights of the lessees under the Church.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he was glad that the noble Lord had, for that Session at least, withdrawn the Bill, to which he (Mr. Pellatt) entertained the strongest objections. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had, in his opinion, betrayed their trusts by taking Queen Ann's Bounty, which was intended for the benefit of the working clergy, and appropriating it to the building of bishops' palaces.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that as the noble Lord had determined to withdraw the Bill, he thought it was very inconvenient to continue the discussion.
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREsaid, he considered that the noble Lord had made an unfair attack upon the Report of the Cathedral Commission, and he should be sorry that the observation of the noble Lord should go forth to the country without any counter-statement. That Report had, at all events, established one important fact—namely, that the parochial institutions and episcopal institutions of the country were not at variance, but were in harmony with each other.
Order of the Day for going into Committee discharged.

DWELLINGS FOR LABOURING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. M'MAHON MR. M'MAHON moved, that the House go into committee on that day three months. The object of the Bill was to give greater facilities for evicting cottiers from their dwellings. The law afforded ample facilities for that purpose already, and did not require to be made more stringent. The measure was originally introduced by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Somerville), who, when Secretary for Ireland, was the promoter of some of the most mischievous Bills that were ever passed against the interests of that country.
MR. DE VERE,in seconding the Amendment, said, that in his opinion, the Bill ought to be entitled one for giving facilities of ejectment to landlords, which was a principle that the House ought not to sanction.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he gave full credit to the opponents of the Bill for honesty of purpose, but he avowed that his only object was to improve the condition of the dwellings of the people, which was at present a disgrace, not only to the country, but to humanity. He must also deny that the effects of the measure would be to increase eviction and misery. The present condition of the law

1029
was the only cause of the continuance of such a state of things, for such was the delay in recovering possession by the landlord, such the annoyance, the expense, and the uncertainty, that he would not provide a proper description of habitation for his tenants. The first attempt at legislation, in respect to the subject now before the House, was by the insertion of a clause in the Act for the abolition of arrest for debt for sums under 10 l., the working of which clause had been most beneficial; and, in reply to certain questions put relative to that clause, Mr. Porter, the chief magistrate of Dublin, had stated that such had been the difficulty experienced by landlords in recovering possession, that large numbers of honest artisans in Dublin had been obliged to sleep in the streets and lanes of that city. There were various modes by which tenants were occasionally got rid of. In some cases landlords, who obtained access to the apartments above, tore up the boards and deluged the rooms with water, while those below broke holes in the ceiling and suffocated the occupants of the rooms above with burning straw. Another communication stated that a landlord who did not wish to incur the expense of a regular eviction intrusted the affair to an agent, who first removed the sashes, but, the tenant still remaining, he then removed the door; still the tenant would not stir, and at length, having put up the shutters and stopped the chimney, he fumigated the room with burning sulphur, and thus got rid of the occupants. Although such practices might not be resorted to in rural districts, the landlords refused to repair the houses, trusting to the tumbling of the roof, or the building becoming a mass of ruins, to get rid of the tenant. The consequence was, that the hovels were in a state of filth, dirt, and degradation, and if the present measure could in any way increase the misery of the poor, he would sooner cut off his right arm than have introduced it. So far from it being a Bill which would give a greater facility to evictions, he believed that its adoption would tend materially to diminish them.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that everybody must be satisfied that nothing but motives of humanity, and a desire to extend protection to the labouring classes of Ireland, who were more unprotected, even, than the tenantry, could have influenced the right hon. Baronet (Sir W.
1030
Somerville) in the introduction of the measure now before the House. There were, however, several objections to it. The Bill now before the House was based upon that of 1851, commonly called the Summary Jurisdiction Act. Great objections had been brought against the principle of that Bill, but he inclined to think that the chief difficulties in the way might be encountered by giving an appeal to quarter sessions against the decision of the magistrates. Whilst every inducement ought to be given to proprietors to erect a suitable class of dwelling-houses for the labouring poor, provided with the conveniences which were required with a view to social progress, it was at the same time right to give due facilities for proceeding against the tenant, if he abused the opportunities of his position. He considered that it was most desirable to encourage cottier tenantry, but the objection to town tenancies applied a fortiori to country tenancy, and the Bill proposed to place the landlords in the position of Judges in their own cause. That was an objection. He thought also that it would modify the jurisdiction to a right to appeal in all cases at quarter sessions. He had no objection to the extension of the Bill to a new class of tenancies; but he would suggest that the Bill should be applied only to tenancies under 8l. a year, in accordance with the former Bill. With those alterations the Bill would be unobjectionable. He thought, however, that it should be withdrawn, for the purpose of introducing those alterations and reprinting it. He was most anxious to carry out the proposition of the right hon. Baronet.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he would admit there were two or three small alterations required, which might easily be made in Committee, but he would support the Bill on the ground of the social benefit which it must produce amongst the peasantry of Ireland. It would be advisable to provide that the magistrates deciding cases arising under it should not be justices interested in the premises. He might, perhaps, think some of the provisions of the Bill he had himself introduced three years ago superior; but he was not inclined to offer any obstruction to the measure on that account. Nothing was of so much importance as to elevate the social condition of the people, and the operation of the Bill would unquestionably be favourable to that object, by securing to the

1031
labouring classes some little share of the comforts and decencies of life. The Report of the Earl of Devon's Commission clearly showed what lamentable deficiencies existed in that respect in their present dwellings, and if the Bill passed it might be hoped that they would no longer have the pigs and the children huddled together in the same miserable hovel. The Bill provided that something should be done for the labouring classes. The key to the whole improvement of those classes was express contracts, facilities to make them, and facilities to enforce them on both sides. The Bill substantially effected those objects. He believed it was honestly proposed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville), than whom none understood Ireland better; and he hoped there would be a general desire on the part of the House to promote it. He (Mr. Napier) therefore gave the Bill his most cordial support.
SIR THOMAS BURKEsaid, he gave the measure his most hearty support. He had witnessed some of the most grievous cases of oppressive ejectments made under the present law in times of great distress, for which it was absolutely necessary to provide a remedy.
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, he thought the measure open to so many objections that it would involve the necessity of redrawing it with a great number of alterations. He should, therefore, support the Amendment for going into Committee on the Bill that day three months.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, he had heard no sufficient objections offered to the principle of the Bill, which he thought a valuable one—that of giving to a landlord who made an improved class of dwellings for his labourers the means of gaining repossession of his property. There could be no greater obstacle to the social and moral improvement of the labouring classes in Ireland than the present state of the law on that subject. The last Report of the Poor Law Commissioners bore testimony to a great improvement in the food and clothing of the lower classes, and also to an advance in the rate of wages, but stated at the same time that there were no signs of any improvement in their dwellings. At present the labourer erected a miserable mud cabin, which it was lamentable to contemplate as a place for the abode of human beings. That was the result of the present system. He earnestly hoped that the House would go into Committee on
1032
the Bill, and where the objections to it might be removed by an alteration of details, and the result would doubtless be an efficient improvement on what now existed.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he thought the period at which they had arrived was too late for making effective progress with the Bill, and that the best course would be for the right hon. Baronet to adopt the suggestion made to him for the withdrawal of it. The question was of too great importance to the welfare of the labouring classes of Ireland, to be disposed of in a summary way, and ought to be settled by a Bill introduced by the Government. The present measure was open to many objections, and, in his opinion, had no chance of reaching the House of Lords.
MR. GROGANsaid, he believed the Bill to be one highly conducive to the interests of the poorer classes of Ireland, and he hoped the Irish Members would not interpose to prevent its passing. There was a general want of the conveniences which the Bill proposed to provide in the houses of the labouring classes in Ireland, and it would, therefore, be a great advantage to them that it should become law.
MR. KENNEDYsaid, he objected to such a vast power of removing tenants as that conferred by the Bill being given to the landlords at the present period of the Session. It would be to promote a gipsy population in the country; and he should, therefore, oppose the measure by every means in his power.
MR. FAGANsaid, the great danger of the Bill was to those holders of the franchise in counties who were resident in country towns. The Bill gave the landlord the power to remove them from their tenancy on three months' notice, which would, in fact, enable the landlord to regulate and control the franchise whenever a county election came on.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he could not avoid expressing his regret that they were about to go to a division. The right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville) was entitled to great credit for the effort he had made to improve the existing law, but his measure was open to some objections. The first was, that the Bill should not apply to that class of tenements conferring the elective franchise. The next was, that it should confer a right of appeal to quarter sessions. Were those objections removed, they must all concur in the object of the right hon. Baronet, but if he intended that

1033
they should go into Committee with the view of pressing the Bill in its present shape, he must decidedly object to their doing so. He earnestly hoped that his right hon. Friend would acquiesce in the suggestion made by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, it would be useless to assent to any proposal which he thought would defeat the object of the Bill. He should have preferred going into Committee on the Bill, and seeing its clauses discussed. A single instance of the operation of the Summary Jurisdiction Act was not known as regarded the elective franchise. The objection to the Bill, therefore, on that ground was idle.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, two objections had been raised to the Bill; but he would ask whether both those objections were not objections most proper to be discussed in Committee? He was satisfied that the feeling of the House would require the insertion of the provisions in question.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, he very much admired the conduct of Government throughout the progress of the measure, which was just and equitable, and deserved support. If, however, the important Amendments sketched by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland were not inserted, there could be no hope of the Bill passing that Session. He approved of the objects of the Bill, but unless the propositions of Government were acceded to, he must vote against it going into Committee.
LORD NAASsaid, he did not wholly approve of the conduct of Government, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland was so mysterious that it was impossible to collect what his vote would be. He believed the Bill likely to contribute to the comfort and happiness of the labouring classes of Ireland, and that it was therefore desirable that it should be passed as soon as possible. He thought it would be quite easy to discuss in Committee the Amendments which it was desired to introduce into it.
MR. F. SCULLYsaid, he thought it would be better that the Bill should be withdrawn now, and be reintroduced in a more perfect form next Session.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 68: Majority 56.
Main Question put, and agreed to; Bill considered in Committee.
House resumed; Committee report progress.
The House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.