Sitting of 7 March 1855

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN for Stroud, Edward Horsman, esq.
3° Exchequer Bills (£17,183,000).

PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS BILL.
Order for Committee read;
House in Committee.
Clauses 1, 2, and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4—
MR. BUCKsaid, that taxation was already very oppressive, and this Bill would impose a monstrous burden not only on the towns, but the landed interest connected with the towns. He would move therefore that, instead of reducing the limit of the population from 10,000 to 5,000 as proposed by the Bill, the limit should remain at 10,000, as at present.
MR. EWARTsaid, that this was only a permissive Bill, and he knew many places containing not more than 5,000 inhabitants where this Bill would be regarded as a great boon. He saw no reason to deny to small agricultural towns the privileges of enlightenment which the House of Commons had already given to larger places.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he observed that there were several inequalities in the Bill, but if the taxation could be made uniform, he should not object to the application of the Bill to parishes with populations amounting to 10,000. There were three classes of persons on whom the Bill would operate—those in parishes, those in places under the Towns Improvement Act, and those in municipal boroughs. Now those persons who held land under the Towns Improvement Act were rated in different proportion from those who held houses, and the Bill would in that respect operate unequally. The occupiers of land would have to pay a different amount of rate from that paid by the occupiers of houses, whilst the latter would enjoy greater advantages than the former in consequence of their facility of access to the libraries.
MR. MICHELLsaid, he could not agree with the bon. Member for North Devonshire (Mr. Buck), that this Bill would be a hardship upon small agricultural towns, for he considered that they were the places which most wanted public libraries. There were towns in Cornwall, the inhabitants of which had requested him to move that the limit of population should be 4,000 instead of 5,000, so that they might establish libraries under this Bill. He thought it would be much better to place no restriction upon the amount of population of places which might wish to avail themselves of this Bill.
MR. SPOONERsaid, that in Birmingham the people had not acted upon the powers which they already possessed. The Bill would be a hardship to those persons living within the boundaries of boroughs who lived at a distance too great

209
to avail themselves of the public libraries, but who, from having a large garden, would be rated more heavily than the occupier of a House in the town, who might enjoy the privileges of the libraries every hour in the day. The Bill might be said to be permissive, but it would give a certain portion of the inhabitants the power to compel others to pay these rates against their will, and with little or no advantage to them.
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, he could state that these libraries in Salford and the surrounding boroughs were most popular. The working people were the most earnest in encouraging them, and regarded them as a boon. They were not so much libraries for the rich as the poor, and those who were the most taxed for the support of these public institutions were most favourable to them.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he thought the complaint not unreasonable that parties might in certain boroughs live at such a distance from these libraries as to derive little or no advantage from them. But in the free libraries of large Towns the power was given, not only of enabling persons to use the books in the library, but also to take them out and read them at their own homes. It was quite within the competence of those who managed these libraries to adopt such a regulation.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, it was desirable that the Committee should not lose the opportunity of extending the benefits of education by every means in its power. The objections to the present Bill did not proceed from those who had availed themselves of the opportunities afforded by the previous measure. In the town of Oxford a public library had been established for nine months with the best results, having been attended by 90,000 persons, without a single complaint of impropriety or indecorum. Upwards of 3,000 volumes had been presented to the library. A greater moral benefit to the community, or one more popular to those who paid the taxes, it was impossible to conceive. By this Bill the town council or other bodies could assemble, and if two-thirds of the rate-payers did not approve the Bill it would not be called into operation. If they approved the Bill the community would, by levying a moderate rate, not exceeding a penny in the pound, provide the means of educating themselves, of assembling every evening for innocent recreation, and of availing themselves of those educational
210
advantages which the liberality of the more wealthy members of society might place at their disposal. The whole country was greatly indebted to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) for the pains he had taken with this subject, and he should not be doing his duty if he neglected to state the result of experience in the community which he had the honour to represent. With regard to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for the county of Oxford (Mr. Henley) it was of great importance in levying new rates that the incidence of those rates and the mode of levying them should be considered; and if the hon. Member for Dumfries would communicate with those who were anxious to suggest any practical amendment, he should be happy to join with him in making the Bill more efficient.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he did not doubt that the measure succeeded very well in large towns, where the number of distant occupiers was small, but he protested against the Bill in its present shape, as it would be the means of taxing persons living at a considerable distance for objects in which they could have no interest, and from which they could receive no benefit.
SIR SAMUEL BIGNOLDsaid, that in the city of Norwich, where there was a considerable agricultural population, that class concurred with the inhabitants generally in a desire to have a free library established.
MR. BAINESsaid, he was glad to hear the testimony of the hon. Member of Norwich in favour of the importance of institutions of this kind, and it entirely confirmed all that he had heard in the north of England with regard to the results of such institutions. He believed that, in every case, they had been found most beneficial, and his constituents were extremely anxious for the extension of the principle. Whilst from his official position he was naturally jealous of any unjust charge being thrown upon the poor rates, he was anxious to promote any measure which had a direct tendency to diminish the burden of pauperism, and he knew no means more calculated to effect that object than the provision, in large towns, of the means of giving useful knowledge and rational recreation to the working classes. The experience of the working of these institutions in Manchester, Salford, and other large places, was most satisfactory. He was glad to find that the Bill was permissive, for he could not have supported a compulsory measure for the rating of the

211
inhabitants of different districts. He objected to one of the Amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Dumfries, who wished to strike out the provision which required notices to be affixed in certain public places, and to substitute the insertion of a notice in one or more newspapers circulated in the district. In his opinion, it would be much better to publish the notices in both ways.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he had no doubt that public libraries had been productive of unmixed good. There were libraries of some description in almost every parish. But whilst endeavouring to carry out the advantages of such a system, care ought to be taken that the occupier of 150 acres of land, on which there was only one house, should not be rated at something like 400 l. or 500 l., whilst the occupier of a house in the town was not rated at more than 15 l. or 20 l. He would suggest that the question of rating should stand over till the Report was brought up.
MR. LOWEsaid, he did not know what might be the case with regard to Birmingham, but he could give some evidence of a neighbouring borough, which he thought would be satisfactory to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner). The town of Kidderminster, which he had the honour to represent, comprehended a considerable agricultural district within the limits of the borough. The population were in the deepest distress—such distress as was unknown before to any person now living. Just at the time it was proposed to levy a half-penny rate for the establishment of a free library, cards were issued, calling upon the people not to throw away their money, or to tax themselves at a moment when so many of the inhabitants were without work, He was happy to say that in the depth of their misery the proposition was carried by an enormous majority. Only about twenty persons voted against it, and those persons (he said it with every respect) were persons whose calling in life pointed to the supposition that they thought there was a better way of spending an evening than in reading rooms and libraries.
MR. WARNERsaid, he must beg to express his approval of the Bill. He observed that as every system of popular education which had been introduced into Parliament failed, they should not, when they found 5,000 people willing to educate themselves, prohibit them from doing so.
MR. BAINESsaid that, in reference to what had fallen from the noble Lord the
212
Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), he thought the 22nd clause of the Bill gave to the persons managing these libraries power to lend books if they pleased. If not, a clause might easily be framed to meet the difficulty.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, that, as for the out-voters of a township or borough not having the same use of the library, as those who lived in the town, it was the fact that most of the public libraries so established were lending libraries, from which they could obtain books and take them home; and he suggested that a provision for nicking these lending libraries should be embodied in the Bill. The public libraries on the Continent were, he believed, without exception, lending libraries. In London, the British Museum and the London Institution, and many other boasted libraries, were nearly useless to the scholar, because he had to go three or four miles to read the books.
MR. EWARTsaid, that if any clause could be framed to meet the difficulty suggested by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), and draw a more distinct line for taxation, he should be happy to adopt it. It was impossible, however, to provide in legislation for every exceptional case, and there could be no good without some mixture of inconvenience.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he would suggest that there were clauses in some of the Town Improvement Acts and the old Watching and Lighting Acts, from which example might be taken in making a distinction between land and houses, and there would be no difficulty in drawing up such a clause. As for the principle of this measure, he was favourable to it.
MR. WATSONsaid, he thought there might easily be a clause distinguishing the rural part of these districts from the town part; for he quite agreed that it would be unfair to tax them equally. He could bear testimony to the popularity of these institutions in the north of England, and would appeal also to the gentlemen connected with the agricultural districts to give their poor hardworking people the same opportunities of mental recreation in the evenings.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that as he believed this Bill would apply to Ireland, he should not object to it, subject to the limitations which had been suggested.
MR. EWARTsaid, he apprehended there would be no difficulty in establishing

213
lending libraries under this Bill; but, if more enlarged terms were proposed with that view, he should have no objection to their insertion. He was quite ready to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. President of the Poor Law Board, and require notice of meeting to be advertised in the local papers, as well as affixed to the church and chapel doors. The only question therefore before the Committee was, whether the number should be 5,000 or 10,000.
MR. PERCYsaid, he considered that towns of less population than 5,000 should have the benefit of the measure.
MR. MICHELLsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Dumfries would consider the claims of smaller towns. If this measure would be beneficial to 10,000 people, he did not see why 4,000 should not have the benefit of it. It would be very acceptable to Bodmin and Launceston, which had corporate funds larger than they required for corporate purposes.
MR. EWARTsaid, that on a former occasion, he did himself propose to extend this measure to towns of 4,000 inhabitants, but he found that it occasioned some difficulties, and he was obliged to alter it. Having adopted the limit of 5,000 as a sort of compromise, he should not be justified now in altering it.
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, Clause 15 provided that two neighbouring townships, of less than 5,000 inhabitants each, might unite, if they pleased, for the purposes of this Bill.
MR. BUCKsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
MR. BAINESsaid, he wished to take every practical means of informing the public when these meetings were called. There might be some persons who did not go to churches or chapels, and others who were not in the habit of reading newspapers. As the clause was drawn, notice was to be affixed to the doors of the churches and chapels; and he would move the addition of the words "and also by advertising the same in one or more of the newspapers published or circulated in the borough seven days at least before the day of meeting."
MR. CHILDsaid, he did not think seven days' notice sufficient, and would beg to propose ten days.
MR. BAINESsaid, he would adopt the suggestion.
Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 5, 6 and 7.
214
Clause 8—
MR. BAINESsaid, that the churchwardens were empowered to call these meetings, and if they were merely dealing with parishes it would be all very well; but the Bill also applied to townships, where there were no churchwardens, and, as the matter was not at all of an ecclesiastical character, he thought it would be a great deal better that the overseers of the poor should be the persons to convene these meetings.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, that in some districts in Ireland there were no overseers of the poor, although it was proposed that the Bill should be extended to that country.
MR. BAINESsaid, he would undertake to introduce, on a future occasion, an interpretation clause which would meet any such exceptional case as that to which the noble Lord had referred.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to know whether more than one vote was to be given to the larger class of ratepayers?
MR. EWARTsaid, he intended that each ratepayer should have only one vote.
Clause, as amended, to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 9 to 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 struck out.
Clauses 15 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19—
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he begged to move the omission from the clause of the words "with the approval of Her Majesty's Treasury." He did not wish to give to the Treasury the proposed right of interference in that matter.
MR. EWARTsaid, that the words in question had been copied from a similar provision in the Model Lodging-Houses Act, and in other measures. He was no friend to centralisation, but he did not wish to depart in that instance from the beaten path.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 25: Majority 39.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, he had voted in favour of requiring the sanction of the Treasury with regard to the purchase of land by the council and commissioners, because it did not seem to him right that the representatives of the present parishioners should alone have the power of imposing a permanent charge upon future parishioners; but in the case of the pay-

215
ment of rent from year to year, he did not see the necessity of any interference on the part of the Treasury, and thought the matter might be left to the inhabitants themselves.
MR. WILSONsaid, he apprehended the Committee was unaware of the importance of a clause of this kind. Supposing the town council to pass a vote for the purchase of land or for the payment of rent, and the law required the assent of the Treasury to give validity to that vote, the course taken would be for the Treasury, on any objection being taken to the vote, to return it to the town council for reconsideration. It might happen that in the meanwhile a new town council would have to be elected; this would afford an opportunity to the whole of the ratepayers at the election to express their opinion upon the subject. He thought this observation applied with as much force to the case of rent as to that of purchase.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that to the greater part of this clause he had no objection, but there was one part in it which required explanation. The clause enacted that the council and commissioners might, with the approval of the Treasury, appropriate any lands purchased for the purposes of the Act, "for the general benefit of the parish." Those words gave very large powers, and he should like to know to what extent those powers were intended to go.
MR. EWARTsaid, he must admit that the words did give very extensive powers, and that only showed the importance of requiring the approval of the Treasury in those cases.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, it also showed the impossibility of proceeding with a Bill of this kind without the aid of the Law Officers of the Crown.
MR. NAPIERsaid, the bill as it now stood would apply to Ireland as well as England, and yet there was no one to superintend its passing through the House on the part of Ireland. Such a measure as this ought not to be introduced, except on the responsibility of the Crown. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baines) was endeavouring to make the best of the Bill, but in the end he (Mr. Napier) could plainly see that, at least as far as regarded Ireland, they would not be able to work it, and that the Bill would go out of the Committee a worse measure than when it was brought into it.
MR. BAINESsaid, he assuredly could not agree in the last observation of the
216
right hon. and learned Gentleman. He had no doubt that with regard to England it would come out of the Committee a very good Bill. Although he was in no way responsible for the measure, still he was desirous of contributing his efforts to make it a good one. But should it ultimately be found inapplicable to the case of Ireland, then the proper course would be to move that the Bill should only apply to England, and it would then be for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to bring in some other measure for Ireland.
MR. EWARTsaid, that his idea always had been that there ought to be separate Bills for England and Ireland, and he had only been induced to extend the Bill to Ireland at the suggestion of some hon. gentlemen, who wished to see a law of the kind in operation in that country.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, that the Bill might be made applicable to Ireland so far as concerned the town councils, but when they came to deal with parishes, then the Bill must fail, because in Ireland the parochial system was not the same as in England. The parishes in Ireland were not the area of taxation. The Bill proposed to employ overseers, vestries, and churchwardens; but no gentleman who knew anything about Ireland would say that by such machinery the Bill would work well in that country. He would therefore strongly recommend his hon. Friend to confine the Bill solely to England.
MR. EWARTsaid, he had no objection to confine the measure to England.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he objected to the power given by this clause to divert certain land from the purposes of charity to which it was applicable at present. He wanted to know under what restrictions it was intended to make that diversion.
MR. EWARTsaid, it should be made subject to the approval of the Lords of the Treasury.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he thought the best plan would be to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord opposite and strike out so much of the clause as related to the appropriation of parochial lands. Perhaps the noble Lord would allow the clause to pass, on the understanding that the words should be struck out on bringing up the Report.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he would agree to that course.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to suggest that, as they were

217
going to create public bodies in connection with these libraries, such bodies should not be liable for any debts except those incurred under the Act.
MR. EWARTsaid, he would consent to insert such a limitation, which, might be done by altering the 23rd clause.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 20 and 21.
Clause 22—
MR. EWARTsaid, he wished to move to insert in the clause the word "newspaper" after "books."
MR. SPOONERsaid, he objected to the insertion of the proposed word. It was monstrous that poor people residing out of towns should be taxed to enable the townspeople to enjoy the luxury of reading newspapers. More than that, he doubted whether their introduction would be beneficial to the libraries themselves, as it might have a tendency to convert them into mere newspaper reading-rooms and sedition shops.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he did not see any objection to a reasonable supply of good newspapers. Whether the word were inserted or not, he believed the libraries would be sure to have newspapers, as many people would take an opportunity of sending them when they contained any matter supporting their particular views.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Speaker whether the introduction of the word was consistent with the title of the Bill.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, he considered that it was.
MR. SPOONER: Then I shall divide the Committee on it.
MR. T. PARKERhoped the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) would persist in his Motion.
MR. EWARTsaid, he thought that newspapers were the natural index of the public mind, and containing, as they did, information upon every topic concerning the country, they were sought after with great avidity. It would be impossible to exclude them altogether, and, if it were not, he doubted the policy of such a proceeding; for he believed that persons who read them were very often induced to seek for further information on particular subjects in books; he, therefore, thought it highly important to introduce a good class of newspapears into libraries.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he believed that nothing would be more likely to induce persons to go to the libraries
218
than the introduction of first-class newspapers. He was surprised at the boldness of the assertion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that places where papers were taken in were sedition shops.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he must deny that he said they were sedition shops. He said it would have a tendency to render the libraries liable to be converted into sedition shops. He did not intend his observation to apply to the respectable portion of the newspaper press, but in almost all large provincial towns there existed a class of papers which ought to be prosecuted by the Attorney General. As he said before, he was sure it would end in giving the townspeople the luxury of newspapers at the expense of the labouring classes residing in the country.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, the question of the admission of the particular newspapers might very well be left to the managers of the libraries.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he was at first inclined to concur in the objection of his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, though not on the same ground. He thought the introduction of newspapers might raise a question analogous to church rates, and there would be great risk of introducing party feeling; but what overruled that objection was the fact that newspapers were sure to be sent to these libraries by persons who had an object to serve or opinions to advocate, and, whether the word were inserted or not, the management would have to exercise their discretion in the choice of newspapers.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he thought the principal objection was that the greater proportion of the liability would fall on large outlying agricultural districts, whose inhabitants would be unable to avail themselves of the facilities given by the libraries for obtaining information. As to newspapers, in his opinion it would he most unfair that newspaper-rooms should be established at the expense of the agricultural districts. They could not be sent round like books, and if they could the result would be, that persons in the country would have the Times lent them when it was about a fortnight old. If the whole district was to be taxed, the money ought to be applied to those purposes only which would benefit the district as well as the town.
MR. EWARTsaid, he did not see why newspapers could not be read by persons living in the districts as well as in the

219
towns; neither, in his opinion, would the introduction of newspapers into libraries necessarily convert them into mere newsrooms.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that the hon. member for Dumfries had always asserted that the main object of the Bill was not the establishment of newspaper reading-rooms, and, although he (Mr. Whiteside) agreed in the opinion that some of the best things a man could read were to be found in the newspapers, he would remind the Committee that some of the very worst things, the most poisonous matter for contaminating the mind, had been disseminated through the same channel. The first-class newspapers of the metropolis undoubtedly contained a vast mass of the most useful information, but the Government were about to introduce a measure which might lead to the establishment of newspapers of quite a different stamp and quality, and he thought he was justified in expressing a doubt whether the real mental food would not be that furnished by the newspapers, to the exclusion of good food in well-selected books. He should vote against the Motion.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he did not consider the insertion of the word "newspaper" at all objectionable. The Bill sought to accomplish two great objects—first, to lead the labouring portion of the population from animal to intellectual pursuits, and, in the second place, to give them as much information as possible. However attractive general knowledge might be, nothing was so attractive as political knowledge, and if they shut out newspapers from libraries, they would deprive them of one of the principal attractions to be found in public houses. Why should they deprive the labouring classes of the opportunity of acquiring political knowledge? It had been said that newspapers of an improper character might be admitted. That did not necessarily follow surely, for they might well trust the selection to the good sense of those who had the management of the libraries, and they ought not, because they anticipated a possible evil, to exclude a real good.
MR. BARROWsaid, he was of opinion that no answer had been given to the objections which had been raised. Political knowledge was contained in essays and magazines as well as in newspapers, and he was apprehensive their introduction into the proposed libraries would be a fruitful source of political dissension and disunion.
220
Question put, "That the word 'newspapers' be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 64; Noes, 22; Majority, 42.
Word inserted.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he wished to propose as an Amendment: "That all the Libraries to be established under this Act shall be Lending Libraries." He was strongly of opinion that the usefulness of the libraries would be greatly curtailed if they did not possess this quality.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he thought the only way of remedying the injustice proposed to be committed by the Bill, by taxing persons who could not avail themselves of the benefits of the libraries, would be by making all the institutions lending libraries.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he considered that it would be much better to leave the matter to the discretion of the managers; great inconvenience would result from lending out works of reference, and it would be exceedingly difficult to define by Act of Parliament what were works of reference, if it were thought desirable to except such works from the operation of the Act.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he thought the best proof that the proposed libraries would be lending libraries was to be found in the fact that the words in the clause were precisely the same as in the existing Act, the libraries established under which had all become lending libraries.
MR. NAPIERsaid, that in most libraries there was a class of books which it would be most inconvenient to lend out.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 32; Noes, 49; Majority, 17.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 23—
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to add the following words to the Clause:—"Provided always that no property so vested be liable for the repayment of any debt or encumbrance not incurred solely in the execution of the purposes of this Act."
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he objected to the addition of the proposed words, which, he thought, would rather tend to defeat the object of the hon. Member. As the Bill now stood, the property vested would not be liable, to be taken on account of any charge for which the general borough fund was liable.
Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 24.

221
Clause, "that the provisions of this Bill shall not extend to Ireland or Scotland," was brought up and agreed to.
MR. EWARTmoved the addition of the following Clause:—"No person shall be assessed or rated to any county, borough, parochial, or other local rates or cesses in respect of any land, houses, or buildings, or parts thereof respectively, belonging to any library or museum established under this Act, and occupied by it for the transaction of its business, and for carrying into effect its purposes."
MR. BAINESsaid, he thought it was an extremely objectionable practice to introduce exemptions of this kind. The proposed clause might also operate very unjustly. Taking as an instance the city of York, which contained twenty-four parishes, some of them of extremely small extent. If land for a library were taken in one of those small parishes, it would increase the burden cast upon the remaining landowners of that parish, while the benefit of the institution would be common to the whole twenty-four parishes.
MR. EWARTsaid, he would not press his Motion.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Dumfries would, on the Report being brought up, have no objection to a clause limiting the period wherein an unsuccessful application for the establishment of a library under this Act might be renewed, in order to prevent the continual agitation and perpetual bickerings upon this question.
MR. EWARTsaid, if a clause were proposed providing that no new application should be made within a period of twelve months from a previous application, he should not object to it.
The House resumed.

JUDGMENTS EXECUTION, &c. BILL.
Order for Second Reading, read,
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he could not let the Bill be read a second time, without expressing his disapproval of hasty legislation of this kind by individuals. He thought that a measure of this kind should be introduced by the Government, and he would therefore move that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months.
Amendment proposed to leave out the
222
word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he considered that the Bill involved very important Amendments of the law, and it would be impossible in acceding to the second reading to do more than agree to the general principle of it. It was desirable that judgments obtained in one country of the United Kingdom should be enforced in another, and carried into effect in a prompt manner; but if the House, therefore, assented to the second reading of the Bill, they should assent only to it on the understanding that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee for examination. He approved of the general objects of the measure, and on the terms he had stated he was inclined to concur in the proposition for the second reading.
MR. NAPIERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem to be aware that a Bill similar to the present had been referred to a Select Committee last Session, and he had sat upon it, and now it was proposed to go through the same farce again—for farce it must be called—thus to have a Bill brought in Session after Session, to have the principle admitted, the details objected to, and the measure referred again and again to a Select Committee, without any result, the Government all the while attempting thus to usurp the character of law reformers, by approving of the principle of measures for the improvement of the law, the only objection being that they could not be or were not carried out. He did not believe that the principle of the present Bill could be carried out. It was proposed to make a judgment in England operate as a judgment in Ireland or Scotland, so that execution might be sued out upon it at once in all those countries. This was anomalous, and might prove most mischievous, unless means were taken to prevent it, which did not appear to be provided in the present Bill. The cases of practical inconvenience under the present law were rare, and hardly warranted so sweeping a change in the law. The Bill was in several respects repugnant to the late Irish Common Law Procedure Act, and these repeated changes in the law left it in a state of uncertainty, and consequently produced much discontent and dissatisfaction. It should be recollected also, that the law of judgments in Ireland was of

223
peculiar importance with respect to their effect as charges on land, and the present Bill would introduce great confusion into the law on the subject. A Commission had lately been appointed to consolidate the Statute Law, which it had been proposed to extend to Ireland; and when he had been asked to become one of the Commissioners, he had said, what he now ventured to repeat, that it would be idle to attempt to consolidate the existing Statute Law and to continue to add to its confusion by passing new laws—increasing the anomalies which were already complained of. It was equally idle to allow private Members to introduce measures of such importance, which it was found impossible to pass; referring them to Select Committees, who discovered that they were impracticable, and then going through a repetition of the same proceedings in a subsequent Session. Bills on such important subjects should be prepared in a proper office, for the purpose of securing uniformity and consistency in our legislation, and ought, if approved of by the Government in principle, to be adopted by them and introduced and carried upon their responsibility. It was all very well to say that they approved of the principle, but not of the details. The whole value of such measures as the present lay in the details. The test of the principle was whether it was practicable, and could be carried out. And if the Government approved of the principle, and they deemed it practicable, they ought to undertake to carry it out. It was not very creditable to our legislation, and did not tend to elevate the character of that House, to go on in this way—approving of the principle of Bills, and never carrying them out. It tended to get the House a character for talking instead of doing; and looked like prating of law reform for the sake of trying to throw dust in the eyes of the people. As the Government did not appear disposed to adopt the Bill and carry it out, and as a Bill of a precisely similar character had been already referred to a Select Committee and found impracticable, he should oppose the repetition of the farce played last Session on the subject, and should, therefore, resist the second reading.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, as the Bill had been submitted to a Select Committee last Session and not adopted, he thought it best not to agree to the second reading.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he felt the force of the objections that had been urged by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, but when a Bill was proposed to be introduced by a private Member, the principle of which was admitted to be good, it was difficult to resist its introduction. If the Government did object to it, it would be said that, although they professed to be law reformers, they resisted a measure for the reform of the law. That they should enforce judgments in Ireland that were obtained in England no person could doubt, and that was the principle involved in the Bill before the House, but there were serious difficulties with regard to the details. The measure had already been before a Select Committee, and if sufficient labour had been bestowed on it he considered that many of the objections might have been removed; but as it had been submitted last year to a Select Committee, and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin had said, they could not make anything more out of it, it would be useless to send it again to a Select Committee.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, if the Government recognised the principle of the measure, it was their duty to introduce a measure that would be practicable. Great evils arose from crude legislation, even with the best intentions. The Incumbered Estates Court of Ireland Act had been passed, no doubt, with the best possible intentions; but the Court was worse than the Court of Chancery it had been intended to supersede. On the other hand, it was most bitterly to be complained of that a Government should allow useful and valuable measures—such, for instance, as the Landlord and Tenant Bill and Leasing Powers Bill of a previous Session—to drop, merely for want of any attention to them. It did not appear to him that the present Bill belonged to the former but to the latter class. There was no practical inconvenience in the law upon the subject; a judgment even in an inferior or foreign court was by the law of England and Ireland primâ facie proof of a debt, and unless it was shown to have been irregularly obtained was conclusive as to the merits. Where, then, was the difficulty to be met? And if there was any, why did not the Government meet it?
MR. FRENCHsaid, he must complain

225
that the Irish Members had to sit there till one o'clock every morning to prevent the hon. and learned Member for Ayr from running his Bill through Parliament in their absence.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that he had been requested by a great number of persons, his constituents and others, in Ireland, to oppose such a measure as the present, as likely to introduce great confusion into the law, and to prove very injurious to trade. When the Bill was brought in last Session the Lord Advocate of Scotland had vehemently objected to it on principle; and yet now the Attorney and Solicitor Generals for England approved of its principle.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, it was his conviction that the present state of the law should not be allowed to continue. The principle of a Bill which would enable a party, who had obtained a decree either in England, or Scotland, or Ireland, to enforce judgment out of the particular country where the decree was obtained, was of such practical value that all parties should endeavour to arrange the machinery by which effect would be given to such a valuable measure. He trusted the Government would allow the Bill to be read a second time.
MR. BAILLIEsaid, it might be that such a measure would be practicable with reference to England and Ireland, but it could hardly be so as to England or Ireland and Scotland, for the law of England and Ireland was substantially the same, whereas the law of England was essentially different from that of Scotland, and the carrying out of such a measure would really require an assimilation of the laws of the two countries.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dunlop) was mistaken in supposing that a judgment obtained in England could not be enforced in Ireland, or vice versâ, without recommencing the original action. That was not so, for as his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Whiteside) had shown, there might be an action on the judgment, which would be primâ facie conclusive, and in which the merits of the original suit could not be again inquired into; assuming that the judgment had been properly (that is regularly) obtained. He thought it might be possible to obtain the object of the Bill by establishing some Imperial Court analogous to the ancient Aula Regis, whose judgment should be of force anywhere in the Empire,
226
but in no other way. There did not appear to be any real inconvenience in the present state of this law. At all events, if there were, a measure of such vital importance ought to be undertaken by the Government, more especially as upon this subject an impression existed in Ireland that there was in contemplation a plan for destroying her independent courts, and consolidating them with the English courts, and that this was the first step in the execution of that project. To show the practical evil of any such system, let him remind the House that by the law of England and of Ireland, if a trial would be inconvenient in one county, by reason of the witnesses being at a distance, the venue could be changed into another county; but under the system towards the establishment of which this Bill tended, a trial in an Irish cause might take place in England, to the great injury of the suitors. Any measure tending towards such a result was to be deprecated, and when he recollected that the late Lord Plunket, who had once entertained an idea of such a measure as the present, abandoned it from a conviction of its perilous and impracticable character, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd) would excuse him if he recommended him not to attempt what Lord Plunket had failed to achieve.
MR. CRAUFURD, in reply, said, he was prepared to stand by the Bill in the shape in which it stood, subject to such emendations as might be made upon it by the better judgment of the House. He trusted that the course of proposing to shelve the Bill by referring it to a Select Committee would not be pursued, and that the House would consent to the second reading.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 89: Majority 71.
Words added.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Bill put off for six months.

THE CAVALRY IN THE EAST.
Mr. BOUVERIEhaving brought up the Report on the Committee of Supply, on the question that it be received,
MR. PALKsaid, he rose to call the attention of the Government to the state of the cavalry in the East, and also to the nature of the reinforcements about to be sent there. In his opinion, no calamity had

227
ever befallen the British army more serious than that which was experienced in the loss of the light cavalry at Balaklava. No doubt, an opportunity would be given to the public of forming an opinion as to the cause of that calamity; whether it arose from misconception of an order, or from inability, or from the order which was given being of such a nature that it was impossible to understand it, would, no doubt, be brought to light; but in the meantime he could not but lament that a force originally too small to be of any great assistance to the army to which it was attached had been, from various causes, reduced practically to almost a perfect non-entity. He found from a statement which he had in his possession that one cavalry regiment on the heights of Sebastopol, to complete its effective force, required no less than 283 privates and 403 horses, and he wished to urge upon the Government the inefficient nature of the reinforcements to be sent out. Those reinforcements consisted of young men who had not completed the usual drill which was considered necessary to enable them to perform their regimental duties, far less to engage the enemy in a foreign country. The horses required by the regiment to which he had referred were, he understood, to be sent out under the care of recruits; but in a long voyage like that which they would have to make, the care of old, experienced soldiers was peculiarly requisite. This regiment wanted twenty sergeants and forty corporals, and consequently from this want of non-commissioned officers it appeared that it would become necessary to raise men to that position who had not perfected their drill, and who had no experience in those various duties which a non-commissioned officer was called upon to perform, and he could state, from having served in the cavalry himself, that those duties were of great importance. That course must either be adopted, or noncommissioned officers must be taken from other regiments, the effect of which would be to weaken the reserve, and to destroy all esprit de corps. These were subjects well worthy of the attention of the Government, and it ought at the same time to be considered how long it took to make a cavalry soldier. The best authorities were agreed, that to make a cavalry soldier required at least eighteen months; although in a few cases—such as those of men who were accustomed to horses—he might perhaps be thoroughly drilled in one
228
year. In his opinion, the whole system of recruiting for the cavalry was most injurious. It was well known that there was nothing old and well-drilled soldiers disliked so much as the riding-school and constant drilling and riding lessons; but at present the old soldiers were occupied in breaking horses for those regiments on service, and well-broken horses were placed in the hands of raw recruits. He knew nothing more irritating to an old trooper than to know that the animal which he had broken in was placed in the hands of a young recruit, who knew nothing of the management of a horse, and who perhaps would soon ruin it. As to the state of the cavalry force at home, he ventured to say, from the pressure upon it, that it was less fitted to go into action now than it was twelve months ago. These things must sooner or later force themselves on the ear of the Government, and there was a power to which they must succumb again, as they had succumbed before—the national voice. When the Government at home neglected the common means of ensuring success, then he thought it was fairly reasonable to censure them for neglect, and bring their conduct under the consideration of the House of Commons.
Report agreed to.

EXCHEQUER BILLS (£17,183,000) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to know whether the House had any assurance that none of these Exchequer bills in the course of the year would be converted into funded debt. He mentioned this, because in 1853 a portion of the Exchequer bill debt was turned from unfunded into funded debt, to the extent of about 1,500,000 l. He asked, therefore, for an assurance that that process would not be resorted to again without coming to Parliament for the requisite authority.
MR. WILSONsaid, that the Motion now before the House had reference to the Exchequer bills at present floating, and the customary Bill for renewing those bills was that to which the assent of the House was now required. As the law now stood, it was impossible, without an Act of Parliament, to convert unfunded into funded debt, and he had therefore no difficulty in giving the hon. Baronet the assurance he required.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid,

229
that the process he referred to might be carried on without an Act of Parliament through the medium of the savings bank stock.
Bill read 3°, and passed.
The House adjourned at Five o'clock.